At last ... a plan. Gordon Brown's constitutional review revealed

volver

OK, one more post about Scotland.

If the SNP demand another independence vote it is because they have a mandate to do so.

I do not think that any vote will go for Independence in the next few years.

More power kindly given by the partner which thinks it is the dominant one isn't enough, that's right. Independence is the goal. As it should be for any country worth its salt.

SUPPORT for Scotland leaving the Union has risen to a whopping 56 per cent, according to the latest polling from Ipsos Mori.The survey, commissioned by STV News as part of the Scottish Political Monitor project, put Yes support up six points since its last poll was carried out in May.

Over the last 18 months, Yes and No have generally been neck and neck in the polls. The first poll carried out after the Supreme Court result, which said Scotland requires Westminster's consent to hold indyref2, found 52% support for independence with "don't knows" removed.

Now, with "don't knows" removed, Ipsos has recorded 56% for Yes and 44% for No. If such a result were replicated in a referendum, it would mark a near reversal of the 2014 vote.

READ MORE: John Curtice: Labour gave up on Scotland to focus on English seats

As well as increased support for leaving the Union, the pollster found that the SNP would win a record 58 seats in the next General Election – which the party hopes to use as a de facto referendum on independence.When respondents were asked how they would vote in such a de facto referendum, 53% said they'd back the SNP. A further 2% would vote Green, taking the pro-independence vote share to 55%.

In such an election Scottish Labour would win a single seat, while the LibDems and Tories would be completely wiped out north of the Border. SNP depute leader Keith Brown said the poll shows momentum for Yes is "rocketing".

😂😂😂

Oh Aveline, that was deep and cutting political comment.

I'm sure we'll all go off for a little cry now.

Gaun yersel' Volver

Peter Oborne DEMOLISHES the Media Silence on The Labour Files short video journalism

m.youtube.com/watch?v=tdoVw2tWb0I

Casdon

Urmstongran

There's never been a problem that Gordon Brown's pondering couldn't make worse...

Give us a few examples?

Yes, I would like some examples. He did not create the financial banking crisis of 2008. It came across the Atlantic and we were reading and hearing about it months before it landed on our shores. He has a towering intellect which we could do with now.

He has a towering intellect which we could do with now.

I agree Lovetopaint. Most of the social advances in the Blair years such as Sure Start and Tax Credits were due to his social conscience.
If he can move constitutional reform forward that would be great.

I agree re Gordon Brown. I've always thought that he's completely sincere and really cares. I wish there were more like him.

Sorry. A towering intellect?

He's not Einstein.

I think he's a good man and he certainly towers above the shower we have today, but he allowed himself to be led astray and make promises in 2014 that nobody intended to keep.

Grany

Peter Oborne DEMOLISHES the Media Silence on The Labour Files short video journalism

m.youtube.com/watch?v=tdoVw2tWb0I

Back you your extremes Grany.

I doubt Gordon Brown is a ' towering intellect'. He sold from our gold reserve at a low price, his relief of poverty for children has not delivered much, he failed to be grasp the chance of an early GE which might have avoided Cameron and all the rubbish that followed including Brexit and he failed to negotiate a coalition with the LibDems which would have avoided Osborne's austerity project. I don't doubt he is a moral individual and towers over political pigmies such as Truss and Sunak.

Grantanow

I doubt Gordon Brown is a ' towering intellect'. He sold from our gold reserve at a low price, his relief of poverty for children has not delivered much, he failed to be grasp the chance of an early GE which might have avoided Cameron and all the rubbish that followed including Brexit and he failed to negotiate a coalition with the LibDems which would have avoided Osborne's austerity project. I don't doubt he is a moral individual and towers over political pigmies such as Truss and Sunak.

Oh dear. "Gordon Brown did a bad thing selling the gold at a low price". A Tory trope to be repeated it for ever more.

He did sell half the gold at a low price. We lost £5billion on the sale. Who is to say what we would have lost if he waited. The value of gold carried on going down.

You, and those who keep chiming this out, do not seem to know about compound interest. Not knowing about compound interest is likely to lead to debt. Knowing about it has a good chance of leading to an increase in wealth.

So the money from the sale was invested. There seems to be no actual calculation on the interest received. As the ERG has been in power for the last 12 years, I don't suppose they are likely to tell us, are they? The gold did not earn interest at any point.

I'm not that clever that I can give a knowledgeable estimate of what the interest and the interest on interest made. It seems to be accepted that the treasury will have either broken even or been a little below. To be accurate about how we see the decision, we would have to look at what happened in other countries. Of course, the unexpected drop in interest rates over the last 20 years will have affected all governments.

Now, if you, with all your riches, went to get financial advice, you could expect to be advised to spread your investment, just as GB did. It wasn't a "bad" decision; they were difficult times.

Who is to say what another chancellor would have done? Having watched the recent ones, I wouldn't bet the farm on the possibility of them having more than a microgram of intellect or relevant knowledge in the same circumstances.

GB also taxed peoples pension funds and helped to skew the voting in Tndy Ref 1, by making the infamous VOW of near federalism for Scotland in the run up to the vote. Not one of his promises came to fruition. Indeed the day after the results he put through the English Votes for England only matters, without a corresponding only Scottish votes for Scottish matters. He is despised by every Independence supporter in Scotland.

GB also taxed peoples pension funds
That upset a lot of people who feared their pension funds would not meet their expectations for retirement planning.

Granny23

GB also taxed peoples pension funds and helped to skew the voting in Tndy Ref 1, by making the infamous VOW of near federalism for Scotland in the run up to the vote. Not one of his promises came to fruition. Indeed the day after the results he put through the English Votes for England only matters, without a corresponding only Scottish votes for Scottish matters. He is despised by every Independence supporter in Scotland.

Seconded.

It would be interesting to look at the other side of the pension fund tax but, as you can see from my previous post, explanations take far longer than an ill conceived headline. People will always be prepared to believe the unexplained, possibly incorrect headline and repeat it even when a balanced and balancing view is provided.

People whose pensions suffered at the hands of GB wouldn’t be convinced however long and convoluted the explanation.

It remains controversial Daisy Anne whether Brown selling gold was a good move and there are arguments on both sides. But he announced in reply to a planted Parliamentary Question that he I tended to sell gold. That resulted in the price falling and the UK did not achieve as much in the sale as might have been hoped for. My understanding is that the proceeds were spent on the Labour government's objectives in, for example, education and not used for market investment. The markets were disturbed by the way in which Brown handled it (against the advice of the Bank, I believe) and there was subsequently an international agreement not to spook the markets in that way. I'm not wealthy or a Tory but I see no reason to laud a Labour mishandling of an important action.

But he did have good reason for doing it and we did not need the gold, which just sat there, earning nothing.

Personally, I would say it was far more complex than most people bothered to find out. And there is the rub. Many people's reading doesn't get past headlines.

Education is a comparable investment to building a motor way in my view. Done well, both grow the economy.

Finally, markets do not think. People think and some of them, although clever at gambling, do not have much depth of thought.

I think the point about holding gold, DaisyAnne, is that it is usually countercyclical to stocks and shares - when they go down, especially when there is political uncertainty and war or the threat of war gold increases in value. It's effectively a hedge for governments against market crashes. Agreed it earns nothing in interest but it's the capital appreciation in bad times that counts. Most countries hold significant gold reserves.

It's effectively a hedge for governments against market crashes.

Can you explain how that works in practice, Grantanow?

When the markets crashed in 2008 it was the injection of money into the economy, by way of Quantitative Easing, by the Bank of England that saved our economy. What part did gold play in this? Or, turn the question round, did gold play any part in this?

That's a good question MaizieD! Although sovereign central Bank's like the B of E can print more fiat currency like the Pound (QE, as they call it nowadays) - using the printed money to buy Treasury bonds so the Treasury receives the money to inject into the economy as you mention happened in 2008 - the problem with any fiat currency is that it has no guarantee as to its value beyond the good faith and credit of the issuer, that is, the Bank's and ultimately the government's word as to its value. Simply printing more and more would unsettle the UK's creditors internationally. If a fiat currency were to fail then the Bank has gold reserves with which to repay international lenders. In 2019 the Dutch central bank said that a gold reserve is the 'collateral' which enables starting again in the event of such a collapse. The USA holds 8,000 tonnes of gold as such a reserve. Other countries hold smaller but significant amounts: China, Russia, France, Italy and German each hold about 2 to 3 thousand tonnes each. The UK holds about 300 tonnes. To be fair this line of argument is not universally accepted but the central banks clearly regard it prudent to hold gold reserves.

Grantanow

That's a good question MaizieD! Although sovereign central Bank's like the B of E can print more fiat currency like the Pound (QE, as they call it nowadays) - using the printed money to buy Treasury bonds so the Treasury receives the money to inject into the economy as you mention happened in 2008 - the problem with any fiat currency is that it has no guarantee as to its value beyond the good faith and credit of the issuer, that is, the Bank's and ultimately the government's word as to its value. Simply printing more and more would unsettle the UK's creditors internationally. If a fiat currency were to fail then the Bank has gold reserves with which to repay international lenders. In 2019 the Dutch central bank said that a gold reserve is the 'collateral' which enables starting again in the event of such a collapse. The USA holds 8,000 tonnes of gold as such a reserve. Other countries hold smaller but significant amounts: China, Russia, France, Italy and German each hold about 2 to 3 thousand tonnes each. The UK holds about 300 tonnes. To be fair this line of argument is not universally accepted but the central banks clearly regard it prudent to hold gold reserves.

Grantanow from what I have read, our currency is no longer related to gold. Indeed, no country has used the gold standard since 2013; we left the gold standard in 1931.

International currency is, and has been for some time, based on the dollar, not gold. The view of how we compare to the dollar and other currencies relies on the strength of a country's economy (heaven help us).

Yes, other countries have been "prudent", as you suggest, but then so was Brown.

As you say, the argument you put forward is interesting, although not accepted by many. However, we should always know the balancing ideas. The comment that "Brown sold off the gold" is the sort of dark ages type that comes from bias and the reading of news comics, not facts.

Gold is just as problematic as fiat currency. Its perceived 'value' is completely subjective and subject to the whims of 'the market'.

How it came to be so important in people's eyes is a mystery as it is a pretty useless metal, being too soft for anything but decorative purposes. If used for coinage it had to be mixed with other metals to make it durable. Where it gets its 'value' from is a mystery.

I think that what grantanow is saying is that some countries are regarding their gold stocks as a kind of emergency back up, but I can't really see how that would work, exchanging gold ingots, perhaps? Never been done before... I can't see an emergency that would require it, TBH.

Gold is valued at £46m per ton so the whole lot has a value around £14 billion not a large part of the UK value
Interestingly historically the amount held has varied widely, in the early 1960s we held over 2000 tons