Rankings and levers

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.

The website has the co-authors interviewed from the 3rd to the 7th of October. The report itself was published on the 8th October.

RANKINGS

1. Canada

2. Sweden

3. Luxembourg

4. Australia

5. Denmark

6. Netherlands

7. Belgium

8. New Zealand

9. Ireland

10. Malta

11. Hong Kong

12. Finland

13. Singapore

14. Norway

15. South Africa

16. Switzerland

17. Namibia

18. Chile

19. France

20. Spain

21. Barbados

22. Bahrain

23. Slovak Republic

24. Brazil

25. Estonia

26. Austria

27. Panama

28. Mauritius

29. Kuwait

30. Qatar

31. United Arab Emirates

32. Trinidad and Tobago

33. Senegal

34. Israel

35. Portugal

36. Iceland

37. Cyprus

38. Botswana

39. Germany

40. United States

41. Lithuania

42. Peru

43. El Salvador

44. United Kingdom

45. Greece

46. Benin

47. Costa Rica

48. Malawi

49. Guyana

50. Malaysia

51. India

52. Puerto Rico

53. The Gambia

54. Montenegro

55. Mexico

56. Croatia

57. Czech Republic

58. Jordan

59. Ghana

60. Suriname

61. Brunei Darussalam

62. Latvia

63. Saudi Arabia

64. Kenya

65. Jamaica

66. Honduras

67. Zambia

68. Burkina Faso

69. Slovenia

70. Sri Lanka

71. Pakistan

72. Philippines

73. Republic of Korea

74. Romania

75. Thailand

76. Madagascar

77. Colombia

78. Cote d’Ivoire

79. Italy

80. Bulgaria

81. Hungary

82. Cameroon

83. Georgia

84. Oman

85. Tunisia

86. Paraguay

87. Nigeria

88. Armenia

89. Morocco

90. Dominican Republic

91. Bolivia

92. Malia

93. Japan

94. Tanzania

95. Moldova

96. Bosnia and Herzegovina

97. Poland

98. Nicaragua

99. Venezuela

100. Uruguay

101. Guatemala

102. FYR Macedonia

103. Syria

104. Albania

105. Nepal

106. Mozambique

107. Russian Federation

108. China

109. Uganda

110. Serbia

111. Egypt

112. Ukraine

113. Vietnam

114. Turkey

115. Bangladesh

116. Azerbaijan

117. Taiwan, China

118. Ecuador

119. Mauritania

120. Mongolia

121. Indonesia

122. Zimbabwe

123. Tajikistan

124. Kazakhstan

125. Cambodia

126. Burundi

127. Chad

128. Ethiopia

129. Argentina

130. East Timor

131. Kyrgyz Republic

132. Lesotho

133. Libya

134. Algeria

Yes. That’s right.

The UK lies behind Peru and El Salvador.

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.

::::::::::::

Why the UK should have separate Olympic teams

Team GB took 311 athletes to the 2008 Olympic Games according to the Team GB website.

Yet the IOC only provides each country a limited number of slots for their athletes.

That meant for instance Hayley Haining couldn’t go to Beijing when Paula Radcliffe declared herself fit.

Now there are always going to be losers in any qualifying system for the limited slot placement in the Olympics.

But separate Olympic teams for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would widen the opportunities for our athletes, and ensure that as many athletes as possible fill each countries slots.

Consider this:

The UK with a population of around 60 million sent 311 athletes.

England’s population of around 50 million is slightly higher than Spain’s 46 million. Spain sent 312 athletes to Beijing. (These and other countries figures obtained from the Yahoo Olympic site.) You’d probably be talking at least the 311 athletes in a English Olympic team. (The Team GB breaks down England by region but subtracting the other countries totals from the 311 Team GB total gives an English total of 268 athletes.)

Scotland’s population is around 5 million. Slightly higher than Croatia’s 4.6 million. Croatia sent 110 athletes to Beijing. Probably the same numbers as a possible Scottish team, although New Zealand with 4.2 million sent 209 athletes. (A quick filter in the Team GB site gives 26 athletes at the 2008 Olympics.)

Wales’ population is around 3 million. Just slightly smaller than Lithuania. They sent 74 athletes. (A quick filter in the Team GB site gives 14 Welsh athletes in the Beijing Olympics.)

Northern Ireland’s population is around 1.8 million. Not far off Slovenia’s 2 million. They sent 62 athletes. (A quick filter in the Team GB site gives 3 athletes, although Northern Irish athletes are also eligible for the Irish Olympic squad.)

Let’s add that up:-

England 311
Scotland 110
Wales 74
Northern Ireland 62

Thats a rough estimate of 557. That’s an increase in athletes for each country from their 2008 totals.

Might even be more if the Home Nations can begin to emulate the New Zealand population density rate. The UK – as four countries – could possibly send about 700 athletes, more than double the present number; a number that would never be possible for the single British Olympic Committee given the UK’s population.

The key here is widening participation in sport for our top athletes.

Athletes that have experience in the Olympics generally do better in the next one. They know what the Olympics is all about, they have seen what it takes to compete at that level, and work that bit harder to achieve their Olympic dreams next time.

Athletes that don’t make the slot places may just give up altogether.

With 4 different Olympic committees, sport all over England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland could flourish.

And of course, there’s no reason for the IOC to object to four different IOC bodies in the UK. There were 12 territories represented at the 2008 Olympics that are not recognised countries.

Bermuda has its own representation. Britain own those islands; Bermuda is not independent or have a seat at the UN. Bermuda sent 6 athletes to the Olympics. And for a population of 66 000 people that’s simply staggering.

Thats almost 1 in 10000 people there being Olympic athletes.

Or England sending 5000 athletes to Beijing.

Cut to a whisper

In 1999, Scotland had eight MEPs. In 2004 due to other European countries joining the EU that was reduced to 7. With more countries joining the EU, the UK has had to cut its number from 78 to 73.

There was cross-party support in Scotland to keep our 7 MEPs and they hoped that such a lobby would keep its MEP numbers intact. Alas, Westminster has decided to cut Scotland’s numbers further down to 6 MEPs.

New numbers for MEPs sample selection (low numbered nations):-
3 Northern Ireland
4 Wales
5 Malta
6 Luxembourg
6 Cyprus
6 Estonia
6 Scotland
7 Slovenia
9 Latvia
12 Ireland
13 Finland
14 Denmark

As you can see both Malta and Luxembourg by dint of their independence have 5 and 6 MEPs respectively.

Both have a population less than Edinburgh. They have more influence in Europe than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. They are Members of the Council of Europe, attend European summits, and each have the Presidency of the Council of the European Union on a rotating basis with all of the other members.

Ireland has a population about 1 million less than Scotland with twice as many MEPs.

Denmark has a population around Scotland’s size with 14 MEPs.

And this Labour Westminster Government wants to cut our representation?!

Scotland will now have lost 25 % of its representation in the last ten years.

Incidentally, Germany over the same time period and with new nations joining Europe has the exact same number of MEPs; 99. Luxembourg who will have exactly the same number of MEPs as Scotland with under a tenth of the population of Scotland are also unchanged.

Northern Ireland has a fixed ratio of three MEPs as the EU class that as a region. Regions can’t go below 3 MEPs.

If Northern Ireland was independent that number, with a population comparable to Slovenia, would rise to 7.

Wales, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, is considered a region and hence both can’t have less than 3 MEPs. Wales has lost none of its representation over the same period.

If the Welsh are feeling happy about this, I’ll just remind them that Wallonia, a region of Belgium, with roughly the same population, has 9 MEPs. And Latvia, an independent country with around 2 million people, has that many MEPs. Wales would have 11 MEPs if independent on that basis.

England will have 60 MEPs, but if independent that number would rise to about 70.

Scotland will now have the same number of MEPs as Yorkshire.

With its large geographical area – although you wouldn’t know it if you looked at a BBC weathermap – its own Parliament and legal systems that implement EU legislation; you may have thought Scotland had a great case for retaining its already meagre influence.

Not according to Bridget Prentice, the UK Electoral Affairs minister and Labour MP for Lewisham East.

She told Struan Stevenson, a Conservative MEP, just one of the cross-party support of Scotland’s case: “I acknowledge the issue of distance that Scottish MEPs face and would suggest taking steps to mitigate the time burden of travelling across the Scottish electorate, such as allocating travel responsibilities among the Scottish MEPs or more frequent use of video-conferencing.”

So she proposing dividing up Scotland between the MEPs? Our Scottish MEPs are elected for the whole of Scotland; that’s their constituency! How can she face her fellow Scottish Labour MEPs and MSPs, similarly campaigning for Scotland’s euro voice?

No wonder Mr Stevenson had this to say on her ideas: “Bridget Prentice has a fairly scant understanding of the Scottish dimension – surprisingly for a woman who is herself Scottish – but she’s been closeted too long in the cushy southern shires of England and forgotten the geography of Scotland. Her trite ideas, like video-conferencing and sharing travel, are ludicrous to the point of being risible.”

Surely its time for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland to have their own voices in Europe.

Scotland having its own voice would stop the situation where our fishing industry and Scottish ministers and MEPs are ignored by the UK Government.

A UK Government that has just cut Scotland’s voice in Europe to a whisper.

Its time to tell Westminster where to go!