At the height of the financial crisis which began in 2007 Britain was covering the liabilities of UK banks to the tune of £1.2 TRILLION. Ultimately the figures invested were lower. And part of the reason it happened was there was no or little control over the banks in the first place. Politicians let banks do what they want, banks probably knew politicians couldnt afford to let them fail and now with, at best, suspicious timing, a couple of banks threats come along to aid the campaign of politicians, weird that? Factoring in the countless fines they have had for things such as LIBOR, who knows how many billions they have lost in the last seven years. But part of their payback has undoubtedly been to come onside with the powers that be regards this referendum. Buy into it if you want to but its another shining example of the perpetual back scratching that goes on within the two. The Clydesdale Banks announcement that they MAY relocate to England is over a POTENTIAL cost of £67.2m should they stay here. ITS A CAUSE FOR CELEBRATION THESE DAYS WHEN A BANK ONLY LOSES £67.2M you would think. So this is utter nonsense, it is a tiny hit for a bank (if it is indeed a probable hit in the first place) and ultimately if you really think with all its costs that relocating wont cost them more then thats up to you, personally I doubt it. It has been jumped on by politicians such as that snake Jim Murphy, it is scaremongering again, any look at the banks rhetoric shows you words like Could and Contingency. But if you believe it. If you choose to believe that the people who set in motion the financial crisis (also known as the BANKING crisis) through nothing more than greed to the tune of countless billions of losses are genuinely concerned about an independent Scotland and trivial potential costs of £67.2m then thats up to you. But its a bit like a pensioner taking on Harold Shipmans advice that Anadin may have side effects.
Posted on: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 11:04:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015