Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Investors shift millions to protect savings

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 02 October 2008
SPECULATION about the financial health of British banks has led to hundreds of millions of pounds being shifted between accounts as customers seek a safe haven for their savings.
Funds are being sunk into banks seen as strong performers or which are blessed with a government guarantee. And banks perceived as at risk are seeing the situation compounded by a drain on their assets.

Internet and telephone banking advances allow cash to be switched easily without panicked queues forming at branches.

The Post Office has been a major beneficiary, as its savings products are backed by the Bank of Ireland, to which the Irish government has given a limitless guarantee. British customers are also going straight to the Irish bank to take advantage of the security.

But last night, the British Bankers' Association said the Irish decision was anti-competitive. It said the move had put British banks – particularly those in Northern Ireland – at a disadvantage. It added it supported proposals aimed at ensuring financial stability, but said financial institutions across Europe had to play fair.

The European Commission has said it is "in close contact" with the Irish government over its pledge on Tuesday to guarantee all money saved with an Irish institution for two years.

Alex Salmond, the First Minister, has called on Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, to introduce the same measures in the UK.

A Bank of Ireland spokeswoman said the bank was seeing a "very steady" increase in people contacting its call centres from Northern Ireland, and it is thought the pattern is the same across Britain.

Savers are also flocking to banks such as Lloyds TSB – which has seen its share price soar in the wake of its proposed HBOS takeover – and Abbey, owned by Spanish giant Santander. Its strength was flagged up this week after it acquired Bradford & Bingley's savings assets.

The Treasury-backed National Savings & Investments scheme is seen as a safe bet and has seen an increase in interest.

A spokeswoman said: "We have seen a higher volume of calls than usual to the call centre. But it is too early for us to say if this will have affected sales."

Lloyds TSB said in a statement: "Recently, we have seen a significant increase in deposits and in the last week alone, double the average numbers of term deposit accounts have been opened."

Even Northern Rock, which suffered a run on deposits leading to its collapse a year ago, was understood to be taking in large sums thanks to its nationalisation.

The final impetus for the HBOS takeover deal is believed to have been numerous customers withdrawing cash. At the time, RBS is understood to have benefited, sucking in "several billions" from nervous investors, Yesterday, however, shares in the Edinburgh institution were struggling.

Last night, consumer groups said customers of any UK banking group had protection for the first £35,000 of savings, under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, reducing the need to switch institutions.


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 01 October 2008 10:04 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Credit Crunch
 
1

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 02/10/2008 01:43:03
"Bring them on" always negative, always unionist.
Credit is what banks are expected to provide. It is simple really. It means belief, honour, trust, esteem. Once banks lose that they have nothing,

When the Irish government guarantees the deposits in its country's banks it is showing belief, honour, trust and esteem. It will also ensure that depositors will be unlikely to withdraw their money from fear they might lose it.

The likelihood that the Irish Republic will be called to honour their guarantee is slim in the extreme as their banks are well capitalised and the chance that all would go bust at once, let alone even just one, is even more unlikely.

A lot more banks will have gone bust long before that will happen. If the worst happened I think the western financial system will not be just in meltdown it will have disappeared entirely.
2

Forward not Back,

02/10/2008 01:47:41
The Irish banks have major problems with the economy going into recession. Over 20% of their GDP was based on construction and financed by these banks. Who needs toxic assets when the glass palaces can't pay back the loans?

Beware the herd mentality.
3

W Smith,

Middle East 02/10/2008 04:06:29
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!"

Charles Mackay, Scottish author of the book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, published in 1841.

Our Charles had a few things to say about another kiddy-on economist, and gambler, John Law, who was born in Edinburgh and whose parents were from Fife, and who caused hyper inflation in France.

John Law became Controller General of Finances (Chancellor?) under Louis XIV, cocked things up badly and died in poverty.

Enough said.

4

Ubi,

Edinburgh 02/10/2008 05:59:55
If our government had proactively introduced 100% guarantee of deposits months ago it would have maintained investor confidence and prevented much of the panic which has destabilised banking and seen Scotand lose HBOS.

Instead our lot can be relied upon to dither and fudge and eventually produce too little too late.
5

Citylocal Fife,

Fife News 02/10/2008 06:23:35
Gordon Brown invariably does the right thing......


after having exhausted every other alternative!




Yours etc

Angus Whitton
6

Forward not Back,

02/10/2008 06:26:59
#7 - deposits are not the issue. It's asset valuation.

Part of the asset book is toxic rubbish which effectively has no value at the moment. The other part is declining rapidly in value (the mortgage book) with the risk of default increasing, due to rising unemployment.
7

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 02/10/2008 07:14:33
7 ubi
The question is such a move feasible. The Irish govt has done this but they have run into trouble with the EU who are not, to say the least, happy. By guaranteeing all deposits and loans the Irish govt has taken on potential liabilities of up to £320bn more than twice their annual GDP.

Everybody knows that there is no way that the Irish govt could possibly raise this amount of cash if required to do so and the EU feel that this is just a ploy to get other Eurozone deposits paid into Irish banks. However if large amounts are transferred from other European banks, this could destabilise those banks and make the whole situation worse.

Ireland, as part of the Eurozone, is liable to the European Central Bank and the EU feel that they should not have acted without approval from the ECB. Therewill be further moves on this.
8

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 02/10/2008 07:15:33
Hysterical reporting makes matters worse, is that the intention?
9

Randomly Blocked Poster, ,

02/10/2008 07:18:44
#5 What do you think the HBOS fiasco is?
Did nobody connected with LLoyds sell HBOS shares during the run in?
Anyway a lot of the cash transferring out of HBOS is heading to the RBS which is just fine though Santander is nice at this time of year.
10

,

02/10/2008 07:25:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Helmut Smegma,

Edinburgh 02/10/2008 07:41:51
#15 - I moved mine into drugs and the security business - far better returns.
12

eric,

lothian 02/10/2008 08:18:02
ireland went mad with housing boom like spain,and its not really independent is it,being part of a huge union.
13

Helmut Smegma,

Edinburgh 02/10/2008 08:18:55
#18 - Whatever happened to the original French "Onion Johnnys" who went around the doors with strings of onions draped over their bicycle handlebars?
14

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 08:20:49
#13 Exactly - another day, another Scotsman headline promoting panic. I have not seen this allegation of "millions of pounds being shifted between accounts" in any other news source. Is this part of Bill Jamieson's crackpot plan to make things worse in the hope that it helps his beloved Tories?

If there were significant movements of funds the financial papers would be full of the news. They aren't, so why is the Scotsman peddling this line?
15

danbob,

02/10/2008 08:37:11
The Irish government knew that to issue these guarantees would flood Irish banks with foreign investments. The question is, "Why do they need these guarantees if Irish banks are sound" A clever move that has the potential to backfire I think.
16

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 08:39:34
It's interesting to read that they are insisting on government board representation for the banks that take up the offer. Specific powers for those board members, I'm sure, and specific actions that the banks have to maintain to keep the guarantee, no doubt. Have the Irish in fact just nationalised their entire banking system?
17

joppa jock,

Huntingdon 02/10/2008 08:50:12
As the Clydesdale Bank has Australian owners does anybody know if they are covered in the same way as other British banks?
18

Cuthulan,

approx.12,000 miles from Earth's core 02/10/2008 08:50:31
The Irish are showing what an independant nation can do to protect its assets. Scotland will just have to wait an see what the Bank of England and Westminster do,and they will act in THIER best interests NOT Scotlands's,so we are in a much more dangerous position than Ireland.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/198830.stm
Guaranteeing the deposits is a better solution/prediciment than handing out endless taxpayer money to incompitant and probably fraudulent bankers. THUS.....
The Government takes money from the taxpayer to give to the banks to LOAN to the taxpayer?? Exactly how is this helping the taxpayer again?? It is only helping the bankers and keeping prices artificially inflated.
MEANWHILE....Spokespersons from the Financial Banking industry where heard to give these statements
FINANCIAL BANK SPOKESPERSON #1
"Rools? ROOLS!! We don't need no steekin ROOLS!"
FINANCIAL BANK SPOKESPERSON #2
"Alright everybody , just give us the money and no-one gets hurt!!"
19

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 09:16:27
#26 The irony is that, no matter how independent Scotland is, we would still be waiting to see. The banking system's problems are an international issue, not a domestic one! So we would still be reliant on what the Bank of England was empowered to do, what the US Treasury decided, what the European Central Bank did, etc. - we would just have *less* leverage than we do now.
20

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 09:35:43
According to this BBC story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7647914.stm

"The British Bankers Association said that official figures for the flow of money out of accounts on Wednesday would not be available for another 10 days.

UK payments association Apacs said on Wednesday that no significant peak has been spotted on transactions through the Chaps transmission service."

So where is the Scotsman getting it's headline from? Is it just trying to stir up trouble? Why?
21

Alan B,

02/10/2008 09:37:57
#Duncan

" I have not seen this allegation of "millions of pounds being shifted between accounts" in any other news source. Is this part of Bill Jamieson's crackpot plan to make things worse in the hope that it helps his beloved Tories?"

1. it is i believe front page of the guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk


2. Is the guardian a tory paper now? :)
22

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 02/10/2008 09:38:20
You always sleep better on a well-stuffed mattress!
23

Calum10,

02/10/2008 09:41:41
Wee independent country thinking and acting in it's own interests upsets big country.

So what are you going to do about it Gordie? Run away as usual ya big feartie!
24

Cuthulan,

approx.12,000 miles from Earth's core 02/10/2008 09:43:47
#28 Duncan
True to a certain extent BUT an independant Scotland with control over its own currency and banking institutuions would NOT be in this situation. I properly managed economy and currency would not be facing such a hard time.Scotland at this momment is powerless to defend its assets in this economic tsunami ,we wait on Westminster to save us,HAHA..... We are in this situation due to greed ,incompitance and probably FRAUD on the part of the banking industry, and its the taxpayer rather than the bankers that are going to suffer with these taxpayer handouts.Keeping bankers in high paid jobs with golden parachutes instead of facing possible FRAUD charges and it keeps prices artificfially HIGH ,good for bankers BAD for YOU and ME.
AS for "leverage" that's what got us into this mess!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking
"The banks traded in complex derivatives products between themselves, in what is termed as the over the counter market. The exposure to the Securitized debt packages was further exaggerated by the use of leverage of in many cases more than 30X the banks assets against valuations based on complex models that inflated the packages values during the boom times which allowed huge profits and bonuses to be banked (Fraud?). However the critical point is in the final link in a long chain of sliced and diced debt packages was the US housing market.Now many banks are left with assets that are worth LESS than 50% of their "mark to market" booked value. Now that does not mean a 50% loss for the banks on investments, remember the greedy banks deployed LEVERAGE of as much as 30 times of assets, so capital of say £100 million is controlling risk of as much as £3,000 million. Therefore a 50% loss results in a loss of value of £1,500 million, that's 15 TIMES the capital. Hence the banks have been reluctant to price their debt packages at the real market price as that would mean that the bank is effectively bankrupt with losses far great
25

Alan B,

02/10/2008 09:44:28
#Rulesbutnotrulers

The Irish have not broken the rules. Going by the tv last night it looks like France are going to follow suit.

The EU might investigate what has been done that does not mean it is illegal.

The EU investigated B&B. Does that mean it was illegal? No it does not. Although going by competition rules you could say it does break the rules even if it is the right thing to do. That is why the eu have rushed through a backing for it.

Cannot serious see how the Irish move could be illegal. The uk had a limit of 2,000 pounds guarantee. that has been moved to 35,000 last yr. Now it looks like moving to 50G. So why do you seriously think it is illegal for the Irish to give a complete guarantee. Or a country to make the guarantee level so high like 1million that it effectively is a complete guarantee.

The calls from France this morning on tv was to have an EU wide scheme.
26

Cuthulan,

approx.12,000 miles from Earth's core 02/10/2008 09:44:44
cont./
Therefore a 50% loss results in a loss of value of £1,500 million, that's 15 TIMES the capital. Hence the banks have been reluctant to price their debt packages at the real market price as that would mean that the bank is effectively bankrupt with losses far greater than the banks capital base. So the market remains frozen until all of the illiquid mortgage backed debt has been transferred over to the tax payers in exchange for liquid cash, hence prompting the US Mother of All bailouts plan."
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6498.html

Leverage ...Haha ,Stop dreaming Britania does NOT rule the waves anymore , BUT its does seem to Waive the rules;-)
27

Alan B,

02/10/2008 09:47:44
#Cuthulan

I do not think you can seriously say an independent scotland could not find itself in this situation.

This situation was created by very poor management of the economy by Brown. There is nothing to guarantee a labour run scotland could also not be mismanaged.

That however does not mean independence is not the right thing for Scotland. It is. We can see that clearly from our underperformance within the union and the lack of action by Westmister governments to do anything about it as they chase votes in middle england.
28

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 09:50:34
#31 Thanks for that. The Guardian seems to be reporting it as "fears", though with the same hysterical angle. For my money, if the BBA says that the figures aren't available, and a couple of newspapers are promoting fears with no proof, there is no genuine suggestion that this is happening at all.

Interestingly the Guardian claims that France has denied any plans to follow Ireland's lead.
29

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 09:52:41
#37 Of course, only a *Labour* run Scotland would be exposed to the global credit environment. If we stick to electing SNP government, we will be protected from all external factors by the magic shield of Salmond...
30

Alan B,

02/10/2008 09:54:25
#39 Correct :)
31

Alan B,

02/10/2008 09:55:47
#Duncan in Edinburgh

When I saw the guardian front page when newsnight flashes up what the papers say last night my reaction was it was complete irresponsible. Particularly as it looked like being a front page story so will be seen on the newsstands.
32

Cuthulan,

approx.12,000 miles from Eath's core 02/10/2008 10:05:19
#37 Alan
Agreed ,how an independant Scotland is finacially run will be up to the people and so it is a bit hypothetical as to wether we would be in this situation or not(IMHO I think if we had a fund similar to Norway's we would not be in this mess) BUT an independant Scotland would have the tools to defend itself , i.e.the Irish situation. Meanwhile in Scotland today, we wait an see what Westminster will do and hope its good for us as well. WE need independance and control over our currency and banking institutions.
33

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 10:12:46
#42 Again, opinion on how Scotland would be better off independent takes us into the realm of science fiction, as we would need to travel back in time 30 years to set up an oil fund like Norway's. And yet again, the science fiction only ever covers the positives - if we are going to travel back in time, why not examine all of the events of the intervening years - the rise of the unions would not have been checked by a Thatcher figure in an independent Scotland, so where would we be now? Not where we are today, undoubtedly. We would have delayed the inevitable confrontation with union power, and while the rest of the UK would have experienced the 80s boom and bust, we certainly wouldn't.

It's always a terribly partial picture looking backwards. We should look forwards - the future is the only thing we can actually change.
34

Calum10,

02/10/2008 10:15:43
How dare the Irish. It is dangerous and utterly irresponsible for these people to think and act for themselves. Ireland should be invaded now by the British Army, it's people sudjugated and made to feel inferior. Once colonised we can offer the Irish the safety of the Union Dividend, whether they like it or not.
35

Publius,

London 02/10/2008 10:19:18
For once Alex Salmond may be right. According to Vince Cable 98 per cent of depositors' savings are already covered by guarantees. It seems they are either in parcels of less than 35k or in National Savings. Extending the guarantee to 100 per cent would add only a tiny amount of risk...but it would be a massive reassurance to small savers, and might even stem an outflow of funds to Irish banks.
Also it would safeguard the money of people who have sold their homes and a are looking for a new one. If you sell your house for 350k you have to find 10 different banks/building societies to ensure your money is safe. Even if the government increases the limit to 50k, you would still have to find 7 different banks!
36

weh,

02/10/2008 10:26:44
Gordon Brown admits defeat!


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jbgwR1pA1k0
37

TommyKaye,

UK 02/10/2008 10:26:52
Bring it on is a Labour party worker so he will appreciate this ;

There was a little union sponsored demo in Birmingham against "Cameron's cronies cashing in on the credit crunch" organised by Charlie Wheelan, you know him bring it off?

Unfortunately they seem to have missed out on the biggest short seller of Bradford and Bingley. None other than his old crony Paul Myners' GLG Partners. Brown's favourite financier, donor and deputy chairman of the Smith Institute, as well as Gordon's personal financial backer during the leadership campaign you know that bring it up/off/on

GLG partners declared to the FSA the largest short position in the market, the massive hedge fund profited the most from being short Bradford and Bingley before it went under. If Charlie's dozen strong rent-a-crowd don't fancy demonstrating outside GLG's City offices they could try demonstrating outside the Guardian's offices. Myners is also chairman of the Guardian's holding company.

Labour has also taken £1 million from Jon Aisbitt, non-executive chairman of Man Group, Britain's biggest quoted hedge fund group. Derek Tullet, who made his money providing derivatives broking services to hedge funds, also sent £400,000 into Labour's coffers.

It gets even better, the FT has discovered that MPs own pensions are invested in a hedge fund manager, Quellos. Not only that, in addition the MPs pension fund also makes money lending stocks out to hedge funds to allow them to short shares.

The hypocrisy is huge here, they condemn short sellers publicly and yet they roll up the profits of short selling in their pension plans.

Westminster snouts in the trough but you will know that bring it round/off/up/over
38

Calum10,

02/10/2008 10:29:29
The Irish have exposed the shallowness of the Unionist arguements of sticking together over this crisis. Being smart is what counts. Being able to act fast is what counts. Small countries are making the correct moves. Small savers are making the correct moves. The big countries and the big depositers have shown themselves to be stupid and slow.

Small is GOOD - Big is BAD.
39

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 10:34:39
#50 How can you possibly know at this point, before the Irish proposal has even become law, never mind any evidence of any effect of it, that this is the "correct" move? And do you in contrast suggest that the nationalisation of NR and B&B, the liquidity from the BoE, the enabling of the HBOS takeover, has all been wrong? What would you have done?
40

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 10:37:26
sm753#

It's each individuals fault for not saving the money from Scottish oil? An interesting and academic view of the broader situation as usual i see.

Norway £1/2 a trillion; Scottish Unionist £0

Better news for Ireland in that Facebook have chosen Dublin as one of their world headquarters; Scotland, being part of the union can't even attract the scraps from London:

The company said Dublin will be the centre for its international operations and will provide technical, sales and operations support to users and customers across Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

No details were forthcoming on where the company will be based or on whether new jobs will be created as a result of the expansion into Ireland.

In establishing a presence in Dublin, the website follows in the footsteps of other leading internet-based firms including Google, eBay and Yahoo!, who all have offices in the capital.
41

Cuthulan,

approx.12,000 miles from Earth's core 02/10/2008 10:37:34
#42 Duncan
As I said its hypothetical BUT Norway ,Switzerland and Ireland,our most likely models, are all in better positions to defend themselves right now, this is NOT science fiction is a finacial FACT.

#45
You obviously prefer to continue to hand out blank cheques to a bunch of FRAUDSTERS that lost all your money on the financial casino , I mean stock exchange.
THIS IS WHAT SHOULD OF HAPPENED
This is how free market capitalism works...
1.Availability of credit allows money to flow between savers and borrowers.
2.Resources and funds are allocated to various projects or investments during a boom phase
3.Eventually borrowing becomes excessive and leads to malinvestment
4.At this stage, adherence to free market theory would allow for an efficient cleansing period and a healthy recovery period. How? Irresponsible and unprofitable businesses fail. Bad debts get liquidated. Excess resources go on sale, flow into more stable ventures and pool together with more profitable resources controlled by healthy corporations or entities
....See its very simple,what part do you have a problem comprehending ,your classic Boom and Bust economy . If you are not ready for a Bust in the Boom and Bust economy ,what are you doing running a bank?!?!!?
What should of happened is the bank goes down , deposits would be guaranteed by deposit insurance and mortgages get put out to tender to a bank that has a working business plan . Thus NO ordinary people should get hurt .The company goes into recievership and an investigation starts to see if criminal proceedings are needed against the bankers,fraud etc ! Prices FALL as avaiablity rises ,i.e. liquidation of unprofitable busines.ie. banks etc!!
I suppose YOU FANCY bailing out ALL irresponsible and unprofitable businesses , can I ask will that be EVERY business or just the BANKS?

42

Fairfax,

02/10/2008 10:42:07
Publius (46): "According to Vince Cable 98 per cent of depositors' savings are already covered by guarantees."

I was surprised by this figure, but Cable is usually fairly competent. Extending the Financial Services Compensation Scheme would then be straightforward, but the figure still sounds over-optimistic.

"Also it would safeguard the money of people who have sold their homes and a are looking for a new one. If you sell your house for 350k you have to find 10 different banks/building societies to ensure your money is safe."

They can still use National Savings. However, presumably the majority selling their homes are married/cohabiting, so are protected up to £70K -- for them it's 5 banks.

They can always use National Savings.
43

callender,

02/10/2008 10:43:23
You can't trust government guarantees- this latest lot are just a sweetener for their big bank welfare scheme. If the funds aren't set aside and ring-fenced their not there. This at least is an ascertainable fact in the US:

http://inthesenewtimes.com/2008/09/20/fdic-running-out-of-cash-no-bank-is-safe-in-this-alarming-atmosphere/

apart from that the other threat is an inflationary spiral, accompanying the inevitable collapse of the pound, which will rapidly erode your savings anyway. Soneone mentioned gold: make sure it is actual physical gold, since there will not be enough gold to cover all the gold on account. You can have it stored and insured by the two or three companies who deal in it.

http://inthesenewtimes.com
44

Fairfax,

02/10/2008 10:48:30
Cuthulan (53): "BUT Norway ,Switzerland and Ireland,our most likely models, are all in better positions to defend themselves right now,"

To be fair, Norway's banks are currently better managed because of their own Scandinavian credit crunch in the mid-1990s, when some 2/3 of their entire banking system tanked and three major banks were nationalized; see for example

http://www.norges-bank.no/templates/article____13822.aspx

In other words, independence is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for avoiding financial crises.

As for Ireland and Switzerland, it's not clear to me why you believe them to be in a better financial position than the UK.
Ireland is facing a recession whilst Germany, dominating ECB policy, has pushed for ever higher interest rates. Switzerland is even more dependent on banking than London, say.
45

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 10:57:08
57sm753#

Well one thing it certainly proves is that Westminster cannot be trusted with Scotland's money. If Scotland was independent we would have been as wealthy as Norway but as part of the union..mmm..some of the worst poverty levels in the western world.

Nice to see the SNP giving free school meals to the poorest in Scottih society and the ones that Labour has left in the gutter after all their years in power.

Still, better of in the union sm753...we get the barnett formula after all which is more than fair lol.
46

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 10:57:09
#53 I don't think it can be stated as fact that Ireland are in any sort of decent shape at all. Their economy has been recession for months, they have rapidly rising unemployment, and in desperation - quite freely admitted by their Finance Minister - they have proposed this underwriting of deposits which they simply could not afford to deliver on should any significant proportion of their banks fail.

Ireland have made a play, and good luck to them, is about all one can say at this point.
47

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 11:02:11
#58 This is just claptrap Nevsky. You cannot pick an arbitrary point when you'd like independence to have happened, look only at the potential positives of that and none of the negatives, and then draw any sort of meaningful conclusion from that assessment.

And however often to you repeat the lie that Labour has left the poor in the gutter, it remains a lie. Watch poverty in Scotland climb even higher under the SNP, and watch them blame the UK government for it. The truth is that Labour since 1997 did more than any post-war government to reduce poverty in families with children. Of course there's a hell of a lot more to do, and it just got incredibly difficult. But who introduced the New Deal, Working Tax Credits and the minimum wage? Labour did.
48

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

02/10/2008 11:06:52
"the British Bankers' Association said the Irish decision was anti-competitive"

This is the very notion of "competitive". These bankers don't seem to understand capitalism, but I suppose if they did, they wouldn't be dependent on taxpayers to stay in business.

Seems to me that one step forward would be to abolish the British Bankers Association. Clearly it's full of communists.
49

Calum10,

02/10/2008 11:08:47
Northern Rock is closing it's deposit accounts and turning away small savers.

The Irish banks are welcoming UK savers with open arms.

UK banks are now looking into the abyss as savers flee, whilst the UK government dithers over what to do.

The Irish banks can't believe their luck, whilst Irish politicians can't believe how stupid Gordon Brown is behaving on this matter.
50

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

02/10/2008 11:10:49
#6: John Law is an unsung genius. If the Scottish Parliament had listened to and understood his Land Bank idea, we'd have remained independent from England.

As for causing inflation in France during the Mississippi Bubble, you'll find that the Duc D-Orleans caused it by continually printing new currency. Law took the blame for it because his was the original idea for the Land Bank.
51

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

02/10/2008 11:12:33
"The Irish govt has done this but they have run into trouble with the EU who are not, to say the least, happy"

Another bunch of communists who wouldn't know "competition" if they found it in their soup.
52

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

02/10/2008 11:14:46
"Ireland, as part of the Eurozone, is liable to the European Central Bank and the EU feel that they should not have acted without approval from the ECB. Therewill be further moves on this"

One bright ray of optimism that shines through the credit crisis is that it will probably finish the Euro and make the opinion of the European Bank entirely irrelevant.
53

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 11:15:20
#65 Ah yes, those well known communists the EU. Give me strength.
54

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 11:15:41
60 Duncan#

Labour have done nothing and well you know it; they have had long enough in power to help the poor and the problems will probably get worse when the house re-posessions kick in thank's to Brown's mis-management of the economy.

Labour have turned their back on the poor especially in their own back yard, the people know it and will vote them out as they did in Glasgow East.

The only meaningful conclusion i can draw from Scotland being part of the union (not arbitrary) is that Norway has £186 billion and Scotland has £0.

You know the truth and so do all unionists, even McCrone regarding themess that has been made of the oil revenue....sacrifice of your own country is acceptable for you to remain in the union..for me it isn't!

55

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 11:20:11
#68 You may think you have a valid point - heavens, it's even possible that you do have a valid argument somewhere in your brain - but if you continue to post things like "Labour have done nothing" which fly in the face of fact, then that point is never going to be heard.

How about starting from a factual basis. Labour have done a range of things, some successful, some not, in an attempt to reverse the increases in child poverty running up to 1997, and turn them into a reduction. They succeeded in stopping the increase, and then they succeeded in reducing the number of children in poverty by a million - more than 25% of the total.

Unless you can start from this factual basis, whatever argument you may have to say that Labour's current policies are not working will simply be lost.
56

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 11:20:19
Out of interest i was out at the weekend and was having a meal with someone who works in the Irish Embassy here who made the remark:

'You should have left when the Irish left the union but the Irish believe that the Scots don't have the ba**s to do it'

With people like Duncan and SM753 in Scotland he is of course right!
57

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

02/10/2008 11:23:29
#53: Cuthulan: not just a libertarian but an Austrian too I see. There aren't many of us around yet, but there will be before all this is over...
58

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 11:25:07
#70 Once more a fallacious argument instead of what might be a real one lurking in the unreachable quarter of your brain that actually does then thinking. I have never expressed any fear of independence. My balls are big and brassy. It takes balls to stand up to continual Nationalist victimhood inspired claptrap being spewed out every day, and say actually, that's not true.
59

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

02/10/2008 11:28:52
#67: The EU have never seen a problem they don't want some Central Committee to solve with new regulations or Five Year Plans. The very last thing they'd ever try is free market competition. Hence their attitude to this move by the Irish banks.
60

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 11:29:48
#73 That's what known as a self-evident falsehood.
61

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 11:32:27
72 Duncan#

Good, the vote for independence and then vote for your beloved Labour party, simple solution.

Who knows, remove the unionist yoke from them and their time-consuming obsession with attacking any notion of independence and they might achieve something in Scotland that would have a lasting significance.

Anyway soon be Milliband who will have mass apeal to central Scotland i would imagine so your supporters will come flooding back.



62

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 11:36:19
77sm753#

I am seeing him tomorrow so i will put forward your argument and watch him laugh at it.
63

Kipling,

02/10/2008 11:36:20
Just an aside to #52. Nevsky,Moscow " ... In establishing a presence in Dublin, the website follows in the footsteps of other leading internet-based firms including Google, eBay and Yahoo!, who all have offices in the capital. ..

Good news for Dublin & E-bay, not so good news if someone has pocketed a postal-order -- registered post, received by E-bay -- to pay for an e-bay advert. I got bounced around several E-bay offices and referred to the Irish head office email, but STILL demands came, eventually debtcollector letter. I wrote off to h/o. Then again another debtcollector letter. On each occasion I had to print & copy the evidence for them to disappear. E-bay, etc, may have migrated to Dublin, but, like the banks, they've got addresses & offices in other places & this doesn't make them more efficient in tracking payments made, let alone more honest.
64

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

02/10/2008 11:53:03
The latest Nat hokum - if it's done by an independent country like Ireland it must be right.

This myth that somehow being "independent" shields you from the forces of global capitalism is a joke.

The UK is an independent country but somehow we don't seem to be shielded.

Why should an independent Scotland - or any independent country for that matter - be any different?
65

david hill,

bern, swiss 02/10/2008 11:55:14
Politicians are principally to blame for the impending financial collapse of the World Economy

For why is it that governments around the world did nothing until financial death was knocking on the door?
For they were told at least five years ago about the dire state of the international financial markets. In this respect clear examples of this knowledge that they had at the time were,
1. In 2003 the former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan warned of the forthcoming financial collapse if Fannie Mae's activities were not reined in. The government did nothing and Fannie Mae was allowed to continue operating until only last month, some five-years after the warning from the US’s top banker was given. Indeed, the 30% of mortgages in the US, which are toxic mortgages, equates to losses for the banks of $3.1 trillion. Therefore how could politicians overlook such a failure it has to be asked? The only answer can be incompetence and complacency at the highest level.
2. In 2006 the Bank for International Settlements, the world's most prestigious financial body and the central banker’s ultimate bank, stated that the financial world was in a diabolical state and that it had to change its current ways and activities. No government throughout the world intervened until it is was too late and where caution was not on the agenda for them just a mere two years ago.
Clearly therefore it is the politicians who are to blame for all the mess that we all now find ourselves and due to them not taking any action years ago. Indeed, the dire problems that we are now starting to witness are a direct result of their total complacency for years and where eventually it will cause the worst financial crash that we have ever witnessed. For this is already transferring into the economy and where the wheels of industry are now steadily but surely starting to slow to a full stop.

It is not only the bankers therefore who need sorting out but their bed pals the politicians as we
66

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

02/10/2008 11:56:16
#82 Actually I can see both benefits and probloems of following the Irish move. But any decision must be made carefully and not rushed in to - a knee-jerk reaction might be beneficial in the short-run but ultimately very damaging in the long term. if we are to make a change do it because it is the right thing to do not because another country has done it.
67

Resolutions,

02/10/2008 11:59:00
#82 As an Independent country we can adopt methods to protect ourselves to suit our situation.

Went to bank(BOS) yesterday with a simple query. Place was shut - winter hours - funny never mentioned to clients in last week!

Now I defintiely feel like shifting my meagre funds fast - if I can get the place open! (These were originally in Halifax BUILDING Society, before they got big ideas)
68

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 12:18:26
82 Fed#

Nationalists are not defending Ireland but can see at least they are in a position of doing something.

For my part i think they have taken what seems at first to be a massive gamble; if people call their money in they will be in serious trouble...but then what are the chances of this really happening? A complete collapse of all world markets as well as the Euro banking system...highly unlikely if not impossible...they could just have pulled off a brilliant piece politics as well as swelling the banking sectors coffers to boot!


69

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 12:22:43
sm753#

I wonder what the Swiss ratio is? Much higher than that of Scotland i would imagine, their whole eceonomy is based on the banking sector...oops sorry to mention another wee country that is richer than Scotland.
70

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

02/10/2008 12:36:45
#87 "Nationalists are not defending Ireland but can see at least they are in a position of doing something."

An independent Scotland would not be in that position. We would still have monetary policy controlled by the Bank of England until such time as Scotland entered the Eurozone.

Moreover, according to John Swinney an independent Scotland might still have the FSA as the Scottish regulator even after independence.
71

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 12:54:20
#91 It's the same concept as their proposals for a local income tax. "Obviously it won't actually be local..."
72

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 12:55:01
91 sm753#

'Interest rates set by a foreign central bank with no remit to consider the impact on Scotland, and a financial regulator responsible to a foreign government'


Some union!


73

,

02/10/2008 12:55:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
74

Fairfax,

02/10/2008 12:57:18
The Federalist (90): "We would still have monetary policy controlled by the Bank of England until such time as Scotland entered the Eurozone."

It is possible for one state to use a currency issued by another, although it's hardly desirable. However, joining the Eurozone requires certain fiscal tests to be passed, all of which would be difficult without a central bank. In other words, the SNP are either being unrealistic or disingenuous: one of the first actions of an independent Scotland would necessarily be a Scottish central bank, responsible for currency, bond issues and, possibly, regulation.
75

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

02/10/2008 13:01:37
#95 I agree. Their previous policy of creating a Scottish central bank and an independent Scottish currency actually made more sense than the present mish-mash of a policy they have.
76

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 13:01:53
90 Fed#

This seems a practical solution and the least likely way to disprupt the Scottish economy to me...perhaps you have another suggestion?

Seems to me that other countries have linked to the euro with few problems, no different for Scotland.

Anyway more good news today in the huge swing taking place towards the SNP in Edinburgh. Seems the Labour message and the unionist scare stories just aren't getting through!
77

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 13:02:18
#93 Idiotic response. At the moment we have a say in the governance of these institutions via our democratic control over the UK government.
78

,

02/10/2008 13:07:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
79

Alan B,

02/10/2008 13:09:19
#Nevsky

Duncans right. And Browns is our democratic representative. Scarey isn't it.
80

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 13:10:33
98#

What governanve does Scotland have over the Bank of England exactly? Does a Scottish bank set interest rates? I believe not, rates are set for England and Scotland swings along on the coat tails i am afraid.

When has the Bank of England ever ammended legislation for Scottish interests? I would be interested in quite how we govern via our 'democratic control' whatever that means?
81

,

02/10/2008 13:16:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
82

Cuthulan,

approx.12,000 miles from Earth's core 02/10/2008 13:16:29
If you think Unionism has NO or little effect on Scotland condition/economy I beg to differ...
Unionism has given Scotland
1 a loss of business investment ,as bank rates are set according to the souths' needs so encouraging business to move south.
2. Increased unemployment due to unfavourable business environment and the migration of businesses to the south
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/198830.stm
3 caused a population exodus,note there where less people in Scotland in 2006 than in 1961 and note the amount of ex-pat posters
5,116,900 (2006 est)
5,094,800 (2005 est)
5,078,400 (2004 est)
5,057,400 (2003 est)
5,054,800 (2002 est)
5,062,011 (2001 est)
5,083,000 (1991 est)
5,180,200 (1981 est)
5,234,000 (1971 est)
5,201,000 (1961 est)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Scotland
Would the LAST Scot to leave the Union please switch the lights out....
1961 - 43,983,300
1971 - 45,870,100
1981 - 46,623,500
1991 - 48,067,300
2001 - 49,138,831 [4]
2005 - 50,431,700 [5]
2006 - 50,762,900
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_England
4 caused a Scottish "Brain drain",note the amount of well educated ex-pat posters paying thier taxes to foreign countries
5 caused english people to look at Scots as "subsidy junkies" where the FACTS seem to point the other way
http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/trueoilwealth.html
http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/myth1995.html
6 caused the Scots to blame the english for OUR problems ,instead of giving us the tools to deal with the problems ourselves.
7 a 25%-30%(at least) LOSS of living standards ,or a 30% Union Jack Tax.
Using the UK’s own assumptions for tax revenue and spending, but including Scotland’s share of North Sea Oil receipts, this answer revealed that between 1978-79 and 1994-95 Scotland had a cumulative surplus of £27.6 billion, or £34 billion in today’s prices. At the same time the UK had a deficit of more than £330bn.
All very OBVIOUS EFFECTS of the Union

So wha
83

Alan B,

02/10/2008 13:16:54
#The Federalist

I think they are taking a more politically expedient way.

I imagine they will want to join the euro. But want to leave that argument for later.

I think there is a rational from moving from sterling to the euro rather than moving to an interum scottish currency.

Personally i would like to see us move to fiscal autonomy before any move to independence. Sorts out all the taxation issues.

I also see no reason why the sp should not have the right to move to the euro even while in the uk.

While I support independence in many ways it is about moving the powers to the scottish parliament and possibily transferring over to the euro that is more important than the symbolic nature of independence.

However when you are still trying to persuade people of the destination it is hard to necessarily chart the course in the way you may want.

84

Cuthulan,

approx.12,000 miles from Earth's core 02/10/2008 13:17:35
cont./
So what exactly is the benefit of the union?
Defence ? - well Scotland is stuck in 2 wars right now ,thanks to the union. So NO it makes us LESS SAFE and wastes billions in pounds and caused untold slaughter and misery and creates MORE TERRORISM not LESS you idiots.
Standard of Living ? - NO ,as I said we are 25% to 30% ,at least, WORSE OFF thanks to the union. So what's that about higher/tartan taxes?!?! Welcome to a 30% Union Jack Tax straight off the top.
Trade ?- NO, as has been demonstrated bank rates are set for the south of england even if it means unemployment in the north.It causes UNEMPLOYMENT and a DECREASE in trade!!
EVERY Business Analyst I work with,and I work with a lot, thinks Scotland would be financially BETTER OFF INDEPENDENT .Also the Adam Smith Institute and unionists beloved Whitehall both disagree with finacial benefits of unionism for Scotland ,from both the left and the right.
View from the LEFT
"LABOUR ministers were warned in a secret Whitehall dossier 30 years ago of the powerful case for Scotland becoming independent with booming oil revenues, but the information was kept confidential by Harold Wilson's government to keep nationalism at bay.The dossier, most of which was written by a leading government economist in 1974 and 1975, sets out how Scotland would have had one of the strongest currencies in Europe, attracting international capital into its banks in the same way as Switzerland.It argued Scotland could quickly become one of Europe's strongest economies with "embarrassingly" large tax surpluses."
View from the RIGHT
"Adam Smith Institute, Friday, April 27, 2007
The Scottish economy could enjoy record growth if Scotland became independent, leaving the average Scot many thousands of pounds better off each year. This is the finding of a research Briefing Paper published today by the Adam Smith Institute, the free market economic think tank."
and finally do you think that Holland , Finland , Austria , Denmark, Luxemb
85

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

02/10/2008 13:18:43
#97

In what way is it practical to have your regulation, monetary policy, and, by implication, fiscal policy, controlled by a foreign country over which you have no power?

At least in the present set-up we have some sort of input through the election of our politcial representatives. Under the SNP's proposals we would have little or no input into decisions taken by eithe rthe FSA or the Bank of England.

That's why I say they are a mish-mash - unworkable. If Scotland were to become independent it has to have its own central bank, its own currency and its own regulator. If it chooses to give up a Scottish currency then at least the creation of a Scottish central bank allows some sort of input into the Eurozone decision-making process. Without a Scottish central bank we would have as much control over our currency as the Zimbaweans have over the US dollar.
86

Cuthulan,

approx.12,000 miles from Earth's core 02/10/2008 13:18:52
cont./
and finally do you think that Holland , Finland , Austria , Denmark, Luxemburg,Poland,Hungary ,Bulgaria etc. would give up thier soverignty to Germany or Russia for economic reasons!?!? What about the Czech Republic ,Slovakia ,Slovenia , Croatia ,Bosnia , Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania ,etc . etc etc. have they all realised what a big stupid mistake they have made by becoming independent soverign countries,none of them pump oil btw. I think the best a unionist could do for a come back was talk about Bavaria in the 19th Century, (I do not think he wanted to mention the Unification of Germany and Austria in 1938
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss) ...I think that says alot about the mind set of unionists, HELLO guys its the 21st Century.
Surely if it is of great benefit to give up our soverignty to London ,to be the 5th biggest economy , then it would be even better to give our soverignty to Brussels and be the BIGGEST economy ,which the eurozone now is!
and the UK LOST 34.8 BILLION POUNDS in 2006 , surely by unionist logic, the UK is a non viable independant state.Especially now with the credit crunch and Englands economic eggs ,all in one very unstable financial basket.
Unionism = Stockholm syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
87

Alan B,

02/10/2008 13:20:43
#102 Nevsky

The BOE of England has set interest rates taking into account the needs of Scotland. Did you not remember Eddie George the govenor of the BOE saying that unemployment in the north is a price worth paying to control inflation in the south.

Without such level headed monetary policy where else would Scotland get its unemployed.
88

Alan B,

02/10/2008 13:23:06
#109 sm753

"When setting interest rates the MPC has to take account of conditions across the entire UK."

That is wrong. The MPC will focus on inflation as their sole target. And that is the way it should be.
89

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 13:26:10
Fed and SM753#

Regarding accountability and uk legislation:

'At least in the present set-up we have some sort of input through the election of our politcial representatives'

Personally fed i think we have 'some sort of input' is not good enough.

Sm753#
Scotland will not elect a conservative government but WE WILL live under their fiscal policy and if you think 2 Tory MPs are representative and will affect policy to the benefit of Scotland you are out of your mind!
90

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 13:30:05
Ant unionist that things the forthcoming Conservative government is Scotland on an equal footing is completely off their heads.

Scotland will be ruled by the south of England, to their benefit and make no mistake about it! They will offer the same tokenism to Scotland to keep the natives quiet and Labour will toe the line as will all their lackeys.
91

,

02/10/2008 13:30:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
92

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 13:31:16
#102 "When has the Bank of England ever amended legislation for Scottish interests?"

Oh my god you're right! But it's worse even that that. I've looked it up and in fact the BoE has never amended legislation AT ALL! Not even in the interests of the evil English overlords under whose cruel yoke we Scots tirelessly toil, etc...
93

Alan B,

02/10/2008 13:33:21
#Nevsky

Seriously. The BOE cannot and should not take regional differences into account when setting monetary policy. It should focus on inflation.

Interest rates from Sterling have been too high for the Scottish economy (and north of Englands) suffocating scottish economic growth in order to keep in check inflation in the whole uk which is mainly due to the south. (The south east housing market has tradiontionally played a role)

The BOE cannot set interest rates for anything other than the inflation rate. As such there are afew issues.

- the government should be responsible for dealing with the north south divide. While i mention eddie george comments above, you cannot really critise him as he is only the messenger. The real issue is with the government who have many more tools at its disposal than the blunt intrument of interest rates.

The government do not have the political while to address this north south divide problem and that is what makes sterling so bad for the scottish economy.

-euro interest rates have been lower over a prolonged period of time that sterling. The DM was the same. As euro interest rates are more in line with scotlands economic needs and sterlings tend to suffocate our growth, we would be better joining the euro.

At the very least we should have a proper economic assessment. Unfortunately for scotland unionist politicians who support the euro in principle will not consider scotland joining for political reasons ie england will not.

Browns economic assessment of the euro bizzarely did not consider whether it would be good for scotland. Well not really bizzarely as he is not interested in scotland.

- we could adopt a scottish currency and while interest rates would be more appropriate for scottish economy we would have to deal with currency fluxations against both sterling and probably more important long term the euro.
94

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

02/10/2008 13:34:04
#112

"'At least in the present set-up we have some sort of input through the election of our political representatives'

Personally fed i think we have 'some sort of input' is not good enough."

As opposed to 'none at all' under the SNP's present policy.

The point I am making is that an independent Scotland may be politcially independent but not economically independent unless it creates a Scottish central bank and Scottish regulator.
95

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 13:39:44
115 Duncan#

I do remember the Bank of England asking Scottish banks to stump up £400 million for Scottish money in circulation, that is the only time i have ever heard Scotland mentioned as far as i am aware.

The Bank makes no distinction between Scotland and the South East of England..never been in the interests of Scotland and never will be!

Like i said, the South East first and the rest swinging on the coat tails.
96

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

02/10/2008 13:42:48
#116 "The real issue is with the government who have many more tools at its disposal than the blunt intrument of interest rates."

Correct. "Regional" Policy (for want of a better pharase) should be used to deal with the disparities across the nationas and regions - just as EU Regional Policy does.

Whether governments actually do it effectively in practice though is another matter. That is more an issue for poor governance that to any particular form of government.

As you know, I have consistently argued for the creation of a Scottish central bank and Scottish currency if Scotland were to become independent. Even in an independent Scotland, a Scottish central bank's main role would be to control inflation - one suspects within the economic heartland of the central belt. A Scottish governemnt too would have to enact some sort of regional policy to deal with disparities across the Scottish regions.
97

Billy Boy,

Sherman Oaks Californication 02/10/2008 13:50:53
#21 Weren't they Spanish, in Dundee they all were, riding bicycles strung with "Savoyas".
98

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 13:51:27
#120 As an adjunct to that, it is important for people to remember that for a bank (and for the governments underwriting them) a mortgage is an asset, and a deposit is a liability. The Irish government will be as keen as the UK government to ensure that the UK's deposit liability does not all land on their balance sheet.
99

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 13:51:48
sm753#

The Irish have gambled on the markets NOT failing. If the markets do fail, the Irish banking system will perhaps be the smallest of the worlds problems.

Maybe they are not so stupid, they know all governments would have to step in if this was the scenario and would have to guarantee all savings; the consequences to let it run would just be too great.

So maybe not so daft after all.
100

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 14:00:09
#123 How do you work that out? If the markets did fail, there would be no way governments could guarantee all savings - there simply wouldn't be the money. How would you see this working exactly?
101

Alan B,

02/10/2008 14:05:17
#Duncan

As per our earlier discussion. FYI this story is also front page of the telegraph aswell.
102

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 14:07:40
124 Duncan#

No idea but the Irish have done it! Apparently they don't have the money to cover it either as far as i am aware.
Perhaps you should ask them as i presume their economists know more about than you. The French are considering it as well i believe.
103

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 14:10:46
125 sm753#

Ireland has done well, too much reliance on credit and on the housing market which was always going to catch up.

But they don't and never have had OIL..or the £12.5 trillion that Scotland has squandered on Westminster!
104

Alan B,

02/10/2008 14:16:27
With regard to the Irish guaranteeing all deposits and the the uk only offering 35 soon to be 50G.

How much more would the uk really be covering if it extended more than 50G. Particularly as this story goes people are moving their money around to mean they limit their exposure to the max limit.

So far we have seen the government guaranteeing the 2 banks that have gone bust now anyway.

If everyone moves their money to ensure they are under the max limit the government risk is exactly the same.

Part of the problme with not acting sooner to lift the 35G level is it does mean people are moving money to other institutions to try to keep their money safe, means there has been some runs on the banks funds anyway.
105

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 14:24:48
#127 Brilliant! You have no idea if or how it might work, but you strongly advocate it.

Incidentally, "the French" deny they are thinking of it, in the person of their president. Perhaps you know better? On present form, I think not!

The Irish move is far from cunning. It is desperate. It is not something to be emulated lightly.
106

Alan B,

02/10/2008 14:28:48
#The Federalist

We have had a London first approach to the economy for too long by too many governments. The problem is now too entrenched.

To seriously deal with the north south divide you would have to move serious amounts of the wealth/aggregate demand north wards. That simply is not going to happen.

For instance if you were approaching the uk from an economic point of view. First thing you would do is move government out of London together with a federalisation of England.

You would simply not locate public bodies in the richest and most expensive part of the country. Government lock, stock and barrel together will all national public sector jobs and associated bodies like BOE, BBC would be relocated. Paying London weightings is a joke. If they are more expensive move them to other parts of the country where you can get value for money.

With parliament in Manchester, Defence in Newcastle, Treasury and BOE (renamed) in Glas, Foreign office in Edin, Social Security Leeds etc. Whitehall in say Liverpool with all the other government depts.

By moving the power bases away from the south jobs and companies would follow.

You would then follow it up with removing barriers to companies rellocating northwards, along with positive encouragement to locate outside london.

Rather than having too high interest rates for the rest of the country you would levy an addition london tax to reduce aggregate demand if need be.

It would almost be a carrot and stick approach. You would effectively be going to big industry and saying use the whole country or we will put measure in place to do it.

Add to that you would put in supply side policies like fast trains from the north etc.

But lets face it there will never be the political will.

107

Alan B,

02/10/2008 14:37:01
#The Federalist

Continuing on that theme you would also have to consider immigration. To a large extent immigration has been argued for to deal with skills shortages. Largely they are southern skills shortages.

The government really had a choice. Encourgage immigration to deal with south east skill shortages or encourage these companies to locate substantial amounts of jobs in the north. We all know the choice taken.

I argue this from an economic viewpoint. Not against immigration per se. But using it as an economic tool against skills shortages.


108

middle aged,

edinburgh 02/10/2008 14:37:41
Ah,fools rush in.Just when it has been announced that the Irish economy has gone into recession all these idiots are pouring their money into Ireland.If a country is bankrupt any "guarantees" are useless.
No doubt it will be the same people who queued at Northern Rock for hours!!They will also be the same idiots who now moan that they cannot get their money back into Northern Rock.
109

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 14:48:43
#132/3 Alan this is a hugely simplistic view, and runs counter to experience in Manchester, Leeds, Edinburgh and Glasgow. There is a regional investment market in the UK which is based on the high price of doing business in London and which is why the number of businesses headquartering outside the UK capital has rocketed in recent years.

While I take the point that an element of what you say is true, it is by no means as black-and-white as you paint it.
110

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 15:02:10
135 Duncan#

Name me ONE just ONE European or multi-national HQ situated in Scotland to prove your point? JUST ONE?

Dublin, just in e-commerce alone GOOGLE, E-BAY and FACEBOOK...

Name them in Scotland. Just one would do ok?

Compare it to London and wisen up!
111

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 15:08:20
Scotland does not even have an embassy of any country in the world..they are all in London?

Where would you invest your HQ if you were the head of Credit Suisse? A place with all other banks, embassies and business infrastructure or Scotland with nothing?

If Scotland in representative terms had 8% of the UK where is the 8% of HQs, international banks, investment companies, supermarkets, airlines...you won't find them here i am afraid...Scotland is non-existent!
112

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 15:09:27
#136 It is somewhat unclear what you mean by "European or multi-national HQ" given that each of your Dublin examples are merely sales offices for US firms.

I'm sure you're aware that RBS, HBOS and Standard Life all have their world headquarters in Edinburgh.

Are you asking specifically about foreign companies choosing to locate offices in the UK?

My discussion with Alan was about UK companies choosing to headquarter themselves in cities outside London.
113

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 15:17:31
138 Duncan#

HBOS and RBS are Scottish (half-scottish). Are you telling me that everything that has been invested in Ireland by these milti-national companies is worthless? You would be against Lloys then situating their HQ in Scotland as just a 'sales office'.

Anyway can you name any companies, european, amercian, asian that has preferred Scotland to London? I will await your long list of investment...should be 8% on a comparative basis i think.

Have a go.
114

Fairfax,

02/10/2008 15:23:08
Nevsky (136): "Dublin, just in e-commerce alone GOOGLE"

Google pointedly did not choose Dublin for research: that's based in London, not least because of proximity to Oxford and Cambridge and the major colleges of the University of London: it's hard to compete with South-East England.
115

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 15:23:26
#139 This is a bizarre challenge, arguing against a straw man. I never claimed anything about inward investment; never made any comparative reference to Dublin; never even talked about Scotland in particular; certainly never suggested any population level investment parity - the discussion with Alan was about UK companies headquartering in UK cities outside of London.

As I have argued before, as a whole the UK has invested in London as a centre of economic growth. I would be the last person to argue that that hasn't happened.

In summary, I will not defend something I haven't said, not matter how much you want to be proved right about something I never claimed.
116

Fairfax,

02/10/2008 15:25:06
Nevsky (139): "Anyway can you name any companies, european, amercian, asian that has preferred Scotland to London? I will await your long list of investment...should be 8% on a comparative basis i think."

Why should this change post-independence?
117

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 15:32:36
142 Fairfax an Alan#

Independence is followed immediately by an injection from every business wishing to trade in that country; normal business practice.

You were not aware of this Fairfax and the benefits it brings i assume from your question?


Alan#

You can't name one can you, not even one. Still don't get it do you? Still, keep defending the fairness and equity of the union!
118

Fairfax,

02/10/2008 15:38:36
Nevsky (143): "Independence is followed immediately by an injection from every business wishing to trade in that country; normal business practice."

Sometimes that's correct -- I wouldn't rely on it too much.

"You were not aware of this Fairfax and the benefits it brings i assume from your question?"

I'm simply tired of Scottish whining about London, and South-East England in general. It is not the inequities of the Union that attracts these companies, but the success of the South-East. When Scotland secedes, little of this will change.
119

Alan B,

02/10/2008 15:45:04
#Duncan in Edinburgh

My point was to do with the fact that interest rates in the uk means that growth in the north of britain is strangled. While I pointed to Eddie Georges comment i do not blame him as that is how monetary policy works. My point is for interest rates to be set at a rate that works for the uk as a whole we need to do something about the north south divide.

I think you know the gap is huge. Having live in london for about 8 yrs on an off the difference between the london economy and that of the rest of the uk is like night and day. As such it would take major political action to rectify. Lets face it none are willing to do so.

You may call my argument simplistic but it is far easier for government to move itself and all the public sector jobs than move companies that it can only influence and does not own.

By moving government and all its associated depts and quangos you would alos move the jobs of all the consultancies etc. From memory BOE was 2000 direct jobs alone.

All the expenditure of these salaried people creates more jobs in other service industries.

I am sure you will be aware that papers like the evening standard used to openly campaign and support the tories governments london first economic strategy. The idea that the uk needed a strong london and hence decisions should be taken in londons interests first before the rest of the country.

With regards to private companies. It does not have to be headquarters as such. Just large back office activity.

In your own field you will know there is little reason that much back office activity could be moved northwards. Some has happened. But it is a trickle and the few i have seen are US companies. Why has the government not really pushed this hard when companies complain of skills shortages.
120

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 15:46:19
145 Fairfax# & 144 Duncan#

Duncan, as lame an attempt as it gets and well you know it. Try Deutchbank or Credit Suisse or ANY MULTI-NATIONAL non-Scottish company?

You can't but an embarassing try neverthless. Nice, clear display by a unionists that Scotland has virtually nothing; but hey we are all in the union so you don't mind i guess.


Fairfax#

You might not rely on it too much but i can tell you from personal experience that almost 600 companies have set up in Latvia..almost all of which are multi-nationals...so i actually would rely on it.





121

Alan B,

02/10/2008 15:47:12
#Nevsky

I am not for the union at all. I am completely for independence. Where have you ever seen me defend the union.

All i was doing on this thread was discussion monetary policy and why sterling is bad for Scotland and the lack of political will within the union for changing that.
122

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 15:51:49
148#

Sorry was meant for Duncan of course.
123

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 15:52:56
#146 Well I must admit my experience of life in London has been only as a very occasional visitor, so I cannot comment with your experience.

But I know that the wealth that London generates is spent all over the UK. So I am not concerned that we have put so many of our eggs in this one basket, and I am comfortable that between government relocation policies and the market looking for cheaper property/workforce thereby driving private company relocation, things are not dangerously skewed.

Can I clarify one thing though - you suggest a different interest rate regime is needed outwith the south east - is that not an argument for an independent rest-of-UK-outside-London? Surely an independent Scotland wouldn't really help the bulk of the problem. Would you argue for an independent North East England, North West England, etc.?
124

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 15:54:45
#147 I didn't write #144!
125

Alan B,

02/10/2008 15:56:27
#Fairfax

While you believe that London gets all that investment due to it being London, many up here believe it is a consequence of government decision taking. Particularly during the 17yrs of tory rule.

During that time they were quite open about wanting to attract headoffice to london and regional assembly plants to the north. As you will know the evening standard in its yellow pages used to (been a while) go on about how the tory london first policy was the correct one.

Quite simply if you were to move the government lock, stock and barrel out of london to manchester it would be manchester that would have developed into the centre of economic activity. Companies go where the power base is. Companies develop where the aggregate demand is high.

Even in monetary policy. It is set to control inflation. If it was set for all the country and not the south and the government were to control excessive demand that cause inflation by implementing a london tax say additonal 5 income tax if need be. Then you would see the north grow as interest rates do not suffocate growth. If london has an inflationary problem the rest of the uk should not have to suffer.
126

Mcsnagpile,

02/10/2008 16:01:51
Ye cannae win hid tae hiv ma hoose foundations underpinned due to the gold under the bed, tripped ower the blunderbus an shot the dug. HBOS wusnae sae bad after all.
127

Fairfax,

02/10/2008 16:08:21
Alan B (152): "Quite simply if you were to move the government lock, stock and barrel out of london to manchester it would be manchester that would have developed into the centre of economic activity. Companies go where the power base is."

Being the seat of government is neither necessary nor sufficient for attracting economic wealth. One obvious counterexample is New York, but you might also consider Canberra, in Australia, or Berlin in Germany.
128

Alan B,

02/10/2008 16:08:45
#150 Duncan in Edinburgh

"the wealth that London generates is spent all over the UK"

It is not about where the wealth is spent. It is the jobs and the quality of these jobs. You can walk into high paying jobs in london being pretty clueless about the job you are taking on (yes you have underlying ability). But you will easily get trained or get exposure to stuff that will make you skilled. That simply does not happen in the rest of the uk.

You are correct interest rates for the rest of the uk are too high (generally) becuase of the inflationary pressures of london and the south east. Yes you are correct that NewCastle etc could do with a currency that has a monetary policy that suits it better.

As you will know. If inflation is low interest rates are lowered. That speeds up growth. Interest rates are like the tap to turn growth on and off to control inflation. Although monetarists would see as targetting the growth in the money supply.

My argument here is not independence per se but that the euro would be better for Scotland. Although i would like an independent economic assessment.

However if the uk was to stay together and use sterling the issue is how to deal with the north south divide. So newcastle, manchester, liverpool etc do not suffer lower economic growth and hence standards of living and jobs.

I therefore do think that while the euro would be very difficult for the south east as they need higher interest rates to control inflation, that it would be better for the rest of England and Wales. Political acceptability is another thing.
129

Alan B,

02/10/2008 16:12:20
#Fairfax

Australia, Germany and the US are all federal countries.

I did say above in one of my post that i would would federalise england for better economic management so that it is not as centralised and london based.

The seat of power is what help attract wealth. As does the fact that decisions are made by the centre of power that suit and are advantageous to the centre of power.
130

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 16:15:35
#155 Good points, thanks. My one observation would be that most countries our (UK) size have a similar issue with one or two economic centres with disproportionate effects on economic indicators and pressures on monetary policy. Is it really solved by subdivision of countries? Is it not simply a necessary evil of capitalism?
131

Alan B,

02/10/2008 16:20:42
#Duncan in Edinburgh

I am a capitalist so am not slagging capitalism.

Many countries like Australia, Germany, Belgium are federal. Having decentralise power and goverment tend to give a better spread of wealth. France is much more similar to the uk in that Paris is the centre of everything. Compare paris and its uk like pre devolution centralisation to other French cities.

Spain while being poor also is more federal and as such has strong comercial bases in Barcelona and Madrid. Even Valencia looks like it is a commcercial base. Barcelona and Valencia are not exactly big.
132

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 16:30:02
#158 Belgium's federal nature does not tend to give a better spread of wealth in that country - Brussels is in fact a classic example of a single economic powerhouse in a country generating similar problems to London for the UK and Paris for France - and similar benefits more importantly!

My argument remains that were Scotland to declare independence, all the investment we have all made in London as the UK's economic centre would be handed over to the rest of the UK. In order to make such a significant sacrifice, the tangible benefit to accrue from independence would have to be very great. I just don't see this comparison stacking up.

The problem is that the independence issue is polluted by emotional arguments which stop these rational ones from being properly discussed. As, I would predict, this post will generate responses from certain quarters of an emotional nature. It's a shame.
133

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 16:49:41
159 Duncan#

They are not emotional arguments, they were in the past but to state that today is just nonsense.

You have to look at what will be invested here and the kick-start it gives to the economy.

Yes the division of government bodies and the actual instigation of new government departments in Scotland is a huge administrative process but nothing more than that.

There are also other question to be resolved, central bank, euro, gradualist approach to division of the UK etc etc etc, no nationalist is unaware of what would need to be done.

From my own experience all new countries get a massive injection following independence so you should not write off the benefits of this.

Even the simplest such as the establishment of Embassies in Scotland would bring a lot of jobs.

Companies take a little longer to establish but they do, Nokia, Coke whatever you care to name would almost all have to establish a base in Scotland, never mind what can be attracted in lowering corporation tax.

I suggest you do some thinking with regard to this and the implications for the Scottish economy and not to place Scotland in a federalist context!
134

Duncan in Edinburgh,

02/10/2008 16:57:09
#161 Nevsky I quite agree that the argument you lay out here is not an emotional one. Difficult though it may be to believe, I wasn't having a go at you. :-) There are, however, many, many supporters of independence who trot out emotional, sometimes xenophobic, often historically dubious and almost always personally insulting arguments on these boards.

I take your point about one effect of independence being the boost from initial inward investment. I don't think it's a particularly strong argument, that's all.
135

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 16:59:57
sm 753#

Templeton Franklin:

Franklin Templeton Investment Management Limited, is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Registered in England and Wales. Registered office : The Adelphi, 1-11 John Adam Street, London, WC2N 6HT
136

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 17:07:35
162 Duncan#

Well i am not sure what it takes to convince unionists. Most countries have their independence with little or no infrastructure or natural resources such as the Baltic states.

Scotland is not in that position and really i think unionists are resorting to emotional aruments a lot of the time, there is little behind the scrutiny other than you believe Scotland is safer in the UK..that, in a simplistic terms seems to be the argument.

I don't believe that Scotland woud make a ba**s of it, neither do i beleve we would be poverty stricken, neither do i believe that we would lose anything in not being part of the UK.

There are lots of precisdents of European countries taking their independence in the past 15 years, none have failed and the people of these countries would never ever give away their power again.

Scotland should be no different. I believe we can make better decisions in Scotland for Scotland, i do not believe that the countries interests have or ever will be best served by Westminster..

spakoyne noche..
137

Fairfax,

02/10/2008 17:10:34
Duncan (159): "My argument remains that were Scotland to declare independence, all the investment we have all made in London as the UK's economic centre would be handed over to the rest of the UK."

I see little reason for England to abjure free trade following Scottish secession, unless separation is very bitter. Why then would this imply the investment is lost? Scottish companies will presumably continue to trade and maintain offices in London.
138

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 17:11:26
160 sm753#

All the companies you quote have their HQs in London..here is the next one, at least make an effort sm:

BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited is a company registered in England, No. 2020394. Registered Office: 33 King William Street, London EC4R 9AS
139

Rami,

Derry NH U.S. 02/10/2008 17:12:50
Hardt fore me to believe the Irish Bank is too bail out
some of U.K. Brit Banks. Will the wonders never cease!
I mean the English will become financially indeted to the "Wee People":-)
140

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 17:13:59
165 Fairfax#

Of course, just as many English companies would have to set up offices in Scotland, not all but quite a few i am guessing. Most of your oil engineering, drilling, development and producing companies for a start would have no reason to remain and Scotland could give them a wee incentive to move!

141

Fairfax,

02/10/2008 18:27:06
Rami (167): "Hardt fore me to believe the Irish Bank is too bail out some of U.K. Brit Banks."

It's good that it's hard for you to believe, since the "Irish Bank" isn't bailing out any British banks. Instead, the Irish government has unilaterally decided to guarantee despositors' funds in 6 Irish banks, some of which trade in Britain. It has done so claiming that its banking system is near systemic failure. If it has to act on this (i.e. if all 6 Irish banks were to become bankrupt), then its national debt would immediately become roughly twice its GDP. See

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4ead5b9c-9092-11dd-8abb-0000779fd18c.html


142

santa cova,

London.... Where the Scots serfs are ruled from. 02/10/2008 18:32:13
sm. #77 Yes! It appears like most Scots you and yours were prepared to be governed from another country(England) and be "ruled over" by a monarch from another country(England)and speak the language of the other country.Not much to write home about is it?

We will always be your masters.So get used to it.
143

santa cova,

London 02/10/2008 18:35:13
#170 fairfax. Should you not be due to take your pill around this time?
144

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 18:49:11
169 sm753#

Oh dear, so you could not find ONE company with it's European HQ in Scotland and get nippy when pointed out to you that the mean offices you scoured around to find had their HQs in London but wee offices in Scotland. Never mind the truth is there isn't any, they are all in London because it is where the business is done..close to power, parliament and the decision makes (alas not Scotland)!

Your second point:

'Your point about embassies is also bunk. There are already 31 consulates, including the US, China (and Taiwan), India, Germany, France and so on.

Changing them to nominal "embassies" would hardly change much'


If you do not know the difference between a consular-general's office and an Embassy then you really have to do a little reading before you even consider posting one word, you are embarassing yourself and you clearly know nothing.
145

Duncan in Edinburgh,

Edinburgh 02/10/2008 18:49:19
#164 Nevsky, this is good, a dialogue. Let's get down to the nitty gritty.

If I can try to boil down your arguments for independence here (and please correct me if I miss something - I'm sure you will :-) they seem to be:

1. Independence is not an outlandish or unusual thing for a nation, and there is nothing about Scotland that makes that different.

- I agree, no question, Scottish independence would not be in any way dubious as an aim or an outcome.

2. Scots are perfectly capable of running the country independently.

- I wholeheartedly agree.

3. Scotland wouldn't be poverty stricken by independence.

- Again, I agree. There is no logical argument which would sustain the idea that Scotland would, solely as a result of independence, be either more wealthy or less wealthy. The policies of any Scottish government would be the deciding factor.

4. Scotland wouldn't lose anything by not being part of the UK.

- Here I disagree quite strongly. We would lose a great deal. The UK is one of the five permanent members of the UN security council. We have the fifth largest economy in the world, with trading links all over the world. We are a founding member of the EU, the G8 and of NATO. We have more than 80 military installations around the globe to protect our national interests, and have one of only 3 expeditionary navies in the world, as well as being a nuclear power. We are also the world's second biggest contributor to scientific research.

All of that would be lost, and much more, to an independent Scotland.

5. Recently independent states in Europe have all been successful.

- This is entirely true, but it is a very specific statement and for me it neither enhances nor detracts from the nationalist position. Some Russian secession states have become fiefdoms for nationalist dictators, and some have had regions breaking away to rejoin Russia, and equally I would not suggest that this bodes ill for Scotland. Scotland's case should be judged
146

Duncan in Edinburgh,

Edinburgh 02/10/2008 18:49:46
[cont'd]
on its own merits, not compared with other nations in different circumstances.

6. We can make better decisions in Scotland for Scotland.

- I believe we make all of the decisions for Scotland in Scotland already. That is because I believe that Westminster governs for the whole UK. But I consider the fact that we elect those who rule us to mean that we have full control over decision making, to the extent that a representative democracy allows.

The counter-argument, to me, is simply one of subdividing and subdividing until we end up with autonomous city states, or even smaller divisions. The question of where one draws the line is a reasonable one to debate, but I consider it a perfectly reasonable opinion to think that the UK level is the right place to draw the national line.

7. The UK government does not serve Scotland's interests.

I think this is largely untrue. I think that impression has been partially created by - yes - the SNP in their picking of fights since last year. But I also think that the impression comes from the awkwardness of the devolution settlement, and the fact that it has not settled in at all in the minds of UK people outside of the devolved areas.
147

Nevsky,

Moscow 02/10/2008 19:20:57
Duncan#

Will post tomorrow, do not have time at the moment.
148

Alba Abú,

02/10/2008 22:14:02
173 I think that santa hit a nerve with you.He does make some valid points. In relation to your post at 77, it appears that you are the one who is now "mythologising the past".
149

Phil1,

Edinburgh 02/10/2008 22:33:33
Anyone who thinks Ireland can afford £300 Billion to support the banks in a run is crazy - just go and check its GDP! But great spin by the politicians - its lucky we are all part of the EU or you might get to think the Irish are trying to take advantage of worries in UK Banking system,

Maybe we ought to ban all trade and movement of people goods and money to or from Ireland involving any UK Bank or airspace - maybe they'd complain we are all part of the EU and such actions are anti competitive and against EU rules.

If the EU is of any use then they should take action over this Irish decision.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.