28 Aug 2014

Could an independent heart outweigh a sceptical economic mind?

When it comes to the key battleground of the Independence referendum, a river runs through it. Glasgow, amid the Labour-voting heartland of west Scotland, is where I think it will be won or lost.

The hard pro-independence bloc is formed around the SNP and the non-party progressive left; the hardest part of the unionist bloc includes Orangemen, Conservatives and Labour politicians whose political future depends on a No vote.

But in the middle is Clydeside – a traditional Labour heartland but one with radical traditions, and where people are very proud of moments in history where the heart has ruled the head.

At a public level – on the hustings and TV – the debate is all about economics.

Will Scotland be allowed to use the pound? Will the Bank of England stand behind the Scottish banks? Will the oil money be enough to fund the expanded public spending the SNP is pledged to?

The No campaign answers negative to all this.

And that, plus the implicit threat that the remains of shipbuilding will move south, has been enough to rally the majority of the workforce of the remaining shipyards behind the No campaign.

But for opponents of independence, the worry remains the “sod it factor” (only it the word used here is not “sod”.) For all the warnings from employers, for all the official pleas from big Labour party figures, the fear is that people on Clydeside, and other Labour heartlands, will simply get into the voting booth let their emotions guide their hands to the Yes box.

If you survey the economic arguments against independence they are impressive: Scotland’s deficit, without oil money, runs towards £6bn a year.

Even on the Scottish government’s best scenario, which Westminster does not believe, there is a £1.2bn surplus in 2016 – and even then only if Scotland magically has no debt interest to pay.

On top of that there are the banks.

UK bank assets – ie loans – are nearly five times its GDP. That’s a dangerously large debt.

But on independence, the size of the Scottish banking sector would be over twelve times GDP.

That’s a problem because, on day one it is not yet clear who would stand behind the Scottish banking sector: who would guarantee its deposits, who would regulate etc?

The nightmare scenario being dangled in front of Scottish voters’ eyes is that the remains of engineering move south, and that large parts of banking do likewise.

I went to try these problems out on the strongest demographic for the Yes vote – 18-30 year olds – at the world-famous Sub Club, a nightclub in Glasgow city centre.

Figuring that 2am would be a good time to get people speaking frankly, I collared people who’d come outside for a cigarette. The message could not have been clearer.

“We’re not voting for Alex Salmond,” one worse-for-wear woman tells me. “We’re voting to have our own government. I want to leave aside all that crap about the pound and Trident. We’re voting for something we haven’t had before.”

A young guy tells me “I want full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. So every penny we spend has to be raised by us. For years in every election we might as well not vote for all the effect our votes have at Westminster. Even if it gets tough and we make mistakes, I would rather make them on our own.”

One young woman, a sound engineer in the movie industry, told me there was a different vibe about Scotland. She’d been to Coventry in England and found it dire.

“Here they’re not prejudiced against migrants, against homosexuals, they say ‘Yeah, come in, it’s Scotland, we’re not gonna place effing restrictions on anybody’.”

I try to pin down her accent, a mixture of the Gorbals and somewhere else. “Bulgaria,” she says. She moved a couple of years ago. Does she get a vote? “Aye,” she says.

At Axis Animations, a company that makes adverts and trailers for video games, they employ about 80 people – again many of them from abroad. They trade mainly in euros and dollars and compete with companies in Toronto, Vancouver, Paris and Hollywood.

For Richard Scott, the boss, the big economic arguments being thrown around by the two camps are largely irrelevant.

He says: “We need a currency that is stable. We get paid by a lot of our customers in dollars, others in Euros, so we need a currency that’s predictable against them.”

I ask what criteria he will use to decide. He winces. “I don’t know,” he says. “Clarity on some of the issues, but that may be impossible.”

Like a lot of the “don’t knows” I sense even nuclear-strength macroeconomics will not be big enough to stop him voting Yes, if his gut feeling says so.

I speed along the Clyde in a fast boat, with Tam Brotherstone and Davy Torrance. With one hand they cling to the speeding inflatable, with the other, each points to the places they used to know and work: Fairfields – now BAE Systems – the Yarrow yard, Harland and Wolff.

The remaining workforce of the Clyde shipbuilding industry is, in its majority, voting no.

They’ve been convinced by both public and private warnings that British defence work will move south. But Tam and Davy, long retired, are pounding the cobblestones and walkways by the Clyde trying to change this.

“I think the workforce’s attitude is ‘I’m Alright Jack’ and it won’t do. I’m no economist but if you’ve got an industry with a single customer, you’re doomed. We need to diversify Scottish shipbuilding, with government support, like Germany supports its industry.”

I ask don’t they fear the shipbuilders quitting the Clyde? Tam thinks it’s bluff. “They don’t build ships here out of altruism. They’re here because of our skills – and if they do walk away, don’t you think there is capital in Scotland to pick up the work they abandon?”

Davy shows me the last ever newspaper of the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders work-in, from 1972.

He points to a picture of himself, at the boardroom table of the shipyard they’d taken over and run. After months occupying the supposedly doomed shipyards the Conservative government of Edward Heath caved in and saved them – though not permanently, as the ruinscape of the river banks shows.

He thinks it’s the old radical spirit of Clydeside that’s animating.

“People are talking everywhere”, says Davy, “on the streets, in the swimming baths – people come up to you and talk. I can feel it – people are moving towards Yes.”

Even people sceptical of the independence call admit Scotland could run itself as a separate economy.

“Scotland could most definitely survive as an independent economy”, says Jo Armstrong, former policy adviser to the Scottish executive, who now runs the think tank Fiscal Affairs Scotland.

“But the question is will it be better? Short term the question of how we manage the deficit and what currency arrangement we put in place – both these things will determine how long it takes until things get better. It could last a generation, or it could be worse.”

“It’s not clear to me,” says Ms Armstrong, “that the pro-independence people are being open and honest about the deficit. If we want to increase growth by encouraging more investment, via lower taxes, then we may have to have less in terms of public services short term – or different types of public service. That’s not coming across.”

Here’s my take, with three weeks to go. Of the big macro bogey-issues – banking, debt, oil and the pound – the most critical is banking.

An independent Scotland is going to need a central bank with a very different mindset than the Bank of England: it will have to amass foreign exchange reserves, to guard against the danger of capital flight, and it will have to set up rapidly a credible bank regulation system.

Credibility has to be earned – and it is earned by hard choices.

Long before then, faced with the risks of banks where there is no clear lender of last resort, the finance industry may flow south. This is a big risk and one you have to weight against the potential rewards.

As for the pound: I can’t see an independent Scotland sticking with it for long. It will need fiscal autonomy to balance the reality of falling oil revenues and rising deficits. For that it would need its own currency. All the economies that have successfully dodged their way through the crisis – Iceland, Norway, Denmark – have unique currencies, outside the Euro.

Many Scottish people have an optimistic view of what the rewards of independence might be – the ability to attract new business by manipulating tax rates, the ability to run a more expensive welfare state from oil money etc. But there is no evidence the sums add up, nor can there be until the experiment begins.

But the danger for the London based media is to see these as “economic issues” and the more general desire for independence as a gut issue. It is not.

There is huge frustration among Scottish people with Westminster parties wedded to free market economics. That too is an economic issue and it is powerful. The killer argument for the Yes camp, in the coming weeks, will be that this is the one chance people have to break away from an economic strategy biased towards privatisation, free markets and high inequality.

From the dance floor of the Sub Club to the veterans of Clyde shipbuilding, there is a radicalism in Scotland that wants the chance to try something different to the neoliberal model. And whatever their union leaders say, I doubt people in the Clyde shipbuilding industry are immune to it.

Those who fear the “sod it factor”, once millions of ordinary voters get inside the polling stations on 18 September, may be right.

Follow @paulmasonnews on Twitter

25 reader comments

  1. Philip Edwards says:

    “…Scottish banking sector: who would guarantee its deposits…?”

    Christ, how naive can you get……Why, the same spivs who ripped off Europe, that’s who. The same gangsters who stole from personal accounts in Cyprus. The same thieves who wrecked the economies of Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece.

    Then there’s this: “…at the world-famous Sub Club…”

    With that kind of “analysis” no wonder the Jocks want out from under London, particularly its thick-headed media.

  2. Janet Ireland says:

    At least your written piece does not use the favourite Ch4 phrase “go it alone” . It has such negative conotations and has been used by several presenters including the redoubtable Jon Snow.
    As for the banks I think many including RBS are mainly in London. The Scottish bit is in the name and the prime land they have on the periphery of Edinburgh.

  3. Craig Bryce says:

    You state your economic arguements as if they are absolute and irrefutable truth, when actually they are merely interpretations, which have been refuted by other experts and pundits with equal authority. The fact is our vote counts for nothing in the current UK parlimentary set up. This is irrefutable. Never mind the disgusting campaign of negativity, manipulation of media and outright lies we have to wade through to even attempt an informed choice. The decision to vote Yes is extremely cerebral despite all attempts to somehow devalue it as born of misplaced naive Nationalist passion.

  4. Terence Price says:

    When the ‘Yes’ group talk about the Westminster government, they are ignoring the point for their own purposes, that we had a Scottish Prime Minister plus other Scots running the country in the last government. Under their 13 years the country’s economy went into free fall. RBS the banking giant was run by a Scotsman and we all know what happen to it. They talk about food banks, the NHS, child poverty as though England is free from such problems.

    Saying all this I still want Scotland to stay in the union as I know England as well as Scottand have people who get it wrong. Being together we are better able to overcome our problems due to our size.

    The old saying ‘look before you leap’ which has been passed down through the ages is still relevant today and those wanting independence should balance the costs/benefits now and what they may be in say 30/50 years time. Vote ‘No’ in this referendum. The country’s economy is recovering and the rest of the UK want Scotland to remain in the UK as do some of our closest friends such as Australia, New Zealand.

    1. JP56 says:

      Terence
      The problem for many Labour voters in Scotland and indeed in parts of England and Wales is that from the 1990’s onward nationally Labour has targeted policies at ‘Middle England’ as that is where they win Westminster elections, This, in addition to the party appearing to become very middle class in personnel & presentation along with the seemingly relentless increase in inequality has left many traditionally Labour inclined voters feeling ignored and disenfranchised, This has manifested itself in different ways in different parts of the country but primarily in these people not bothering to vote. In the upcoming Independence Referendum many of them may well vote against the Labour leadership line as they observe senior Labour leaders lining up with the Conservatives and will view them as part of the Westminster establishment. Many of these voters think there is nothing for them to gain from the status quo and may well vote in much bigger numbers than at a general election for change as they have very little to lose from voting Yes. This demographic, as yet unknown in size, along with established nationalists and a significant group of people who see an Independent Scotland as the best method of establishing a fairer society is now looking like it could make the referendum a much closer run contest than originally envisaged.

  5. Scots Anorak says:

    “If you survey the economic arguments against independence they are impressive: Scotland’s deficit, without oil money, runs towards £6bn a year.”

    What on earth is the relevance of the deficit figure without oil? Everyone knows that Scotland has the oil and, indeed, that Scotland’s share of UK oil revenue would be higher as an independent country than its notional share at present, since Tony Blair’s 1999 revisions to the sea border would almost certainly be struck down in international courts. Would it not be more relevant to provide a figure for Scotland’s oil revenue taking in the “English” waters that since 1999 have extended north of Dundee? Is Channel 4 trying to scare people too?

  6. Justin Kenrick says:

    “Credibility has to be earned – and it is earned by hard choices.”

    ‘Hard’ choices normally stands for being willing to be really really hard on the poor, and submissive to the already extremely wealthy.

    I would hope we can earn our credibility the way Iceland has earned hers: by letting the banks fail if they mess up, meaning all the best people the ‘financial’ sector has hoovered up were free to move go productive and creative work. And what is the state of such small countries as Iceland and Ireland after the terrible crash we all experienced? They have bounded back and have higher GDP per head than the UK.

    Your economic analysis of Scotland’s situation is way off the mark because it is based on speaking with economists like Jo Armstrong who have a very pro No analysis, try instead speaking with economists like Jim Cuthbertson: http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2014/07/02/uk-financial-system-at-risk-of-systemic-crisis/

    It is an old story that says ‘Yes is the heart and No is the head’, in fact Yes is the heart and head and hope, and No (whenever I meet it on the doorsteps) is fear and confusion and surprisingly often is also a willingness to hear the arguments and the reasons and to join us in finding a better way forward

  7. Bob says:

    perhaps theres a third way Paul?

  8. HulloHulot says:

    “UK bank assets – ie loans – are nearly five times its GDP. That’s a dangerously large debt.

    But on independence, the size of the Scottish banking sector would be over twelve times GDP.”

    That’s according to the Scotland Analysis papers, but what’s interesting is what happens when the UK’s banking assets are taxed at a flat rate through the Bank Levy.

    The HMRC collects those taxes and publishes data about the receipts as part of their standard working practice, that information can be seen on table 14, page 13 of this document ( http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140206164249/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/receipts/disagg-method.pdf ).

    By the HMRC’s measure, the Scottish banking sector’s assets are only about 7% of the UK whole.

    1. Andrew Dundas says:

      You’re understandably misled by Paul Mason’s narrative.
      It’s the “assets” of our Banks that are almost twelve times greater in value than the annual incomes of everyone in Scotland. Bank assets are, of course, the re-sale value of the loans they have made worldwide.
      Which is as if we had each made loans to other people to a value of 12 times our own incomes. Were even a small number of Scottish Banks’ loans to become ‘non-performing’ (a Bankers’ term for not being repaid) their re-sale values would fall, and Banks registered in Scotland would become bankrupt without any possibility that we could find the money ourselves to provide to our Scottish registered Banks with an emergency loan that was large enough to overturn that bankruptcy. You’ll note that it doesn’t matter where the loans were made, whatever their destination we’d still have to find the money to overcome their bankruptcy.
      The effect of such a bankruptcy would be to freeze all our own money that was in the bankrupt bank – you & I would lose all our money in the Bank.
      Because of that massive risk on Scotland, our Scottish Banks would be unable to borrow money – or take in our savings – at the current rates. Our Banks would have to pay a very large rate of interest to cover the huge risk their borrowings from other people would represent. In turn, those high borrowing costs would mean that borrowers in Scotland – businesses and families – would have to pay very high rates on their borrowings too.
      None of which is a sustainable Banking situation. The remedy would be for our Banks to re-register themselves down south and pay their huge tax-bills there instead of in Scotland. Eventually, we could expect simply to retain back-office work but none of the Head Office stuff.
      All of which is why losing our Union is so important to Scotland.

      1. HulloHulot says:

        Oh, I understand that when Paul Mason referred to the size of the Scottish banking sector he was referring to the banking assets — that confusion, by my recollection, originates in the Scotland Analysis papers.

        My point was that how the assets are distributed appears quite different by the HMRC’s accounting than by the Scotland Analysis paper’s estimation. Some of that might be due to the HMRC’s better taking account of banking subsidiaries.

      2. Andrew Dundas says:

        You’re very mistaken HullHulot.
        The HMRC doesn’t want to know how large a Bank’s assets may be. And HMRC stats don’t tell us either.
        But if you look at the table on page 19 of Mark Carney’s narrative given to us in January , you’ll see the latest total of the Scottish Banks assets – their outstanding loans.
        Scotland’s bank ‘assets’ are worth 12.5 times our combined Scottish incomes. Could you and every other Scot support a mortgage of 12.5 times your income?
        That’s why “independence” will drive the Bank headquarters out of Scotland, taking their tax revenues with them.

      3. Andrew Dundas says:

        I’m trying to be helpful to you, HulloHulot, not quarrel. The tax position of banks’ subsidiaries is a matter for HMRC and has little to do with the Head Office liability for the whole group’s assets.
        So that (for example) when the RBS subsidiary Citizens’ Bank lends money to a customer in its hometown of Chicago, that asset is a loan that any part of RBS could sell: so it has a market value. The loan’s value becomes is part of the balance sheet assets of RBS.
        [I use a named bank for illustrative purposes only – this is not a real example]
        Consequently if any loan or trade of any part of that bank were to lose value – perhaps because the borrower was not as reliable as had been hoped – that would reduce the value of the whole banking group. Were the value of all the assets of RBS (or any other Bank) to become worth less than the bank’s obligation to its customers who had savings with that bank, they must declare themselves ‘bankrupt’ and cease trading at once. That Order ensures that all depositors eventually get their fair share of whatever cash remains available. Plainly, not being able to have access to cash, and to receive less than they’d deposited would be devastating for customers, which is why either central bank or government HAS to intervene.
        Because Scotland’s banks have total assets well beyond our Nation’s ability to support, we could not retain that industry. At first, we’d simply lose the head offices and corporation taxes, but much else would migrate out. Which is not the sort of destiny some of us are seeking.
        I hope that explanation helps.

  9. Tom Ferrour says:

    How much money would a Scottish state save per year if they were to decommission Trident please?

    1. Andrew Dundas says:

      The savings would be negligible. For a start, defence costs for the whole UK are 2% of our total UK income, the bulk of which are spent on the wages of service people and conventional equipment. Our share is c 9% of 2% of UK defence costs: toffees!
      The running costs of the current Trident and missile fleet within the 2% are unknown. They are a tiny fraction of the capital costs that were paid-for years ago. So there’s hardly any savings to be made.
      Personally, I’ve always believed that submarine launched ICBMs were a waste: I agree with the Tory MPs who criticised the ‘Bermuda Agreement’ that PM Macmillan announced to Parliament (I was in the gallery) by saying that the Polaris system was neither independent, nor added useful fire-power to the larger U.S. fleet. They’re a diplomatic token. Now, hunter nuclear powered submarines are much more useful to Scotland and I note that they’d be retained at Faslane.
      For all those reasons and more, I doubt that the U.K., will ever place orders for a replacement fleet. But they might switch the home base of all current nuclear-powered subs to Newport, Conn.

  10. Chris says:

    I don’t know why the London media has suddenly decided to start talking up independence. Why only yes voices in this article? I live in Glasgow and my head and heart say no. And no, Paul, I’m not a Tory or an Orangeman.
    Try speaking to some real Labour people.

  11. Alasdair says:

    Good piece, but I did laugh at the line ‘She’d been to Coventry in England and found it dire.’ A sentiment many English people would wholly agree with!

  12. Simon says:

    As an Englishman, given the choice I would happily say ‘sod it’ and vote for almost anything that does not involve being beholden to the London bubble spivs and political shysters.

    For that reason I would encourage the Scots to vote ‘yes’ and would wish them well, I would also hope that would prompt us poor entrapped souls south of the border to also rise up and kick out the corrupt London power broker politicians and shysters ourselves thus proving us worthy of re-forming the union once more on level terms and governed by principles both nations are comfortable with under a common flag with common goals and values once more.

    Scotland the brave, be brave, do this shake up for the English and Welsh and NI as much as yourselves but not from a perspective of the politics of division and conflict do it from a position of cleansing all of us of the poison that is permeating all our nations from the corrupt elite.

    It is probably a grander opportunity than you realise, take it, invoke the spirit of the Scots from centuries past and embark on a grand and uniting adventure.

    Good luck

  13. Easwald says:

    Your commntary on currency and central bank ‘lender of last resort’ provisions is poorly researched and, frankly, ignorant.

    if Scotland is denied full currency union as proposed then it is a simple cxase of establishing a currency board to sterling on a 1:1 basis. For precedents please look up the history of Hong Kong when, in the midst of bank runs and extreme currency volatility, a currency board to the US dollar was introduced at HK$7.8:US$1. That was in 1983. The same rate and same currency board exists today despite all the turmoil in Asia, the US, China and the world since. Does Hong Kong have a central bank lender of last resort? No. It has a monetary authority which regulates banks and administers the currency board.

    Why doesn’t it need a lender of last resort despite it biggest bank – HSBC – being one of the biggest banks in the world (a multiple of the HK economy on its own) and it having a huge financial sector? Because each of HSBC’s , Bank of China (HK)’s and other banks’ overseas divisions are regulated and administered by the jurisdictions in whicth they operate. HSBC UK is regulated by the BoE, HSBC America by the Fed etc etc. The Scottish financial industry – even as it operates like Singapore and HK banks – would be global in reach but the Scottish monetary authority would only be responsible for the deposits (and that is all that central banks are responsible for) held in Scotland. The other constituent businesses would be regulated and administered elsewhere.

    Yes, fiscal constraints would apply -a s they do in all currency boards – but these need not be straitjackets or that onerous as long as they are credible. Hong Kongf was a basket case when it adopted the US dollar – it has stood it in quite good stead for over 30 years. You think Scotland is incapable of the same – the country which supplied many of the people that ran, adminstered and built Hong Kong?

  14. anon says:

    is one weakness with Trident is that it requires someone to be criminally insane to use it, a pychopath and perhaps to have no worry about being held accountable for their actions ultimately by God.

    these criteria have existed in the past but someday somone might seek to call our bluff.

    the best way to destroy a society is already in operation -capitalism, and a sort of social darwinism now being operated by the EC, ie the survival of the fittest, this encompasses doing what you like in terms of relationships, the filth now found on television, a collapse of family values in the name of freedom, its really the opposite and back to doing what you like basically if you are one of the ‘supposedly’ stronger fish in the pond,

    fortuantely there is a compensatroy factor at work in nature and those most up against it often end up as the fittest (not public school)

  15. Michael Waed says:

    David Cameron needs to be very careful about back tracking on the refusal to allow Scotland the pound.

    Talking to English people in pubs, most people want Scotland to stay a part of the UK, but are adamant that if it leaves, it cannot have the pound. Most believe it is inconceivable that you could have a “foreign” power in partial control of your currency.

    The feeling is so strong that I’m hearing talk of civil unrest from some people if the English government goes back on it’s word tor refuse to allow Scotland to take the pound.

    As for Mr Salmond’s alleged threat to refuse to pay it’s share of the UK debt, the answer is simple. In the event that it happens, the UK should embargo ALL Scottish imports including Whisky, wool / woollen products, fish etc. and not allow any Scottish product or produce to enter the UK either Directly or Indirectly.

    The UK government should also withdraw all UK Military bases and Civilian Jobs from North of the border eg National Insurance Headquarters, and NOT allow the current workers to enter England and work here (non EU nationals). Thereby removing tens of thousands of jobs from Scotland plus creating those jobs here.

    The UK should also set up border crossing points between Scotland and England and charge £100 per car to cross the border with all vans, trucks and commercial vehicles banned (trade embargo so no need for freight transfer or workers). This would both reduce the size of the Scottish Tourism industry and help recover some of the owing monies from the debt.

    Any Scot wanting to work in England should have to apply for a Visa to do so and should be subject to an additional non EU citizen income tax on any monies earnt that would again go towards recovering the Scottish share of the UK debt.

  16. Andrew Dundas says:

    A correction is needed here! Please refer to the appendices of Mark Carney’s January homily in Edinburgh.
    Bank of England stats records that Bank assets (loans, bonds and shares) amount to 12.5 times the GDP of Scotland in 2012. That compares with Ireland at 7.4 times GDP and Iceland at 7.1times. [As you’ll be aware, Paul, both Ireland and Iceland are still severely indebted to other Central Banks that bailed them out].
    The UK as an whole is quite stretched at an asset ratio of 4.5 times our combined GDP; that large ratio was a contributory part of our 2008 crisis. [By way of contrast, the USA has a bank asset ratio of 1.2 times GDP].
    For those reasons, Scotland would need to relinquish the Head Offices of most of our financial services firms along with their very large Corporation Tax revenues. So that one of the main outcome of “independence” would be our loss of “Head Offices” from Scotland. And most of our Cor[poration Tax receipts too. Over future times one could foresee that headquarter functions would migrate south, leaving Scotland with back office processing.
    It won’t happen, but were Scotland to refuse to accept a proportionate share of UK national debt, the UK government could refuse us international recognition with disastrous consequences for all of the Scottish people.

  17. paul says:

    Paul, you mention Scotland’s £6 Billion deficit, why not mention it in the context of the £100 Billion UK deficit?

  18. Chris says:

    Is the Yes campaign a 21st century Darien scheme?

    Will the EU gladly admit an independent Scotland, given the separatist tensions within its member states or just drag its heels in typical fashion?
    Will America & its supporters welcome it or just smile for the cameras and then present outrageous negotiating positions to do business
    Maybe Russia & China will welcome a new independent country; But with friends like that who needs enemies?

    Where in the world is there a successful alternative to Neo-Liberalism? Venezuela, Bolivia or Argentina are certainly different and never out of crisis.

    Good luck to Scotland and its Romantic longing for a new world, a better world. You’re going to need it.

  19. George Sutherland says:

    This Paul has been listening too much to the NO propaganda. Many of the figures they use have been debunked by careful analysis of the GERS figures but it would appear that Paul has largely ignored these figures in his report.

Comments are closed.