John Swinney, Scotland’s Deputy First Minister, has called on Scots not to cross the border into England to celebrate New Year’s Eve. Doing so goes against the “spirit” of the Scottish Government’s Covid restrictions, he says. (No, really?!?) BBC News has more.
Scots have been urged not to travel to England for New Year celebrations to get around the more stringent Covid restrictions north of the border.
There is no travel ban currently in place to stop people going to England, where nightclubs are still open.
But Deputy First Minister John Swinney said doing so would go against the “spirit” of Scottish Covid measures.
He said travelling would be “the wrong course of action” due to the “serious situation” with the Omicron variant.
Case numbers in Scotland hit “alarming” record highs over Christmas and Boxing Day, with the faster-spreading strain now accounting for the majority of all infections.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, who is to update MSPs in a virtual sitting of the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday afternoon, said she expected the figures to rise even more in the days ahead.
Scots have been encouraged to stay at home as much as possible, and to limit any social gatherings to no more than three households.
Large events such as Edinburgh’s traditional Hogmanay street party have been cancelled, with extra curbs in hospitality settings and nightclubs shut down entirely.
Clubs remain open south of the border, where no new restrictions are being imposed, but Swinney told BBC Breakfast that he would “discourage” anyone from travelling to England to see in the new year.
He said: “People are free to make their own judgments. But what we have got recognise is that Omicron is a serious threat to absolutely everybody within our society and we have all got to take measures to protect ourselves by limiting our social contacts and connections and by complying with the restrictions we have in place.
“I think it is the wrong course of action for people to take because we have a serious situation we have got to manage and we encourage everybody to play their part in addressing that.”
People in England have been urged to be “cautious” while socialising, by taking lateral flow tests and sticking to well-ventilated areas.
Ms Sturgeon is to update MSPs on the latest data and plans when Holyrood is recalled from recess for a virtual sitting at 14:00.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
So essentially, she turned the bank into a vehicle for her own vanity, and to counter personal perceived grievances against society. Splendid work.
You would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.
I do have a heart of stone, and I’m still laughing
It caused share prices to fall. So no, I’m not laughing.
Share prices go up and share prices go down.
Well, if you think the shares are now undervalued, then you should BUY BUY BUY, TonyRS!
Oh, wait, svb collapsed already.
Question is, was the share price fall cause or effect?
I think we can all agree it was an effect.
Except, once again, I expect “the little people” will have their pockets picked in order to bail out the Banksters and Regulators who failed to do their jobs.
Capitalise the profits; socialise the losses.
Point taken.
A useful reminder of the limit to compensation from the BoE if your bank folds; £85K, I think.
I believe that the FDIC will try to recover most if not all of depositors money
It is reported the losses on the fixed interest investments exceed the capital of the bank. The fact they have closed the doors suggests it has gone through their capital ratios. If that is so there is simply not enough there to pay off the depositors in full.
Besides, it will take months to unravel once the big law firms and accounting firms get involved and their fees will be eye watering.
Up to $250,000
Delusional. Completely detatched from reality.
Jay Ersapah…said I “feel privileged to help spread awareness of lived queer experiences, partner with charitable organizations, and above all create a sense of community for our LGBTQ+ employees and allies.”
A bit more attention to the job she was paid to do as opposed to her extracurricular activities might have paid dividends. Assuming of course that she was up to the job in the first place.
Sorry – but I would say rising interest rates and holding a lot of fixed income securities is what done it.
Failure to hedge for this risk shows poor financial accumen.
To paraphrase Warren Buffet.It’s only when the tide goes out that you see who’s not wearing a swimming costume.
Yes, and this “living queer” was more interested in the rainbow, signalling virtue and seeking attention.
So, maybe they should have picked someone who could run a large banking business sooner than someone whos best credential is just being gay!
Lefty idiots deserve all they get!
The FT has a sober analysis of what went wrong on the business side.
The age old banking nemesis: asset/liability mismatching.
Here by ‘Unnecessarily eating chicken but thereby risking to sh*t elephants’.
Should be accessible without Paywall through this link.
A bit of insider knowledge/trading on the large customers side also seems to be present. Plus ça change….
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2023/03/12/the_spectacular_unravelling_of_silicon_valley_bank_593578.html?utm_source=rcp-today&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mailchimp-newsletter&mc_cid=673e4aec10
The FT article is not consistent with what has been reported. A temporary solvency problem would be supported by the authorities as that is one of their principal roles. Being a forced seller of that much government bonds would not have seriously upset the bond markets where daily traded volumes are enormous. Some commentators suggest that the losses realised on a sale are in some way different from losses booked when prices fall. That is not really true as bank solvency is a day to day hour to hour issue based on market values.
Management must have known they were bust quite a while ago.
Playing to the gallery of left wing friends is not what they are paid to do and their corporate and regulatory obligations make such activities secondary, to the extent their Directors permit it at all.
Their primary role is to run a compliant, financially secure business. They seem to have invested too much in fixed interest government bonds. I accept the rules do tend towards that but the over-riding obligation is to protect the depositors and the business.
It has been suggested elsewhere that the volume of deposits were so high they were unable to profitably lend (media wrongly calls this “investment”) so they stashed the funds in government securities. Any fool knows that excessive money causes inflation and the principal way of controlling that is for the central banks to raise interest rates. That they have done: too late and too little, I would say, but they did it.
Higher interest rates on all but short term bonds causes a fall in their value. Any bank employee should know that, especially the Risk Officer and whoever decides on investment and liquidity policy within the bank. To get caught out so badly and so suddenly is a disgrace for which heads should roll; disciplinary action should be taken and, I doubt not, litigation will ensue.
As central bank interest rates and guidance has been on a rising trend for so long, and inflation shows no sign of abatement (except in President Biden’s speaches), the falling value of bonds must have been apparent in the management reports at SVB for months. How come no one noticed and adjusted the book accordingly?
I expect that banks around the world will suffer share price drops tomorrow and the sorts of start-ups SVB lent to will also suffer. For most this ought to be short term but the mood of the market is to hammer any stock with any question marks and they generally do not recover quickly. Some VC investment funds and their invested businesses will not survive, no matter how good their underlying businesses. From interviews in California many of them apppear to have had all their surplus cash and all their credit lines with SVB which is unforgivable concentration of risk.
Maybe the FED and FDIC can induce commercial banks to take over SVB but with the likely litigation in prospect, I would be surprised if they thought it worthwhile. Maybe they will agree to take over the balances but not the buisiness; I doubt it.
No tears for Jay please. NHS Trusts will be queuing up to employ her/it/them/whatever
Halifax are you listening?. I withdrew my money because of insisting on pronouns for staff members. They’re the next domino. Get Woke, Go Broke.
It was an asset grab – nothing to do with wokery.