Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


SNP will vote to block HBOS takeover

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 October 2008
MPs from the Scottish National Party will today try to block the proposed takeover of HBOS in a Commons vote.
The party last night secured a vote on the order which would give the green light to the merger with Lloyds TSB by setting aside competition law.

Echoing The Scotsman's position on the issue
, the SNP say questions remain unanswered about the takeover.

First Minister Alex Salmond told the SNP conference on Sunday that the £37 billion capital injection for three of Britain's biggest banks had thrown up the question of whether this funding was available to Lloyds TSB and HBOS separately.

"Before they put our money into this bail-out, we want to be sure that it is in the public interest and in the interests of jobs and decision-making in Scotland," he said.

But HBOS has said the deal with Lloyds TSB was in the best interests of all involved.

SNP treasury spokesman Stewart Hosie said it was "necessary and appropriate" for MPs to vote against the legislation.

"It would be inappropriate for this measure to go through on the nod at this stage when so many important questions remain unanswered.

He said: "It is vital that the cost of any takeover is identified – the cost to consumers and business from a lack of competition, and the cost in terms of lost jobs – before a proper assessment can be made about the Scottish national interest, and before any takeover measures can be determined."



Page 1 of 1

 
1

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 22/10/2008 10:33:21
If every Scottish MP in Westminster voted against the HBOS takeover it wouldnt make any difference to the result. They would still require over 200 English MPs to vote their way to have any chance of winning.
That is what the Union of the Kingdoms is all about.
The largest nation dictating all policy all legislation and all national laws.
We are nothing more than a national inconsequence.
2

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

22/10/2008 11:18:14
Alex Salmond - 21 September

"But the only show in town at the present moment is the Lloyds TSB bid for HBOS and Lloyds TSB are an excellent company with substantial Scottish roots."

Am I the only one who is fed up of politicians - Gordon Brown included - using HBOS for their own political ends?

If one says its black the other says its white.
3

Douglas Eckhart,

Edinburgh 22/10/2008 11:22:42
The Scotsman is to be congratulated for championing this cause. The saviour of HBOS is not for any sentimental nationalistic reasons (although the bank has a proud history) but basis common sense.

In a time whne we are trying to preserve jobs in Scotland (and Edinburgh in particular), it is insane to allow this takeover which will result in jobs migrating south and the HQ functions of the bank gravitating to London - added to this the lack of competition, and it all adds up to a very bad deal for the Scottish economy... sure it may 'benefit shareholders' but *UK* shareholders do not have the best interests of the long term Scottish economy as a high priority.

The competition laws should NOT be waived to allow this to go through.

This is why it was sickening to hear Scottish Labour complain about Salmond asking the deal to be questioned. Any illusion that Labour was acting in the best interests of Scotland were blown out of the water with that statement and I hope the voters of Glenrothes take note, although I have my doubts seeing how most of them are Labour drones.
4

Miss H,

22/10/2008 12:04:51
3 - quote from 21 September..

We were told then that the merger was necessary, that competition rules should be sidelined to save HBOS but now that the government is claiming credit for saving it by putting £37 billion of taxpayers money (albeit borrowed) into the pot things are different.

5

Alan B,

22/10/2008 12:07:13
#sm753

Alternatively why do you just accept so blindly anything Brown says. Brown is the root cause of so much that has gone wrong with the British economy so why would anyone trust him or his judgement. The fact is Brown needs to cover up Browns own failing in running of the economy.

The fact is many of those against this merger are senior financial figures not just politicians. As such should we not listen to their judgement. Blindly following what Brown says just is not credible.

The fact is you like the rest of us really do not know exactly what is going on and what is needed to ensure the banks can continue to operate.

But basic questions should be asked.

Like if Llyods needs a bail out itself how can this merger help. Llyods while also has exposure to the credit markets but not nearly as much as HBOS.

If the credit markets had not dried up would HBOS be in a mess? If it is just primarily the credit markets that is the problem why can the government via the BOE not lend to HBOS on a commerical basis in a similar way to the credit markets did.

How much would it cost to save HBOS separately from Lloyds? Would it be significantly more expensive.

As such you need to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches. This merged banks will have severe repercussions on competition. My own opinion is this government has allowed so many mergers previously in the banking sector that were also detrimental to competition to create an oligopolistic market place with huge british banks. As such are the government using this crisis to further pursue this strategy.

If the banks if effectively bust why should shareholders get anything. We have the ridiculous situation of them now complaining they may not get dividends for 5yrs.

Realistically the only real feasible way is for Brown to resign and have a new government looking at this freshly. An independent commission looking into the bail out should have been set up with financial exp
6

Alan B,

22/10/2008 12:07:48
... experts reviewing and implementing a bail out strategy quickly.

The other issue is if HBOS is in such a mess why Brown did not act last year after the NR crisis.

I think people are suspicious of Browns actions because it is quite hard to believe anyone could be so incompetent.
7

Alan B,

22/10/2008 12:16:58
#The Federalist

Your Salmond quote shows that Salmond was supporting Brown in the heat of the crisis to help sort out the mess.

What has happened is Brown has used this crisis for his own political ends. Brown also is the only one with the full information and therefore opposition politicians and even the devolved governments can only base opinions on the scraps of information they get.

As more information comes out and the crisis evolves then positions change.

Salmond supported the merger initially as you quote based on the fact it was the only game in town. that obviously does not mean if a consortium of scottish financiers come up with a buy out plan like that suggest to Alex Neil he would not support that. But at the end of the day that only has/had a small chance of comming about.

We are now in the situation where the government is bailing out the whole banking sector and prepared to put huge sums of cash into propping up the sector. That obviously changes the game and with Lloyds also being reported to need a bail out, the serious questions need to be asked to see whether this merger is really in the national interest particularly as it will be very damaging to scotland and also competition.
8

,

22/10/2008 12:56:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

SEUMAS,

fearn 22/10/2008 12:59:19
The H.B.O.S.saga is purely political as Brown & Darling are hell bent on giving grief to the S.N.P.
H.B.O.S. could have been supported like Northern Rock was, but Westminster seized a chance to discredit the Scottish banks.
10

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 22/10/2008 13:17:01
Go for it Alex. Broon's HBOS raid was as obscene as it was cynically calculated.
In other more enlightened societies he would tried for treason.
11

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

22/10/2008 13:28:08
#11 I see there are a lot of conspiracy theorists implying that Brown has somehow manufactured all of this to save the Union.

He has not.

What he is doing is using the events in this crisis for his own political ends to save the Labour Party.

The Union is incidental.
12

Westfield Bairns,

falkirk 22/10/2008 15:06:52
Gordon Brown and Nulabour are Anti-Scottish
As stated before the merger will go through for the above reason, it's as plain as the nose on your face. However the Nulabor spin doctors like sm753 will spout the usual Unionist (Scotch Minnion ) propoganda
13

Chris42,

22/10/2008 16:07:22
SM753 - "Supposing the merger is blocked, or LTSB walks away.
HBOS ends up at least 72% (or possibly 100%, with a shareholder wipeout) nationalised.
Then what? How does it operate?How long in state hands?
How is it reprivatised? Who is it sold to then?"

Fair questions, but if the merger was blocked would HBOS not be in the same situation as RBS now is given RBS is 63% nationalised? No-one seems concerned about loss of jobs and decision-making at RBS.
14

,

22/10/2008 16:20:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
15

Chris42,

22/10/2008 17:01:21
18 Joe Kerr,
I'm against the takeover as I understand the implications in terms of jobs and decision making. I was just querying why SM753 thought a takeover was preferable to part or full nationalisation. However, I do wonder what will happen to the RBS HQ when it is re-privatised.
16

Miss H,

22/10/2008 17:20:44
I can't believe this debate about will jobs go - d'oh. Walk down any high street where they have a Lloyds AND an HBOS. They are not both going to stay open are they?
17

Fairfax,

22/10/2008 17:51:17
Miss H (20): "Walk down any high street where they have a Lloyds AND an HBOS. They are not both going to stay open are they?"

That's obviously correct. However, without the Lloyds takeover, HBOS will likely be nationalized, with a Government equity stake at least as large as for RBS. In that case, I suspect we would also see branches close and jobs lost. In other words, although I oppose the Lloyds takeover, simply because of the risk to Lloyds from HBOS £100 billion credit crunch debt, I don't think there's any alternative to jobs being lost in the banking sector: it will inevitably contract.
18

Weegiewarbler,

SM753 22/10/2008 17:57:11
If Iceland leads the so called "Arc Of Insolvency"
And it's had it's apparently direst October in recent history.
Why is it's currency outpacing the pound on international money markets?
Just indicative of the fact that Gordy is not all knowing perhaps, and therefore this HBOS deal should be shelved UNTIL satisfactory answers can be supplied, and if they can't - it should just be shelved.
19

antp,

UK 22/10/2008 20:51:02
once again we are hearing selfish voices on these forums only interested in getting a good deal for Scotland.

I, for one, am all in favour of EVERYONE getting a good deal. at the end of the day even thousands more jobs are in danger of going down the pan if this merger, rightly or wrongly, does not go ahead, in Edinburgh and Halifax too, as well as god knows how many more throughout the whole UK.

But what we are seeing on here are the cynics that think there is a conspiracy at westminster to deny Scotland of absolutely everything and anything. Granted, if the Tories were in power I can understand anyone thinking that, but thank god they are not. In time - a long time - the reasons might be revealed of what chaos might have erupted if the merger was/wasn't allowed to go ahead.

At the end of the day it all comes down to, for the people involved in the merger, food on the table, kids in school, free health service, and a roof over all our heads with a bit of money at the end of the day if possible. Before you condemn any such merger, consider what will happen to all the people that will be chucked on the scrapheap, regardless of whether it goes ahead or not.


But what does it matter about that? I hear you say - as long as the majority are south of the Border!
20

,

22/10/2008 23:49:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

antp,

UK 23/10/2008 11:48:45
Hi Jock at number 24, point taken, but when it comes to matters like this my Taxpayers money has exactly the same importance as yours, you must agree with that.
22

argonaut,

east lothian 23/10/2008 17:38:36

this whole saga stinks to high heaven, to watch darling and broon act like the saviours of the UK ans scotland makes me sick. Its like the u boat captain picking up the survivors of the sunken ship - only to declare that it was his sub that fired the torpedos !

When you look at the detail it makes me mad - the people of the UK and scotland will be paying for this for years to come, the borrowing - the deficit far exceeds GDP.

darling n broon saw what was happening and decided to kill 2 birds with one stone - bail out the scottish banks and use that to undermine the case for a referendum on scottish independence. For gods sake people - this bail out cash was borrowed on the international markets - the UK had zulch left in the kitty - it was all blown along with the bullion reserves ages ago. Any western country can borrow cash - it is not the preserve of the Uk government !

In todays and the future world - small smart countries with resources are the ticket - the bigger you are the harder you fall - Truly

a countrys cash must in the future come from other places rather than the financial sector - its just to dodgy and regardless of what the money men say - nothing is a sure bet - just look at the economic mess that has taken over the world - if we rely on the financial sector so heavily in the future to generate wealth then we have not learned our mistakes and history is destined to repeat its self. The City and the people that run it aint going to change - they may pretend to us that things are different but it will be the same.
Would it not be better for us scotland a small - potentially smart country to utilise what we have learned - to become once again enlightened - to break away from our old partners in the this tired Union and create an attractive small smart country not reliant on only the financial sector for our well being , not to rely on strategic nuclear weapons for our defence , not to participate in wars of folly , not having to beg to
23

JoeMiddleton,

Edinburgh 25/10/2008 00:29:49
what a shock, Labour and Tories pushed it through together. What is the difference between these parties again? Is there any?
24

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 31/10/2008 08:56:04
Everyone here in scotland has the power to do something with this organisation by removing their accounts Business and personal and investments from this group it would then produce an aura of no confidence in lloyds tsb and they would have to renew their strategy, HBOS should remain independant in Scotland they should now have the powers to print their own bank notes removed

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Politics

More Politics >>

More Scottish National Party

More Scottish National Party >>

Features

Paperboy Paperboy Customised news
Scottish Business Briefing Scottish Business Briefing ...Sign up today
Scotsman Hotels Scotsman Hotels

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.