| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| Braveheart |
The Economic Case for Indepedence..Sunk!When the banking crisis broke last year, the UK Government had to find an emergency £28billion to keep the Scottish banks from going under overnight...Today they have announced investments of another £30billion in the banks to keep them lending and to fund a needed restructuring.... Given that the Barnett allocation for about £29billion per year, this amounts to 2 years spending for the Scottish administration. Banking crises occur every 30-60 years, so an independent Scotland which hosted a significant banking and commerce sector would face a crisis of this proportion every generation or two.... and could never hope to cope with it without severe economic problems up to and including national bankruptcy.. Isn't it time to put the tin lid on all the nonsense about independence and referendums? We don't need it, and if we had it, there would be a poison pill at the heart of our economy with every significant bank that was headquartered in Scotland. There are, of course, many pre-existing economic arguments against independence, but the banking crisis must be the killer, even for the most optimistic, irrational and emotionally convinced of SNP supporters. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Absolutely! It is evident that the UK cannot afford independence and must forget about such nonsense immediately. How much longer can that gang of criminals in Whitehall keep beggaring the taxpayers to keep the bankers fat? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Zed |
Re: The Economic Case for Indepedence..Sunk!
No ! Independence and referendums is an issue that's not going to go away until it's actually achieved 
The genie is oot the bottle..... 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Braveheart |
Seriously, is that the best you can do? I have just destroyed your dreams and all you can do is make feeble jokes.. sad really 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
You destroyed my dream? Hardly! Besides, I was being perfectly serious. If your argument holds true, there is no case for the UK being independent. Do you accept that? If not, explain why the rules are different for the UK than for Scotland. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| azzuri |
How much is the UK deficit estimated to be over the next 2 years?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Braveheart |
I honestly can't believe I'm having to do this... anyway.... The upfront costs of saving the Scottish banks so far is about £60billion. The Scottish "GDP" is about £30billion. So we need to invest twice our GDP just to keep the banks afloat. Then there's the quantative easing and other costly measures to keep the show on the road and prepare the banks for recovery. In all the UK is predicted to be in debt to about 70%-80% of it's GDP at the end of the process. If Scotland was independent and had to bail out the same banks at the same cost, it would be a multiple (maybe 5 or 6 times) GDP, because the Scottish GDP is smaller than UK GDP. It is obvious that a debt of 80% of GDP, while not desirable, is at least serviceable. A debt of 5 or 6 times GDP is of an entirely different order, and would bankrupt any small country (think Iceland). If that's not clear enough, then you probably have enough economic nous to replace John Swinney tomorrow.... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Oh dear oh dear, you think the Scottish Parliament's pocket money is Scotland's GDP!
According to official Whitehall figures, Scotland's GDP for 2007 was 98.5 Billion Pounds, and you can be sure that does not include a true share (if any) of the value of our oil. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| azzuri |
What exactly is 'costly' to the government of quantititive easing, other than some BOE stooge having to type numbers onto a screen? It costs them precisely ZERO. The after effects; however, could be incredibly costly. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Braveheart |
You're right. I was talking annual budget figures.... 
Even so, the UK debt in 2-3 years will be 70%-80% of GDP for all of it's borrowing, including saving the banks, while the cost of just saving the banks would be about equivalent to the entire Scottish GDP, never mind any other debts we may have. It's still not sustainable.... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
And, as I've said, there would be no onus on Scotland's government to rescue overseas operations of banks based in Scotland. After all, those overseas operations pay taxes to other governments, so why should they be Scotland's problem?
If, for example, RBS had to liquidate its NatWest banks, why does that become a Scottish government headache or responsibility? I've already indicated that I think everything which has been done to stuff the bankers' mouths with gold has been a huge mistake, but the worst case, for me, would be rescuing operations within Scotland, not the entire businesses of these multinationals. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
Re: The Economic Case for Indepedence..Sunk!
it was oot the bottle in 1979 as well. it will return in a generation again i've no doubt. i'm comfortable with that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Wrong! 1979 saw a referendum on devolution. There has never been a referendum on independence, ever, in Scotland. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
well, when the public vote in a referendum i'll happily accpet the outcome. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| chicmac |
Re: The Economic Case for Indepedence..Sunk!
<SIGH> 1. The UK borrowing requirement has extended to 1.4 Trillion pounds. That is one thousand four hundred billion pounds. The 60 billion for 'Scottish' banks is a gnat's tadgers worth. 2. Lloyds is NOT a Scottish bank, HQ is in London. Even before the LLoyd's takeover, although HBOS HQ was tacitly in Edinburgh, in practice 2/3 of the assets were assigned to Halifax and only one token BoS executive was retained on the joint board. I know, because I made the mistake of assuming HBOS was Scottish on a Brit forum about three years ago and had these facts rammed down my throat. 3. The British government has not donated money to these banks, they have bought shares at ridiculuously cheap prices. 4. For example, RBS only wanted a smallish amount of money to help with cash-flow but Brown and Darling insisted that they would have to buy the shares. 5. Short trading ensured that the share prices would be driven down but was only declared illegal the day after the UK government bought the Scottish bank's shares. 6. Banks like Barclay's were allowed to borrow billions from the likes of Qatar and Abu Dhabi on the quiet while Alex Salmond's suggested approach to the Middle Eaast was decried and ridiculed by Brown and Darling. 7. As long as most of the people most of the time thought Barclays etc. did not also need to borrow money, then good. That was the Broon sub-plot. 'Scottish' banks bad - 'English' banks good. All British Unionists are scum, but if you choose to vote Labour then frankly you do really deserve to get them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| William_Cleland |
If British Unionists are scum, how about people who believe in the European Union? In case you haven't noticed, the age of the nation state is drawing to a close. The move to a truly federal Europe continues with Vaclav Klaus signing the Lisbon Treaty:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8340664.stm Once that is in place, the ability of small member states to exercise a veto will be greatly undermined, removing many of the strongest arguments for separate Scottish membership. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
'all british unionists are scum'
'brits' you pro-independence chaps really are a ;ovely, well balanced bunch. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Braveheart |
That'd be "the majority of Scots are scum" then...... a charming opinion from someone who presumably "loves" their country... disgusting.... Where are the mods when you need them? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
of course the mejority of scots voted for pro0union parties at the last election, so, aye, they are scum as well. maybe it's just nationalists that are not scum? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| chicmac |
The word 'unionist' is open to interpretation, but yours is demonstrably absurd. Simply looking at the significant percentages of the voters for the 3 main 'unionist' parties who are actually pro-independence makes a mockery of your claim. Furthermore, those of us who have campaigned for many years know from countless canvassings that even the VAST majority of those who are against independence are only minded that way because they believe that U-scaremongering about the economy of an independent Scotland might be true. This is easily ascertained by simply asking them 'If Scotland would be no worse off financially, would you be in favour of independence then?' I have asked that many times and the great majority answer that in that case they would like Scotland to be independent. So I do not count any of the above as unionist and they make up the great majority of the Scottish people. Now to the even more exacting term I used. "British Unionist". I have defined my meaning of this in detail, here and elsewhere many times in the past so I am not repeating that excercise. However I will simply state that my definition of 'British Unionist' is a Scot who would keep Scotland in the Union even if they knew for certain that most Scots would be worse off by doing so. They are not just British in identity, but are willing to do "whatever it takes" to preserve the Union. They believe Scotland must be saved from itself. They number a very tiny, but highly establishment empowered, percentage of the Scottish population. In the past I have discussed the various reason as to how they come into existence from pseudo-religious and racist reasons to deep seated inadequacies, to personal identity screw-ups but I'm not going into those here. Suffice it to say these types do exist and it is those I refer to as scum because they have no respect for the truth, democracy or the aspirations of their own people. Finally I point out that not all of those who vote SNP are nationalists either and the final irony is that British Unionists as per my usage ARE mostly Nationalists (but with a capital 'N'). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Braveheart |
chicmac you can rationalise and bluster all you want, but anyone who calls those who disagree with him"scum" is a troll and not worth engaging with. If the moderators of this forum had any standards they would delete your posts and bar you from posting. You will not be getting any further response from me.... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
Braveheart, stop your feigned pain and misery.
Braveheart... perhaps Faintheart would be more appropriate. Your by far bigger insult to William Wallace the Scottish hero is to take the name Braveheart. Entirely designed to make a point. Anyway, one of you Brit Nats just inferred I'm racist, bigotted, horrible etc. without provocation in a context that wasn't even slightly confrontational. A little worse than being called scum. Anyway, let's be honest, your posts clearly show what you think of us. You don't say scum but you think it. So as I said get over the scum thing and stop reposting about it. And incidentally, you seem to have lost the economic argument thingy. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Regarding the premise that the economic case for independence has been "sunk", Chicmac wrote an excellent demolition job on this dubious proposition, but then went and spoiled his good work by adding
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Re: The Economic Case for Indepedence..Sunk!1. The UK borrowing requirement has extended to 1.4 Trillion pounds. That's one thousand four hundred billion pounds. The 60 billion for 'Scottish' banks is a drop in the ocean.2. Lloyds is NOT a Scottish bank, its HQ is in London. Even before the LLoyd's takeover, although HBOS HQ was supposedly in Edinburgh, in practice, two thirds of the assets were assigned to English bank HALIFAX and only one token BoS executive was retained on the joint board. 3. The British government has not donated money to these banks, they have bought shares at ridiculously cheap prices. 4. For example, RBS only wanted a smallish amount of money to help with cash-flow but Brown and Darling insisted that they would have to buy the shares. 5. Short trading ensured that the share prices would be driven down but was only declared illegal the day after the UK government bought the shares. 6. Banks like Barclay's were allowed to quietly borrow billions from the likes of Qatar and Abu Dhabi, but Alex Salmond's suggested approach to the Middle East was denounced and ridiculed by both Brown and Darling. 7. As long as most of the people most of the time thought Barclays etc. didn't also need to borrow money, that suited the unionist agenda - 'Scottish' banks bad, 'English' banks good. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
Must have missed something there Stevie, did oor cooncilor Braveheart have an economic argument thingy? Something along the lines of an independent Scotland couldn't borrow money harder or faster than Westminster has, and, his estimates/forcast of a GDP were based on how much pocket money we get back from our surplus. Wouldn't call that an argument thingy, I'd call it bollox. Normal unionist speak. To have any credibility it would have to be based on an actual advantage Scotland Scotland receives from the Union. As there are none it is based on a false premis. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
He's just playing with his thingy.
He knows however that he's no heavyweight. He clearly is following his labour/Tory supporting modern studies teacher's mouthings (or first year at a made up university) and he believed them. His 'facts' have crumbled into the dust and now he's feigning being shocked to change the subject. WALLACE, WALLACE, WALLACE, WALLACE, WALLACE |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
Ah right...... thanks for the clarification. I heard today that it was on the news in the UK that the poud has fallen so much against other currencies of the world that it is the third cheapest holiday destination for tourists! Only Tailand and Iceland are cheaper. Well you can't get a "Big Mac" in Iceland anymore........ so well done Gordy! Cooncilor Braveheart will now proudly boast that this is New Labour boosting the Tourist Industry. Shame for our manufacturing industry though..... doing Hard Labour in a recession. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
It gives me a pay rise though. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
How anybody (especially 'Brave' heart) can waffle on about the relative success and comparative genius of the UK economic gurus : Darling and Brown is ridiculous.
Actually, Darling and Brown sounds like some sort of camp legal accountancy firm... and you know what, that's not too far from the truth. The Brit Nats like Braveheart are blinded, brainwashed and have few coherent arguments. Stick to ridicule, that's what the other Brit Nats do. It seems it's all they're capable of doing. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
For me their more like the Blackadder duo..... Darling and Melchard.
"Blackadder goes forth (no more)"! DC is Baldrick with his cunning plan, but who in the big Westminster Three would be the vote winning Captain Blackadder? Not one of them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
They fiddle with the expenses while gnomes burn.
Actually, I felt there was a great 5th season of Blackadder set during WWII waiting to be made. I would imagine it would have been called, 'A Fifth of Blackadder'. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
1. oh yes, i have good reason for calling them 'unionist scum'. oh well then, thats okay. so long as YOU think it's okay, it's okay. brilliant
2. dare i suggest the snp are not doing their job properly as they have failed to tell scottish voters they will be better off in an indpenedent scotland. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
so, that's how nationalists operate, they use and then justify language like 'scum' and 'brit'. fair play if thats how you wish to present yourself. i suspect real snp supporters/politicians, if asked, would distance themsele from such language.and this board. in fact, 'they work for me'. a wee project perhaps............. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
Landg, when will you and the other unionists stop this nonsense that the SNP has failed.
It's a silly transparent tack that has already become dull. For the first time in Scottish history, the SNP has the largest number of representatives in the Scottish parliament and the Scots all know they can't do everything they want because they lack an overall majority. The Scots know that. Find a new approach. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
your missing the point, it's not that darling and brown are brilliant, or the various worldwide bankers and govt.'s are looking good after this debacle. it's the fact that your offering nothing to remedy or even prevent the situatio. james swinney, financial genius saves scotalnd and the wor;d finances. it's frankly delusional nonsense. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
There is a solution : break the union; take control of our finances and build a country we can boast about based on accomplishment and success. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
and whilst the majority of voteers don't agree with or want this..... what? keep whining? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
I'm sorry, but you certainly can't claim you're running a successful government when you cannot get your policies through. If the SNP wants to do something, then let them negotiate for support with the other parties. They, apparently, share plenty of common ground on domestic issues after all. That's what politics is about: compromise, negotiation, working with others. Hell, even the Tories - with our comparatively poor showing of MSPs - realise that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| chicmac |
Dave, I'm a bit surprised, I thought you would be familiar with my definition of British Unionists by now. 'Narrow' is not a word I would use to describe it, it is just a definition, small in scope in that they make up a tiny minority, but 'narrow' has other conotations for nationalists. However I will amend my signature to clarify things. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
'small in scope in that they make up a tiny minority' this is how you describe the majority who are pro-union. this is quite amazing and hilarious stuff. you sir, are quite mad. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| magister ludi |
Check this out. Look at Norway. What does Norway have that Scotland doesn't? No, it's not a different size of country or population. No, it's not even oil ( we've both got that) It's an oil fund...........something that the SNP alone have proposed. There's nothing delusional about it.....it's on record that that is what they propose. 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
Oh look, the good ship GB Plc ship has actually sunk. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
i think i'll move to norway, they seem to know how to manage money,good for them. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
no, your dreaming again. we are all still here, most of use working away and doing okay. plucky despite our circumstances. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
You don't have to, simply vote SNP, establish a sovereign nation, take charge of the finances and live long and prosper. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
What a plucky endorsement of the economic success that is the debt laden vessel that is taking in more water as we speak. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
don't talk pish. james swinney? you are kidding surely. but the snp cannot make us independent but i'm sure they will ahve their chance again in ageneration. we'll get through this recession, we always do. alas we cannot undo what has been done. so said the american, german, frenchman, british person, irishman, korean, icelander........ |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
We always did. The world has been transformed since Thatcher and even after Major. The Chinese and the Indians have destroyed this myth of competitive workforce. You have to at the top of your game. GB Plc is at the bottom of every game you can think of and in mind boggling debt. You may be able to survive for the next 10 years but getting out from under is unlikely. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
speculation/opinion.move along. no evidence to suggest we will not move out or recession over the neaxt wee while, we have before, we will again. us british are resiliaent, we'll be fine. i include y fellow scots in that. we will ALL be okay. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
The world has changed but you haven't.
Don't count on it. The only way is if Europe sets up tight powerful trade barriers to avoid the endless flood of cheap Chinese and Indian goods entering Europe. If you think it will magically change as it always has done then you have a surprise coming. For countries like Norway, Germany, Japan(?) and the USA (?) then yes. For GB's British blunder, £250 billion possible recent debt and something ridiculous like over a trillion in debt otherwise, GB is bankrupt. You have a chance to make a new country in Scotland and bug all chance in Britain. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| magister ludi |
[img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com 3109/2694872603_dc951fb488_m.jpg[/img] you take care now, landg. You will write won't you? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
Firstly, welcome back Chickmac! Next..... full empathy with your post. The French and Greek resistance did far worse to their collabirators than simply call them scum. Dave is also correct, but...... Cooncilor Braveheart would have walked away anyway...... seen it before on The Herald Forum. A better name for him would be StJudeHeart. His polotics IS a lost cause. Which is why he'll reject any referendum bill..... like I said LOOSER! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
Kwaliaty post man..... even uz neds can dig it man.....pure kwalitay. However, one does fret for the complete and utter distruction of such a worthless piece of drivel from the unionist perspective of such a blatantly biased post...... have you no shame Mr Ludi....... I hope you're not Italian or suchforth....... we've got enough of you already! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
doesnae work. what is it. i'm not really moving. i like it here. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| magister ludi |
Sorry, Landg,
try this: 
I had an oops moment with the "image" thingy......it was the thought of you leaving
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
All hands to the lifeboats....... Polititicians first...... to hell with the women, children, infirm and elderly!!!!!! Sorry! No room for men (sory Ladies) if there were any men among you you would not have voted for Tony and heir apparent!!!!!! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Braveheart |
As I said at the top of the thread, the cost of saving the Scottish banks would have bankrupted an independent Scotland. An assertion which invites discussion on the economics of independence. It's interesting that in all we get from supporters of independence is insult. No economics. No arguments. No facts. No logic. No reason. No sense (common or otherwise). Just namecalling and bluster and insult and wind and water. I'd call it pathetic, but such "arguments" don't even reach the level of pathetic. Are there any real nationalists out there who have an adult, thought-through, reasoned position that they want to share with us? Don't tell me this pile of compost is the best you can do (although I suspect it is). |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
i do not own dungaree's. i'm not some fat, ugly feminist butch type. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
Cooncilor.... yer back! Great! Now at the top of the thread you were on about BENEFITS to Scotland because of the union..... BLUNTLY CASH! How so? And why; if needed could Scotland NOT 'out borrow' The Bank Of England? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
Really? Ultra will be ever so impressed........ Mmwwaahaha! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| magister ludi |
National Archives T319/2929
Scottish devolution and North Sea oil including economics of Scottish independence 1974 Jan 01 - 1975 Dec 31 _______________________ Mr Shepherd cc Mr Caff Mr Mountfield Mr Whittaker Mr Wiggins Mr Field Mr Wood DEVOLUTION: ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES TO SCOTLAND OF THE UNION As you know, the paper the Chancellor is likely to put in a paper for discussion at the meeting of the Ministerial Devolution Strategy Committee fixed for 3 June. It will suggest, among other things, that a determined effort should be made to persuade Scotland that it is in her own economic interest to remain part of an integrated UK economy. I have been asked to produce some material which the Chancellor could use in support of this proposal, initially (presumably) in persuading his colleagues at DS that the thing could be done, and thereafter, in whatever form were judged suitable, in public debate. 2. We have already had several exchanges on the subject; and I think we are fairly well agreed on the following. a. The prospective revenue from oil beneath Scotland's "share" of the UK Continental Shelf in the 1980's is very large by comparison with her likely GDP. The crude comparison of, say, £3 thousand million revenue with £6 thousand million GDP is no doubt misleading, partly because an independent Scottish Government would adopt a slower depletion policy, partly because Scotland would (apart from oil) have a balance of payments deficit needing to be covered and would lose substantial transfers from the UK (though there is some overlap here). Nevertheless, the orders of magnitude are sufficient to show that Scotland would have more cash on independence than under continued union. b. Scotland might lose free access to the UK market after independence; and this could have serious effects on many of her industries. However, if she stayed in the EEC, this argument would lose much of its force. Either England would also stay in (and free trade would continue) or, at the worst, if England withdrew, Scotland would have access to Europe. No doubt there would be transitional difficulties, but oil would smooth them over. c. Scotland would still face some serious structural problems, and might not solve them if she adopted the wrong policies. But clearly one cannot stake much in public on an argument based on the assumption that she would adopt them; and the ability, for example, to run an independent currency would in fact give her some new and helpful policy options. d. One can legitimately point out that a Scottish economy would be heavily dependent on oil and oil prices, with their attendant risks, and that her longer-term prospects might be less obviously attractive than her shorter-term ones. But it is hard to be more specific or convincing than that. 3. Apart from generalities, the most promising line seems to me to be the argument that Scotland has done reasonably well out of the Union in her times of troubles and ought not to break it now that she has better prospects. This argument, if it can be established with convincing detail, will be a forceful one: it is in my view partly because of it that the SNP are so anxious to argue at every turn that Scotland is exploited by "English" institutions of Government and they are so very reluctant to admit that Scotland ever had a favourable balance in her financial dealings with Westminster. 4. I should like to discuss this and see what sort of case could be constructed, so that we can advise the Chancellor in good time before the meeting on 3 June. I will try to arrange a meeting early next week. It will be helpful then to have views on the general arguments and an indication of what factual material is available to Divisions. M S Buckley 19 May 1975 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| magister ludi |
National Archives T319/2929
Scottish devolution and North Sea oil including economics of Scottish independence 1974 Jan 01 - 1975 Dec 31 _______________________ CONFIDENTIAL MRS HEDLEY-MILLER 24(RMSA) 171/173/01 cc Mr Fogarty Mr Barratt Mr Littler Mr Cassell Mr Lavelle Mr Mountfield Mr Buckley Mr Edwards Mrs Harrop SCOTLAND: IMPLICATIONS FOR EXTERNAL FINANCING You will recall that I mentioned my concern at the Scottish problem at a recent OF meeting. I undertook on that occasion to prepare a short paper setting out the problem as I see it, and the attached is the result: this draws on comments kindly contributed by Mr Mountfield and Mr Buckley. 2. I am circulating the paper at this stage mainly for information, and I imagine you will wish to put it to Sir Derek Mitchell on this basis. But the issue seems bound to bulk significantly larger in our consciousness from now on, and I fear that the very existence of the problem, or threat, will have a wholly adverse effect on our external debt management. 3. I have not copied this paper to the bank: it occurred to me that the best course might be for Sir Derek Mitchell to give a copy to Mr McMahon. D A WALKER 5 May 1975 ___________ CONFIDENTIAL SCOTTISH DEVOLUTION; EXTERNAL FINANCING ASPECTS 1. The Government indicated in the White Paper "Democracy and Devolution Proposals for Scotland and Wales" (Cmd 5732) in September 1974 that it accepted the main conclusion of the Kilbrandon report that it is desirable that there should be a substantial measure of devolution to Scotland and Wales, and that the best way of carrying this forward would be through the creation of directly elected assemblies for Scotland and Wales. The White Paper also states that the Government intends to legislate for the establishment of Scottish and Welsh assemblies as soon as possible. 2. To this end, a special Cabinet Office Constitution Unit under the Lord President is now working full steam ahead with a Devolution Bill which it is hoped to lay before Parliament by the turn of the year, though Ministers are not committed to this timetable. Assuming a period of six months for Parliamentary scrutiny and debate and a further six months for holding elections for and setting up the new assemblies, Scotland and Wales could begin 1977 with fully operative assemblies with substantial delegated authority in a wide range of fields. 3. The following paragraphs briefly review possible implications of the planned devolution to Scotland for the external financing position and prospects of the United Kingdom. The implications obviously stem from the heavy concentration in Scottish offshore waters of oil discovered in the last decade. Although North Sea oil has not been mortgaged in any way in public sector borrowing to finance the external deficit, the presumption on the part of both HMG and external creditors is that the UK's prospective self-sufficiency in oil by the end of the decade, and the possibility of a nex export position thereafter, provides key underpinning for the servicing and repayment of this external debt that is now being accumulated. This presumption and the confidence associated with it, is likely to be put in question the greater and, in particular, the more overt the pressure for Scottish separation. 4. The concept which underlies the Government's commitment to devolution is of a "firebreak" - the theory that concession of a moderate degree of devolution will contain the present pressure for full separation and, hopefully, cause the latter to wither as moderate Scottish opinion finds that reasonable demands can be met, and Scottish interests adequately furthered under the new assembly. In institutional terms, the aim is to devise arrangements which, while being of a basically Ministerial character, do not appear to give Scotland an embryo central government. There will not, for example, be a post bearing the title "Prime Minister" or, indeed, a Minister at all: the title equivalent to "Minister" is likely to be "Member of the Scottish Executive". 5. In practice, however, even if this concept and approach is in the end validated by events, there is a serious risk that the publicity and debate that will accompany the path to devolution will call into question the viability of the United Kingdom as a debtor. The matter of depletion policy will in this respect be crucial. The scope for conflict here is that while present UK thinking is tentatively in terms of an annual production rate of some 120-130 million tons in the early 1980s (implying a surplus for export of the order of 20 million tons), the SNP have, on the other hand, talked of an annual production rate of only 50 million tons. Given that annual production of 100 million tons plus is required for self-sufficiency, the mere claim of a Scottish assembly for a significant influence in depletion policy would seem bound to have an adverse effect on UK credit-worthiness: and this effect could start to be felt ahead of the establishment of the assembly if the SNP harp on the depletion theme and look likely to be the majority party in the new assembly. 6. Countering such concern about depletion policy will in itself be no easy task. But there is, beyond this, a clear possibility that the Government's tactics or strategy will misfire most substantively. This pessimistic approach would be predicated on a theory the polar opposite of that described above and on which the Government is now acting. The alternative view is that the result of the new arrangements will be to equip Scotland with institutions virtually equivalent to an independent central government which would pursue nationalistic objectives and possibly break away from the United Kingdom altogether. The assembly would give focus and public vent to the aims of the separatists and a hearing which they do not enjoy at present as a small minority party in the Westminster legislature. The assembly would, as indicated, be likely to demand a say in depletion policy and a substantial share of oil revenues (which it could use to increase public expenditure in Scotland); and it could support its demands, even without formal separation, by interfering with oil exploitation and exploration in a variety of ways, for example by withholding co-operation over on-shore support. 7. If this pessimistic view is validated, external creditors of the UK could very quickly start to take fright. Although the external debts that have been accumulated do not involve explicit mortgaging of North Sea oil, there is clearly a general presumption that repayment will be effected out of the current account surpluses that will be generated by the elimination of, by 1980, of oil imports and possible achievement of a net oil export position thereafter . This prospect could be cast in doubt by an assembly of which the articulate leading members were all pressing hard for separation. These doubts and pressures would bear not only on the sterling balances but also on foreign currency borrowing undertaken with HMG's guarantee: there would plainly be increasing doubt about what HMG would be comprised of by the early 1980s when most of these debts fall due for repayment. 8. If there is a moral from all this, it is that progress toward devolution should be delayed for as long as possible consistently with honouring the Government's commitment to move down the devolution road and containing the SNP lobby in Parliament. The longer this can be played, the better the prospect that the external deficit will have narrowed, so that dependence on ongoing external financing will be reduced or eliminated. Hopefully also, a situation by the end of the decade in which the non-oil sectors of the UK economy are in heathier shape will to some extent mitigate the drive for separation. F(RMSA) Division HM Treasury 6 May 1975 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| magister ludi |
Braveheart,
there are the facts; official minutes from the UK Governments own archives. What interpretation do you put on them? chaio |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
I'd be interested in why you believe they are significant too... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Braveheart |
actually, as well as the compost, what I smell from our nationalist contributors is raw fear.... They've got their government and it has failed in all respects.... meanwhile harsh economic reality is getting through to even the meanest nationalist intellect..... .... independence would be a disaster for the people and the economy of Scotland..... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
may have been a kinda relevant 35 years ago when there was a lot of oil left, there is not now though. even salmond is cleverr enough to know that the whole oil question is a dead horse not worth flogging. if you go further back maybe we could claim financial roghts on penicillin and shortbread. 
i'm quite sure the brit scum would happily let the indepedencista's pick up the tab for cleaning up the north sea oil platforms over the next few decardes.mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Braveheart |
I interpret them as the work of civil servants doing their job for the country that they serve. What interpretaion do you put on them? ciao |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Zed |
What makes you think there is no oil left ? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| magister ludi |
Indeed; and here was me thinking that civil servants were meant to be politically neutral. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| magister ludi |
Far be it from me to question your sense of smell, but you did ask for some "facts"; I've supplied 2 original source documents. What I smell in them is "fear".....the fear and panic of the government of the day. They understood then that the economic case for the sustainability of an independent scotland was indisputable; all they were left with was a policy of denial, muddying the waters, time delay and "firebreaks". That they engaged in the tactics of time delay and firebreaks rather suggests to me that they interpreted the zeitgeist as leading inevitably to independence. In that I think they were correct. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| magister ludi |
To add a more contemporary note I would add that "time delay" remains the current spoiling tactic of choice for the unionist establishment and their poor beknighted lackies. That's why "not now" is the current slogan of the scottish unionist alliance, and of course why Wendy Alexander caused such a fuss when she made the "bring it on" speech. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| chicmac |
You have either not read what I have written or are in possession of reading interpretation skills which are sadly lacking. Furthermore your intemperate use of personally abusive language in place of cohesive argument does you, I feel, a great personal disservice and achieves nothing in terms of furthering the debate. However, always reluctant to give up, I will attempt once more to explain what I mean by 'Brit Unionist' in terms you may, hopefully, be more familiar with. The term 'Brit Nat' is most commonly used to mean those who are emotionally British above all else - a small minority of Scots (see Moreno Question results). Many restrict the 'Brit Nat' term to an even smaller subset by considering that only those who would "do whatever it takes to preserve the Union" merit the term. i.e. those willing to lie, cheat, hide information, distort and control the media, pursue undemocratric practices etc. That very small group I would indeed call 'Brit Unionist'. However, the reason I am not keen on the term 'Brit Nat' is not simply because I would rather Scottish nationalism not be lexicographically associated with the completely different beast of British Nationalism but rather because there is a class of Brit Unionists who I would not describe as 'Brit Nats'. Now I concede, that some would use the term 'Brit Nat' to include, for example - far lefty idealogs who would want to see cultural differences eliminated, preferably in a new Global scenario - or - those of dependency mentality or who have succumbed to the racist lie of innate Scottish inability to run their own country and who therefore want as many mammy's aprons as they can get hold of including the EU. Those and other examples not given, are still Unionist, but are they Nationalist (with a capital 'N')? I would tend to reserve the term 'Brit Nat' for that far right Nationalism which is largely imbued with mores based on vestigial notions of Empire, Privilege and cultural correction/suppression [note Scottish nationalism (small 'n') is opposite in meaning, being anti-imperialist, egalitarian and entirely supportive of diversity of regional cultures.] So I use the term 'British Unionist' to mean those who, for whatever reason, are willing to do "whatever it takes to preserve the Union" even including those who would never describe themselves as capital 'N' Nationalist in the British sense, but still a tiny proportion of the Scottish population. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Showing your ignorance again. Approximately half the oil available from the North Sea has been produced, which means half of it is still there. The oil infrastructure was built by private companies with private resources, and it will be dismantled the same way. All companies involved in the North Sea have given undertakings to clean up their own messes. The only tab the state will have to pick up will be the tax write-off. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| chicmac |
double post removed | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Braveheart |
This thread starts from the assertion that the collapse of the Scottish banks has resulted in costs to save them. These costs are such that, if Scotland was independent, the cost of saving the Scottish based banks would bankrupt the country. Furthermore, as similar banking crises happen with regularity, an independent Scotland would ... be bankrupted in this way every 1-2 generations... or be unable to host the Headquarters of large banks for fear of the economic consequences of a banking crisis. The original sourced documents that you provide do not impinge upon this argument in any way..... if you want to start another thread about what happened 35 years ago, feel free to do so. If you wish to take part in this thread, please feel free to do so by addressing the point(s) of the original assertion. ciao |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| chicmac |
[quote="Shagpile"]
Thanks. Although I didn't intend to be back until the draft Referendum Bill is read out to the SP in January, it looks like the U-parties have painted themselves into a corner and even though an impending election will concentrate their minds and divert them from thinking up new ways to screw Scotland, I fear there will be little chance for the Bill unless factors external to the SP come to the fore. Gone are the 'bwing it onites' and democrats of recent times. However, election proximity will doubtless cause them to regret their over hasty cringe-reaction and there is still a chance for it if external pressures can be produced. Pity about the demise of Independence First (seemingly???), but some anti disenfranchisement stand with as much foreign interest as can be attracted could nudge enough into at least abstention. Dave is right in that the use of the word scum did divert from the message, but Brit Us, Brit Unionists or U-scum, as I use in some forums, ARE scum and I will continue to describe them as such. 'Scum' is easier to write than the dictionary definition of 'Despicable members of society' . |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| chicmac |
Yes Dave, it did divert. But we do need a name for British Unionists who are willing to '"do whatever it takes" including media control, hiding facts, undermining the economy of Scotland, rubbishing Scottish culture, and all the other disgusting things they are willing to do to save Scotland from itself. And they ARE quite clearly scum, no two ways about it. In some forums I use the term 'U-scum', may have even done so here, can't remember. But see my other post why I am not keen on the 'Brit Nat' designation even thopugh that has gained more currency. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Alasdair |
I sincerely doubt the veracity of your arguements. You state that a crisis of this nature occurs every 60 - 80 years (I believe this was the time frame you gave). Aside from the current event and the 1930's event which other events do you refer to? Two event do not make a trend. I'm not being facetious but I have no knowledge in this area. Given that this event has occurred what is the serious liklihood that it would happen again even as soon as soon as within two generations and given the serious levels of debt in which the UK now finds itself how can it be argued that even the UK might survive a future event? Shouldn't we maybe just throw our towel in with Europe and and go full steam ahead for a fully integrated economic unit? Is iceland considered to be bankrupt? I presume it is. Again I'm not au fait with such things. What are the real terms implications of this for the country and how long can they expect these difficulties to continue? I presume it's going to survive as an independent nation. In the event that the UK became bankrupt what would be the implications for the citizens? Would we be merged with France or maybe be 'bought-out' by America? Or would the UK continue to exist as a nation in it's own right. I can't help actually thinking that a bit of bankruptcy in the so-called developed countries might actually teach people to stand on their own two feet again instead of being dependent on the state. Actually, to go off topic for a moment (and maybe slightly metaphysical) does the state even exist anyway or is there only society ... enquiring minds want to know.
Conversations and debates tend to grow and change organically, such is life.
Gie us peace man, who are you? the flaming thread police
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| chicmac |
The government acquired 3/4 of the shares in one Scottish bank and nearly half the shares in another, at best only partly Scottish bank, for 37Billion pounds. RBS is one of the biggest banks in the World and was at rock bottom share prices with assets worth many times that figure. Even a buffoon like Brown who sold British Gold reserves at an 18 month low and just before the price shot up to a new high cannot fail to make a very nice profit for the taxpayer out of it. Initiall sell-offs alone are set to rake in 16 Billion. Well before that time the government spent over 90 Billion pounds, nearly 3 times the money for the 'Scottish' banks, acquiring Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley, both toxic debt ridden, both much smaller and both, therefore, much less likely to ever to repay it. However, compare and contrast media coverage. All you hear is RBS and Fred the Shred. Similarly the vast majoriity of people are completely unaware of other 'English' banks being quietly slipped Billions from the UK government and even allowed to borrow more Billions from Middle Eastern countries. Again, media management. It isn't possible to say whether regulation and policy influence in an independent Scotland would have been better than the disaster unfolding within the UK, but one would sure as Hell hope so. And one thing is for sure, in a future independent Scotland it will be. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Braveheart |
if you have no knowledge why do you sincerely doubt....?
I'm no expert either, but banking collapses are nothing new, and systemic problems like this one are also common. That this one is in an age of commercial globalisation maybe makes it worse. see here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/sep/19/business
Don't know. But it is very clear that an independent Scotland would not have survived this one, never mind a worse one...
That's one of the arguments for European integration and why the Tories are nuts to resist it...
me too
yes. starving to death by the million would be great thing for our moral fibre....but it's not a very good argument for independence is it? "vote for us and we'll have regular doses of bankruptcy to keep you on your toes!".
I'm just someone who wishes to have a discussion about the economics of independence. So far there has not been much of a contribution from the pro-independence side..... maybe they have no argument to present, but a couple of deadheads discussing when you are allowed to call people scum and some letters from 1975.. doesn't cut it... That's all I'm saying... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
Why would we wish to save these banks. They can go bankrupt and the government can help with people's savings and pensions. We can also start new Scottish based banks. Because GB borrowed a mountain of debt doesn't mean at all that an independent Scotland WOULD HAVE ALLOWED this mess to occur in the first place. We've already discussed this, you lost and now you're going over the same argument again. braveheart the Brit Nat has run out of Brit Nat argument. But just to pour vinegar on your wounds : http://www.heraldscotland.com/new...y-from-recession-salmond-1.930620 Scotland's first minister has a different perspective, but of course you know better than everybody else... |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
The reason Brayfart didn't answer this is because it's Scottish oil that is underpinning British borrowing to bail out the British banks..... Without North Sea oil, Westminster could not borrow a fraction of the bail out money. Oor Cooncilor is trying to make a case for an advantage of the union to Scotland....... a steriotype right out of the memos posted by ML. He thinks he's succeeding...... When someone deliberately tries to mislead someone else, it's called a lie. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
He's a Brit Nat, everything that points to a prosperous independent sovereign Scotland is wrong and every Brit Nat argument (no matter how preposterous) is right.
Emphasis on right. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ultra |
http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/...0Oil%20-%20Background%20paper.pdf Scottish Government says it's running out in around 2 decades time. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Stevie |
A document written with it's agenda against an independent Scotland firmly in place. Who wrote it and why? Answer : Brit Nats who wish to clutch on to the status quo. They're always discovering new 'biggest ever strike' oil fields. And even if there's only 20 years left, it's still 20 years of building Scotland up into the country it could be in comparison to the 20 years of the relative financial neglect of Westminster. The article is Brit Nat biased junk, rather like many of the Brit Nat arguments on this thread. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Two decades. That's twenty years, in case you haven't noticed. And you think that equates to there's none left.
I'll tell you something for nothing; I'll be retiring from the oil industry in about ten years time. My grandson is in his early teens right now. If he chooses to go into the oil industry he'll be able to reach his retirement age and still be working in the business. Guaranteed. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ultra |
Twenty years of reducing production and picking up decommissioning costs.... Holebender. What country is it you work in? Angola was it? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| magister ludi |
I have provided figures in a pretty graph prepared by and based on figures produced by the OECD....they are relevant to today....they are 2009 figures. I have pointed out the difference between Norway ( with an oil fund) and other countries. Scotland, had it had an oil fund would currently be in a position not dissimilar to Norway.......whether the banks would have collapsed or not in that situation is a matter of speculation, but even assuming a worst case scenario and they had, the scottish government would have been in a position to borrow and finance such support and restructuring of the banks as they chose, if indeed they did decide to do so (and that too is a matter of speculation) I believe the history lesson is highly relevant. You will have noticed points No. 3. & 7. You will see that the British Govt then did not "mortgage" the accumulated debt against oil revenues, but used the security of having oil revenues as a basis for negotiating and having access to borrowings. They were seen in effect as a "good risk" because of the prospect of oil revenues and an oil surplus to finance the debt. Now, if the UK could use the prospect of oil to support the UK debt of the 70's and 80's, I think it highly likely that the Scottish Government could raise the finance by international borrowing to support and restructure a couple of banks ( again, IF they chose to do so). In fact, I believe it much more likely that the scottish government could have raised the necessary money than a government of the rump UK which would not have had an obvious way to generate revenue to finance the debt. That being the case the London based banking system and the financial services sector upon which the South East economy so heavily depends would have collapsed. Your "question" therefore about economic independence is valid, but your assumptions are wrong. You are assuming that Scotland would have been required to bail out the banks ( which it may or may not have) and that it would have been expected to do so with the money from some Barnett Formula pocket money allocation from the UK Treasury. Scotland was well placed to do so......in fact if we are looking for a basket case economy in this scenario of yours it would have been the British rump with its over reliance on financial services and no oil reserves as collateral. On the matter of starting a new thread, you could well be right; perhaps the question that should be posed would be " Could the Uk government have bailed out the "city of London" and the financial services sector were it not for Scotland? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
Absolutely! EVEN IF we are all driving electric cars, and EVEN IF planes fly on coconut milk derivatives. We'll still need plastic and other oil distillates. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
Oil "running out in around 2 decades time" is a very different thing from "there's no oil left".
Also, what does it actually MEAN when we say "20 years of oil left?" It should be obvious that the TIME which is "left" depends on the rate at which you extract the oil. A country with a population of 5 million and far more oil than they could ever use themselves has less of an incentive to get it all out fast. Just ask Norway. Oil still in the ground can be even better than money in the bank. The less oil there is to go round, the more valuable what is still in the ground becomes. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Alasdair |
Call it intuition 
Ok, I can accept that point and I can agree that the global nature of business perhaps makes this situation worse. But this is an arguement about how business and banks in particular operate. Particularly relevant becomes the notion of the economic slave given that the cause of the collapse was seemingly the over-selling of a non-entity, namely debt. The situation arose as a result of toxic debt and the powers that be should really be taking the opportunity to review the way in which banks organise their affairs instead we see them encouraging them to continue the 'financing' of business and individuals in the same style as the have done so for some time. We might hope that in an independent scotland things might be different, or would have been, either way it's merely speculation. You speculate that the system would have been the same and that Scotland would not be able to service the debt, meanwhile others argue the opposite, it's a debate that can go around in circles ad infinitum. What is abundantly clear though is that the Westminster Government (and any future government) has no intention of changing the system in any real or tangible manner other than by maybe capping bonuses.
Again it's a speculative arguement and others can and have effectively argued the opposite.
It's not just the tories though. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the EU I think people would be more comfortable with the whole project if the leaders would simply come clean and say 'yes, we want a superstate' and made the arguements for it. Instead what we have is a creep that has led to mistrust, misconceptions and a deep sense of unease amnongst huge numbers of people within the EU area.
Are the people in Iceland starving to death? I haven't heard anything and I would have thought that given the complete lack of agricultural land and their relative remoteness the cost of importing food would be rather high. Presumabely they're all eating fish then, although how do they pay for the fuel? and maintenance of their fleet ...
Fairplay, and I'll give you this. You've given a far more detailed arguement on this issue than Mr Mundell did when I questioned him about it recently ... an inquisition which I may be about to resume.
I disagree, some of the pro-independence contributions have been very good. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Braveheart |
No it isn't. It's an argument about the economics of Scottish independence, and whether the failure of the Scottish banks shows the fragility of any post independence economy, and its exposure to failing banks.
Can't argue. Haven't a clue what this means.
The evidence is with me. No nationalist politician or thinker gave the slightest inkling of disagreeing with the conduct of the Scottish banks before the crisis arose. In fact Alex Salmond gloried in the success of the Scottish banking and commercial sector, and boosted it, and his friendship with many of the key banking players, at every opportunity. There is no evidence that an independent Scotland would (or indeed could in a global economy) have behaved significantly differently from the US or UK or other banking authorities. Some nationalists might try to use the argument that an independent Scotland would have behaved differently, but they were not saying it last year, and its just adiversion to stop them admitting the evidence of their own eyes.
I have quoted the numbers which show that the banks ate up an amount equivalent to the entire annual budget of the Scottish administration. Others have argued against it, but not effectively and with assertion only, not with any evidence or even any sound reasoning.
point me to one that you think is very good. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Dave Coull |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
Ken whit y'mean
Chicmac..... you are a guid lad, mair power tae yer elbow. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| landg |
20 years of oil, thats the legacy some base the independence arguemnet on, won't your great grandchildren be delighted, basing it on 20 years of oil and all the while we (THE WORLD) are trying to get away from using the stuff. could it be any more short sighted.
oh yeh, let the banks fail. seriously? how f***ing stupid are some of you folks. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
BTW, if there were a module in difficult question avoidance. Brayfart would have a phd. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Braveheart |
Whatever, they have not made their case very well...
Sure. But the only sizeable party that wants indpendence and a referendum has failed to deliver its key promises. It has done some small things on bridge tolls, ferry fair subsides and other populist measures, but it has not passed one major bill, and it is hard not reach the conclusion that "big" policies as SFT and LIT and School Building and Class Size 18 and Abolishing Student Debt were promised without (to put it mildly) sufficient understanding of how they would be delivered. As a result, they have not been delivered. If they promise these things and don't deliver them, why believe their analysis and position on independence?
I have no fear of a referendum. But it is not necessary, or it is only necessary to assuage a minority who will never be assuaged anyway.... TBH, I would rather spend the time and money on other things (schools etc.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Shagpile |
Give us time Landg....... we're taking lessons from you don't ya know. And your stupidity goes right off the Richter Scale..... it takes time to analyse. Be patient.... we'll get there.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||