Scotland after the vote
Discussion
Moonhawk said:
Heart - Some of us have Scottish Ancestry as well as ancestry from other parts of the UK. Although I live in and was born in England - to say I am English above all else would be making an arbitrary distinction. My country of origin is the UK - why would I want to see my country split up.
I agree. My mum is scots, along with (obviously) her clan.ETA although, the monkey inside me thinks it would be good to see a yes vote just so I've got a good laugh invested for 5 years down the line when it all goes wrong. PVCdriver and the other shouty nat above makes me wish I had a vote.
Edited by OpulentBob on Friday 1st August 09:51
pcvdriver said:
Ooh Wow!!! one person.....and I don't think they checked the link provided first....
To be fair - in that post (on page 13) you simply countered one graph with another and made an off hand comment about "porkie pies". You didn't even attempt to debate the relative merits or accuracy of the data sources......and I don't see a link in that post either (aside from the picture link to thumbsnap).
pcvdriver said:
Axionknight said:
Yeah they do, apart from the breakup of the union looking on bad politically it will also cause vast ramifications with regards to the "Scottish" banks, which Britain bailed out. Truthfully though, the vast majority of folk I speak to back home (West Yorkshire) don't really care what Scotland does and those that do, after seeing all the cyber nat anti English, butchers apron, beaten partner racism wish 'em all the best and hope for a yes vote.
They see Scotland as inconsequential to the future of rUK and I place he blame squarely at the aforementioned anti English brigades feet.
Let's look at where RBS and BoS main markets were pre-crash, I'll give you a clue - they weren't in Scotland, were they? Biggest losses came from the States, which is why the Fed Reserve stumped up roughly half of the bail out cash. IIRC, even the Dutch and Belgian governments stumped up cash too, in order to service their ABN Amro liabilities, another sizable chunk came from debts run up in rUK. Both banks are essentially nominally Scottish in name only, due to the world wide nature of banking these days anyway.They see Scotland as inconsequential to the future of rUK and I place he blame squarely at the aforementioned anti English brigades feet.
You might want to tell the thousands of people in and around Edinburgh, who are employed directly and indirectly by RBS, how RBS is Scottish in name only. It'll be a great comfort to them when their job buggers off over the border.
arp1 said:
What we have to remember is, with ALL this talk about money and the rest of if, it's ALL guesswork, both sides of the argument... How can any guarantees be given? They can't! Based on the swathes of austerity cuts westminister is hell bent on doing, how on earth could Scotland be worse off than that?? And any so called guarantees trusting Dave gives, the next government (and successors) could make their own rules up and we'd be back to square one. Self rule is the way forward and I am quite sure than in one or two generations time we will have evolved as a nation and more successful than we are now. It won't happen in our lifetime but it is a start, and good things start with a YES 
What austerity?Have you looked at the UK spending figures?
Even in real terms the current Government is only planning to start cutting expenditure this year next year.
Kinky said:
Ladies, please put handbags away.
It's not nice and it's necessary.
A polite notice - but the only one.
Tolerance level = 0
I quite agree Kinky, but I haven't even raised a handbag.....let alone have one to put away. I've been offering solid points for debate (backed up by official sources, with linked URLs), you may wish to have a wee word with wiggly about post alteration and other such childish, trolling nonsense. Or are the mods going to buckle under pressure and do sod all again?It's not nice and it's necessary.
A polite notice - but the only one.
Tolerance level = 0
Edited by pcvdriver on Friday 1st August 10:56
OpulentBob said:
You were coming across quite well before that little dig, PVCdriver.
Now, Now, Bob, fair's fair If I can't ask an open question to the mods, about something which is so blatant and obviously not debating....what's a guy supposed to do? I wasn't intended as a dig, more a mere statement of fact. Unless of course, you would describe wiggly's posts over the last day or two debating. As always I stand to be corrected.AstonZagato said:
pcdriver
If the Belgians and US governments bailed out RBS and Lloyds, what percentage of the equity of those companies do they own?
What percentage of those companies does the UK Govt own?
I've not had time to get exact equity figures - but here something to keep you going....If the Belgians and US governments bailed out RBS and Lloyds, what percentage of the equity of those companies do they own?
What percentage of those companies does the UK Govt own?
British banks account for $640 bn of Federal Reserve bailout money
Fed forced to disclose its lending to financial institutions from December 2007 onwards.
by New Statesman Published 2 December, 2010 - 09:21
StumbleUpon logoReddit logoPrint HTML logo
The Federal Reserve has released details of more than 21,000 transactions after being forced by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act to disclose which institutions it had bailed out in the financial turmoil since December 2007.
The data reveals that British-based banks accounted for $1 trillion (£640bn) of the money the Fed issued to prop up the financial sector.
Barclays took the biggest chunk of bailout money, borrowing $863bn from the Fed. Almost half of the money came in overnight loans thought the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, a programme intended to help banks dealing in US Treasuries.
Barclays has since paid all of its loans, which came about because of Barclay's $1.75 purchase of Lehman Brothers.
Royal Bank of Scotland borrowed $446bn, Bank of Scotland $181bn, Abbey National $19bn and HSBC less than $10bn. The figures show each institution's total borrowing, not the amount they had outstanding at any one point.
Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/financial-brit...
pcvdriver said:
AstonZagato said:
pcdriver
If the Belgians and US governments bailed out RBS and Lloyds, what percentage of the equity of those companies do they own?
What percentage of those companies does the UK Govt own?
I've not had time to get exact equity figures - but here something to keep you going....If the Belgians and US governments bailed out RBS and Lloyds, what percentage of the equity of those companies do they own?
What percentage of those companies does the UK Govt own?
British banks account for $640 bn of Federal Reserve bailout money
Fed forced to disclose its lending to financial institutions from December 2007 onwards.
by New Statesman Published 2 December, 2010 - 09:21
StumbleUpon logoReddit logoPrint HTML logo
The Federal Reserve has released details of more than 21,000 transactions after being forced by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act to disclose which institutions it had bailed out in the financial turmoil since December 2007.
The data reveals that British-based banks accounted for $1 trillion (£640bn) of the money the Fed issued to prop up the financial sector.
Barclays took the biggest chunk of bailout money, borrowing $863bn from the Fed. Almost half of the money came in overnight loans thought the Primary Dealer Credit Facility, a programme intended to help banks dealing in US Treasuries.
Barclays has since paid all of its loans, which came about because of Barclay's $1.75 purchase of Lehman Brothers.
Royal Bank of Scotland borrowed $446bn, Bank of Scotland $181bn, Abbey National $19bn and HSBC less than $10bn. The figures show each institution's total borrowing, not the amount they had outstanding at any one point.
Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/financial-brit...
Mrr T said:
What austerity?
Have you looked at the UK spending figures?
Even in real terms the current Government is only planning to start cutting expenditure this year next year.
Yes I have looked at the figures and I'm at a loss about how the coalition can make their austerity claims.Have you looked at the UK spending figures?
Even in real terms the current Government is only planning to start cutting expenditure this year next year.
You know the we're all in this together austerity spiel that the coalition came out with - slashing funding left, right and centre. Axing this that and the next. I was expecting to see our debt mountain come down. It has however, more or less doubled under the coalition.
There was a point where Labour, to their credit had got the economy back into the black - unfortunately they took the decision to borrow at a time that if they'd made slight cuts we would have weathered the storm. but hey ho spilt milk and all that.....
The point is is took Labour 13 years to amass the debt they did and the coalition 4 years to double it - while heaping derision on them for creating the debt. I calculated the interest payments over the page, which no-one seems to think unreasonable, or they'd have jumped straight down my throat to show me the error of my ways....
The question has to be asked what the flying Eff have they done with all that money?
pcvdriver said:
The point is is took Labour 13 years to amass the debt they did and the coalition 4 years to double it - while heaping derision on them for creating the debt. I calculated the interest payments over the page, which no-one seems to think unreasonable, or they'd have jumped straight down my throat to show me the error of my ways....
The question has to be asked what the flying Eff have they done with all that money?
Good grief!The question has to be asked what the flying Eff have they done with all that money?
The coalition inherited a national debt of circa £410 billion and a deficit of £160 billion.
Now common sense should tell you that if you are spending considerably more than you earn your debt will increase, no?
To reduce government spending by £160 billion over night would have crippled the country.
Over 4 years the coalition has managed to reduce this to circa £70 billion but in the mean time national debt has risen for many reasons which we should all be well aware of by now.
pcvdriver said:
Yes I have looked at the figures and I'm at a loss about how the coalition can make their austerity claims.
You know the we're all in this together austerity spiel that the coalition came out with - slashing funding left, right and centre. Axing this that and the next. I was expecting to see our debt mountain come down. It has however, more or less doubled under the coalition.
So you're advocating more austerity? They've barely cut anything at all - that is why it hasn't come down. You know the we're all in this together austerity spiel that the coalition came out with - slashing funding left, right and centre. Axing this that and the next. I was expecting to see our debt mountain come down. It has however, more or less doubled under the coalition.
A few pages back you were saying vote yes to stop the current austerity and now you are saying there should be more?
Mind you, as Swinney has confirmed that there will be spending cuts and tax rises in an independent Scotland you are correct that voting Yes is a vote for more austerity.
pcvdriver said:
The point is is took Labour 13 years to amass the debt they did and the coalition 4 years to double it.......
The coalition inherited a growing debt from the previous government and have been trying their hardest to try and reduce the rate at which that debt is growing ever since.Looking at this graph - the public debt graph is steepest between 2007 and 2010 - it has been slowly levelling off since the coalition took power.
You don't honestly think the slate is wiped clean the day after a general election do you? Labour set this country on a course that is not easily reversed - trying to score political points by claiming all debt amassed since 2010 is solely the fault of the coalition is just puerile.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff