Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


UK taxpayers get burned for £1bn in land of fire and ice

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

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: 10 October 2008
HUNDREDS of building projects across Scotland could be under threat after eight councils were dragged into the financial turmoil caused by the collapse of the Icelandic banking system.
About £1 billion of UK taxpayers' money held in Icelandic banks including Lansbanki, Heritable and Glitnir, for almost 100 British authorities, could be lost, including £45.5 million for Scottish councils.

The UK government has refused to produce a bail-out package for any councils, meaning they risk losing money.

Instead, Westminster has started freezing Icelandic assets in Britain and has threatened to take legal action against the country's government.

The Icelandic prime minister, Geir Haarde, was shocked when he realised Britain had used anti-terror laws against one of his banks. The laws give powers to freeze foreign assets.

But Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, last night described the behaviour of the Icelandic government following the bank collapses as "totally unacceptable".

The crisis comes at a time when Scottish councils are already feeling the pinch, with Aberdeen alone having to cut £70 million from its budget and high-profile cuts to services in Glasgow, Fife and Edinburgh.

The worst-hit in Scotland is North Ayrshire with £15 million; followed by Scottish Borders (£10 million); South Lanarkshire (£7.5 million); South Ayrshire (£5 million); East Ayrshire (between £3 million and £5 million); Moray (£2 million); and Perth and Kinross (£1 million).

A £120 million new schools project for an eighth Scottish council, Aberdeen, is also under threat because it was being financed by an Icelandic bank.

The money is thought to have been cash held as reserves and for projects such as road repairs, leisure facilities and new schools.

But the problems in Scotland have been dwarfed by the exposure faced by some councils and police authorities in England. Kent County Council had £50 million in Icelandic banks, Nottingham £40 million, Transport for London £40 million and the Metropolitan Police service £30 million.

The turmoil came after the Icelandic government stopped trading in three banks because share prices had collapsed, and froze their accounts to stop them going out of business.

The country, which has a population of just 320,000, has had a burgeoning banking sector, allegedly partly fuelled by money laundered from the Russian economy. But it has been in no position to withstand the crisis that has gripped the banking sector across the world.

There was confusion last night over who Scottish councils should turn to.

The Scottish Government has responsibility for local government finance north of the Border, but insisted help should come from the Treasury.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "Finance secretary John Swinney wrote to the Chancellor this morning to seek specific reassurance from the UK government that all deposits by local authorities in all banks, both in the UK and elsewhere, are afforded the same protection as safeguards the UK government put in place yesterday (for individual savers]."

The SNP's Westminster finance spokesman, Angus Robertson, said: "The Prime Minister and the Chancellor must accept that local authority investments must also be protected in addition to individual savers."

The Conservatives blamed the government for advising authorities to invest in Iceland.

A joint statement from the government and the Local Government Association, which covers councils in England and Wales, accepted local authorities had not acted recklessly.

The government would look at every claim from councils on a "case by case" basis, but there were no promises made that the money would be repaid, the statement said.

A source close to the Scottish Secretary said a meeting should take place between Cosla and the Scottish Government to see what help could be given to local authorities.

IN NUMBERS

INVESTMENTS IN ICELAND
SCOTTISH COUNCILS:


North Ayrshire £15m
Borders £10m
South Lanarkshire £7.5m
South Ayrshire £5m
East Ayrshire £3-5m
Moray £2m
Perth & Kinross £1m
TOTAL £45.5m

TOP ENGLISH AND WELSH COUNCILS:

Kent £50m
Nottingham £42m
Haringey £37m
Norfolk £32.5m
Dorset £28.1m
TOTAL £742m

OTHER BODIES:

Police Association £96m
Transport for London £40m
John Moores University and St Helens College £7.5m

GRAND TOTAL £930 million

Bank's collapse hits schools plan
ONE of Scotland's most ambitious school building schemes was thrown into chaos yesterday after it was revealed the £120 million project is being fully funded by a collapsed Icelandic bank.

Aberdeen City Council, already facing budget cuts of £50 million, signed a deal last December with a consortium of Icelandic, Danish and British companies to spearhead a huge schools regeneration scheme.

It was confirmed yesterday that the consortium behind the private public partnership scheme had signed a deal with Landsbanki – nationalised by Iceland's government this week.

SNP case for independence dealt double blow as 'arc of prosperity' falters
IF THE fate of Iceland has not been enough to have Alex Salmond crying in his curry, you have to admire the First Minister's strength of character.

The news from Iceland has been a catastrophe for those who believe in an independent Scotland as a serious viable entity. For starters, there is the situation with Scottish councils, which have more than £35 million tied up in Iceland's now frozen banks. Mr Salmond's immediate reaction was to demand Westminster bails them out – hardly a Scottish solution to a Scottish problem.

The Scottish Government argues financial regulation is a reserved matter so it can ask Westminster to take action.

However, local government finance is fully devolved, so there is also a strong case that the Scottish Government should be riding to the rescue.

The second blow is that Iceland was part of what the SNP called the "arc of prosperity" on which Scotland should be modelled.

Supporters of the Union point out that the events of the past few weeks have revealed small countries are in no position to withstand global financial disasters.

The question many are asking is: could Scotland have saved its banks where Iceland failed without outside help? The answer for the vast majority is no.




The full article contains 1002 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 October 2008 11:40 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Credit Crunch
 
1

danbob,

10/10/2008 00:06:31
The second blow is that Iceland was part of what the SNP called the "arc of prosperity" on which Scotland should be modelled.

OH dear, Oh dear, Oh dear.

2

Royster,

10/10/2008 00:09:46
So what are the economic arguments now for independence?
3

Fifi la Bonbon,

10/10/2008 00:09:51
"Supporters of the Union point out that the events of the past few weeks have revealed small countries are in no position to withstand global financial disasters."

Now, now, that's not fair. Sure, isn't Alex Salmond about to fly off to Qatar with a big suitcase?
4

danbob,

10/10/2008 00:11:37
2# Dont worry Guga ll will dream some up by morning.
5

jerrymanders,

10/10/2008 00:12:11
#2

Iceland is in meltdown?
6

Fifi la Bonbon,

10/10/2008 00:13:50
Mind you, the reporters make a good point when they say that local government finance is fully devolved, so there is a strong case that the Scottish Government should be riding to the rescue of the councils which put reserves into Icelandic banks. Has Mr Salmond or Mr Swinney set out their plans to do this yet? We should be told.
7

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 00:28:20
Independence is now further away than ever.

Poor Salmond. He was building up to a head of steam in 2010 and now this happens.

He never mentions the Celtic Lion anymore. Why is that?

He never mentions the Arc of Prosperity anymore. Why is that?

His 2 biggest employers are now being partly nationalised by the UK. All thats left in Scotland are public service workers.

Oil is headed to $50 a barrel.

Anybody that advocates independence during these times needs to see a shrink.
8

Royster,

10/10/2008 00:28:49
To be honest, I cannot blame the councils. They had to put their money somewhere and as long as it was spread around amongst many banks and on deposit in sterling - as opposed to some fancy derivative - it's not so much of a problem.
9

SkeptikScot,

10/10/2008 00:37:11
Scotland has only lost £45.5m. Proportionally much less than England - hurrey, hurrey - good news!! Not. God I'm so depressed, everyday is more grim than the next. Can someone please say something cheerful before I top myself?


10

craigy,

10/10/2008 00:55:57
You Unionists are pathetic. Citing the current financial difficulties of one small independent country to somehow try to justify the continued existence of the defunked Union, is that the best you can do?
These turbulent times will pass, Iceland will recover as will the ROI. Will the UK? It is already forecast to be £90 billion in deficit next year?
No doubt oil revenues will go a long to help. Even at $85 a barrel they are still 4 times higher than in 2003 and almost 10 times higher than they were 10 years ago, when at $9 a barrel they still provided billions to the UK treasury. But, as any self respecting Scot (which you lot are obviously not) will know, our country, Scotland that is, has more in the pot than just oil and gas. So stick yer dire predictions of the fall of Iceland, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg and the rest where the sun dont shine. Those that currently stumble will rise again, its in the nature of their independent spirit not to fail. Unlike you pathetic dependency lapdogs of the Union, who bask in the glory of others misfortune because you think it will hinder the road to dignity and independence for Scotland....dream on.
11

,

10/10/2008 00:58:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

,

10/10/2008 00:59:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 10/10/2008 01:02:46
This crisis has absolutley nothing to do with the size of the country. It has everything to do with countries (whatever their size) who have allowed themselves to be deluded that the financial sector including banks add to wealth and provide prosperity.

Iceland had a banking sector that was a house of cards built on easy credit, way out of proportion to the size of its population that of Aberdeen. I don't believe The nordic countries deregulated and a housing boom and credit surge in the 1990s and learned their lesson. It is a pity that the USA and the UK did not heed the nordic lesson. The prsent crisis began in the USA but the UK under Brown's stewardship alloed the same excesses to occur. Hence the vast somes of taxpayers money now being risked on trying to resolve the situation.

The Unionists have argued that this puts a stop to the notion of Scottish independence. I'm afraid to say but the crisis has happened while Scotland is part of the UK. We will see how Iceland fares over the coming years but I can bet my last Icelandic Krona that they will not be going cap in hand to Copenhagen to take them back.
14

Mashimaro,

China 10/10/2008 01:04:51
Never mind, China will lend you money
15

Guga II,

Rockall 10/10/2008 01:08:02
As everyone might have guessed, David MadDog cannot help himself in trying to put the boot into the SNP with his latest New Labour press release.

Comparing Scotland with Iceland (with a population similar to that of Edinburgh)is like comparing apples with goldfish. Iceland does not have the economic or tax base of Scotland. When we are independent, we will have all the monies that are currently stolen from us by the English government to subsidise England. That includes all our oil revenues.

As for his comment that "Supporters of the Union point out that the events of the past few weeks have revealed small countries are in no position to withstand global financial disasters." He omits to mention that these global financial disasters have been caused, in the first place, by the profligacy and debt based economies of large countries, like the Septics and the Sasunnachs.

There are many small countries that do not have financial problems. Then again, they are not being dragged down into the mire by their colonial masters.

As for David MadDog. If he is Scottish, his attitude of trying to undermine Scotland and the Scottish people is a total disgrace. Perhaps he too is a son of the manse, like Vidkun Quisling.



16

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 10/10/2008 01:13:13
I seem to have lost bits out of my earlier post. What I intended to write was that I don't believe Finland with a population similar to Scotland is undergoing the crisis we are having here. Indeed all the nordic countries experienced a banking crisis in the 1990s when they deregualted and went on a housing boom and credit spree. . they turned things round and learned their lesson. It is a pity that the USA and the UK did not heed the nordic lesson. The present crisis began in the USA but the UK under Brown's stewardship allowed the same excesses to occur. Hence the vast sums of taxpayers money now being risked on trying to resolve the situation.

I think that makes more sense!
17

Royster,

10/10/2008 01:23:03
It's was Alex Salmond that held up Iceland as the shining example of how a small country should be run. This crisis has shown him to be very wide of the mark. Gordon Brown, on the other hand, has come out of this very well - and I'm not a Labour supporter.
18

Guga II,

Rockall 10/10/2008 01:27:04
#17 Royster.

You may not be a Labour supporter, but you are a well know Unionist.

Maggie Broon, if he had been doing his job properly, would not have allowed this situation to arise in the first place.
19

Richardinho,

10/10/2008 02:21:21
Before the unionists get too smug, maybe they should wait and see if Britain is 'big enough' to withstand this crisis.
20

Richardinho,

10/10/2008 02:24:23
And I have to say, how these events can make anyone proud to be 'British' is anyone's guess.
21

craigy,

10/10/2008 02:28:14
Alex Salmond held many countries up as an example of good governance Iceland was but one. The UK is as guilty as Iceland for allowing the banking sector to get away with dodgy deals. Iceland is not bust and the the UK is far from out of the woods, so wipe the cheesy smirk from your face unionists.
Scotland has more than financial institutions to sustain her economy.

Cringeometer
posts 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 17, 18 and 19

OFF THE SCALE

22

Hairy1,

New Zealand 10/10/2008 02:30:42
Congratulations!!
I assume your anti-terrorism laws are the same as ours (NZ).
You are not allowed to deal with any company or individual who is associated with a known terrorist organisation (as declared by the PM).
You are NO LONGER allowed TO PAY RATES to your council, it has obviously been funding a known terrorist group!!
If a council representative calls at your house, call the police - it is your duty as 'law-abiding' citizens.
Seriously, how can you any person (particularly the PM) implement only half the law that suites them, alowing a country to sort its own affairs is supposed to be the name of the game, the UK would expect nothing less from the USA - so what gives??
23

A Friend of Fernando Poo,

10/10/2008 03:20:11
I'm sick of the mewling of SNP politicians to England.

They can't run our economy and they expect us to sympathise with "leaders" who think whining is some kind of policy action.

Have they no pride?
24

Guga II,

Rockall 10/10/2008 03:52:31
#26 bring them on/Rufus/ etc.

What's with your fixation on the Norwegians?
25

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 10/10/2008 04:00:46
If Scotland had been allowed to bank it's oil prosperity for all those years and act like a free and sovereign nation - in control of our own finances and destiny - there would be ample cash in the Scottish treasury to cushion any blow thrown our way.
Much of this "nationalization" (not unlike the German reparations after WWI) is a blatant and cynical attempt by Brown to pull the Westminster noose even tighter around Scotland's neck.
All in the name of self preservation for the immoral and corrupt Liebore party.
Sickening to put it mildly.
26

Royster,

10/10/2008 04:06:25
Lets close Holyrood now and have a referendum on independence.
27

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 10/10/2008 04:23:00
"a burgeoning banking sector" of thieves and pirates
28

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 10/10/2008 05:28:16
#24 Hairy

I think the fact that the Icelandic Banks transferred millions out of London hours before they declared insolvency gives the PM every right to apply whatever laws are appropriate.
29

Ugly George,

10/10/2008 05:33:01
28 Neil Waugh
"Much of this "nationalization" (not unlike the German reparations after WWI) is a blatant and cynical attempt by Brown to pull the Westminster noose even tighter around Scotland's neck."

Here we go again. Another claim of some anti-Scottish conspiracy
30

Rob,

10/10/2008 05:56:53
This all looks pretty familiar. The SNP's heroic freezing of Council Tax illustrates and confirms their control of local authorities - until it all goes wrong that is. Just guess who is asked to stump up - suddenly we all become British again when it looks like the hand may need to reach for the pocket. As usual, it's everyone's fault but ours.



31

Mashimaro,

China 10/10/2008 05:58:03
Don't worry lah. China lend you money. China buy loads and loads of pesky no good US dollah to help Uncle Sam. Can do same for pound.
32

Royster,

10/10/2008 06:45:11
So there are no economic arguments for Scottish independence. Well, that's sorted then.
33

Jim A,

10/10/2008 06:53:12
#35 Mashimaro, don't gloat yet lah, the Hong Kong market was trying to sell like crazy when it opened this morning and nobody was buying. This $h1t is going to affect everyone mate.
34

Richardinho,

10/10/2008 07:12:52
At the moment, the only apparent 'benefit' of being a large country is being able to afford a massive bailout-this week. If Britain's and the USA's big money gambles fail, it's hard to see what their next move could possibly be.

The economic issues are too confusing to be able to say at this point 'oh, we'd have been worse/better off if we were independent.'
35

zorba,

airdrie 10/10/2008 07:16:44
I did not know Iceland had banks, i thought they only had food retail shops and it deserves people right for investing in frozen food, fresh food is best.
36

JoeMiddleton,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 07:18:53
Since unionists are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of Scottish councils losing money it shows their godawful 'who are losers like us' mindset.

Scotland is as capable as any country of ruling our own affairs and no matter what self hating nonsense you guys spout that will remain the facts global crisis or no global crisis.
37

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 07:31:07
BTO, i have some bad news. looks like the Norwegian Banks are now caught up in the Credit Crunch.

They are looking to the USA to borrow emergency cash.

I think they are Fjord of whats going to happen to their economy.
38

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 07:36:41
Looks like Alex Salmond needs to find a new Arc of Prosperity for an Independent Scotland to aim for.

What about, Palestine, Afghanistan and Sudan?
39

Richardinho,

10/10/2008 07:40:21
#42 Maybe we could choose Britain-er..
40

Richardinho,

10/10/2008 07:50:10
It's a bit early to judge which country will have turned out to have dealt best with the current economic problems.
Regarding Iceland-it's banks may go bankrupt, but I expect the country to pull through.They've always got fishing-and who's going to repossess your house in Iceland-what use is a house to a bank when there's no one else to sell it to!
41

Royster,

10/10/2008 07:52:51
Good job most Scots didn't get on Alex Salmond's boat to the promised land.
42

Dave,

Western Isles 10/10/2008 07:53:31
The Western Isles council lost millions some years ago with the collapse of the BCCI bank (y'all remember that?).

They paid the final installment of the loan they took out couple years ago. This is fairly bad news and this is beyond anything to do with economic arguments for independence.
43

Brodric,

10/10/2008 08:00:28
If the credit crunch hadn't happened, Iceland could have been called a model.

Lets not snipe around at everyone looking for someone to blame and expecting individuals to have had second sight. This is an unusual, unexpected and unprecedented global situation.

Not Alex Salmond, not the Councils, not even the Banks could foresee this.

Independence is not on the agenda right now because it is not important in the face of the crisis dominating us. Party politics should be dropped and politicians come together to solve this problem for the people who they represent (or would want to represent) US, the citizens of this country.
44

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:04:27
45 ricardinho
But Iceland has to trade with other countries for its manufactured goods. How is it going to pay for these?
45

Unimpressed one,

10/10/2008 08:06:45
"Scotland sits at the heart of one of the wealthiest parts of our planet. In Ireland, to our West; in Iceland, to our North; and in Norway, to our East, we see an arc of prosperity, with these nations sitting at the very top of world quality of life and wealth league tables. I don't say today that Scotland can be instantly transformed into an economic powerhouse but I do say that if we are to look objectively around us we can learn many lessons about how to make Scotland more successful."

Salmond might have to eat these words with his curry.
46

John S,

10/10/2008 08:06:55
Well done Dr Gordon Brown you showed Iceland (pop 301,931) you mean business.
47

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 08:11:21
BTO I am off to research the Hybrid Danish Model. Will come back to you.
48

Dave,

Western Isles 10/10/2008 08:17:50
C'mon now. I don't think anybody really saw this collapse coming. Not even Rulesbunotrulers who is some kind of economics specialist.

Nope, this took everybody, even Gordon "The Best Chancellor the UK has Ever Had" Brown by surprise. He never this one coming (otherwise he wouldn't have sold all our gold for a knock down price which has left him no option other than to print money for the bail out).
49

Cauchy Riemann,

Wales 10/10/2008 08:36:19
What on earth has Scottish independence to do with Iceland? Iceland has collapsed not because of it being a smaller nation, but because of its debt based economy. I have an article from 2006 (the link is no longer valid since it is an old article) talking about just how much debt Iceland was facing.

Neither is size any guarantee. Mark my words. The Euro is going to be in trouble. Top economists warned Euro politicians that the Euro might not survive a crisis - because the one hat fits all model works badly with disparate economies.

I can't believe how thick politicians are. Only a little bit ago the German finance minister proclaimed the financial upheaval as an 'American problem'. How thick can you get - doesn't he realise how banks work and how much exposure European banks have? 48 hours later he was backtracking as a German bank was bailed.

The UK is also out of control when it comes to debt - but no where near as bad as Iceland. The only good bit about the UK is we are not in the Euro.

Prediction:
The next few months see the Euro in trouble. It might not even survive.
50

Boy Wonder,

10/10/2008 08:39:09
It seems it wasn't just Mums who went to Iceland! That Kerry Katona has screwed them as well!!!
51

John S,

10/10/2008 08:43:07
We have to congratulate the Labour Government who had the foresight to pass the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, which was passed after the September 11 attacks the same year.
The British government even distorted anti-terror legislation to freeze Icelandic bank assets here.
The unprecedented move–criticised by legal experts as a distortion of the law’s intent–was used to protect the deposits of British account holders.
Does this mean that Iceland is now a terrorist state ?
I am glad we have Dr Gordon Brown as our PM looking after the interests of UK.co
52

overshot,

perth 10/10/2008 08:43:43
FREEDOM. NOW, WHY WAIT WE ARE BRING DRAGGED DOWN THE DRAIN, AT THE VERY LEAST LETS GO DOWN BY OUR OWN HAND. DITHER DITHER, WE ARE LOSING THE CHANCE OF SEVERAL LIFTIMES, ECK GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR AR SE AND MAKE THE MOVE WE SUPPORTED YOU FOR, NOW, OR ARE WE DREAMING WITH A 21st CENTURY BRAVEHEART. YOU WILL NEVER GET ABETTER CHANCE. UDI UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. IF YOU HAVE THE BA LLS, APPARENTRLY NO.
53

Wiliam Y,

Kinross 10/10/2008 08:49:28
According to the news it was John Prescott's financial advice that caused councils to bank in Iceland. Alex Salmond used Iceland as an economic model....the model has collapsed and its all very well being wise retrospectively. Many other respected finance people did use Iceland's economic prosperity as a selling tool.

Collectively, it could be argued that the actions of the UK councils dont seem to have spread the risk especially given the model of prudancy given by G Brown. Could there not have been a job created to organise, coordinate and report the UK's council investment in Iceland. Again this is being wise retrospectively but perhaps we can learn from this.
54

Linda,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:59:58
Scotland has always been more like Norway's mixed economy than either Ireland or Iceland in terms of population, social democracy and natural resources such as Oil Gas and Fish.

Is the UK economic collapse a huge argument against remaining independent and joined up to a Federal Europe??
55

Linda,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 09:02:47
The postings above insulting Alex Salmond should have listened to Bill Jamieson of Scotsman (and no nationalist) say on STVs Politics Now he rated Salmond 8 out of 10 for the way he has handled the proposed HBOS take over and handling of the economic crisis.

He was not asked to rate Brown and Darling whose lax controls caused much of the current banking problems.
56

Alan B,

10/10/2008 09:18:57
#Royster

"Gordon Brown, on the other hand, has come out of this very well"

Gordon Brown has run the country into the ground, with dreadful economic management of the economy. How does that constitute coming out of this well.

It was Gordon Brown that ran up huge public sector debts in the good times meaning that we are in a mess when things turn sour.

It was Gordon Brown that failed to control house price inflation leading to huge personal debts and the lowest savings ratios for decades.

It was this huge uncontrolled mortgage debt that meant financial institutions turned to so readily to the credit markets to finance these mortages, that has lead to much of the mess today.

It was Gordon Brown that brought in a new regulatory framework for the financial institutions that has failed so dramatically. He is now talking about their irresponsible lending. The irony being it was his framework that encouraged and allowed that lending.

So for Brown coming out this well. Only if you are blind and stupid.
57

Alan B,

10/10/2008 09:25:25
Browns incompetent regulation of government finances has come to the fore again with the news that councils and other government bodies have been burnt by investing in Iceland banks.

Everyone knew over a year ago the Icelandic banks were in trouble due to investing too much in buying sub prime american mortgage debt. There were even documentaries last year about it.

The unionist outpourings about Scotland not being able to cope as an independent country becuase of difficulties with countries like Iceland defied logic. So if a small country suffers through taking on risky debt and large countries are not model see the US and the mess we in the UK are in. What is the solution? The fact is small countries can make and mess of their management just like large countries. But if you look overall small countries tend to be better managed and do better.

that is why

Luxembourg, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Iceland, Netherlands,Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland , Belgium

are all richer gpd per capita ppp than the uk, france, italy and germany the big european countries.
58

Marian,

10/10/2008 09:35:30
I watched Gordon Brown's appalling megaphone diplomacy diatribe against our fellow European NATO member Iceland on TV news last night. Using anti-terror legislation and making illegal threats against this small nation shows what a bully he really is. The proper legal course of action would have been for the UK government to enter into diplomatic dialogue with the Iceland government to liquadate the Icelandic banks very substantial assets in order to re-imburse all UK deposit holders in full. UK voters should note that Icelanders have very long memories and will find it very hard to forgive the UK for the way they have been bullied and threatened by Gordon Brown.
59

Alan B,

10/10/2008 09:52:48
#sm753

"Was doing OK (partly because of the inheritance from Ken Clarke) until recently."

Yes he inherited a good economy. But made a mess of it. He was actually good for the first few years. Made and excellent decision making the BOE independent. But since then he has allowed massive houre price inflation, massive personal debts, massive public sector debts. That is not good. All that happened with Brown is he build an economy on sand forgetting about securing the foundations. And now the whole thing has crumbled like a pack of cards.

Off course the headline figures may look good if you growth the economy through massive debt. But at some point that was always going to have to be paid for. The art of good economic management is ensuring that you are prepared for the inevitable cycle of global economic growth.

"But the peepul, bless'em, voted for those huge public sector "investments". More nurses paid more, etc."

True but Brown was telling us he was doing it prudently. He did not come out and saying i am going to take a big risk so that i can throw money at public servies. Anyone with a clue about economics knew this was going to end in tears. That he kept lying about prudence is unforgivable.

re House price inflation: "What could he have done about it? He didn't buy all those houses, take out the loans and run up the debts. We did."

It is the government job to manange inflation. (that may mean setting targets and having an independent bank who allow professional to meet these targets). Always has been. Do you understand the basic of government economic management of the economy?

As to what i would have done.
1)ensure must stricker lending criteria, debt to income ratios. Some of the mortages people got for their income where completely barking.
2)regulated to ensure banks had more of a reliance on deposits for lending. That would mean that the growth of credit would have been lower.
3)tried to improve the supply side
4)had strickter r
60

Alan B,

10/10/2008 09:53:14
cont...

4)had strickter regulations over buy to let. although the buy to let would not have taken off it house price inflation had been controlled.
5)fine tuned control of house price inflation using interest rates and not removed BOE from target house price inflatin and only cpi (consumer inflation).

I am not putting the Global crisis down to Brown. The US is largely responsible for that crisis. Although Europe allowed itself to be exposed too much to the US debt. What i am saying is Brown completely mismanaged the UK economy
61

Calum10,

10/10/2008 09:53:43
The smaller EU countries are dealing with this financial crisis far better than the big EU countries.

Indeed the IMF have reported that the smaller EU countries are in far better position to deal with the coming global recession. It is the bigger EU countries who are going to get hammered.

As a result an independent Scotland is now more likely because of the pain of a UK wide recession.

Unionism has failed Scotland once more.
62

Hairy1,

New Zealand 10/10/2008 09:54:15
#32
Sorry!, I obviously missed the point.
A country/bank attempts to transfer millions out of the country - and they are now a terrorist organisation, but the rest of the terrorist rules don't apply.
But lehmen Bros transfers multi Billions out of the country and neither they or their country (USA) are terrorists?? - its so obvious! (sorry - not to me!).

The government of every country puts laws in place to protect whatever they are designed to protect - if someone breaks those laws you are now allowed to apply part of the law to whichever people you deem fit.
If the law applies - apply it - and all its consequences.


63

Mashimaro,

China 10/10/2008 09:58:56
#37 Hong Kong lah not Beijing. China economy very strong like bull. China can make US better by cutting debt now, or giving better debt deal. Hey, maybe we now own US ha ha ha ha. Chinese government no let speculation like greedy capitalists in Hong Kong. Shanghai still very strong lah. If trouble comes, Beijing just rescue, no worries.
Chinese people know value of ding kum
64

Alan B,

10/10/2008 10:00:35
#sm753

"What vintage is your data?"

Last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

The fact also is the group of small countries that have done so well in europe have grown on average each yr at 3.6% over the last decade. The UK 2.8%. Scotland a much poorer 2.2%.

So while everyone is going to struggle in this global crisis the fact remains small countries in europe have done much better than big one. You almost want the small countries to suffer so that you can keep your precious union despite the economic facts. These facts being scotland has done poorly compared to other north western european nations within the union and its does not look like changing anytime soon.

You argument is almost some small countries are struggling in this crisis. However the same goes for the big countries like US and UK. How much you are effected is not big or small but how prudent you have been. If you have too much exposure to the credit markets you are in a mess. Big or small.


What we know is Iceland, Ireland, US and UK are all in a mess. As Germany said the other day it is becuase of the irresponsible anglo saxon debt levels.


65

Alan B,

10/10/2008 10:04:00
#Calum10

"Indeed the IMF have reported that the smaller EU countries are in far better position to deal with the coming global recession. It is the bigger EU countries who are going to get hammered. "

I am abit surpised at that. As far as i can see it is not small or big that matters but how well your economy is managed and how much risk the government took or allowed in regard to the credit markets. Germany for instance is in a much better position than the UK where Brown has been completely incompetent.

However since small countries tend to be better managed than big ones as all the economic evidence suggests. Not all but in general. They probably will be in a better position to ride out the crisis.
66

Alan B,

10/10/2008 10:11:53
#78 sm753

I do not know how you can defence Brown in his approach to Iceland. He has been a disgrace.

Also notice how again labour have used anti terror laws for things nothing to do with terrorism. They continually ask for our support in bringing in laws that they say will be used carefully and sparingly becuase of the very dangerous terrorist threat we face. But then use it randomly and abuse the trust of the people showing they are a complete bunch of liars. Remember them using anti terror laws to through a labour party member pensioner out a conference for hecking.

The fact is why was all this public sector money in Icelandic banks and why did brown allow it. We all knew last yr the Icelandic banking system was going to go into meltdown due to purchasing far too much sub prime US mortage debt. Remember even documentaries on tv last year about the Icelandic problem.

The thing is brown has made another mess here. By acting like a pratt and talking tough and abusing power towards iceland he is covering up and mess that he should have avoided.
67

Voice of reason,

EDINBURGH 10/10/2008 10:12:47
So Brown is now seeking to deflect blame for the mess his Govt knew about but were too frightened to address , onto a small nation . The man is just a thug and a bully .
68

Alan B,

10/10/2008 10:16:07
#78 sm753


Why should Reykjavik help? They are a non eu country. If people/councils/uk public bodies put their money in foreign bank acounts to make a little more interest you take risks. Everyone that put money in would be well aware the Iceland banks were not signed up to the uk compensation FSA scheme.

If a body or person choses to avoid the sucurity of the FSA compensatory scheme why should we be threatening other countries to pay for it.
69

Alan B,

10/10/2008 10:20:23
#sm753

Since you obviously think Brown has done so well. What are your comments on the fact that the EU has been threatening to take action against the UK for a while due to what it puts as irresponsible public sector deficits.

If you want my advice you would be far better trying to defend the union rather than a completely and utterly discreditted chancellor. Is it becuase you think it is a completely and utterly discreditted union.
70

Ugly George,

10/10/2008 10:25:34
72 Alan B
"5)fine tuned control of house price inflation using interest rates and not removed BOE from target house price inflatin and only cpi (consumer inflation)."

How could that have been done without damaging business and industry?
71

Andra, Dundee,

10/10/2008 10:26:05
Nationalists live in cloud cukoo land!
It is time to stop paying this topic any attention and concentrate on here, now and the future in the UK.
72

C,

Glasgow 10/10/2008 10:34:35
Well done all for deflecting away from the specifics of this story. The utter morons in publicly funded bodies who clearly cannot check their own personal bank statements, but have the authority to "invest" millions on the strength of the best buy tables on Motley Fool are still picking up their unjustified salaries today and will continue to do so right up to their bloated final salary pensions.
Sack them now.
73

Alan B,

10/10/2008 10:43:02
#85 Ugly George

Control of inflation helps business and industry. Remember the rpi measure of inflation used prior to Brown did take some account of housing costs.

While many would just use interest rates to completely control inflation including asset prices like house prices. I do believe in quanititive controls like restricting credit via debt rules both on the consumer via mortage to income ratios and initial deposits etc, and controlling the amount that banks lend via ensure a higher degree of stability based on not too much exposure to the credit markets. Again some sort of ratio of debt to deposits.

I would do this so that interest rates are not pushed too high controlling house price inflation.

Also consider the situation we had with Thatcher were she had a policy called mirus. This was tax relief on mortages. Interest rates were the primary if not sole tool to control inflation. But by subsidising credit you ended up pushing up the cost of credit. As such it was a damaging policy to the wider economy.

As such the serious question we need to ask is how can we have cheap credit to busines but much stricker credit to consumers. And to what extent you control that via the cost of credit. While i do not suggest this policy you could use the tax system to increase the cost of credit to consumers if you were not willing or wanting to raise interest rates. (we take savings but not credit but we actually want to encourage it the opposite way round).

Also consider the european central bank does not like us target an inflation rate. They use stricker monetary criteria and target the growth of credit. (it is called montarism). The tories tried that but it tended to break down as they could not get the growth of credit figures to match the inflation rates. Lawson abandoned that method after the government had tried targeting M3 and then a new target of M4.
74

Rambo.the.Jambo,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 10:44:43
# 2 Royster

The economic argument for independence is that we are not a rocky outcrop inthe North Atlantic with no sustainable industry and a population of just 320,000, with an economy based solely on fishing and laundered Russian mafia money
75

Alan B,

10/10/2008 10:44:43
sorry

we tax savings but not credit but we actually want to encourage it the opposite way round
76

Mallory,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 10:49:36
Who are the financial officers at these Scottish councils who failed to take note of warnings that had been coming for many months? Their pension pots should be reduced with no golden parachutes.
77

Calum10,

10/10/2008 10:50:13
This is the coming Union Dividend for Scotland in the coming UK recession.

1. High Taxes

2. High Unemployment.

3. Huge Cuts in Public Services.

4. Huge Cuts in Pensions.

add all that on;

a. High Energy Bills

b. High Food Costs

c. High Fuel Costs

Scots are suffering and are going to continue to suffer badly under Unionism. Scots get more share of the pain, but never the gain, under Unionism.

Independence is a MUST DO if Scotland is to have any prosperous future.
78

Alan B,

10/10/2008 10:53:46
#84 sm753

What Brown did was an abuse of power.

Yes made a case to Iceland but using anti terror laws was wrong. Threatening sancations was wrong.

You seem to avoid the main issue that i raised like the use of anti terror laws. And also the fact that british consumers and british public bodies were investing money in overseas banks to get abit of a better return. We all know that involves risk. People and bodies were chosing to avoid the FSA compensation scheme. As such if Iceland banks goes bust and their compensation scheme has no funding then that is a risk you take.

I know i did not put money in an iceland bank despite far higher isa rates due to the lack of FSA compensation scheme.

Also why did Brown not warn people about Iceland and other public bodies when uk tv documentaries pointed out the fragile state of icelandic banks last year becuase of overexposure to the us sub prime markets.

It does Britains reputation no good to be seen to be such a bully. So with alienating Iceland you can be sure the scandanavian countries will not be happy. We have the Germans slagging us of for helping creating the crisis. The germans are also slagging us of for the UK refusing coordinated EU action last year. Is Brown just trying to alienate the whole of europe to cover up for his own failings.
79

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 10:58:14
According to Le Figaro, it appears that a good number of the 91 French mainland local authority departements have also had their fingers burnt investing cash reserves abroad?

I wonder how many of them had investments with Icelandic banks or, indeed, HBOS or the RBS in the City of London? No doubt, many other European countries had investments in Iceland, or the LSE.
80

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 11:02:05
88 Alan B
"Also consider the european central bank does not like us target an inflation rate. They use stricker monetary criteria and target the growth of credit"

I appreciate that but there are problems here as well. These measures did not prevent the current problems in Ireland. Two or three years ago when the Irish economy was performing well there was relatively high inflation (>5%) Ireland probably needed some monetary tightening then to cool things down and then it might not have had its current problems. However it was powerless in this respect as it had no control over interest rates and the ECB were not going to raise interest rates when German and other EU economies were not performing well.It might have been able to impose some other credit restrictions but would these have been enough to do the job?
81

Voice of reason,

EDINBURGH 10/10/2008 11:05:07
93 last sentence - yes , a few days ago he was smiling and boasting how Britain was leading the way in solving the crisis .
How does he explain the FTSE slump - blame the foreigners now ???
And what about his pensions theft in 1997 ?
As Thatcher said you cannot buck the market , how right she is being proved !!!
82

Alan B,

10/10/2008 11:09:24
#Ugly George

"These measures did not prevent the current problems in Ireland."

Ireland if anything is worse than the uk in not controlling credit.

If you want my view on the Irish economy. They did very well in the 90s. However they should not in my view have joined the euro when they did. The economy was growing at ridiculously high levels. Was up about 7/9%. While tremendous growth was never sustainabile as Ireladn transformed itself from one of the poorest countries in europe to one of the richest. As usual governments get carried away.

What ireland should have done is postpone membership of the euro until its economic growth had calmed down to normal and sustainable levels (3%ish). That would have allowed it to control interest rates to manage its economy.

While i am strongly in favour of the euro many problems were created in the late 90s with the euro as countries took political decisions and not economy. Germany was still recoverying from reunification. It was dragging countries one way when other needed to go the other.

Having said that Ireland could and should have restricted credit in the ways i have outlined for the uk and not been totally dependent on a euro rate of interest to control (house price) inflation.

83

Alan B,

10/10/2008 11:21:47
#danielrober

So you think it is ok for the uk government to ask the british people to trust them when bringing in anti terror laws and they they use them in a way that is a total abuse of power.

You say we want our money back. But if a person in the uk avoids uk banks and avoids the fsa compensation scheme in order to invest overseas they take a risk. They are taking a risk with a private sector foreign financial institution. Why should the Iceland government pay for that? Remember our own compensation scheme within the uk only last yr to our own depositors was only 2,000 pounds. So it is ok for the british government to have a compensation scheme that means you will only get £2,000 back but foreign government should stump up to pay uk citizens for failing private sector banks.

Also you hypocracy is showing. When ireland said they would guarantee the money you slagged that off. When iceland say they cannot you slag that off. Either you think government should fully compensate citizens from its own country and/or foreigners for the failure of its own banks or you do not.

Again you argued again the uk guaranteeing our deposits. But now you want iceland to. Abit of consistency would not go a miss.

Finally with regard to councils given that compensation schemes are only going to be tens of thousands of pounds then it is unlikely they can get their money back other than if a national government decides to show goodwill.

why did brown not order councils out of iceland given that uk tv programs last yr were saying iceland banks were going bust becuase of overexposure to us sub prime loans?
84

Alan B,

10/10/2008 11:23:41
#Ugly George

When i lived in Ireland for a short while years ago they had a weird approach to inflation ie it did not matter as long as they exposed themselves enough to international competition.

85

Alasdair Roy,

Newtonhill 10/10/2008 11:32:37
Regarding local authorities, we've been here before with BCCI and the Western Isles in 1991, when the Finance Director invested in excess of £15m with a dodgy Middle East institution which went belly up. The local authority was both monstered and ridiculed in the national press, the FD lost his job and his reputation, the council chairman fell on his sword and the chief executive was eased out not long afterwards.

It seems that lessons have not been learned here. Can we look forward to articles in the Scotsman highlighting the overpaid and final salary pension schemed numpties who have done it again?

86

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 11:33:02
Alan B
But does this not illustrate a problem with the Euro. If (as seems likely) more countries join then there could be over 20 countries in the Eurozone stretching from the Mediterranean, through the Balkans and Eastern Europe to Northern Europe. I know you feel that the present situation is not good for Scotland with interests rates set for Sterling by the MPC. However the ECB will probably soon have to set a common rate for a huge number of differing economies. Some of these may be languishing and require monetary loosening while others may be thriving, experiencing inflation and require monetary tightening. How is the ECB going to mange this?
87

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 11:37:27
We just can't see the argument about small countries being harder hit than large ones, several small independent countries with good financial regulation seem to be relatively unaffected by the sub prime fiasco. Regulation seems to be more important than size. Are you trying to tell us that the UK (including Scotland) is not mired in this mess inspite of its size?
If size is the criteria then by this reckoning we should become the next state in the massive USA and all our problems would be solved.
Unionists are just talking Scotland down without a shred of proof of how an independent Scotland might have fared.
88

Alan B,

10/10/2008 11:53:04
#Ugly George

As i see it the choices for scotland are:

1)scottish currency: best interest policy set for scotlands needs. However it would expose us to currency fluxations with both sterling and the euro.
2)sterling : interest rates in sterling have been too high for the scottish economy generally speaking for a long time. As such it suffocates scotlands growth rate. You yourself suggested that using interest rates to stop house price inflation would lead to higher interst rates and be damaging to business. The same thing goes for scotland having too high interest rates to manage south east inflation. As Eddie George the govenor of BOE at the time said unemployment in the north was a price worth paying to control inflation in the south. (i am not slagging him and i completely understand where he is coming from).

If sterling was going to work for the whole of the uk the british government would have to be willing to serious address the north south divide. Serious not allow interest rates too high for the north to dampen inflation in the south.

Government are simply not willing to address this issue.

3)euro: the euro has a much closer relation to scottish monetary needs than sterling. the DM beforehand also did.

It would also have the advantage of removing currency fluxations with the euro zone and encourage investment. It would have a the difficulty of currency fluxations with sterling.

On balance while no option is perfect i thing the euro is the best option.

We will never effect euro zone interest rates. But what we have to ask is are they are better match for the scottish economy that sterling ones.

At the very least i would atleast like an independent economic review investigating what is in scotlands economic interest.

If you look at the non tory unionist party view. It seems to be yes to the euro. But scotland cannot even discuss or consider it as england will not join for political reasons.
89

Alan B,

10/10/2008 11:57:35
#Ugly George

I do know where you are coming from but nothing is perfect. I do agree far too many euro decisions have been political and not economic. Entry should be much strickter. I was disappointed that the strick criteria on debt levels were not adhered to within the euro and france took the p***.

But scotland has to do what is right for scotland. so if another country chooses to join the euro for political reasons and it is not economically justified then they will have to live with it.

Remember the dollar works pretty well in the US. There states have very strick debt criteria. Just a pity the federal government is so lax.
90

New Town Resident,

10/10/2008 12:22:45
~105. Your assertion that joining the euro would be in Scotland's interests seems to be based solely on lower interest rates. However if you take Ireland I would say that lower interest rates there led to rather an alarming bubble, worse than UK, did it not? There are also other factors to consider such as the exchange rate - its really impossible to say whether it would be a good thing or not for Scotland unless you know at what level we join I would have thought.

Whatever happens England will be Scotland's major economic partner by a long way so you must accept there will be costs to having a different currency to England? There is no way England will ever join - the recemt events have confirmed that with the ruling group yet alone the general public. So benefits to Scotland of the euro will have to more than outweigh these costs as well.

Oh, and by the way the Euro authorities don't permit private bank notes (HBOS/RBS/Clydedale etc.) which seem to be important to some people here?
91

Alan B,

10/10/2008 12:24:29
#danielrober

I do not see it as honourable to abuse anti terror laws.

I do not see it as honourable for the UK to so publically threaten Iceland a country less than a 1/10 the size of scotland.

Yes Brown can put quiet pressure on Iceland to stick up for uk interests. But Brown has done this in a public way for his own policial popularity. so do not given me honourable.

Brown knows that he will take the share of the blame for councils investing so much in iceland particularly given the warning last year about iceland banks fragility due to buying up too much of the US sub prime market. So Brown is throwing threats around publically for domestic consumption.

Anyway you continually ignore the points i raise to you in your response. About uk people?councils etc avoiding the security of the fsa compensation in this country to take higher risks for higher returns. And then complaining when these riskier ventures go pear shaped. And the use of anti terror legisation.

One of the things the uk is dreadful at is making friend internationally. Look at the Russian response to Iceland problems. Help. What do the uk do, threaten. That is what always bites the uk in the bum. We can see that with our whole approach alienating much of the eu.
92

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 10/10/2008 12:25:58
The article is wrong. This only strengthens the case for full fiscal control over your own affairs. Brown will expect any compensation for Scottish Councils to be paid for out of our pocket money (Block Grant). So a rise in costs without the ability to borrow or raise more income.

Independence can't come soon enough !
93

Alan B,

10/10/2008 12:34:38
#New Town Resident

"Your assertion that joining the euro would be in Scotland's interests seems to be based solely on lower interest rates."

I would say more appropriate interest rates. I agree with you regarding Ireland and explain my view of the irish economy and the euro above in #98. Ireland joined the euro at the wrong time in the middle of an incredible boom. It joined the euro when euro rates were far too low for the irish economy.

If scotland joined we would be joining with a history of slow economic growth and interest rates that have been set too high. So the issues are different.

"There are also other factors to consider such as the exchange rate - its really impossible to say whether it would be a good thing or not for Scotland unless you know at what level we join I would have thought. "

Very very important point. Scotland would need to make sure it did not join at a rate too high for the scottish economy. The UK suffered badly when it joined the erm as thatcher joined at a barmy 2:95 to the DM. We were only 2:7* somthing in the market. Otto Phol (forgive the spelling) the head of the german central bank slated the tories for the rate we joined. The rate should have been something like £1 to DM2:50.

"Whatever happens England will be Scotland's major economic partner by a long way so you must accept there will be costs to having a different currency to England? "

Agree and have already pointed that out in my post above #105. My view is the best option for scotland would be if the whole uk joined but as you have pointed out that is not going to happen. So we in scotland have to make a choice. We would also have the issue if the whole uk did join that we did not join at a rate for england ie south of england that hurts scotland (and north of england).

What i would like is for scotland to atleast have an independent economic review of the advantages and disadvantages of the euro. We seem to avoid the discussion for political not ec
94

Alan B,

10/10/2008 12:46:55
#danielrober

You completely lose me with your arguments. You seem to avoid what I say and come back with something completely different and to a large part irrelevent to any point i have made.
95

Rob Bennett,

Point Piper Australia IMF Ranking #4 10/10/2008 12:52:32
#76 Mashimaro,China
"Hey, maybe we now own US ha ha ha ha"

Maybe China will indeed own the US in the near future.

Not sure where China's ranking is on the International Monetary Fund's list of 134 countries, but the UK has dropped from 4th to 44th position, further down the list from Iceland, Germany is in 39th position while the US under the republicans have dropped to 40th position and will drop even further. The US will probably enter a depression within 2 years that will see a jump to 30% unemployment with property prices dropping up to 40% and a huge rise in robbery, murder and mayhem across the country.
96

Doh,

10/10/2008 12:54:53
#112


kicked?

Anyway tried to follow some of the arguments but just lost belief that anyone still beleives that government control of interest rates is the only problem.

Bank deregulation has allowed the banks to increase their liabilities regardless of what the interest rate.
Hence they are beign "aske" to increase their Tier 1 capitalisation.

However that is all irrelevant.

The situation is that the tax payer is beign asked to bail out the banks - for the greater good.

However the real benefit will be for the City - to keep their obscene salaries and bonuses coming. On a less personal note it also preserves the wealth of bank shareholders - who should probably be being wiped out - like the poor soda who held Nothern Rock or Bradford and Bingley shares.

Brown should resign and apologise for allowing the deregulation and credit boom to get so out of hand.

Remember it was Brown who said "no more boom and bust".

He is an idiot.
97

New Town Resident,

10/10/2008 12:55:41
~111. appreciate your considered reply

~ 109. think, not 100% sure, that part of the EEA/EU treaty structure precludes unilateral fiancial seizure of assets between EEA states. Thus the terror law as drafted took back necessary powers from the EU/EEA - if i'm right, hooray I say. The fact that they used it so quickly suggests to me that the Treasury officials who drafted the financial bit of the terror laws knew precisely what they were doing at the time and deserves one big thank you from the English and Scottish taxpayers. Doubt that Brown/Darling had a clue, probably they just asked how we could protect the Iceland money and the Treasury officials had the terror law out and ready to go. I've seen the same in some drafting of some other legislation in different ministeries that actually preserves UK powers from the EU, but I'm not going to finger. Scotland is unfortunate that DEFRA is a native EU department.

98

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 10/10/2008 12:56:15
Silly question i suppose but why don't Scottish councils keep the Scottish taxpayers money in Scottish banks? surely it is a treasonable offence to show such distrust and disloyalty to our own financial institutions. I'm from North Ayrshire and have always thought the Labour run council were a bunch of criminals!Now I'm absolutely convinced! They should be locked up...
99

New Town Resident,

10/10/2008 13:08:48
#117. Agree 100%. The English councils defend themselves on the basis of the guidance issued by Prescott, but since devolution its up to the Scottish Government to issue guidance to Scottish councils, right? I know its stable door, but how about the SNP issuing the relevant guidance right now - if in doubt I believe the Dunfermiline BS is 100% robust depite being headquartered in Fife!
100

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 13:21:35
"Honourable"?

Are you on drugs? Have you seen the state of the markets out there? Have you seen the amounts money the councils have lost?

Its a jungle out there. We have to fight for every penny we are due.

No doubt that in your eyes, if it was Salmond demanding the money back, then it would be the right thing to do.
101

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 13:24:27
"Treasonable Offence"?

Banana what a clown you are.
102

SkeptikScot,

10/10/2008 13:52:56
#112 I find that being "licked in the b*lls" does lessen most pain. The best things in life are free, they say.

103

ExpatBackinScotland,

Carnoustie 10/10/2008 14:26:27
For all the Unionists spouting off about "wee nations" not being ablwe to stand the current financial climate, as some kind of pompous finger pointing exercise to say "we need the UK" well, the honest answer is we dont know for sure how Scotland would have fared on its own in this crisis. However, is inconcievable that if we had been independent years ago that we would simply have done everything "the UK way" and run our economy based on what is effectively a giant casino. Id also like to think we would have done more with our Oil than put a giant tent in East London, put a railway in London, find an Olympics in London and spend billions bombing nations in illegal wars.

My conclusion is that assuming we didnt follw that same path then we will have faired better than the current situation. This is waht you get for leaving the biog decisions to your neighbours. You wouldnt let your neighbours in your street run your mortgage payments and finances but youve let that happen to your country.

In short, Independence is CLOSER than ever. Better to run the country yourself and have issues than be half bankrupted by a shower of ............ in London.

Time has come to take control and take resposibility.

104

Ugly George,

10/10/2008 14:54:24
126 Expat
"put a railway in London"
Is London not allowed to have a railway?
105

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 10/10/2008 15:07:06
#122 Your the one cracking the crappy Fjord Jokes. So Shut it...
106

Alan B,

10/10/2008 15:14:33
#sm753

I do not think you have followed the posts. It is not me that is arguing about being honourable. It was Daniel that was arguing what the UK was doing was honourable. I pointed out that what we have done is hardly honourable. Whether being honourable at this time is important of not is another issue.

"If Reykjavik reneges on its commitments, every penny of deposit compensation it refuses to pay comes from UK taxpayers instead."

There are a few issues:
1)Is it right for Brown to use anti terror laws to seize assets. Is it even legal? It is a complete abuse of power. the scotsman and labour invent legal disputes over what the scottish government may or not be able to do in some sort abstract fashion and here we have a government using laws for terrorism to seize assets of another country.
2)Brown should look after British interests however his approach brings the words sledge hammer and nuts to mind.
3)You have avoid the issue of the fact that you have argued that the uk should not compensate its savers and give guarantees like Ireland but ok for Britain to seize Icelandic assets becuase Iceland is not promising to guarantee uk savers.

If uk savers avoid the fsa compensation scheme in order to get alittle more interest why should

"every penny of deposit compensation it refuses to pay comes from UK taxpayers instead".

Quite simply the uk should only guarantee savers in uk banks. If you want to invest overseas fine, but do not expect the uk government to pick up the tab.

Again you were arguing the irish should not guarantee depositors. So again you have gone back on your own argument.

4)councils seem a different issue to personal depositors as the guarantees will be so low that they will be meaningless to the amounts councils will lose.

The problem here is why have they kept money in iceland accounts despite all the warnings last year.



107

Alan B,

10/10/2008 15:21:38
#sm753

"Personally I expect Iceland will be largely let off, once they open their books and show they really are skint. But it would not have been right to just let them off straight away after they said they wouldn't pay up."

1. never said we should
2. look to Daniels post to see what i was replying to
3. seriously this is about how Brown approaches this problem. Using anti terror laws to seize assets is not a good approach. We know Iceland is Donald Ducked so is that what we really can expect of our government. We have a massive global problem needing us to work together internationally.

Brown has play politics to the gallery over this in a disgraceful manner. He should have quietly applied pressure on Iceland but at the same time acknowledged the fact if people invest abroad then they are taking risks.

108

Ugly George,

10/10/2008 15:23:13
Alan B
"Quite simply the uk should only guarantee savers in uk banks. If you want to invest overseas fine, but do not expect the uk government to pick up the tab."

But is that really the case. The Icelandic banks were actually operating in the UK so the savers were not sending their money overseas. The Clydesdale Bank is owned by an Australian Bank. Does that mean that savers with the Clydesdale should not have savings guaranteed up to the £34000 (or is it £50000) as with other banks.
109

Alan B,

10/10/2008 15:31:19
#sm753

"If that "independence" had happened at any time since devolution, we do. The same or worse"

That is garbage. We really do not know.

If the scottish government had used the decent global economic climate to build decent financial foundations for the scottish economy we may have been considerably better off. Could we have realised our potential and not grown at the poor rate of growth 2.2% compared to 3.6% for the avg group of small european countries.

If we could we would be far richer.

If we had run the economy so we did not have so much
-public sector deficits like the uk we would be in a better situation
-private sector debt
-massive house price inflation which makes the whole economy a pack of cards. And is going to take years before we recover. This is not going to be a quick sharp shock but a prolonged mess.

We may well have a mess with the financial institutions like we have now but the general economy could and should have been much stronger to withstand the mess and make recovery much easier.

Even with the financial instutions with powers over competition policy we could have prevented the halifax takeover of BOS. Something i would have advocated and as such much of the mess there would have been avoided.

We would have had power over regulation that could have been used but is difficult becuase of the global nature of these companies. But would have made the housing market much more secure by not have such silly lending in the first place.


110

Alan B,

10/10/2008 15:35:59
#134 Ugly George

"But is that really the case. The Icelandic banks were actually operating in the UK so the savers were not sending their money overseas. The Clydesdale Bank is owned by an Australian Bank. Does that mean that savers with the Clydesdale should not have savings guaranteed up to the £34000 (or is it £50000) as with other banks."

The Clydesdale is registered with the banking licence with the FSA giving the 35G now 50G guarantee.

The Icelandic banks are not. I looked into them for ISAs as their interest rates were far better than UK banks but avoided them becuase they were not covered by the 35G/50G compensation scheme.

The guarantee over their is a different level and you would have to go through their scheme. Problem is like ours if meant to be paid for by our banks not the government if theirs is effectively bankrupt should their government be paying our savers.

The issue as i understand it was iceland government were putting its citizens first in compensation as the whole country cannot afford to bail out its banks.
111

Alan B,

10/10/2008 15:38:52
#Ugly George

I am not saying Iceland is correct in its approach but seizing assets using anti terror laws is the wrong approach. But lets face it Iceland cannot afford to bail itself out that is why we have the Russian intervention.

Given Europes problems with Russia is it good long term politics to push Iceland into the arms of Russia?
112

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 15:42:44
Alan B
"The Clydesdale is registered with the banking licence with the FSA giving the 35G now 50G guarantee.

The Icelandic banks are not"
Sorry, Alan this is not the case. The Icelandic banks were given a licence. In reality no bank would really be able to function in the UK without one and there is no way that so many councils etc. would have put money into a bank without such a licence.
113

fritigern,

Inverness 10/10/2008 15:51:03
Just one very naive question which no one ever seems to ask or answer. Exactly where has the money in these Icelandic banks gone to? Have their owners salted it away in Switzerland, or were they paying out interest from incoming investments? Have a handful of people in Iceland really managed to lose in some way hundreds of millions of pounds?
114

Andra, Dundee,

10/10/2008 15:55:01
I really don't understand why we need to compensate people who put money in a foreign bank.
The message should be that your money is safer in British banks.
115

Alan B,

10/10/2008 15:58:06
#sm753

Can you justify why you think anti terror laws to stop people bombing us, laws the government say are necessary to stop us being in danger like the 40 days etc, to seize assets of terrorist organisations to prevent them funding terrorist, should be used to deal with compensation disputes over bankrupt banks for friendly countries?

This is not about the UK going to court to force compensation for an international issue to get fair redress. This is about a complete abuse of power.

116

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

10/10/2008 15:58:40
"13 Huntly loon,Aberdeenshire 10/10/2008 01:02:46
This crisis has absolutley nothing to do with the size of the country. It has everything to do with countries (whatever their size) who have allowed themselves to be deluded that the financial sector including banks add to wealth and provide prosperity."


I would agree with that entirely - it is economic and political management that matters. In an independent Scotland, under present SNP policy, our currency, monetary policy and regulation would still be controlled from London. An independent Scotland would have faced exactly the same problems as those faced by the UK government.

Even with a Scottish Central bank with a Scottish currency and a Scottish regulator there is no guarantee that things might have been any better. If one looks at the FM's previous words regards financial institutions in a post-independence Scotland it is clear he wanted Edinburgh to attract more of them. Who is to say that we would not have faced the same problems as Iceland?

That is not a criticism of independence.

It is a criticism of the SNP's economic policy.
117

Alan B,

10/10/2008 16:01:38
#141 Ugly George

Unfortunately i believe you are wrong. See #140 sm753 post.

I did investigate myself as i said. And i was told by the British banks that you would not be covered by the FSA 35G (now 50G) rule.

What #sm753 has posted about 16G is much more inline with what I heard but you would have to apply to the Icelandic scheme for that compensation.
118

Alan B,

10/10/2008 16:06:39
#fritigern

My understanding based on some documentaries last year was the Icelandic banks bought alot of sub prime mortage debt from the US. As the US subprime mortage market has gone up the swany these banks have been bankrupted.

They are also suffering (most probably) for the same reason that UK ones are that they were relient on the working of the international credit markets for finance. This whole crisis is due to the drying up of inter bank lending ie the credit markets.

Many banks lend money by borrowing from other banks. They are not fully financed by deposits. As such when they cannot renegotiate a loan they effectively go bust even if they look at first sight to be a profitable organisation.

Many profitable non financial companies are going to go bust becuase they cannot renegotiate loans.

119

Alan B,

10/10/2008 16:10:23
#The Federalist

I disagree with you abit as monetary policy as i do not believe monetary policy is the important issue. More the fiscal position of good public sector debt management, control of private sector debt via the housing market etc.

Where larger countries have an advantage is the uk will always be able to finance a bail out of say RBS more than scotland will.
120

Alan B,

10/10/2008 16:12:30
#Andra

I agree with you to a large extent. The only thing I would say is the government has not really given the public the knowlegde that banks were so unsafe.

Most believed if you put your money in a bank the government regulates to make sure the whole thing is stable.

121

Alan B,

10/10/2008 16:26:31
#Fed up of the union

"England is an extremely irresponsible nation when it comes to economic managment. They're just not good at it. With the exception of the 1960s"

Economic management of the British economy in the 60s was poor. Abit like Brown over the last decade. It looked good on the surface but hid alot of underlying problems.

Productivity fell well behind our continental competitors.

The 60s brought the failure of Keynes economics with what is called the Phillips curve. Keynes economic played inflation off against aggregate demand/employment levels. By the end of the 60s the Philllips curve showed inflation and unemployment rising.

The economic policy failures of the 60s can be shown by the mess of the 70s.
122

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

10/10/2008 16:26:51
#148 "Where larger countries have an advantage is the uk will always be able to finance a bail out of say RBS more than scotland will."

The one argument that could be used against independence. The point I was making though that this could be defused if the correct economic policies were in place in a post-independence Scotland.

I personally don't belive the SNP have those policies. For example, how can you prepare for entry into the Eurozone without having a Scottish central bank? How can you regulate financial institutions without a Scottish regulator?

Even if a Scottish central bank existed and we had a Scottish regulator I believe that the SNP leadership are as enamoured with financial insitutions as NuLabour and the Tories are. To quote Alex Salmond (http://www.snp.org/node/13617:

"Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term.

And a growing number of American firms - not least JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and State Street - are discovering that the Scottish financial sector can do anything you can do in London and can do it better and rather importantly in the current environment can do it at lower cost."
123

Alan B,

10/10/2008 16:29:24
Should have said the short termist 60s demand management (keynes economics) was used rather than improving the economic fundamentals and brought the inefficient economy that we saw in the 70s. Industry did not suddenly become inefficient in the 70s it was an inherited legacy.
124

Alan B,

10/10/2008 16:39:26
#The Federalist

I do not think their any serious way scotland could regulate the financial industry ourselves. It is far to global now. All scotland could do is work with the global rules and maybe support the Fed's campaign to get it regulated in the EU.

Think Salmond is downplaying the euro for political reasons. As an economist and the first FM to take economics seriously with his economic panel, i am sure he will have a serious transition plan to the euro if that time was to come.

I do not think their anything wrong with Salmond talking up the financial sector in Scotland. (With Salmond there is the populist and their is the economist)
125

Chris42,

10/10/2008 16:46:52
Alan B
What chance do you reckon of HBOS remaining independent?
126

westview,

Living as normal 10/10/2008 16:47:36
If the unionistas were true to their beleifs then they would be demanding that the Bank of England be changed to the Bank of Britain. No sign of that! They are happy to be pets of Westminster. Brown has wasted 10 years worth of Scots cash and is now looking to the worlds financial troubles to give him a "Get out of jail free" card.
127

Alan B,

10/10/2008 16:52:44
#157 Chris42

Not got a clue.

I would think a Scottish buyout of the old BOS very unlikely. Noone can get credit. Where could you borrow the money to buy it out?

As Fairfax has posted alot the merger might not go through. His arguments look as if they could be close to the mark. With shares continuing to dive why would Lloyds go through with it. It would massively overvalue HBOS. So from that perspective HBOS might end up independent.

Now with the government taking such large stakes in the banks could that not be used so that HBOS stays separate? Maybe

But i am just guessing.
128

Alan B,

10/10/2008 16:54:29
#159 sm753

"Then from around 2006 they began to realise this was going to go wrong, so started things like Icesave and Kaupthing Edge to build up some "sticky" retail deposits to back their loan books.

Right idea, but too late. They just ran out of road."

Interesting.
129

Alan B,

10/10/2008 16:58:06
#westview

And it was a Scot that started the BOE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England
130

Marian,

10/10/2008 17:04:13
According to the BBC website:-

"The government was warned about the possible collapse of Icelandic banks in July but did nothing about it, a Lib Dem Treasury spokesman has said.

Lord Oakeshott said he raised the issue in a written question to a minister.

He was told the Financial Services Authority was monitoring the situation and there was no cause for concern.

"Alarm bells were ringing all over about the Icelandic banks and the Treasury must have been blind and deaf not to hear them," said the peer."
131

Alan B,

10/10/2008 17:05:32
#Marian

Brown had asked Blunkett to keep an eye on the situtation. :)
132

Alan B,

10/10/2008 17:41:09
#sm753

Thanks. In #146 I agreed with you, as I had also heard the 16G limit being applicable not the 35/50G FSA limit that Ugly George was saying.
133

Alan B,

10/10/2008 17:50:34
#sm753

Interesting article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7663596.stm


From the BBC website it says

"But Mr Haarde responded angrily to the move, saying it was "not very pleasant" to learn that anti-terror laws were being used against its companies and also blamed Britain for the collapse of Kaupthing. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7662599.stm

Not sure how they can blame Britain for the failing of the bank. Would like to understand more details of that complaint.
134

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 17:53:49
In the scheme of things these possible losses are neither here nor there when it was reported on BBC Radio Scotland that although Glasgow City Council had invested £3 million of its pension assets in Icelandic banks, its pension fund has total assets of £9 BILLION!

Indeed, although these appear vast sums of money to the ordinary person, it was pointed out on the BBC report that all the English local authorities who had also invested millions in Icelandic banks have total pension fund assets of £251 BILLION!
135

Alan B,

10/10/2008 18:10:28
#Mr. Lachie Todd

The point would be the warnings the UK ignored

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7663596.stm
136

Dogandgoldfish,

Scotland 10/10/2008 19:08:24

Can I ask these questions

What the H*LL are councils holding these vast amounts of our money for.
Why haven't they reduced council tax
Will we see the unelected dictators(council bosses)
sacked, not particularity for missappropriation of funds, but for charging council tax and using it for purposes other that what it is supposed to be use for
137

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 19:39:55
rober#

What nonsense, joint currency with Norway and payed back with fish..are you off your head?

Yes Scotland prints banknotes which the Scottish banks had to pay £400 million to guarantee with the Englsih banks..remember?

Incidentally..English bank notes in Moscow about 47 rubles last time i looked..Scottish bank notes 25 rubles...
138

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 20:12:08
178 sm753#

What has it got to do with independence?

This is how little Scotland is regarded while being part of the union..while England is regarded as being twice the value..about sums it up actually!
139

Pilrig,

Livingston 10/10/2008 21:23:13
143 - safer in a shoebox, Andra.
140

George Coutts,

Keflavik Iceland 10/10/2008 23:29:16
As a Scot living in iceland, I am appauled at the London government´s use of a terrorist move to freeze assets of a private investment bank, then threaten to SUE the Icelandic government!
Two factors to be pondered on aré, Iceland has a population of 300,000 just a bit bigger than Aberdeen and its outskirts. and Geir Hardee is the Icelandic priminister, not a BANK MANAGER.
So if London thinks it can win this battle, they better look at past history, they lost the COD WAR twice and by the way that was when Labour were the dictators.
Tread very carefully Gordon as your Empire is sinking like the Titanic.

 

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.