Bank in solitude

The remarks attributed to a deputy governor of the Bank of England contending that an ­independent Scotland would find it difficult to bail out its banks (your report, 21 May) are as helpful as pointing out that Scotland could not have won the Second World War on its own. Banking crises are not inevitable – some nations were much less damaged by the ­recent one than the UK.

But then they were not saddled with a Treasury and Bank of England both asleep at the wheel, nor need Scotland be.

Is there a Unionist somewhere out there who actually has something positive to say in favour of the Union?

Alan Oliver

Battock Road


Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Any bank threatening to leave Scotland in the event of independence would do well to ­consider two points.

First, Scots taxpayers helped bail out these banks. Second, if they leave Scotland, they don’t take our money with them. I for one will withdraw any savings 
I have with them and immediately transfer to another bank.

Many Scots will do the same and there will be no more bailouts from here.

Anne Toms

Whitton Drive


Sir Mervyn King (your report, 20 May) is correct that it was the system to blame and not individual bankers. However, it was not lack of regulation that caused boom and bust but the very nature of central banks, such as the one he is in charge of.

The actual function of central banks has historically been to expand the currency and fund big government and who can deny that is what they have done. The latest round of so-called “quantitative easing” is what would have been called inflation in more rational times and its effect is to make prices soar in general. Moreover, the Bank of England, by ignoring mortgage prices, simply expanded credit as many other banks had done before and the resulting crash was the same as in ­previous decades.

Bruce Crichton

Victoria Road