Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Anger at Mandelson's intervention over HBOS as Government seeks to railroad takeover



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

Published Date: 23 October 2008
BUSINESS leaders accused the government last night of trying to force through the takeover of HBOS by Lloyds TSB, after Peter Mandelson warned the bank would be bailed out only if the deal went ahead.
Concern about ministers' tactics came as new fears emerged about the health of Scotland's financial services industry on the back of figures showing that the sector was still in decline, in marked contrast to the picture for the UK as a whole. Economists at a Glasgow think tank, the Centre for Public Policy for Regions, said the drop in the second quarter of the year was mainly down to insurance companies, rather than banks.

The announcement from Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, that the recapitalisation offer for HBOS was contingent on the takeover going through left analysts and opposition politicians concerned about the lengths to which Westminster will go to force through the deal.

The Scotsman has learned that his remarks have driven Alex Salmond, the First Minister, to write to Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, demanding clarification on the government's position.

Yesterday, 64 MPs – more than one in ten – voted against suspending competition rules to allow the HBOS-Lloyds TSB deal to happen. The 424 who backed the move included all the Edinburgh Labour members.

The government announced last week that it had agreed to take a stake in Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds TSB and HBOS. Its offer to Lloyds and HBOS was a total of £17 billion – £5.5 billion and £11.5 billion respectively.

The businessman Jim Spowart told The Scotsman the government appeared to be trying to "railroad" the deal through. He said: "This is the government forcing this through.

"The Scottish population is being treated with absolute contempt. That puts the very heart of democracy at risk." He said there was a "wall of silence and gun-to-the-head approach" from politicians.

Mr Salmond is calling on the Chancellor to "urgently clarify" Lord Mandelson's remarks on the growing controversy surrounding the proposed takeover.

Lord Mandelson told the Commons business committee this week that the government's recapitalisation of HBOS and Lloyds TSB depended on the takeover proceeding apace. "The recapitalisation is predicated on the merger going ahead," he said.

Mr Salmond's letter states: "As you will have seen, there is great interest in the implications of the potential Lloyds TSB merger with HBOS in terms of jobs and decision-making functions in Scotland and competitiveness of the market.

"Questions have been asked by a variety of parties seeking clarification of whether the government recapitalisation is available to both banks as independent entities or whether the recapitalisation is contingent on the merger."

The First Minister is believed to have been particularly irked by additional remarks from Lord Mandelson that he had "heard nothing that suggests the merger wouldn't go ahead".

This indicates the Business Secretary is unaware of the growing questioning of the takeover proposal in Scotland and, in particular, Mr Salmond's widely reported speech at the SNP conference in Perth last weekend in which he criticised the plan.

Alex Potter, an analyst at the stockbroker Collins Stewart, said he could not understand the government's persistence in pushing for the takeover when the available liquidity package would do more to help the banks.

"It seems to show the weak grip that Lord Mandelson appears to have on ways to stabilise the financial system," he said.

Keith Bowman, a banking analyst with the broker Hargreaves Lansdown, said although there were strong arguments for HBOS standing alone, "the government is probably too fearful to reverse their stance on the takeover in case they would be undermining the wider plan".

Bryan Johnston, an Edinburgh-based analyst with Bell Lawrie, said: "I have been reluctant about politicians guddling about in the private sector and I regard the remarks by Peter Mandelson with caution.

"There is an element of verbal coercion that may rattle people. I think we are in momentous times and I wish Peter Mandelson and his like would keep their mouths shut."

But Shane O'Riordain of HBOS said: "Lord Mandelson was simply stating the facts. The capital injection is conditional on the deal with Lloyds TSB being completed. That inter-conditionality was communicated to all stakeholders two weeks ago and HBOS has continually referred to it since. It is hardly a surprise."

A Treasury spokesman said it was wrong to suggest the government was strong-arming the banks into the deal. He went on: "The merger is a commercial decision and the boards of both companies would not recommend anything that they did not consider to be in the best interests of their shareholders.

"We said we would support that by waiving the normal competition requirements to allow it to go through quickly."

The spokesman would not comment on what funding might be available to HBOS were its shareholders to vote down the Lloyds TSB merger as this was "hypothetical".

He added that the two banks had gone to the government to ask for recapitalisation on the basis of their merger and the government agreed on those terms.

City sources said they believed Lord Mandelson had been so outspoken in favour of the deal because "the government now believes it has got the City institutions onside behind the takeover".

BACKGROUND

THE impending marriage of Lloyds and HBOS has had a troubled courtship –which may go some way to explain the government is adamant its matchmaking will not fail at the alter.

The proposal was accepted in the corridors of the Treasury late at night on Wednesday September 17. According to reports, the chief executives were left to hammer it out between themselves.

The outcry was swift from businessmen and politicians, at least north of the Border.

By the start of this month, after Washington initially rejected the £380billion bail-out of US banks, sending shares plummeting across the Atlantic, the deal seemed in doubt. Indeed, it was renegotiated down some a fortnight later. The initial terms valued HBOS shares at 0.83 of a Lloyds share, but this was reduced to a 0.605 ratio.

However, this was overshadowed by the news, revealed at the same time, that both banks, along with RBS, were to take on government funding.

It was announced on October 13 that the banks were to take up the recapitalisation offer that the government had made to them and their contemporaries a week previously.

Bill Jamieson:A few days in the job and Mandy's already riding roughshod over shareholder democracy

Britain heading for recession, Brown admits for first time

The full article contains 1102 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 22/10/2008 23:57:40
"But Shane O'Riordain of HBOS said: "Lord Mandelson was simply stating the facts. The capital injection is conditional on the deal with Lloyds TSB being completed. That inter-conditionality was communicated to all stakeholders two weeks ago and HBOS has continually referred to it since. It is hardly a surprise."

Excuse me, I am a shareholder and have heard nothing of this.
2

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 23/10/2008 00:00:32
re2. I have heard about it but have not been informed about it.
3

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 23/10/2008 00:02:51
Right now I have a question.

Would I be correct in assuming that if the government bought 8.5 ordinary shares in HBOS then the price of the shares would rise?
4

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 23/10/2008 00:04:12
4. No.

The travel agent said you had booked all the seats for yourself.
5

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 23/10/2008 00:10:02
Oh dear, the dawn chorus. Time for the sanity of bed.
6

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 00:10:21


God! How naive!, it just shows why HBOS was in trouble in the first place, to come out with statement's like this,...

"BUSINESS leaders accused the government last night of trying to force through the takeover of HBOS by Lloyds TSB, after Peter Mandelson warned the bank would be bailed out only if the deal went ahead."

I knew this yonks ago!

Talk about being 'Green'!

7

Am Balach,

Isle of Skye 23/10/2008 00:12:10
Everyone ignore Bring them On please. He is out to ruin a serious discussion which has huge implications for Scotland and people's jobs.

Please do not engage with this gloic.
8

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 23/10/2008 00:18:09
Just before I go, I would like to leave something for the more sane to ponder upon.

October last year the HBOS had a stock market value of 25.5 billion. Today it is less than 6 billion.

The Government wants to inject 11.5 billion into HBOS, of which only 3 billion will be preferential shares. The other 8.5 billion will be spent in buying ordinary shares.

The share price has to rise. This would lower the percentage ratio of the government's stake.

Hmmmm?
9

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 00:18:15



Ahoy There Me Hearties"!!

Stop all the Chales Linskaill,..'Bashing'!

I have NOTHING to do with, or am I related to BTO, secondly my DYW, has more sense than to post on here, she doesn't come near, and most likely, thinks I am MAD, talking to you 'Scallywags'! :D


10

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 23/10/2008 00:23:23
Mittelmäßig Spermdonor@14.

Yeh, yeh, yeh, yeh. Na und?
11

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 00:41:54

Gods Sake! My broadband has just gone down, someone must have one of these dolls and sticking needles in me :)
This post is from mobile, oh well if I dont get the laptop working you got your, ...... .'just desires'. :(
12

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 00:51:57


Back!

Don't you just get 'fed-up' and frustrated with PC's and Mr Gates, never a moment some problem turns-up.

Must invest with a 'Apple' Laptop, the wise say they are much better.
13

Embra Don,

23/10/2008 00:53:03
A few weeks ago I ask the questions below and have yet to see an answer - can anyone help?

The LTSB chairman claims that they had been in discussion swith HBOS for two years regarding a merger - why, as they knew it would be vetoed by the MMC?

Are there fees payable to the board members who brokered the deal?

When did the treasury know about the proposed merger?

14

Embra Don,

23/10/2008 01:00:17
Perhaps Lord Mandy might spare a little time from his cosy tete a tete with George Osborne on Russian superyachts to campaign in Glenrothes.
15

,

23/10/2008 01:05:53
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Bring it Off,

UK 23/10/2008 01:18:53
Mandelson "Gatecrashed Microsoft Boss's Yacht Party"
Same Time Microsoft Appealing EC €497m Fine

According to a popular website a man on the high seas talks about a party thrown by Paul Allen on his yacht in 2005.

Peter Mandelson was brought to the party by a third person - uninvited.Peter Mandelson yes the EU trade man.

He was not a welcome guest and was avoided by many of the other party-goers who were only too well aware that the European Commission had fined Microsoft a record €497 million on competition grounds. Microsoft was engaged in a bitter legal battle to have the fine overturned.

With billions at stake it was surely inappropriate for the trade commissioner to meet socially with the second largest shareholder in Microsoft when it was in a fierce battle with the Commission.

Dont you think so Mr Mandelson
17

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 01:18:59


Its really quite mad!, all the talk on HBOS, thing is, as soon as the Government stepped-in, that was the final,..'Nail-in-the-Coffin' for them,

Never bothered to look at,..'Share Prices' last at close, but I think they are floating at about 70-80pence,

No-More the £9.00 per share, No-More the HBOS we knew!

Sadness for me was the original No-More,..

'Bank of Scotland'

Will our Whisky be next,? (Made in Korea)
18

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 01:21:39



BTW! #30 BTO, no offence in my post @#17, just that everyone, thinks we post from the same pc.
19

Edward,

23/10/2008 01:31:27
This 'deal' is only concocted by Labour in order to bring the Scottish financial sector down
There is no other reason
We have had anecdotal evidence , which includes the chairman of the FSA, no less, who stated that HBOS actually would be more than able to survive independently and it may not even need capitalisation.
Labour’s stance that if Lloyds TSB don’t take over HBOS, then HBOS is not given capital, is nothing more than blatant blackmail, but then what would you expect from Labour! It was well placed leaks from Labour ministers that manipulated an already shaky market that saw share prices in the Banks fall. It was the same Labour ministers that singled out the Scottish banks for unwarranted criticism.
Now we have Mandelson dictating to us that HBOS has to be taken over, even when it actually doesn’t. As yet there has been no presentation to Shareholders of options to vote on.
Just to remind that any publicly listed company that has share issue, has by law, is required to seek shareholder acceptance, by majority vote on any changes to any takeover or merger which involves the change in shares, or does Labour think they are above all that!
20

Ugly George,

23/10/2008 01:32:26
Tamson # various

Your shares are worthless.

So is your Party, your economy and your Independent Scotland fixation.

Get over it.
21

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 02:02:33


bring them on @#33,

NO! I have a, 'Sate-of-the-Art' Dell Laptop, I purchased a Lovely Pink Laptop similar for my DYW,
(which is rarely used)

Thing is! never a week goes by, when something goes 'Nuts', :(

Like the HBOS on their unfair charges, in hindsight, maybe I should of made,..'Better Choices'.
22

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 02:12:03


I would rather, 'be without', than to have 'Rubbish'!

Connotation's,?
23

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 02:19:41


Connotation's,? re: topic news article,? (this thread)
24

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 23/10/2008 04:28:30
The labour party are becoming more desperate by the day.

This is clearly politically motivated, taxpayers everywhere in the UK have the right to be presented with all options available, this whole affair is starting to stink.

Power has clearly corrupted them
25

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 23/10/2008 04:51:03
Whats going on.

I posted a comment over 20 minutes ago and 'bring them on' hasn't posted a considered, well articulated response like:-

'SNP are aw bawbags'

He's slipping
26

donald,

glasgow 23/10/2008 05:11:48
Business must be bad if even the Hootsmon is complaining. Is the worm for turning?
27

Pilrig.,

Livingston 23/10/2008 05:25:09
46 - ok Mandy, you've mader yer point.
28

AB_R,

23/10/2008 05:40:33
This condition was communicated at the time of the original announcement, I think I even read about it in the Scotsman and commented about it at the time.
29

,

23/10/2008 06:44:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

,

23/10/2008 06:45:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
31

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 23/10/2008 06:56:47
Time for the sane morning shift to ponder this matter: the fact remains that the government unilaterally and without the support of Parliament wishes to suspend the law on competition to enable this take over. As we live in a democracy this is illegal.

The deal must not go ahead. BOS can easily survive on its own. The problem is with Halifax.
32

Russell M,

Stirling 23/10/2008 06:57:29
Should we be talking banking or politics here? The more traction Scottish independence gains the more ways the English globalists will try to find to spike our economy. For 300 generations we took care of our own business before our nobility was seduced by the illusion of wealth and power offered from the South. Our biggest flaw is our undying loyalty to our leaders who for 10 generations have demonstrated that their interest lay elsewhere.
33

,

23/10/2008 07:01:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
34

madrab,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 07:08:50
People in Glenrothes please note.

This is what you get if you vote for Labour.

Say goodbye to your jobs as they move south of the border.

Brown becoming more like Thatcher every day.
35

Wee Fifer,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 07:13:02
The HBOS guy said it 'inter-conditionality', which actually means conditionality. They saw a political opportunity and have seized it. 'Conditionality' the world over is about using economic levers to achieve political objectives. We know what Labour's political objectives are - they are not bothered about the technical position of whether the bank is sound or not, they are concerned from the outset to prove that Scotland is not economicaly viable. There's no hidden message here, they are quite open about it.
36

madrab,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 07:19:23
If Labour win the election in Glenrothes, will the last person working turn the light off?
37

Kyle N Carrick,

23/10/2008 07:31:10
63. Oh dear - I see the repulsive, negative and sneering "bring them on"/ Rufus T/ English Voice is on another 24/7 obsessive binge on the Scotsman. Poor chap never posts anything of substance and seems neurotically obsessed with posting on here all the time. He is often here 20-21 hours s day. Spare a spot of sympathy for the sad creature as you scroll past his bilious negative cyber dribble.
38

Bigwull,

edinburgh 23/10/2008 08:01:38
61 at least there would be a light to turn out, unlike if the Tories were in power.
39

Conan the Librarian™,

23/10/2008 08:13:53
66
Jeez sm753, I thought I was reading a post from AM2 there for a minute...
40

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 23/10/2008 08:20:26
#56 BTO

I don't understand your point.

Mine is that the gov is suspending the law to enable an illegal activity to take place. Governments cannot arbitrarily suspend laws; only Parliament can. And it hasn't.
41

john z,

edinburgh 23/10/2008 08:23:35
This is just outrageous. Do we live in a democracy or not.

Those in Scotland who post nonsense supporting this unlawful merger here, care nothing for Scottish jobs.

This is a dirty, dirty, deal. I have said this from the very beginning, and it needs exposed for what it is. Perhaps a blo*dy nose for Labour in Glenrothes may help them get the message.

HBOS is not the plaything of Brown, and MOST CERTAINLY NOT the playhthing of Peter Mandelson.

Gordon Brown, a man leading a Government full of liars, cheats and Spivs. And not one of them cares about Scottish Jobs.

The union has failed Scotland.

The economy has failed under the Union, at Browns hands.

Time for Change.
42

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 23/10/2008 08:24:19
I'd like to express a big thank you to 'bring them on' and 'charles' from the cybers.

Boys, if you are the best that labour can muster the future of Scotland looks yellow and black. You both offer a shallowness of argument that must have AM2 turning in his grave (I'm assuming that he has died or dropped of the face of the earth - RIP big guy. Or perhaps tweedle dum and tweedle dumber are a strategy shift - stop trying to offer a counter view and debate and instead engage in name calling and banality - in the hope of reducing these boards to a daily $hitfight?).

But whatever thanks again guys, your doing a marvellous job.
43

57vintage,

Keith 23/10/2008 08:33:35
#56

What vote is being referred to here:

"Yesterday, 64 MPs – more than one in ten – voted against suspending competition rules to allow the HBOS-Lloyds TSB deal to happen. The 424 who backed the move included all the Edinburgh Labour members."

I'm assuming it was taken "yesterday" and that democracy has decreed that in these exceptional circumstances, the rules are suspended. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - I have been before.

I cannot believe the paranoia and willingness to take offence on here sometimes.
44

The Wookie,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 08:39:03
Unfortunatly my friends this is being pushed through to stop Scotland from becoming a free country - the Government are frightened what is happening in Scotland with the SNP - this and the RBS bail out has been done to bring them under English control....

And before you ask - I have never voted SNP nor intend to....
45

Proximaking,

Aberdeen 23/10/2008 08:39:33
Does any of this really matter? The emperors are fiddling while Roma burns. Capitalism is dead in the water and is about to glug under for the third and last time. She won't be missed. Everything attibuted to capital was actually done by people and though capital will disappear I don't see people disappearing any time soon. We just need a different and fairer system so only those who actually work as opposed to those who "use their capital" will get the benefits. Maybe all those soon to be unemployed managers out there will take some comfort from the fact they were right when they constantly told us that a company's greatest assets are the people who work for it. But I have yet to see a manager who was actually necessary to the working of a company, like governments all they do is get in the way of the people who actually make a company work.
46

brownlie,

23/10/2008 08:50:10
67 Conan

You were!!
47

Lorna B,

23/10/2008 08:54:58
For the love of God. For the love of Equality.

It makes me weep at what is happening to Scotland…again. What Brown, and more importantly the Establishment Civil Service, is doing to Scotland is nothing short of economic rape.
Is there anything the pro-Unionists won’t do to prevent Scotland leaving the Union?
Is there anything the Establishment and their lachies won’t do to destabalise the Scottish Economy?
Even on websites like this there are a number of posters, whoever they work for, intent on mischief and misinformation.
There is only one reason why Westminster will push through the HBOS takeover and that is to ensure that HBOS becomes a company registered in England rather than in Scotland. It is a systematic attempt to ensure that the bargaining power of those wishing to end the Union is reduced. And it is a systematic attempt to ensure that once again the people living in Scotland will have to go cap in hand to Westminster.
These people in Westminster have no care for Scotland. We have become a resource for another country rather than a resource for ourselves.
So why oh why, immaterial of one’s political persuasion can some not see what is happening. The fall-out will affect real people, real jobs, real education and real children. Our children!
I am no ‘N’ationalist but for hundred of years the people of Scotland have voted through fear. It is time for that mind set to change. Most people in Scotland want to move forward and we want to do it on our own.
This is not a political statement it is an aspiration; an aspiration to govern ourselves and to determine our own future. I care not for political parties but there is only one person I will be voting for in Glenrothes and it won’t be Labour. Why would I vote for a party who instils fear and rules by economic coercion? Why would any enlightened soul want to do that?
Obviously I care deeply for Scotland and its future but I rather take a step into the unknown than be subjected to being treated as p
48

Lorna B,

23/10/2008 08:56:22
cont.

Obviously I care deeply for Scotland and its future but I rather take a step into the unknown than be subjected to being treated as pawn and a work horse to supplement another country’s economy.
So to those Pro-Unionists and employees of UK ‘organisations’ who are preparing to mock and abuse this post…Spare me. I’ve read it all before.
For the love of God, reach deep inside yourself and ask just two questions. Do you enjoy being a patsy for others? Do you enjoy contributing to the wealth of others who care nothing for you?
If the answer is No then please have a heart. Have some dignity.
I have hope, I have faith and I have dreams. Scotland is my country. It is your country.
49

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 09:03:06
Has Mandelson made clear that Lloyds would not get bailed out if the merger did not progress?

Leverage for BoS to take over Lloyds if not!
50

brownlie,

23/10/2008 09:06:20
76/77 Lorna

I agree - ignore the negativity at 78/79/80!!!
51

SEUMAS,

fearn 23/10/2008 09:07:20
I repeat--This has nothing to do with finance--simply a political opportunity for Brown and his parcel of rogues to denigrate the Scottish Government.
52

,

23/10/2008 09:11:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
53

Mikey,

23/10/2008 09:15:22
All Scots should be asked to log on to this site and see the negativity of bto and his ilk. If this doesn't convince the few waverers that are left, nothing will.

Bto etc. go out of thir way to try and stifle debate. They know that through debate, truth emerges. The last thing the unionists want to hear is the truth.

bto reminds me of the drunk at a party that nobody knows. He comes to the party with nothing and inveigles himself in the door and proceeds to steal other peoples drinks.

He adds nothing and just talks shoite to every person there! People end up so fed up of him, he gets thrown out and creates a scene requiring the police to attend.

He proves the adage that 'empty vessels make most noise!'
54

Ian C,

Not on the moon ! 23/10/2008 09:16:48
To"Bring it on".

I know you. Your real name is Mr A S Hole. you should crawl back into it.

You would get on better with The Broon, Darling Eyebrows and the rest of the so called Scots who want their country to be England for their own ends.
55

Newman!,

23/10/2008 09:20:34
Unelected Lord Mandelson telling us what to do.

Need I say more?
56

brownlie,

23/10/2008 09:22:09
85 sm753

Good morning, AM2

Your comment "No, he wasn't" is typical of the negativity that you display in every post.

As a unionist I cannot believe that we are all so negative!
57

Incandescent,

23/10/2008 09:25:37
Let's see. Bring Them On posts continuously from 11:52 with the final post at 08:58 the following morning. Hmmm, looks a lot like the shift pattern of someone employed to promote an agenda.
58

Incandescent,

23/10/2008 09:26:13
#90 - handover finished, eh?
59

1stEdinburgh,

Scotland 23/10/2008 09:40:43
Once again, DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!

This is a serious discussion, not for morons and infantiles to post jokes.

Brown will reap what he has sown in Scotland. After the next election, there will be as many Scottish Tory MPs as Labour, maybe even more! If he thinks he can crush the Scottish economy and self-determination with this, he is totally dillusional. In places like Edinburgh, far from an SNP stronghold in the past, the majority are now siding with the SNP on this and most other issues. The backlash against the fragile union will be even greater - don't they realise it?
Back to the issue, the blackmail of not providing taxpayers (inc. Scottish ones) funds to one particular bank unless it agrees to be taken over is showing Brown and Mandelson for what they are - I can think of 2 names: Hitler and Goebbels - master of propaganda
60

brownlie,

23/10/2008 09:41:51
93 sm753

Surely it would be better nationalised than become a subsidiary of another bank with the consequential loss of jobs?

The UK Government should explain the situation where the two banks were discussing a merger even though they must have known that it would require a change in the law by the UK Government for the merger to go ahead.

Were the UK Government unaware of these talks or did they inform the banks that they would change the law to facilitate the merger?

Do you think that some-one with the unelected Mandelson's record for financial impropriety should be the person who decides the future of HBOS with the consequential effect on Scottish society?

Do you think he will make the decision with Scotland's interests at heart or will he make the decision with Labour's interests at heart?
61

Fairfax,

23/10/2008 09:45:38
sm753 (85): "What actually happens to a nationalised HBOS if and when it is "saved" from LTSB?

Any clues at all? Anyone?"

You're correct that the future is unclear. However, presumably the general idea would be to reprivatise HBOS (or some combination of the nationalized banks) several years in the future, following the route taken by Norway and Sweden during their banking crisis of the early 1990s. In my view, this makes more sense, since the £100 billion credit crunch legacy debt of HBOS could also doom Lloyds to nationalization.
62

Fairfax,

23/10/2008 09:50:36
brownlie (95): "Surely it would be better nationalised than become a subsidiary of another bank with the consequential loss of jobs?"

There will inevitably be job losses, whether nationalized or not. HBOS over-expanded its mortgage provision via the wholesale credit market, so any new management will reduce the number of branches and jobs. Further, since RBS is also part-nationalized, it would be sensible to reduce the number of jobs and branches for both companies. In brief, the banking sector itself needs to contract, so that sadly implies losing branches and jobs.
63

noswod,

Honestas 23/10/2008 09:52:22
Lord Mandy of the Superyacht is making the HBOS/Lloyds deal capital injection conditional on takeover for purely political reasons. Shafting HBOS and closing down a Edinburgh bank politically castrates the SNP and castrates the Scottish economies hopes of ever being becoming independant. It also provides the political fulcrum for Labours political revival in Southern Britain and gives Labour a very good fear factor to try and get reelected in Glenrothes. Full set of cards for the Prince of Darkness. Cameron looked like the boy David against the olde Gargolye yesterday with the perfectly formed Ozzie looking like Billy Bunter who had been caught with his hands in the sweetie jar. Slamond & the SNP cannot win on a political agenda of "weel give you more hand oot's than Labour" if independent Scotland currently would be getting economically minced up like Hungary. Long term policies that focus on education for Scots at their own Universities, protection of Scotlands weak industrail and commercial base, long term infrastructural development are the strategic approach that will bring change to match the rethoric. Theres not much chance of that.
64

Calum10,

23/10/2008 09:57:20
Peter Mandelson is doing Gordon Brown's dirty work here on the forced takeover of HBOS. Gordon Brown is too feart to confirm 40,000 job losses, so he gets the snake Mandy to do it for him.

Alistair Darling just looks weak. He had an opportunity to confirm the details of the HBOS takeover but has refused to utter a word.

As for Edinburgh's Labour MPs. They will all lose their seats for the craven capitulation on the vote in the Commons last night.
65

brownlie,

23/10/2008 10:01:37
98 Fairfax

I agree that there would be job losses even if the bank was nationalised but not as many as if the merger took place because of the duplication of local offices etc.

Do you have any thoughts on the fact that they were discussing a merger without knowing whether the government would change the law?
66

Westfield Bairns,

falkirk 23/10/2008 10:12:37
Gordon Brown Anti-Scottish
And again the deal will go through for the above reason
67

Alan B,

23/10/2008 10:14:02
Problem is Brown has so little credibility left that you simply do not trust him if he says a merger is the best option.
68

bluehead,

edinburgh 23/10/2008 10:14:04
it's pretty obvious what is going on,remember this is the world of politics,so everything stinks,there is only one conclusion to be drawn,horse faced Murphy .and meddling Mendelssohn have been brought in to scupper the Scottish hope for independence,the dirty tricks department are on overtime,this is the labour government using the lowest form of sewage!!!
69

Fairfax,

23/10/2008 10:19:07
brownlie (101): "I agree that there would be job losses even if the bank was nationalised but not as many as if the merger took place because of the duplication of local offices etc"

Remember that RBS has also been part-nationalized. Therefore there will still be pressure to reduce duplication.

"Do you have any thoughts on the fact that they were discussing a merger without knowing whether the government would change the law?"

I believe that they assumed the Government would do almost anything to avoid the failure of a high-street bank, and would much prefer compromising competition to nationalization. After all, HBOS had been losing £2 (roughly) in its share-price every 3 months for the last year, starting at between £8 and £9, so its management, and investors, were aware that the business was essentially dying, because of its impending need to refinance £100 billion of short-term loans. Therefore, at some point in the last 3 months, I suspect the management of HBOS began to approach other organizations. Lloyds TSB were obviously interested, and had the good luck to mostly avoid dependence on the money markets. I take the view that conspiracy theories concerning Brown and his wish to impede Scottish independence are false.
70

Alan B,

23/10/2008 10:22:01
#Fairfax

I think you bleak outlook really depends on how bad this recession is and how badly the housing market gets.

I think Browns general mishandling of the economy could mean that the recession and the effect on house prices are much worse than otherwise would have been.

If we really do see massive negative equity that could see people just giving back the keys to their house. That could be disasterous for the banks.

The real underlying problem for the banks is not the temporary liquidity problem from the credit markets which would have bankrupted them without a bail out but the massive deflation of the housing market and the recession which will mean alot of people will default.
71

57vintage,

Keith 23/10/2008 10:24:12
#100

So, at last someone has actually been polite enough to read the article before ranting about the anti-democratic nature of the Govt's suspension of the rules for such occurrences - my point at #72 above nearly 2 hours ago. The voters will decide in Edinburgh at the next GE, as you say, but I doubt that this story will be of much interest to voters in 18 months time who will be more concerned with personal finance issues.
72

Alan B,

23/10/2008 10:26:13
#Fairfax

Question for you.

Example

Banks has
-100 billion deposits
-150 mortgage lending
- 50 billion borrowed from the credit markets

Why can the bank not just default on the 50billion credit market loans? Go bankrupt (in a way the US companies do still trading with chapter 11 or whatever)

The depositors money would be safe as it is covered by the 150 mortage lending.

Those that lose out are those businesses that loaned money to a bankrupt business.

I cannot understand why depositors should not be higher up the priority list than inter banks lenders.

I guess what i am saying is why should this not be the system.
73

Matt there,

Somewhere 23/10/2008 10:28:28
Nice to see Lord Snooty of the Colonial Office telling 'Johnny Foreigner' what to do.
74

Fairfax,

23/10/2008 10:30:07
Alan B (106): "If we really do see massive negative equity that could see people just giving back the keys to their house. That could be disasterous for the banks."

Agreed.

"The real underlying problem for the banks is not the temporary liquidity problem from the credit markets which would have bankrupted them without a bail out but the massive deflation of the housing market and the recession which will mean alot of people will default."

I don't really disagree, but would view these as part of the same problem: banks in the UK (and the US) had taken the view that mortgage lending is low-risk, and that has been partly due to the incorrect views that house prices would continue to rise and that the economy would continue to be able to support it. The credit crunch was the realization that mortgages were much riskier assets, with the result that banks ceased to believe in the validity of balance sheets, with the consequent collapse of the money markets. The house price crash and the recession are therefore both causes and effects of the banks' problems, as our economies struggle to deal with vast debt.
75

,

23/10/2008 10:31:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
76

Alan B,

23/10/2008 10:36:13
#sm753

Any comment on my post at #108
77

Fairfax,

23/10/2008 10:37:59
Alan B (108): "Why can the bank not just default on the 50billion credit market loans? Go bankrupt (in a way the US companies do still trading with chapter 11 or whatever)"

It can, but the consequences can bee frightening.

"The depositors money would be safe as it is covered by the 150 mortage lending."

The key here is that the mortgages are no longer liquid low-risk assets that be treated as near-currency via securitization. Instead, they are highly risky assets whose value is unclear, and for which there might be no buyers. In that case, if the depositors demanded their money, the only possibility would be to demand that all mortgages be paid. The borrowers would then be faced with raising the cash or moving their mortgages at speed -- a fire-sale.

"Those that lose out are those businesses that loaned money to a bankrupt business."

That's correct, but the loss need not be contained there. A large bank poses a systemic risk: its failure can cause a domino effect, in that other banks fail. The result can be the collapse of the financial system. For American economists, this is fundamental to their view of the causes of the depression, and it's Bernanke's area of expertise. It's less part of our background in the UK, because we didn't suffer the terrifying contagion of dying banks.
78

,

23/10/2008 10:40:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
79

Alan B,

23/10/2008 10:48:15
#114 Fairfax

"if the depositors demanded their money, the only possibility would be to demand that all mortgages be paid"

As long as the government guarantee the money then it would not be a problem. Also that is how building societies operate. People rush to get their money out if they think they will lose their money. So i do not see it really being the core issue.

The real question i am getting at is who is the government bailing out the banks for. Initially you think it is the depositors. But that really is not the case.

The banks problems are that they have to pay back lending from the credit markets, and need to get new loans. By effectively defaulting on them, as any normal bankrupt business would do then the bank can be effectively recapitalized. New restructured payments to the credit market lender could be found to work the bank of its bankruptcy.

I find it difficult to see why that is not the best solution.

This whole bail out is really to finance those that have lent money in the credit markets. Who are they? Not the high street banks as they have borrrowed so heavily to finance their mortgage lending. Which companies have made this massive credit market lending and hence which ones could go bust as a result of the defaulting.

I just think banks working their way out of bankruptcy by restructuring their credit markets loans would possibly be a better way than the huge government bail outs and nationalisation of the banks.
80

Alan B,

23/10/2008 10:50:53
#Fairfax

Alternatively an paying back of the credit market loans could take the form of 50p in the £ type of thing.

81

shivago8,

livingston 23/10/2008 10:56:06
Mandelson,the lying rotweiller,should have been kicked out when he was asked to go twice.

He got a plumb job as an MEP.

HE HAS STARTED ROCKING THE BOAT ALREADY.
He is all wind and p--- and his threat the HBOS will go under and not get the government grant is hogwash,no way can the govt afford to let this bank go under.

Half of the country have got mortgages with them,what will happen to them.

How do we get rid of Mandelson is foremost

82

,

23/10/2008 10:58:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
83

,

23/10/2008 10:58:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
84

Fairfax,

23/10/2008 11:02:52
Alan B (116): "As long as the government guarantee the money then it would not be a problem. Also that is how building societies operate."

There are several points to consider further. Firstly, the compensation scheme for depositors' at British banks is partly funded by contributions from the member financial institutions, so it would run out of money if many institutions began to fail -- it's designed to cope with a small number of failures, not many failures. Secondly, the government may not have, or be able to raise, sufficient funds to cover depositors, in which case the government guarantee becomes worthless -- it can only cope with a limited number of failures, not systemic failure.
85

brownlie,

23/10/2008 11:05:49
110 sm753

Okay, fair enough. The decisions are made higher up by Gordon Brown. However, it was Gordon Brown who made the decision to appoint Peter Mandelson to this post.

In a time of obvious financial difficulty, when financial probity is of the essence, do you think it was wise to appoint as Business Secretary some-one with a dubious financial track record?

Surely Brown is not devious enough to use Mandelson as a convenient scape-goat if the financial situation deteriorates, if that is possible, any further?
86

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 23/10/2008 11:06:56
Anyone who thinks that HBOS can go it alone has an immense appetite for risk ie he/she is daft.
87

Fairfax,

23/10/2008 11:08:56
Alan B (116): "By effectively defaulting on them, as any normal bankrupt business would do then the bank can be effectively recapitalized. New restructured payments to the credit market lender could be found to work the bank of its bankruptcy.

I find it difficult to see why that is not the best solution."

It would indeed be the best solution if we could be sure that it would not lead to general financial collapse. In the 1930s American banking system, your strategy was initially followed, but the result was a cascade of failures. Once the number of failed banks reaches a certain number of large institutions, it seems that a change of phase occurs. It is this fear that is at the heart of government policies, particularly in the US.
It's particularly notable that Paulson allowed Lehmans to fail, presumably taking the view that it was not sufficiently important to the system as a whole (and this was plausible at the time). Unfortunately, Lehmans was the catalyst for many other failures in the US and in Europe.
88

Alan B,

23/10/2008 11:13:15
#Fairfax

I think guarantee depositors cash is a bit of a red herring to the idea i am putting forward. you only need the compensation scheme if the banks fails. My idea would prevent the bank from effectively failing. People will only take the money if they think they are going to lose the cash. For a bank with assets of 150billion and depositors of 100billion, along with government guanrantees will prevent any rush to take cash out. We have seen that with the current government guarantees.

Als the current guarantees have effectively been government ones not via the other financial institutions.

I still do not understand the main core issue. Who lent to these highstreet banks in the credit markets. As such what financial instutions are we really bailing out with tax payers money. Only by knowing them publically and understanding their business can we fully understand the implication of either defaulting and letting them go bust or restructuring the credit market loans so that they are payable over a 5yr period.

While this may not be a good way forward the lack of discussion or openess about what is really going on and who we are really propping up and financing does intrigue me.
89

57vintage,

Keith 23/10/2008 11:14:27
#118

Your statement "He got a plumb job as an MEP" would be worthwhile if it was true.

Had he been given such a role as you imply, then he would have been voted in. Democracy, ken?

I think you will find that he was appointed as a European Commissioner, ie a Euro civil servant, rather than having been elected. That's the system, mate.

Mind you, why let facts get in the way of a good prejudicial rant?
90

Alan B,

23/10/2008 11:16:46
#124 Fairfax

Question is who are the companies. Why has this not be serious discussed and then rejected.

Are they uk companies the government is effectively bailing out?

The more i think about it discussing it with you I am wondering why this whole thing has been shrowed in so much secrecy.

I guess what i am saying is we the public really need to have more info about what is actually happening and who has really funded this whole thing.
91

Brian Hill,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 11:18:53
LornaB 76, excellent post, well thought out and well presented. Compare this to the superficial ramblings of unionist trolls like Bring it on and Charles Linskaill.

These people should be ignored, they have nothing positive to say, they don't even offer intelligent argument. As #12 Am Ballach says, B.I.O's aim to ruin serious discussion on a very important issue to Scotland.

#73 The Wookie following your crystal clear analysis why won't you be voting SNP in the future? Doesn't make sense to me.
92

Dijit,

Glasgow 23/10/2008 11:19:36
Dear Gordon, Alistair, Mandy and the UK press,

Wise up and start dealing in facts and the truth please.

Despite Gordon's cavalier dispensation from competition rules, misleading, false statements were issued to the market by both HBOS's board and the FSA and various government ministers.
Further they ignore all the regs on acting as shadow directors.
For the record the shareholders, who have yet to be consulted, still own and control LLoyds-TSB and HBOS.

Keep acting in this manner and prepare to spend some time and your own money (for once) defending yourselves in court against legitimate and valid shareholder actions.
The actions of the FSA in suddenly demanding a near 50% increase in Tier One Capital ratio from the banks and insurance companies looks mighty suspicious.
One might be given to thinking Gordon had a masterplan to replenish empty treasury coffers from the banks with no mention of windfall taxes this time.
Especially odd is the fact that as soon as the banks threw in the towel the FSA let the insurance companies off the hook.

As a Lloyds-TSB shareholder why would I want my good money thrown into bailing out the imprudence of HBOS?
A resounding NO vote from either bank's shareholders would administer the swift kicking this government's lies and underhand deeds so richly deserves.
93

Alan B,

23/10/2008 11:20:31
#W U Merchant

"Anyone who thinks that HBOS can go it alone has an immense appetite for risk ie he/she is daft."

It is actually more daft to say one way or the other as lets face it we the public do not have a clue about the best course of action, as we know few details about the real mechanic behind this.

At the end of the day all we can do is chose to believe one banker/expert or another. One politician or another. The problem for Brown is noone can seriously trust him or his judgement, becuase of his sheer economic incompetence over the past decade and also becuase of Brown the person and the way he has acted.

94

Alan B,

23/10/2008 11:30:01
#W U Merchant

Question for you as you support the takeover of HBOS by Lloyds.

The problem with HBOS is it funded to much of its mortage lending using the credit markets. The global credit markets have dried up and HBOS cannot refinance its credit market lending. As such it has a big liquidity problem that would force an othewise profitable business into bankruptcy. (that is the facts as i see them and are generally the accepted position).

The wisdon being the Lloyds takeover, was Lloyds were a more conservative company and did not finance so much mortage lending from the credit markets ie in proportionally more from deposits.

The idea behind the takeover and the reason the government were waving competition rules was due to the idea that the better liquidity of Lloyds could bail out HBOS.

However the government subsidies were also targetted at Lloyds. As such it looks like the arguement that lloyds better liquidity could bail out hbos are false. Llloyds itself has liquity issues.

As such what is the serious business case for the merger given that you want to throw insults to others that are more sceptical of this merger.
95

Brian Hill,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 11:32:07
ps. Mandelson playing the London 'hard man' is going down like a lead balloon in Scotland.

He wants to take a close look at who he is dealing with. These are not wild eyed hairy kilted nats he is up against, this is the Edinburgh establishment as personified by the Scotsman's Bill Jamieson.

Jamieson, like the rest of the financial establishment up here is solid and 'conservative', small c, but with razor sharp teeth and brains to match.

Mandelson should realise that when these guys get going the last thing you do is square up to them.

But this is beginning to look like a London versus Edinburgh battle which is forcing Scots financiers to choose sides. A surprisingly high and growing number are banding behind the Saltire.

Keep going your lordship, you're doing a great job.
96

Miss H,

23/10/2008 11:37:02
133 Spot on. A combination of economic conditions and political opportunism by Labour seems to have achieved something close to a miracle, turning the Edinburgh establishment towards the SNP and independence.

Who’d have thunk it?
97

Miss H,

23/10/2008 11:43:36
58 That's a very good point and another point Labour are possibly overlooking.

They like to present Glenrothes as a place of old mining villages and Labour values.

But lots of those old mining villages are now inhabited by people who commute to work in Edinburgh, quite possibly for HBOS.

Who is going to ger their votes I wonder?
98

Miss H,

23/10/2008 11:47:42
96 Bit sensitive, aren't we? Independence supporters get called nazis all the time. It's a pretty meaningless term in the context of Scottish politics.
99

Fairfax,

23/10/2008 11:51:42
Alan B (128):" Question is who are the companies. Why has this not be serious discussed and then rejected."

HBOS would presumably have a vast range of counterparties, spread across the world.

"Are they uk companies the government is effectively bailing out?"

Some will be British, many others will be foreign. In many cases, HBOS will have securitized their mortgages via collateral debt obligations -- roughly speaking, they have sold shares in various parts of their mortgages -- so it's really not clear who would be affected by HBOS default. As for the effect of bailing them out, if HBOS were to default, that would trigger credit default swaps, i.e. the insurance policies which should protect HBOS creditors in case of default. Unfortunately, nobody knows whether the credit default swap system could take another several hundred billion dollars worth of pay-outs, so we would be back to general collapse (Lehmans $400 billion of credit default swaps might still cause problems worldwide, for example).

I think you are wholly wrong to say that there is unusual secrecy here. Instead, I believe it's simply ignorance.
100

,

23/10/2008 11:57:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
101

Alan B,

23/10/2008 12:04:19
#Fairfax

There are a whole load of intelligent financial journalists. I just find it strange that the basic questions i am asking are not asked. That the news and newspapers are not asking these questions. I am not a conspiracy theorist but find it strange. I find it difficult to write it all of as ignorant journalist lazy to ask some questions round this. Particularly considering this is such a big crisis.

I personally feel ignorant in really working out what i think should be the best course of action due to the lack of information.

Why has a restructuring of the credit market debt not been consider and discussed publicly? A financial company loans money to a bank to make money on the interest it charges. If the loan was to remain and interest paid by the capital repayment period was to be extended for 3yrs neither institution would necessary seriously lose out. As the payment would be deferred.

From a scottish point of view:

Labour and Brown have said scotland could not save HBOS. Appart from the fact that it is actually a uk wide bank with its real headoffice in England. If we were to assume that it is scottish for a moment. Then if that scottish bank was to simply default and then forse a restructuring of the credit market debt the scottish bank would continue to operate. The loser from a narrow scottish interest would be the foreign credit market lender. The government of that institution could bail it out if it wants.

The real problem. Is capitalism works by allowing private companies to take risks and fail. Governments cannot allow high street banks to go bust and depositors lose their money. But this bail about is really about helping the nameless financial institutions in the bank ground and protecting them from the rigours of the capitalist economy.
102

Alan B,

23/10/2008 12:06:59
#Miss H

Do you have an opinion on why defaulting and/or restructuring credit market debt would not be a better solution to this crisis?
103

Fairfax,

23/10/2008 12:07:59
ThinAir (138): "Lord Sleaze (Of Tel-Aviv) can always be relied upon to bend over backwards, jump through hoops, and bark like a dog for the Zionist communist bankmen."

I suppose it is, at least, interesting that you have sugggested an anti-semitic conspiracy theory instead of an anti-English one. Still, you should be ashamed of yourself.

104

Alan B,

23/10/2008 12:16:13
#sm753

I know we do not have chapter 11. I am more suggesting that if we did and that allowing a bank to effectively go into administration and default or restructure its loans would have been a better way to manage this problem. That would avoid government bail out and avoid nationalisation.

I have no problem with shareholders losing their money if the company goes bankrupt. the country at large is more interested in protecting deposits, protecting jobs and ensuring the long term competiveness of the banking industry is not forsaken.
105

Alan B,

23/10/2008 12:20:32
#sm753

My underlying point is this government bail out is really for who? If a bank could simply be put into administration with loan restructured/defaulted and allowed to trade its way out the problem (even if nationalised and then reprivatised).

This bail out appears more to me to be a bail out of the companies that lent in the credit markets than the high street banks. Who are they and why can these loans not be restructured?
106

Nevsky,

Moscow 23/10/2008 12:33:20
sm753#


How many banks have Ireland lost so far? The simple step of guaranteeing savings and being backed by the European community has worked to their advantage.

Scotland will have this deal forced through by Peter effin Mandleson with no regard to anything other than his absolute devotion to his (once hated) leader.

Is this really good enough for Scotland, Mandleson in charge of the future of the Scottish banking industry ? Come on!
107

Nevsky,

Moscow 23/10/2008 12:35:13
146# Bring them On#

Ahh even you will stoop low enough to defend Mandy..ooeerr; just how low would you stoop for him?
108

Golfie,

South queensferry 23/10/2008 12:36:42
Slightly different take. If there is to be a genuine alternative to the 'shotgun' wedding does there not also need to be a clear out of the existing HBOS Executive NOW to prove that the same mistakes are not made again if an independant HBOS can be achieved? Its not just liquidity or capital issues that need to be considered. The 'grocer' should be asked to start stacking shelfs now and,if he can be found, Stevenson asked what he did for his salary.
109

,

23/10/2008 12:36:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
110

Alan B,

23/10/2008 12:37:15
#bring them on

maybe people other than you feel there is a better strategy that to just bend over.

Brown has given no-one any reason to accept his judgement.
111

Alan B,

23/10/2008 12:44:08
#Nevsky

If this crisis is down to irresponsible lending, ie people borrow more than they can afford.

And Mandelson had to resign first time round due to lying on his mortage application in order to achieve the lending he required. He said he had not other loans while borrowing heavily to purchase the very expensive property he could not afford.

So bringing an fraudent irresponsible lender like Mandelson back to sort out the problem of irresponsible lending make sense. If you are brown.

112

Lorna B,

23/10/2008 12:47:11
As I said before my post was Hi-jacked by the Special Branch lachy!


For the love of God. For the love of Equality.

It makes me weep at what is happening to Scotland…again. What Brown, and more importantly the Establishment Civil Service, is doing to Scotland is nothing short of economic rape.
Is there anything the pro-Unionists won’t do to prevent Scotland leaving the Union?
Is there anything the Establishment and their lachies won’t do to destabalise the Scottish Economy?
Even on websites like this there are a number of posters, whoever they work for, intent on mischief and misinformation.
There is only one reason why Westminster will push through the HBOS takeover and that is to ensure that HBOS becomes a company registered in England rather than in Scotland. It is a systematic attempt to ensure that the bargaining power of those wishing to end the Union is reduced. And it is a systematic attempt to ensure that once again the people living in Scotland will have to go cap in hand to Westminster.
These people in Westminster have no care for Scotland. We have become a resource for another country rather than a resource for ourselves.
So why oh why, immaterial of one’s political persuasion can some not see what is happening. The fall-out will affect real people, real jobs, real education and real children. Our children!
I am no ‘N’ationalist but for hundred of years the people of Scotland have voted through fear. It is time for that mind set to change. Most people in Scotland want to move forward and we want to do it on our own.
This is not a political statement it is an aspiration; an aspiration to govern ourselves and to determine our own future. I care not for political parties but there is only one person I will be voting for in Glenrothes and it won’t be Labour. Why would I vote for a party who instils fear and rules by economic coercion? Why would any enlightened soul want to do that?
Obviously I care deeply for Scotland and its future but I ra
113

Lorna B,

23/10/2008 12:47:44
Obviously I care deeply for Scotland and its future but I rather take a step into the unknown than be subjected to being treated as pawn and a work horse to supplement another country’s economy.
So to those Pro-Unionists and employees of UK ‘organisations’ who are preparing to mock and abuse this post…Spare me. I’ve read it all before.
For the love of God, reach deep inside yourself and ask just two questions. Do you enjoy being a patsy for others? Do you enjoy contributing to the wealth of others who care nothing for you?
If the answer is No then please have a heart. Have some dignity.
I have hope, I have faith and I have dreams. Scotland is my country. It is your country.
114

Nevsky,

Moscow 23/10/2008 12:50:12
153 Alan B#

Mandleson is at his core a liar and he resigned in disgrace; Scotland deserves better than this deceiptful and despicable opportunist making decisions on our behalf!

The repercussions of this decision are non-reversable; the merger should be stopped now and the Bank of Scotland secured!
115

Alan B,

23/10/2008 12:50:21
#The Genuine Mario Antoinette

"It was a hasty decision"

Lloyds and HBOS has apparently been talking about this for over a yr. But knew that it would never pass the competition laws. The governments decision may have been hasty to prevent the mistakes they made over Nothern Rock. There is a suspicion that the 2 companies with or without government knowlegde contrived to by pass competition laws.

Part of the problem is abit like Mcleishes "muddle not a fiddle" routine. How far can we accept this was incompetence and not criminal negligence.

A top manager of a bank that artificially inflates profits due to silly lending practices makes huge bonus's due to the headline performance and then walks away with tonnes of money when the whole pack of cards comes crashing down.

I find it difficult to really believe anyone could be as incompetent and stupid as Brown to have allowed this whole mess to occur.

116

Alan B,

23/10/2008 12:52:08
#156 Nevsky

You will not find any disagreement with me there. I think Browns relationship with Mandleson shows a great insight into his character.
117

Nevsky,

Moscow 23/10/2008 13:04:00
Here is what is in charge of the future of half of Scotland's banking system:

'In 2008, adulterated milk caused kidney stones in tens of thousands of consumers. To show his confidence in Chinese dairy products, Mandelson drank a glass of Chinese milk in front of reporters. Nine days later, he was hospitalized for a kidney stone.'
118

Arfur,

23/10/2008 13:08:08
See what the fool Brown forgets (even tho he comes from the area) is that a large percentage of Fife commute to Edinburgh where a large percentage work for RBS and HBOS. Not only this but HBOS have a fairly large office in Fife (Rosyth I think). Couple this with their anti Scottishness and complete incompetance at just about everything I predict that Labour will take one h*ll of a beating.
119

Ewan M,

23/10/2008 13:08:13
Why should the taxpayer be asked to bail out even more money to support an independent HBOS? An independent HBOS would be vulnerable to a foreign takeover once the UK government run down its holding. A merger with Lloyds with core functions in Scotland will make it stronger ot recover and grow in the international market place.

Lorna B your way over top you anger should be vented at HBOS's board. Would you stop at nothing to blame the Union on what are HBOS and RBS mamnagement failings?
120

Ewan M,

23/10/2008 13:14:00
May I also state that HBOS is not just a Scottish company most of it business is done outwith Scotland. People across the UK will suffer due the failing of the HBOS board. Are people in the rest of UK blaming the Union.....didn't think so. Alistair Darling actually had a clause specifically protecting Scottish jobs and not English ones, hardly much anti Scottishness there.
121

1stEdinburgh,

Scotland 23/10/2008 13:15:06
Thanks Brian Hill (133) and Miss H (134-136) - spot on!
I have lived and worked within the Edinburgh financial district and what is happening with HBOS has alienated even the most fervent traditional unionists. Most of the Edinburgh establishment supports self-determination whilst stopping short of independence, however the blatant approach by Brown and Labour to this (I call it a financial disaster and another 'Panama' moment) will result in:
1. Wiping out Labour from Scotland
2. Beginnig of the end for the Union
Happy now Mr Brown/Darling/Scot Labour MPs?

Ler's see how Alex does in the BBC debate tonight. I only hope he talks about HBOS, energy prices, taxes and other things rather than banging on the independence drum. Need to convince the majority that the SNP is capable of governing better alone, rather than with the Tory/Libs alliance on which they rely at present.
122

Lorna B,

23/10/2008 13:15:19
Ewan M 161

Brilliant! You have agreed with me without realising it.

May I ask you who was the CEO of HBOS at this time of recklessness?

How long had he been discussing this deal?

For how long did the Governmnent know about it?

Are you that blind? Surely Not.

And I'm not angry, just sad!

123

Ewan M,

23/10/2008 13:16:21
I would also like to point out that an independent HBOS would require by far the most government money to continue operating.
124

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/10/2008 13:19:59
Is it just me?

Am I alone in being sceptical about the Scotsman's "passion" for this campaign.
125

Alan B,

23/10/2008 13:27:09
#Ewan M

"Lorna B your way over top you anger should be vented at HBOS's board. "

I would say that our anger should be reserved for the person really responsible for this mess. Gordon Brown. If one bank fails fair enough blame the mgt. But if the whole system fails as it has you blame the guy that is running the system and that is Brown.

Brown has been completely incompetent in his whole handling of the economy. With the exception of making the BOE independent nearly every part of his general economic management has been disasterous.

Why given his sheer stupidity do you think we should trust him now?

While you also argue for the merger the thing is: none of us plebs know the real story or the inner workings of the banks. As such your comment are just an opinion based on little real knowledge and a blind trust in Brown the disaster.

Why given that lloyds also has to have a liquidty bail out, do you seriously think that this merger where lloyds superior liquidity was the reason for the merger, as it would avoid tax payer money, and has now been shown to be false, would still be a good idea. I really do not know if this merger is good or not. We seriously do not have enough info to make that decision. What we do know is the orginal reason for the merger was false.
126

An Beal Bacht,

23/10/2008 13:28:03
This stinks and will end in tears.
127

morris,

edinburgh 23/10/2008 13:35:16
There is absolutely no reason why both banks cannot receive government funding without being merged.Clearly London/Westminster wants to remove the Edinburgh registered HBoS,and the reasons for doing so have to be political since there is no reason to insist that the merger goes ahead.
Gordon Brown stated weeks ago when the bail out was announced that it was conditional upon accepetance of the take over.It was on the 6 news on TV.


There is no doubt that Brown Darling and his cohorts have watched developments for at least 18 months now and knew this was coming. They not only wanted Halifax Bank of Scotland taken over,they waited until it was possible and then made it a condition of supporting them.
Bring it On's commenta at no 1 are stupid and then some.Nobody is suggesting that we should let the Bank of Scotland fall. We are simply stating that the take over DOES NOT NEED TO HAPPEN,but Westminster says it does and that is tantamount to blackmail.

128

SEUMAS,

fearn 23/10/2008 13:35:18
Once again--the deal was done BEFORE the "credit crunch" broke and is purely and simply an effort to discredit the S.N.P., YOU CAN ALL PONTIFICATE UNTIL YOU ARE BLUE IN THE FACE, BUT THESE ARE THE FACTS!!
129

Alan B,

23/10/2008 13:36:47
#The Federalist

Who knows what the motivation of the scotsman are? Serving as a serious paper seems to be low on the list. They seemed to be a tory paper who support labour in order to undermine the snp. And have taken a tabloid approach dumbing down the paper so much that i find i often do not read the article and jump to the discussions below.

I do think Bill Jamieson is serious about supporting hbos and came across very well on tv when talking abouot the crisis. He also gave what the politicians were avoiding an honest assessment of the economy.

His point about the difficulties in having a keynesian bail out of the economy when Brown had inflicted to so much public debt and with the deficits already so high were very well made.

So while I think the scotsman journalism has been dumbed down in this crisis a serious journalist like Jamieson has come to the fore and he has probably determined the scotsmans line more than anything else.

I would also think they make think it editorial suicide to support the destruction of such a big edinburgh based financial institution particularly when their is so much support for it within the scottish financial sector.
130

GEORGE KING,

DUMFRIES 23/10/2008 13:42:05
The merger will happen, for political reasons.
131

Alan B,

23/10/2008 13:43:21
#The Federalist

I know i have asked this question above but would like to ask this question to you.

Do you have an opinion on why defaulting and/or restructuring credit market debt would not be a better solution to this crisis rather than a government bail out?

My full example was posted in #108.

I am starting to think this bail out is not for the high street banks which could be saved by simply defaulting/restructuring their credit market loans but to save the nameless and faceless financial institutions being the credit lending. I am surprised the media have not explained and exposed their exposure and who they are.
132

Alan B,

23/10/2008 13:46:38
#Salem

good points.

It is also noticeable that Ian Grey has not taken to fighting scotland corner and demanded answers.

It is also surprising the quiet avoidance of the issue by Tavish Scott and Goldie.
133

Publius,

London 23/10/2008 13:52:59
#170 morris

You write that "There is absolutely no reason why both banks cannot receive government funding without being merged".

Without the merger LloydsTSB wouldn't need government funding. The 5.5 billion earmarked for LloydsTSB is a figure imposed by the government to facilitate the merger. (If LloydsTSB needed this money and there wasn't a merger, it could easily raised it in the market through a rights issue - as Barclays is doing.)

HBOS will be a deadweight round Lloyds' neck. A lot of small shareholders in Lloyds will probably vote no to the merger, but they will be outvoted by institutions which have shares in both Lloyds and HBOS.

Personally I think that the government should leave Lloyds alone and impose a Northern Rock/Bradford & Bingley solution on HBOS. That is nationalise HBOS without compensation to shareholders and then see what can be salvaged.
134

Publius,

London 23/10/2008 13:55:07
Alex Salmond was right about one bit of the arc of prosperity. All the big banks in Iceland have gone bust. And all the big banks in Scotland have gone bust too.
135

antifa,

23/10/2008 13:57:51
"If one bank fails fair enough blame the mgt. But if the whole system fails as it has you blame the guy that is running the system and that is Brown."

No, it isn't. Nobody runs the international finance system. Parochial nonsense.
136

Fairfax,

23/10/2008 14:09:54
ThinAir (150): "Firstly, dont you dare call me anti-semitic."

Here's your original post (138): "Lord Sleaze (Of Tel-Aviv) can always be relied upon to bend over backwards, jump through hoops, and bark like a dog for the Zionist communist bankmen."

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to your meaning. How precisely is this anything other than anti-semitism?

137

Fairfax,

23/10/2008 14:13:48
Publius (77): "HBOS will be a deadweight round Lloyds' neck."

Agreed. I still hope Lloyds institutional shareholders will intervene.

"Personally I think that the government should leave Lloyds alone and impose a Northern Rock/Bradford & Bingley solution on HBOS."

That seems to be the only sensible way forward. If HBOS drag Lloyds down, then we'll be seeing this occur anyway.
138

Fairfax,

23/10/2008 14:20:46
Lorna B (154): "There is only one reason why Westminster will push through the HBOS takeover and that is to ensure that HBOS becomes a company registered in England rather than in Scotland. It is a systematic attempt to ensure that the bargaining power of those wishing to end the Union is reduced."

Let's assume you're correct temporarily and consider the alternative. I don't support the takeover, because of the risk to Lloyds. However, if there were no HBOS takeover, then it would almost certainly be essentially nationalized -- roughly speaking, English taxpayers would own some 65% of HBOS equity, given the state's equity injection. In fact, full nationalization would be fairly likely, with the total loss of shareholder investment. Why would that scenario be any better than the Lloyds takeover? Surely, if the aim were to humiliate Scottish nationalism, then quasi-nationalization would be a better tool than a Lloyds takeover?
139

Alan B,

23/10/2008 14:24:10
#179 antifa

Care to justify that.

Australia does not have the same problems as the uk as it more tightly regulated its banks.

The German ambassator was on tv the other week on newsnight blaming the crisis on anglo saxon lending practises. Saying that while Germany mortage lending is limited to 60% while in the uk lending can go up as far as 130%.

The fact is the basics of economic management are:

- controlling inflation. Brown has completely failed to control house price inflation. This has lead to the vicious cycle of debt the uk has found itself in.

With house prices rising so quickly people borrow more and more. People jump on the ladder with huge debts. And people try to jump up the ladder as they will be serverely disadvantaged if they do not very quickly as everything becomes so unaffordable.

House price inflation of the type we have witnessed also encourgage the huge buy to let market. Get an interest only mortage that is covered by the rent and make a killing with house price inflation.

It is the governments job to control inflation and Brown decided to avoid that main job of economic management.

Then the banks unable to finance mortage lending then finance this boom in mortage lending by borrowing in the credit markets. Fine until the global credit markets dry up due to the US having the same silly lending practices as the UK.

-Brown changed the uk regulatory framework. his new regulatory body the FSA failed spectacularly in its basic job. A stable banking and financial system.

As i pointed out above the problem is a vicious cycle. The main problems could have been avoided by controlling house price inflation and then the massive consumer debt. Or alternatively by regulating to ensure banks do not borrow to much on the credit markets. (building societies are not allowed this type of debt).

- Brown has run up huge public sector deficits in relatively good economic times. That is unforgivable. The basics of running an eco
140

Alan B,

23/10/2008 14:25:06
cont..

.. The basics of running an economy is to make sure you do not spend more than you can afford. That you are prepared for when troubled times comes.

The fact is Brown spoke a good game talking of stability and prudence. But it was he who introduced his golden run not to borrow for consumption over the economic cycle and then has broken it and fudged it since 2004. We have been chastised by the eu for our irresponsible public sector deficits.

Many are now calling for a keynesian type of bail out for the economy. Such an idea is quite good problem is we have such high deficits that it makes the idea almost impossible. As you can see we are seeing a run on the pound because of it.

The fact is while all countries will be effected by global chill winds the uk is very exposed to this crisis becuase of sheer incompetent economic management. That is not parochial nonsense that is economic fact.
141

antifa,

23/10/2008 14:41:40
Right, so you think Brown failed to regulate the system. A minute ago, you said he ran the financial system, which as a I pointed out is nonsense.

What you're saying is he failed to prevent banks from behaving irresponsibly. I agree. However, it is silly to single out one individual - the whole political class bought into laissez faire, throughout much of the world. Is Iceland part of the Anglo-Saxon economy?

Those who imagine Salmond and Co would have regulated more strongly have never, as far as I can tell, provide any evidence to suggest this. Can you point to a single speech or policy document which would suggest this?

As for your anti-Keynesian point, it is nonsense - UK public debt as a % of GDP is lower than almost all comparable ecomomies, lower than at most points in the last 50 years, and is well within the EU Stability and Growth Pact criteria.

Using public investment as one means of stimulating demand in the economy is perfectly legitimate - and the "run" on the pound (only against the dollar mind) is surely the result of falling interest rates and the expactation that they will fall further.
142

antifa,

23/10/2008 14:44:37
"What has been going on is treachery, a ruthless brand of treachery, politically motivated with the sole purpose of keeping the union intact."

I would like a supporter of the SNP - someone in touch with planet earth, well educated, decent etc - to challenge this type of paranoid nonsense. But it never seems to happen. Why?

143

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/10/2008 14:46:23
Alan b

"Do you have an opinion on why defaulting and/or restructuring credit market debt would not be a better solution to this crisis rather than a government bail out?"

How do you restructure credit market debt when most of that debt is owed to foreign institutions such as the Japanese banks (who have a surplus of deposits over debts)? If the governemnt did not step in I believe there would have been a wholescale collapse of the UK banking sector - companies would not be restructured but bankrupted.

In any case the issue is not the debts themselves but confidence in the banking institutions ability to repay short-term lending. What we have is a large-scale cash-flow crisis - and the only way to get out of it is either to inject cash directly into the banks and/or to guarantee/swap their debts.

If someone can actually offer a reasoned alternative that could force restructuring then I'd be pleased to hear it - the solution on the table is not ideal but it should be recognised that it is almost implicit that UK banks sort out their levering issues in the long run.

The sad thing is though is that we should never have reached this point in the first place. The US governemnt should have guaranteed all sub-prime mortgage debt in the first place or, at the very least, have put in place measures that would have forced lenders to restructure borrower's lending terms instead of going to foreclosure and disposession as quickly as they did.
144

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/10/2008 14:48:12
"#188 Salem,23/10/2008 14:39:07

What has been going on is treachery, a ruthless brand of treachery, politically motivated with the sole purpose of keeping the union intact."

Another conspiracy theorist implying that Brown has somehow manufactured all of this to save the Union.

He has not.

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

The Union is incidental.
145

jimbob82,

calgary 23/10/2008 14:58:00
there are legal processes. there are minority shareholder rights. This amalgamation or takeover can be delayed for many years. If this is a bad deal, then the facts can be displayed in court. It would seem strange that the HBOS should be singled out. There would appear to be political motivation.
146

Alan B,

23/10/2008 15:02:20
#antifa

I did not mean that Brown was running the international financial system. I am talking about Brown running the uk economy as chancellor (an now pm). I have posted enough on this site for you to be aware of my view and not to deliberately misinterpret it.

"What you're saying is he failed to prevent banks from behaving irresponsibly. I agree. However, it is silly to single out one individual - the whole political class bought into laissez faire, throughout much of the world. Is Iceland part of the Anglo-Saxon economy?"

If you read what I posted I said Brown failed to control house price inflation that is at the root of the huge personal debt. It is ridiculous not to blame the guy in charge of running the economy on the behalf of the uk. Brown took on responsbility of running the uk economy made a complete mess of it. He should take the blame. End of.

Trying to say others not in charge would have been as bad is silly. They may or may not have been. The tories would unlikely have run up such high level of public sector deficits deliberately.

Iceland problems as i understand them was by buying up so much US sub prime mortages as an investement. As such their banking failings are different.

"Those who imagine Salmond and Co would have regulated more strongly"
My post did not mention anything about Salmond or the snp so do not divert. My critisim in my post was about the complete economic incompetence of brown, and how that has helped bring the whole uk banking system to its knees.

"As for your anti-Keynesian point, it is nonsense - UK public debt as a % of GDP is lower than almost all comparable ecomomies, lower than at most points in the last 50 years, and is well within the EU Stability and Growth Pact criteria."

Firstly i said a Keynesian bail out would be a good idea, but is constrained by the huge deficits in the uk. We are heading for some say £100 billion.

The uk has been warned by the EU about failing to control its deficits.
147

Alan B,

23/10/2008 15:03:12
...You are completely confusing debt and deficits. The stability pack says a contry must have debts less than 60% but deficits less than 3%. It is the 3% level we will breach.

The fact is how much of a keynesian demand boost can you give an economy if it has running deficitis of the type we will have.

The fact is brown has been fudging and breaking his own golden rule.

Another point about the uk debt level. Counting unfunding public sector pensions and pfi which is off balance sheet debt we now apparently have a debt greater than 100% of gdp.

"Using public investment as one means of stimulating demand in the economy is perfectly legitimate "

That is what is said. But as the journalist writing this article said on tv that is fine if you do not have huge deficits before hand.

The basics of running an economy is similar to Browns golden rule. Do not borrow over the economic cycle. He ran big deficits in the good times. Now when the bad times hit the deficits are going to silly levels.
148

New Town Resident,

23/10/2008 15:06:46
#147. Nevsky

As you may be aware the way the Irish scheme is supposed to work is that the Irish banks get their deposits guaranteed on payment of a fee to the Dublin government.

Until the fee is paid the deposits are not guaranteed. Do you agree? If not why not?

Can you please name any Irish bank which has paid such a fee to the Dublin government as yet?

149

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/10/2008 15:07:53
#193 Clydesdale are not Scottish though - they are owned by National Australia Bank Group.

It is Scottish in name only. It is about as Scottish as the Yorkshire bank (a Clydesdale subsidiary) is English.
150

Alan B,

23/10/2008 15:16:40
#191 The Federalist

I am not sure if you fully understood my point.

I am talking about letting uk banks go into administration simiar to US chapter 11. The debts own in loans would effectively be defaulted.

The problem is the banks need to renegotiate their credit market debts as they expire. Simply default.

Any other business going bankrupt that would happen.

A bank with 150 billion mortage lending 100billion deposits and 50billion credit market lending. The problem is refinancing the 50billion as that market has dried up.

If the company was to go into a US type of chapter 11, the 50billion effectively becomes a bad debt. The payment of which only gets repaid after the depositors.

That would forse the restructuring of this debt. Repaying could be made over 3yrs rather than now. Or as sometimes happens companies would get say 50p in £1.

If you are correct and it is japanese banks that have finaced this then it is bad Japanse lending the uk tax payer is bailing out.
151

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/10/2008 15:17:07
#196 I think you miss my point - when I say the Union is incidental in all of this I am saying that it just happens to be the union that is being used to try and save their skins right now. It's a tool to beat the SNP with. If the Nats were not in power and some other party were taking their votes then they would use another issue to try and beat that party.

They are politcial opportunists.

Nothing more, nothing less.
152

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/10/2008 15:22:32
#202 I did not misunderstand you.

Ignoring the fact that we don't have Chapter 11 - defaulting on the debts does not solve the credit flow problem. What would happen is that the UK banks might survive but on a much small scale and almost certainly as welcome in the credit markets as a turd in a swimming pool. A smaller UK banking sector would no longer be a major player and be open to predatory foreign institutions - much as has happened with the smaller financial institutions in this country.

That in my opinion would be the worst outcome - a "UK" banking sector that was not in fact the UK's.
153

New Town Resident,

23/10/2008 15:25:26
~177 Publius.

In principle I entirely agree with your reasons for keeping Lloyds away from HBOS. (Also Nats please note it's another Edinburgh institution Standard Life are the leading advocates of the merger as the largest shareholder in both.)

So why doesn't the Government do what you suggest and form a "toxic" bank along the lines of NR? Suspect the only reason why they don't is that they can't.

Why can't they? I think the reason is then the state would simply have far too large a market share tied up in the non performing banks. This would really mess up the whole UK savings/interest rate structure with effects on savings competition and consequent impact on the UK National Savings bank.

Oh, and in terms of staff numbers I would be interested in knowing how UK National Savings Bank, mainly based in Glasgow, stacks up against HBOS? UKNS Glasgow seem to have been forgotten in all this, but surely there must be a limit as to how far National Savings can be outpriced by other institutions with a UK taxpayer guarantee?

154

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/10/2008 15:25:52
#204 Their "Scottish identity", as you put it, is nothing more than a tool for the marketing men.
155

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/10/2008 15:29:16
#207 HBOS is a basket case that no-one really wants to deal with. The merger option seems to be a choice between some really unpalatable evils.
156

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/10/2008 15:31:19
#209 Should have read:

"The merger option seems to be a catch-22 choice between some really unpalatable evils."
157

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/10/2008 15:32:53
#204 PS Hen - the only person who seems to sneer here is you.

But then I don't expect anything less from you.
158

Alan B,

23/10/2008 15:33:38
#206 The Federalist

But what we are talking about is not all uk banks. We are really talking predominately about HBOS (do not know enough about RBS's situtation).

The underlying question is should the government bail out banks in a capitalist system. What i think we will all agree on is the depositors should be safeguarded.

But why should the shareholders get anything? Why should lenders to these banks get their loans back using tax payers money?

In the US they did let a bank go bust. Do not know enough about the details of that. But the US did have regulation that meant a clear divide between high street banks and commercial investment banks so that bankruptcy of the investment bank taking higher risks would not cause issues for their high street banks.

I just find difficult to understand why the uk tax payer should fund and pay for bad lending to a bank. Bad lending to any other company and they would lose their money or have the debt restructured.

Putting HBOS into temporary administration and then having its debt restructured and then letting it trade its way out of its problems should not cause a problem with the rest of the banking industry.

At the moment we are effectively saying the government will gaurantee all credit lending to uk financial institutions.
159

mike3,

Midlands 23/10/2008 15:33:59
#193

In fantasy land.
160

New Town Resident,

23/10/2008 15:35:43
~186 and 193.

Note that the Ozzie Clydesdale parent Maquarie is not too healthy at the moment, so doubt they would want to get involved. think you are quite right about the health of the Ozzie banking sector, but unfortunately Maquarie are very exposed to mining which has absolutely tanked.

Hen Broon, don't know the Clydedale, but I have had some business dealings (non banking) with Maquarie in the past and I think they are a very fine company.
161

Queen D,

Glasgow 23/10/2008 15:38:53
This headline is a little overdone.
Should have put the full stop after Mandelson.
162

morris,

edinburgh 23/10/2008 15:48:22
177 Publius

I should confess that I don't actually know what state the Lloyds TSB finances are in ,but I presume you are correct since my son worked for them until recently,and clearly you confirm that they are sound,but I take the point.In fact you also confirm what I am saying ,that the merger is desired by government as opposed to necessitated by financial considerations, which was of course the point I sought to make,and the need for any Money to a non merged HBOS/Lloyds TSB is indeed irrelevant/not required.It merely confirms that the monies are being paid NOT to HBOS (which is where they are required),but a condition has been placed upon this funding, that they merge with (and the funds are then paid to) Lloyds TSB, and that is clearly a political decision and one which seeks to hold Scotland into a marriage which she may decide she no longer wishes .That is blackmail PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Brown and Darling should be kicked as far as Glenrothes can kick them.
Whether it happens or not is another matter.Some Fifers will smell this rat but many will just vote Labour "cos its fur the wurkin man ken",and anything Labour said or claimed would be greeted with approval by some people.

This is as anti Scottish a government as you will ever see,and we have seen plenty of them!

GLENROTHES ................All of Scotland expects you to boot Brown where it hurts!

As has been confirmed down south LABOUR still face defeat at a General Election,and that will NOT change.
We in Scotland have a choice, Independence or a Tory government and Labour attempts to save their own gravy train and mortgages at our expense is one reason why we should not only destroy Labour, we should have done it forty years ago!
163

The Tin Man,

23/10/2008 16:03:59
#213 AlanB

The shareholders are already stuffed in the short-term. As for lenders to the bank - don't they either get their money back, or part thereof, through the liquidation of a bankrupt bank, or they get their money back through other means?

I can't say that I am in favour of bailing-out banks, but it appears that in this instance, the banks were not looking like they would trade their way out of trouble.

Without the support of the government, and the resulting increase in confidence, it would appear that people's morgaged properties, loans, and savings were in danger of becoming part of a bankrupt bank's liquid assets.
164

,

23/10/2008 16:10:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
165

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/10/2008 16:22:16
#221 I might have bothered to check your links until I got to the last paragraph and your deluded anti-semitic conspiracy theory.
166

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 23/10/2008 16:22:31
I dislike writing in generalisations on such a subject, but I must say this does give the impression of deliberate asset-stripping before Scotland inevitably goes its own way, as happened with manufacturing industry under Thatcher. Gordon Brown has revealed himself once again to be a weakling, a leaf tossed in a wind over which he has no control. No doubt a multitude of motives are in play here, but Scotland's interest is clearly the last one in the minds of the main players with decision-making powers. There can be no half measures here - the Labour Party has developed into a malignant cancer in Scottish politics, and its total extirpation as a political force is the only answer.

167

Alan B,

23/10/2008 16:30:54
#220 The Tin Man

My point is abit hypothetical as our bankruptcy laws probably would not allow what i am suggesting.

My point is if a bank has 150 billion in mortages funded by 100 billion deposits and 50 billion from the credit markets.

The problem is the 50billion is repayable now and needs to be refinanced.

What i think should be the action taken is just put the company into administration like a chapter 11 US type of thing.

The rules would mean that depositors are protect first. The company effectively defaults on the payments as per any other bankrupt company but protected like in chapter 11 in the US and hence not liquidated, but continues to trade.

The real problem for the bank being the 50billion of credit market loans would simply be defaulted/paid back in a restructured way say over yrs or so many pence in the pound. (bit like chanell tunnel restructuring).

Problem solved as the banks were fundamentally ok until they could not refinance their credit market loans. Or am I missing something.

168

Alan B,

23/10/2008 16:38:25
#222 The Federalist

His moniker is probably just a description for what he keeps between his ears.
169

The Tin Man,

23/10/2008 16:53:23
#225 AlanB

I must admit that I am not sure as to what level of protection exists for depositors in UK banks, if the bank goes pear-shaped - any idea?
170

Nikostratos,

23/10/2008 16:58:59
#228 a the tartan tory speaks
171

Alan B,

23/10/2008 16:59:55
#The Tin Man

Not got a clue.

Until recently they did have regulation that meant a clean divide between higher risk investment banking and high street banks. This was brought in after the 30s economic collapse. As such the US high street banks were regulated to avoid collapse and ensure stability. (Lemans as a commercial bank was allowed to go to the wall.)

This clear line has seemingly been breached with Bushs reforms and the bail outs and mergers. However i do not know much about it.
172

Alan B,

23/10/2008 17:02:21
#Tin Man

A google for your question returned

"Sheila Bair, chairman of the FDIC, a federal agency that guarantees all deposits up to $100,000 (£56,255) in the event that a bank goes bust, has asked for authority to increase that limit on a temporary basis. The move is designed to inject confidence into the banking system and help to avoid a run on a bank. "

"Earlier yesterday, the presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama called for the limit to be raised to $250,000. "

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4856670.ece
173

,

23/10/2008 17:06:09
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
174

Alan B,

23/10/2008 17:14:39
#ThinAir

-What would be the motivation?
-Why would Israely zionist attack its own one true friend the US a country that supports Israel not matter what it does?
-Why would the US cover up an attack by its friend and allie?
-Are seriously saying the US were co-conspirators in blowing up the twins towers and crashing all the planes.
-Again for what reason?

Look what the US did in response attacked Afganistan? Why? It was irrevelant and poor?

If the US had wanted to attack Iraq it could have done so anyway. So why?

Why not attack Iran if it was oil and control and if that was the Israely motive?

As such you conspiracy theory makes little sense.


175

,

23/10/2008 17:27:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
176

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/10/2008 17:39:09
#234 I would not bother Alan - he probably believe the Earth is flat and the moon landings were faked.
177

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/10/2008 17:39:11
#234 I would not bother Alan - he probably believes the Earth is flat and the moon landings were faked.
178

,

23/10/2008 17:48:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
179

Alan B,

23/10/2008 17:50:40
#The Federalist

Yes it was the zionists that faked the moon landings.

Maybe they have also covered up that the earth really is flat. They want the rest of us just to walk off the end of the earth so that the zionist dream can dominate.

:)
180

Ewan Oosami,

IV22 23/10/2008 17:51:12
Why take notice of anything that creep Mendleson tells you - he's known to do everything through the back door
181

Alan B,

23/10/2008 18:08:28
#sm753
"Of course it's a viable and valid option.

Just not the best one, from the perspectives of economics, national security and social concerns."

Economic- as you know we have done pretty poorly over the past 30/40yrs so we would have to be run ourselves pretty badly to perform as badly outside the union. Growth less than 2% over 30yrs, 2.2% over the past decade in a good global economic climate while the uk has done 2.8% and a group of small northern western european countries have done 3.6%. Even the uk as a whole trails Luxembourg, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Iceland, Netherlands,Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland , Belgium in terms of gdp per capita ppp.

As such the economic argument does not wash.

Neither of the big two parties are willing and able to address the uk north south divide. Neither would even contemptate scottish membership of the euro while within the uk.

Social- what would the social advantages be of the uk. Within the eu we already have freedom of movement of people etc. In political terms we can see the damage done to scotland. ie scotland vote one party and then are ruled by another against like the 17yrs for tory rule. We have a referendum in 79 that was completely undemocratic with rules meaning that with a 50% turnout you would need 80% of the vote and that was to implement a weak scottish assembly the labour government were actually meant to want.

You can hardly argue that scotland socially has done well. We have severe social problems wether it is poverty, poor health, violence, sectartianism, drunkenness etc. Not blaming the union for all of them but it is hardly that the union has dealth with them.

So what are the social advantages of the union as it is currently formed. I can understand the #Feds view of having a considerably more devolved arrangement, fiscal autonomy etc.
182

Alan B,

23/10/2008 18:09:39
#242 sm753

Agree. Was going to post something back but just thought I would encourage it.
183

Alan B,

23/10/2008 18:10:59
#sm753

I am not against a union with England but just think a union where we are both individual members of the EU is a far better union.
184

Alan B,

23/10/2008 18:15:36
#sm753

Do you support the scottish parliament and the concept of devolution?

If so what further powers would you devolve to the scottish parliament to make it work better and improve the democractic accountability of decisions taken by the scottish people.

As i see it the more you devole the less reason for independence. Part of the big problem with the union is the severe centralisation and now the weak parliament.

185

,

23/10/2008 18:20:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
186

Silvio Palmer,

Victoria Embankment Gardens 23/10/2008 18:32:32
Greetings Caber Tossers

Glenrothes By-Election Result

The Apathetic Voter Wins Hands Down

66%

Plus The Odd Man Out
187

Gtj,

23/10/2008 19:07:47
Gordon Brown says that HBOS and Lloyds want the merger to go ahead.

That's a no brainer, wouldn't anyone who is being bribed with billion of pounds.
188

brownlie,

23/10/2008 20:00:13
252 sm753

"Scotland is a nation. So is the United Kingdom."

So if some-one asks, as they will, "what nationality are you?" you could reply "I'm a United Kingdomite" - new one on me, old chum!
189

brownlie,

23/10/2008 20:20:50
255 sm753

Two of your sentences I profoundly disagree with:

"There is nothing special about "Scotland""

Yes, there is!!

"There is very little that can be done about it"

Yes, there is - and that is the very root on which this, and other discussions, are held.
190

brownlie,

23/10/2008 20:24:28
256 sm753

You assume my passports says "British Citizen" - which would be wrong because Britain is no more a city than the United Kingdom is a nation.
191

Kyle N Carrick,

23/10/2008 20:38:19
260. Oh dear oh dear

AM2 - now posting as "Sm753" and "Bring them on", has been posting all last night, all through the day, and all this evening, and only ever runs Scotland down and posts negativity.

Welcome to Scottish Unionists r us.com - all negative, sadly and sickly obsessed to the point of 24/7 posting on the Scotsmand. They (he, under various monikers to disguise what has become a near sociopathic obsession) never, ever has anything positive to say about Scotland.

The Unionist agenda for Scotland seems to be mostly bile, negativity, running our country down, saying we are incapabable, abdicating responsibility, promoting responsibility for our affairs to be left to London...

And they still wonder why the SNP won in 2007 and in Glasgow East?
192

brownlie,

23/10/2008 20:58:52
259 sm753

I have not mentioned Scottish "oil" in any of my postings as I believe that Scotland would not have to use oil as a crutch post independence.

The answer as to what can be done about London or the so-called north/south divide lies in the hands of Scottish voters.

I don't "propound" as readers find it boring. Surely they've pointed that out to you in the past.

The point about the nationality was that I was pointing out that your nationality was not United Kingdom because the UK is not a nation.
193

brownlie,

23/10/2008 21:03:18
262 ppink

So disappointed I did not make the unionist list along with Highland Mighty, AM2, Alfred E Neuman and other assorted nutters!
194

,

23/10/2008 21:06:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
195

Kyle N Carrick,

23/10/2008 21:18:09
262. ppink - indeed, and spot on. The sad, mentalist obsessive who posts 23 hours a day (check "bring them on" - aka AM2, sm, english voice et al , who is on here from 7pm last night and all through am and pm constantly today, as usual). What sort of bizarre, negative, unemployed character devotes all his waking hours to posting bile and negativity about Scotland?

This is the scottish unionist agenda - undermine and criticise Scotland and Scots, in the hope their lack of self confidence and poverty of ambition will rub off. Pathetic, and rather sad to watch in the form of a mentalist posting all day and night
196

Kyle N Carrick,

23/10/2008 21:27:20
265. You assume that the register of monikers for our sad, lonely, constant unionist poster who hates Scotland, would be potent enough to raise more than a sneer.. I doubt he would be capable of anything as constructive as self abuse, so busy is he running down Scotland and not sleeping, drven by his fevered and drool sodden campaign of posting on websites.
197

Kyle N Carrick,

23/10/2008 21:32:55
267. LOL. Sad though that those who hate and want to run down Scotland, like "Bring Them" - aka AM2, Sm173/ English voice, have become so depressed at having to constantly defend a numbingly hopeless position based on negativity, that they have become so obsessed with posting that they lost their jobs and now post 24/7.

198

Hamish Scott,

23/10/2008 21:38:53
What a pleasant change to read a debate on this forum instead of an exchange of insults.
199

Silvio Palmer,

Victoria Embankment Gardens 23/10/2008 22:40:06
The Apathetic Voter Is In The Ascendancy

The Parliamentarians Are On Borrowed Time And Borrowed Money

The Apathetic Voter Wins Hands Down
In Glenrothes & Fife

66% of The Registered Electorate PLUS
100% of The Illiterati

The 33% Who Vote Can Sack Brown Labour for Nothing
By Voting Scot Gnat For A LARF

200

Callum MacPherson,

Edinburgh 23/10/2008 23:06:50

How can anyone representing Edinburgh back abandoning the competition laws in order to fast-track through a deal that will see the end of Scotland's national bank and a rip the heart out of the banking sector in Scotland.

Edinburgh's Labour MPs - SCUMBAGS. I cannot say how furious this makes me.

I only hope the First Minister and our Scottish Government (or anyone!) can find a way to save the situation.

The Westminster government once again, as they have done throughout the centuries, have no thought for Scotland.

You could argue it's only reasonable for that to be the case, i.e. for a government based in England, a much bigger country, to think of England first. However it leaves Scotland totally 'screwed', as they say.

The sooner Scotland escapes this disastrous, dated union, the better!!

201

john z,

edinburgh 23/10/2008 23:52:02
Just to clarify for the thickies posting here about passports and so on.

The united Kingdom is not really a country. It is the united kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Great Britain does not include Northern Ireland.

For the record, check all the history books, and you'll find, (surprise. surprise) that Scotland is a country. The rest of the nonsense is just that.

Who are these strange people who live in Scotland yet argue that Scotland is not a country?? quite bizarre.
202

john z,

edinburgh 23/10/2008 23:54:08
How can it be a democracy, for someone who is no longer answerable to a constituency at the ballot box, to make such important decisions.

Peter Mandelson is now in the house of lords. This really does usurp the notion of democracy in Westminster.
203

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 24/10/2008 11:10:47
241

Care to go into any detail? why dont you and I kick off a discussion on the merits and demerits of Scotland within the union relative to being independent?
204

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 24/10/2008 11:23:18
273

So Scotland England and Wales dont exist as nation states then is that right? and the UK is in fact not a union of nation states but is a nation state in its own right?
Has somebody rewritten the act of union?
205

bluehead,

edinburgh 31/10/2008 09:03:15
mandelson was brought in to do exactly what he is doing now,and that is, that the bank moves to England,this takes away an important part of the Scottish heritage and consequently pleasing brown,and naturally he will receive help from the horse faced Murphy, this then makes brown the disgrace of scotland instead of the structure on calton hill,there is the stink of evil floating around this labour lot who have destroyed what once was a wonderful country

 

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.