| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
magister ludi
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 225
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Braveheart wrote: |
......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 |
It looks as though Braveheart has taken a break.
It's possible that he's off with his tail between his legs.....because he hasn't answered a single point that has been made to counter his assertion about an independent Scotland's inability to bail out banks headquartered in Scotland, other than to claim they are irrelevant. Clearly given this and his remarks about starting another thread, he's quite proprietorial about "his thread".
Well Braveheart, if you're still out there, I'll accept it's your ba' and so I'll play to your rules.....you don't mind playing on a level pitch do you.....of course not......so can we mark out the bye-lines and corner flags then?
Let's see......this is a hypothetical post referendum Scotland that has voted for negotiations to start on independence from the rest of the UK., and let's assume that the negotiations are over....and that Scotland is, in this hypothetical scenario, an independent nation state. Ok so far?
Here, let me ask you a question.......in this newly independent Scotland, whose running the government? SNP, Labour, Tories, Liberals....or somebody else?
Wanna play? We're just marking out the pitch and setting up a hypothetical scenario....then we can get down to the game and argue economics.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| magister ludi wrote: |
.......in this newly independent Scotland, whose running the government? SNP, Labour, Tories, Liberals....or somebody else?
|
This is a good question. Who would be running it? I'm not sure if anybody really thinks past that in the whole should/shouldn't be independent thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
magister ludi
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 225
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aye Fidget, there are times when you read some stuff ( here included.....and I'm guilty too) and you think the debate hasn't really moved on.....but it has, and continues to do so.
20 years ago I was having a pint (or 2) with someone and between us we were solving a fair few of the worlds problems, but I was surprised by a remark he made concerning his reasons for not voting SNP , it was that he couldn't bring himself to vote for a scotland that would be a one party state. The idea that there might be democratic elections or a re-alignment of politics and/or parties within such a post independence state had honestly never occurred to him.
Perhaps we might consider whether or not the SNP would disintegrate or implode after a "yes" vote and their raison d'etre vanished? Another thread though, eh? Don't want to rub bravehearts fur the wrong way....just yet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| no doubt in my mind that the snp would not be running an indy scotland but we are not going to have an indy scotland. so many if's on this biard it defies belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Independentist
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| magister ludi wrote: | It looks as though Braveheart has taken a break.
It's possible that he's off with his tail between his legs.....because he hasn't answered a single point that has been made to counter his assertion about an independent Scotland's inability to bail out banks headquartered in Scotland, other than to claim they are irrelevant. Clearly given this and his remarks about starting another thread, he's quite proprietorial about "his thread". |
As I said, he's rather light weight and doesn't know very much but worse, rather like the other Brit Nats, he hasn't got any original ideas.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.
Alba gu bràth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| magister ludi wrote: | Aye Fidget, there are times when you read some stuff ( here included.....and I'm guilty too) and you think the debate hasn't really moved on.....but it has, and continues to do so.
20 years ago I was having a pint (or 2) with someone and between us we were solving a fair few of the worlds problems, but I was surprised by a remark he made concerning his reasons for not voting SNP , it was that he couldn't bring himself to vote for a scotland that would be a one party state. The idea that there might be democratic elections or a re-alignment of politics and/or parties within such a post independence state had honestly never occurred to him.
Perhaps we might consider whether or not the SNP would disintegrate or implode after a "yes" vote and their raison d'etre vanished? Another thread though, eh? Don't want to rub bravehearts fur the wrong way....just yet. |
I can appreciate where he's coming from.
A Yes vote for independence and the actual date of independence will likely be a few years apart. So.. isn't it a bit arrogant of the SNP to be stating what will be on Independence day? They think that winning an independence referendum somehow automatically means they will be the government of scotland. Surely they should be saying that one of the first things that will happen is an election to see which party will be the Government, instead of railroading ahead with what they will be doing as the Government as if there'll be no opposition? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | Ultra wrote: | | I would rather work for a profitable company, my job be secure, and contribute to the Scottish economy with my salary and taxes than be a plastic Scot whining from afar. |
Does not sound like 'Brown's Britain' at all. Try it from 'afar', odds on you wont go back. Yet, you posted you now lived and worked in England?
Could you clarify please? |
Shagpile, please post where I have said the I live and work in England?
There is a reason why I have been down in England recently. Please feel free to read it and then apologize.
Otherwise, this is just more blatant lies from nationalists who can't answer the majority of the questions being put to them and prefer to deflect attention and avoid issues put to them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More interesting data on the effect the global Economic Crisis has had to Iceland's and Ireland's credit rating after bailing out their banks....
Iceland’s Banks Flunk at Fitch Ratings
The Icelandic banking system was given the lowest rating possible for a developed state at the international agency Fitch Ratings this week. Iceland and Vietnam are in the same category but Tunisia and Ecuador rank higher than Iceland.
Landsbanki, one of Iceland's three largest banks that collapsed last year. Copyright: Icelandic Photo Agency.
Fitch releases two reports every year, evaluating the stability of the banking systems in different countries. Usually, industrial nations are rated with a B or C. No state was given an A this time but Australia, Canada and Hong Kong earned a B, RÚV reports.
The US and the UK are rated with C. Ireland, Belgium and Iceland rank at the bottom among developed countries; the first two were given a D, while Iceland received the lowest rate possible for a developed country: E.
Before the banking collapse of October 2008, Fitch rated Iceland with a C but the collapse made it plummet down two categories.
The banking systems of countries in the E category are considered extremely weak, a statement from Fitch explained.
A slight increase in pressure can cause a wide-reaching crisis, which burns up the banking system’s equity, and require financial support from the government or shareholders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fidget
Standing in a Council Ward
Joined: 21 Jan 2007
Posts: 556
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's all Westminster's fault.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
magister ludi
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 225
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultra,
That's the 2nd time you've referred to the Fitch ratings (and a bit of cut and pasting going on here between your contributions in different threads, if I'm not mistaken)
You couldn't by any chance give me a link to the actual Fitch report could you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| magister ludi wrote: | Ultra,
That's the 2nd time you've referred to the Fitch ratings (and a bit of cut and pasting going on here between your contributions in different threads, if I'm not mistaken)
You couldn't by any chance give me a link to the actual Fitch report could you? |
http://www.fitchratings.com/index_fitchratings.cfm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
magister ludi
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 225
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thanks Ultra,
but that link takes me to an index/home page or something.......I was hoping for the actual report. If you haven't got the link do you have a report name, date, ref no. or something? As you know they do "reports" for a living, so there are hundreds of them. Am I right in thinking the Fitch rating is based on the CDS rating? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| magister ludi wrote: | thanks Ultra,
but that link takes me to an index/home page or something.......I was hoping for the actual report. If you haven't got the link do you have a report name, date, ref no. or something? As you know they do "reports" for a living, so there are hundreds of them. Am I right in thinking the Fitch rating is based on the CDS rating? |
It's the latest Sovereign report. Not sure if you need to register for access. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
magister ludi
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 225
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Big thanks Ultra, that was helpful.
And yes they are based on CDS ratings.
Contraversial.
( my understanding is that CDS is a financial derivative, .....the stuff that hedge funds buy & sell.....and that by watching and comparing how the "market" puts a price on these things......we can guess how risky, say, a bank is by putting a price on how much it would cost to insure the bank against debtors defaulting. Again as I understand it, it was these very derivatives, particularly the bare cds's taken out by hedge funds on the sidelines with no direct interest in the original loan risk default itself, that contributed to the global financial meltdown....CDS'S only pay out when debtors, eg banks that borrow from other banks, actually go bust and default......so for the spiv hedge fund managers it's double rollover jackpot when banks go bust.)
PS: what do you think of Gordon's latest Tobin Tax idea......is he off his head or what? The tax payer owns half the banks, the other half will just move off-shore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| magister ludi wrote: | Big thanks Ultra, that was helpful.
And yes they are based on CDS ratings.
Contraversial.
( my understanding is that CDS is a financial derivative, .....the stuff that hedge funds buy & sell.....and that by watching and comparing how the "market" puts a price on these things......we can guess how risky, say, a bank is by putting a price on how much it would cost to insure the bank against debtors defaulting. Again as I understand it, it was these very derivatives, particularly the bare cds's taken out by hedge funds on the sidelines with no direct interest in the original loan risk default itself, that contributed to the global financial meltdown....CDS'S only pay out when debtors, eg banks that borrow from other banks, actually go bust and default......so for the spiv hedge fund managers it's double rollover jackpot when banks go bust.)
PS: what do you think of Gordon's latest Tobin Tax idea......is he off his head or what? The tax payer owns half the banks, the other half will just move off-shore. |
The point I was making was around the countries credit rating and how it is impacted by the current economic crisis.
If Scotland was independent then it is usually compared to Ireland and Iceland and they now have a far worse credit rating the most other countries these days. In compariosn, this would lead to Scotland being able to borrow less and at a higher interest rate compared to the UK.
But you know what these type of stats are like. Difficult to sometimes pin down exactly what report is being talked about from media reports. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
magister ludi
Gaining a Reputation
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Posts: 225
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I understand the point you were making....I just didn't agree with it.
I'm still very very skeptical........so I'll stick to my default position if you don't mind ( however prejudiced you might have cause to think it )
With the prospect of bare cds's being outlawed and regulation and transparency being brought into the CDS market I'm sure that CDS based ratings will in the future more accurately reflect the real riskiness of banks........although I'm still a little worried that as an assessment/predictive tool they're a closed loop system; but your right to this extent ( I 'll grudgingly admit!) policy makers and regulators will need to take these albeit imperfect tools and indicators into account because as we have seen they have an effect on perception, confidence and so therefore do drive the market. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ultra
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 29 Sep 2009
Posts: 652
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| magister ludi wrote: | I understand the point you were making....I just didn't agree with it.
I'm still very very skeptical........so I'll stick to my default position if you don't mind ( however prejudiced you might have cause to think it )
With the prospect of bare cds's being outlawed and regulation and transparency being brought into the CDS market I'm sure that CDS based ratings will in the future more accurately reflect the real riskiness of banks........although I'm still a little worried that as an assessment/predictive tool they're a closed loop system; but your right to this extent ( I 'll grudgingly admit!) policy makers and regulators will need to take these albeit imperfect tools and indicators into account because as we have seen they have an effect on perception, confidence and so therefore do drive the market. |
Not at all Magister. You are entitled to your opinion and put it across very well without any abuse or lies being spouted.
I appreciate your honesty and treating others with respect.
I think it's about comparing like with like or similar countries to other similar countries. You can't just pick up some of these stats and treat them in isolation to prove a point. Yes the UK may have a higher debt ratio than a smaller country. But the UK has a greater ability to pay back this debt due to the population size and a higher credit rating than other countries. Scotland tends to be compared to the likes of Ireland and Iceland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ultra wrote: | | magister ludi wrote: | I understand the point you were making....I just didn't agree with it.
I'm still very very skeptical........so I'll stick to my default position if you don't mind ( however prejudiced you might have cause to think it )
With the prospect of bare cds's being outlawed and regulation and transparency being brought into the CDS market I'm sure that CDS based ratings will in the future more accurately reflect the real riskiness of banks........although I'm still a little worried that as an assessment/predictive tool they're a closed loop system; but your right to this extent ( I 'll grudgingly admit!) policy makers and regulators will need to take these albeit imperfect tools and indicators into account because as we have seen they have an effect on perception, confidence and so therefore do drive the market. |
Not at all Magister. You are entitled to your opinion and put it across very well without any abuse or lies being spouted.
I appreciate your honesty and treating others with respect.
. |
aye, am sure he's no fan of me but i've also already said he seems about the most sensible person on here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Independentist
Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Posts: 1179
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, following your unpleasant insult and the depth of your posting, your not included in your own statement.
_________________
Every man dies, not every man really lives.
Alba gu bràth! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
landg
This is Ma' Life!
Joined: 05 Aug 2009
Posts: 617
Location: awaiting approval by a mod/admin
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Stevie wrote: | | Well, following your unpleasant insult and the depth of your posting, your not included in your own statement. |
geewhizz. you have some brassneck on you to pontificate about insulting others on here.a brief perusal of the forum would highlight your hypocrisy.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
