WHEN the banking crisis was triggered in 2008, many thought that the “too big to fail” attitude was a smokescreen to hide the fiscal fraud that banks have perpetrated for decades, and that they should have been put into administration.
This would not have disrupted the payments system as was claimed, because administration simply means the suspension of director and shareholder powers while administrators decide which parts of a failed bank can be rescued, and which are to be written off.
So RBS – for example – could have been sold off as a few small retail banks, and its cityscape of self-serving financial structures safely dismantled, instead of lumbering the state with billions of rescue money, unlikely ever to be recovered.
That would of course have caused a foreseeable – but controllable – chain reaction, as all inter-bank loans were written off, and other obligations were either settled or abandoned.
But that could also have been a start to ending the fractional reserve banking system, which is nothing more than a cycle of revolving debt.
So by this time the world could have been back on its financial feet, with a full reserve banking system, and a real programme of debt reduction.
More people are beginning to understand the advantages of a system where banks only lend real money on a full reserve basis, and it is a sad commentary that we allow our politicians to get away with condoning the fiscal rape of our economy, which will only get worse if we do nothing.
When Scotland gets another shot at independence, that is the golden opportunity to move on even further, and start from scratch with a Scottish debt-free currency issued by government.
It is vital, however, that this new regime is established – and seen to be working – long before any referendum on independence. Otherwise the private banking system will take control, and retain the Scottish Government as a slave to their system of magic money issued as debt.
Entering a new future without public debt is possible when a Scottish Government issues a debt free Scottish currency via a Scottish Central Bank, instead of the present private banking system that controls the UK economy with its magic money from thin air.
Anyone who believes that the words “sovereignty” and “independence” could have any meaning while the operators of the present banking system are in charge should sign up for a reality check.
Malcolm Parkin
Kinross
INTERESTING that Catriona C Clark mentions in her letter yesterday that the successful challenge to Article 50 by the “Scottish Six” through the courts was avoided by the PM in her shambolic, incompetent, arrogant posturing in Parliament yesterday. This is simply due entirely to avoiding any reference to “Scotland”, “Scottishness”, or any successful outcomes emanating from “North Britain”.
She would find difficulties in trying to alter her repetitive soundbites to take success into account. She desires to ignore those “pesky Scots”. Must avoid giving them publicity.
W D Mill Irving
Kilbirnie
READ MORE: Letters, December 11
AS the Scottish Six have won the case that “a country can cancel and withdraw its previously stated intention to leave the EU by cancelling its Article 50 notice”, why don’t we all write letters to Donald Tusk cancelling and withdrawing the Article 50 notice for Scotland? I think we should all send letters but we need some legal advice about wording. Can anyone help with this?
Alyson McGregor
Kettles
IN response to Lovina Roe’s query regarding the latest independence poll (Letters, December 11), I thought it would be common knowledge by now that any polling questions regarding Scotland’s independence would be about just that, Scotland and independence. At least, among all the Yes groups, we are convinced that is the only question Scotland should be concerned with initially in whichever way it would be composed. It is more important to achieve independence without the complications of EU membership, whatever form that might take.
Once independence is achieved we can take a vote on whether Scotland wants to be a part of the EU, regardless of what Nicola wants or her government prefers. It is the people’s choice, as is independence.
Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife
READ MORE: Letters, December 11
AFTER reading Hamish Macpherson’s article ‘Rewriting the tea towel..., December 11), describing an updated version of Scotland’s contributions to the world, I think a full-sized beach towel will be needed – a tea towel is far too wee!
Alasdair Smith
via email
READ MORE: Rewriting the tea towel: An ode to Scottish genius
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel