A thought on the RBS situation, particularly with regard to the banking bailout.
If Scotland were to "negotiate a new settlement with the British government so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state", would that mean that we would carry across the £45bn burden that the Government has ploughed into the troubled bank? How heavy a stick is that going to be for the unionists to bash over the SNP's head come election time?
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
sad, but perhaps true
so they can make sir fred a lord for saving the Union
But perhaps not
There was a Times article a few days ago about this issue.
Hi Jeff,
Oh the ironies of history! When the original Scottish parliament voted for the Union, it did so because many of its members were "persuaded" that their share of the "equivalent" (the difference proportionally between Scotland's National Debt and England's much larger one) would be paid to them, they assumed, in gold. Of course only those and such as those were paid in gold and the rest (the majority) were paid in worthless (in Scotland at that time) Bank of England Bills.
It was not until several years later that the Royal Bank of Scotland was formed (the Bank of Scotland was a pre-Union institution and would not, as I understand it, accept the Union Bills, it being seen as against their interests as a bill-issuing bank to do so) that many of these English Bills finally found a use as part of its initial setting-up capital.
Now at first sight the situation seems to be reversed but I see no reason why Scotland should be burdened with any more than its proportional share of the costs of the guarantees to the "Scottish" banks, just as quite rightly it will receive only its portion of other national assets in return for acceptance of that debt.
In any case by the time Independence occurs, the troubled Banks will most likely have been "de-Nationalised" and all that will be left of this debacle will be the toxic assets forming part of the National Debt, so the problem will be much reduced.
Incidentally is my impression that the bulk of the troubling "toxic assets" are of American origin correct? And if so, why are we not dumping this right back on the Americans. It was, after all, under their flawed regulatory Authority that these "assets" were fradulently passed-off to the rest of the world as AAA standard.
Regards,
There will be a lot more debt than just the £45bn RBS capitalisation to be divvied up between the component parts of the UK, come independence. Of course, future government disposal of their shareholdings in the bank will negate the likelihood of taxpayers having to stump up to repay the proceeds.
Hpwever, thrown into the mix is all the other state liabilities of the UK, as well as the division of state assets (which are just as important although, unsurprisingly, rarely mentioned) and it is a fascinating area.
As for Unionists, it could be tricky for them. Greater debt only serves to reinforce the increasing perception of the UK as a "basket case" and the wholesale economic and regulatory mismanagement that has led to such a situation developing.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,酒店,
Post a Comment