I do not mind at all that an Australian bank, which also owns Yorkshire Bank, owns the Clydesdale Bank, which in turn issues notes used for purchasing purposes within this United Kingdom. Since the Queen is Australia’s Head of State, that is not, to my mind, the foreign ownership of an institution which so issues.
But my mind is hardly that of our lords and masters, on this or on almost (if almost) anything else. If they can permit this, then, to their own way of thinking, they can and would permit HBOS or the Royal Bank of Scotland to be owned by an American, or Spanish, or Burundian, or Peruvian bank, which would then have and use the power to issue bank notes within this country, however difficult to spend those notes might be in most of it.
Once again, I am bound to ask how any conservative can be opposed to public ownership, since public ownership is British ownership. Does you believe in national sovereignty, or not?
We do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What's ownership got to do with sovereignty?
ReplyDeleteEverything.
ReplyDeleteReally?
ReplyDeleteIs it not possible, then, to be sovereign over something but not own it? Or to own something without establishing sovereignty over it?
I suppose my real question is, what does it matter if a Spanish bank gains the right to print UK currency? They won't have the right to revalue them, or declare them sole legal tender, or affect their utility as currency in any way.
A country which does not own the sole right to print its own bank notes is so obviously not a sovereign state that I cannot see what there is to discuss.
ReplyDeleteLikewise a country where most food or manufactured goods are imported, or where great swathes of industry or commerce are owned by foreigners, never mind by very foreign states in the form of sovereign wealth funds.
Among much else.
I must say I'm with Reginald on this one. It's only printing - who cares? It's not like they would actually control the money supply - this isn't the 16th century.
ReplyDeleteBut it's not only printing. They get someone else to do that for them. A Scottish firm, no doubt. But that firm is not in charge.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, the Clydesdale is Australian-owned, and we all know about the other two as of today. But it's still one to watch.
Is the Vatican sovereign?
ReplyDeleteI agree that we can't trust the Spanish - or worse, Africans - to manage our currency, and it's good that the BPA is watching our backs on this one. But I think you define sovereignty too strictly. Lots of small countries won't produce the majority of their food - take Switzerland for example. Surely they're sovereign?!
ReplyDeleteNot really, Robert. It is a practical necessity, and therefore to be defended as such, i.e., on pragmatic grounds.
ReplyDeleteBut there is nothing ideal about it, and certainly nothing inherent in the Papacy that requires it, theologically speaking. Most people hardly register that the Pope is a Head of State, but he has far more clout and respect today than his predecessors ever had during a thousand years of running much of Italy.
Rick, if one (being a country) can feed oneself, then one should. And insofar as one can feed oneself, then one should. The problem is the refusal to do so even when one can, and even insofar as one can.
Why does Switzerland import so much food, anyway?
Because that way they can focus on stuff they do well, as opposed to growing wheat on the sides of mountains?
ReplyDeleteYou'd have them give up good industrial/technological jobs to scratch a living from thin soil. What sense does that make?
Do try and restrain your rage, Rick.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't seem very angry to me. If anything, I'd have thought you'd have picked him for racism, not rage.
ReplyDeleteI still don't see what the Peruvians could actually do if they were allowed to print bank notes. Why don't you trust Peruvians?
ReplyDeleteRacists are enrgaged, that's why they are racists.
ReplyDeleteI trust Peruvians to run Peru. Britain should be run by Britons (who can be, and are, any colour you like).
David,
ReplyDeleteThis is probably as good a thread as any other to raise a somewhat delicate matter.
The Inverness chapter of the BPA has been producing pamphlets which claim the party supports self-determination for Scotland. We in Aberdeen have been trying to tell them for some months now that this just isn't the case - that under the BPA Scots will have less say in the running of the UK than they did even pre-devolution. But they won't listen to us. The problem is, it's a very popular message (the Scots have always been pro-family, anti-war etc. but we do have that national pride as well.)
Anyhow, I know you're very much against centralisation of the party, or doing anything that might suggest the BPA is a one man band. But within the principal of broad policy-forming autonomy for regional chapters, could you have a word with them? I think in the long-term it'll only do us damage.
Your aye,
Ruaridh
Neither of these is the position.
ReplyDeleteAnd neither of you can put up candidates (the Returing Officer would simply reject the nomination, that is his job) without the approval of the Nominating Officer. Me.
We have high hopes for the North of Scotland, though.
Well, we can always be BPA-aligned.
ReplyDeleteYou can join in any one or more of seven ways, by signing up as any one or more of pro-life, pro-family, pro-worker, anti-war, an economic social democratic, a moral and social conservative, and a British and Commonwealth patriot.
ReplyDeleteBy paying one seventh of the membership fee, you will acquire one vote in the BPA’s affairs.
However, you must sign up under all seven headings, and thus pay the full subscription, in order to be one of our candidates or officers above local level.
I might add that we are seeking 14 membership organisations as independent partners: two pro-life partners, two pro-family partners, two pro-worker partners, two anti-war partners, two economically social democratic partners, two morally and socially conservative partners, and two British and Commonwealth patriotic partners.
In return for paying seven per cent of our allowable election expenses per year, each partner will maintain a list of full BPA members whom it approves as candidates for Westminster, Brussels, Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont. Local parties will be permitted to select only from those lists, once they are up and running.
So a supporter of Scottish independence could be in it under the other six headings, but could not be a candiadte above local level because they didn't pay the full sub?
ReplyDeleteOh, that reminds me - I must send you the revised Identity and Aims we drew up. I'll see if the Inverness guys can send you theirs as well (if they're still speaking to us!), and you'll want to speak to the Glasgow branch as well.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, when I first heard that this was a party that let local groups set national policy, I was really impressed, but I'm beginning to wonder if it damages the coherency of the message.
That's right.
ReplyDeleteAnd in internal affairs they'd have only six votes, whereas someone signed up under all seven headings would have seven votes. So there really isn't a problem.
"I must send you the revised Identity and Aims we drew up"
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing to revise. In fact, the Constitution specifically prohibits any change to the Aims and Identity.
"when I first heard that this was a party that let local groups set national policy"
There certainly isn't. Not even the Lib Dems do it quite like that.
Now, back on topic. I have blogged today about the Scottish constitutional question. Or rather, about the fact that, as of today, there no longer is one. See that post.
Hmmm David, what do you think of the UK Dependencies Turks and Caicos and the UK Virgin Islands officially using the US Dollar as their currency?
ReplyDeleteDeplorable, but a result of the corruption that the Mother Country is mercifully about to bring to an end.
ReplyDelete