Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Critics rush to point finger of blame at 'Culpability Brown'

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: 16 February 2009
GORDON Brown was last night facing an unprecedented barrage of criticism over his role in the UK's financial crisis amid claims he was responsible for massive gaps in the regulatory system and that he failed to maintain stability in the country's finances.
Derided as "Culpability Brown" by the SNP and berated by the Tories for "destroying" the previous regulatory system when he became chancellor in 1997, the Prime Minister also had to endure detailed and damning critiques from financial experts and regulators.

Lord Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, the City watchdog created by Mr Brown to regulate the banking industry, admitted his organisation had failed to recognise the way the banking industry was developing.

And Paul Moore, the banking whistle-blower who claims he was sacked for warning of excessive risk-taking at HBOS, said Mr Brown should resign for failing to oversee the stability of the country.

Their comments came amid speculation that the government might have to intervene to nationalise the Lloyds Group because of the massive liabilities it inherited from HBOS – a takeover encouraged by Mr Brown and Alistair Darling, the Chancellor.

It also emerged last night that the UK economy might shrink further and faster than Mr Darling has forecast. The CBI said GDP output would shrink by 3.3 per cent in 2009, compared with its November forecast of a 1.7 per cent decline, and well below the current Treasury forecast of between -1.25 per cent and -1.75 per cent.

To add to the Prime Minister's problems, an opinion poll yesterday showed Labour 16 points behind the Tories, evidence that the public believe the Prime Minister is not performing well in getting Britain out of its economic crisis.

At the heart of the criticism is the decision taken by Mr Brown, as chancellor, to create a new regulatory framework for the banking industry when Labour came to power in 1997.

He created the Financial Services Authority (FSA) as part of the move, which saw the Bank of England stripped of responsibility for overseeing the banks.

A "tripartite" system was introduced, involving the Bank of England, the Treasury and the FSA, each of which had some role in regulating and overseeing the industry. But none had the power the Bank of England used to possess.

Political opponents claim Mr Brown's creation of the tripartite system has been fundamental to the crisis and that he can no longer carry on claiming he is a victim of world events.

Shadow business secretary Kenneth Clarke claimed yesterday the system had been a "complete failure".

He said: "Gordon destroyed the previous system – we don't know whether that would have worked – but the one he put in place was totally useless, and it is important to get back to regulation."

David Cameron, the Tory leader, added: "We need a government that's able to wipe the slate clean. It is difficult to get out of where we are when we have a Prime Minister who won't admit boom and bust is still with us and won't accept some of the mistakes made ."

Lord Turner, who became FSA chairman in September 2008, admitted that regulators around the world failed to recognise that by 2004 the banking system was developing in a way which created a "large systemic risk".

He said: "We didn't focus enough on that – the FSA, the Bank of England, the Treasury, and the Fed and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in the US didn't focus enough on these issues and we have to get that right in the future."

It was a "legitimate criticism" of the FSA that over the past decade it focused on the nitty-gritty of individual banks' processes without standing back and recognising that the expansion of credit was "too risky" for the economic system as a whole, said Lord Turner.

He said: "With hindsight, the FSA – like other authorities throughout the world – was focused too much on individual institutions and the processes and procedures within them, and not adequately focused on the totality of the risks across the whole system and whether there were entire business models, entire ways of operating, that were risky.

"That's with hindsight, and there weren't many people who got it right at that time. That's a legitimate criticism."

Meanwhile, Mr Moore added fuel to the controversy when he went public in calling for Mr Brown's resignation.

Following his explosive evidence to the Commons Treasury Select Committee last week, Mr Moore said he was planning to send the MPs a further dossier of 30 documents which would point the finger of blame for the economic turmoil at Mr Brown. After Mr Moore's revelations forced the resignation of Sir James Crosby, the deputy chairman of the FSA, Mr Brown told another parliamentary committee that HBOS's massive losses – estimated at more than £10 billion – were caused not by government policy but by the bank's flawed business model.

But Mr Moore, who was head of risk at HBOS from 2002-05, said: "The failure goes to the heart of the system – to the internal supervisory system and right to the top of government.

"Brown must go. He cannot remain in office. He has presided over the biggest boom in the history of the country as well as one of the biggest busts.

"He promised no more boom and bust. He must be held accountable for his failure to oversee the stability of the country."

Angus McNeil, the SNP MP for the Western Isles, described the past few days as a "black weekend" for the Prime Minister, claiming Labour was in "meltdown".

He said: "The evidence is piling up against 'Culpability Brown'. There can be no escape from his responsibility for the recession and the recurrent problems of the financial sector."

Bill Jamieson's analysis: What an appalling mess – and Lord Turner may have pressed the ejector button that could catapult Gordon Brown out of Number 10


HOW IT WORKS

THE Financial Services Authority is an independent body set up to regulate the financial services industry in the UK.

It is a company limited by guarantee and financed by the financial services industry. It was created from the Securities and Investments Board by Gordon Brown, then the Chancellor, as part of the realignment of financial regulation he adopted in 1997.

The Treasury appoints the FSA board, which currently consists of a chairman, a chief executive officer, three managing directors, and nine non-executive directors (including a lead non-executive member, the deputy chairman).

The authority has confirmed that it will be paying out bonuses to staff this year equivalent to around 15 per cent of their salaries. Reports suggest that the total bonus bill could reach £33 million. But FSA chief executive Hector Sants will not be taking a bonus. He was paid £662,000 last year, including a £114,000 bonus.

The chairman of the FSA is Lord Adair Turner while the post of deputy chairman is vacant following the resignation of Sir James Crosby.


BACKGROUND

THE tripartite system of financial regulation was set up by then Chancellor Gordon Brown in 1997, soon after the election. From the outset, it was controversial. Then Bank of England governor Eddie George was outraged and very nearly resigned over it.

Under the system, supervision of the banks was taken away from the Bank and entrusted to the Financial Services Authority. The Treasury was made responsible for legislation and the Bank for financial stability.

From the first, it was never clear who was in overall charge, what systems were in place for regular liaison and what happened when a crisis involved more than one of the parties.

Thus, while Northern Rock was supervised by the FSA, when it ran into trouble it sought help from the Bank of England. The Bank was not at all keen to inject cash into the financial markets to get individual banks out of a hole – the "moral hazard" problem.

Also, it seemed odd to have the Bank responsible for supervising the system overall, but not the banks and financial companies that made up the system. Some preferred the Dutch model where there is a single regulator.


Finding fault

This is the tripartate system, with No 10 at its heart regulating banking. Bill Jamieson follows the blame trail and gives his ratings

FINANCIAL SERVICES AUTHORITY

JOB: To supervise banks and financial markets.

FAILING:Too focused on individual institutions and did not spot the risks which existed across the system. This was admitted yesterday by FSA chairman Lord Turner, pictured.

BLAME RATING: 7/10

10 DOWNING STREET

JOB: Overall responsibility.

ALLEGED FAILINGS: PM Gordon Brown (pictured) was behind the 'failed' regulatory system; made appointments to the FSA and the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee; and promoted the Lloyds TSB takeover of HBOS.

BLAME RATING: 8/10

HM TREASURY

JOB: To carry the can in parliament for problems, and to design the overall structure for regulation.

ALLEGED FAILING: Under chancellors Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling (pictured), it did not identify the growing macro-economic risk in the bank lending surge.

BLAME RATING: 7/10

BANK OF ENGLAND

JOB: To scan the money markets for problems, to make money available to lenders, and to act as a lender of last resort.

ALLEGED FAILING: The Bank, headed by governor Mervyn King (pictured), is accused of keeping interest rates too low, for too long, fuelling boom and bust.

BLAME RATING: 6/10

Page 1 of 1

 
1

Forward not Back,

16/02/2009 00:04:57
The only surprise is that it has taken so long for him to be found out. The "Brown bounce" when he thought he had "saved the world" was laughable to anyone who has an ounce of knowledge of economics but then people like Hamish don't have that knowledge.
2

karin.m,

16/02/2009 00:15:59
the snp and their supporters have been saying for months that brown is to blame looks like they were right all along.
3

Hmm ...,

16/02/2009 00:23:49
... Gordon Brown has been right in one respect only in this sorry debacle - this is no time for amateurs.

And he has shown that he is not only an amateur, he is financially inept. There is more to being Chancellor than spectating and claiming credit during the good times, as we have all found out to our cost.

It's time for Brown to begone, to leave us free to elect a competent government, free of left wing dogma, instead of his parcel of toadies and placemen.
4

Resolutions,

16/02/2009 00:31:53
A very nasty aroma is developing - pass the air freshener someone - an independence referendum.

Let's get out of this
5

snoozyowl,

Wales 16/02/2009 00:35:43
Oh, come on, he did 'save the world financial system' by his skill and diligence, or was whatever small contribution he made due the skill of his civil servants and advisers? Brown was very lucky none of this happened before, or he would have been fired for blatant incompetence by Blair. Brown's opaque personal style, his sloppy appearance, his pompous and evidently incorrect pronouncements on his brillance and leadership and the current state of the UK, much worse than many other places, can only lead to his demise at the hands of his colleagues. Mandelson is one obvious knife-wielder. You can only blame America for a short while, especially while RBS and Lloyds/HBOS are in a crazy, gigantic mess. No country can go through such a rapid decline in its major earned without the eviction of the man in charge, however clever at self publicity and spin. Labour has redistributed much more than was prudent, allowed a huge rise in borrowings to those with poor repayment ability and permitted an enormous housing bubble to grow. Brown's warped self belief and faulty evangelistic christian socialism are to blame. Time for a prudent, safe pair of hands. Only those able to read an Excel spreadsheet should apply.
6

Unelectedbythepeople,

Edinburgh 16/02/2009 00:43:11
When the man in charge of the nation's finances, Alistair Darling, has been caught fiddling his expenses, and Jacqui Smith, the woman who is in charge of crime prevention is accused of corruption, you have a government which is a kleptocracy.

The New Labour promise to be "whiter than white" is like a sick joke now.

Lord Moonie's money grubbing ways are a disgrace to the House of Lords, he also aided and abetted another expenses fiddle by facilitating Alistair Darling lodging with him and claiming expenses based on Moonie's flat being Darling's "main home", in just the same way that Jacqui claims her sister's house is her "main home".

Already under investigation for Cash for Amendments, Lord Moonie is mired in fresh sleaze after his business associates were arrested in a police probe into alleged fraud in the NHS.

The Sunday Herald has the scoop:
Richard Nawrot and George Henderson, who run Fife-based Americium Developments, were arrested in London last month on "suspicion of conspiracy to commit fraud and misconduct in a public office".

Americium currently pays Moonie, a close ally of Gordon Brown, up to £40,000 a year in consultancy fees. The peer's relationship with the company dates back to October 2006.

Two of Americium's US clients have told the Sunday Herald they had lunch with Moonie and Nawrot at Westminster and that the peer later gave a tour of the parliament.

One client said he discussed a potential NHS contract with Moonie at the lunch.

Moonie was close to Gordon and at the heart of the Scottish Raj. He knows where the bodies are buried. This could potentially get very messy for Brown.
7

,

16/02/2009 00:56:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 16/02/2009 01:36:53
#9 The electorate cannot procrastinate.
9

 sm753,

16/02/2009 06:43:11
11

"This is an opportunity for Alex Salmond to show he is not the bloated windbag he is portrayed as but is the answer to Scotland’s prayer."

But he IS a bloated windbag, and one of his more memorable bursts of flatulence was:

“We are pledging a light-touch regulation suitable to a Scottish financial sector with its outstanding reputation for probity, as opposed to one like that in the UK, which absorbs huge amounts of management time in ‘gold-plated' regulation.”

Blame Brown if you like, but it is plain as day that His Immensity would have done no better and probably worse.
10

W Smith,

Middle East 16/02/2009 07:06:37
#13
Good post.

Unfortunately Salmond is more interested in windmill-ism, supporting the Palestinians and having a go at R&A over 'womens rights'.

The big day out for the SNP is Saturday 21st February 2009 with yet another Stop The War Coalition rally with the communists Kate Hudson(CND) and Lyndsey German (chairwoman of STWC).

It'll be a great day out - bring the bairns and teach them to hate:

1) USA
2) Britain
3) Jews
4) Israel
5) Brits who vote Tory

Osama Saeed (SNP) will be there representing the "asians" that Salmond likes to suck up to.

Not sure Mr Salmond is bothered about Scotland's manufacturing industry, rising crime rates and rising unemployment.

He's got more important issues to look after.

As for Labour, well Weegies won't stop voting Labour so the rest of us have to give more serious consideration to emigrating.

11

KennethM,

Stockholm 16/02/2009 07:18:21
#13

It is of course possible to have a light-touch regulation system that still keeps track of the bigger picture.

Unlike the current UK regime that forces banks to spend a lot of time complying with minor rules and regulations but didn't prevent the current economic calamity.
12

steve 1511,

aberdeen 16/02/2009 07:25:11
he has saved the world,he has ended boom and bust,he is working day and night for the people of britain,he is working hard to ensure people keep their homes ,he is creating 100 of thousands of jobs,he is saving the banks,he is saving small businesses,his party has created 3 million jobs since coming to power,more like 30K of jobs,his party has increased poverty,his party has let immigration get out of control,his m p and ministers are bleeding us dry on expense claims,sleaze and corruption are rife from top to bottom of his party
thats why


WE ARE DOOMED WITH BROON,DOOMED
13

Pip10,

Kent 16/02/2009 07:43:04
Is Calamity Brun a complete incompetent or is this relevant?

"Owners of capital will stimulate the working class to buy more and more of expensive goods, houses and technology, pushing them to take more and more expensive credits, until their debt becomes unbearable. The unpaid debt will lead to bankruptcy of
banks, which will have to be nationalised, and the State will have to take the road which will eventually lead to communism"

Who said that and when?

- perhaps Vince Cable Jan 2008?

in fact........

Karl Marx, Das Kapital, 1867
14

Ubi,

Edinburgh 16/02/2009 07:56:57
I should make my position clear. I don't want Gordon Brown to step down. I want him to stay and lead them into the abyss from which the country will never again elect a Labour government.

But if Gordon Brown's order of priorities were country, party, self, step down is exactly what he would do in order to give his party the chance to appoint a new leader who might be able to confine the carnage at the next election to a recoverable position.

The position looks safe enough though. Mr Brown's order of battle has always been self, party, country.

On that basis he will typically grimly hang on to his place in No 10 until the very last day.
15

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 16/02/2009 08:10:13
#17 Pip10

I'm not normally a believer in conspiracy theories, especially involving the Labour Party as they tend to be too inept to organise a conspiracy, but you could well be right. Brown was well to the left in his youth. Darling, Reid and Blunkett were out-and-out Marxists. Milliband pere was a Marxist, as was Benn pere. Just because they're happy to stick their hypocritical snouts in the trough of capitalism in the meantime, doesn't mean they still don't think that Communism isn't the best thing for the rest of use.
16

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/02/2009 08:10:17
15 Kenneth M
That is a rather contrived attempt to be wise after the event.

Alex Salmond's initial comment about a "light touch" regulatory framework was clearly an attempt to woo the banking industry by promising them freedom of action. Now that this no longer seems an appropriate policy he has tried to backtrack by saying that he meant "light touch" only applied to some aspects of regulation such as money laundering - does this mean he sees the future of Scotland's banks being a haven for the funds of drug barons?

Also we know that he performed a radical u-turn in switching from "light touch" rhetoric to demanding action against to stop "spivs and speculators" short selling as he claimed HBOS was "sound" and was forced into the Lloyds merger by the short selling. Now we know that HBOS was by no means sound and the short selling was not the problem.

Even his most ardent followers surely have to admit that he has been all over the place on this issue.
17

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/02/2009 08:25:04
The basic fact remains that the only politician who raised concerns over these issues previously was Vince Cable. All the others are merely attempting to be wise after the event.
18

Selgovae,

16/02/2009 08:38:49
#17

That quotation has been doing the rounds. But as far as I know, no one has pinpointed a page reference in any volume of Das Kapital where it appears. (Don't have my copy handy to verify.) An urban myth, I think.
19

TWC,

16/02/2009 08:41:22
13 sm753
This is exactly what people of all sides were saying about Brown for months now but you and Rufus kept popping up with statements about the Nats instead of facing up to the facts.
Brown is finished and if they don't move very fast so are Labour
BTW where is Rufus
20

Brodric,

16/02/2009 09:02:51
Its human nature to have a scapegoat - to be able to put one figure - or a few figures - in the firing range to take the blame.

I am pretty disgusted with the way in which RBS and HBOS leaders were singled out from amongst the banking and financial brotherhood to take the public whipping and remonstration. It reminds me somewhat of communist China. And now we are doing the same with Gordon Brown.

I am no labour-ite but I truly believe that an election is the last thing we need at the moment and it would be WONDERFUL if totally IMPOSSIBLE for all the parties to work together to overcome what is a national disaster.

All this party political ranting and finger pointing is not the answer - and it isn't even accurate. We have been steadily going down this road since Margaret Thatcher instigated monetarist policies in this country - and also with her push on selling council houses to enable people to be home-owners. Also, as a result of Thatcher's policies, Labour would never have got in power had it not courted the City, who had already been given such power that it could almost dictate who ruled the country.

Coupled with the upward ambitions of the people and the desire for material things 'right now' - and the willingness of the financial institutions to benefit from this at whatever cost, we have been living on a fine knife edge for some years. Now the chickens have come home to roost and we are all partly to blame. Although, the role of financial institutions should have been to work in our best interests, and in this they failled - ALL OF THEM COLLECTIVELY.

Although the buck has to stop with someone, that doesn't mean that we should through the baby out with the bath-water. Right now we need stability and parties working together for the benefit of the whole country. Not the political posturing that won't get us anywhere.
21

Voice of reason,

EDINBURGH 16/02/2009 09:04:16
Of course Brown is up to his eyeballs in this - roll on his resignation and a Tory Govt !!!!!!
22

TWC,

16/02/2009 09:14:29
25 Brodric

You are right we don't want an Election now but we need one to prevent the continued actions of Gordon Brown.
We need confidence that his steps today are the right ones but he has already said he doesn't know because nobody has ever been here before.
Should this recession be allowed to run it's course? or do we print money and cause huge inflation for the country later?
If the Captain of a ship doesn't know where he is going some body else needs to take over.
23

Dragonlord,

16/02/2009 09:17:19
Brown was chancellor when the banks were running amok, why shouldn't he now take the blame for their poor regulation? The FSA are also deep in this and should be investigated and those at the top should fall.
24

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/02/2009 09:19:05
25 Brodric
"Its human nature to have a scapegoat - to be able to put one figure - or a few figures - in the firing range to take the blame."

Indeed it is and in your case that figure is obviously Margaret Thatcher even though it is more than 18 years since she left office.

The situation regarding the banks is not unique to the UK. Banks all over the developed world are in trouble. What is particulary worrying about the UK position is the level of national debt that the govt is ringing up to try to deal with the situation. We have policies of spend, spend, spend and, as a result, borrow, borrow, borrow. This is unsustainable.
25

Stan Butler,

16/02/2009 10:11:13
#17 Pip

That is a hoax, and a fairly obvious one to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the literary style, let alone the content, of Marx.

26

The Ayrshire Bard,

16/02/2009 10:12:31
Brown's mess up is good news for the SNP as the English have now lost all faith in Scottish politicians and will be more than happy to see Scotland becoming independent. I only hope Brown is clutching Mandelson tightly when he topples into the political abyss, never to be seen or heard of again.
27

Stan Butler,

16/02/2009 10:15:36

What all Governments should have done during the boom was to stop easy credit, increase interest rates and make it far more difficult for people to obtain mortgages.

Everyone would have voted for that.

Yes, it's all the politicians fault.
28

TWC,

16/02/2009 10:27:36
33 Stan Butler

All that would have suited me Stan

I have no loans, no mortgage, no debt

No I have a pension (capped Increases), Savings with no interest and probable high inflation.

Yes, it's all the politicians fault.
29

Marga,

Edinburgh 16/02/2009 10:31:03
Would you trust the present parties/leaders to "work together" - in whose interest?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/4632804/Gordon-Brown-could-have-saved-HBOS-without-need-for-Lloyds-merger.html

"At the time of the merger - in which the Prime Minister personally intervened to ensure its passage - ministers repeatedly insisted that a union with Lloyds was the only way to save HBOS and the wider financial system from meltdown.

However, speaking to the BBC on Sunday, Lord Turner said: "There could have been a different way of directly supporting HBOS and keeping Lloyds separate."
30

Evan Owen,

Withoutapaddle 16/02/2009 10:52:10
If the vast majority of Her Majesty's Ministers are Scottish and they all go home when they are thrown out then is the only way to save the rest of the UK to give total independence to Scotland? Close the border, take away their Britich passports, cut all ties with Scottish Financial institutions which have laid waste to the UK?

If then please take a look at the FSA and burn it down: Http://www.ifadu.co.uk/downloads/fsaburnitdown.pdf
31

Number 6,

Germany 16/02/2009 10:54:17
Aye but he supports the union and aw that.
32

TWC,

16/02/2009 10:58:00
36 Evan Owen,

Don't talk wet the Scottish Banks weren't owned by Scots and remember if the BRITISH Government hadn't removed the regulations there wouldn't have been a crisis, just a run of the mill recession.
33

Number 6,

Germany 16/02/2009 10:59:18
14 Smithy , you say "Weegies wont stop voting labour".

You obviousley missed the Glasgow East election.

Labour, for your information, lost what was one of their strongest seats.

The lost it because the people of the area had had enough of Labour's neglect, miss-management, corruption
(See previous incumbent) and pathological, uncontrollable lying by "Big Margrit" Curran.

I expect the same disgust to be expressed across Glasgow come an election.
34

Rodster,

Glasgow 16/02/2009 11:00:32
Ok those that want unity how about David Cameron as PM Vince Cable as Chancellor, Martin MaGuinness as home Secretary, Gerry Adams as Minister of Defence,
35

ecosseman,

FACTS NOT PROPAGANDA 16/02/2009 11:03:45
CAUGHT BROON HANDED (AGAIN)

THE LABOUR PARTY ARE TOTALY OUT OF CONTROL.

LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE AFTER LIE

THEY MAKE ME SICK.

KICK THEM OUT NOW!

ROLL ON THE ELECTION!
36

TWC,

16/02/2009 11:09:32
40 Rodster,
"Ok those that want unity how about David Cameron as PM Vince Cable as Chancellor, Martin MaGuinness as home Secretary, Gerry Adams as Minister of Defence, "

It would be an improvement, We would have
a new leader
a capable chancellor
No ID cards
No war in Iraq

And hopefully an Election.
37

Rodster,

Glasgow 16/02/2009 11:24:12
I awaken every day in the hope that when I switch on the TV or open this site i will be greeted with the news "Brown arrested " or "Brown Resigns , General Election to be immediate"
The British people deserve an opinion on this , so far all we get is the Westminster Village opinion.

We need to be more like the French and take to the streets and force this unelected buffoon to go to the polls.
Now I do not think the Tories would have a magical solution ,however they cannot be as bad or mad as this lot of incompetents.
From Scotland's point of view it is our chance to give our opinion vent .
38

Brodric,

16/02/2009 11:34:16
27 TWC - I would rather Brown telling me the truth, that he doesn't know all the answers - than be told by another party that we should blame one government for this mess and then have the same silly situation ongoing. Nobody knows exactly what to do or where this mess will end, we are in uncharted waters and I do not believe that there is a magic wand ending to it all.

No 29 Ugly George - I do agree with you - and I did not wish to solely give the impression that I blame Margaret Thatcher after all these years, though I do believe that monetarism plays a major part in the development of the current situation in the UK.

The national debt is worrying - I just don't know what we can do about it.
39

Rodster,

Glasgow 16/02/2009 11:41:18
#44Brodric when Labour came in to power wee had a national debt that was manageable and shrinking , now it seems thanks to Brown and his policies we are going to have to borrow £100 billion this year alone .
Now that is a shed load of money in interest payments alone .
The undoubted fact is this EVERY single time Labour get into power in UK PLC the economy is screwed up big time by them EVERY SINGLE TIME
40

TWC,

16/02/2009 11:41:57
44 Brodric,

Well I'd like the people to have a say first if we are about to gamble
41

Brodric,

16/02/2009 11:45:14
TWC - 44 - Maybe you are right - but I certainly don't know the answer and there are a lot of people in this country who I wouldn't want to decide on something so complex as this. At least the French government is bringing in philosophers and economists to advise - why don't we.
42

Rodster,

Glasgow 16/02/2009 11:49:52
#47 you ask why we do not do as French Brodric , well for starters if they did Brown would have to admit some culpability and Brown does not do that nor does Labour Party .
They are never wrong , never made a mistake always right everyone else is wrong don't you know
43

Raymond Thomas Brooke,

Leven England 16/02/2009 11:53:06
Many accusation of corruption and fraud of other internation governments but our own must rate among them as in the top 5
44

Publius,

London 16/02/2009 12:24:41
#35 Marga

You're right. HBOS should not have been merged with Lloyds. I and others said so - on this board - at the time. The reasons why were obvious then and are obvious now. Lloyds was a sound bank and should have been left alone. HBOS was bust. It should have gone into administration and the government could then have bought for it a nominal sum (one pound or so). The government could then have sold off the viable bits - the high street bank - and mebbe recreated a building society. We can only speculate as to why the bosses of Lloyds went along with Brown: perhaps he had a hold over them?

Incidentally I also forecast on this board that the SNP would be forced to drop LIT. I now forecast that the SNP will backpeddle on an unqualified referendum on independence.
45

AJ Fife,

16/02/2009 12:26:31
"Culpability Broon" is a great nickname and accurate too! :D
46

Rodster,

Glasgow 16/02/2009 12:47:49
I have forecast on this board that Labour would be found to be corrupt .
I forecast on this board that Brown would be more unpopular than Blair ever was .
Incidentally I forecast that Publius is only one of his monikers and is either in the pay of Labour or is a journo on the take.
Whichever he much prefers talking down Scotland and anything Scottish than being a visionary with hope for our future . Prefers to be a Vichy Scot I forecast that when the day of liberation comes he will suddenly have always been a Nationalist and forcasted it on here!!
47

Jay Kay,

16/02/2009 12:55:04
I have to take umbridge at this idium "the Brown Bounce" and would challenge the nation to put this to the test. I say we take him up the nearest multi story and see how far he does indeed bounce, I say that twenty odd stone of utter sh*te would in fact go splat, just like his ratings.
48

Fairfax,

16/02/2009 13:14:04
Publius (50): "I and others said so - on this board - at the time."

We certainly did, last September:

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/LloydsHBOS-merger-still-not-a.4513566.jp

49

The west awake,

Argyll 16/02/2009 13:28:52
W Smith - "As for Labour, well Weegies won't stop voting Labour so the rest of us have to give more serious consideration to emigrating."

- Alternatively, you could stop slagging off the good people of Glasgow and try to persuade them of the benefits of Independence rather than slope off to wherever isn't your native country.
The fact is that the Glaswegians sense of fair play and concern for social justice have been exploited by the Labour Party for far too long. Missplaced loyalty has been a long story in Scotlands history, Glasgows affair with Labour is just one recent chapter.
If you don't have Glasgow behind you, you don't have Scotland, so instead of lounging by the pool, get off your camel and try to be positive.
Some of us are working to change Glasgow and it's working, it's no longer the Labour bastion it once was and next elction Labour's deathgrip on the city will fall.
Maybe you could look at your fellow Scots with a wee bit more humility then?
50

ecosseman,

facts not propaganda 16/02/2009 13:45:24
not so many comments from the loony left today.
I wonder why?


ROLL ON THE ELECTION!
51

Rodster,

Glasgow 16/02/2009 13:49:57
#56 West Awake you must have heard the phrase about pearls and swine , dare I say your excellent advice to W Smith aka Vichy Scot is a waste of your time and effort .
Your posting , can I say was excellent and well thought out alas however you are giving some advice to a nothing positive about Scotland type guy.
You know one of the cringers , one that will attack SNP , anything Scottish but never disclose his own voting intentions beyond the any party but a Scottish party.
His sole purpose on here is to be negative and destroy any goodwill regarding SNP or Scotland.
Probably a supporter of that cancer that is Labour
52

Richard Lionheart,

16/02/2009 14:02:08
Rush? What Rush? Gordon Brown has been questioned over ending Boom and Bust for nearly 2 years. Every time he was questioned his response was that he “HAD ENDED BOOM AND BUST. WE HAVE LEARNT THE LESSONS FROM THE PAST”

Others saw the economy was heading for trouble, but had not anticipated the total mess that Gordon Brown’s tinkering with regulation would really cause, just as the effects of his massive tax raids on Pensions Funds will not be fully known until long after he has departed.

Brown is responsible for the heartache and pain caused to millions of Union Members and their families throughout the Country and while Unions are not likely to Bring Down a Labour Government, there is compelling evidence that it may now be their duty to do so, before Gordon Brown can do any more harm to the future of the British workforce than he has already done.

He could not plan the consumption of alcoholic beverages in a distillery. He should depart and should not be rewarded for his failure!
53

sceptic,

livingston 16/02/2009 14:16:40
Culpability Brown...wasn't he the tax garner!
54

Rodster,

Glasgow 16/02/2009 14:25:03
#61 Well Salem as you seem to be smarter than everybody else. Do tell us what is the cure for all this??
Let us assume Brown goes what should happen next?
55

TWC,

16/02/2009 14:35:00
62 Rodster

read Ian McWhirter in the Herald today
56

Rodster,

Glasgow 16/02/2009 15:33:58
#64 I agree wholeheartedly with you Salem with one exception .
I think that Alex Salmond has done everything that could be expected of him .
I am as keen as you to see Independence I first joined the SNP in 1968 and have been doing my bit one way ot another ever since .
As to declaring UDI in Holyrood that would just play into the Vichy hands and allow the most negative of negative spins to be used.
we are up against a corrupt monolith of an establishment that never has relinquished control of any country ,province or state without a socrtched earth policy at least .
This time the stakes are higher than ever , in effect what started in USa in 18th century has its ending here .
We go and not just oil that goes but any pretence to being a "global power", no more seat on the Security Council , no more G8 for Engerlund , or the rump that is The UK, no more throwing their weight around so we have to be very cautious and very careful .
Personally I would love to man the barracades and see off all comers ,that alas is not realistic.
57

ochone,

Sauchie, Clacks 16/02/2009 18:17:21
It's amazing that there are still those unionists who try to use the Scottishness of RBS and HBOS as some kind of justification for their views, when people first started to voice their concerns for the future of banking in Scotland as a whole (which of course is not the same thing), they were soundly told that these two were not Scottish Banks just because the word Scotland was in thier titles, but rather that they were international institutions.

How times change!
58

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 16/02/2009 18:34:40
64 Salem
"It just grieves me to observe Scotland being dragged down into an abyss that was not of it’s making."

So who created the abyss?

Was it international banks? In this case why should Scotland be exempt when its biggest bank was one of the main culprits?

Was it politicians? In which case why should Scotland be exempt when one of its major politicians was at the helm?

Why is it always somebody else's fault?
59

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 16/02/2009 22:43:35
On saturday I predicted Brown would resign within a week. I wish I had put money on it...
60

PointOf View,

Bonny Bonny Scotland 16/02/2009 23:26:41
70 Very Ugly George.
Why don’t you try taking off your Union glasses and read the sentiment of the vast majority of the above posts. Particularly post's 66 & 64. You sir are indeed a Unionist of the Thatcher brand.

On a completely different note; Anyone up for a party (Edinburgh) when Maggie Broon and his band of trough feeding fraudsters are forced out of office. I suppose it would be too much to ask Thatcher to pass that same week. I mean, we could celebrate two great events at the same party. Let Scotland never forget!

 

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.