Comments on: Norway’s Oil Fund, Scotland’s oil and Scotland’s banks http://forargyll.com/2009/12/norways-oil-fund-scotlands-oil-and-scotlands-banks/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:10:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Willie McEwanhttp://forargyll.com/2009/12/norways-oil-fund-scotlands-oil-and-scotlands-banks/#comment-22181 Willie McEwan Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:31:31 +0000 http://forargyll.com/?p=18249#comment-22181 It should be takern on board that those banks are primarily large internationally owned banks and they are continually being described as "Scottish " banks mainly for political reasons. RBS is a bank of Scottish origin which retained its HQ in Scotland as it became one of the world's biggest banks. Over 90% of its business is furth of Scotland. It is, for instance Nat West, a huge English Bank. It is Ulster Bank. And we all know it is also a huge failed Dutch bank. This not an attempt to excuse is failings but merely to point out that an independent Scotland would have had no particular national interest in saving the behemoth. It was saved in the British national interest. (Sir Fred Goodwin was knighted by Labour and made a special advisor to Gordon Brown). While RBS retained some element of which would justify it being describes as a "Scottish Bank" HBOS on the other hand cannot be under any circumstance be described as such. It is the Halifax, a huge English company, which gobbled up the Bank of Scotland years ago, and is HQd in Yorkshire. Nobody south of the border describes as other than the Halifax except for reasons of political spin. The "BOS" is tabbed on after the "H" in Scotland only to keep us happy. I'd have let them both go bust. It should be takern on board that those banks are primarily large internationally owned banks and they are continually being described as “Scottish ” banks mainly for political reasons.

RBS is a bank of Scottish origin which retained its HQ in Scotland as it became one of the world’s biggest banks. Over 90% of its business is furth of Scotland. It is, for instance Nat West, a huge English Bank. It is Ulster Bank. And we all know it is also a huge failed Dutch bank. This not an attempt to excuse is failings but merely to point out that an independent Scotland would have had no particular national interest in saving the behemoth. It was saved in the British national interest. (Sir Fred Goodwin was knighted by Labour and made a special advisor to Gordon Brown).

While RBS retained some element of which would justify it being describes as a “Scottish Bank” HBOS on the other hand cannot be under any circumstance be described as such.
It is the Halifax, a huge English company, which gobbled up the Bank of Scotland years ago, and is HQd in Yorkshire.
Nobody south of the border describes as other than the Halifax except for reasons of political spin. The “BOS” is tabbed on after the “H” in Scotland only to keep us happy.

I’d have let them both go bust.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Kenneth MacCollhttp://forargyll.com/2009/12/norways-oil-fund-scotlands-oil-and-scotlands-banks/#comment-22065 Kenneth MacColl Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:09:18 +0000 http://forargyll.com/?p=18249#comment-22065 We could always take the Westminster by pass, Spike! Charles, I agree with you that community enterprise should be rewarded but if it can be demonstrated that company profits are excessive an additional central levy would not go amiss. We could always take the Westminster by pass, Spike!

Charles, I agree with you that community enterprise should be rewarded but if it can be demonstrated that company profits are excessive an additional central levy would not go amiss.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Spikehttp://forargyll.com/2009/12/norways-oil-fund-scotlands-oil-and-scotlands-banks/#comment-22059 Spike Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:48:33 +0000 http://forargyll.com/?p=18249#comment-22059 While a fund, such has the one outlined above, is an excellent idea, I can not belive that Westminster will allow it to happen. They work on the theory that we have to be beholden to them, that we can not live without them and that we should be grateful for every thing they do for us. Any amount of money build up in such a ' indepentant ' fund will simply be deducted from the amount of money that Westminster gives to Holyrood. While a fund, such has the one outlined above, is an excellent idea, I can not belive that Westminster will allow it to happen. They work on the theory that we have to be beholden to them, that we can not live without them and that we should be grateful for every thing they do for us.
Any amount of money build up in such a ‘ indepentant ‘ fund will simply be deducted from the amount of money that Westminster gives to Holyrood.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Charleshttp://forargyll.com/2009/12/norways-oil-fund-scotlands-oil-and-scotlands-banks/#comment-22053 Charles Sat, 12 Dec 2009 13:47:55 +0000 http://forargyll.com/?p=18249#comment-22053 There's alot to be said for this. However, I would object very strongly to the funds presently paid to communities on the doorstep of windfarms being redirected. The impact of windfarms on local communities should not be underestimated, and these communities should be recompensed directly. However, given the extraordinary revenues that the developers make from Windfarm installations, a further percentage payment into a national fund would not hurt their business models at all. If we say that the present payment of £2K-£4K per kilowatt per annum to communities is matched by a payment of the same to the national fund we would only be asking the windfarm companies to pay around 10% of their profit before Corporation tax to the "public purse". I think the other thing that you must pay attention to is that these payments to communities are key to the new drive in Argyll towards rural sustainability. If not for these funds the communities involved would be in a great deal more trouble than they are now. Lastly, the government, at least in Scotland, is keen to empower local communities and by taking such funds back into a central pot, the benefit that accrues to those very communities who would most benefit would be lost. In my view we must fight to prevent the fragile rural communities we do have being de-populated by lack of services and a surfeit of second-homeowners. The only way to do this is to get those communities themselves to activate and move forward. There’s alot to be said for this. However, I would object very strongly to the funds presently paid to communities on the doorstep of windfarms being redirected. The impact of windfarms on local communities should not be underestimated, and these communities should be recompensed directly.

However, given the extraordinary revenues that the developers make from Windfarm installations, a further percentage payment into a national fund would not hurt their business models at all. If we say that the present payment of £2K-£4K per kilowatt per annum to communities is matched by a payment of the same to the national fund we would only be asking the windfarm companies to pay around 10% of their profit before Corporation tax to the “public purse”.

I think the other thing that you must pay attention to is that these payments to communities are key to the new drive in Argyll towards rural sustainability. If not for these funds the communities involved would be in a great deal more trouble than they are now.

Lastly, the government, at least in Scotland, is keen to empower local communities and by taking such funds back into a central pot, the benefit that accrues to those very communities who would most benefit would be lost. In my view we must fight to prevent the fragile rural communities we do have being de-populated by lack of services and a surfeit of second-homeowners. The only way to do this is to get those communities themselves to activate and move forward.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>