How do I know. It isn't an investigation finding, it's a deduction following what she said ;)) don't know for second part. For what u asked I'd put it that way, make it simple otherwise it's goinna turn into teachin rocket science to donkeys. Here we go, the general idea is u can't get paid twice... Once because the rescue package is saving a big chunck of ur investments and twice with a collateral... So, the more u indirectly benefit from the rescue package the less or none collateral u get to make it simple. An alternative to say it would be, ur loan part of the rescue package can't get double collateral once directly to garantee the loan twice by boosting the value of investments made when the rescue package kicks in. Thr more directly or indirectly through the financial system u benefit from the rescue package the less or none collateral u get for ur share of the loans comnposing the package. Now u may start to understand why to be treated equally, the countries participating in the package can't get an equal level of collateral. A country not benefiting at all or for very little of the rescue package can't be asked to take risks just to see some other countries making a direct profit of the package, to be fair and offer an equal risk reward balance for the participation in the rescue package for Greece, it is legit to see some countries getting a nice collateral while others will be rewarded through the value of their investment exposed to a much greater risk without the rescue package.
And u should add If u don't get it, I give up.
To be honest I heard the same kind of crap about Finland demand on several french medias telling audiences that countries can't be asking for "special treatment" and or do what they want and more...
Good luck!