This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Well... just read a very interesting (and very well written/impartial) news article about two banks that might be forced to move to London if Scotland becomes independent! Its a completely untested law but could be an interesting one. I wonder how the wet Salmon will react to that one? The article also suggests (I can see the point) that the 'better together' lot might also want to avoid bringing it up.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26455655
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26455655
In reply to crayefish:
It is against Scotland so it can't be impartial!! Bullies!
In actuality it does seem well written.
It is against Scotland so it can't be impartial!! Bullies!
In actuality it does seem well written.
Post edited at 13:53
In reply to JoshOvki:
Are we supposed to be disappointed that a company that has posted £8bn losses yet awards £500m in bonuses to its management - has to leave Scotland post independance?
off ye pop then.
Are we supposed to be disappointed that a company that has posted £8bn losses yet awards £500m in bonuses to its management - has to leave Scotland post independance?
off ye pop then.
In reply to drunken monkey:
Crumbs. No wonder England doesn't want a monetary union with Scotland, especially if they insist we have to type £ instead of £.
Crumbs. No wonder England doesn't want a monetary union with Scotland, especially if they insist we have to type £ instead of £.
In reply to The New NickB:
Yep. Would be a fair few job losses in Scotland, not to mention income from business taxes.
> Quite a few people with jobs in Edinburgh might take a different view.
Yep. Would be a fair few job losses in Scotland, not to mention income from business taxes.
In reply to crayefish:
Not necessarily. I would be interested to know how many people in the Edinburgh financial services sector are already working for companies whose Country of Registration is in other countries. After all, to sit in an office manipulating a computer and chatting with your buddies all over the world, you don't need to be in your employers country of registration, do you?
> Yep. Would be a fair few job losses in Scotland, not to mention income from business taxes.
Not necessarily. I would be interested to know how many people in the Edinburgh financial services sector are already working for companies whose Country of Registration is in other countries. After all, to sit in an office manipulating a computer and chatting with your buddies all over the world, you don't need to be in your employers country of registration, do you?
In reply to crayefish:
RBS are currently paying zero or close to zero business tax in the u.k., no idea about Lloyd's. Privatise profits, make the public pay for debt. Simples.
D
RBS are currently paying zero or close to zero business tax in the u.k., no idea about Lloyd's. Privatise profits, make the public pay for debt. Simples.
D
In reply to silhouette:
Exactly. Seems a bit of a non-story. But if it were seriously being suggested as a problem, then surely it would undermine the supposed problem that is the liability that these banks embody for an independent Scotland unable to cope.
> Not necessarily. I would be interested to know how many people in the Edinburgh financial services sector are already working for companies whose Country of Registration is in other countries. After all, to sit in an office manipulating a computer and chatting with your buddies all over the world, you don't need to be in your employers country of registration, do you?
Exactly. Seems a bit of a non-story. But if it were seriously being suggested as a problem, then surely it would undermine the supposed problem that is the liability that these banks embody for an independent Scotland unable to cope.
In reply to crayefish:
These people are ignorant fools. So small European nations are bound to be unsuccessful in banking are they?
Oh poor little Scotland with all that oil and gas and all that manufacturing and an educated population will never be a suitable home for major banks!
You think?
Compared to Luxembourg or Lichtenstein?
Merchant bankers.
These people are ignorant fools. So small European nations are bound to be unsuccessful in banking are they?
Oh poor little Scotland with all that oil and gas and all that manufacturing and an educated population will never be a suitable home for major banks!
You think?
Compared to Luxembourg or Lichtenstein?
Merchant bankers.
In reply to contrariousjim:
Most people wouldn't be too worried, but the shadow of the Icelandic banks will concern savers.
I'm surprised we haven't heard more from the Scottish pensions firms, but I suspect they are keeping quiet to avoid antagonising the nationalists. If the polls were a bit closer, they might follow the lead of Standard Life. I have pension plans with Aegon (aka Scottish Equitable) and Sottish Widows. Would I leave it with them if they were now based in a foreign jurisdiction - hell no.
Most people wouldn't be too worried, but the shadow of the Icelandic banks will concern savers.
I'm surprised we haven't heard more from the Scottish pensions firms, but I suspect they are keeping quiet to avoid antagonising the nationalists. If the polls were a bit closer, they might follow the lead of Standard Life. I have pension plans with Aegon (aka Scottish Equitable) and Sottish Widows. Would I leave it with them if they were now based in a foreign jurisdiction - hell no.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Jim its the same old crap/scare tactics from the NO campaign. Too wee, Too poor, Too stupid.
Jim its the same old crap/scare tactics from the NO campaign. Too wee, Too poor, Too stupid.
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Also, I'm sure Barclays have come out in the last few days and stated that "should" a yes vote happen, they would just deal with it.
Also, I'm sure Barclays have come out in the last few days and stated that "should" a yes vote happen, they would just deal with it.
In reply to drunken monkey:
it's nothing to do with the No campaign. it's a 1995 EU law. Try reading the article before you get angry.
p.s. we (lbg) employ 18000 staff north of the border so it would have a major impact. let's hope both sides start payng attention.
it's nothing to do with the No campaign. it's a 1995 EU law. Try reading the article before you get angry.
p.s. we (lbg) employ 18000 staff north of the border so it would have a major impact. let's hope both sides start payng attention.
In reply to graeme jackson:
Yes it is to do with the No/Better together campaign. Its the sort of crap that they have been scaremongering folk with for weeks/months.
They would have us all believe that we'll have no major companies left in Scotland should a yes vote happen.
Standard life came out with the same crap pre-devolution in the 90's and did nowt.
Yes it is to do with the No/Better together campaign. Its the sort of crap that they have been scaremongering folk with for weeks/months.
They would have us all believe that we'll have no major companies left in Scotland should a yes vote happen.
Standard life came out with the same crap pre-devolution in the 90's and did nowt.
Post edited at 16:01
In reply to Jim Fraser:
Do either home any major banks, rather than provide grey-list tax havens for millionaires' accounts?
> Compared to Luxembourg or Lichtenstein?
Do either home any major banks, rather than provide grey-list tax havens for millionaires' accounts?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Icelandic banks represent some >700% of icelandic GDP, whereas Scottish banks some 120% or so of Scottish GDP.
> Most people wouldn't be too worried, but the shadow of the Icelandic banks will concern savers.
Icelandic banks represent some >700% of icelandic GDP, whereas Scottish banks some 120% or so of Scottish GDP.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Agreed, we also have a pension with AEGON which will definitely be moved on Friday 19 September if there is a yes vote. Why the hell Salmond thinks anyone would leave their money in a soon to be foreign country threatening to default on its debts is anyones guess.
Agreed, we also have a pension with AEGON which will definitely be moved on Friday 19 September if there is a yes vote. Why the hell Salmond thinks anyone would leave their money in a soon to be foreign country threatening to default on its debts is anyones guess.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
My dad had a policy with a Canadian fund. Is it not more concerning where exactly the funds have invested, and whether independence will upset investment in Scotland's assets? However, on that question, do we not in the UK have one of the most open of international markets?
> I'm surprised we haven't heard more from the Scottish pensions firms, but I suspect they are keeping quiet to avoid antagonising the nationalists. If the polls were a bit closer, they might follow the lead of Standard Life. I have pension plans with Aegon (aka Scottish Equitable) and Sottish Widows. Would I leave it with them if they were now based in a foreign jurisdiction - hell no.
My dad had a policy with a Canadian fund. Is it not more concerning where exactly the funds have invested, and whether independence will upset investment in Scotland's assets? However, on that question, do we not in the UK have one of the most open of international markets?
In reply to contrariousjim:
Pension funds invested in the UK are tightly regulated and reasonably credibly protected by government against e.g. a pension company going bust. Who knows how secure funds invested in an overseas country with a government with no track record (except possible debt default) would be? I wouldn't risk it.
Pension funds invested in the UK are tightly regulated and reasonably credibly protected by government against e.g. a pension company going bust. Who knows how secure funds invested in an overseas country with a government with no track record (except possible debt default) would be? I wouldn't risk it.
In reply to drunken monkey:
Did you actually read the whole article? Or just the title and assume the rest? As Graeme said, it is nothing to to with either the yes or no campaign. And there were pros/cons for both.
It's those sort of 'oooh they're bullying us and making threats' and 'bloody toffs in London are scaremongering' sort of attitude that just makes the Salmonites all look like idiots.
> Yes it is to do with the No/Better together campaign. Its the sort of crap that they have been scaremongering folk with for weeks/months.
> They would have us all believe that we'll have no major companies left in Scotland should a yes vote happen.
Did you actually read the whole article? Or just the title and assume the rest? As Graeme said, it is nothing to to with either the yes or no campaign. And there were pros/cons for both.
It's those sort of 'oooh they're bullying us and making threats' and 'bloody toffs in London are scaremongering' sort of attitude that just makes the Salmonites all look like idiots.
In reply to contrariousjim:
That's not the point, I want my life savings under my governments jurisdiction and within my economic area, so would no more want it in Scotland than Switzerland, Luxembourg, Jersey etc.
Though I would add that as things stand, I'm more than happy with the fact that the companies employ more people in Edinburgh than London!
That's not the point, I want my life savings under my governments jurisdiction and within my economic area, so would no more want it in Scotland than Switzerland, Luxembourg, Jersey etc.
Though I would add that as things stand, I'm more than happy with the fact that the companies employ more people in Edinburgh than London!
Post edited at 16:29
In reply to crayefish: Both Lloyds and RBS are already headquartered in London...Jim C has already stated this in another thread.
Quote: "Magnificent work. Yes, according to the BBC’s Robert Peston today, EU law (which Scotland would seemingly be subject to even though it wasn’t in the EU) might compel RBS and Lloyds to move to England (even though, as Peston goes on to note, both Lloyds Bank and Lloyds Banking Group are, um, already headquartered in London)."
It's just another scare story from the BBC...check it out.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/all-your-ducks-in-a-row/
Quote: "Magnificent work. Yes, according to the BBC’s Robert Peston today, EU law (which Scotland would seemingly be subject to even though it wasn’t in the EU) might compel RBS and Lloyds to move to England (even though, as Peston goes on to note, both Lloyds Bank and Lloyds Banking Group are, um, already headquartered in London)."
It's just another scare story from the BBC...check it out.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/all-your-ducks-in-a-row/
In reply to lynx3555:
Did you read the article either? Let me quote if not...
"Lloyds already has its head office in London, separate from its Scotland registered office.
And RBS has two head offices, one in London, one in Scotland - and, to repeat (yawn), Scotland is its legal home."
> Both Lloyds and RBS are already headquartered in London...Jim C has already stated this in another thread.
Did you read the article either? Let me quote if not...
"Lloyds already has its head office in London, separate from its Scotland registered office.
And RBS has two head offices, one in London, one in Scotland - and, to repeat (yawn), Scotland is its legal home."
In reply to crayefish: And the head line says....EU law may force RBS and Lloyds to become English...that's MAY force them to move south, not WILL....it's just more bullshit from the BBC.
And go to bed if your tiered.
And go to bed if your tiered.
I find it funny that pro-unions kept repeating that an independent Scotland would have to to bail out RBS and Lloyds on their own in case of independence, but then they go on and argue that they would have to be registered in England ? (Which actually, would kind of make sense if 90% of their customers are there)
It doesn't matter too much where the registered office is, unless they generate huge profits and pay lots of corporation tax (they haven't paid any for a long time now). What matter is the jobs, which will go anywhere where they get the best productivity and best talents, and that might just be about anywhere in the world.
Post edited at 16:44
In reply to lynx3555:
Exactly... they MAY be forced by EU law. And the article clearly states it might not just be bad for Scotland, but also bad for England if Scotland leaves. I suspect you only read the title of the article and assumed it was 'bullying' or 'scaremongering'.
The article is actually very impartial and goes through the pros and cons for both scenarios.
Tiered? Like a wedding cake? No I left my frosting at home.
> And the head line says....EU law may force RBS and Lloyds to become English...that's MAY force them to move south, not WILL....it's just more bullshit from the BBC.
Exactly... they MAY be forced by EU law. And the article clearly states it might not just be bad for Scotland, but also bad for England if Scotland leaves. I suspect you only read the title of the article and assumed it was 'bullying' or 'scaremongering'.
The article is actually very impartial and goes through the pros and cons for both scenarios.
> And go to bed if your tiered.
Tiered? Like a wedding cake? No I left my frosting at home.
In reply to MG:
Well sure, having pension protection is important, indeed it is a requirement of EU law. Are you saying that Scotland would not run such a scheme, would fail in transitory arrangements, or that Scotland isn't capable of the general liability? Or is it that Scotland isn't capable of funding the catastrophic liability in case of a financial crisis radically undermining pension funds, and are you also saying that a negotiated settlement would see the rUK pulling out of any protection for pension funds based in Scotland for English fund holders? What is your evidence for these fears?
> Pension funds invested in the UK are tightly regulated and reasonably credibly protected by government against e.g. a pension company going bust. Who knows how secure funds invested in an overseas country with a government with no track record (except possible debt default) would be? I wouldn't risk it.
Well sure, having pension protection is important, indeed it is a requirement of EU law. Are you saying that Scotland would not run such a scheme, would fail in transitory arrangements, or that Scotland isn't capable of the general liability? Or is it that Scotland isn't capable of funding the catastrophic liability in case of a financial crisis radically undermining pension funds, and are you also saying that a negotiated settlement would see the rUK pulling out of any protection for pension funds based in Scotland for English fund holders? What is your evidence for these fears?
In reply to crayefish:
Same old scare tactics . The bottom line is that business will do what is right for business .And this is just politics. The evidence clearly demonstrates the ability of Scotland to become economically independent and increasingly prosperous. At the end of the day that will inform the choices that are made and what people say after the referendum. If we vote yes then business wil respond pragmatically to circumstance. It does seem that an increasing number of those against independence are personalising the politics against Salmond and others advocates of independence. Worth remembering that this vote is about what the people of Scotland want. Not what suits a few international commercial businesses that will follow the money.
Same old scare tactics . The bottom line is that business will do what is right for business .And this is just politics. The evidence clearly demonstrates the ability of Scotland to become economically independent and increasingly prosperous. At the end of the day that will inform the choices that are made and what people say after the referendum. If we vote yes then business wil respond pragmatically to circumstance. It does seem that an increasing number of those against independence are personalising the politics against Salmond and others advocates of independence. Worth remembering that this vote is about what the people of Scotland want. Not what suits a few international commercial businesses that will follow the money.
In reply to contrariousjim:
A bit of most of those but mostly I don't want my pension reglated by a foreign government that has no interest in me and overwhich I have no influence. I wouldn't have my pension with a French based company for the same reason.
A bit of most of those but mostly I don't want my pension reglated by a foreign government that has no interest in me and overwhich I have no influence. I wouldn't have my pension with a French based company for the same reason.
In reply to alastairmac:
So it's a scare tactic eh? Are you saying that the EU directive doesn't exist?
Funny how everything that is against exactly what the Yes people want to hear is labeled as a scare tactic.
Why isn't that a scare tactic towards the No campaign?
> Same old scare tactics.
So it's a scare tactic eh? Are you saying that the EU directive doesn't exist?
Funny how everything that is against exactly what the Yes people want to hear is labeled as a scare tactic.
> The evidence clearly demonstrates the ability of Scotland to become economically independent and "increasingly prosperous."
Why isn't that a scare tactic towards the No campaign?
Post edited at 17:02
In reply to MG:
Even if it were secure and more yielding? Sounds like a triumph of sentimentality.
> A bit of most of those but mostly I don't want my pension reglated by a foreign government that has no interest in me and overwhich I have no influence. I wouldn't have my pension with a French based company for the same reason.
Even if it were secure and more yielding? Sounds like a triumph of sentimentality.
In reply to MG:
I have state and private pensions in France as well as in the uk, honestly I don't think it's much of a problem, when it comes to private pensions they are all doing more or less the same thing with more it less the same returns (crap in both cases) as far as I can tell from my case, but if anything I am quite happy not having all my eggs not in the same basket.
> A bit of most of those but mostly I don't want my pension reglated by a foreign government that has no interest in me and overwhich I have no influence. I wouldn't have my pension with a French based company for the same reason.
I have state and private pensions in France as well as in the uk, honestly I don't think it's much of a problem, when it comes to private pensions they are all doing more or less the same thing with more it less the same returns (crap in both cases) as far as I can tell from my case, but if anything I am quite happy not having all my eggs not in the same basket.
In reply to crayefish:
I maybe way off mark here but if Scotland does split, it will not automatically default to a member of the EU so will its laws be relevant?
Im sure someone will be able to set me straight on this?
I maybe way off mark here but if Scotland does split, it will not automatically default to a member of the EU so will its laws be relevant?
Im sure someone will be able to set me straight on this?
In reply to crayefish:
I thought you better together lot had already stated that Scotland won't be joining the EU any way, wish you lot would make your mind up. And what's going to happen when the ruk leaves the EU?
I thought you better together lot had already stated that Scotland won't be joining the EU any way, wish you lot would make your mind up. And what's going to happen when the ruk leaves the EU?
In reply to lynx3555:
That's a valid point that you and Adam made.
I am fairly sure (but not 100%) that because the head offices (but not registered) will be in an EU country, then it applies. Also the point about where the majority of the business is located - ie. England.
But yes, I imagine if the UK leaves the EU then it wouldn't matter one bit. But would be too late by then. Despite the silly EU red tape, olive oil directives and f*cking Spanish trawlers etc, I think it would be silly to leave the EU economic-wise.
That's a valid point that you and Adam made.
I am fairly sure (but not 100%) that because the head offices (but not registered) will be in an EU country, then it applies. Also the point about where the majority of the business is located - ie. England.
But yes, I imagine if the UK leaves the EU then it wouldn't matter one bit. But would be too late by then. Despite the silly EU red tape, olive oil directives and f*cking Spanish trawlers etc, I think it would be silly to leave the EU economic-wise.
In reply to contrariousjim:
Why would it be? I can invest in any shares etc from a UK regulated company. I'm actually doubt I legally can invest in a French based pension. Certainly I have to be British to invest in a British one for tax relief reasons.
Why would it be? I can invest in any shares etc from a UK regulated company. I'm actually doubt I legally can invest in a French based pension. Certainly I have to be British to invest in a British one for tax relief reasons.
In reply to crayefish:
iScotland would be the 2nd largest oil producer in Euroupe and if it did remain in the EU it would be the largest oil and gas producer in the EU. It's Economic sea boundaries encompass a very large part of the NW corner of Europe and that area is currently seeing a healthy return to abundant White fish stocks.....Europe is already very reliant on Russia for its gas and is presently starting to slide further into a major energy crisis...Europe needs Scotland's resources more than we need them, probably.
I'm sure we will be in a very good place to negotiate whatever deal Scotland would want, to with in reason ofcourse.
But until Scotland has gained it's independence, we will be bombarded by lies, and scare tactics.
iScotland would be the 2nd largest oil producer in Euroupe and if it did remain in the EU it would be the largest oil and gas producer in the EU. It's Economic sea boundaries encompass a very large part of the NW corner of Europe and that area is currently seeing a healthy return to abundant White fish stocks.....Europe is already very reliant on Russia for its gas and is presently starting to slide further into a major energy crisis...Europe needs Scotland's resources more than we need them, probably.
I'm sure we will be in a very good place to negotiate whatever deal Scotland would want, to with in reason ofcourse.
But until Scotland has gained it's independence, we will be bombarded by lies, and scare tactics.
Post edited at 17:34
In reply to drunken monkey:
Despite the fact that I am in favour of staying in the UK I have to agree with you!
> Jim its the same old crap/scare tactics from the NO campaign. Too wee, Too poor, Too stupid.
Despite the fact that I am in favour of staying in the UK I have to agree with you!
In reply to crayefish: I'm sure the ruk will want to buy this gas when it comes on line.
http://www.scotsman.com/business/energy/shell-oil-and-gas-field-biggest-in-...
http://www.scotsman.com/business/energy/shell-oil-and-gas-field-biggest-in-...
In reply to lynx3555:
Scare tactics there? LOL. Come on... are these the dwindling reserves in the North Sea by any chance? The ones that require many billions of investment to extract?
Until Scotland has gained it's independence we'll have to put up with this playground moaning and accusations of bullying. Waaaah!
> Europe is already very reliant on Russia for its gas and is presently starting to slide further into a major energy crisis...Europe needs Scotland's resources more than we need them, probably.
Scare tactics there? LOL. Come on... are these the dwindling reserves in the North Sea by any chance? The ones that require many billions of investment to extract?
> But until Scotland has gained it's independence, we will be bombarded by lies, and scare tactics.
Until Scotland has gained it's independence we'll have to put up with this playground moaning and accusations of bullying. Waaaah!
In reply to MG:
There is nothing preventing you from contributing to a pension fund anywhere in the EU, the same tax relief rules will apply. If you contribute to a pension scheme outside of the EU, then the UK needs to have a tax treaty with that country for you to get tax relief, but the Uk has tax treaties with hundreds of countries so it's usually not a concern apart from a few exceptions.
But what happens in most cases is that your employer puts money for you in a local pension scheme for convenience and that's it.
> Why would it be? I can invest in any shares etc from a UK regulated company. I'm actually doubt I legally can invest in a French based pension. Certainly I have to be British to invest in a British one for tax relief reasons.
There is nothing preventing you from contributing to a pension fund anywhere in the EU, the same tax relief rules will apply. If you contribute to a pension scheme outside of the EU, then the UK needs to have a tax treaty with that country for you to get tax relief, but the Uk has tax treaties with hundreds of countries so it's usually not a concern apart from a few exceptions.
But what happens in most cases is that your employer puts money for you in a local pension scheme for convenience and that's it.
In reply to crayefish:
Accusations of "Bullying" has come from both sides of the camp, so I'd drop that one if I was you.
"Willie Young, the council’s finance convener, also accused Mr Salmond of acting like a bully. He said: “This is an astonishing attack on our council. He is just an absolute bully"
Willie Young is a staunch Unionist.
For some strange reason the Aberdeen Council refused a 7 million rise in there budget...and funny enough the Aberdeen Council is on the News just now.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/aberdeen-council-accuse-a...
Accusations of "Bullying" has come from both sides of the camp, so I'd drop that one if I was you.
"Willie Young, the council’s finance convener, also accused Mr Salmond of acting like a bully. He said: “This is an astonishing attack on our council. He is just an absolute bully"
Willie Young is a staunch Unionist.
For some strange reason the Aberdeen Council refused a 7 million rise in there budget...and funny enough the Aberdeen Council is on the News just now.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/aberdeen-council-accuse-a...
In reply to lynx3555:
Not only is Salmond a bully but he's a lier too...
"He said in a letter to Valerie Watts, the council’s chief executive: “The visit was private. There was no media or party or government officials.".
And yet I saw (with my very own eyes) the lying bully on TV last night during this visit. No media present? presumably he got his mrs to video it on her mobile then?
> (In reply to crayefish)
> Accusations of "Bullying" has come from both sides of the camp, so I'd drop that one if I was you.
> Accusations of "Bullying" has come from both sides of the camp, so I'd drop that one if I was you.
Not only is Salmond a bully but he's a lier too...
"He said in a letter to Valerie Watts, the council’s chief executive: “The visit was private. There was no media or party or government officials.".
And yet I saw (with my very own eyes) the lying bully on TV last night during this visit. No media present? presumably he got his mrs to video it on her mobile then?
In reply to crayefish: And for those that keep banging on about Scotland needing the BoE to bail us out, seems the task of bailing out the English banks was just too much for the BoE to handle.
"At the time of the crash, the media constantly told us that Barclays didn't need a taxpayer bail out at all. But in fact, Barclays Bank - yes, that English based bank - received the single biggest bail out package of any UK bank. It was just that most of it didn't come from the UK taxpayer. Instead, Barclays was bailed out to the tune of £552.32bn (at backdated exchange rates) by the US Federal Reserve and £6bn by the Qatari Government. In other words, foreign governments bailed out Barclays with more than twelve times the money the UK Government gave as capital support for RBS (£45bn)."
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/4895234?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_re...
"At the time of the crash, the media constantly told us that Barclays didn't need a taxpayer bail out at all. But in fact, Barclays Bank - yes, that English based bank - received the single biggest bail out package of any UK bank. It was just that most of it didn't come from the UK taxpayer. Instead, Barclays was bailed out to the tune of £552.32bn (at backdated exchange rates) by the US Federal Reserve and £6bn by the Qatari Government. In other words, foreign governments bailed out Barclays with more than twelve times the money the UK Government gave as capital support for RBS (£45bn)."
http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/4895234?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_re...
In reply to graeme jackson:
Who doesn't lie in politics..."the Unionists" and Westminster government are the overwhelming winners when lies are concerned.
Who doesn't lie in politics..."the Unionists" and Westminster government are the overwhelming winners when lies are concerned.
In reply to lynx3555:
There was me thinking they bailed out British banks? Or doesn't Scotland have access to RBS and Barclays?
There was me thinking they bailed out British banks? Or doesn't Scotland have access to RBS and Barclays?
In reply to lynx3555:
Accusations of bullying are ridiculous from either side I think. But you certainly hear them more often from Salmon.
> Accusations of "Bullying" has come from both sides of the camp, so I'd drop that one if I was you.
Accusations of bullying are ridiculous from either side I think. But you certainly hear them more often from Salmon.
In reply to lynx3555:
An interesting leap of logic.
Barclays could have been bailed out by the UK. However the Barclays management decided against it and went to other sources. From what I recall the reason for this is the UK money had a few more terms and conditions attached than the other sources (although of course Barclays would have needed even more money if it hadnt benefited from the general UK government actions).
> (In reply to crayefish) And for those that keep banging on about Scotland needing the BoE to bail us out, seems the task of bailing out the English banks was just too much for the BoE to handle.
An interesting leap of logic.
Barclays could have been bailed out by the UK. However the Barclays management decided against it and went to other sources. From what I recall the reason for this is the UK money had a few more terms and conditions attached than the other sources (although of course Barclays would have needed even more money if it hadnt benefited from the general UK government actions).
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...