Over 75% of Greenlanders backed the plan.
Just over 23% said no.
The turnout was around 72%.
I reckon that’s an impressive turnout given the dark Arctic winter days. Those in the north of the country must be coping with little or no daylight at this time.
Its a clear sign that the island is heading towards independence.
As I said in yesterday’s blog, the First Minister Hans Enoksen has a timescale of independence in 12 years time.
Others prefer a shorter timescale.
The former foreign minister Aleqa Hammond sees independence in 8 years.
And the head of the Greenland union SIK, Jess Berthelsen, sees it happen in 4 years.
The defeated unionists like the Democrats leader Jens Frederiksen and rebel Siumut politican Finn Lynge are now left arguing over the timescale and the feasibilty of independence.
Lynge in particular thinks that with only 57 000 people, Greenland cannot be independent. He said it was ‘impossible for an island with 50,000 to 60,000 inhabitants to become an independent state.’
‘There are simply too few of us to provide the personnel necessary to develop a viable state’.
The ex-First Minister Lars-Emil Johansen rejects that criticism. Echoing the slogan of Barack Obama he simply says ‘Yes We Can’.
Greenland is rich in oil, gas, gold, diamond and other minerals.
Scottish companies like Cairn Energy are keen to develop the Greenland oil and gas potential. It is now the largest oil company investing in Greenland with a total of 8 licences around the island. Greenland’s oil company Nunaoil has a 8% stake in those licenses.
Its part of the Greenland Government’s plan to diversify its economy which is currently largely based on the fishing industry.
And speed the path to independence.
The world’s current smallest states by population:
1 Vatican City 920
2 Tuvalu 11,640
3 Nauru 13,050
4 Palau 20,300
5 San Marino 28,880
6 Monaco 32,410
7 Liechtenstein 33,720
8 Saint Kitts & Nevis 38,960
9 Marshall Islands 59,070
Currently the population of Greenland would put it at no. 9 in the world.
I guess no-one should be surprised by the latest anti-science diatribe by Sarah Palin.
This time she’s picking on the humble fruit fly.
She was giving a speech on promoting the funding of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA):
“For many parents of children with disabilities, the most valuable thing of all is information. Early identification of a cognitive or other disorder, especially autism, can make a life-changing difference.”
Now given that Sarah Palin has a Down’s Syndrome son, you may have thought have fighting for disability funding would have been a home run for her. You may also have expected her to champion scientific research into disabilities.
So for her to question the earmarked money for scientific research was a bit surprising:
“Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? […] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.”
Fruit fly research.
The fruit fly research that she is talking about must be the Olive fruit fly research. The Olive fruit fly is an invasive pest that threatening California’s multi-million dollar olive crop. In trying to save a chunk of California’s economy in these difficult times, the $211509 French grant probably is a worthwhile investment.
Besides, if you know anything about science, you’ll know that vital findings have resulted from the most tangential experiments. Who knows what benefits might come out this study?
Certainly not Sarah Palin.
If she was only aware of what research of the humble fruit fly has already given to science I bet she wouldn’t have mocked this research in her speech.
Progress in autism research. The very condition that Sarah Palin started her talk about. She has a nephew suffering from autism. Fruit fly research may bring vital clues to improve his life.
And what makes the fruit fly so ubitiquous in medical research?
Chiang Ann-shyn – director of the Institute of Biotechnology and director of the Brain Research Center at National Tsing Hua University in Hsinchu City, Taiwan – explains in this article:
‘One reason fruit flies were used was the similarities between their genes and human genes, Chiang explained. Although a fruit fly carries only around 135,000 genes, which might seem few in comparison to a human being’s 4 billion genes, a large number of genes that suffer from human genetic disorders can be found in the fruit fly. “Flies are cheap to breed, and their genes can be manipulated quickly,” he declared. Moreover, better understanding of genes would allow scientists to search faster for novel therapeutic drugs for healing diseases like Alzheimer’s, he added.’
I think its clear by now that Sarah Palin has no understanding of science.
I thought it was interesting listening to Jim Spowart, founder of Standard Life and Intelligent Finance, on Sunday’s The Politics Show on BBC Scotland.
He offered the view that if the HBOS merger with the Lloyds TSB happened it could break the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England.
He estimated that around 100 000 jobs in Scotland, primarily in the central belt, could be lost if the proposed merger happens.
That figure includes jobs from businesses indirectly linked to the HBOS headquarters in Scotland, as well as the losses expected from HBOS themselves.
An absolutely huge figure.
The merger is seen as supported by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and even caused by his mismanagement of the economy in the first place.
So if 100 000 people did lose their jobs in the central belt I doubt they would have much incentive to vote Labour.
The fact that Labour’s heartlands in Scotland are in the central belt, especially in the west, probably won’t have escaped many Labour councillors, MSPs, MPs etc.
And as witnessed in the Glasgow East by-election those voters will predominately switch to SNP en masse.
The HBOS merger might just lead to Labour meltdown in Scotland.
And bring Scottish independence that much closer.
For all that, I doubt the SNP are cock-a-hoop wanting this merger to happen to finally realise their dream of independence. Independence could happen with any number of political scenarios; I very much doubt the SNP want Scotland to lose 100 000 jobs to achieve it.
Why pick the worst option to achieve independence when there is something inevitable about it happening anyway?
Any number of political scenarios could bring about independence for Scotland. The challenge for the Unionists is that each scenario they have to win; nationalists only have to win once: can anyone name a nation who once democratically free and independent actually wanted to go back to its old imperialist masters? That fact alone suggests that independence must be the best way forward for Scotland.
I don’t see Ireland wanting to be back in under UK rule, or Iceland – even with its current financial troubles – wanting to be back under Danish rule.
Independence will happen anyway. It would be a shame if it happened like this.
Newspapers have been quoting the survey by the World Economic Forum in which business leaders have been rating the solvency of world banks.
The rankings however were compiled just before the recent £50 billion bail-out by the UK, the nationalisation of the Icelandic banks and the larger US bail-out.
Now given this report was a survey of the world’s economists whose advice our banks were no doubt taking; should we believe it?
Are the UK’s banks really behind Peru, El Salvador and Senegal?
Or is it an accurate representation that is slightly out of date, compiled as it was slightly before the bail-outs?
That must depend on whether you believe the bail-outs will work.
If reports are to be believed the Royal Bank of Scotland is next in line to be nationalised tomorrow. If that happens then there will be further pressure on the remaining UK bank’s to be nationalised too. The banking sector could be picked off one by one by the market and the taxpayer forced to pick up the tab.
On that Iain Dale post there have already been comments about the English taxpayer bailing out the Scottish bank.
It must be a pity, to all those who carp, that Scotland is not already independent.
An independent Scotland with a similar oil fund like our neighbour Norway could be similarly insulated from these turbulent times.
It would also have the economic levers to maintain its economy best, not just for the South-East of England as remains the case today. Remember Eddie George, the former Governor of the Bank of England: Unemployment in the north is a price worth paying for affluence in the South!
Although the credit crunch is global, take a look back at those rankings.
Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands. All small countries lying in the top 10.
Even Ireland, who have recently guaranteed all deposits in their banks, are sitting 9th.
The argument that Scotland is too small to be financially unstable is farcical! I don’t hear anyone saying that Denmark is too small and should be run from Berlin. (Not since the days of Adolf Hitler and the Second World War anyway!)
As countries large and small struggle with the credit credit crunch from the U.S. and Russia down to Iceland with its 300 000 population, this population argument of independence must be seen to be invalid. Iceland, with a population slightly smaller than North Lanarkshire, isn’t exactly Miramont Gardens in Pimlico!
What matters now is that we take the right decisions to get out this mess.
Those decisions may be different for each country. They may even be different for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
That’s why its important key economic levers are devolved away from Westminster.
Otherwise the Eddie George syndrome will hamper ‘the North’ recovering for years.
A prominent group of Scottish financiers are hatching a £6 billion bid to save the Bank of Scotland, reports the Sunday Herald.
The group includes Scottish Futures Trust chairman Sir Angus Grossart and convenor of Scotland’s Council of Economic Advisors Sir George Mathewson. Both connected with the SNP Government.
Alex Neill, the SNP MSP, and member of the Finance Committee in the Scottish Parliament is hoping to meet with the group this week.
The Sunday Herald reports that the First Minister might be sympathetic to the plan, as long as jobs are saved.
Under the plan, the Bank of Scotland would be separated from the Halifax arm.
It might also be looked on more favourably by the monopolies commission.
I have a feeling it will also be looked on favourably by the Scottish public.
If this group provides the necessary capital it must be given the chance to buy the bank.
The loss of the Bank of Scotland is a national disgrace.
A disgrace not brought about by Scotland – but by Westminster and this Labour Government.
Some time ago I posted a blog that related how Iceland’s commercial banks – especially Landsbanki and Kaupthing – had high value CDS figures (610 and 856 respectively) which meant that they were particularly vulnerable to collapse in the credit crunch.
The population of Iceland being small (only 300 000) they couldn’t afford to step in and nationalise their banks. Fortunately they organised a loan from their friends in Norway and that sorted things out.
Norway with a population of 4.7 million, slightly smaller than Scotland. It also had the foresight to initiate an oil fund; something that the SNP plans to do with Scotland’s oil.
Back in March the Bank of Scotland had a CDS of 235.
Not in any great danger. And even that number would have been lower without all the mortgages that came with the Halifax merger. Of course, the Halifax merger in 2001 wasn’t the end of the Bank of Scotland; it just renamed its Edinburgh global headquarters and put Halifax in front of its name. It wasn’t moving anywhere.
Now of course due to market speculation and short trading on HBOS shares bringing panic it seems there will be a merger of HBOS and Lloyds TSB.
The new bank will be based in London and initial reports are the bank will be renamed Lloyds Halifax.
Its the end of one of Scotland’s leading financial companies, and the end of its proud history. Established in 1695 before the Treaty of the Union with England, it financed Jacobite rebellions and was the first bank in Europe to print paper money.
I would doubt if Scotland had been an independent country this historic bank would have been let to die in such a merger.
If Norway could afford to bail out their Icelandic neighbours with their oil fund, I’m pretty confident that an independent Scotland would have used its oil fund to do likewise, if it became necessary.
And that’s a big if. I’m sure that an independent Scotland would have used all the mechanisms at its disposal to save help our economy through these trying times. Mechanisms that only on Tuesday Alex Salmond was epousing on Newsnight Scotland that should have been applied before now – and that every commentator on Wednesday’s programme bar one agreed with.
Whereas only last week Merwyn King announced the Bank of England SLS – transferring of mortgages into liquid stock scheme – would not be extended. After the run on HBOS it was forced to change its mind Tuesday afternoon.
Of course, Gordon Brown was aware that he had already bailed out one bank, Northern Rock. With his popularity in freefall at the moment and seemingly having no answers to solve this country’s economic problems, he instead pressured Lloyds into the merger.
So should he be praised for saving jobs then? Its his running of the UK economy thats caused the Bank of Scotland to die!
Its like a penniless crofter killing his entire stock of breeding cattle and saying today’s pies tasted nice! It may be true but its not foresighted.
Surely only a fool would praise penniless crofter Gordon Brown for today’s pies? Step forward George Foulkes!
Is this Gordon Brown’s idea of Britishness? Forcing long standing proud Scottish institutions and global financial players to be repatriated to London? Part of his long game to ensure that Scotland’s finances will be bereft and beholden to London? Just like a colony then?
I feel ashamed that under a Scottish Prime Minister’s stewardship of the UK economy that this proud bank and Scottish institution is being allowed to die.
Gordon Brown. The man who killed the Bank of Scotland.
That will be his epitaph.
I doubt even Margaret Thatcher would have sunk so low.
Hurricane Gustav makes its way steadily to Louisiana.
As New Orleans is being evacuated and response teams are put in place, it strikes me that this time George Bush is learning from his mistakes over Hurricane Katrina.
But will Hurricane Gustav make the Republicians reassess their stance on climate change?
A clear sign that he is pandering to the hard right of the Republican party.
This just smacks of a continuation of the Republican environmental policy instigated under George W. Bush. The defining environmental policy of Bush’s government was a refusal to sign the Kyoto agreement that introduced emission targets.
So do I think the Republicans will reassess their stance? I suspect not directly.
Unfortunately, it may take a few of these hurricanes before America finally gets the message on climate change. By that time the global oil price could have sky rocketed and the U.S. may well have made more environmental damage by drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas in its lust to keep its oil price low.
As climate change becomes more pronounced, hurricanes and other weather phemonema will get more dangerous.
How many of these extreme hurricanes will New Orleans, Louisiana and the Gulf coast have to endure before Republicans take the environment seriously?
One of the worst affected countries is the UK, but probably the most affected country is Iceland.
Now Iceland is regularly hailed by the SNP as part of the Arc of Prosperity, one of an arc of Scotland’s neighbouring countries that always seems to be doing rather better than us, outstriping the UK economy by miles.
One of the SNP’s goals is for Scotland is to join that Arc of Prosperity and better its economic growth rate. Obviously they claim independence would be the best route to achieve this; it gives Scotland full fiscal control over its own economy.
(Other countries in the Arc of Prosperity:-
Norway. Population 4.7 million
Denmark. 5.4 million
Finland. 5.3 million
Ireland 4.3 million
Sweden 9.1 million
All apart from Sweden have populations in size similar to Scotland; and all have had sigificantly higher economic growth than Scotland and the UK for many years now.)
So whats happened in Iceland? With the country performing so well economically and with a population of only 300 000 people, the banks wanted and got foreign investment. The Icelandic Government even loosened its fiscal policy before the 2007 election. Foreign capital poured into Iceland.
Now when the U.S. subprime mortgage market collapsed and started the credit crunch, foreign investors panicked and the money dried up. Some wanted their money back. All this has devalued the Icelandic kröna and forced the Icelandic bank to set interest rates at 15%. The country is now suffering the worst effects of the credit crunch I mentioned at the start.
Compare this with the U.S. They too are suffering the credit crunch, but are still receiving massive foreign investment. Why? Because they have a vast consumer-led population (around 304 000 000, around 1000 times bigger than Iceland’s). Hence the dollar has weakened recently; but relative to the Icelandic körna isn’t so bad and interest rates arent so bad.
One rate to look at is the current CDS rates of banks. These are Credit Default Swaps, basically a measure of how much insurance the bank needs for its debt. The higher the number the worse off the bank.
For example, when the Northern Rock was nationalised its CDS was at 295. [18 Feb 2008]
CDS have been increasing throughout the banking sector however. The US Bank Bear Sterns was bailed out by the US Government with a CDS of 720. [Mar 2008]
Other March 2008 CDS of banks were:-
Lloyds TSB 133
Barclays 170
HSBC 145
Bank of Scotland 235
Alliance and Lecicester 342
but the British banks were nothing like the Icelandic banks:-
Landsbanki 610
Kaupthing 856
Iceland, with a small population; for years one of the best economies in the world. It made a mistake relying on too much foreign capital. And when that foreign capital ran into problems, so did it. Its tough for the Icelanders, having being used to the good life for years, and now feeling the worst effects of the credit crunch. The credit crunch may be global but Iceland are feeling short term consequences of their own mistakes. Yet had the U.S. subprime mortgage market held up it may have never mattered.
Thats why the Icelandic government is now thinking of joining the Euro. The Euro is strong and the Eurozone – those countries that use the Euro as their currency – is now the biggest economy in the world, after the dollar weakened in March 2008. The Eurozone has a population of 320 000 000 people and is expected to grow as other European Union countries meet the criteria for membership.
So then what of the Arc of Prosperity? Is it in financial ruins?
Iceland may be in trouble now but remember they started from an economic base much higher than the UK or Scotland. Their problems are all relative, and will probably only result in a decline in economic growth for a couple of years, before resuming their position back near the top of the world’s economies. Even if these problems do continue then they always have the Euro to fall back on if needed, although their fishermen probably won’t like joining the EU.
What’s more another Arc of Prosperity country – Norway – has just given them 1.5 billion euros to shore up the Icelandic economy. And if Norway can afford to bail out other countries in the midst of a global credit crunch then the Arc of Prosperity can’t be doing that badly.
The Arc is better placed than most to ride out the credit crunch. I’m sure Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling will try their best for the UK.
Posted by northbritain 
