Nobby
-
Posts
504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Tartan Army Message Board News
Media Demo
Posts posted by Nobby
-
-
Well next time, try harder.
The SNP haven't dictated anything yet. They are not in a position to. They have said that a formal CU with rUK is their preferred option and that they will carry this forward, if and when mandated to do so. They may be successful in that aim or they may not.
Osborne, speaking on behalf of the UK government, ruled a CU out. Alexander and Balls both backed him up. Assuming they are telling the truth, this amounts to pre-negotiation - something Cameron had earlier said he wasn't prepared to engage in. If they are bluffing, then it is clearly an attempt to strong-arm Scots voters into voting against independence. In short, they are either bullies or liars, or a combination of the two.
By the way, my original post was an attempt to see things from an English perspective Nobby. I am sorry if that one remark annoyed you.
Not a problem. down here i see it as rUK saying no to a currency union which they are perfectly entilted to do, independent countries should have their own currency (unless a union is agreed) SNP then said if you dont agree to a currency union we wont take any of the debt. Who exactly is threatening who there ? When you get divorced you get seperate bank accounts you could easily start up the "Bank of Alba" and issue the Scottish pound or you could ask to go straight into the Euro which was the SNP's preferred option a few years ago when they wanted to join the Ark of prosperity. Westminster bullied no one they have said no to something that the SNP have borderline (no pun intended) demanded. As i said I think a yes vote will be economically bad for both countries until the dust settles. The negotiation post yes will be interesting as will the relations between the two countries. Its been pointed out before that most divorces try to be amicable but end up having a ding dong at some point.
-
Exactly. This is basically a bribe, and a potentially undeliverable one at that.
Back in February, when they were still absolutely certain they would win, the UK government tried to land a knock-out blow by refusing the CU. In doing so, however, they misjudged the Scottish pscyche - we tend not to like being dictated to. So now that the stick has failed, out comes the carrot.
Even if they were true to their word and tried to get the powers through parliament, there is no guarantee that English backbenchers will vote them through. Why would they? What benefit are their constituents going to get from them?
Fair play to Boris Johnson and Louise Mensch (I never thought I'd type those words) because at least they are being honest in question the logic of offering more powers to people who have just indicated that they are happy with things the way they are.
I know i shouldnt but i cant help myself, Westminster dictated nothing to Scotland. The SNP have dictated to rUK that we will get a currency union because its in our best interest and because of the sovereign will of the Scottish people. Well errr no thanks very much. unless it goes to a vote and its what the people of rUK want . Post a yes vote there will be significant changes for both sides and no one has explained them very well.
-
That's my millions transferred to BNP Paribas
I wouldnt if I were you !!!! You want a Bank that is solid and run properly, put it in RBC if you dont fancy HSBC
cue the profits warning/rogue trader over the weekend ....... -
Nick Clegg - no increase in tuition fees.
David Cameron - no top down re-organisation of the NHS.
Ed Balls - is Ed Balls.
What makes you believe them?
If whoever's elected in 2015 announces it after the election, it would be early enough in the parliamentary term that they'd probably figure it would be forgotten by the next General Election. I don't think you're factoring in the contempt that these politicians have for the electorate.
If they really wanted to regulate the banks properly we would see the larger ones being broken up - too big to fail = too big.
What i believe is that the Liberals are gone and are irrelevant precisely because of the Tuition fees (and jumping in bed with the tories) if just one of the remaining parties puts a vote on CU in their manifesto and the other doesnt they will also be seen as lying scumbags (i would also agree that they all are) this currency union thing is far from a done deal no matter what the good people of Scotland think. As i said i believe there will be significant change on both sides of the border post a yes vote how much change remains to be seen but saying "all that will change is that we wont be ruled by westminster scumbags and we get the best of everything" isnt strictly true. both sides have done a shit job of explaining this to the population of Scotland.
-
I agree with you in principle.
I don't think any party would put it in their manifesto, as I believe that the rUK (politicians) will want their to be a currency union, and they wouldn't want the possibility of the pesky electorate interfering in that decision.
I think they'll get around that by claiming that a CU is simply a maintenance of the situation now (where the £ is used throughout the UK), and that nothing has changed, compared to say, joining the Euro, which is the context in which a referendum has been promised in the past.
The banking regulation changes will not go nearly far enough, as the main parties are all in the pockets of the bankers.
What happens in iScotland would depend on who was elected to the first independent Parliament.
I work in financial regualtion and trust me the banks are getting a proper kicking as well as the smaller firms who are not systemically important but are getting caught up in the tidal wave of regulation just like the big boys. As for currency union we will see but ALL the current party leaders have said no. this close to an election they will look pretty silly lining up and saying "sorry we were wrong" Alex was right all along. We'd probalby elect Farage just to prove a point !!!
-
RBS only needs a LOLR due to the lack of effective regulation of banking in the UK.
Bailouts also have nothing to do with where a bank is registered, but where it does it's business - the exposure to iScotland and rUK remains the same regardless of where it's brass plaque is (assuming the same regulatory policy as now).
The rUK politicians will make the CU decision, not the electorate.
ETA - mentioning CU made me think: now thplinth is back, does that mean the end of thpinth? Are they one and the same? I never did manage to work it out in my head.
As previously posted banking regulation is being sorted down here. Scotlands financial regulator would be starting from scratch I take it ? whilst you may see that as an opportunity to get it right I'd pull my cash in a heartbeat until you demonstrated youd got it right and that takes time
-
RBS only needs a LOLR due to the lack of effective regulation of banking in the UK.
Bailouts also have nothing to do with where a bank is registered, but where it does it's business - the exposure to iScotland and rUK remains the same regardless of where it's brass plaque is (assuming the same regulatory policy as now).
The rUK politicians will make the CU decision, not the electorate.
ETA - mentioning CU made me think: now thplinth is back, does that mean the end of thpinth? Are they one and the same? I never did manage to work it out in my head.
We get a vote in 2015. I'd wager the sensible party would put a vote on the currency union in its manifesto. we'd get one for the Euro why would a foreign country like Scotland be any different and be shooed in without asking the people ?
-
So basically Nobby, RBS intends to keep its operations and jobs up here but if it needs a bailout again if independence happens - it will turn to the bank of england. so you happy with that?
the more i consider it it seems like a strong deal for scotland. jobs and revenue but zero risk.
Im happy with RBS being regulated in the main where the bulk of its business is as with most of the others that are doing the same. now I get there will be hoots of laughter at that but if there is one thing that has changed since 2008 its how banks are regulated. And an independent Scotland might regulate differently i get that, I mean Alex was all for RBS buying ABN wasnt he ;-)
-
Banks have gone "pete tong" once in recent history that I am aware of due to Westminster policies / deregulation etc etc.
I would agree and whilst its fresh in the memory people are nervous and whatever you may think people will act with the herd when it comes to money and all the evidence so far points to a movement of capital south, not a flood granted but what will happen if you vote yes no one knows. Mr Salmonds financial policies so far consist of "it will all be wonderful nothing will change and you will still use the pound" now there will be significant changes some for the better some for the worse on both sides, personally i think that independence will initially be bad financially for both countries but will settle down after a while. I believe a figure quoted on here puts us as your biggest export market (82% was quoted) and i suspect we export quite a bit to you so its probably best we try to play as nicely as possibler but there are a shedload of uncertainities that are still unknown if the EU insists you sign up to schengen there could well be border controls, who knows ? they may insist on you joing the Euro you simply dont know for certain. That said independence should be about whether Scots want to be an independent nation not whether you'll be a couple of hundred quid a year better or worse off
-
My personal a/c is rbs, not a lot. But my company has a very substantial sum with same bank, now a bit of work to do as its a business account but that's going too.
RBS has to have a lender of last resort (the BOE and the UK taxpayer in this instance) that can bail it out if it all goes pete tong just like last time. The current situation in Scotland is unclear to say the least with NO guarantee of a currency union. If I had a shedload of money in that bank and it remained headquartered in Scotland I'd whip my money out pronto. What RBS and the other banks are doing makes financial sense if they didnt there could well be a run. Now you wont agree with me on this but your Mr Salmond hasnt handled the financials bit of his campaigning very well at all and has dictated to the rUK what will happen when and if you vote yes, well we might not just agree with you or Mr Salmond. As ive always said if its independence you want happy days good luck and bon voyage but dont tell me im in a currency union with you because its best for me . I'll make my own mind up thanks just like you will next week ;-)
-
Actually, not having a Lender of Last Resort leads to a more stable financial services industry.
Crack on then, but it would appear that a number of financial institutions would disagree
-
I am with the RBS ( but not for long ). This is Financial Terrorism from an effin bank that Scottish taxpayers helped to bail out as well, and still far away from paying us back. As the so called poll stands at the moment, they are THREATENING half the country. IF and when we vote YES, I for one want Scotlands share of the bailout returned to us at the same speed as they take to leave Scotland. As for BP, they are not going anywhere until they get their last barrel out of the oilfields in our waters. England is welcome to them as this bank has form for mismanagement ,like a bus there will be another one along soon.
If and when you vote yes Scotland will be debt free as you will continue to use the pound without a currency union and walk away from the debt . I doubt HMT will write you a kite for 8.3% of the bailout money ;-) Get all your money into a bank that remains in Scotland that has no lender of last resort other than the newly independent Scotlands main bank account. Think you'll find that no matter how big most peoples nationalist leanings they will leave their money where it is !!
-
And practical, in terms of how a refusal to take on a share would cause the rUK and potential future creditors to act in response.
Scotland is entitled to negotiations on any point it wants, naturally. And I don't think that the rUK will have things all its own way. However, the position which I often read hear ('the rUK will be bankrupt / they can't cope without us / unsustainable debt etc etc') fails to take into account the true relative strength of the rUK and iScot economies, and hence bargaining positions in absolute terms. Something like 65% of Scottlish exports go to the rUK - representing about 29% of total Scottish GDP - and so the health of the Scottish economy is entirely dependent on the health of the rUK economy. Exports to Scotland from rUK only make up about 10% of the total - about 3.5% of rUK GDP. RUK will inevitably be negotiating from a position of strength.
Away with your sense down here in rUK were doomed !!!! The sovereign will of the scottish people means we get a currency union (until something better comes along for Scotland) whether we like it or not feck the sovereign will of everyone else !!
-
Scotland has no debt.
Scotland the new Rangers
England
in Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere
Posted
You want it all ways, you want out yet still want to be tied financially to rUK why ? As Mickey F would say if you are going Out , Out you should go. And its not a question of having it both ways the BOE should divide up assets and liabilities according to population size as should HMT for any money in the bank at that point and we should split. What you do from then on is down to the Scottish govt have a central bank dont have a central bank, join the Euro dont join the Euro its up to you, one of the joys of being independent.