Seil Chat

NickB wrote:.
The 600bn was wrong by a factor of 10 - mea culpa, not sure how that number crept in. Thanks for pointing it out. Nonetheless, the US Federal Reserve did help bail out RBS, and calling it an 'emergency liquidity facility ' doesn't really change that fact.

No.

This is why I said that it would be much better not to quote from Yes camp and No camp propaganda websites and blogs.

This myth about The Fed bailing out, or helping to bail out RBoS, came originally from the Yes Scotland website and is now spreading insiduously into the debate mainly in the form of justification for the mistruth that "Existing banking conventions mean that debts incurred by failed financial institutions fall proportionately on the jurisdictions within which those institutions trade".

A bail out is an injection of capital.

The Fed injected NO capital into RBoS.

It provided a correctly named 'emergency liquidity facility ' on U.S. soil only to ensure, mainly, that Citizens (owned by RBoS and the 15th largest bank in America) and Charter One could continue trading as normal.

A Liquidity Facility is, in simple or layman's terms, an overdraft facility. It is not an injection of capital. It is not a bail out.

A Liquidity Facility only becomes a bailout when equity is handed over in exchange. The Fed took no warrants for RBoS equity. It was not a bail out.

End of.

Lets put this myth ""Existing banking conventions mean that debts incurred by failed financial institutions fall proportionately on the jurisdictions within which those institutions trade" to bed:

AIG were bailed out to the tune of $122 billion through the issue of warrants for 80% of its equity to the Fed and a Liquidity Facility was then created. That was a bail out.

The failure of AIG was largely caused by the $89billion toxic liabilities of its London division.

Did the bail out "fall proportionately on the jurisdictions within which those institutions trade"?

No. The UK contributed nothing to the AIG bailout.

So.......no more quoting from biased Yes camp and No camp websites and blogs please. Doing so merely spreads disinformation, myths, half truths, and propaganda. Hardly the basis for a mature debate here.

longshanks wrote:
So.......no more quoting from biased Yes camp and No camp websites and blogs please. Doing so merely spreads disinformation, myths, half truths, and propaganda. Hardly the basis for a mature debate here.

I quoted from the Telegraph. Which camp is that in?

Here's a paragraph from an Internatonal Business News article:

At the height of the financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, RBS was forced to take £75 billion from the Bank of England's special liquidity scheme, £36.6 billion in emergency liquidity assistance and roughly £52.2 billion from the US Federal Reserve following the disastrous takeover of Dutch bank ABN Amro.

I'm sure you can understand how most of the world sees this as the US Federal Reserve bailing out RBS, even if it is technically something else. Please don't tell me the International Business Times is also part of the YES campaign's propaganda machine

Anyway, surely this is just a diversion. The GERS figures show Scotland has a strong economy now, which is what matters. No-one - not even Michael Moore or Danny Alexander - seems to be arguing with the figures, though the opposing camps are certainly spinning them differently.

Jeez !

Your article was referring to the Fed £52billion liquidity facility again !

I can only repeat......

longshanks wrote:
A bail out is an injection of capital.

The Fed injected NO capital into RBoS.

It provided a correctly named 'emergency liquidity facility ' on U.S. soil only to ensure, mainly, that Citizens (owned by RBoS and the 15th largest bank in America) and Charter One could continue trading as normal.

A Liquidity Facility is, in simple or layman's terms, an overdraft facility. It is not an injection of capital. It is not a bail out.

A Liquidity Facility only becomes a bailout when equity is handed over in exchange. The Fed took no warrants for RBoS equity. It was not a bail out.

and hope that others understand because when you make a statement like:

NickB wrote:I'm sure you can understand how most of the world sees this as the US Federal Reserve bailing out RBS, even if it is technically something else.

I totally fail to see how you know how "most of the world sees this".

I fear you have view and will adamantly brook no dissent from that view. That has been evident throughout this thread.

"Debate" ?

.
If you say that the Fed did not bail out RBS but only provided a 'liquidity reserve' then I am sure you are right.

Frankly I really don't care and can't imagine why I am bothering to argue with you on this utterly irrelevant issue. You are 100% correct, yes? No need to discuss that any more.

The fact is, Scotland wasn't independent in 2008, RBS and HBOS were UK banks and in the event of a YES vote Scotland will have to accept a population share of the liabilities and assets of the UK - including the bank bailout debts. Presumably we will also get the relevant amount of RBS shares. So the last ten posts or so are about as relevant to the independence debate as the arguement as to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Never mind, you have succeeded admirably in drawing attention away from the real news, which is that the GERS figures published today showed that Scotland has a strong economy and would have no problem standing on her own feet.

BIG YAWN.

This is just going round ... and ... round ... and ... round ... interminably.l

We'll all make up our minds when it comes to the crunch, but there's a long way still to go, and a lot more still to be said by both sides.

SNP Gov (and A&BC Councillors) seem to be doing a good job of shooting themselves in the foot right now (IMHO), but we'll see what happens next.

So let's all go away and talk about this amongst ourselves now, shall we, eh? Please?

See you down the T'n'T.

And that is the way it is supposed to be: a discussion or a conversation from both sides of the argument on Scottish Independence. And since this is about the future of Scotland the "what if's" are 100% relevant and need careful examination before making such a momentous decision. And since no one can predict the future no suggestion can be dismissed as pure fantasy. If there is one thing we learn about life there are things that happen which could not have been contemplated even the day before, and we are powerless to prevent them, they come upon us so quickly. That risk is better placed across the broader shoulders of a United kingdom.

How on earth can we be better off attached to a country which is now commencing yet another disastrous expensive undemocratic unilateral military campaign in a foreign (Muslim) country?

Innocent British citizens were killed there by terrorists. That part is disastrous. But as for your assertion

disastrous expensive undemocratic unilateral military campaign in a foreign (Muslim) country?

What utter rubbish.

Like a salmon to the fly, PP. How's about a more reasoned response?

"And that is the way it is supposed to be: a discussion or a conversation from both sides of the argument on Scottish Independence. And since this is about the future of Scotland the "what if's" are 100% relevant and need careful examination before making such a momentous decision. And since no one can predict the future no suggestion can be dismissed as pure fantasy. If there is one thing we learn about life there are things that happen which could not have been contemplated even the day before, and we are powerless to prevent them, they come upon us so quickly. That risk is better placed across the broader shoulders of a United kingdom."

ah so we should discuss it but under the assumption you are correct, brilliant.

ah so we should discuss it but under the assumption you are correct, brilliant

.......just as much as Alex Salmond would like you to assume he is right. Agreed?

No, Alex Salmond is the leader of a political party which wants independence for Scotland and currently has the majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament, you on the other hand are a narcissistic man from Congelton who uses the smallest internet forum in the universe which you have no connection too other than you holiday here occasionaly, to foist your ill thought out right wing guff on, either because you believe it or to get a rise out of those who take part. Sorry if I take the word of a politician and trained ecconomist over the words of a delivery man. Have a nice day

You know what? Politicians, like Alex Salmond, are in the delivery business too. Unlike me though, most of them fail to deliver.

And try not to get too personal. We're all entitled to our opinions, wherever we are from and whatever we do.