Scottish Referendum

Charities Are Big Business – Are They Feasting on the Kindness of Donors




Charities – Are they all worthy of our support?

Daytime television commercial advertising is heavily biased in favour of charitable donations. Every 10 minutes an advert pops up on the screen imploring viewers to donate only £2 monthly to a charity advertising its need for urgent but regular financial support. This is usually accompanied by a heart wrenching video of a starving, abused child, or animal so weakened by overwork it no longer has the strength to rise from the ground despite horrendous beatings or animals secured in cages so small they cannot even turn. There are other examples too numerous to list.

But the £2 monthly donations soon add up and viewers are faced with unpleasant choices when available money runs short. So it is important that the maximum amounts of financial donations are used for the purpose that persuaded donors to contribute. But are they???




Is this is Where the Bulk of Charitable Donations Go???

Research identified that 30 of the top 100 earners in British charities were paid more than £200,000 a year and nine were paid more than £300,000. Examples;

1. The Royal Opera House Musical Director. £741,403 in 2011
2. The Consumers’ Association Chief Executive. £312,000 in 2012
3. The London Clinic Chief Executive. £990,000 in 2011
4. Nuffield Health, chief Executive. £859,000 in 2011

The average pay across the top 100 charities was £208,000 to £216,000 a year, according to research earlier this year by Third Sector magazine which examined their most recent annual reports and accounts for 2011 or 2012. Experts said the size of the rewards should lead some of the charities to consider whether it was appropriate that they are charities at all.

The figures prompted William Shawcross, the chairman of the Charity Commission, to accuse the charities of bringing “the wider charitable world into disrepute”. More information here;



Pensioners need to chose eat or heat.





And They Seek to Justify Their Income???

Speaking on Sunday Morning Live on BBC 1, Sir Stephen Bubb, the chief executive of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, said trustees had to “balance the pay to get the best talent at the top with the fact that they are working in charities where people give their money generously”. He said: “I suspect the public do understand that is means and ends: the end is getting aid to people who desperately need it.“So if you can pay someone to improve the performance of the charity, which these people have done, then that is a good balance.

The Daily Telegraph disclosed last week that Sir Stephen used his organisation, which is funded by fees from the UK’s charities, to help pay for his 60th birthday party in the Houses of Parliament. Asked about the arrangement, Sir Stephen said: “I don’t think this is a story about me. The trustees very kindly contributed but the fact was that was a celebration of what Acevo has achieved. This is not a story about me but about chief executives’ pay.”




The number of executives receiving six-figure salaries at Britain’s 14 leading foreign aid charities has risen by nearly 60 per cent, from 19 to 30, over the past three years. The charities make up the Disasters Emergency Committee, a 50-year-old group which comes together to coordinate work at times of tragedy around the world.

Research found that the number of staff on salaries of more than £60,000 jumped by 16 per cent to 192,000 between 2010 and 2012. In some cases the pay of senior staff increased despite falling revenues and donations.


Camila Batmanghelidjh smiling for the camera






Kids Company closed its doors for the last time, a victim of alleged financial mismanagement, in-house whistle-blowers and perhaps the hubris of its £90,000- a-year founder.

Camila Batmanghelidjh, the woman who founded the charity in six converted railway arches in south London in 1996 to help disadvantaged youngsters, became known as the Angel of Peckham thanks to her efforts on behalf of thousands of children.

Today her life’s work is in tatters. A “restructuring specialist” has moved in to unravel what has happened to an organisation that received £40 million in government grants over the past decade plus up to twice as much from private donors.

A probe has been launched into the possible improper use of the latest £3million of public money and police have begun an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse.




Scottish Referendum

Salaries Scandal

15,000 charity staff paid over £60,000 a year

Thousands of charity workers are paid more than £60,000 a year – far higher than previously thought – according to an official review of pay in the voluntary sector. An audit of pay scales among charities in England and Wales found that 14,942 were paid more than £60,000 a year – over 3,000 more than previous estimates. Of that, more than 2,600 were paid over £100,000 a year, and 55 more than £250,000 a year in 2011, according to the review by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Charities are spending £39 BILLION a year and taxpayers and donors should, “no longer have to dig around like detectives to unearth the financial facts to inform the choices of charities to support”.

Scottish Referendum

BBC Media Bias Protest

A peaceful protest, (approximately 1000 attended) at BBC Scotland HQ in Glasgow. Approximately 1000 attended. (BBC reported 350) View the video.

Outraged that the, “Yes” Scotland campaign should organize such a demo Labour MP Jim Murphy went on-line to, one of the pro-independence blogs and made mischief, Stirring the proverbial s*** he wrote;

“they lost the plot”. “They were angry and divisive”.
“Their attempts to bully broadcasters and boycott businesses is the last thing the independence debate needs”.
“Their angry and divisive campaign is a turn-off”.
“They are frustrated”.
“They are losing the big arguments and losing the plot in a big way”.
“The reason for the nationalists’ frustration is clear: after 80 years of campaigning to break up the UK and with just 80 days to go, patriotic Scots are still saying no thanks to their political project”.
“Now we are seeing real-world attempts to bully a broadcaster.”

But square the foregoing with an extract, (below) from a recent speech, (setting out his belief in democracy) by the same Jim Murphy. He said; “Nations which suppress the rights of their people to take advantage of civil society, democratic expression or the rule of law can no longer be considered stable nation states”.

Scottish Referendum

Reflections: In the 2014 Referendum Campaign I Warned That Rejecting Independence Would Condemn Scotland to Westminster Rule in Perpetuity – Scots Willingly Embraced Armageddon. So be It



Image result for thatcher



A Blast from the past

I posted the article that follows, before the 2014 independence referendum giving warning of the real intentions of the Westminster government (regardless of its colour). Sadly my advice fell on deaf ears.

The 1997 referendum and the transfer in 1999, of a limited number of reversible powers to an elected Scottish executive based in Holyrood was a con, deviously constructed by a faceless cross party group of unionist Westminster politicians in response to pressure from the EC whose policy was to decentralize government and the Westminster form of government did not meet the desired profile.

The United Kingdom is scheduled to leave the EC in March 2019 and a return to the old ways since devolved powers is no longer fit for purpose.

The recent prolonged spat between Westminster and Holyrood resulted in the forced return to Westminster of 21 devolved activities, with more to follow in the coming years. The devolved governance experiment is at an end and Scots will soon learn the folly of their decision to reject independence.




2014 Independence Referendum

Prior to the 1997 referendum William Hague stated:

“the official position of the UK government is to retain a “right to reverse” any or all aspects of powers that might be devolved to a Scottish parliament.”

The Scottish nation should heed the warnings of history.

A , “no” vote in the forthcoming referendum will send a clear message to Westminster that Scotland wished to embrace all “National” aspects of UK government policy.

This will lead to a creeping reversal of, “devolution” in respect of many or all devolved powers which might be at odds with and giving difficulty to the Westminster government.

Social, Transport, Agriculture, Fisheries and the Environment are at risk of being taken back to Westminster control.


The Scottish National Health Service will be merged together with offshoots  in other devolved executives, reforming a truly “National” health service provision ensuring equality for all.

This will bring about the re-introduction of prescription charges and extortionate car parking charges at hospitals.

Major restructuring, (privatisation) of health services will become the norm so that there is a truly UK national approach to the delivery of health care.

Pensioners will be very badly affected, being obliged to sell off their homes to meet the cost of care in the community since existing policies are not in compliance with Westminster.

University education will take a major financial hit and students will need to finance their own attendance in further education.

There are many other aspects of Scottish life that will be adversely affected by the reversal of devolution and any protests will receive the stock answer, “but this is what you voted for in 2014”.

A “Yes” vote will send the message to Westminster that Scotland is a nation not a colony.


Scottish Referendum

Nepotism in the Labour Party

Nepotism In The Labour party

Hilary Benn MP. Son of the late Tony Benn.

Neil Kinnock’s son, Stephen Kinnock, (married to Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt) has been selected to represent Aberavon, which the party has continuously held since the 1920s. A safe seat.

Rachel Kinnock, “Personal Adviser”, (next step MP in a safe seat) to Ed Milliband, (Labour Leader). Did the same job for Gordon Brown when he was Prime Minister.

Labour Grandee, Jack Straw’s son, William Straw is to stand for Parliament in Rossendale and Darwen in Lancashire.

Baron John Prescott’s son David Prescott. Short-listed to stand in a safe seat.

Euan Blair, 28 year’s old, company director!!!! Owner of a listed house, (valued around £1,500,000) in a smart area of Central London. Touted by Tony & Cheri for a safe seat in Coventry.…ks+for+agency+amid…-a0309777353

Scottish Referendum

The Sick are in Trouble

A letter, supported by 95% of Doctors in England, signed off by a leader of the BMA has this week been sent to Mr Cameron warning that the sick, frail and elderly are being failed by Westminster. The rarely used somewhat politically incorrect intervention by the medical profession advises an urgent need for a major change in direction transferring control of Health and Social Welfare away from private healthcare back to the control of the Nation. A summary of the letter;

The crisis in health and welfare support services is directly attributable to Westminster’s, (Health & Social Services Act) embracing and implementing a programme of rapid ill conceived transfers of services to the private sector. It is estimated in excess of £11Billion and 35,000 staff, (from frontline services) has been given over to private healthcare which has not delivered. This systematic break-up of the National Health Service and welfare support, (under-funded by around £30 Billion) is becoming dangerously fragmented. Rationing of and removal of some treatments is being ordered by non-medical managers all to the detriment of patient care. Very soon changes will be, “bedded in” and virtually impossible to reverse effectively providing citizens with very limited healthcare and Welfare support.

Clearly, where applicable the foregoing applies to the Health Service in England, but Welfare Support is only partially devolved to Scotland and, (at the time of writing) our citizens are suffering the brunt of changes in these systems, (controlled by Ian Duncan Smith).

In the event of a, “no” vote in the Referendum coupled with the, (increasingly likely) return of a Conservative Government in 2015, there is every probability that changes in the National Health Service in England will be transferred, (for early implementation) to Scotland. This will be achieved through a major reduction in the Scottish, “Block Grant” significantly lowering Healthcare finance availability forcing the Scottish Government to adopt the same Healthcare profile as that available in England.

A, “Yes” vote in the Referendum will allow Scotland’s citizens to decide their own future in terms of Healthcare and Social Welfare support. I am confident we will turn away from the disastrous systems envisaged by Westminster.

Scottish Referendum

Boris the Populist Politician and His Hitmen Will Promise Scots a Land of Milk and Honey – But Rothschild Zionist Only Ever Deliver Pain and Poverty



The act of Union 1707. Ah!! Scottish Utopia!!! promises, promises, promises betrayal, betrayal, betrayal. 1745 Culloden. and the butchery of German Geordie, his son, and the English army.




But you see we Scots were sold out by a few unelected lords who took English bribes and betrayed Scotland




From that time Scotland has been brutally asset-stripped by an avaricious  Westminster government. All roads lead to London!!!




All revenue accrued in the UK is passed to the English Exchequer. Westminster’s financial needs are then allocated after which the Secretary of State for Scotland is handed a budget, top sliced from the Scottish Grant. The residue, (decreasing annually as areas of responsibility are removed from Holyrood) passes to the Scottish government.

No-one really knows the full extent of revenue gathered by Scotland. eg Whisky manufactured, blended and bottled in Scotland is transported to England for worldwide distribution. The tax collected is credited to England. £3-5billion annually.

But the annual GERS financial report falsely records Scotland to be in receipt of £ billion’s more from Westminster than it contributes.

This is quoted routinely by Unionists in support of their argument that Scotland is too wee and too poor to survive as a nation. The statement is utter nonsense and has been debunked by many independent financial experts.




Then, if minded to do so – throws Scotland a few scraps to keep them quiet.




New untested ideas about tax collection. Probably unworkable. Introduce new measures in Scotland first The jocks are well indoctrinated to Westminster’s authority.  eg Poll Tax Experiment Yup!!





Industry!! – Order books a bit light!! – Close Scotland down. Relocate companies to England.




Coal- mining industry!!! – Bloody minded Jocks and their Unions. Shut it down. Leave the coal in the ground. Purchase cheap dirty coal from Poland and South America.



Car production, Shut it down transfer it from Linwood and Bathgate to England.




Steel production – Shut it down in Scotland move production to England then Sell it to India for a pittance




Retain a massively upgraded Trident nuclear weapons and submarine fleet – Yes!!  But voters will not allow nuclear missiles or submarines to be based within 150 miles of population centres in England.  Bugger it – locate them in Glasgow. Scots votes count for nothing at Westminster.




The homing of the nuclear submarine fleet and missile systems in Faslane precludes any major shipping industry on the Clyde. Shut it down.




Construction of a few battleships, kit constructed in England, then shipped to Glasgow for assembly will keep the natives happy.




Fighting Johnny Foreigner!! – troops required – Not a problem – Get them from Scotland. The Jocks must pay their way in the Union. In the absence of finance, blood will do.




Shut down their factories –  get the buggers on the dole or offer job security through service in the forces.




Death and lifetime incapacity for many young Scots incurred through injury on active service in many cavalier military actions entered into by Westminster.

Gordon Brown’s answer to the ever-increasing incidence. The Westminster government cannot afford to meet their needs.

Create “Cash for Heros” a charity for injured servicemen – Appoint half a dozen cronies to manage it. All on six-figure salaries. As public awareness recedes it’ll die a natural death.




Charitable housing for wounded – handicapped soldiers – no way, let the Scottish public find the money.





Upgrade the UK infrastructure. A great idea and much needed, but England is allocated the vast bulk of available finance so that a massive programme of works, eg. HS2/3 and numerous other high-cost projects in London and the South East of England can be completed.

Net tax and other revenues to the UK reveals Scotland’s financial contribution to the foregoing works to be many £billions but there are no direct benefits to Scotland. The Westminster government issues assurance that Scotland will be given finance to allow similar works to e completed but not before 2030. Now that’s a kick in the teeth!!!




Scotland – Natives restless – give them a “wee talking shop parliament” but retain power in England. William Hague clarified Scotland’s place in the Union:

“Scotland is not a state. Westminster simply decided to delegate the games to be held in Glasgow, a city of the UK””




Will Scots find the confidence to ask for another independence referendum after being so heavily defeated in 2014??

They appear to have swallowed the Westminster message. Scots are too timid and stupid to try again. Their continued acceptance of abuse heaped upon them by Westminster justifies the statement.


millionaire mps


The Jocks are Luddites!!! Witness the Labour Party in Scotland. Returned to power at Westminster for nearly 60 years. They really did vote for donkeys wearing a labour badge and paid the price suffering rampant corruption.


230413 Steve Bell Scotland currency


Moaning Jocks!!!  Promise them jam tomorrow – They’ll believe anything Yup! that’s it, buy the buggers off with a few sweeteners.


The separatists of Scotland


30 years of austerity imposed on Scots by an incompetent Westminster government yet 55% choose to remain loyal to the most corrupt Union of sovereign nations ever created. Hell, mend them!!!!




Rabbie Burns got it right when he wrote that  “a parcel of rogues” sold Scotland out 300 years ago





The next referendum will provide another chance for Scot’s to get rid of Westminster politicians and their sycophantic useless Peers of the realm.




The fate of Scotland should be in Scottish hands not the grubby paws of a bunch of rich toff’s, lords and even richer barons at Westminster. Feathering their own nest’s, selling the nation into bondage.




In 2014 the Unionists said they loved Scotland and implored Scots to remain in the Union and the European Community. And We did.

The betrayal of the Unionist vow, to devolve to Scotland full fiscal authority and many other areas of governance was not long coming.

Only 3 months on from the referendum the Unionists thumbed their noses at Scotland and devolved little of any significance. Rubbing salt into the wounds they even attempted to con Scotland out of finance that rightfully belonged in Holyrood.

The Unionist paid the price for their devious tactics at the next General Election when they were nearly wiped out in Scotland.

The Scottish politicians who were returned to Westminster in 2015 genuinely tried to function effectively, but in a repeat of the well-rehearsed abuse meted out to Irish politicians by the Unionists at the turn of the twentieth century they failed to land any effective blows, culminating in a short-lived protest when they walked out of the Commons in frustration.


Bullingdon 1987



Scottish Referendum

Double Agent Daniel Defoe Briefed His English Masters That The Union Would Remove The Threat of War from Scotland forever and gain for Westminster an Inexhaustible Treasury of Fighting Men and a Valuable New Market Greatly Increasing the Power of England.




“Prey tell me why everything in the past is glorious and everything in the future, in an independent Scotland will be fundamentally wrong”. I will confine my brief to the year’s 1701-1745.




1701: The English Parliament, introduced the 1701, Act of Settlement, passing royal succession to the House of Hanover securing only Protestant succession to the throne, and to strengthen the guarantees for ensuring parliamentary system of government.




1702: William III died, (without issue). Mary’s sister, Anne, became queen, (1702-1714). She had 17 children, none of which survived her.




1704: Protracted and at times angry discussions, (between English and Scottish negotiators) broke down. England wishing to transfer royal succession to the, “House of Hanover”. Scotland insisting upon the successor to Queen Anne being of direct Scottish descent as contained in the right of succession, laws of Scotland.




1704: The Scottish Parliament passed the, “Act of Security” threatening, (in the absence of agreement) to withdraw financial and military support to England, (fighting yet another war with Spain.)




1705: The Alien Act was a law passed by the Parliament of England in 1705, as a response to the Parliament of Scotland’s Act of Security of 1704, which in turn was partially a response to the English Act of Settlement 1701.

The Alien Act provided that Scottish nationals in England were to be treated as aliens (foreign nationals), and estates held by Scots would be treated as alien property, making inheritance much less certain.

It also included an embargo on the import of Scottish products into England and English colonies – about half of Scotland’s trade, covering goods such as linen, cattle and coal.

The Act contained a provision that it would be suspended if the Scots entered into negotiations regarding a proposed union of the parliaments of Scotland and England.

Combined with English financial offers to refund Scottish losses on the Darien scheme, the Act achieved its aim, leading to the Acts of Union 1707 uniting the two countries as the Kingdom of Great Britain.




1706: The vast majority of Scots, argued vehemently against the proposals, forcefully rejecting them and working hard to retain their independence opened up new markets reducing dependence on trade with England.

Scottish nobles, landed gentry and traders, who had borne much of the financial losses attributed to the, (Darien Project) were of a different mindset and led by the Duke of Queensberry, (the most senior noble in Scotland) they established a secret dialogue with Westminster politicians providing assurance an, “Act of Union” would be agreed, subject to a suitable financial settlement.

A  “sweetener”,  £400,000 was passed in secret to the Duke of Queensberry for distribution to the appropriate Scottish gentry.






1706: Despite the assurances of the Duke of Queensberry that Scotland would be delivered as promised the majority of Scots were still opposed to any agreement with England and a hastily convened meeting of senior politicians in London decided that urgent measures would need to be taken, persuading the leader of factions opposed to the Union, (Duke of Hamilton) to switch sides. The ploy was successful, The Duke, together with enough of his close friends transferred their allegiance.


4thhamilton(c) National Galleries of Scotland; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation


1706: The English public voiced doubt that the proposed Union would bring benefits and their concerns were raised in Westminster.

To reassure  England,  Robert Harley, Spymaster in the Westminster Government, contracted William Defoe to write a thrice weekly review, (for the widest possible distribution in England) aimed at persuading English opinion to support the proposed Union.

The thrust of Defoe’s assertions claimed that it would end the threat from Scotland forever and gain for Westminster an “inexhaustible treasury of fighting men” and a valuable new market further increasing the power of England.





1706 In the autumn, “Spymaster Harley” ordered Defoe to Edinburgh with the mission (as a secret agent) to do everything possible to help secure acquiescence in the Treaty of Union.

His first reports included vivid descriptions of violent demonstrations against the Union. Some time after, John Clerk of Penicuik, a leading Unionist, wrote, “He was a spy among us, but not known as such, otherwise the Mob of Edinburgh would have  pulled him to pieces.”

Defoe, a Presbyterian, had been accepted as an adviser to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and committees of the Parliament of Scotland.

Harley wrote that he was, “privy to all their folly”  but,  “perfectly unsuspected as with corresponding with anybody in England”. He was then able to heavily influence proposals that were put to the Scottish Parliament.

In manipulating Scottish opinion he used opposite arguments, to those he used in England,  for example,  unusually ignoring the English doctrine of the Sovereignty of Parliament, telling Scot’s that they could have complete confidence in the guarantees in the Treaty. 

He secretly wrote a many pamphlets praising the Union. These were then circulated throughout Scotland all purported to have been written by Scots,  misleading even reputable historians into quoting them as evidence of Scottish opinion of the time.



RobertHarley1710Robert Harley Spymaster



1707: The “Act of Union” was signed off.  Defoe,  (ignored by Westminster) was financially rewarded by,  “Spymaster Harley”.

Robert Burns scathingly wrote, “We’re bought and sold for English Gold, Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation”.




1707:  The Scottish public infuriated by the betrayal by the Nobles and,  “hi heid yins” in Parliament,  generated a hotbed of unrest against the Union.

The Presbyterian minister of the Trongate church in Glasgow urged his congregation, “to up and anent for the City of God”.

The “Dear Green Place” that was Glasgow required government troops to put down the rioters tearing up copies of the Treaty,  an act that was repeated at almost every Mercat cross in Scotland.

Martial Law was imposed, (coupled with a dawn to dusk curfew) and maintained for some months after the signing of the, “Act of Union”.


Jacobite Retreat



1723: Defoe returning to Scotland many year’s later and (on viewing the abject poverty of the people) admitted that the increase of trade and population in Scotland which he had predicted as a consequence of the Union,  was  “not the case,  but rather the contrary”. 

He assessed hostility towards his party was,  “because they were English and because of the Union, which they were almost universally exclaimed against”.




1745: In supporting the claims of the Jacobites,  Scots did so believing they had a much stronger right to the throne of Scotland than the recently crowned German king from the  “House of Hanover”.

The brutality at Culloden and the 30 year rape of Scotland, beyond Perth was a display of abject hatred of Scot’s, the effects of which are evident 270 years after.

Lessons learned, Scots heeded that it was the upper and middle classes of England,  who controlled Westminster and by result the UK and having staged a coup d’etat with a foreigner,  (William of Orange) in a pre-emptive strike getting rid of a potentially troublesome monarch, they would fight to retain their power.


The_Battle_of_Culloden(c) Brian North Lee; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation



At the start of the Eighteenth century Scotland a once prosperous nation, (had fallen on hard times due to the greed of bankers). But instead of being provided with support, it was sold out to England by a bunch of self interested rogues. 

300 year’s later Scotland is well placed, to return to the,  world’s “family of nations”, independent and free.




Scottish Referendum

On Topic Links

Kirsty-A Free Scotland free scotland kirsty

Bigger Isn’t Always Better
Bigger is not better

Oil and Lots of It

Scare Stories From Bitter Together

NHS England and Privatisation nhs rip off nhs rip off black hole privatisation

Rise and Rise of Foodbanks

Scottish Referendum

Debunking the Westminster Promoted Negative Myths of a Currency Union


Related image




A Currency Union

The Scottish National Party recently committed to retaining £ sterling as the currency of an independent Scotland until such time as it is deemed prudent to adopt a replacement, (mirroring the successful policy of the Irish Free State).

Already the vultures are circling with their portents of a doom claiming the lack of a “Bank of last Resort” will prove to be a weakness which will be seized on by desperate Unionists and used to discredit the policy.

But it is opportune to know the views of independent thinkers armed with a depth of financial acumen.


Image result for currency union england scotland




Currency Union. Experts in Finance Offer a View

Deutsche Bank.

In 2014 the UK government dismissed a currency union with an independent Scotland, but,  in practice it would be impossible for the Treasury to unilaterally sever the Scottish banking system from the rest of the UK without major risks to the financial stability of the rUK banking sector.



The head of the “European Group-of-10 currency strategists” at Citigroup said:

“Given the close economic ties between the two and assuming that these ties need not weaken going forward, the potential introduction of a currency union need not adversely affect trade and other flows.”


University Dean. Professor Angus Robertson.

The rUK’s debt to GDP ratio will rise significantly, with possible consequences for its credit rating. At the same time, Scotland’s debt burden will be much lower than rUK’s in all cases.


 University Dean. Professor Andrew Hughes-Hallett

an expert in economics and public policy at George Mason University in the US:

“There’s nothing which the Bank of England or the rUK could do to stop Scotland using the pound”.


Related image




Effects of Currency Unions on Trade and Output

Independent evidence provided through academics and economists all point to a currency union being the only logical choice in particular where neighbouring countries also share a language it is the common sense approach that they can profit by sharing a currency.


Image result for currency union england scotland




Who Needs a Bank of Last Resort

Myths govern modern central banking. Like many myths, they contain an element of truth that has been distorted by exaggeration and misapplication.

Myth One:

Central banks are intrinsically necessary for market economies. But history and theory belie this. Example:

The Bank of Canada was not founded until 1935 but the Canadian banking system survived the Great Depression with no major bank failures.

In contrast, thousands of U.S banks failed, despite the existence of the Federal Reserve.

These large-scale failures were only ended by President Roosevelt’s imposition of a bank holiday, not by any Federal Reserve contribution to banking stability.


Myth Two:

Central banks are needed as a lender of last resort—that is, to supply liquidity in times of financial stress when short-term lending freezes up.

The US Federal Reserve’s lending in the aftermath of Lehman’s collapse in 2008 is the new textbook example of this function.

But this argument has the causality exactly backwards.

Walter Bagehot, the eminent 19th-century British economic journalist, coined the phrase “lender of last resort” in his classic book, “Lombard Street.”

He recognized this was an essential function for the Bank of England. However, the context is often dropped.

Bagehot knew that a central bank inevitably resulted in a concentration of reserves within that institution, making it the lender of last resort.

But he did not believe that a central bank was inevitable or desirable.


Related image




Time for some radical rethinking

For Bagehot, “the natural system” was the one “which would have sprung up if Government had let banking alone.”

There would have been “many banks of equal or not altogether unequal size.”

He described this as “the many reserve system,” in which each bank held reserves for itself, which he believed would have meant a stronger banking system.

In modern parlance, Bagehot’s celebrated “lender of last resort” is a second-best solution—second to a world of competitive banks and no central bank.

From 2011 the function of the Bank of England to act as a “lender of last resort” has been subsumed in favour of the better solution. Banks are now required by law to maintain sufficient financial reserves to cover all eventualities.

This is a good read:



Image result for currency union england scotland




An Englishman for Independence

This is a must view/listen for all those who have a vote in an Independence Referendum.



Image result for currency union england scotland



For the serious reader to study.

Click to access w7857.pdf

Click to access w9435.pdf


Image result for currency union england scotland