Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Top Salmond aide knocks independence

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: 09 April 2009
By HAMISH MACDONELL
Scottish Political Editor
ONE of Alex Salmond's top economic advisers warned yesterday that there was no way an independent Scotland could have bailed out RBS.
John Kay, a member of the First Minister's Council of Economic Advisers, said the question of what an independent Scotland could have done with the bank was too frightening even to raise.

Writing in the Financial Times, he said: "What would have h
appened if the struggling Royal Bank of Scotland, whose principal retail operation is the English NatWest bank, had been headquartered in an independent Scotland?

"It is only necessary to frame the question to want to go to great lengths not to have to answer it."

Opposition politicians said Mr Kay was right and the Scottish Government had to come round to his point of view.

Jeremy Purvis, for the Liberal Democrats, said: "The SNP's financial argument for an independent Scotland is economically illiterate.

"The balance sheet of RBS is 15 times greater than the GDP of Scotland. The injection of capital needed to save RBS from collapse would have swallowed up Scotland's entire budget."

Derek Brownlee, for the Tories, added: "John Kay is, in Alex Salmond's own words, one of Britain's leading economists. These comments will not have been welcomed by the First Minister but there is no point in having a team of independent advisers if they are not free to speak their mind."

A spokesman for the First Minister stressed how important it was to have advisers from different political backgrounds.

He said: "We have them because they are independent thinkers. We don't want them to agree with every government policy – there would be no need for an independent economic forum if that was the case."

He added that the banking crisis was a "legacy of the Union".

The First Minister insisted during a visit to China yesterday that Scotland's financial services industry still had "huge strengths".

But he admitted the sector north of the Border had been "badly shaken" by the high-profile problems of some banks – including RBS plans to shed 9,000 jobs.

Mr Salmond was in Shanghai on the latest leg of his official visit to China, where he met the city's financial services director-general Dr Fang Xinghai.

"Financial services are badly shaken, and as this week's RBS announcement demonstrates, jobs are continuing to be lost," the First Minister said.

"But I believe that Scotland has what it takes to rebuild growth and prosperity for all."





Page 1 of 1

 
1

Fifi la Bonbon,

09/04/2009 00:06:01
Now watch the cybernats trash Mr Kay's reputation!
2

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/04/2009 00:12:01
I agree that this is a benefit of the union. Had we had the ability to place our own controls on banking it would not have happened,

Just another opinion which gleefully falls within Macdonell's remit.
3

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/04/2009 00:14:24
Fifi, have you any idea how much the UK has borrowed on the strength of the North Sea?
4

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

09/04/2009 00:18:34
#1 I'm not for panning him. In fact his website is pretty good for well thought out rational arguments.

http://www.johnkay.com/

I agree that the Government are best served by having Independent minds on its advisory body. Surely that's better than just relying on Professor Arthur Midwinter and his dribbling take on big sums?

5

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 09/04/2009 00:21:03
Actually, I'm thinking Fifi is Labour speak for fee, fee.
6

ultravires,

Edinburgh 09/04/2009 00:40:38
"These comments will not have been welcomed by the First Minister but there is no point in having a team of independent advisers if they are not free to speak their mind."

Too bad Sir Fred (West?) Goodwin hadn't allowed such free thought then we wouldn't have been in this mess now.I didn't hear any politicians including chihuahua-in-a-teecup Salmond pointing out our banks were so poorly regulated prior to the crash.

Was it perhaps a case of too busy soliciting donations for one's party to worry about the rest of us down the road ?
7

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 00:47:19
Writing in the Financial Times, he said: "What would have happened if the struggling Royal Bank of Scotland, whose principal retail operation is the English NatWest bank, had been headquartered in an independent Scotland? (Kay)

Oh dear, we are back to the logical anomaly.

It goes like this: If the RBS existed under the status quo that exists currently under the Union, Scotland could not save it.

Well, duh, yes!

Had it existed under a free and independent Scotland, independence itself existing for many decades, who know what form the RBS might have taken?

We might have decided the "royal" prefix inappropriate. Fred Goodwin might have chosen a career selling shredding machines door to door. We could have past a bill siting all Scottish banks in the tax free haven of the Isle of Lewis.

What is certain, being a small country we would have kept better supervision of the RBS than a Westminster appointed cabal of plummy fops and trough sniffers.





8

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 00:48:40
Now watch the cybernats trash Mr Kay's reputation! (Fifi la Poodle)

Character assassination is the province of, the only weapon of Internet Unionists.

9

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 09/04/2009 01:05:15
"It is only necessary to frame the question to want to go to great lengths not to have to answer it."

It's Mr Kays opinion and modus operandi. No wonder the Lib Dems agree. If a major bank has gone bust in an independent nation, it's sunk, you can't bail it out. The proper bankruptsy proceedings would have to start. From the freezed operation, the Government would set priorities to rescue domestic savings and keep Scottish businesses customers trading.

Top bankers have been boasting for 100+ years that they're above law, above national governments. It always battle of wills.

Suppose the RBS had lent me £100,000. Which I've spent on design preliminary to a larger engineering project. I might not be entirely dismayed. The work is done, payed for, and I'm have no direct employees to consider. Though I'd expect a lawyer's letter to duly arrive claiming that I now owed money to a firm I'd never heard of or dealt with.
10

ultravires,

Edinburgh 09/04/2009 01:05:27
7

"What is certain, being a small country we would have kept better supervision of the RBS than a Westminster appointed cabal of plummy fops and trough sniffers."

You are kidding, right ?

What part of being a small country makes us more inclined to keep better supervision of banks or any other industry for that matter ? We dont - there is no industry in Scotland which is better supervised or regulated than in the rest of the UK.

Dont go heaping praises on the SNP for better regulation - they are a party for business and business wants less regulation all the time, isn't that right, Sir Fred ?
11

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 09/04/2009 01:18:38
Another misleading headline from the Scotsman, no doubt purposely slanted. A financial advisor to the First Minister is not a "top aide" to the First Minister, as any junior "journalist should know.

Poster #7, Los Angeles, is absolutely right.

12

Dark Lochnagar,

http://darklochnagar.blogspot.com 09/04/2009 01:21:58
The first thing Broon did in 1997 was to deregulate the banks. He set up the FSA which had absolutely no teeth and was under his control which meant that Banks were able to do what they wanted. He even gave them Knighthoods. Too late when they turn round and bite you in the @rse. This may or may not have happened in an Independent Scotland, but we will never know. I however would have my doubts.
13

SW1,

09/04/2009 01:28:06
The VERY obvious solution to that problem was NOT to bail the banks out........let them fall. The markets would have recovered over time......things would have stabilised.
It is not the place of any government and its people to bail out large private institutions/corporations .........especially when every sector of small to medium sized businesses is shrinking..... except debt recovery of course
14

Edward,

09/04/2009 01:36:54
Im not sure about the comments made by John Kay, bu I think Hamish MacDonnell is grasping at straws again, especially when he states the following "What would have happened if the struggling Royal Bank of Scotland, whose principal retail operation is the English NatWest bank, had been headquartered in an independent Scotland? "
eh?'principal retail operation is the English NatWest bank' Come again? The Principal retail operation in SCOTLAND is the Royal Bank of Scotland,its principal retail operation in England is Natwest AND RBS

15

,

09/04/2009 01:43:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

,

09/04/2009 01:45:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

,

09/04/2009 01:46:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
18

Edward,

09/04/2009 01:49:50
Newsnight Scotland played out the same arguements that RBS could not have been saved in an Indpendent Scotland.But this is pure conjecture as there is nothing to say that RBS would have fell in to this situation. There are many many other Banks in Canada and Scandinavia, who didnt speculate and are strictly controlled.So survived intact.
Its only in the US and in the UK, where control was at best non existant
19

SW1,

09/04/2009 01:58:27
The other OBVIOUS thing is nobody feeds a monster that's sole goal is keep as many people and businesses in debt to it while making as much money as possible........after all if the argument was that it if it went under so would those in debt to it.......mmmmmm i really do not see that being the case
20

SW1,

09/04/2009 02:07:04
The primary reason for government is to create it's own money supply without interest attached to it. thus breaking the chain of perpetual debt. Wealth would then flow freely......but then this is about control and a population that is only beginning to wake up to that.......
Hence this almost daily creation of laws designed to create a police state before the public do see the game that's being played.......chess anyone ?
21

,

09/04/2009 02:07:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 09/04/2009 02:13:57
Not all beaurocracies are bad. The Northern Lighthouse Board oversaw out best technological achievement ever and everything it built is still running and maintained. Board of Trade investigates sinkings and collisions etc and isues timely warnings to ship owners and masters. Airbus in a successful operation run by a necessarly large beaurocracy.

The Scottish Civil Service is dire though as a UK subsiduary. I'd like an Independent Scotland to replace all its Ministeries by properly stuctured Boards and sort out the Departments from their inefficiency, duplication, and overpaid CEOs.

The Board of Finance would be a priority. I'd go as far as including foreign expertise from the start. From Norway? From China? It'd include a few directors that actually run big international manufacturing concerns based in Scotland. You'd need a legal expert on company and banking matters.

What bankers and economists to bring in would need the closest scrutiny. You're calling to account the rich and powerful and all their interlocking directorships.
23

,

09/04/2009 03:25:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

,

09/04/2009 05:36:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

Chaplin,

09/04/2009 06:54:09
The posters above who believe that under an independant Scotland that the RBS would of survived are living on another planet.
Unfortunately no matter how you look at this the money pumped into the RBS by the UK government is a union dividend, it has meant jobs and savings etc are saved as compared to its collapse.
26

Colkitto,

River Clyde 09/04/2009 07:10:17
Another day, another anti-SNP headline.

british democracy at work eh ?
27

,

09/04/2009 07:49:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

Gussie Fink-Nottle,

09/04/2009 07:55:16
#18 Edward. It has also passed unnoticed in the Unionist press that Canadian banks are posting early profits, albeit diminished from previous years, but still in the black.

29

karin.m,

09/04/2009 07:57:08
i dont understand what the point of the article is?

iceland couldnt afford to bail out the banks either. none of their people are starving in the streets. they went for a loan i understand.

the uk i hear is also going for a loan is from the IMF in the near future according to newspaper reports.

that seems to suggest the UK couldnt afford to bail out the banks either.......otherwise why is the uk going to the IMF?

smoke and mirrors.
30

Royster,

09/04/2009 08:05:56
The Nats have blown it. They should've tried a vote with oil at $140 per barrel and with people buying their snake-oil about small countries out-performing larger ones. All this has been shown to be hot air like the fat man himself. There is now no economic argument for independence.
31

karin.m,

09/04/2009 08:09:41
34 if there was no economic argument for independence then no one would be arguing. In fact they wouldnt say anything.

you appear to be arguing
32

,

09/04/2009 08:12:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

,

09/04/2009 08:13:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
34

David Glasgow,

Glasgow 09/04/2009 08:21:15
What is it with many of the no hope, deep depression Scots on here. The moment someone says we can't help ourselves the manic depressents in our country are glad and knock those who have pride in our country.

Why is it that Sweden, Norway, Denmark with virtually the same populations as us are very successful, yet we are always told that we can't mange our own country.

I have my own manufacturing business thats very successful and export to 50 countries and I have never HAD ANY HELP FROM ENGLAND. If Scots would stop whinging and got on with it we wouldn't need to fear anything.

To these depressing CRETINS on here, England got rid of all of our massive manufacturing industries and slowly but surely strangled the soul out of our country. They have deliberately moved us to a banking and service culture, thus ensuring we will always need to be breast fed from them. The only way for Scotland to become really proud and Independent is to bring back manufacturing and let us stand on our own feet instead of taking Englands Gold.
35

The Tin Man,

09/04/2009 08:23:21
#33 karin

I believe that the Icelandic State is currently owned by the IMF and a Russian oligarch.

Iceland couldn't afford to bail out their banks to such an extent that the depositors lost their money (think of your bank account disappearing).

Of course, if the RBS and HBOS were regulated by ex-RBS and HBOS directors, reporting to ex-bank employees in a Scottish government, their collapse would never have happened.
36

karin.m,

09/04/2009 08:33:30
I appear to have hit a nerve with the unionits. I think you will find 39 that iceland is not owned by anyone. they might be in debt to the imf but again i dont see their people begging to be taken back by the country that used to rule iceland!

their people are getting on with ruling their own country. so it appears you cant put a price on being an independent country.
37

The Tin Man,

09/04/2009 08:35:36
The devaluation of the pound against the euro, would also have been a massive boost to Scottish financial institutions operating UK-wide, but reporting in euros.
38

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 09/04/2009 08:38:52
When a large firm is declared bankrupt, The public can see the process. The assets are sold, the bank is always the prime creditor then the liquidator sets preferences. But new buildings and plant have entered the regional economy. Other local firms can get them on the cheap, and likely employ many of the redundant workers. The building trade has always worked like this.

But banks are a law unto themselves since they have the charter to create money out of nothing.
39

Dear_Gordon,

09/04/2009 08:40:12
David #38

"The only way for Scotland to become really proud and Independent is to bring back manufacturing and let us stand on our own feet instead of taking Englands Gold."

David - They don't have any! Genius Broon sold it all for a fiver!

All they have is a bigger overdraft than most - but it's reached it's limit, as have their credit cards. However all is not lost - they are away to find the loan shark known as the IMF.
40

The Tin Man,

09/04/2009 08:40:57
#40 karin

The debate is not about a State's self determination, but about the potential impact of the banking collapse on an indy Scotty.

'The Icelandic State went pear-shaped because of the banking collapse, but at least they made their own decisions' is not a subject of debate.
41

SW1,

09/04/2009 08:44:20
Check out what many of our politicians either have worked for......still work for in some capacity or leave to work for.....and you will find your answer :)
42

The Tin Man,

09/04/2009 08:44:32
#43 Dear

Feel free to start your own engineering company.

#44 karin

Personnaly, I believe that the RBS, and HBOS bail-out would still have happened, with joint intervention by the Scot and UK governments, if Scottand had been a seperate State at the time.
43

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 08:47:25

Mr Kay is saying in slightly different language what all Unionists have said since the moment they thought the people of Scotland might exercise their democratic right to self governance:

Scotland is too poor to survive on its own.

Pass the sick bag.


44

The Tin Man,

09/04/2009 08:50:05
#47 Los

No, I think what he is saying is that an indy Scotty would not have been able to guarentee HBOS, and RBS' savings and loans.
45

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 08:50:27

if Scottand (sic) had been a seperate (sic) State at the time. (TinFoil)

Who cares what you think? You have not got a Goodwin shred of evidence to support your "hunch."
46

,

09/04/2009 08:51:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

The Tin Man,

09/04/2009 09:00:21
#49 Los

"Who cares what you think?"

You do, obviously, or you would not have commented. Debating the subject eludes you, though.

Elephants carry parasols, and have afternoon tea-party's.
48

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 09:04:13
You do, obviously, or you would not have commented (Tin Foil)

You flatter yourslf. Like the other phony Unionists, detest getting contradicted.

I care that enemies of the state will whip out their abacus to boast they have a bigger one than Scotland. I care nothing for the nonsense you post on threads.

49

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 09:05:28
You do, obviously, or you would not have commented (Tin Foil)

You flatter yourself. Like the other egocentric Unionists, you also detest getting your waffle brushed aside.

I care that enemies of the state will whip out their abacus to boast they have a bigger one than Scotland. I care nothing for the nonsense you post on threads.

50

The Tin Man,

09/04/2009 09:10:11
#56

:-)

What would you have like an independent Scottish State to have done in relationship to the RBS and HBOS collapse?
51

Phil C,

09/04/2009 09:17:04
I don't mind the sentiment 'that there was no way an independent Scotland could have bailed out RBS.' It's true as things stand and our banks are now run by faceless men in England, thanks to Brown's destroyers.

However this is not the same as headlining that 'Top Salmond aide knocks independence'. Silly old Scotsman.

I dream of the day that Scotland can stand alone and be in a position to bail out a new responsible Scottish Peoples' Bank! It's not far away and I don't think a bail out would ever be necessary.

52

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 09:25:32
What would you have like (sic) an independent Scottish State to have done in relationship to the RBS and HBOS collapse?

Intellectuals, economists, and free thinking politicians have discussed and debated the fiscal health of Scotland for decades before you learned how to spell "independent."

All the economic models they arrived at, including the one that includes our oil, show Scotland can survive well with the resouces it has, and above all with the tenacious will of the people of this great nation, the one resouce detractors like your overlook.

The biggest flaw in Unionist ire, that one that fills them with fear of the future, is that Scots, like all nations, are well prepared to take the rough with the smooth.

In any event, it doesn't matter what Scots think at the moment - David Cameron is going to make banks "smaller and safer."

Now tell us what you think, since you are so certain Scotland is too ill to breathe deeply.

53

The Tin Man,

09/04/2009 09:26:48
#58 Phil

As Mr Kay hints, a Scottish State would not have been able draw on the finances required to nationalise the banks. Due to their customer base, I think that the RBS would have been jointly nationalised by Scotland and the remainder of the UK. Possibly, HBOS could have been split-up, and re-floated jointly by the two countries.
54

The Tin Man,

09/04/2009 09:30:59
#59 Los

Independence is a question of emotional ethno-patriotism, not economics. (As eluded to in your post #7).
55

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 09:35:02

The screaming Union Jacks who infect the Scotsman's thread with their scurrilous propaganda, day after day, cannot manage consistency, hour to hour.

One minute Scotland's government is a tyranny about to happen, likened to Nazis or perhaps onion chewing Spanish fascists, the next so weak and ineffectual it cannot run a parliament let alone Scotland.

I have something to say to our wee multi-personality bloggers - come closer to your computer screen:

You are confusing tyranny with LOSING!


56

awantapassport,

dreekitsoothcoast 09/04/2009 09:36:34
Alex Salmond's quote would have been a far better headline "...Scotland has what it takes to rebuild growth and prosperity for all."
57

The Tin Man,

09/04/2009 09:40:54
#62 Los

Your post confirms my point put forward in #61. I'll leave you to it.
58

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 09/04/2009 09:45:20
In the foreseeable future, it is highly unlikely that the Nationalists will ever gain enough outright electoral support at Holyrood, or Westminster, to achieve its ultimate goal of a separate, independent sovereign State.

However, no matter how much the Unionist parties may hope for the demise of the Nationalist movement, it is
certainly not going to disappear like "snaw aff a dyke" and, meantime, is here to stay. Scottish politics is now a 4 ring circus!

Both the Scots Tories and Scots Labour Parliamentary Group know full well they are both indirectly responsible for the upsurge in Nationalism.

It was never the intention of the Scotland Act to create a devolved, unicameral Scottish Parliament for a Nationalist Government!

The devolved PR voting system at Holyrood along with the unique checks and balances written into the Scotland Act by Donald Dewar's advisor's will ensure that no one political party will ever gain a majority at Holyrood, as has already been proved.

The recently introduced PR voting system at Scottish Council Elections has also cemented future local, MINORITY government.

The economist advising the Nationalist Government is only facing up to reality and he adds considerable weight to the former political conclusion.
59

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 09/04/2009 09:45:39
Certainly true that an independent Scotland couldn't have bailed out the Global entity that was RBS.

But then again, it was/is present in 28 countries across the World and employed 130,000 or so people plus a 4% in the robust Bank of China.

Given it was regulated under UK regulation, I'm assuming it wouldn't be regulated under UK regulation if Scotland was independent but rather under Scottish regulation? Ther would be a chance that it wouldn't have grown into such a monster institution.

I'm wondering, did the UK bail out of the banks support the RBS in other countries? Or was it purely to sort out the UK arm of the RBS?

Also, why did we pump money into the HSBC?
60

The Strategist,

09/04/2009 09:51:14
The truth is that John Kay didn't actually say anything. He simply asked the question but didn't actually answer it.

The headline is therefore simply a lie. Kay doesn't make any attempt to knock independence.
61

,

09/04/2009 09:55:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
62

,

09/04/2009 09:56:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
63

,

09/04/2009 09:56:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
64

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 09:59:31
Your post confirms my point put forward (Tin Foil)

It confirms you have nothing to contribute to the debate; that you are an irritant blogger desparate to demean Scotland; that you are so deluded in your outlook you still don't understand Westminster and the Bank of England are on the point of bankruptcy, their moral standards and politics already down the drain.

While you try your best to light damp flint to torch our home your own is on fire.
65

The Tin Man,

09/04/2009 09:59:36
#65 Lachie

Can you see the SNP swing more towards federalism? Personnally, I don't see how the SNP could become a party applicable to the whole UK, and they would start to become indestinguishable from the Lib Dems, in Scotland.

You should note that if Holyrood did not have the PR system, Labour would have had the most seats in the current parliament (more constituency seats, despite a smaller percentage of the constituency votes).
66

Walter Ego,

Durness 09/04/2009 09:59:41
Mr Kayt is only telling the truth - why the venom from the Nats?
67

,

09/04/2009 10:00:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
68

alanh,

ek 09/04/2009 10:02:35
"It is only necessary to frame the question to want to go to great lengths not to have to answer it."

Sorry but can anyone tell me what that means?

Is this the "evidence" that this nu liebore press release needs to "proove" that Mr Kay is "knocking independance"?


69

The Tin Man,

09/04/2009 10:06:40
#71 Los

You are not debating at all, Mr Los, you are only being emotive.
70

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 10:08:13
Given it was regulated under UK regulation, I'm assuming it wouldn't be regulated under UK regulation if Scotland was independent but rather under Scottish regulation? Ther would be a chance that it wouldn't have grown into such a monster institution. (Dave from Barra)

Exactly.

If Unionists argue Scotland is too poor to survive any sort of bank crisis, then, had it been independent it would have been too impoverished for its banks to embark on a kamakasi all-or-nothing imperialist expansion.

The logic is easy to follow.

There will be other detractors keen to demonstrate independence is wishgful thinking - they will never serve up an counter proposal - but you can guarantee all will predicate their view on Scotland being too poor.

Financial figures and statistics are all they have to bamboozle the population.

Razzle-dazzle 'em!

Trickle down economics?

Well, it's time for trickle up politics.

LA





71

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

09/04/2009 10:10:35
#75 Alanh

I read the full times article and found that Mr Kay's economic points to be valid. I also do not see where the relationship to Scottish Independence not being viable.

The current administration run from London have destroyed companies that have existed for over 300 years. They changed the rules and the whole system collapsed. Gordon Brown made the rule for the UK and the banks crashed.

Like all Nu Labour idealism. The FSA was full of Placemen and Yesmen, I deal with them daily. They are regulating the Retail side of the financial sector controlling how I save £20 per month, whether my mortgage term ends before retirement, etc, etc, in micro detail.

But they did not have the gumption, experience or knowledge to look at the big picture.

One man is more responsible than most. Gordon Brown. One party is more responsible than most The Labour Party. One City is more responsible than most London.

None of these reasons rule out independence in any sensible argument.

72

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

09/04/2009 10:16:42

The BANK's were being driven too hard and too fast by people who did not have the experience of how a BANK operates.

The License to control a BANK was being given to people who lacked any experience and how to deal with difficult situations. The people who were giving the licenses lacked experience.

With such a regulatory frame work is it surprising that the inexperienced drivers of the BANKS crashed.

Now replace BANK with CAR and see how rediculous the situation would seem.
73

,

09/04/2009 10:21:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
74

tog,

Edinburgh 09/04/2009 10:23:39
I suspect that in the aftermath of the credit crunch and the collapse of Scottish banking the Nats will have their finest minds working on a new form of independence lite where Scotland has greater control of its affairs but still is part of the union with the protections that brings. They know that they can't win a referendum on independence in the near future. I also don't believe that the Banks would have been more heavily regulated in an independent Scotland.
75

Marian,

09/04/2009 10:29:23
We will never know if the catastophe that engulfed RBS and HBOS would have happened in an independent Scotland. However what is clear is that if the economic management of Norway with its Oil Fund had been the most likely model replicated it is likely that Scotland would not have experienced the scale of economic disaster that the Union with England has brought. Sadly the Norwegian example would most likely not have been followed if an independent Scotland had been governed by New Labour with Gordon Brown as First Minister.
76

The Strategist,

09/04/2009 10:35:34
#73

The truth about what? Read the article.. He says nothing at all.

#82

Exactly.
77

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 10:44:20
Mr Kayt is only telling the truth - why the venom from the Nats? (Walt Ego)

More gross exaggeration.

So far, there is not a single angry post from supporters of Scotland on this thread. There are plenty ensuring we stay cool and confident. Does that trouble you?

Do name names - which of us are "Nats?"
78

FLUB,

a rocky outcrop in eastern central Scotland 09/04/2009 10:52:32
(1) Any opinion or statement which does not accord with the compulsory stance of absolute positivism regarding independence, is, by definition, treachery/Unionism/Quisling/Butcher's Apron.

(2) A comment above (can't recall which) - described the SNP as dead. They're not. They will continue to exist, because independence/secession won't happen and it's only because of the UK structure that the SNP can enjoy being indulged with electoral participation.

(3) To digress, surely Alex Salmond's visit to China at the time of the 75th commemoration of the founding of the SNP is a major crack in his infallibility? To be absent at the same time as a commemoration that's been known about for, well 75 years actually, and than to sedn an email is a bit naff and, dare I say it, self indulgent, I mean China's not going anywhere.

Yes, they're all the same really...
79

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 09/04/2009 10:52:51
At least we have minds of our own. That could take the mystique and flimflam out of banking and understand it. If you could pass higher Maths, y = x squared, dy/dx = 2x, that sort of thing you could run a bank. For it's about the (rate of) flow of currency.

The question is what should the Scottish Government do, rather than what it might have done ..

Anyone for strict regulation since heavy or lite seems to bother people? For money is a weightless concept, backed by confidence. Money per se doesn't grow food or build houses.

What's this Union protection. Is it a protection racket?

80

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 09/04/2009 10:53:20
Smee

Give us the numbers then with regards oil and gas reserves and let us do the sums.

Cheers.
81

Observer,,

Glasgow 09/04/2009 10:57:25
With all due respect to the posters above this whole debate is silly. Scotland was not independent at the time that the Banks were cut loose to do their worst. We have no way of knowing whether an independent Scotland would have proved a better regulator than the UK Treausry, it's all just speculation. We are where we are, and it's where we go that counts.

But one thing is for sure - if you look at countries such as Iceland and Ireland who are getting it tight at the moment, there is no clamour from them to give up their independence, none at all.

What does that tell you ?
82

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 10:57:57

We will never know if the catastrophe that engulfed RBS and HBOS would have happened in an independent Scotland. (Marian)

It is doubtful it would have affected Scotland so dramatically. There are enough scenarious to show we are innately cautious, without imperialist ambitions. Screaming Union Jacks realise it.

They overlook Scotland might well have had a government other than one led by Salmond, without his overly-trustful faith leaving the good governance of banks to executive wisdom, that is, greed and hubris.

All they are doing is upping the anti: the dire warning of £5,000 per capita sanction on each individual after independence has now ballooned to millions. Gloat, gloat.

We can be sure of one thing:

We would still have our banks. They would NOT belong to the Bank of England.

83

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 11:03:04
blah blah blah. (Smee/SM-Squared)

I am afraid "blah" doesn't constitute reasoned argument.

Now that you are here as phony Unionist reinforcement to tell Scots they are all useless, poor, and mentally deluded, I am here to remind you:

YOU LOST!

The collapse of the Union by Westminster ineptitude and Cameron's impending English Grand Committee plans mean:

Independence is now a certainty.

84

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 09/04/2009 11:12:59
I wouldn't have bailed them out. All the money RBS held was English money. now theyve been bailed out by the taxpayers it's my money and if they don't start producing good profits for me soon there will be hell to pay...
85

Observer,,

Glasgow 09/04/2009 11:18:20
92 don't forget significant amounts of bail-out money has gone abroad as well, never to be seen again. If the argument is supposed to be Scotland can't be independent because we couldn't afford to bail out a global bank who made stupid decisions then I say so what ? They shouldn't have been bailed out anyway. Maybe we wouldn't be so bleedin' stupid.
86

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 11:19:15
Looking forward, it is futile to waffle on about setting up oil funds because our oil and gas is now declining so quickly there will be little revenue to amount to much of a fund. Look at the numbers, do the sums. (Smee/SM-Squared)

See, it always comes down to scaremongering by financial numbers.

Their abacus is bigger than ours.

Forget oil or gas revenues, they are fool's gold. Well, since England owns by theft oil and gas, where the hell does that leave the English coffers?

Probably filled with moonshine.
87

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 09/04/2009 11:28:29
#61 Tin Man,

"Independence is a question of emotional ethno-patriotism, not economics."

You are being disingenuous. People may seek independence for a variety of reasons. It may not be just one reason but several. Your argument is the old one of Scotland is incapable of self-government because it is a basket case economy (or a slightly modified version of this).

You never say why you think that an independent Scotland couldn't become a thriving economy. Other small countries across Europe have thriving economies, so why not Scotland?

Also, part of the drive for independence is based on the perception that power structures are set up in such a way that Scottish voters face being over ruled as a minority within the British State.

For what it's worth, I believe Scotland could thrive as an independent economy. I'm no economist but having travelled across many European countries I find it hard to believe the negative diatribes about our being - somewhat uniquely, it seems - an economic basket case incapable of self-government. This kind of argument is based at damaging self-esteem and stopping Scottish voters from even considering independence as a valid option which it undboubtedly is. Calman has similarly edited and deleted items for debate and disallowed any discussion of independence, despite the fact that it is supported by around a third of voters. Although Calman was passed by a decomcratic majority in the parliament, I'd make the point that, as with the Constitutional Convention, democracy extends beyond the parliament. Democracy is the right to express oneself and not have one's arguments ruled tout court. If independence is about anything, it's about self-esteem and the right of everyone to engage in the decision-making process.

88

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 09/04/2009 11:29:58
Norway's sovereign wealth fund lost 633 billion crowns
(£65.21 billion)as a result of the economic downturn affecting world economies!

However, the Norwegian oil fund still continues to invest billions of pounds in stocks and shares, national development and overseas projects.

Despite the losses, the fund has still grown to a colossal £2.275 TRILLION crowns, (some £168 billion)due to new inflows from Norway's oil and gas revenues!

During the 2008 oil and gas price spike 384 billion (£32 billion) Crowns still poured into the oil fund!

Commonly known as the National Oil Fund it is really a Norwegian Central Bank Government pension fund and has massive global investments in stocks and shares in places like Frankfurt, London, New York, and Toyko. The vast majority of the money is ring-fenced for the future when Norwegian oil and gas runs out.

Yet, on the contrary, Norwegian oil exploration companies are now operating off Spitzbergen within the Arctic Circle where seismic surveys have found vast hydrocarbon reserves which make the Norwegian Sector of the North Sea look like a puddle!

Norway has also lent vast loans to Iceland to bail out its banks on the condition it is allowed access to Icelandic territorial waters for oil and gas exploration off the Jan Mayen shelf.

Despite the falling price of oil and gas, this coming year the Norwegian Oil Fund is expected to receive further multi-BILLION inflows of revenues.
89

Dark Lochnagar,

http://darklochnagar.blogspot.com 09/04/2009 11:33:46
Smee. The North Sea has reserves for another 50 years minimum at current extraction rates. The West Coast contains huge reserves particularly the Clyde. New technologies will enable us to drill into the huge reserves around Rockall.

In addition, Scotland is regarded as the country best placed to exploit the new wind and wave technologies.

This time please don't let us squander our resources propping up Westminster Governments who want to waste our money on Trident, Iraq wars and the South East of England.
90

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 11:38:07
oil and gas is now declining so quickly (Smee/SM-Squared)

England won't be able to afford a wooden spoon to sup let alone help Scotland.

91

,

09/04/2009 12:01:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
92

,

09/04/2009 12:06:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
93

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 12:09:52
You treacherous pigs. (Rodan)

Rodan, only a handful of fundamentalist, Ulster Unionists, and a few others to the far right of the BNP, bother to post anti-Scottish sentiment on threads.

They do so because they know there are some Scots still uncertain if we should regain independence, even if those people feel more democratic powers are needed.

But they also know the vast majority of caring English have no wish whatsoever to force Scotland to stay in the Union.

That's what worries zealous Union Jack bloggers the most. There's nothing they can do about altering the attitude - the fair play of decent English folk an immovable quality.

So, they badger and intimidate the Scots.


There is little or no support at their back.


94

Hugh Roscombe,

09/04/2009 12:11:01
I've read the Times article. This quote here "What would have happened if the struggling Royal Bank of Scotland ... etc" is but a small part of the article."

This paper blows it up to be a major part. Bawbags as usual.
95

Hugh Roscombe,

09/04/2009 12:17:20
I mean ffs. You could take any other piece from the FT article and spin it any way you want. How about taking another quote and look for a damaging headline.

"The UK regulator did not restrain Kaupthing, presumably because the accounts of the UK subsidiary seemed to show a sound position."

Headline: TOP SALMOND AIDE KNOCKS UK REGULATORS

This paper is becoming more and more bumfluff by the day.
96

TWC,

09/04/2009 12:37:41
I don't know why everybody calls this a Scottsh Bank most of the employees are outside Scotland. The majority are in England.

I don't think it would have gotten into so much trouble if it were a Small Country's bank
If it shut down so what.
97

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 09/04/2009 12:59:27
#108. It was created in Scotland, it was HQ'd in Scotland and it expanded all over the planet. The HQ is important in terms of who is credited with the corporation tax contributions. Scotland losing the HQ means that Scotland's contributions to the UK coffers have effectively fallen. This strengthens the argument for Westminster reducing our allocation and at the same time weakens the economic argument for independence. It's been brutal but make no mistake - we have been stitched up. HBOS didn't need to go south. Dunfermline BS didn't need to go south. RBOS is a different kettle of fish - it was a global monster but it could have remained HQ'd in Scotland. Broon and Darling have sold Scotland down the river.
This was the best chance the UK has ever had of convincing Scots that the union is best but what did they do? They decimated our financial sector. They could have bailed it out and kept the HQ's located in Scotland, proving Scotland's interests were being protected. Instead they've raped us and have the press and media trying to convince us it was the best thing for us.
98

TWC,

09/04/2009 13:15:50
109 TheDisplacedGlaswegian

It hasn't affected my belief in Scotland or it's ability. I want as a minimum that Scotland controls all it's own finances but I have no doubt that Scotland would do fine as an independent country. I will vote for Independence if Fiscal Autonomy is not forthcoming.
99

TheDisplacedGlaswegian,

Edinburgh 09/04/2009 13:21:40
#110 TWC. Likewise.
100

Peter20,

09/04/2009 13:37:23
Los angeles - you seem to have made a mistake in your post when stating that "the vast majority of caring English have no wish whatsoever to force Scotland to stay in the Union". It's a point of view I share, but if you really believe it why do you persist in slagging off England consistently. As an Englishman living in Scotland I would be perfectly happy to see Scotland become independent, but would hope it is voted for in the spirit of positivity rather than this myth that "England" (never the rest of the UK is it) "steals" Scotland's oil and gives nothing back. Then RBS bailout is a prime example. I have no doubt Scotland could prosper independently, but to pretend England is trying to somehow deliberately depress Scotland is utter nonsense. The bail out saved plenty jobs - end of. A positive from being in the Union - why not conceed that occasionally it happens?
101

Daveunderwater,

09/04/2009 13:43:51
Simple answer here is, just print more Scottish Pounds

It's called quantative easing in London.
102

Galvatron,

09/04/2009 13:47:41
#2 Tamson: " Had we had the ability to place our own controls on banking it would not have happened,"

How not? In a separatist Scotland, it's more than likely that a Scottish party virtually indistinguishable from the current Labour in Scotland would have been in control and would have run the economy along similar lines to how the UK has been run over the last 12 years.

Is Galvatron right, or is Galvatron right!
103

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 09/04/2009 13:58:47
Daveunderwater

That true and it's called forgery everywhere else subject to hefty fines and jail.......
104

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 09/04/2009 14:36:29
Smee

Could we have some official figures from an official website please? Not some extremist blog site.

Thanks.
105

Darien,

Panama 09/04/2009 14:44:17
"The balance sheet of RBS is 15 times greater than the GDP of Scotland"

That is because RBS is a UK-wide and indeed a global bank, with much of its core activity centred on London. It is Scottish in name and Head office location only.

This also means that over 90% of RBS' iabilities are outside Scotland (as are over 90% of its shareholders by value, or what is left of it). The 'Scottish' liabilities of RBS (i.e. toxics actually located inside Scotland) are less than 5% of the company's overall total toxics.

Some people like Will Hutton and even this Prof Kay chappie seem to assume 100% of RBS liabilities are in Scotland and ergo for the 'Scotland' account (for a UK-wide and global bank?). Just because the registered office was in Edinburgh does not mean that is where the liabilities are. England has many times the greater need to bail out RBS (and HBoS) than Scotland does primarily because a vastly greater proportion of the toxics are in England, not in Scotland.

That is why Broon 'saved the banks' - not for Scotland's benefit, but for his beloved British 'nation'.

106

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 09/04/2009 14:49:06
Every "Barrel" of oil gives us:

7.27 gallons (27.5 liters): Other products (feedstocks for petrochemical plants, asphalt, bitumen, tar, etc.)
1.72 gallons (6.5 liters): Liquefied Petroleum Gases (LPG)
3.82 gallons (14.5 liters): Jet Fuel
1.76 gallons (6.6 liters): Heavy Fuel Oil (Residual)
1.75 gallons (6.6 liters): Other Distillates (Heating Oil)
9.21 gallons (35 liters): Diesel
19.15 gallons (72.5 liters): Petrol


Now apply the value and duty to every product then multiply by 30 billion or so.

There, sums done. That's a lot of mula.
107

TWC,

09/04/2009 15:16:00
Here you go Smee http://tinyurl.com/6ml3np

Another 100 years thats why Scotland must have Fiscal AUtonomy
108

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 09/04/2009 15:17:51
I think that John Kay is criticising the banks rather than independence.
109

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 09/04/2009 15:41:35
I bet Sme comes back with a single tinyurl that proves conclusively that the massive oil n gas reserves in the North sea and Atlantic never exisited in the first place and that it's actually treacle, not crude oil.
110

IWright,

09/04/2009 15:46:36
Fancy having a "top aide" who thinks and speaks for himself. Labour would never have allowed that.
111

Dave From Barra,

Wstern Isles 09/04/2009 15:50:17
"The answers will make unpleasant reading for you."

No Sme, the answers will make unpleasant reading for Westmidden, not us.

I cannot think of a particularly strong reason as to why GB will "do anything to save the Union" other than off the back of usery and exploitation. Can you?
112

Canny Mann,

09/04/2009 15:53:18
If Scotland had been independant from the UK, an independant Scotland would have been unable to pump in enough reserves to keep the bank afloat is a trick statement/spin.
It has been spun in such a way as to suggest, the UK government have not sold bonds(public debt), putting us in hock for generations to come.
Brown has already sold the family jewels (gold reserves) and is now pawning the silver(future earnings). The world banks, IMF etc, are so concerned with Browns borrowing. They are no longer prepared to lend more on current fiscal projected wealth. Brown has put pressure on the Bank of England to print money. It has no wealth, it doesnt have reserves backing it and devalues sterling against world currencies.
Stating Scotland couldnt do this that or the next thing is a spin on the facts to take our eye off the ball.
The massive wealth of the UK(tax payers money) has been squandered by Brown the exchequer, Brown the prime minister has sold the taxpayers of the UK into servitude to the World Banks/Bankers, for years and years to come.
The future of the UK is being paid for, with the breakfasts of our grandchildren.

The RBS failure has no connection to Scotland or her wish for/against independence.

Alba gu brath.
113

SW1,

HAL 9000 09/04/2009 16:23:52
Comment@ 115 Hello Dave......how are you today......that's a very good point Dave
114

Westfield Bairns,

Falkirk 09/04/2009 16:24:43
Scottish banks fail under the UK watch but somehow its Scotlands fault. Unionism don't you just love their Nulabour sleaze and corruption logic.

Independence can't come quick enough
115

,

09/04/2009 16:34:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
116

Canny Mann,

09/04/2009 16:35:56
If a Bank/insitution/corporation goes bust, then the liquidators inspect the running order and the viability of the different parts, or subsiduary companies. Where profitable areas are recognised, they are earmarked for sale as independant, autonomous, going concerns. eg, a whale spitting out a sprat.

If the UK is bust, and it was to be recognised as the media has so often trumpeted "GB,plc". Then there is no reason why Scotland with a viability of being profitable, shouldn't be sold off to its directors as a going concern.
The toxic debt could be left to the UK tax payers as Gordon Brown planned and has preached as the saving of the world.
It would be feasable for a free Scotland to prosper a little at a time and buy some of the toxic debt from the UK to demonstrate the scots hold no animosity to our english neighbours. The investment of scottish money would be a benefit to the UK economy when they most need it and would set in stone the best wishes for our nearest friends the english and thier uk territories of N.Ireland and the principality of Wales. We could certainly sell them water from the scottish hills and renewable electricity through favourable terms rather than the russians holding them to ransom with escalating fuel prices.

If we were to keep scotland as a Ltd company, then it would be the trustees who would have to answer to the workforce. PLC means they answer to the shareholders(fat cats).
117

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 09/04/2009 16:38:38
The "Norway, an Oil Nation" website explains that Norway has 50 percent of Europe's oil and gas reserves in the Norwegian Sector of the North Sea, and in the Norwegian Sea off Spitsbergen, making it the third largest oil exporter behind Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Norway is also carrying out onshore oil exploration in Greenland, and off Iceland's territorial waters in conjunction with Denmark.

As the Tartan Army will soon find out, a bottle of beer may cost £6 to £7 in Norway but the Norwegians can afford it?

Child Benefit is £240 per month for the average Norwegian family of 3 children, £80 per child, and from the age of 62 Norwegians receive an incredible State Pension of £21.800! Norwegian OAPs have the largest disposable income of any similar group of retirees in Europe(Source FTSE)

The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund may have taken a hit during this downturn but just watch it soar when the price of oil and gas shoot up when the upturn comes!
118

Eve,

Scotland 09/04/2009 16:59:01
#131 connaughtboy: Good point! The Bankers became gamblers and Westminster minsters let them collect their winnings even allow they technically lost. (this ovbously the ones in high places)

#139 Canny Mann; Aye!

Also more importantly no one can predict/known, how an independent Scotland would have cope in any situation as we haven't been given the chance to show what we would have done because Westminster has done what they have decided to do.

Personally I think if we were independent we would have had a lot more options open to us, than we do presently.
We would no dought no about potential problems and threats to our economically quicker and been able to prepare for them better.
119

Dear_Gordon,

09/04/2009 17:12:04
sm753 # 117

It's hard for swivel-eyed Nats to understand, but pinning flags on companies is a mostly futile activity.

But if you had tried to do it to HBOS and RBS pre-crunch, they would have come out 80-90% "English".

Good point SM753!!!

So remind us why exactly it is in any way relevant to argue about the capability or otherwise of an independent Scotland to exclusively bail out these 80-90% English banks?

Ooops!

The last great hope for the pro-union argument, blown out of the water by friendly fire from SM753!
120

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 09/04/2009 17:15:47
SM753 you wrote "That would do wonders to make the North Sea an attractive place to invest."

Compared to where Russia, Nigeria? A colleague my mine told me about an oil production unit in Russia that has to give 50% of it's output to the local mafia.

It's always a red herring to say that would scare of investment, why would it? Again compared to the wild west of the Nigerian Delta or Gordon Brown's tax regime.

As for your comment on extraction the SNP always wanted a slower extraction rate, this can be done via licences. It would still make the North Sea attractive as the world still requires hydro carbons and you don't need a small army to look after your investment in Scotland compared to Nigeria and Russia.
121

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 09/04/2009 17:33:25
https://www.og.berr.gov.uk/information/bb_updates/chapters/Table4_3.htm

Interesting reading

total to 2007 :- 3167

proven @ probable :- 3943

Oh aye there will be no oil tomorrow.
122

Alasdair mac Alasdair Mór Mac an Righ,,

09/04/2009 17:38:36
Just read a really positive article "'Vast opportunities' in China for Scottish energy firms - Salmond"

Yet no comments section.

The one bloody chance for agreement across the political divide and have some sensible discussion about positive moves and the Scotsman conveniently forgot to allow comments.

Hang you heads in shame Scotsman Staff.
123

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 17:52:19
Los angeles - you seem to have made a mistake in your post (Peter)

I do not accuse the English of selling out Scotland. Why would anybody alienate a core support for that cause? With justification I accuse key Westminster politicians and their quislings, quite a different matter, their antagonism to self rule born out of the arrogance of the British Establishment, my handy label, if you like, for latent imperialism.

I frequently site the English and Welsh peoples as comfortable with Scottish aspirations for hegemony, though from their socio-political perspective some might be bemused by our claim of getting treated as second-class citizens, especially if they feel hard done by themselves.

I get the most vehement disclaimers of a Scotland repressed by those successful in life invariably by the award of the English Establishment. I am not surprised they do not want to bite the hand that feeds them. They confuse wealth and status bestowed with freedoms and democratic rights.

ut anpother way, if your belly is full why claim the chef is mean with the dish sizes?

You add, the bail-out of banks saved many jobs ... the RBS has announced 30,000 minimum redundancies within two years. That sounds like decimation to me.

Is Fred Goodwin about to set up a fund to help needy staff, the foundation of which will be his millions of pounds of pension?


124

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 09/04/2009 17:54:32
I wonder why the citizenry of Ireland, Iceland, Norway or anywhere else for that matter are not clamouring to join (or re-join in Ireland’s case), the apparent Valhalla of the United Kingdom?

After all would not everyone like to be a part of the group of nations who have saved the world?

Just think of the glow of reflected glory in the faces of the happy, albeit undernourished and poorly educated population of these places, (some of them don’t even speak English), in knowing that they have somehow contributed in their own small manner to the continuation of civilisation as we know it.

Hurrah for the Empire, and Queen Gordon!
125

Hugh Roscombe,

09/04/2009 18:25:16
Owned by a foreign government? ....

Banco Santander has Alliance & Leicester and Bradford & Bingley. It also has US bank Sovereign. The bank has them - not the Spanish Government.
126

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 09/04/2009 18:26:33
Why is the Scotsman wasting space on this? We all know that Mr Kay's comments are 100% correct.
127

Hugh Roscombe,

09/04/2009 18:31:17
Let's have a look at some "British" institutions:-

OXO - Campbells USA

WEETABIX - US Firm Hicks Muse Tate & Furst

HAMLEYS - Icelandic group Baugur

ROWNTREE - Swiss firm Nestle

BENTLEY cars - German Volkswagen

ROLLS ROYCE cars - German firm BMW

CHELSEA FC - Russian tycoon Roman Abramovich

TY-PHOO TEA - Indian firn Apeejay Surrendra

P & O Ferries etc - Dubai Ports World

HP SAUCE - US Firm Heinz

MANCHESTER UNITED FC - US Tycoon Malcolm Glazer

TETLEYS BITTER - Danish brewers Carlsberg

HARRY RAMSDEN Restaurants - Swedish Wallenberg family

ROVER cars - first BMW now Chinese

MINI cars - BMW Germany

THE BODY SHOP - L'Oreal France

HARRODS department Store - Egyptian tycoon

FORTNUM & MASON - Whittington Investments Canada

LONDON ELECTRICITY - Electricite de France

Most British Aluminium Producers - ALCOA USA OR Alcan Canada

LOTUS cars - Malaysian Group

MIDLAND BANK - HSBC Hong Kong

ALLIED DOMECQ- Pernod Ricard France

EXEL Logistics - Deutsche Post Germany

O2 phones - Telefonica Spain

PILKINGTON GLASS - Nippon Sheet Glass Japan

BOC - Linde Germany

BOOTS - BASF, Germany

RECKITT & COLMAN (Dettol, Senokot, Reckitts Blue, Mr Sheen, Brasso etc) - Benkiser, Germany

SMITH & NEPHEW (Elastoplast, Nivea) - Beiersdorf, Germany

RITZ HOTEL - Carlton Hotels, USA

SAVOY, CLARIDGES, CONNAUGHT & BERKELEY HOTELS - Fairmont Hotels, USA

CUSSONS (Imperial Leather etc.) Paterson Zochonis, Greece

HOTPOINT - Indesit, Italy

RONSEAL WOODCARE - Sherwin Williams, USA.

JAGUAR cars - Ford USA

ASTON MARTIN cars - Ford USA

VAUXHALL cars - General Motors USA

ABBEY NATIONAL - Santander Spain

YORKSHIRE BANK - National Australia Bank

CLYDESDALE BANK - National Australia bank

BRITISH STEEL - Corus Holland

RUGBY CEMENT - Cemex Mexico

ASDA - Walmart USA

Foreign owned but not government owned.
128

Hugh Roscombe,

09/04/2009 18:32:24
10 Downing Street - American owned

;-)
129

Hugh Roscombe,

09/04/2009 18:32:51
It's a global thing apparently.
130

Hugh Roscombe,

09/04/2009 18:36:30
Scottish Power - Iberdrola
131

Hugh Roscombe,

09/04/2009 18:37:28
sm753 - owned by AM2
132

Media at One,

09/04/2009 18:38:56
I honestly believe that the people of Scotland must get their referendum. This conversation cannot go on, it needs to be put to bed.
Let the people have a referendum, let them have their say and following the vote, it will be as they wish. There can be no political interference, no appeals against a referendum, nothing! In this instance and keeping in mind the emotive nature of the topic it is vital that the people get their say. End of story!
133

Hugh Roscombe,

09/04/2009 18:41:03
174 ...with just a dash of Greek.
134

yockel,

09/04/2009 19:50:46
Jings, ah missed a good debate!
Mind you now that Gordo is abolishing oil and selling electric cars who needs the stuff? Er.. fetiliser, plastic etc .....
135

,

09/04/2009 21:10:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
136

Stan Butler,

09/04/2009 21:20:29
#159 Col. Blimp­IV*,

'I am a Nat and as "swivel-eyed" as that baldy guy who used to be in the old Laurel and Hardy films...but I made that same point at #25.'


The baldy guy you refer to was James Finlayson, a Scot.

Homer Simpson's DOH! exclamation is based on Finlayson's use of the phrase.


137

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 21:57:16
LA - I won regarding Jackboots Smith! (Faux Cul)

You did!

She is saved - for now - by a combination of events:

A man throwing himself at police going about their lawful business keeping rowdy sightseers off busy London streets, a Top Cop resigning because he unwittingly showed a dossier under his arm to assembled hacks marked, "You'll Never Make Me Resign, You Scumbags"; the mayor of London rebuffing the shock saying the Top Cop's resignation had nothing to do with him calling the Conservative Party "raving loonies"; and the subsequent raids on suspected illegal Pakistani porn importers selling their obscene wares to unsuspecting husbands as study guides, "Press Statements for Dummies", all contrived, nicely, to keep her off the front page over her relaxed attitude to house ownership, and back on the front page to tell us there were corrupt elements in British society that needed locked up immediately.

What damn good luck.

LoL
138

Faux Cul,

09/04/2009 22:14:07
LA


Not very magnanimous eh?

You'll be blaming the English for it all.

But we all know, it started in America.

Scum like her never resign unless their tight clutch on their expenses chit is surgically treated.

Now, if she had been walking in 10 Drowning Street and had been photographed with some incriminating documents she still wouldn;t have resigned either.

Not in their DNA, is it?
139

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 22:32:26
You'll be blaming the English for it all. (Faux Cul)

Or damning the Scottish government for NOT thwarting the will of the people!

What's wrong with those guys? Can't they see how their elder and betters do things in Westminster? Are they blind, deaf an dumb?

Voters expect corruption and sleaze and lies from their elected representatives. Honest endeavour in the face of adversity only causes confusion ... and in my case, terrible heartburn.

"What'dya mean they mean what they said? I don't geddit. We expect to be cheated, let down, generally ignored. Dat's what comes of voting wid our feet. Next time I'm using my pen."









140

,

09/04/2009 22:32:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
141

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 22:44:56
LoL, - give the man his money! (Labour Lies)

I would honour my bet but I invested all the takings in the RBS that, seeing their shares fall, past it to the AIB, the Irish bank, who being drunk that day sent it to the Icelandic bank to earn top interest after it had gone bust, who in turn sought to protect their reserves by spending it all buying shares in "frozen food," and in panic to hide the evidence fed the three aircraft hangers of pemmican they bought in error to a pack of hungry Huskies.

I tell ya, it's less the Arc of Prosperity and more the Bark of Diversity.



142

Los Angeles,

09/04/2009 22:53:48


Yes, well done, Traquir!

I do not know how you do it, followed everywhere by a bunch of rampant abusive Union Jack offs, to work, to lunch, the toilet ... your life must be a misery sharing the television remote with six Unionist bloggers on the sofa munching your trail nut mix, (guaranteed less than 50% peanuts) arguing with their doppelgangers till they are blue woded in the face.

I gotta take my baseball cap off to ya, buddy!
143

lulach mac gille coemgain,

09/04/2009 22:57:33
There’s more to life than Bullsh!t economists!
144

,

09/04/2009 22:58:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
145

,

09/04/2009 23:01:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
146

donald,

glasgow 10/04/2009 06:12:23
Bottom Hamish Labour Aide Knocks's Salmond's Independence.
147

antifa,

10/04/2009 10:32:23
"What is certain, being a small country we would have kept better supervision of the RBS than...Westminster."

You mean like Ireland did?

Sorry, Los Angeles, but as you must no, this is far from certain. I've yet to see a single policy document or speech from any of the main Scottish political parties arguing for greater financial services regulation.

Given the former strength of HBoS and RBS relative to the rest of the economy, it seems highly unlikely there would have been any enthusiasm for more regulation.
148

JC1,

Glasgow 10/04/2009 14:09:56
Interesting to see the same old nat posters who treat the newspaper website like a party messageboard with their dull offensive comments about people who hold (shock horror!) different views to them while at the same time revealing their 'odd' ideas about women.
149

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 11/04/2009 12:49:06
177 SM753 your spinning so mush you should go a dancing talent show, nowhere did i write that 4422 was the remaining total amount, interesting that you didn't say that on your first post, did you have you check yourself?

spin spin spin.
150

bluehead,

edinburgh 04/05/2009 08:05:18
if the banks had been properly checked and supervised the the problems would never have raised in the first place,anything without brown and his mob must be an improvement,there is very little time left before this country is destroyed completely, the labour government have done more damage to Britain with pen and paper than Hitler did with bombs and bullets,
the contempt for politicians grows daly,it would be hard to find such a group of such diseased people who find great joy in making other peoples lives miserable
while they live of the fat of the land
151

David Glen,

Glasgow 20/09/2009 15:02:52
The answer to John Kay is that an independent Scotland would have had its own financial regulatory system which, hopefully, would have been better able to control the Scottish banks (of which RBS is only nominally one, even HBOS starts with Halifax). We would also have had an 'Oil Fund' similar to that of Norway, which surfed the tsunami of financial collapse pretty well. So, he was by no means comparing like for like, but just going down the old unionist dead end.
I doubt if the International community would allow any country to go bust, due to the degree of worldwide economic integration. It would have been a different matter altogether if Saddam Hussein had been allowed to sell oil for Euros, as the U.S. Dollar would have been worthless. Just as well they invaded Iraq and killed him then. Hhmmn.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Scottish independence

More Scottish independence >>

More Scottish National Party

More Scottish National Party >>

Today's Vote

Should there be an independence referendum?
Yes
Yes
No
No


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.