It is a long
established legal fact that any money deposited into a bank instantly
becomes the bank's money .
What I learned from
providing the legal evidence for that fact at the meetings I have
attended across Scotland is that very very few people realise that is
the case. (Links to the evidence – see below).
If you are a YES
supporter, (if you are reading this you probably are), please start
to consider that it has an importance beyond just how you may react
to that knowledge, how it affects you personally.
My hope is that you
will start sharing and discussing what you know with NO supporters.
Just ask them very simply whether they are 100% happy with banks
owning their money – not least after the crash of 2008, and with,
as one example, RBS failing their recent stress test.
Irrespective of whether
we are Yes or No, do any of us want to lend our wages, our salaries,
our welfare benefit, our pension to our bank – because that, in
effect, is what we are doing.
Might even those who
were No want an alternative, could you show them that alternative,
one that is available with Scottish independence?
Because it is with
independence, and probably only with independence, that we can change
that legal position – so that your money always remains your
money.
How do we change it?
Upon independence we can establish a Scottish Central Bank in which
we as individuals open an account in our name and retain full legal
ownership of our money.
That does not, and will
not, stop us using commercial banks, but it most certainly, and
definitively, establishes who owns our money.
That sounds
like theory, something that will only happen when Scotland becomes
independent.
However, can
I already show you a very very simple example of how that works in
practice?
Yes! In this
very simple example. How to show what independence provides for Scotland - now!
At each of
the meetings I have attended, I have asked anyone who wishes to see a
change over who owns their money to put a £1 coin in a bottle, and
asked them to complete a form and sign it.
So far, I
have delivered three such bottles, with the £1 coins inside, to the
Parliament building at Holyrood, and have delivered them into the
safe custody of the First Minister of Scotland.
Those
bottles are a very simple, and deliberately very simple, example of
one basic function of a future Scottish Central Bank. A place to
deposit your money - and still retain ownership of your money.
The
individual proof of ownership arises from the forms that have been
completed and signed - they are the permanent record of who owns
the money that has been deposited.
Call that
stage 1 – how to start a Central Bank, and how to change the
ownership of money from the banks to the individuals who worked for
it and earned it.
The signing
of the form goes one step further than just establish a record of who
owns each £1 – it also includes a promise, a promise that is
intended to be kept, because it is fully backed by that £1 coin.
That promise
allows me to show you another example for an entirely different
reason – an example of the change that you can create if you
want to help. How to start a Scottish currency, by, of and for the people of Scotland.
Stage 2:
How a new Scottish currency can be established, one which is based
on what is known as “full reserve banking”, again not in theory
but in day to day practice. It is based on who you trust when they
make you a promise.
The next
post on this blog, and the next clip on Facebook, will therefore
address:
“Promises”.
the
“Promises” made by the Banks.
And those
that appeared in something called “The Vow”,
. The
evidence:
If you wish
to double check and verify for yourself the legal position, please
use these links:
Carr v
Carr and Davaynes v Noble
: This link will take you to a short piece via the Cobden Centre:
Foley v
Hill: This link will take you to Lord Cottenham, and his words:
“The money placed in custody of a banker is, to all intents and
purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases ...”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foley_v_Hill
The
Office of Fair Trading (Respondents) v Abbey. National plc &
Others ( Appellants):
The Supreme Court place their decisions in the form of pdfs, so I
cannot give you a direct link, therefore please go here to the
Supreme Court:
Copy and paste this … The Office of Fair Trading (Respondents) v
Abbey. National plc & Others ( Appellants) … into the search
box and you will down load what is the full opinion from the Supreme
Court in 2009. It is lengthy.
If
you go to 103, you will find Lord Mance saying … “The
bank might (especially under a basic banking contract which did not
allow any overdraft in any circumstances) be content to operate on
the basis that its profit would come solely from its power to use
money which customers deposited with or arranged to have transferred
to it. That power follows from the bank’s ownership of money deposited with or transferred to it. ..”
*********************
PS: That is from 2009, and directly relates to why the question of
“bank charges” being fair or unfair remains unresolved –
something (involving literally £ Bns) I will deal with that very much
later.
No comments:
Post a Comment