Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


One rule for Lloyds, one for everyone else, signals Darling

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: 19 November 2008
ALISTAIR Darling yesterday effectively slammed the door on a rival bid to keep HBOS an independent bank, when he set tough conditions on any alternative rescue deal.
The Chancellor made it clear that the Treasury would not match its offer to buy shares in a stand-alone bank at the same rate as that for the takeover by Lloyds TSB.

In a statement to parliament, he effectively set the bar higher for alternatives to the takeover. He said there was "no automatic right of access" to the government's financial rescue package, which was only open to "credible" senior management teams with clear funding and a sustainable business plan.

The move was interpreted as a slap-down to the efforts of two of Scotland's leading financiers, Sir George Mathewson and Sir Peter Burt, to come up with an alternative.

Last night, Sir Peter said that the Chancellor's move, on the eve of today's vote by Lloyds TSB shareholders on the proposed takeover, made an alternative bid "effectively improbable".

He said the statement was "regrettable", as he and Sir George had been making good progress in raising £500 million – the gap between the £11.5 billion of new capital offered to HBOS by the Treasury, and the £12 billion its board said was needed to keep it independently afloat.

Sir Peter told The Scotsman: "For those seeking to keep HBOS independent, it (the Treasury] has raised every hurdle it could find to the highest possible level. Although ostensibly leaving the decision to shareholders, the barriers to any alternative proposal are now so great as to make any such proposal effectively improbable.

"It is particularly sad as we were making good progress, and were on course to raise at least the difference between the £11.5 billion and the £12 billion needed to keep HBOS independent.

"Although we are still looking at other options, it appears likely that the takeover, with the consequent loss of jobs and the anti-competitive aspects noted by the Office of Fair Trading, will come to pass unnecessarily. But what the government is determined to get, it has the power to ensure it gets."

Jim Spowart, another prominent businessman who had attempted to engineer an alternative rescue, was also furious. He said: "If George Mathewson and Peter Burt do put another offer in, that offer will be at a disadvantage to Lloyds TSB. How is that an even playing-field? That is an affront to democracy."

Under the terms of the £50 billion bank recapitalisation plan announced by Mr Darling on 13 October, the government will buy up to £17 billion of ordinary and preference shares in HBOS and Lloyds TSB at a discounted rate of 8.5 per cent (plus 1.5 per cent costs that the banks must meet).

The purchase price was set at 113.6p a share for HBOS and 173.3p for Lloyds. But shares in both have since fallen sharply and last night stood at 63p for HBOS and 131.2p for Lloyds. Mr Darling's statement makes clear that ordinary shares will in future be bought at a price that reflects any recent fall in value – offering a worse deal than a month ago.

In addition, the government could expect a 14 per cent return on bank preference shares – up from the 12 per cent it has demanded under the current takeover proposal.

One City source said there were now clear incentives for HBOS and Lloyds TSB shareholders to back the takeover as the alternative was far less financially appealing: "The Treasury is saying supporting Burt and Mathewson is like turkeys voting for Christmas."

The SNP and Liberal Democrats, who have urged a full examination of alternative rescues for HBOS in the wake of coverage in The Scotsman, repeated concerns about the effect on jobs.

MSP Alex Neil, of the SNP, said: "The Treasury seems to be doing everything it can to inject doubt and frustrate alternate plans that could keep HBOS independent and safeguard competition and tens of thousands of jobs. It is increasingly clear that the UK government holds all the cards in this deal."

Tavish Scott, leader of the Scottish Lib Dems, said: "Is the Chancellor really saying he will allow an independent HBOS to collapse? That is not a credible statement from the UK government."

But Accord, a union representing HBOS staff, said the bank could not survive as an independent entity and the Lloyds takeover represented the best deal for staff. General-secretary Ged Nichols said there was also a risk that the bank would be sold off piecemeal if the government was forced to take a larger stake and effectively nationalised it.

Mr Nichols said: "Because of the bank's reliance on the wholesale market for funding and its exposure to the UK housing and commercial property sectors, we do not believe that HBOS could have a secure and sustainable future on its own."

Shane O'Riordain, a spokesman for HBOS, said: "We reiterate our view that Sir Peter Burt and Sir George Mathewson have not provided either a business plan or a funding plan to take this company forward."

ANALYSIS - Bill Jamieson

Not so much a rout as a disaster, with taxpayer losing £10.5bn instantly


ANOTHER black day for Scotland's banks – and a deeply apprehensive one for all who use them or work for them.

Yesterday shares in HBOS sank a further 15 per cent to 63p, taking the fall from their peak last year to 91 per cent. At this level the bank is price-tagged at just £4 billion – £40 billion of value having vaporised this year.

It is little better at rival Royal Bank of Scotland. Yesterday its shares sank a further 6.7 per cent to a new 12-month low of 41.7p. This price-tags the group, which claimed a year ago to be one of the world's top five banks, at just £18 billion.

The latest falls have been driven by fears that the deepening recession will trigger even greater bad debt write-offs and writedowns than already provided for under the government's recapitalisation plan – and could necessitate yet more taxpayer cash injections.

As matters now stand, taxpayers stand to lose £10.5 billion instantly on the re-financing plans already under way.

For RBS, the government has underwritten a rights issue at 65.5p a share to raise £20 billion. At Lloyds TSB the rights price the government will pay is 173.3p. And for HBOS it is underpinning an £11.5 billion cash injection at 113.6p.

These prices are well above the level at which these shares stand now, and the aggregate gap between them is £10.5 billion.

Do share prices matter? Yes – on three counts. First, they are an alternative means for raising capital. But as confidence has drained from the banking sector, it is highly unlikely that anyone bar the government would put up money by buying new shares now.

Second, they are a barometer of confidence in the bank and in the wider economy. And even with the prospect of further interest rate cuts and a tax-cutting package to be unveiled next Monday, confidence is sinking by the day. Third, bank shares are a mainstay of pension funds. And many facing retirement will be hit.

As for HBOS, Alistair Darling has now raised the barriers for an alternative bidder to such insurmountable levels that there is no choice but for shareholders to accept the Lloyds TSB takeover.

The implied price last night was 79p – down almost 25 per cent in a week. This is no bank rout. It is a disaster.

Last-ditch legal bid could still thwart takeover, bankers hope

SENIOR banking figures are considering a last-ditch legal attempt to overthrow the controversial Lloyds TSB takeover of HBOS.

The plan is to lodge an appeal with the Competition Appeals Tribunal against the decision by Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, to set aside the Office of Fair Trading's (OFT) concerns over competition policy.

The tribunal, set up under the 2002 Enterprise Act, can review and overrule decisions made by the minister on merger and market references.

Cases are heard before a panel consisting of three members: either the president, Sir Gerald Barling, or one of the chairmen judges, and two ordinary members.

Lay members include the economist Professor Andrew Bain and the Scots advocate Peter Grant-Hutcheson.

A letter, seen by The Scotsman, has been drafted to the tribunal citing two grounds for appeal. The first is that Lord Mandelson failed to keep an open mind in arriving at his decision to put aside OFT concerns about the takeover.

It is claimed his discretion was fettered by pronouncements by Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, and Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, when they declared that competition rules would be waived when the takeover plan was first announced. "In view of statements made by members of the Cabinet and the collective responsibility of Cabinet, we would argue that the previous statements of the Prime Minister and Chancellor about the merger have fettered the Secretary of State in reaching his decision," the letter states.

The second reason for appeal was that "the grounds for making the decision at the time the decision was made were not reasonable by the Secretary of State".

The letter argues that it was not the takeover bid that provided financial stability to the UK banking system, but the initiative launched by the government on 13 October to provide guarantees, loans and capital to banks.

"The Secretary of State should either refer the merger to the Competition Commission, as recommended by the OFT, or provide another reason as to why it is in the public interest not to refer the decision to the OFT," the letter states.

Bill Jamieson

Fuel factor pushes down inflation to 16-year low

CHEAPER fuel prices sent inflation falling at its fastest rate for 16 years during last month and paved the way for more interest rate cuts.

The Consumer Prices Index – the government's official benchmark of the cost of living – slowed to 4.5 per cent in October from 5.2 per cent the previous month.

The bigger-than-expected 0.7 per cent decline is the largest monthly drop since April 1992, the Office for National Statistics said.

Motorists are finally feeling the benefit of falling forecourt prices as crude oil tumbles to less than half its mid-July peak. The average price of a litre of petrol fell 7.1p to 104.5p in the month to October, with diesel dropping 7p to an average 116.3p.

But the sharp fall brings home warnings of the threat of deflation – negative inflation – next year from Bank of England governor Mervyn King and Prime Minister Gordon Brown. A prolonged cycle of falling prices could send the UK into a deep slump.

Experts said interest rates could fall further from the current 53-year low of 3 per cent to kick-start the economy.

Parties battle over future public spending

LABOUR and the Conservatives clashed over spending plans yesterday, with each side trying to outflank the other on cuts.

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, shelved his party's promise to match the government's growth in public expenditure under a future Tory administration from 2010. He insisted the move was crucial to avert the inevitable tax rises Labour's policies of high spending and spiralling borrowing would reap.

But the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, pledged the government would be more efficient and hinted at further savings in Monday's Pre-budget Report.

Yvette Cooper, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, also said yesterday "there may be scope to go beyond" the £30 billion in savings already recommended in the Gershon review of government spending.

• A poll from Ipsos Mori found the Tories' lead over Labour cut to just 3 points.

Thousands more lose jobs

THE jobs axe cut deeper into the UK economy yesterday, with thousands more posts being slashed as unemployment edged closer to the two million mark. Plumbing and building supplies firm Wolseley announced plans to cut 2,000 jobs and close more than 200 branches in the UK and Ireland. Union leaders said National Express was to trim more than 300 workers from its East Anglia franchise. The firm said it was also reviewing catering on its Scotland-London east coast franchise. And Independent News and Media said it was axeing 90 posts, mainly editorial.








Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

19/11/2008 00:10:48
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Bring it Off,

UK 19/11/2008 00:11:01
British Foreign Policy in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai as illustrated by those who accompanied Gordon Brown there recently.

We need oil - swap you nuclear for it?

Mike Beaumont—Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd.;
Malcolm Brinded CBE—Shell (Royal Dutch Shell)
Philip Cox—International Power
Tom Delay—The Carbon Trust
Philip Green—United Utilities
Dr. Tony Hayward—BP
Lady Barbara Judge—United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
Sam Laidlaw—Centrica
Professor Keith Burnett CBE FRS—Sheffield University
Professor Malcolm Grant CBE MA LLD—University College London
Right hon. Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
We'll sell you some nice planes with cool engines to go with your palaces.

Sir John Rose—Rolls-Royce
Then we'll build and manage the airstrips so you can land.

Christopher Hyman—Serco Group plc
Don't worry about the insurance premiums. We can do you a good deal.

Lord Levene of Portsoken KBE—Lloyd's of London
John Napier—Royal and Sun Alliance
The banks could do with some cash though and some business.

David Hodgkinson—HSBC Holdings
Peter Sands—Standard Chartered Bank
We can even install personal ATMs for you to access the cash from the banks in the comfort of your own palace.

Leo Quinn—De La Rue
We'll even build the banks for you and other nice looking offices. We like vegetable shapes in London you know.

Graham Cartledge—Benoy
Tony Douglas—Laing O'Rourke
John McDonough—Carillion
Mouzhan Majidi—Foster + Partners
Ian Tyler—Balfour Beatty
We'll make sure you have the technology to defend the tall buildings as well. Planes, trains, tanks, you name it! No one will fly anything into them... oh.

Angad Paul—Caparo Group
Dick Olver—BAE Systems
If all else fails we might even return some of the stuff we've "borrowed" all those years ago. Please be our friends.

Neil MacGregor—British Museum
Sir Nicholas Serota—The Tate
Don't worry about him, he's just making the numbers up for the rest of them.

Richard Lambert—CBI

3

SkeptikScot,

19/11/2008 00:17:36
"Tories' lead over Labour cut to just 3 points" was what caught my eye! I reckon Lab are gonna sneak it with a small majority. Who would have thought it?!
4

Forward not Back,

19/11/2008 00:22:54
So HBoS shareholders vote the bank into oblivion with a gun pointed at their heads?
5

karin.m,

19/11/2008 00:25:55
here has anyone seen the bnp membership list there are labour and conservative ex candidates on it!!!

nurses doctors police army etc.
6

karin.m,

19/11/2008 00:26:38
conan come to the piano bar now i will give you the link
7

karin.m,

19/11/2008 00:27:43
guess which party wasnt on it????

now who are the nazis again..............
8

Gorach,

Dunadd 19/11/2008 00:28:44
Aye,whatever your political leanings,this is an attack on Scotland.

I won't be doing business with Lloyds.


9

Another Saturday Night,

19/11/2008 00:29:48
Darling is right.

Why would we want to throw money at private equity who might be sniffing around.


This approach was tried in Japan

Shinsei- Ripplewood
Tokyo Sogo- Lone Star etc

What happened?

They did well for a while, the PE boys wipped out biliions, and now they are back in trouble, with no management hanging around.

Only the blind SNP could imagine it would be any different in Scotland.
10

Tris,

19/11/2008 00:30:13

Ah yet another benefit of the Union.......Corrupt practices from the UK government.

What does it matter if there is no competition in Scotland's banks? Maybe some of the English ones will open up here instead. All to the benefit of London.

Thanks Darling and Brown, you parcel of rogues.

I rather suspect Conan, that John Smith's soul will be vomiting at the present moment.
11

Bring it Off,

UK 19/11/2008 00:32:06
Tony Blair (remember him?) desperately wants to keep his job as Middle East peace envoy when Barack Obama succeeds George Bush in the White House in January, I'm told.

"He wants to remain a major player on the world stage." a well-informed source tells me. "It keeps him in the public eye - and boosts his earning potential on the lecture circuit.

"Also, if he carries on, he keeps the security and the private jets and still gets treated like a world statesman. He likes all that."

Critics claim Blair could have achieved much more in the Middle East if he had done the job full time, rather than dividing his time between his diplomatic role and earning money.

It's claimed he has earned £12 million since he left Downing Street last year, including £4.6 million for his memoirs and £2 million from an American bank. It's also claimed he only spends one week a month on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Officially, whether or not Blair continues as Middle East envoy is in the gift of a so-called "quartet" made up of the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union.

But in reality, I'm told, it will be the Americans' decision. "It's the Americans who have the clout, because they pay the bills and write the cheques," I was told.

Will Obama - urged by Blair last week to lead Middle East peace efforts - want some continuity? Or will he regard Blair as too closely associated with Bush and all the controversy over the Iraq war?

Insiders tell me that whether the former PM remains in the Middle East job could depend on whether the Blairs' close friend Hilary Clinton becomes Obama's Secretary of State.

So, over to you, Hilary...

12

Macd123,

19/11/2008 00:32:52
Can someone please tell Darling and Brown not to come back to Scotland? They clearly value their careers and their party above all else and are happier in their adopted home.
13

Tris,

19/11/2008 00:38:08

#13

Good to see that nice Mr Blair doing so well for himself, dont you think? He so deserves it.

It seems though that there aren't enough days in the week or weeks in the month for all his money-making schemes. Perhaps he could have a word with Mr Brown. He's the nearest thing on Earth to God. Perhaps between them they could give Blair 8 days a week and 6 weeks in a month.
14

Hmm ...,

19/11/2008 00:38:59
... additional costs to the proposed Lloyds/HBOS merged bank on the eve of LloydsTSB's shareholders' meeting!

And an additional 2% return on the preference shares, making 14%p.a. - that's the sort of interest rate that credit cards charge poor risks!
15

karin.m,

19/11/2008 00:40:46
now i wonder if anyone will publish the labour and conservative membership lists.
16

,

19/11/2008 00:41:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 00:58:29

'Ha, Ha, Ha'!

What did your "Charles" tell you from the very Start!

'Come-on',...WHAT?

Clever 'Girls and Boys'!

"Charles", Told you all the deal was, 'Done and Dusted' months ago!

Pawns we all are! the 'Top-Dogs', Know exactly the take-over, is in place, now for several months!


18

Gorach,

Dunadd 19/11/2008 01:00:41
The ordinary working men and woman of Scotland still have the power to show their displeasure at this skullduggery.

You can choose which bank to do business with.
You can choose which party to vote for.
19

Marky Bhoy,

Dunfermline 19/11/2008 01:02:08

The whole thing is a stitch up pure and simple
20

DouglasT,

19/11/2008 01:02:36
Bail-out for Northern Rock (English jobs) - London government says yes, no problem, how much.

Bail-out for Bradford & Bingley (English jobs) - London government says yes, no problem, how much.

Bail-out for Lloyds TSB (English jobs) - London government says yes, no problem, how much.

Bail-out for HBOS (Scottish jobs) - London government says no, no chance, F*** off.
21

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 01:09:06

comment #1, made in September, my list goes on, I wont bore you with the 'Truth,.....


http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/LloydsHBOS-merger-still-not-a.4513566.jp




22

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 01:12:02


Marky Bhoy ~21,

...'OF-COURSE' IT IS!,.....AND ALWAYS, HAS BEEN!



23

Another Saturday Night,

19/11/2008 01:12:42
Charles

Some people just like to moan.

Forget about the reality...just drift away.

The bank is being saved... Some people want it saved...

A lot a saving going on at the bank
24

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 01:16:20


Another Saturday Night ~31,

"saving"

They must of taught me wrong, on the meaning of that word, when I went to school! :))

25

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 01:20:49

Conan ~32-35,,

We Know that!

Like me, you appreciate a 'Bonny Scottish Lassie'!

Shame we did not think of our,.."Banks", the same!

:)

26

Another Saturday Night,

19/11/2008 01:24:17
The Bonnie Banks of Scotland

It could work as a new name after the merger.
27

Tom R,

19/11/2008 01:55:31
I don't doubt for a minute that many years from now the truth will come out (just as it did this decade about oil in the seventies) that the treatment of HBOS was not in the interest of Scotland, but a further sacrifice of Scottish interests to preserve the union.

I am prepared to bet that had Glenrothes been won by the SNP, Scotland and HBOS would not have been treated in such a cavalier fashion-level playing field my a**.
28

Jock MacSprog,

19/11/2008 01:55:46
its a moot point as there are no other offers. Burt Mathewson have nothing but air. For the umpteenth time, NO ONE WANTS HBOS, ITS A FAILED BANK
29

subrosa,

19/11/2008 02:03:25
# 40

If HBOS is in such a state why are the government rescuing it and why are LTSB buying it - unless it's the deal of the century.

The whole thing stinks. It's such a pity other politicians won't stand up and say that.
30

Another Saturday Night,

19/11/2008 02:10:33
#41

You completely misundertand the meaning of a bail-out.

Your type think's there has to be something in it for you before you take any interest.

Poor show.

31

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 02:11:53


subrosa ~41,

Never mind the "Watergate" scenario, this is the "Bankergate" scenario!

All 'Truth's will be made public in what?

Some 30years from now?, is this still the time limit for the 'secret society' to reveal all lies, and going-on's?



32

,

19/11/2008 02:16:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
33

Statsman,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 02:40:25
Darling is putrid filth.
34

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 19/11/2008 02:42:13
#41

You completely mis-understand the nature of a business deal.

There would be no deal unless there was a trade-off and the prospect of considerable future gain.

Or perhaps you think Lloys TSB is performing some mega altruistic act?

There is clearly no level to which London will stoop to seize control of a Scottish asset - they create their own playing field and to hell with jobs, competition and anything Scottish.
35

Another Saturday Night,

19/11/2008 02:47:29
Everyone seems to misunderstand.

No wonder there is no much "confusion"
36

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 03:23:58


None the point, in the commenting!, anyone with a modicum of intelligence, knows,..'The Deal is Done'!...

...'End-Off'!

Far the better, the comments,..'Why Was this inevitable Outcome',...

...WILL take Place?

'Mark my words', It will be!


37

Jo'Burg Jock,

South Africa 19/11/2008 03:35:46
From the Guardian September 18 2008:-

"Sir Victor Blank, the chairman of Lloyds TSB, revealed that he struck the deal with Gordon Brown at a City drinks party on Monday."

The article states

"The secretary of state for business, John Hutton, confirmed that the government would override competition law."

There is something rotten in the British state.
There is something rotten in Brown.
There is something rotten in Darling.

Corruption is a way of life for the British.
38

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 03:35:51

And I can see it now!

"Charles Linskaill, told you all this months ago again"

"Lloyds TSB, 'IS' the ones, that WILL-BE"!

END-OFF!!

'Like it, or Lump it' , this IS Truism!!

39

Charlie Ferrier,

Hamilton 19/11/2008 03:38:28
Really beyond a joke - its a corrupt practise that any regulator should immediately step on - Clearly some people in government have been there so long and are used to being wined and dined by the TSB Lloyds money men that they have lost sight of what is just and fair.

Further they are robbing Scotland, their own native land of a rich source of jobs and international influence.

Absolutely disgraceful - they should be ex-communicated from being Scottish
40

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 03:49:21


Charlie Ferrier ~51,

101% AGREE!



41

Another Saturday Night,

19/11/2008 03:57:09
Salmond will just have to move on to his next "project".

I bet everyone can hardly wait to find out what it will be...
42

Another Saturday Night,

19/11/2008 04:02:41
"The first Scotsman on the moon plan" gets the backing of Salmond.

43

Champion Haggis Slayer of Fife,

19/11/2008 04:14:32
Oh Yes, yet another benifit of the Union and Nu labour policy.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE TREACHARY THAT IS GLENROTHES
44

Champion Haggis Slayer of Fife,

19/11/2008 04:17:45
The Labour Party think thay can rip the heart out of Scotland because the Traitors of Glenrothes have given them hope! Hope where there is none!

The dumbwits of Glenrothes have a lot to answer for............
45

Another Saturday Night,

19/11/2008 04:19:35
#56

Stalin

It's still a free country, you know....
46

,

19/11/2008 04:22:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
47

M.T.,

19/11/2008 04:26:37
41# Subrosa

Agree! It smells of greed & the decay of corruption.

See Quote below:

The chief executives of the UK's five leading banks, including three in line for government bailouts, earned £54m among them over the past five years.
The staggering remuneration figures, detailing the cash and benefits enjoyed by bank directors, came as Chancellor Alistair Darling defined the rules for government bank aid ahead of a meeting of Lloyds TSB shareholders in Glasgow today that will decide on the proposed takeover of HBOS. The figures, calculated by the left-leaning thinktank, the Labour Research Department, show that all the executive directors named in the annual reports of Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds and HBOS - banks in which the government will take a £37bn stake - earned a combined £122m in pay and cash bonuses, including more than £64m in bonuses alone. The figure excludes the shares paid out to the directors over the five-year period.

48

Another Saturday Night,

19/11/2008 04:27:39
#58

You are just being rude and making a fool of yourself.
49

Champion Haggis Slayer of Fife,

19/11/2008 04:41:47
#60

Thank you.

Its a free country and you are entitled to your opinion. Probably...you are one of them.....!
50

Champion Haggis Slayer of Fife,

19/11/2008 04:53:29
Darling is wrong.

we should throw money at private equity

This approach was a success in Japan

What happened?

They did well.

Only the blind Nu Labour could imagine it would be any different in Scotland.
51

donald,

glasgow 19/11/2008 04:57:13
More high fives for Labourites opposed to an Independent Scottish bank.
52

Champion Haggis Slayer of Fife,

19/11/2008 04:57:31
Darling and Brown do have somethings in common.

Poor dress sense, and an uncanny knack of sweating buckets when asked a difficult question.

The pieces are coming together.
53

Champion Haggis Slayer of Fife,

19/11/2008 04:58:34
Nobody seems to understand.

No wonder there is no much "confusion"
54

Champion Haggis Slayer of Fife,

19/11/2008 04:59:31
Darling will just have to move on to his next "project".

I bet everyone can hardly wait to find out what it will be...
55

Champion Haggis Slayer of Fife,

19/11/2008 05:00:18
"The first Labourite on the moon plan" gets the backing of Brown.
56

Pilrig,

Livingston 19/11/2008 05:33:24
66 - tax hikes if he and his comrade next door win the next the general election.
57

Rodster,

Glasgow 19/11/2008 06:30:38
Brown did say he would do anything to save the union , and he has done just that .
the first promise he has ever kept.
Such betrayal of Scotland and Scottish jobs.
a great victory for the Vichy Scots , enjoy your country's demise .
what a parcel of rogues right enough...
58

Angleland Isover,

19/11/2008 06:38:10
As always. We are taking it and theirs fak all you can do about it. Vote the union or we will crush you.
59

john z,

edinburgh 19/11/2008 07:15:26
So now we see just what labour want for Scotland. Brown, Darling, Murphy and Gray YOU ARE A BUNCH OF LOW LIFE TRAITORS.

I urge every single person about to lose their banking job in Scotland to write, write, and write again to their MP, and make it VERY CLEAR that labour will be PUNISHED at the next election.

I just hope Nicola Sturgeon puts Traitor Murphy back in his box tonight on question time in Glasgow.

Please, people of Scotland, get off your subservient knees, and wake up to just what this Labour bunch are doing to Scotland. Labour are sh*fting Scotland just to win votes in the South of england.

Brown, Murphy, Gray and Darling are actively destroying the Bank of Scotland and 10,000 scottish jobs unnecessarily, just so they can try to bash the SNP. It is the very lowest of the lowest of truly treacherous behaviour.

How can Brown, Murphy, Gray and Darling live with themselves. They are utter low lifes, WORSE THAN THATCHER.


WAKE UP SCOTLAND.




60

john z,

edinburgh 19/11/2008 07:21:26
As Brown said, he will do ANYTHING to save the english union.

This now includes actively and unnecessarily destroying the Bank of Scotland and several thousand Scottish banking jobs.

Itt includes actively working to prevent any alternative valid bid for HBOS.

It includes ACTIVELY working to destroy the Scotland football team.

They continually talk down Scotland.

They want to utterly crush all sense of Scottish self respect. Typical english imperialism and colonial behaviour. Scum.

Be in no doubt, Brown, Murphy, Gray and Darling will quite openly crush Scotland and Scottish jobs for political gain.

THEY ARE TRAITORS. Wake up Scotland!
61

john z,

edinburgh 19/11/2008 07:25:08
Now we can see the true benefits of the undemocratic english union - UTTER SUBJICATION AND DESTRUCTION OF SCOTLAND.

I do hope the voters in Darling Edinburgh constituency remember this come the next election.


62

SouthernSkye,

19/11/2008 07:27:49
Hah ! Finally they admit there is NO level playing field and Brown and Darling will ride rough-shod over democracy and do as they damned want !

Words fail. This is simply no on. Who can stop this? House of Lords question this? Lib Dems must push it at PM questions.
63

john z,

edinburgh 19/11/2008 07:30:47
IF this were happening in England, it would be on the news 24/7, but because we have NO scottish media, these low lifes from London Labour are not being held to account.

There are no questions being asked about this on any major news channel. I just wish we had REAL Scottish news instead of the anglicised rubbish we get on SKY and EBC.

Anyway, to make me feel better, I'm going to go to Hampden to try to shake the 'hand of god'. Maradonna, the man who played SO WELL against England. And the english media are still whinging about it.

No doubt Brown will be cheering on england again.
64

john z,

edinburgh 19/11/2008 07:37:36
The Scottish Parliament needs to TAKE executive powers. What will the english do?? send in the army??

Time for the Scottish parliament to do what it needs to, to block this undemocratic english treachery.

It is clear as clear can be, that Darling and Brown are IGNORING the law, and just deliberately trashing Scottish jobs. Unemployment is rising, and Brown and Darling and Murphy are ACTIVELY trashing the Scottish banking sector.

This is a complete abuse of executive power by Darling, and so the DEMOCRATICALLY elected Scottish parliament should now proceed to TAKE EXECUTIVE powers to save the Bank of Scotland.

Enough is enough.

For heavens sake, Scotland stop voting for Labour. Wake up.
65

Dave,

Western Isles 19/11/2008 07:49:15
Scorched Earth Policy.

Well f**ck ewe Darling.
66

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 08:03:34
Gordon Brown is now making it clear that "I will do everything that is required in order to maintain the union." is no idle boast but becoming the main plank of government policy in Scotland.
67

Iain's,

19/11/2008 08:03:56
Well done Daphne Broon!

Now watch the highest unemployment rates in Edinburgh since Flodden!
68

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 19/11/2008 08:04:40
HBOS asked Lloyds to make a takeover bid as thet were going under! Why should the Government have to bail any of these wastrel banks out.
69

Mrs Broon,

Dunfermline 19/11/2008 08:04:56
Well we all know what the Labour Party in Scotland think about the punters here. They get to retain a safe seat with a reduced majority and Mandy and Campbell pollute the atmosphere with a whole lot of lies and the Stupid Folk here just lap it up. I am finally coming round to my husbands way of thinking. When we get a fair and impartial media in this country and not the Labour Party hacks I might even buy a paper again, as it is I am having to turn off Radio Scotland and stop reading the Scottish Press for the rubbish I am being forced to swallow. To the Unionist's who are commenting on here may I say, this is your country your a destroying I hope you can live with it. Farewell.
70

Alastair the First,

19/11/2008 08:15:09
Brown and Darling booted out at the next election....
71

Alastair the First,

19/11/2008 08:21:06
It was said to me the other night that what was needed in this country was not just a register of MPs' interests, but also a register of journalists' interests. Half the journalists who write in the papers are married to Labour or Tory MPs, live with them, have connections with unionist-orientated organisations or individuals, and are generally not terribly impartial. We don't have a free press in this country, we have a watered down version of pravda.
72

TWC,

19/11/2008 08:23:02
Unite union say we are neutral in this we just want a commitment there will be no involuntary redundancies.
Well I for one would be changing my union to one that is not in New Labour's pocket.
Why did I ever trust Gordon Brown??????
73

morris,

edinburgh 19/11/2008 08:47:07
The government made it clear form day one that HBOS was to be taken over by LLoyds TSB (which has been negotaited over the last two years according to some claims in English papers)and the Government are in effect guilty of blackamil.

What is far more of a concern is that UNITE care more about kow-towing to LABOUR HQ dictates than saving their members jobs !
TWC above is 100% SPOT ON.YOu should have heard one of their Glasgow Labour Party hacks this morning attacking the two men who were at least trying to save the bank.
The staff at Bank of Scotland will suffer job losses in time but its their own UNION which is the biggest culprit.
No doubt they will swallow this guff, hook line and sinker.
The same happened at Ravenscraig.Such was their Unions bilind allegiance to the Liar Party the Union actually backed closure!

YOU NEVER LEARN SCOTLAND DO YOU?
74

MacMhuirich,

Ljubljana 19/11/2008 08:57:33

22 Douglas T

What makes you think the government bailout of Northern Rock has not prevented the loss of jobs - and jobs in England? Northern Rock has been forced to scale down its operations and lots of jobs have been lost. Some jobs have been saved because the company has not gone bankrupt, but this is not model you would like for HBOS. Would you want at least half of the jobs in HBOS to be lost in a nationalised bank?

Remember too that the UK government is recapitalising out RBS with both English and Scottish taxpayers money.

Do you have the breakdown of jobs between Scotland and England for RBS and HBOS? I reckon that as many work in England as in Scotland. The jobs in Scotland are no more under threat, indeed are probably safer, than the jobs in Halifax:
1. because Edinburgh, not Halifax, will remain the HQ for this part of the merged bank's operations;
2. there is a commitment on the part of Lloyds to safeguard jobs in Scotland but not in Yorkshire;
3. Lloyds TSB already has strong Scottish roots;
4. Edinburgh has more political clout than Halifax.

If the UK government and taxpayer is providing the money are they not entitled to lay down some conditions for the future management of the bank that will benefit from the Money. HBOS or Lloyds or RBS are not obliged to accept the taxpayers' money. Barclays didn't but instead went to the Gulf and obtained more expensive finance which will dilute the existing shareholders' stake evenmore and will have less accountable dominant shareholder.

An alternative bid for HBOS can succeed if the bidders can provide the additional finance, as Lloyds TSB are. Without these extra resources how can an alternative bid be credible?
75

Warden An' All, Reborn,

19/11/2008 09:00:41
Any rescue plan must put the bank into a strong enough position, not just treading water. This economic down turn is only beginning. If it had been ending HBOS might of been safe to go it alone.
76

thistle do,

here n' there 19/11/2008 09:04:53
What's all the fuss, HBOS is fluffed. It's not Brown/Darling's fault. Why don't folks turn thir attention to the HBOS board and senior managers who still seem to have their noses in the trough. They've taken the bonuses but not dislayed their corporate governance responsibilities. Keep using the bank for your day to day stuff to support the real workers but if you've any extra savings get them into somewhere else (not RBS because just as bad). Get rid of the now.
77

Alastair the First,

19/11/2008 09:07:41
89: no-one's suggesting they haven't screwed up. It's the difference in response from the UK government for HBOS compared to the others that smells of fish.
78

JayJay,

Right here 19/11/2008 09:07:55
Given present market conditions, HBoS's recent business strategy of buying into and supporting the housebuilding market (a strategy incidentally that was 100% backed by Government who had signalled a need for many thousands of new homes across the UK) looks like an act of folly.
5 years down the line, with a recovering market, I can just read the headlines acclaiming the Board of Lloyds for record profits as they realise their significant stakes in Cala, Tulloch, Miller, Crest Nicholson etc etc. That it was a brave decision by HBoS to back such businesses will be a very short footnote on page 93.
Brown and Darling are perfectly well aware that market conditions have utterly destroyed the banking sector across the board. Lloyds position, whilst marginally better than HBoS, is still far from healthy and I still fail to understand why the marriage of two weak entities somehow creates strength. Perhaps there is more to the Lloyds deal than has been reported - eg underwriting losses, keeping schtum on massive job losses etc.
This latest attack on Scotland by the Chuckle Brothers in Westminster will, in years to come, be seen for what it is....political spite. And as for the Trade Union warmly applauding from the sides as 10,000 plus jobs are flushed down the pan, well done you lickspittles. Nice to see principles flying out the window when the fax comes in from Downing Street and tells you what to say/think.
79

Mr Lahey,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 09:13:14
As most people on here can only rant and are incapable of coherent rational discourse it remains for me to point out that Scotland has what will be the fastest growing Retail Bank in the UK. It's called Tesco's, it now has a banking licence and is being run from Edinburgh by the great and the good of RBS & HBOS.
80

Linda,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 09:21:47
Another Union dividend. Why bother with Scottish MPs at westminister if they dodn't stand up for Scotland.
81

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 19/11/2008 09:30:24
The People who are about to lose their jobs with HBOS when it gets moved to london should join up with the two ex bankers get a rich backer and start a new bank.
and call it" The New bank of Scotland" I would certainly change from my current bank to the new one
82

Chris Mitchell,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 09:32:33
How can it be fair that the Chancellor and Prime Minister keep coming out with "scary" statements to force the shareholders to back the theft of HBOS.
The last time I checked we lived in a democracy not a communist state, people should have the free will to vote whichever way they want, if it was an election and the parties were making statements like this trying to force peoples decision on who to vote for there would be an outcry.
I fear that Lloyds are covering up much larger job losses than have been mooted, Eric Daniels said at one point that suggestions of 40,000 job losses were on the "high side", probably the high side of 39,000 actual losses.
We've seen rescued banks like RBS and Citigroup, even they are laying off potentially tens of thousands of workers.
Under normal conditions a merger would lead to tens of thousands of job losses, I can only imagine that in the current climate the losses to Lloyds and HBOS staff with be much more brutal.

@92 Maybe Tesco should buy the Mound, then we'd still have a scottish Banking presence there instead of an empty Lloyds Office!
83

Alan B,

19/11/2008 09:34:57
#sm753

"Can anyone explain why on Earth the Government should spend at least £500m of our money buying HBOS shares worth 63p at £1.136?"

Exactly. Just why are the government bailing out shareholders. This bail out is not just about saving the bank but about paying shareholders alot of unjustified money along with bailing out other faceless institutions that are possibly not even british that lent to HBOS in the credit markets.

There is alot more to this deal that we are being told.
84

morris,

edinburgh 19/11/2008 09:41:56
93

Why indeed Linda?
Unfortunately many people in Scotland believe what their Labour party membership carrying shop stewards tell them,and what they read in publications like the Daily Retard.
They never stop to ask IS IT TRUE or LONDON BRAINWASHING ?
Scotland is fairly unique in the world.How many countries do you know who want to be governed from outwith their own borders?I can only think of Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland.If there are more I cannot think of any off hand and they can only exist because they have (like us) not yet woken up to the obvious. Any kind of imperialsism benefits one nation only!The biggest/strongest gets bigger and stronger and the rest are used as political whipping boys.Its happened throughout history,and The British Empire was a classic example of this.Scotlands problem was that whilst she benefitted from the Empire,she had not understtod that she was herself a subserviant part of it, and just because we can elect 59 quislings to the Westminster parliament,does not change that one iota.

GET OFF YOUR KNEES SCOTLAND AND STAND UP!
85

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 19/11/2008 09:48:25
It's been mentioned that we live in a democracy. Well I reckon that the latest actions of New Labour are now bordering on a totalitarian state and democracy is on the way out of the window. In a flash Peter Mandelson (Prince of Darkness), resurrected for the third time,simply wipes the conditions and rules of Competition Law off the table to force thro' the HBOS/LloydsTSB deal. I believe some financial pundits and a lawyer or two are going to challenge this autocratic move (and it is not Mandelson's first example.Interesting to note that every one of New Labour's Edinburgh MPs voted thro' his move. I hope the voters in Edinburgh remember where the loyalties of their NL MPs lie. And it aint with the bank employees in our capital! Any bets that the new bosses of HBOS/LloydsTSB end up in the Lords?
86

Elephant,

Lilithgow 19/11/2008 09:50:32
Yet again I'm amazed by the incapacity of some folk to accept that HBOS made its own bed and is now lying in it. As a private enterprise it elected to expand globally and load itself with risk. All bankers know how relatively cautious Lloyds had been in comparison -hence the more modest handout it required recently. We should be cheering the fact HBOS exists in ANY form, and I for one are far happier for it being steered by a prudent established institution rather than being shackled by nationalisation or owned by two self-serving PE big-bods. I also note no-one seems to recognise that Lloyds TSB is already a vital fixture in the Scottish economy.
87

Alan B,

19/11/2008 09:52:39
#thistle do

"It's not Brown/Darling's fault. Why don't folks turn thir attention to the HBOS board and senior managers who still seem to have their noses in the trough."

It is largely Browns fault. If one bank fails then you blame the management if the whole banking sector falls in this way you have to look at the underlying causes and who was responsible from regulating the banking system. That sits at Browns door.

Also if you neively believe Brown that this is all global then the banks are falling for global reasons and not mgt ones.

In truth the problem has been cause by a variety of inter related factors. The most prominent cause was Brown built an economy on consumer debt mainly via massive house price inflation and hence massive mortgage debt.

Brown said he would control house price inflation he did not. In fact in many ways he actively encouraged it. Unlike the european central bank which targets money supply growth ie the growth of credit, the uk targets cpi inflation. The cpi inflation measure that brown chose to target removed housing that was included in the previous inflation measure used under the tories rpi. He also did not used credit restricting measures like we used to or used in other countries to restrict the amount of borrowing as a ratio of salary. (that would have been my preferred option). As a result and also due to cultural reason countries like Germany borrow proportionately less for mortgages.

The whole problem for the banks with this uncontrolled growth in lending is how to fund it. Deposits simply would not cover the lending. As such they used the global credit markets. ie the borrowed to fund their own lending. So you can see how not controlling house inflation has lead to this vicious circle. Again even at this point in the cycle the government could and should have done something. Most notably stricker capital requirements to ensure that banks were stable and not so exposed to the credit markets. Browns newly form
88

Alan B,

19/11/2008 09:53:02
..
Browns newly formed FSA was found sleeping at the wheel.

This is also tied into the exposure that banks like Nothern Rock held 50 billion worth of morgage debt offshore in a uk childrens health charity (with the children getting no money), to avoid capital requirements, fsa regulations and tax. With other banks reported to by carryng out this practice too, it is simply inconceivable that the level of incompetence was so high that Brown did not know this was going on. Reemmber they are public companies with audited accounts.

So banks had alot of exposure to the credit markets. This was fine until these markets stopped operating. The decline of the credit markets are largely due to the US having the same irresponsible lending as the uk.

So while Brown could not do anything about the US, he could have made sure the uk economic fundamentals were good and been more prudent like many of the other european countries and australia.
89

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 19/11/2008 10:15:34
What a sweet moment for Messrs Brown & Darling. How it must have stuck in their gullets all these years, knowing that there still existed a bank that had been established by an Act of the Parliament of an independent Scotland in 1695, was called "the Bank of Scotland" and had its own note issue - almost as if Scotland were still a real country!
90

Mise,

Scottish Borders 19/11/2008 10:23:42
By refusing to consider other alternatives, Mr Darling is effectively pushing the Scottish electorate further along the road of wanting independence from the Westminster parliament.

Perhaps he has a secret agenda.

Is he going to defect to the SNP.

It's fine to say "there is no automatic right of access" to the government's financial rescue package, which is only open to "credible" senior management teams with clear funding and a sustainable business plan, we wouldn't expect anything else. However, by refusing to discuss altenatives, he is diminishing his own credibility, and leading the public to suspect there is something wrong with the Lloyds takeover.
91

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 19/11/2008 10:31:00
For those old enough to remember, the TSB shareholders were shafted by the House of Lords when that institution was stolen by Westminster Rules some years ago.Things never change. The biggest law breakers are the very people who draft the legislation. This appears to have gone unnoticed in Glenrothes where the lies outvoted the facts and a nice wee heidmaister was elected. A nice wee man who declared he had no avowed intentions of being a politician! Yet again we witness more cannon fodder for the Westminster war zone. Just vote the way we tell you, like the rest of the valiant, free thinking Scottish Westminster New Labour representatives. Will we ever learn....??
92

JayJay,

Right here 19/11/2008 10:33:19
#100
As comments 101/102 illustrate, this was not a problem particular to HBoS. What has gone awry here is the inter-bank market, and, has been seen, the collapse of that market, alongside the consequential hike in the cost of LIBOR, has had dire ramifications for the entire banking sector.
If you accept that HBoS is a busted flush, then so too are RBS, Barclays, Lloyds, Nationwide and indeed any financial institution that has toddled off to the Treasury cap in hand. HBoS has been treated differently from all the rest in that it has been told merge or die. I think the problem many people are having with this is that it has been applied to one "bust" bank alone, whilst everyone else has been afforded unqualified Government support. I think we are all entitled to understand why this should be the case?
93

SEUMAS,

fearn 19/11/2008 10:40:43
My business will now be moved to the bank of Australia a.k.a. the Clydsdale, let's all do it together
94

Rasco,

19/11/2008 10:47:26
I wonder what the union chief is going to tell his members when they loose there jobs its all the SNPs fault will be the cry I suppose.How can the people of Scotland keep believing in this mob,all very quite from Wendy,Kerr,Gray oh I forgot its the only offer on the table makes you sick to hear them at least Tavish has the guts to speak up against Broon and Darling the traitors.
95

bluehead,

edinburgh 19/11/2008 10:56:56
this is the final truth of the conspiracy and treachery of this evil labour goverment,led by the ghoulish two ,brown and darling,two supposed Scotsmen who will do anything that is detrimental to the Scottish people,
the disease from this government's way of thinking is spreading like waves of bacteria,and we have to add to this, the fact that they have sold our country to the foreigners, and the british people have to take orders from people we don't know,will never know,and can't even understand their language!!!!!
96

Alan B,

19/11/2008 11:00:14
#sm753

"at last you've come out in favour of nationalisation at zero"

What are you talking about? I have previously said the government should not be bailing out shareholders at over inflated rates. If say the takeover of lloyds is going ahead i would like the government to effectively nationalise it and sell it to lloyds. Rather than bailing out hbos shareholders and rather than hbos shareholders getting money from lloyds in terms of shares the government does that can later be sold on the open market.

I prioritise only 2 things depositors and jobs.

I am on the fence about the exact best way forward as i have many more questions than answers. We simply do not have enough info to know all that is going on. It is simply trust Brown or not. Going on previous form I do not trust or think he is particularly competent.

As i have said before i would have ideally liked the government to introduce chapter 11 type laws if need be in the uk after the northern rock fiasco. That would allow a company in liquidation to work its way out of trouble by refinancing its debts. Prioritise the guarantees to depositors, those that lent to the hbos in the credit markets would get treated as any other lender in any other company that is bust and get either so many pence in the pound or have the debt refinanced over a longer period of time. The problem as i understand it for hbos was refinancing the credit market debt. Remember the way the channel tunnel refinanced some of its debt.

97

brownlie,

19/11/2008 11:13:22
99 Alan B

Good post, again, Alan. I do wish we unionists had some-one of your calibre who could post such informative and coherent comments. Sadly, we have not!
98

john z,

edinburgh 19/11/2008 11:21:31
Tavish and Alex;

Now is your moment to show REAL leadership.

Call a press conference, invite all the media, and state quite clearly, the people of Scotland are sick and fed up with being treated like sh*t by the english government.

Call Brown and Darling to account. Kick up a fuss, get on TV, state the case over, and over again, and do not stop. Point out the lies, the complete betrayal of Scotland, and the total abuse of ministerial process and power.

This latest piece of filthy dirty anti-scottish behaviour by Darling is not acceptable.

Time for the Scottish parliament to unite (apart from the labour leeches) and make a stand on this. Scotland is about to have its bank and several thousand jobs taken from it.

If Darling and Brown can ignore due process then the Scottish parliament must do likewise, and TAKE executive power.

If democracy is being ignored by Darling and Brown, if Scottish interests are being abused in this filthy dirty undemocratic way, then it truly is time to fight.

There is no democracy in Scotland. Brown and Darling are just like Thatcher, sh*ft Scotland just to keep english votes.

This is the 'benefit' of the english union. I sit and watch day after day as these crooks in London abuse my country, belittle my country, talk down its football team, destroy its culture, and blatantly sh*ft the banking jobs, just to win some votes in South East England.

Wake up Scotland. Come election time, never forget what these Lying Labour crooks have done to Scotland.
99

AJ Fife,

19/11/2008 11:26:16
Mr Darling might have something to gain, personally, from the takeover.

I hope the financial watchdogs are keeping an eye on him!
100

TWC,

19/11/2008 11:35:53
#87 & #88
This is a political decision and that is that. It's not about scottish Tax Payers or English tax payers unless you give Scotland control of its finances.
Labour poodles always avoid talking about Finances in total they just pick any snap shot that suits Brown and spin it.
An uindependent review of the Financial situation at HBoS is what is required, without it people have every right to be suspiscious.
The only independent review so far has said it should not go ahead because of competition concerns.
101

Alan B,

19/11/2008 11:43:13
I get the feeling this merger is more about covering up the dodgy banking practices Brown was allowing. See what was going on with Nothern Rock as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalisation_of_Northern_Rock

It has subsequently become known that the best book of Northern Rock's mortgage business, comprising of mortgages worth £47 billion - some 40% of the company's assets - had been transferred to a Channel Islands based company called Granite, together with an ongoing obligation to continue to supply business. Failure to maintain the arrangement could cost a reported £5 billion.[68]

As is common practice in bank securitisations, Granite was set up as a charitable trust with any residue on winding-up to benefit a small charity, Down's Syndrome North East. Despite having assets worth an estimated £45 billion, Granite has never made a donation to the charity[69], because it remains in business.

"At Northern Rock's heart is Granite, a £45bn securitisation vehicle though which mortgages are parcelled up and sold to investors.

Under 'substitution clauses' in Granite, investors can call in their loans if maturing mortgages are not replaced with new ones.

Should the clauses be triggered, investors could demand their funding back - potentially leaving the Government with an immediate £45bn bill. At the moment, only £25bn of taxpayer's money has actually gone into Northern Rock, through Bank of England loans. The rest of the support is via state guarantees, which the Treasury would prefer are not drawn upon.

'Granite is the reason the Government opted for nationalisation and did not put it into administration,' one senior Northern Rock insider said. Administration would also have triggered the clause. ..."

102

PC Caledonia,

19/11/2008 11:47:03
Payload deployed.
103

PockSuppet,

19/11/2008 11:58:25
139?
104

TWC,

19/11/2008 11:59:07
107 to 111 Poodles I repeat the good post by Alan.

I get the feeling this merger is more about covering up the dodgy banking practices Brown was allowing. See what was going on with Nothern Rock as an example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalisation_of_Northern_Rock

It has subsequently become known that the best book of Northern Rock's mortgage business, comprising of mortgages worth £47 billion - some 40% of the company's assets - had been transferred to a Channel Islands based company called Granite, together with an ongoing obligation to continue to supply business. Failure to maintain the arrangement could cost a reported £5 billion.[68]

As is common practice in bank securitisations, Granite was set up as a charitable trust with any residue on winding-up to benefit a small charity, Down's Syndrome North East. Despite having assets worth an estimated £45 billion, Granite has never made a donation to the charity[69], because it remains in business.

"At Northern Rock's heart is Granite, a £45bn securitisation vehicle though which mortgages are parcelled up and sold to investors.

Under 'substitution clauses' in Granite, investors can call in their loans if maturing mortgages are not replaced with new ones.

Should the clauses be triggered, investors could demand their funding back - potentially leaving the Government with an immediate £45bn bill. At the moment, only £25bn of taxpayer's money has actually gone into Northern Rock, through Bank of England loans. The rest of the support is via state guarantees, which the Treasury would prefer are not drawn upon.

'Granite is the reason the Government opted for nationalisation and did not put it into administration,' one senior Northern Rock insider said. Administration would also have triggered the clause. ..."

105

,

19/11/2008 11:59:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
106

,

19/11/2008 12:01:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
107

Sanny,

Glasgow 19/11/2008 12:05:45
More and more I come to doubt the intellectual capacity of the British electorate in general and the Scots electorate in particular.

It is patently obvious that Brown is running a “Scorched Earth” policy knowing that if the Tories win the next GE then they will face insurmountable problems requiring drastic measures to restore our finances. The Electorate will then hold the Tories responsible for these essential measures and Labour will be re-elected at a following GE.

Brown is also aware that an Election could and probably will result in a very small majority regardless of which party wins. This could leave the Nationalists –Irish, Scots and Welsh MP’s with a controlling vote. As the Scots are by far the largest of this group they present the greatest threat. The anti-Scottish actions of the Mandelson/Brown team (Darling is merely voting fodder) should be seen in this light. The destruction of Scottish position as a financial centre is part of this policy and an attempt to weaken the SNP.

The Glenrothes election has shown; a) how devious and underhand the Labour Party machine can be; and b) how gullible the Old Labour voters are. We, the Scottish Electorate need to take full account of a completely control media.

In Scotland it is Labour that controls all outlets of news; hence the unremitting bias against the Nationalist cause. In England the situation is only marginally better as the media are jointly controlled by Tory and Labour and their efforts will be joined on the Unionist cause. To the English voter we are constantly portrayed as ‘subsidy junkies’ and no one cares what is done to Scotland.

How is Scotland to make progress? First the Electorate needs to recognise that Old Labour no longer exists and the parasitic organisation that has replaced it, New Labour, is the very antitheses of a Socialist Movement. It therefore is up to individual Scots to spread the word within their sphere of influence.
108

Alan B,

19/11/2008 12:33:53
#sm753

"If you "nationalise" something, Alan, you do it for 0p per share."

I would have no problem with the government taking control of HBOS for 0p per share and selling it on say to Lloyds (if this merger is going to happen).

However your statment above is untrue. Nationalising a company does not necessarily mean that it would be for 0p per share. The government nationalised railtrack by bankrupting it and shareholders did get money.
109

TWC,

19/11/2008 12:36:42
118 sm753,

I'm an old Labour supporter and I agree with what Sanny 116 says.
Not since 1997 have New Labour had a Manifesto which proposed positive policies for Scotland. It hid behind Devolution being a peocess then Calman to keep people like me Fat Dumb and Happy ; but Calman and Devolution are Blown now and we still have no Policies from New Labour.
110

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 19/11/2008 12:38:59
By yon bonnie banks and by yon bonnie braes,
Where the sun shines bright on Gogaburn,
Where me and my money will never meet again,
In the bonnie, bonnie banks o' Scotland.

Oh, we'll take the high road, and Brown takes the low road,
But he'll be in Dubai afore us;
But me and my money will never meet again
In the bonnie, bonnie banks o' Scotland.

'Twas there that we were parted in yon shady deal,
On the steep, steep sides o' Browns ambition,
There in dirty little backrooms,nothing in view,
He sent his Darling on a secret mission.

Oh, we'll take the high road, and Brown takes the low road,
But he'll be in Dubai afore us;
But me and my money will never meet again
In the bonnie, bonnie banks o' Scotland.

O dour Gordie Brown, you vile, vile heart,
Wha could refuse thee blackmail,
Like the weeping Shareholders in both the banks,
In damaging Scotland,you never fail.

Oh, we'll take the high road, and Brown takes the low road,
But he'll be in Dubai afore us;
But me and my money will never meet again
In the bonnie, bonnie banks o' Scotland.
111

Alan B,

19/11/2008 12:43:18
#sm753

You try to insult all you want. I have said i do not necessarily know the best way forward as we the public are not in pocession of all the information. However you on the other hand seem to want to blindly support Brown despite that fact that he has caused so much of the problems. It is up to you if you want to look like an apologist for Brown. But your posts over a period say where you are coming from and it is political rather than any serious judgement on handling this economic mess. You would rather scotland lose these jobs if it undermines the nats and labour can sell scotland as some economic backwater and regain power on scotland being incapable.


My point about the chapter 11 approach was that you completely misrepresented my position in an earlier post despite as you admitted knowing the approach that i would have like to be considered.

As i have said i am not sure the best way forward. I would prefer to avoid a mess by running the economy on sold foundations instead of the short term political approach and mounting personal and public debt as per brown.

However what i have noticed is the qustions i raised about the bail outs regarding who we are actually bailing out as per the credit market lenders are never answered either on these forums (which suggests most are a blind as myself about waht is going on) or in the press.
112

Alan B,

19/11/2008 12:48:29
#121 TWC

"Not since 1997 have New Labour had a Manifesto which proposed positive policies for Scotland."

Not sure if that is really true. Labour are a spending party and not a wealth generating party. As such despite the spin they have run the country with that in mind. They have thrown alot of money at public services but done it faster than the economy could afford and took no precautions that the economy would not go on forever booming.

While i think labour have been bad for scotland, the main issue is the failure to deal with scotlands poor economy and in a wider sense to build a uk economy based on massive consumer debt ie massive house price inflation and hence massive mortgage debt.
113

Alan B,

19/11/2008 12:57:29
#sm753

So the US can have chapter 11 type rules and we cannot. Absolute garbage.

You may not agree with my approach, fair enough that is the point of forums to debate issues, but do not post such rubbish.

"On top of that, you're suggesting making a major change in the balance of risk in favour of shareholders and against creditors"

How and where have i said that?

I have said shareholder should get nothing ideally. That is what happens if a company goes bankrupt. Or they get a reduced pay off based on what is left.

I noted that you ignored my comparison about the channel tunnel refinancing of debt which i am asking to be considered. Something that took place with existing laws.

If any ordinary company goes bankrupt lenders many times the lender only gets back so many pence in the pound. I know a few small businesses that have suffering such a way only getting paid for example 17p in the pound for services carried out eg in the building trade.

You also skip round my points aswell. Do you seriously not think depositors should be the priority if a bank goes bust?

If you are going to critise my ideas on how to approach this crisis it would be better if you actually showed some insight in your critisms. Like spelling out who the credit market lenders are and why the government should be bailing them out to the tune of possibly hundreds of billions.
114

Jay Kay,

19/11/2008 13:00:37
So Gordon Brown must surely go down as one of Scotland's biggest traitors, that is how the history books should portray him and his b*m boy Darling.
115

Palermo,

19/11/2008 13:02:11
Vote this man out at the next election

Double standards = credibility shot = time to go
116

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/11/2008 13:03:34
Alan - whilst your Chapter 11 idea may seem worthy I have a strong gut feeling that HBOS is such a wreck that even that route would not work.

117

lulach mac gille coemgain,

19/11/2008 13:11:51
Politicians, Business leaders, Bankers - look at yersels - yer a comedy of gargantuan proportions !
118

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/11/2008 13:35:03
#116 I think you have got this wrong Sanny. Labour's strategy is still to try to get elected. This has a number of strands.

Firstly, Labour has to convince the electorate that they are not responsible for the state of the economy. Incredibly it seems that the masses have swallowed this hook, line and sinker. I have not seen a survey yet where voters do not blame US banks and sub-prime lending for the crisis. You can thank the media for creating that perception and the fact that the Tories have until very recently had a kid gloves approach to Brown's handling of the economy. Any attempt now to attack Labour is easier to portray as doing the country down. Moreover, because the Tories advocated the same spending plans as Labour at the last two elections they are going to find it hard to convince the electorate that they would have done anything different.

Secondly, Labour has to convince the electorate that Brown is the right person to get us out of this crisis. Again it seems that they are making progress on this front. It is Brown who perceptibly is setting the agenda. The Tories, who have basically sat back and relied on Labour to lose the election, now find that they do not have a coherent alternative to Brown's Keynesianism. They have fallen back on the old tax cuts from efficiency savings which has been blown apart in the past when it comes to serious analysis. Moreover, Brown is assisted by the fact that nearly every other global economy is following a Keynesian demand management route. This makes it difficult for the Tories to present an alternative because they can be accused of being out of touch with other political (of all hues) parties in other countries.

Thirdly, Labour will resort to some good old fashioned bribery just before the next election. We already have indications that some £30 billion in increased spending and tax cuts is going to be made next Tuesday. I suspect that many of those changes will come in next April just in
119

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/11/2008 13:35:37
(#132 continued)

Thirdly, Labour will resort to some good old fashioned bribery just before the next election. We already have indications that some £30 billion in increased spending and tax cuts is going to be made next Tuesday. I suspect that many of those changes will come in next April just in time to hit voters' wallets and make them feel better off. Moreover, because inflation is now falling voters will by that time also have benefitted from falling petrol utility and food prices. That would mean that an election could take place either in May or June next year.

If Labour did pull off the unimaginable then it would be the biggest come-back since Lazarus.

If Labour did win then they would have another 5 years, by which time the recession would be well over. Brown would then regain his bribes through stealth taxes - just in time to throw a few bribes for the following election.

What I am saying is not fanciful. If Thatcher could win a landslide with unemployment over 3 million then anything is possible. The Tories have only themselves to blame if this happens. They have had more than enough opportunities to elucidate a coherent alternative to Labour. Now, when it matters, it seems that they have no answers. Cameron is proving to be nothing more than a Blair Lite clone - all style and very little substance.
120

brownlie,

19/11/2008 13:47:37
sm 753

"No-one goes into politics to destroy things ...."

Strange statement by some-one who accuses the SNP and, especially, the "obese" Salmond of attempting to destroy the union.
121

TWC,

19/11/2008 13:51:38
132 The Federalist A lot of other global economies say they are going to follow but let's see if theire actions are the same as Browns. The devil will be in the detail, and some times the detail with Brown is less than palatable to the people.
Like you I don't know why the press still talk him up, it upsets me so much I have to work hard keep my judgements fair when I listen to him.
If I don't I will become an equivalent to the Labour Poodles.
122

Alan B,

19/11/2008 13:55:49
#The Fed

" whilst your Chapter 11 idea may seem worthy I have a strong gut feeling that HBOS is such a wreck that even that route would not work."

You could well be right. Also it is far too late now to change the laws for that to happen now. It would have to have been done earlier.

Like most thing it is much easier to take preventative action beforehand than have to respond now.

Part of my point about Northern Rock using off shore charities to hold mortgages with apparently punitive measure if this is changed seems to suggest there could be alot more about the HBOS crisis than we know.

My biggest concern now is the tax payers bail out if being used for shareholders and to pay of lending on the credit markets. I am happy to use taxpayers money to save jobs and depositors.



123

Alan B,

19/11/2008 14:09:33
#sm753

""the qustions i raised about the bail outs regarding who we are actually bailing out as per the credit market lenders are never answered"

Yes they are. HBOS depends on short-term money (£100-150bn, I believe) for funding. Every 3 months or so it has to pay off the old loans by raising new ones. So *it* is being bailed out so it can carry on meeting its debts (while gradually reducing them)."

I have never seen an answer to the question round that issue.

I know they are using lending to finance their business model. Repeating what we know does not answer my questions.

My point is simple:

Depositors who have lent money to a bank should be protected first.

The problem for the bank is if it pays of the credit markets lending it goes bust as it cannot re borrow the money.

The bank has enough lending debt to cover depositors and probably most of it credit market lending. Some of the mortgage and business lending may not be repaid business goes bust or mortgage payer cannot pay although they will get money on repossessions.

As such the problem seems one of liquidity.

I have no problme with the government lending as much as possible on commercial rates to cover lending that is not now available on the credit markets.

What I do not like is tax payers money being used to pay off lenders in the credit markets as part of this bail out. Who are they? Still not answered.

If an ordinary companies goes bust it pays a certain pence in the pound to lenders etc, or to stave off bankruptcy there can be debt for equity swaps.

I am sceptical therefore for tax payers to be paying off credit market debt in probably foreign firms without knowing what is going on.

You seem much more willing to take the governments action on faith. I want they to explain why and what they are doing in a level of detail that is convincing. They simply have not.



124

Alan B,

19/11/2008 14:18:32
#sm753

"No-one goes into politics to destroy things and everyone knows all the secrets come out eventually."

Why someone might go into politics is not necessarily what they do when they get a sniff of power. Many politicians are on the gravy train. Yes once upon a time they may have been ethical and had ideological reasons but over time for many in power that corrupts.

With labour i think they believe their actions are worth the cost if they can deliver what they want.

It could be lies of Byers to bankrupt railtrack and effectively nationalise network rail. As some union leaders said on tv the method was a price worth paying to get the end result.

Even with independence. Lets face it it should be about democracy and letting the people choose and not about parties manipulating things for their own political ends.

With all the corruption round Blair and his dodgy donations and loans. I am sure they justified that as being the price they had to pay to remain in power. many more ethical old labour justifying it as the price to get rid of thatcher etc.

With Blair ethics have gone from british politics and it is all about power.

125

Alan B,

19/11/2008 14:20:51
#sm753

"No-one goes into politics to destroy things and everyone knows all the secrets come out eventually."

Put another way in power government do what is necessary to stay in power and get what they want. If that puts the country second so be it. Do not believe that labour will put the interests of labour ahead of the country.
126

Alan B,

19/11/2008 14:22:22
#132 The Federalist

As per usual I agree with alot you say.
127

Alan B,

19/11/2008 14:27:34
#sm753

"When you say that, you insult me, you insult the likes of Brown and Darling "

Ok look it another way with Browns and Darlings approach to the scottish parliament.

Labour in power in the scottish parliament wanted to introduce free personal care. They wrote to Darling head of the uk social security dept to get info to help in its implementation.

Darling refused to help as the westminster labour government did not want the scottish labour government introducing that policy despite that being a devolved matter.

That shows the cancerous behaviour and down right lack of any integrity of Darling and as Browns man and such a powerful figure in the labour government Brown.

In the recent by election labour justifiably raised the cost of care for those in need. However the fact that labour in london tried to prevent free personal care in scotland for those in needs shows the real horrible people these guys are.
128

Alan B,

19/11/2008 14:33:15
#sm753

"He is also mistaken, or just doesn't care, about the collateral damage caused along the way."

So turning that round. Then does Brown not care about the damage to scotland from the unionn.


Your hypocracy in your arguments are getting silly. At the end of the day nats believe independence is better as they think the union is a disaster for scotland. While unionists either think the reverse, or think and hope the union can be reformed into a shape worth saving.
129

brownlie,

19/11/2008 14:34:55
142 sm753

Your humility never ceases to amaze me. You continually accuse Salmond of attempting to destroy the union and now claim that, whilst he has positive goals and motives, he is grossly mistaken.

Grossly mistaken or not, his intention is to destroy the union because he feels Scotland can fare better without being shackled and shunted into the UK's ambitions of being a "global player".

No doubt the nats will ask us to demonstrate the positive goals and motives of unionist parties. Sadly, they have not been demonstrated by posters on this thread for a long, long time.
130

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/11/2008 14:35:52
#137 Whilst our system may not be as advanced as US Chapter 11 laws it is at least preferable to the pre-2002 situation. The process of administration at least attempts to keep the business going as opposed to administrative receivership which winds up a business. Prior to this many businesses were put into receivership with the only objective being to pay off creditors - even if it meant selling assets at a knock-down price.

131

Alan B,

19/11/2008 14:45:27
#sm753

""What I do not like is tax payers money being used to pay off lenders in the credit markets as part of this bail out. Who are they? Still not answered."

Why does it matter? What matters is that in law, and according to the terms on which they lent,"

First you were saying it was answered and now you say it does not matter.

To me as i am on the fence abit with the best way forward now that the complete and utter shambles has been created, i want to know more information to decide if i think it is a good use of tax payers (my money).

"their money has more security than that of depositors. You might like to change that for the future (although it's probably impossible) but it doesn't matter one jot for this problem, does it?"

My point is chances should have been made after the failure of Nothern Rock. Although chances should have been made long before that to ensure stability of the banking sector.

I see no reason that the government should not bring in rules round prioriting depositors who are after all lenders to the bank.

I am happy to have some deregualtion of the financial services where building societies could become banks borrow on the credit markets but not if that meant they would risk despositor money.

Also remember when you talk about laws etc what brown did with regard iceland. He seized assets using anti terror laws to try to safeguard uk depositors. Putting aside the ethics of that, he was hardly saying the bank should pay back its credit market loans first.

My point is i am not convinced tax payers money on such large scales should be used to pay of the credit market lending but am happy to support depositors.

The fact that some things i am suggesting are too late to do now, does not make them not relevent. It just demonstrates ideas that brown should have used to help the stability of the banking sector.

At the end of the day, Nothern Rock crashed. That should have been the wake up call to make sure everythin
132

Alan B,

19/11/2008 14:46:02
... everything was done to help the banking sector be stable and secure. What we have found is despite assurances from the fsa the whole thing has gone belly up. As such brown has been complete asleep at the wheel.

That is not an argument for indepedence so do not think i am confusing the 2 issues. It is simply saying Brown has let us all down and we need a change at the top. Not convinced by Osbourne but Cable looks alot better. For the sake of the country labour would have been better removing brown and replacing him with Johnston (also have alot of time for McFall).
133

Alan B,

19/11/2008 14:53:17
#sm753

"You cannot make them 100% secured because that would shrink lending, and the economy as a whole, to a fraction of its current size. Welcome back to the 16th century."

I take the completely opposite view.

We should shrink lending. Lending is the problem.

While i am abit on the fence about action to get us out the hole, i am much more sure about how we should have avoided the problems.

The problems was caused by excessive lending. Building economic growth on huge house price inflation is not real growth. It is short term growth based on massive consumer mortgage debt.

The government should have restricted lending in a few ways to control house price inflation.
1)enforced ratios to salary and deposits etc.
2)and/or had tighter capital requirements on banks ie proportion of deposits to lending.

As for your comment about 16th century that shows how far you are reaching and overstating any argument. In the 80s with building societies they funded mortages and out of deposits as they could not fund them out of the credit markets.

I am happy to have some financial deregulation as long as it is well managed and puts the stability of the banking sector at its core. What we have found is irresponsible and incompetent regalation and management of the banking sector by Brown.
134

Alan B,

19/11/2008 14:55:18
#sm753

"The problem is the level of *private* debt. Who borrowed that money? Companies, and us."

Good to see you have contradicted yourself.

One minute you are saying we should change laws as it would restrict lending and next you are admitting it is the problem.

135

Alan B,

19/11/2008 15:00:29
#sm753

"I think we are *all* responsible for the state of the economy.

The UK's level of state debt relative to GDP is much lower than that of the likes of France, Germany etc. The problem is the level of *private* debt. Who borrowed that money? Companies, and us."

Personally i believe that is rubbish. It tries to pass the buck from the government for its economic management.

The european central bank sets a money supply target rather than an inflation target. Brown set a narrow cpi target for BOE. As such the job of the european central bank is to control the growth of credit.

Brown said he would control house prices but then set the BOE with an inflation target that did not include housing and hence no way to control consumer debt which is largely via the housing market.

I actually agree with using an inflation target but that is due to my support for regulatory measures to control credit like mortage ratios to salary and capital requirements to banks.

Problem is Brown despite saying in opposition that he would take action has done nothing in power.
136

Alan B,

19/11/2008 15:03:28
#149 sm753

Very little of that post stands up to any scrutiny.

137

Alan B,

19/11/2008 15:13:16

"Was anyone forced by the Government to buy a bigger house, or take out a new credit card? "

It is the government job to control inflation and manage the economy. They simply did not control massive house price inflation or the growth in credit caused by it. Blaming the people for poor government economic management is silly.

"Those calling for governmental heads need to have a look at themselves."

And what about alot of people who have been prudent and conservative in their own finances but are going to be damaged by a recession caused by by government missmanagement letting the levels of the money supply ie credit rip along with house prices.


"Nearly all governments and parties in most countries bought into the line that this time the markets knew what they were doing, light-touch regulation and so on. And what would have been the reward for being the first to call time?"

Rubbish. Germany and others have much more prudent lending for housing. And even if they did not the remit of the central bank is to control lending growth via monetary targets.

"Imagine if, say 3 years ago, the UK had suddenly limited mortgage values to 90%, limited credit cards to 2 per head, announced new limits on bank corporate lending, heavier City regulation, and so on?

What would have happened? Screams of outrage, house price collapse, bank and city layoffs"

Rubbish. First of all 3yrs ago is a misnomer. Brown should have controlled the money suppy and hence mortgage lending from day one. Controlling inflation including house price inflation is the core of economic management. Few others have got into our mess. (eg Ireland).

Also no one is talking about causing a crash in house prices 3yrs ago. But controlling house prices so they did not over heat. Steady and slow rises not massive house price inflation.

It is simple economics. Excessive credit lead to excessive demand and pushes up prices. Go read a book on Milton Friedman monetary policy to get an idea
138

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/11/2008 15:27:52
"It is simple economics. Excessive credit lead to excessive demand and pushes up prices. Go read a book on Milton Friedman monetary policy to get an idea"

Try reading Joseph Eugene Stiglitz who discredits much of Friedman's work.

Also try Austrian Schoolist Murray Rothbard's "What Has Government Done With Our Money?" that not only ripped apart Friedman's theory of money but also disescted its Keynesian rival.
139

TWC,

19/11/2008 15:38:09
Fed & AlanB, This is educational for me, I wish I was learned enough to contribute to such a good but I do know this:

SM said
The problem is the level of *private* debt. Who borrowed that money? Companies, and us.

I don't have a penny of debt I invested everything in Safe Bonds plus ISAs, always within the £35k protection, I was no shrinking violet in my youth but this time I can say "It Wisny Me"

Go down to yuppy land where they have multiple credit cards spent to the limit for the culprits

140

TWC,

19/11/2008 15:39:25
oops I missed the word Good from my compliment to your debate
141

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 19/11/2008 16:00:37
159 TWC When it comes to private debt the UK has a scary amount of private debt scary, Some folk have been living behond there means for a long time I know of folk who are on benefits who have £35,000 - £40,000 of combined credit card and loan debt. Why did folk with little or no income get large amounts of credit?

This points to the fact that Alan B was making that the UK government did not control the supply side of credit strongly enough and this has led to this problem.

FED Keynesian economics have been pushed as the magic bulliet by many commentators and politicans, I thought that keynesian economics had proved to be limited as a guide to use for a roadmap out of a recession.

As the experience of large government spending in a recession on capital projects did not reflate the economy. The experience in the thirties of the new deal proved that. The new deal at best stabilised the US economy, it took WW2 to real get the US growth back on track.
142

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 19/11/2008 16:11:17
161 I had the same discussion with sm753 about the government debt and credit control in the economy sm753 said that we were all to blame, as we had used low interest rate loans etc.

I mean who is going to borrow money at a higher rate than the market is offering it's a nuts thing to say.

The UK government control the credit in the economy, not the citizens it politically suited GB to have a cheap and easy supply of money as this powered the consumer boom for ten years, withdraw the cheap credit and if by magic boom turns to bust.

And they say it was nothing to do with them rubbish isn't it. Either they are lying or are completely economically incompetent or a mixture of both.
143

brownlie,

19/11/2008 16:31:55
sm753

Er, no, actually you agree with me.

Your original contention was that "nobody goes into politics to destroy something" which, as I pointed out, was completely wrong.

By now admitting that the main reason Salmond is in politics is to destroy the union confirms that fact and no amount of blustering can change that.
144

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/11/2008 16:34:53
#162 I was not saying that Keynesianism was the answer - what I was pointing out was that the Tories are very isolated regards solutions. Whilst everyone is singing from the same Keynesian song sheet they are going to find it very hard to promote a non-Keynesian alternative.

That being said, analysing Keynesian demand management on the basis of what happened in the 1930s is something of a futile task. Economics and the world has moved on - any analysis must relate to present circumstances and present fiscal policy. Also, the difference here is not capital expenditure for the sake of it - it is the bringing forward of expenditure that was already planned.

The concern I have is more to do with the tax cut side of the equation. All parties (the Tories included) seem to see this as being the magic bullet - I am not so sure. It is predicted that inflation may turn into deflation some time next year - if that happens then I don't believe tax cuts are going to do the job of stimulating the economy - because all that will happen is that consumers will hold on to their cash or repay their debts - not use it for consumer spending.
145

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 19/11/2008 16:54:36
166 I agree on the tax cuts as it is always difficult to predict what humans will do especially in the current climate I said the same things as yourself on another thread about folk were more likely to save any money they got or use it to repay their debts.

My concern is that GB is going to use a scatter gun approach to the problem, so that he is seemed to be doing something, anything even if it makes no sense.

Moving capital projects forward will be a stabilizing effect, but the elephant in the room is that large amount of debt, both citizens and business will concentrate on getting there balance sheets sorted so in the short term most folk will not spend money they don't have to.

The government has to be honest and say that they have limited scope as increasing borrowing beyond what is necessary for social provision, as this will make matters worse for us all, as increasing taxes when the business cycle turns might have a huge deflationary affect on weak recovery.

146

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 19/11/2008 17:09:25
169 the government does control the fiscal and monetary levers of the UK, Brown is culpable because it suited his politics of growing the economy on the back of house price inflation and cheap international credit.

Not every country bought into this mad rush, speaking to my colleagues in Germany they are bemused by it all as they can't understand why folk in the UK use a house as a proxy for wealth and use this proxy to power there spending.

Expand and Contract as always is the norm in economics, it was very silly of Gordon Brown to say no more boom and bust.

I think what grates a lot of folk is the attempt by spinning that Gordon Brown is the saviour of the universe and has no responsibility, instead of holding up his hands and saying sorry folks I got a few things wrong.

I think he actually believes in his own press, that was the downfall for Blair in the end.

147

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 19/11/2008 17:15:15
sm753@171 your last paragraph is subjective and a point of view. And I don't believe in God.
148

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 19/11/2008 17:16:01
173 Eh? Is your moniker a take on the Spooks?
149

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 19/11/2008 17:19:24
Good government economics isn't complicated it's very simple. My simple opinion as is my opinion of there isn't a God.
150

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 19/11/2008 17:22:19
177 Easy laddie, You have to admit some of the language you have used about Alex Salmond has been somewhat expressive to his girth, I haven't used anything personal about Gordon Brown just his politics and choices.
151

brownlie,

19/11/2008 17:23:47
171 sm753

I'm surprised that you appear to deride semantics - most of your responses to other posters are based on semantics.
152

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 19/11/2008 17:28:04
177 If I have to choose since I have a norse name it would be Odin I'll see you in Valhalla.
153

TWC,

19/11/2008 17:30:59
168 sm753,
Blame needs to be thrown around when people are not contrite and try to avoid their culpability, like Brown.
He is managing to make Poor people believe he is a saviour.

He is saving banks by giving them British tax money to save the businesses which put their work off shore and sacked British workers/taxpayers.
We need to blame him so people will not vote for him and get rid of him.
154

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 19/11/2008 17:44:17
183 Agreed the BOE was given independence in 1997, but who appoints the members of the MPC? The government does have a say on as they appoint four members to the board and I imagine have a great say on who the crown appointees are.

The BOE and the treasury will be talking all the time, they will take their lead from HMG, because of the targets set. Do you think that if 5 years ago GB had decided that the rise of debt and the house price spiral was growing too rapidly, the MPC would not have agreed and listened to HMG and decided to gradually deflate demand by restricting supply.

As for Cheap international credit the third arm is the FSA, if the banks had been better controlled on there use of money from the international markets and debt ratios would the problems were are experiencing be as bad? Obviously I don't think so.
155

grannie,

Glasgow 19/11/2008 17:45:16
Over the last few weeks I've wondered if the banks have followed the procedure used by some employees. When I worked if there appeared news that a bad flu was going around you could put the kettle on for some people phoning in to say they were now down with flu. Over the next few days the numbers would steadily increase as it seemed there was now a great excuse for having time off. I think the banks, like some employees, just jumped on the band wagon and made out they were also in dire straits. Maybe I'm just simple?
156

TWC,

19/11/2008 17:52:36
Grannie that's too easy, the banks put Uk Work off shore and it is still there They are getting money from us and they will make more redundant BUT will they bring the off shore work back first?????
this is the irony and Brown is not going to interfere.
157

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 19/11/2008 17:55:07
185 None wat so every I think that is probably the most positive comment I have read from yourself.
158

Roy Forrester,

Bloomsburg USA 19/11/2008 19:15:05
Just what more proof do you need that Gordon Brown & Co are simply attacking Scotland, this time using Lloyds as a weapon. As I said before, create your own national bank of Scotland and give the two-fingered salute to Westminster & Lloyds. You can expect more attacks of this nature from Westminster. They are attacking the idea of an independent Scotland and are afraid to let the Scots decide for themselves!!!
159

Westfield Bairns,

falkirk 19/11/2008 19:34:38
More Union Dividends, how kind, however Brown and Darling are a Godsend to the Independence movement,can't come quick enough
160

PointOf View,

20/11/2008 00:36:15
11 Bring it off

Excellent post, interesting comments re Obama, Clinton tie-up!

Google "Endgame 1.5" for answere to that question!
161

PointOf View,

Bonnie Scotland 20/11/2008 00:55:10
Guy's its not just about the Banks!!! or about Scotland versus England, Its about the Union!
AND
its not just happening here, its happening in the USA. They're trying to force a Union between Mexico, USA and Canada and guess what their currancey will ultimately be,,,, if they get away with it? The EURO.!
Not believe me,,, then
Google this "Endgame 1.5" and see for yourself!
162

Tris,

18/02/2009 00:13:13
Turns out it wasn't the best deal in the world for Llodys' shareholders huh ?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

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.