Scotland "FREEDOM!!!" and a Republic of Jamaica?
Comments
-
Braveheart is a classic example of people missing the point.leodis75 wrote:I wonder how many repeats of Braveheart will be shown on Scottish TV over the next couple of years.
They get caught up in the emotion and go all anti-English.
Watch it again and pay attention. The "bad guys" are the Scottish nobles who will shaft anyone for power and/or money.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Eh? What Government jobs?symo wrote:Scotland has a lot of 'governement' jobs, what if the English voters wanted them back in their own country?
...........
Lets face it Salmauron has harnessed a lot of self interested local groups under the banner of nationalism. If they ever got their own government it would be a bunfight amongst the lot of them. A fact that he is not willing to let Scottish voters know.
and
Like Westminster. Have you ever watched PMQ?None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
An interesting view on the oil question here: http://www.labourhame.com/archives/2598, with a few more solid numbers than usual.Bike/Train commuter: Brompton S2L - "Machete"
12mile each way commuter: '11 Boardman CX with guards and rack
For fun: '11 Wilier La Triestina
SS: '07 Kona Smoke with yellow bits0 -
An intereresting article Lardboy but Labour bashing the SNP is hardly new and is predictable.
Did you go so far as to read the comments section?
Some interesting counter arguements there.
I will go as far as saying that I cannot find a fully independant report on how things would go. That would be nice.
Further to that. Some Countries have paid the ultimate price for their independence. If the Scots are not even willing to pull in the purse strings a wee bit, do they really want it?
To quote Sean Connery from the Untouchables - What are you willing to do?
Very little I suspect so there's no point in everyone getting their knickers twisted.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
RBS won't be an investment bank come summer.
Told ya :P
Well sort of. Was a bit of a sweeping statement.
No more equities or M&A.
http://citywire.co.uk/money/rbs-cuts-35 ... rm/a5575010 -
daviesee wrote:An intereresting article Lardboy but Labour bashing the SNP is hardly new and is predictable.
Did you go so far as to read the comments section?
Some interesting counter arguements there.
I will go as far as saying that I cannot find a fully independant report on how things would go. That would be nice.
Further to that. Some Countries have paid the ultimate price for their independence. If the Scots are not even willing to pull in the purse strings a wee bit, do they really want it?
To quote Sean Connery from the Untouchables - What are you willing to do?
Very little I suspect so there's no point in everyone getting their knickers twisted.
I started reading the comments, but it the turned into a discussion about Scottish QT, so I skipped most of it. It was interesting to see what share hydrocarbons would make up of Scotland's finances, and then to question whether that was acceptable on the grounds of environmentalism and in the context of future changes to hydrocarbon use.Bike/Train commuter: Brompton S2L - "Machete"
12mile each way commuter: '11 Boardman CX with guards and rack
For fun: '11 Wilier La Triestina
SS: '07 Kona Smoke with yellow bits0 -
I love the quotes like comparing Scotland to Iceland and Ireland, and realise that was maybe not correct for Salmond.
However for the hecklers who harp on about the Banks and how Scotland would have folded in bailing them out, if it had been Independent... well, we would have had all the Corporate taxation from those companies over the years, which without even doing the digging, will no doubt be far greater than what has been used to bail them out.
Furthermore an Independent Scotland would have benefitted from the huge oil revenue over many a long year, and we could in fact have had a similar Soverign Wealth Fund as that of Norway - currently well over £550 billion, more than enough to bail out even RBS and Lloyds.
Also there is no evidence that an Indepedent Scotland would have allowed the de-regulation in the Banks to the extent that was done to bring on the almost collapse of these two giants. Scotland had a histoic prudence in this field."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
daviesee wrote:Well. I had a listen and didn't hear too much hypocrisy there.
He wants Scotland's share of the oil and is prepared to incurr Scotland's share of the debt.
Where is the hypocrisy? The banks?
As he said, he is not asking for Scotland to get the corporation taxes or oil revenues during the time the bank debts were accrued so why should Scotland pay the debts?
PS:- I am not for independance but as someone who will be voting, I am interested in ALL points.
Well, if you're not prepared to see...
He's using different concepts for Scotland's "share" to suit his purpose. He doesn't want Scotland's share of the oil worked out on a per capita basis, and doesn't want Scotland's share of the RBS bailout calculated on the basis it is a Scottish bank (a point he was eager to embrace in his letter to Goodwin re ABN Amro).
He claims that the RBS bailout was the fault of the Treasury, and that's where it should lie. Well most people seem to think it was the fault of RBS. And that's where it should lie. No doubt he'd have been off on one if the Treasury had decided to let RBS go to the wall, whining about the deleterious effect on the Scottish economy.
It's rare to see such a bare-faced display of unwarranted entitlement. OTOH, as a wind up merchant, I'll give him his due. He's really very good. In a pantomime sort of way: could he have hauled in the Thatcher and evil baby-eating Tories references any more clumsily?0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
I am prepared to see and Wallace has already prepared my reply aboveGreg66 wrote:Well, if you're not prepared to see...
We can't go back and give Scotland what it would have wanted post original referendum so we can't go back and pile on the debts either. And on the subject of the original referendum - it has been proved that we were deliberately lied to about the oil reserves. If they had known then what we know now it could be a very different Britain today.
If you want to pick and choose then anyone can make any arguement stick.
Anyway. It won't matter because it is not going to happen.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Greg66 wrote:daviesee wrote:Well. I had a listen and didn't hear too much hypocrisy there.
He wants Scotland's share of the oil and is prepared to incurr Scotland's share of the debt.
Where is the hypocrisy? The banks?
As he said, he is not asking for Scotland to get the corporation taxes or oil revenues during the time the bank debts were accrued so why should Scotland pay the debts?
PS:- I am not for independance but as someone who will be voting, I am interested in ALL points.
Well, if you're not prepared to see...
He's using different concepts for Scotland's "share" to suit his purpose. He doesn't want Scotland's share of the oil worked out on a per capita basis, and doesn't want Scotland's share of the RBS bailout calculated on the basis it is a Scottish bank (a point he was eager to embrace in his letter to Goodwin re ABN Amro).
He claims that the RBS bailout was the fault of the Treasury, and that's where it should lie. Well most people seem to think it was the fault of RBS. And that's where it should lie. No doubt he'd have been off on one if the Treasury had decided to let RBS go to the wall, whining about the deleterious effect on the Scottish economy.
It's rare to see such a bare-faced display of unwarranted entitlement. OTOH, as a wind up merchant, I'll give him his due. He's really very good. In a pantomime sort of way: could he have hauled in the Thatcher and evil baby-eating Tories references any more clumsily?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16126399
I get where Salmond is coming from.
RBS do (well, a lot less now) their trading in London. Not much of it goes on in Scotland. The IB side is virtually all done in London, with good reason.
Seems strange that Scotland would have to pick up the strain for a problem that emanated from the City.0 -
Yes. Notice the phrase "had". In a few short years hundreds of years of canny banking has been undone. Bank of Scotland is no more, thrown into bed with Lloyds, who they brought to the brink of failure. What a poor Due Dilligence they did, but their greedy eyes were on the huge Mortgage Book the Haifax had.TailWindHome wrote:
Not as bad as RBS lack of Due Dilligence for ABN though."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
daviesee wrote:I am prepared to see and Wallace has already prepared my reply above
Oh, no, no, no, no. That won't do at all. You want independence now, you take the assets and liabilities as they stand now. If the oilfields are depleted, you get depleted oilfields. If your banks owe billions to third parties, you pick up the debt.
If things might have been different had you gone for independence twenty years ago, well, you know what they say about your auntie, don't you?
daviesee wrote:Anyway. It won't matter because it is not going to happen.
That is something we can agree on. However, I wonder how much discord and ill-will Salmond will be able to stir up in the next three years on his way to building his ego.0 -
Greg66 wrote:He's using different concepts for Scotland's "share" to suit his purpose.
Nooooo!
Do other politicians know about these sort of tactics?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Greg66 wrote:Oh, no, no, no, no. That won't do at all. You want independence now, you take the assets and liabilities as they stand now. If the oilfields are depleted, you get depleted oilfields. If your banks owe billions to third parties, you pick up the debt.
Oh, no, no, no, no. That won't do at all.
Your position was Alex's position. He will take it as it stands, depleted oil and all. The problem with that stance from your point of view is that the bank is no longer Scottish. It is owned by the Government.
What point in time do you wish to make the cut off? 1979, 1984, 1992, 2006, 2008, 2011, 2014?
No picking and choosing now
By the by, now that RBS is starting to make a profit, how soon will the Government sell it off at a loss instead of reaping the benefits? Same with Northern Rock. :evil:None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Will this mean Shortbread prices will increase?
I would like to know what Salmond has in mind with health care, welfare, defence, overseas aid (the UK might need some) and most of all what currency a free Scotland would use?
Far too many questions unanswered by AS to take him seriously at the moment.0 -
leodis75 wrote:Will this mean Shortbread prices will increase?
I would like to know what Salmond has in mind with health care, welfare, defence, overseas aid (the UK might need some) and most of all what currency a free Scotland would use?
Far too many questions unanswered by AS to take him seriously at the moment.
Errrr do we not do Health Care, welfare, defence etc at the moment? The only question is how it will be run. Most of Scotland's infrastructure is self sufficient, and self run.
Hell, we can do without Trident (stick them up the Thames!) Aircraft Carriers, fighter planes and a big Navy. The UK's ego is writing cheques its exchequer cant cash, trying to live on past Global Power status. Get over it!
The more I read, the more interesting the concept of Independence becomes."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Hmm, if that Labour link earlier is right, an independent Scotland would be using all of the oil revenues to prop up the hole in its budget, so wealth fund would be a bit empty.Wallace1492 wrote:Furthermore an Independent Scotland would have benefitted from the huge oil revenue over many a long year, and we could in fact have had a similar Soverign Wealth Fund as that of Norway - currently well over £550 billion, more than enough to bail out even RBS and Lloyds.0 -
Wallace1492 wrote:leodis75 wrote:Will this mean Shortbread prices will increase?
I would like to know what Salmond has in mind with health care, welfare, defence, overseas aid (the UK might need some) and most of all what currency a free Scotland would use?
Far too many questions unanswered by AS to take him seriously at the moment.
Errrr do we not do Health Care, welfare, defence etc at the moment? The only question is how it will be run. Most of Scotland's infrastructure is self sufficient, and self run.
Hell, we can do without Trident (stick them up the Thames!) Aircraft Carriers, fighter planes and a big Navy. The UK's ego is writing cheques its exchequer cant cash, trying to live on past Global Power status. Get over it!
The more I read, the more interesting the concept of Independence becomes.
Good luck I say
I gave up worrying when Uni fees in Scotland are only chargeable to people from England, Wales and NI and EU members get free Uni education, pretty poor when in Scotland, the Government spent £10,212 per person on average last year – £1,624 more than in England.
So will shortbread prices increase then?0 -
jamesco wrote:
Hmm, if that Labour link earlier is right, an independent Scotland would be using all of the oil revenues to prop up the hole in its budget, so wealth fund would be a bit empty.Wallace1492 wrote:Furthermore an Independent Scotland would have benefitted from the huge oil revenue over many a long year, and we could in fact have had a similar Soverign Wealth Fund as that of Norway - currently well over £550 billion, more than enough to bail out even RBS and Lloyds.
That is supposing that you get the worst of the Banks i.e. having to bail them out, with none of the years of Corporate Tax income and Oil income. Like it or not the UK bailed out the Banks, and as such I think Scotland should have a fair share of the debt.
It's all about fairness and rightiousness. For too long the South East has sucked down all the revenue and had all the infrastructure built at the expense of the regions. Sciotland has at best been tricked out of Independence 40 years ago, at worst the people have been criminally deceived by a corrupt and greedy Westminster."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
daviesee wrote:By the by, now that RBS is starting to make a profit, how soon will the Government sell it off at a loss instead of reaping the benefits? Same with Northern Rock. :evil:
The gov't will sell when the share price hits 50p (if it ever does)
They're already selling (well, trying to sell) huge chunks of the IB as we speak, and they'll be wound down if no buyer is found.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:They're already selling (well, trying to sell) huge chunks of the IB as we speak, and they'll be wound down if no buyer is found.
Why would it be wound down if they have managed to turn the corner and a profit?
Just asking?None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:They're already selling (well, trying to sell) huge chunks of the IB as we speak, and they'll be wound down if no buyer is found.
Why would it be wound down if they have managed to turn the corner and a profit?
Just asking?
I think the IB part of the bank was thought to be too big (and therefore too risky) for the overall size of the bank - part of trying to move away from banks being too big to fail.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
daviesee wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:They're already selling (well, trying to sell) huge chunks of the IB as we speak, and they'll be wound down if no buyer is found.
Why would it be wound down if they have managed to turn the corner and a profit?
Just asking?
Cash equities wasn't making much money (none are at the moment).
The bits they're selling by and large are the bits they bought from ABN - turns out it's not very good.
The bits they're keeping (the fixed income stuff) RBS have always been better at anyway. As far as I know they're a big FX house and have been for a while.
If other banks don't see any value in what's on offer, then, since they want rid of it anyway, they'll just let everyone go and wind it all down.
Been trying to work out if it's come from the shareholders (i.e. gov't) or from the board.
Can't work it out.0 -
Okay. So if I understand it right, they will be rid of the IB and back to where they were pre-greed, albeit with a mahoosive debt.
Some people really should be sacked & tarnished for the ABN deal.
Is it sheer coincidence that the RBS advisers were from Merrill Lynch who seem to be implicated in a whole lots of dodgy deals?None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
daviesee wrote:Okay. So if I understand it right, they will be rid of the IB and back to where they were pre-greed, albeit with a mahoosive debt.
Some people really should be sacked & tarnished for the ABN deal.
Is it sheer coincidence that the RBS advisers were from Merrill Lynch who seem to be implicated in a whole lots of dodgy deals?
Bits of the IB will still be there.
The ABN deal at the time even had people jaw-dropped with the way RBS went about it.
Re RBS advisers from Merrills?
It's a small world. More or less every IB been implicated somewhere, and someone has to do it.
ABN wasn't a dodgy deal. It was a stupid one. The amount RBS got bailed out originally was roughly the same amount of cash RBS used to buy ABN, and it was the ABN bit that hard particularly large amounts of toxic assets.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:daviesee wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:They're already selling (well, trying to sell) huge chunks of the IB as we speak, and they'll be wound down if no buyer is found.
Why would it be wound down if they have managed to turn the corner and a profit?
Just asking?
Cash equities wasn't making much money (none are at the moment).
The bits they're selling by and large are the bits they bought from ABN - turns out it's not very good.
The bits they're keeping (the fixed income stuff) RBS have always been better at anyway. As far as I know they're a big FX house and have been for a while.
If other banks don't see any value in what's on offer, then, since they want rid of it anyway, they'll just let everyone go and wind it all down.
Been trying to work out if it's come from the shareholders (i.e. gov't) or from the board.
Can't work it out.
To put the poor performance of equities across the board into some context JP Morgan figures came out today.
a 23 per cent year-on-year drop in fourth-quarter net income, mainly pulled down by poor figures from the equities business.0
