England gained from and failed the RBS and as it enjoyed the good times, must endure the bad.
As you can see this was a British operation not a Scotland only one.
Now lessons hopefully will be learned from the past. With RSB anyway as Viv says we are getting optimistic claims on it's recovery....but Scotland not in the UK and not in the Euro, might even have tried an Iceland - and told the banks, tough luck. They I hear are now making a nice little recovery to the recession.
The RSB was a UK wide operation and hence a UK wide responsibility and hence cannot be taken as a benefit to Scotland.
Now a genuine benefit Scotland gets from the Union?
Last edited by alexa; Feb 26 2012 at 03:48 AM.
You know saying that England will bail Scotland out every time they screw up is not a very good argument for independence.
Now, kindly explain to me, in words of one syllable, why you would expect Scotland to do any more than bail out the banks who operate in Scotland to the level of the percentage of those operations in Scotland? (which in the case of RBS has been quoted as variously being between 5% and 10% of the bank's world-wide activity....given that it was regulated and paid all its taxes into the UK coffers?
After all, The Federal Reserve stepped in to bail out US operations linked to RBS and HBOS. In Europe the governments of France, Belgium The Netherlands and Luxembourg joined forces to help the Fortis and Dexia Banks operating across their borders.
“This decision was not taken to protect either RBS or HBOS, nor specifically the Scottish markets, but to protect the financial stability of the UK financial system as a whole.”
HBOS’s operational head quarters were in Halifax, Yorkshire, so there was even less reason to assume Scots would be responsible for its rescue. But the indisputably Scottish RBS ran up most of its losses in the City of London where it was regulated: “It would be inconceivable that Edinburgh or Scotland as a whole could be held liable for that full bill.”
Scotland and the banking bailout time for the truth
If Scotland had been independent at the time of the bank bailout, and was the regulatory home country of the bank, then if they had been so lax as to allow the banks the freedom to be arseholes handed to them by the Tories in the 1980s, they would still have no obligation to meet deficits sustained by the operations of their subsidiaries in other countries just because those countries had been just as lax in their regulations as we had..and that would apply to subsidiaries in England as well as to subsidiaries anywhere else.
Those operations furth of Scotland could have been allowed to fail...but as we saw in the current crisis, many foreign countries chose to bail out some failing foreign banks at their own cost. So the UK did not have to bail out the RBS subsidiaries in the USA, for example....the USA did that....because it didn't want Citizen's Financial Group failing.
Despite the oft repeated levels of debt....the toxic debt was predominantly in the USA. It cost the UK £66bn in shares and loans to bailout both RBS and HBOS.
Given that Scottish GDP at the time was £145 billion and our remaining oil reserves, using the American Energy Departments cost calculations, are valued at a trillion pounds, we’d have been well placed to negotiate a good deal on the international money markets – which was how the UK, and other national governments, financed the banking rescue. Indeed given our valuable natural resources, we might have negotiated a better deal. if we had been independent.
Now, fredc.....you have facts and figures there. Do try and not simply respond with another opinion cobbled together from the media but address the facts and figures.
You may, and probably will not, agree with any of it...but debate requires that you address the points made, and give the requisite facts and figures to prove that they are wrong...and not continually limit yourself to spewing irrationality and bile.
NEWSNET SCOTLAND..doesn't adhere to the Unionist view
YOUR SCOTLAND. YOUR REFERENDUM
Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right. Martin Luther King Jr.
"BE NICE TO AMERICA OR WE'LL BRING DEMOCRACY TO YOUR COUNTRY"....a US bumper-sticker warning!
The bank went bankrupt as a direct result of it's takeover of ABN Amro, a takeover backed by Alex Salmond and the Scottish government. Not something likely to instil confidence in foreign investors.
That bank is global. It owns assets everywhere., personal, business, private banking, insurance, corporate finance in Europe, US, Asia, ROI. Citizens Financial Group is the 8th largest bank in US and it does business in the Bank of China. If you are saying global corp will be confined only to Scotland after the UK dissolves, you'll have to evidence that.
What about Northern Rock, btw? Not that I'm hugely great on economic issues, but is that a Scottish bank? What about Lloyds TSB? Bradford & Bingley? But then it's hard to know what's going on. Are HBOS, Halifax, RBS, Lloyds.... interchangeable now in a lot of cases ..all international anyway.
If you're going to rule out the ownership of one of the world's largest financial institutions because of a temporary crisis, nobody will ever make any money be it UK or Scotland. I would say getting rid of UK will improve the profit margin, but it remains to be seen how RBS will end up. 84% public owned. What is the end game for that? It might be sold off to private investors who are not UK based and only pay taxes wherever it ends up trading.
Last edited by Viv; Feb 26 2012 at 06:58 AM.