Tag Archives: Shetland

May 11, 2015 · 22:36

The day after the election before

It is nice to see the fallout reign over papers and TV shows alike. How some Tories see the demise of Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage entertaining, I myself have mixed feelings on such an act! The right party won as I see it, yet that is no grounds to see the others kicked when they are down. It also seems a little silly to replace one leader for the next wannabe because the previous one lost. That is a loser’s mentality! You see, in my view there is no better Labour consideration, who will fill his seat? Liz Kendall? I took her apart in that tech article she added her name to in the Guardian, if she takes control, great! That means the next two administrations are extremely likely to be Tory too, works for me! Andy Burnham? Seems like a decent labour man. I do not know too much about him other that he seems to be devoted to his wife, his children and the labour party (in that order). He does not seem to be a strong leader, but his last true test was when he turned 40, so he might have risen to the occasion, if he wins time will tell!

If Miliband is not an option, it seems to me that Angela Eagle, Rachel Reeves and Chris Leslie are worthy options here. I consider the two ladies because no matter what rises to leader in any party, it is best that this person comes with a few awesome economic degrees. Chris Leslie is not that but still has a decent view on matters, in addition to whatever he brings, he was able to overturn Keighley from Tory to Labour and did so with a decent margin. That makes him a tough opponent and a possible political price fighter. The fact that he was a former private secretary to Lord Falconer would work in his favour too (footnote: not the same Falconer as in R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30).

I have a limited view on who should lead Labour. Even though Ed Miliband made his share of errors, especially as he went into the final lap, there is no guarantee that the replacement politician will not make the same mistakes (or worse).

When we look at the Liberal Democrats, there seems to be only confusion. That is to be expected, the Liberal Democrat fighter goes into the ring, got his fists ready and gets clobbered with a spiked bat. That is what losing 49 seats is likely to feel like. I always thought of Nick Clegg as a decent fellow, yet how wrong was his message to lose THAT many seats? Of course Scotland costed him a bundle (except for Shetland, them pony’s be faithful). The only way to restore the party is by finding a true visionary. It seems that Lord Ashdown has one massive fight on his hand finding that person. To be honest, I reckon that as we see the current choice is Norman Lamb and Tim Farron, Tim Farron would be the favourite here as I see it. The main reason is that Tim is a little left leaning. He can rally the ‘deserters’ on the right and sway several labour players on the left. This would give him the tactical move to restore the party to power, but that is not done overnight, it will likely take more than one election, so if He can sway enough people before the next general election, the Liberal Democrats would regain party fame as well as visibility.

Now we get to UKIP. I will not bore you with too many details, the issue here is who would be good. Here I take the current achievements in consideration. Steven Woolfe falls off the map then. He is bright, but consider that he has Stockport and he trailed both Conservative and Labour by a lot, being 50% below conservatives and almost 75% below Labour is not a good place, if you have your constituency at 13% you are not doing too well and the same can be said for Patrick O’ Flynn, who is trailing the four bigger ones by an uncomfortable margin, which is the only reason why I do not see them as UKIP party leader successors. Even though, according to the BBC article Douglass Carswell took himself out of the race, I am not convinced that this would be in the interest of UKIP. He won his place from the conservatives with a comfortable margin and squatted Labour ‘choice’ Tim Young like nothing you saw (likely with support from Giles Watling). My only concern here is that I personally feel that any party leader needs to have a decent degree in economics, because the next 5 administrations will all be about the economy and finding new ways to boost it to better heights, no matter who gets to be in charge. Although, the reasoning Carswell is the right one, Nigel Farage might have lost his constituency, the rise in votes is almost astronomical. If we go by the numbers of the last election we can see that there are at least 5 constituencies where winning is a realistic option for the next time around. They can give serious worry to at least 6 additional constituencies. That makes for 11 constituencies that obtainable if the right paths are walked, before Farage that was never even an option. If UKIP keeps its heads together and do not waste energy on futile public exclamations that only confuse the voters they could win a lot more, they basically got 5% of the votes. If they can rise to 11%-13% several locations will fall in favour of UKIP, which is not an outlandish goal or even an unrealistic one.

Now to the Conservatives, my own side!

There is a comfortable margin for the Tories, but as stated above, UKIP has the power to grow. Tactically speaking the best thing conservatives can hope for is that UKIP takes over a few more LD constituencies and try to have a go at the labour won areas. That tactic will work fine form UKIP for now, yet, to some extent it will work favourably for the conservatives too. Yet, there are areas, especially around Manchester where UKIP is a close third to the Tories with Labour on top, getting those people active in a decent and thought out way could pave for a strong third administration in 2020. As UKIP needs to focus on the attack and swaying, the Tories can for now rely on building a strong foundations within their constituencies, that strength could be the path for administration 3 and 4. It is not a given, but it is a realistic view.

(Source: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/may/07/live-uk-election-results-in-full)

View to the North

It is again the guardian that calls my attention to events happening (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jun/22/independent-scotland-startup-costs-200million). It is important to know that I have nothing against Scotland becoming independent. I think that the timing is not great as we are in a massive economic downturn, but the Scots will correctly ask when would be the right moment? Anyway, as this independence is becoming more and more of a reality, we all need to look at what happens after.

The Scots have a few advantages. As the Scots seem to be members of a conservative party with its motto “Let’s not trust a computer farther then we can throw it“, we are set with the positive part that not trusting computers is not at all bad (Yes, as an IT person I am stating this). The downside is that the average Scot can throw a log really far, so tossing a computer might not be such a challenge after all. The issue is in the headline of the article. “Independent Scotland’s start-up costs ‘could be as little as £200m’” and “Leading academic says that could cover duplicating core Westminster functions, but millions would be needed to build necessary IT systems“. I have an issue here. There is an underestimation of requirements here. Yes, overall the costs might seem low, but when Scotland realises that the costs go beyond initial costs and they get to deal with infrastructures, at this point the costs will not be contained that easily.

Why do I care?

Caring is not the best word here. I think that in this case it is more that I like to see goals succeed, even if I do not completely agree with them. Only a real loser is trying to do what they can to make others fail, making others fail is fair when you are at war and we are not at war with the Scots, or with Scotland. The fact that about 3-4 generations ago, my family was from Perthshire (as far as I could tell) does not work in either direction either.

The other quote is “the final tally would be decided in a ‘poker game’ of post-referendum negotiations, according to the leading economics professor who last month criticised the UK government for inflating his figures on the subject“. Since when would anyone decide certain matters in a poker game, is also beyond me. Becoming independent is either tactical or on principle and one should not gamble on the Achilles heel that the people could create in this manner. In that same matter I am not sure if I can agree with the setting that this professor sets. The reference is towards Professor Patrick Dunleavy at the London School of Economics. A person who very likely knows more than 10 times more about economics then I ever will, even if I started to study economics full time at this point.

As stated, I have issues. Scotland will need an infrastructure, services and other matters. Several Scotland, as part of the UK already has and I think they should just be given them, yet Scotland will now need a proper economical system and set up. A national bank, a defence structure and these things all cost money, often a lot more than most imagine. There is however the ‘other’ side. The quote “In May, the Treasury published a detailed analysis of the financial risks of independence which claimed that a previous report by Dunleavy put Scotland’s start-up costs as high as £2.5bn” feels equally overstated. In my view the truth is in the middle and leaning to the cheaper side. In my untrained mind the costs are well over 500 million, but remain steadily under 700 million. This all makes me wonder why the numbers of the treasury are so far off as well (remember, me is a non-economic).

It is this quote that gives a few insides into the views that are shaping within me “In a leaked Scottish cabinet memo, the finance secretary, John Swinney, estimated the costs of a new Scottish tax authority alone at £650m. The Institute of Chartered Accounts Scotland had put those costs at £750m, while other experts suggested a new welfare system would cost £560m“. Is this about independence, or is this about certain people getting ‘their’ greedy fingers in the Haggis called ‘the Scottish economy‘. This is the part I do partially get. We all seem to forget that Scotland represents an economic power in the books of someone, when that falls away into independence, some people will not feel too comfortable and they are all looking for keeping themselves involved.

My question becomes, what can be done and does not cost?

In the age of computers and millisecond decision, I at this time remember my old dentist. He was a Dutch dentist called ‘van Charante’. In the age of computers, this man had the most advanced filing system I ever saw. He had used folders and colour indicators that opening his drawer showed a multidimensional top line table in colours. He saw in seconds something half a dozen tables produced in any analytical system would not tell him in 5-10 minutes. I had heard some IT wannabe’s wanted to convert him. I do not think anyone ever succeeded there. Perhaps that is the direction Scotland should face. It might not be done within the 200 million imagined, but perhaps they could steer well clear of the 2.5 billion someone speculated.

What if the Scottish system reverted to the old systems, not just becoming one Scotland, but in many cases reverting to the 33 counties? Thirty-three areas of ‘almost’ self-management, with a few exceptions, like one police system. They would get a buddy system where the area does what it needs to do and the neighbours come to aid when needed (emergency services). In that case Orkney and Shetland would feel a little isolated, but that might be business as usual for them. The question will remain how to IT some of this, but a system consisting of 33 self-regulating satellites are likely to be more effective, then systems like taxation, healthcare and welfare trying to become three Scottish national systems. If my train of thoughts are correct, then once this is approach is solved, the Scottish system could be an actual WORKING template to fix the failed IT NHS system that has currently costed the UK 10 billion and counting and still not working that well.

Yes, in all this I left out Scottish defence. By the way, has anyone seen what they do with logs and hammers? You really want to run up their hills whilst they smile at you and throw you a gauntlet or two? I for one ain’t that stupid to begin with, but that might be just me.

A final quote from the Guardian is “The debate with Darling, which broadcasters say privately has been tacitly agreed for some time, is now expected to take place sometime after the Commonwealth Games, which end on 3 August. It would potentially be a defining moment of the campaign“, no matter what will be discussed on that day, the truth remains that with two approaches being so far apart, both sides have unresolved issues, without a proper light on both sides these talks will not be the marker of any beginning independence, it could end up being an acceptance on how far views leading to independence are still apart.

So, is my view the correct one? I honestly cannot tell, but I am in all honesty looking for solutions, like any puzzle, an independence remains a logistical conundrum with plenty of loose ends, solving the puzzle is at times the best challenge that can be faced. Getting others to see the puzzle the way I did is the next challenge and implementing that puzzle is another challenge still. Three links in a chain that leads to a solution. Micromanaging these events like the BBC did with their 5 questions (at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-26836126) seems a little too trivial an approach. Yes, these questions will need a solution and it will be up to Scotland to find them. I reckon the views we seen in regards to the disagreements between Theresa May, the current Home secretary and the European Court of Human Rights shows that the UK has its own puzzles to figure out and they have been at it a lot longer than Scotland.

May we all be one Commonwealth, supporting each other, fighting for each other and at times disagreeing with one another, especially when Scotland is playing England, at that time the disagreements must be loud, jolly and with a few better Scottish players on the Rugby field.

Go Wallabies! 😉

Another banking issue

People might have read a previous blog where I discussed the issues involving LIBOR and a resolution donation of over half a billion dollars of fines by the Royal Bank of Scotland.

Today’s article by Jill Treanor of the guardian at “http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/may/01/vince-cable-rbs-prosecutions” gives notice of issues at play. Moreover, these issues have been at play for some time now and there is clear need for answers on several levels. The article mentions the issues as quoted: ‘Scotland’s Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have been reviewing whether a case can be brought against any former directors since January 2012‘.
So, it seems that this investigation has been going on for 15 months. A letter was written to Lord Wallace in this matter. My question would be the why it is taking his Lordship the Advocate General of Scotland this long?

There is no doubt in my mind that it is a complex issue, yet overall, when it comes to banking issues, too often the public perceives this as the ‘out of sight, out of mind ploy’. The fact that this is the second bank involved in the LIBOR scandal and the fact that the fines are currently sailing close to 1 billion pounds in the UK alone, visibility should not wane for years to come.

This is not (just) about LIBOR. This entire issue is about the investigation into the directors who were in office at the time of the 2008 bailout. So, this is about a case 5 years old and this case seems to have only started in 2012 and now 15 months later there is still no final answer. This is interesting as the UK has the Limitation Act 1980. This statute has different limitations for different crimes, yet many of them is set at 6 years. This means that if defence can twist it that these crimes would fall under one of those statutes then prosecution has a lot less than 1 year left to take a stance and get started. The fact that these issues are still not for prosecution with the CPS are an additional matter of question.

If we look at the Limitation act and we consider this to be a tort, then Part 1, section 2 states: “2. An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. (Time limit for actions founded on tort)“.

The same time limit applies to actions founded on simple contract. The interesting question becomes where these issues are founded on. Is mismanagement a wrongful act, and there for a Tort? Are these wrongful actions and forms of mismanagement breach of contract?

Yet, we should not despair. There is a wise addition in this act that is stated in section 32 of that same act, which deals with ‘Fraud, concealment and mistake‘. Hip, hip, hurrah!
There it states “the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.”

So we might have a little more time left. Yet, we should not…. how is that expression again? ‘Dilly dally’. Yes, that was it. My grandmother told me that more than once. So we should not dilly dally to find the answers whether we have a case against those directors, lest we forgot that time ran out.

So you see, I am not convicting them, but I do want to see a case brought to trial where they can either be convicted, or where they can submit evidence that would exonerate them. Either will be the case, yet no case means there will not be any answers forthcoming. This would be interestingly unfair as that bank gave the taxpayer an additional cost of 45 BILLION pounds to the taxpayer. If you are from the UK and reading this then you should ask yourself. Did you make your GBP 666 donation to the save the Royal Bank of Scotland funds? Will you? If not then we should figure out what happened and get this to trial. Considering that the UK has a 1 trillion dollar deficit, then the added debt is costing its citizens GBP 225 million each year in interests. That is almost 3.5 pounds per citizen each year just to keep that part of the debt on par.

So yes, it is interesting to read the article by Jill Treanor. It is also interesting that she was not the only one to mention it; similar articles could be read in the independent, the Telegraph and on the website of the BBC. It seems to me that this is not some political ploy as both MP Vince Cable (Twickenham) and Lord Wallace (Shetland) both seem to be Liberal Democrats, unless Mr Cable prefers Shetland over Twickenham.

The Guardian refers to the report of April on Banking Standards. The report was described to be enthusiastically damning. In another fine piece of writing by Jill Treanor at: “http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/04/bankers-brought-down-hbos” is one sentence that I found ….hmmm, ‘hilarious’ just does not describe that sinking feeling in me. The sentence was “Under pressure from parliament Goodwin’s pension was halved to £340,000“. Are you guys for flipping real? My total pension will never even come close to that amount as a total sum. If there was ever a case of evidence that incompetence pays, then that would be the evidence at hand.

This gives way to a quote in a book by Robert L. Bradley it states: “The businessman who refuses to acknowledge, despite clear evidence, that his facilities are out-dated, his product uncompetitive and his cash flow inadequate, is dishonest just as the one who makes fraudulent claims to the customers is dishonest. Both are trying, at the deepest level, to fake reality.” (Bradley,‘Capitalism at Work: Business, Government, and Energy’,2009,p.66).

I think with this quote he hits the nail on the head for a truckload of cases. He also shows a graphical bar of difference between incompetence and prosecutable fraud, whilst showing unethical behaviour and Philosophic fraud somewhere on the trajectory. This book is actually quite the little gem where they look at more than just ENRON and a few other devious little greed seekers. It even takes time to discuss the UK and ‘the Coal panic’ of 1865. So keep this book in mind please, it is a diamond in its own right.

So even though we get into the ‘Cloak and Kegger’ mindset that it is not a crime to be incompetent, then there is still the need to assure ourselves of a situation where those people do not run places like banks and corporate enterprises. Financial Services Authority (FSA) was supposed to have handled issues and cases, yet the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards seems to show a lack of actions on several levels. That committee on their web page reflected “The regulators also have a lot of explaining to do when it comes to their role earlier in the HBOS debacle. From 2004 up until the latter part of 2007, the FSA was ‘not so much the dog that did not bark as the dog barking up the wrong tree’”

From my view I wonder whether the regulator realised they were indeed the fore mentioned dog, whether they realised what a tree was and whether it ended up eating a bone instead.

The commission report which can be read at: “http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201213/jtselect/jtpcbs/144/144.pdf” leaves us with another question that requires serious visible pondering by the press on several levels too. If we consider the issues of HBOS (20 billion) and RBS (45 billion) and the consequent fines that followed over the timeline until now then there are serious questions on those getting an income from the Financial Services Authority (FSA). Here comes the kicker! “and was funded entirely by fees charged to the financial services industry.” So basically we have a group that was not biting the hand that feeds them. How was this ever a good idea?

As per April 1st (no joke) its responsibilities have been split between two new agencies, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority at the Bank of England.

If we see what has happened here on several levels, it seems to me that self-regulation has failed on a massive scale. Both the Banking and Press industry seems to have scuttled justice, fairness and ethics on many levels and at many places. The question is not how they can restore their integrity; the question should be ‘Why are they presently allowed a place on the negotiation table in the first place?’

This brings me back to the bars as displayed by Robert L. Bradley. In my mind the distance between incompetence and prosecutable Fraud needs to be a lot smaller then I am currently comfortable with and the buffer called Unethical behaviour is a buffer zone that should be nothing more than a mere hairline. From those parts I wonder why massive visible and noisy steps have not yet taken place to remove options of self-regulation in several places at present.

2 Comments

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as BBC, Coal Panic, CPS, ENRON, Financial Conduct Authority, Financial Services Authority, FSA, Goodwin, Guardian, HBOS, Jill Treanor, LIBOR, Limitation Act 1980, Lord Wallace, Prudential Regulation Authority, RBS, Robert L. Bradley, Shetland, Twickenham, UK Parliament, Vince Cable