Scottish Independence.....

Strangely enough Texas actually has a little known provision in its terms for joining the union that allows it to

I think what annoys me to be honest, is that a few years ago we had a lot of small businesses in serious trouble. A lot of these were good, viable businesses being closed down as lending froze up. £7Bn would have done very nicely, and we had structures (non banks) that could have got that money out to the businesses concerned and saved people's jobs and livelihoods. Instead, we gave it to bad banks in Ireland.

We actually had a situation where government support for new enterprise in the UK amounted to the same as the wage bill for Bolton Wanderers, and yet Irish banks were hoovering up an infinitely bigger pile (there is simply no comparison in scale) at 0.17% above gilts, later reduced to pay us back when you can, no interest needed

We had a choice to support our own SME sector or Ireland's banking sector, and we chose the latter, so yes I do get a bit pissed off when I read stuff put out by Ireland saying 50 reasons why we're better.

We all saw the news of people in tears in Ireland as their economic miracle fell apart big time, the protests at the Dail, the empty housing estates and offices, and everyone rallied round them. The question I'd ask is where would they be without that, before they start patting themselves on the back and making out they're paragon of virtue
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
Instead, we gave it to bad banks in Ireland.
Click to expand...
It's the second time in an hour you have made this claim ........... and it needs to be challenged because it is factually incorrect.
The £7Bn was lent to the Irish exchequer -- and lent at an interest rate higher than the available rate which the U.K. was able to borrow at. So, in fact, the lending of this £7Bn was good and profitable business for the U.K.
That £7Bn is in the process of being repaid by the Irish. It was never "given" by the U.K.
 
Jeez Warbler, I've obviously struck a nerve.

I'm not going to get into a slagging match, especially after seeing clive posting his most civilised posts ever.:cool:

But I do want to point out a couple of things.

First, the blog I linked to is not mine. I don't know whose it is, I just thought it was interesting because I do think the dire warnings about Scotland's future are overdone, even if Nick is right that the immediate aftermath of a Yes vote would be difficult.

Second, I deliberately kept out of this debate until now but thought it was ok to contribute now that everyone who's going to vote has already made up their mind.

Third, I was not trying to "reach out to Scotland using catholicism". In fact I was doing the opposite, I was trying to suggest that the factors which pushed the Irish out of the UK are not in play in Scotland in this day and age.

Finally, neither the blogger I linked to nor myself is 'Ireland' and I'm not aware of any campaign launched from Ireland to influence the referendum result.
 
icebreaker said:
It's the second time in an hour you have made this claim ........... and it needs to be challenged because it is factually incorrect.
The £7Bn was lent to the Irish exchequer -- and lent at an interest rate higher than the available rate which the U.K. was able to borrow at. So, in fact, the lending of this £7Bn was good and profitable business for the U.K.
That £7Bn is in the process of being repaid by the Irish. It was never "given" by the U.K.
Click to expand...

Look at what I wrote second time round (albeit the posts might have crossed over)

It was lent at 0.17% above gilts (considerably less than anything Ireland was being offered at the time by the markets) it was by far and a way the best deal than anyone cobbling together rescue packages for the Irish put on the table

George Osborne later reduced that interest rate to British gilts and no interest at all. In that regard it would have been a poor deal in that we could have lent at a commercial rate elsewhere. A Belgian bond was about 4.5% at the time for example

Not a single British business during this period (other banks through QE) was given these kind of terms. British business was typically being charged 6% commercial rate many of whom weren't rated as junk
 
Last edited:
Britain loaned money at .017 above gilt rates to one of its most important trading partners whose solvency was important to both its exporters and importers and is now being repaid early from a triple A borrower. Whoopidy phucking doo Mother Theresa.

(PS.. Grey works for Europe, he is only Oirish by the grace of God.)
 
That is it. The cost is in the differential (I think that's the right word). The loss on the gain that could have been accrued elsewhere

Enjoy it whilst you can grey :)

True about smes. Not a chance of borrowing anywhere near that rate. Even rock solid borrowers

Nothing wrong with the bailout and in truth lending direct to smes from government is fiendishly difficult. Efg loans were the closest available facility but they needed the banks to organise and vet them. And because they were cheap, did the banks push them? Did they fck
 
Last edited:
I'm still waiting to see if any NH fan was curious to know why the Luftwaffe bombed the Curragh
 
Last edited:
Up to the beginning of this year, Ireland has paid £67 million in interest payments to the U.K. on that loan.
http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-interest-repayment-to-britain-1120288-Oct2013/

As AC says above, it made sound economic sense for the UK to assist in the bailout programme seeing as exports to the ROI are worth £27 Bn annually to the British economy. A busted Ireland would have implications for the British greater good; a country to which it exports more than it does to the four BRIC countries together.
 
clivex said:
Efg loans were the closest available facility but they needed the banks to organise and vet them. And because they were cheap, did the banks push them? Did they fck
Click to expand...

Imaginative Local Authorities could have used a combination of their own reserve and loans from the PWLB under the "power of well being" to lend at about 2.5% and still made a small profit. They might also have used a PWLB loan to guarantee a repayment for a venture capitalist, there were all sorts of possibilities in what was a very fast deteriorating position. As i said, solvent British businesses went bust, busted Irish banks were saved
 
If the council were lending I would grab the cash , buy a Beamer, watch England in the windies, pay off debts and then pre pack the business with a dodgy ip (we all know a few)

More seriously they need a bank and experienced credit people to run and monitor it to make sure the above doesn't happen. Banks won't like it because it undercuts their lending. Then you have the issue of who has the debenture
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
busted Irish banks were saved
Click to expand...
I hope you pardon me, but I think you have a poor grasp of the macro-economics of that unhappy period ( the consequences of which are still affecting us).
In the final analysis, it was German banks ( and the ECB) which were actually saved -- the Irish banks were simply a conduit to that purpose.
 
Well that's a bit like saying the RBS bailout saved HSBC say. In the first analysis RBS were the mess but HSBC werent
 
Last edited:
That's a shockingly low return. Probably covered just the legal and admin

Surely it's 670m...?
 
Last edited:
Perhaps so, Clive, but it's a darn sight better than what was portrayed by Warbler as "money given away".
 
clivex said:
That's a shockingly low return. Probably covered just the legal and admin
Click to expand...

That was the original justification for the 0.17% above gilts. I'm 99% certain Gideon Osborne subsequently revised it down to repayment only and ceded any primacy. Given the 'time value of money' Britain will lose on the loan in terms of opportunity cost

Also Clive, one of the things local authroties in partnership with their numerous partners are normally quite good at is monitoring as there are billions of pounds going through capital programmes at anyone time, and their own annual budget isn't exactly insignificant either. You might argue that they spend a fair amount of time sweeping the **** ups under the carpet, but then isn't that what the banks were doing themselves when buddling up bad loans and refusing to mark to market. In any event, there were other private sector venture capitalists and quasi agencies capable of performing a regulatory function.

I still think there's a gap in the market to combine private sector initiative with local authority statutory powers along these lines as an LA can borrow at a rate much more cheaply then you can through the PWLB and they're also a top covenant on that loan. You can then reloan at a higher rate and still offer a better deal than the banks
 
Capital programmes do not have a bad debt risk though. It's an entirely different skill. Risk is everything in lending

VC's wouldn't want to know unless there was a big cost. Much more than a bank. Regulatory agencies are not in this game in truth

Hard as it is, it's only the banks who have the staff and infrastructure to do so. Or perhaps independents like myself .

What could be up together is a national credit and lending body that serves the authorities but again it would cost

The other aspect is that you are taking a big chunk or the banks market, which wouldt helo them recover, and although their lending was tightened it was still more open than any other country in the world (see my blog).

http://cpcmcredit.wordpress.com/2014/09/07/the-best-country-for-credit/
 
Last edited:
Not what you want, but what you think the result will be, yes or no?

I think they will vote No
 
Racing Post gets to the real heart of the importance of the referendum...


Money suggests vote against independence

BY MARK STOREY 7:45PM 17 SEP 2014

THE polls make it too close to call but bookmakers say the weight of money piling in from big-hitting punters tells them Scotland will vote against independence on Thursday in a referendum that has potentially huge implications for the future of Scottish racing.
 
clivex said:
What could be up together is a national credit and lending body that serves the authorities but again it would cost
Click to expand...

That's what the PLWB is. If memory serves me right, a local authority can borrow 25 years about 1% above gilts

What Labour then introduced was something called the 'Well being' power which provided a very, very, loose justification for intervention. It was incredibly hazy and authorities were encouraged to interpret it accordingly. Some did so, but the reality is most were too scarred to do anything (their own salaries, status, and pensions are potentially at risk if they take a decision that they might be held accountable for). In my experience it was embarrassing as for years they'd complained about red tape and regulation and that was then swept aside with well being which wasn't far off being akin to "anything I think that benefits the local economy so longer as it doesn't involve raising money from members of the public".

The upshot is that they could use well being in conjunction with the PWLB.

I know Bristol were looking at a Bristol business bond at one time and having it credit rated etc but they could raise money at a preferential rate, and relend it at something nearer to a commercial rate, and then wrap it up in well being as the policy framework that permitted it

What you need to do is find some LA's prepared to use their access to PWLB finance. Most would rather find excuses for why they can't do it though
 
I still haven't seen a sane, rational argument anywhere that any educated Scot could be convinced by to vote for independence.

The economic argument has more holes in it than swiss cheese, and apart from a few transparent bribes from the SNP, there is simply no advantage to it.

Most Scots I know are fiercely nationalistic but are bright enough to know that being nationalistic has nothing to do with a breakaway from the United Kingdom.

If the unlikely scenario happened that the Yes's get it at the polls, shame on Scotland is all I can say.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top