Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


T in the Park

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.

HBOS: The questions that must be answered



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

Published Date: 19 September 2008
1 How did Scotland lose its oldest banking institution and why was more not done to prevent it happening?
The Bank of Scotland has been around since 1695, but now its whole future and identity is in doubt. Two previous episodes of "short selling" – essentially, making money by deliberately forcing down a company's share price – had brought stocks to th
eir knees and smashed the bank's rights issue, yet the crisis was not tackled. HBOS also had high exposure to mortgage markets and, amid fears of falling house prices, there was a loss of confidence.

WHO NEEDS TO ANSWER: The government, the FSA and the financial markets.

2 Why was action not taken earlier to prevent short sellers hijacking a sound financial institution?

Fears about short selling (selling without owning the shares) have been around for some time, and Gordon Brown yesterday said he had had concerns about "irresponsible behaviour" and the need for reform for a while, but it was only last night that the Financial Services Authority finally acted to outlaw it in the UK – too little, too late for HBOS. Short selling involves a concerted effort to force down the share price of a company.

WHO NEEDS TO ANSWER: The Financial Services Authority, the Treasury and the Bank of England.

3 Why has the FSA been so ineffectual as the crisis unfolded?

On Wednesday morning, the FSA said HBOS was still "a well-capitalised bank that continues to fund its business in a satisfactory way" – but Alistair Darling said yesterday that without the merger the outlook was "very bleak indeed… We were on to their (HBOS's) problem for several weeks. It didn't just suddenly happen…" Questions are now being asked about whether the FSA needs a major overhaul to stop this happening again.

WHO NEEDS TO ANSWER: The Treasury, FSA and HBOS.

4 When did the talks begin to put together the Lloyds TSB takeover – and were any alternatives on the table?

There are differing explanations of when things started – six weeks or just a few days ago? The versions of the Lloyds TSB bosses and the Prime Minister appeared initially to differ. It is unclear if there was any attempt to find other interested parties – but, if so, were they put off by the Lloyds TSB deal being presented effectively as a fait accompli?

WHO NEEDS TO ANSWER: Lloyds TSB, HBOS and Gordon Brown and his government.

5 Why can't the Bank of Scotland be protected as a separate legal entity with a meaningful HQ in Edinburgh?

The future shape of the new megabank is unclear but there are fears it may be called Lloyds Halifax, losing the Bank of Scotland name. It is understood the name may stay over Scottish branches, with the Halifax name staying in northern England and Lloyds elsewhere. Keeping the HQ in Edinburgh would maintain Scotland's reputation for fiscal rectitude – and significant employment.

WHO NEEDS TO ANSWER: Lloyds TSB and HBOS.

6 Will the Bank of Scotland brand and banknotes carry any meaning without top-level decision-making?

The Bank of Scotland name above a branch, on chequebooks and banknotes, and a Scottish management mean little if real decisions are made in London. If Bank of Scotland is reduced to a brass plaque as all key moves are made in London, Scotland's whole banking history is shaken. The loss of the HQ of a FTSE 100 company is a grievous blow. It is not just the treasury and management functions that Scotland would lose, but the many ancillary services that support these – the flotilla of little boats that service the grand battleships.

The new megabank looks set to see the end of the "TSB" bit of Lloyds TSB, another loss for Scotland as the TSB (once the Trustee Savings Bank) began here.

WHO NEEDS TO ANSWER: Lloyds TSB and HBOS.

7 Should HBOS chief executive Andy Hornby and chairman Sir Dennis Stevenson have had a higher profile in trying to prevent lack of confidence among investors and depositors?

There has been criticism of a real absence of leadership from Hornby and Stevenson. Even after the rights issue debacle, they kept such a low profile that they were almost subterranean. Why were they not more robust in supporting the bank? Will their inaction force thousands of customers into the arms of great rival Royal Bank of Scotland?

WHO NEEDS TO ANSWER: Hornby and Stevenson.

8 Can the new company assure Scottish business customers that its service will be as professional and speedy as under HBOS Corporate?

Under Peter Cummings, HBOS Corporate is a respected business with Scottish knowledge. If corporate business banking moves to London, will businesses be subject to more distant and slower decision-making?

WHO NEEDS TO ANSWER: Lloyds TSB chief executive Eric Daniels, Hornby, et al.

9 What is the government doing to protect and support the Scottish economy from the fallout?

Major job losses in the banks and the potential for many more in associated businesses present huge challenges. What is being done to boost business confidence and to mitigate against the impact of such major losses?

WHO NEEDS TO ANSWER: Westminster government, Alex Salmond, CBI and other business groups.

10 What is being done to reassure retail customers and mortgage-holders their investments are safe?

People are confused by the huge fallout and want reassurance about their money – and whether their local branch will remain open.

WHO NEEDS TO ANSWER: Daniels and Hornby.









The full article contains 912 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 19/09/2008 00:12:33
Apparently, it's all part of the union dividend. This is where Lloyds are seen as the cavalry riding in to save Scottish interests. A view much touted by unionist posters as evidence that Scotland could not feasibly become an independent country. It always amazes me that this union dividend only ever seems relevant in one direction. It is always to Scotland's alleged benefit. Bailing out Northern Rock was not seen as a union dividend. Similarly, when banks are taken over in mergers in other countries, no-one claims that those countries' independence is in question. But when it's Scotland we're supposed to feel good about a merger that will strip many of their livelihood and put it down to 'the union dividend'. It's hard to embrace this questionable ideology without feeling a shiver of embarassment.
2

subrosa,

19/09/2008 00:17:44
How can we protect the Royal Bank of Scotland?
3

druidh,

edinburgh 19/09/2008 00:25:14
Shorting has been banned and Hornby tells us there's nothing fundamentally wrong with HBOS. The shareholders just need to vote against this takeover.
4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 00:43:08

Give me a-break!,...

"WHO NEEDS TO ANSWER:" ?

Are you being 'Stupid' or sommid,??????????

Those that "Need TO ANSWER", WILL NEVER, REPEAT NEVER ANSWER!!

It is NOT School now you-know!

'Bankergate' and 'Coveritupagate', have it all well sussed, since the days of 'Watergate'!
5

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 00:44:44




D'oh!!





6

TommyKaye,

UK 19/09/2008 00:53:22
1 How did Scotland lose its oldest banking institution and why was more not done to prevent it happening?

The answer is multiple choice choose from one of these:

BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN BROWN DARLING
7

TommyKaye,

UK 19/09/2008 00:58:18
"Hello is That the FSA?"

If Lloyds Bank's Victor Blank was talking to Gordon Brown about take-over plans for HBOS at a cocktail party wasn't he breaking the takeover code's strict rules on secrecy? Shouldn't somebody report them?

Yesterday the headlines said "Gordon Brown orders Lloyds takeover of HBOS". Does Brown think he can order Lloyds shareholders to vote for the deal? This is a Class 1 transaction, shareholders will decide, not Gordon.

The FT agrees is it now official government policy to have the regulators lie to the markets via the media? If the FSA itself is now lying and breaking the laws it is supposed to enforce, is there any point reporting law breakers?

Gordon Brown you are a disaster
8

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 00:58:23
"HBOS: The questions that must be answered"

11 - Who in Westminster, the FSA, or the Bank of England gives a damn about Scotland?

Who must answer? The lick-spittles in the Scottish press who can't see past the union
9

TommyKaye,

UK 19/09/2008 01:00:41
It is very simple Northern Rock is and was a shambles HBOS could have gone the same way and BROWN crapped himself as the government could not bail out anyone else as the UK doesn't have any money!

So he forced someone anyone to take it on BROWN did this and it will lead to at least 40,000 job losses Merry Christmas from Gordon Brown
10

TommyKaye,

UK 19/09/2008 01:02:30
LIARS LIARS LIARS

Commenting on the soundness of HBOS the FSA yesterday morning said it was:

"a well-capitalised bank that continues to fund its business in a satisfactory way"

Alistair Darling this morning:

Alistair Darling added that without the deal the outlook was "very bleak indeed...We were onto their (HBOS's) problem for several weeks. It didn't just suddenly happen..."
So who was lying?
11

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 01:02:38
#14 TommyKaye,

Never mind - in just a couple of years it will be Cameron and Osborne, directed by Wheatcroft who will have taken over the asylum. I'm sure we can trust them to look after Scotland's interests.
12

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 01:16:33




TommyKaye ~18,

"Pants on Fire" 'HUH'?


:D

13

A Better Way,

Scottish Republic 19/09/2008 01:23:19
Just watched Prime Minister Alex Salmond on CNN slamming the maggots who ended 300 years of banking by our Bank of Scotland. The reporter acknowledged that our bank was very sound, and shouldnt have needed to be taken over by an English Bank.

Alex Salmonds condemnation of "short selling" is now the battle cry of nearly every news outlet in the world. So much so they had to sit the reporter around a poker table trying to explain what a short seller does. Christ even Gordon Brown has jumped on another Alex Salmond idea. Could that be because our leader has worked for a living in free enterprise unlike the maggots down in Westmonster.

It is definately time for Scotland to take its country and government back. Those that prescribe to the philosophy that an Independant Scotland would not have control on its financial issues are merely trying to make cheap, defeatist points that have no basis to the facts.

THE BANK OF SCOTLAND WOULD HAVE SURVIVED AS A BUSINESS, IF IT WAS SUBJECT TO A SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT WHICH HAD FULL CONTROL OF ITS ECONOMY. RAISING THE 12 BILLION CAPITAL COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY A SCOTTISH NATIONS GOVERNMENT, WHICH COULD HAVE POSTED FINANCIAL GUARANTEES LIKE ANY OTHER COUNTRIES GOVERNMENT.GORDON BROWN AND ALISTAIR DARLING ARE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BANK OF SCOTLAND DEMISE. TWO IMBECILES WHO ARE NOT EVEN IN CONTROL OF THEIR NERVE, AND DO NOT HAVE THE SORT OF INTESTINAL FORTITUDE REQUIRED TO RUN ENGLAND LET ALONE OUR SCOTTISH NATION.

A PUBLIC FLOGGING WOULD BE TO GOOD FOR THEM. SOME OTHER FORM OF COMPENSATION, WOULD BE THE ORDER OF THE DAY.
14

Big Ron,

Roseburn Bar 19/09/2008 01:29:30
Calm yourself down number 22, and try and figure out how things work in the real world.
The journalistic errors in the above article are an embarrassment to both the writer and the newspaper. I’m afraid to say the article is of tabloid quality. An informed reader will surley be as frustrated as me about the writers misunderstanding of both the concept and mechanics of short selling are. Plus ca change.
The demise of HBOS is a tragedy for Edinburgh, Scotland and the United Kingdom. Both the previous and the current management regimes of HBOS are almost entirely to blame. The Bank of Scotland should never have joined up with the Halifax. Have you ever been to Halifax? It is a dreadful place – almost as bad as Wales.
It pains me to say this, but I’ll wager that within 10 years from now, the Mound premises of what was once the pinnacle of Scottish financial prowess will be a 2nd rate hotel or public house.
The bad news in all of this for Scottish Nationalists is that it blows another hole in the argument that Scotland can survive and prosper as an independent state. The good news for Nationalists though, is that it will probably bring forward the day when Scotland is annexed by the rest of the UK to try and survive for itself. When the Tories win the election, they will no doubt try and get rid of us Jocks.
Does anybody know where I can get some Vegimite?
15

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 01:55:03

Big Ron ~23,

Correct! and nice Bar also the Roseburn,

Anyhows!!!

The Scottish ARE! As I have said, all too many times on these threads,....

..."THE-UNDERDOG'S"

Always have been, and always WILL Be!

Why do people not accept this Truth, and do something about it, instead of shedding, when thing go wrong,..

'Crocodile Tears'?
16

Parking Permit,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 02:00:28
What is all this nonsense. The Bank of Scotland was taken over years ago by the Halifax. It has not been a Scottish Bank for quite some time.
17

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 02:06:57
Thursday, 19 July, 2001, 18:20 GMT 19:20 UK
BoS/Halifax merger gets go-ahead



The government has cleared the £29bn merger of Halifax and Bank of Scotland.


Ours is a pro-competition deal and we intend to make life difficult for the big four

Halifax Spokesman
Trade secretary Patricia Hewitt said she would not refer the proposed deal to the Competition Commission for an investigation.
18

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 02:17:39


Wednesday, 25 April, 2001, 16:03 GMT 17:03 UK
Q&A: The Halifax - BoS merger,
A fifth force is being planned in the world of UK banking: The Halifax and Bank of Scotland want to merge. BBC business editor Jeff Randall explains the background to the deal.
Why are the two banks merging?

We have two very different businesses here. Halifax is very strong in the mortgage market and has a strong customer base.

Bank of Scotland is very active in the corporate market and a leading provider of credit cards for other organisations, such as universities, charities and football clubs.

If you fit the two banks together, they could work nicely.

They overlap neither in business terms nor geographically.

Halifax is based primarily in England, while the Bank of Scotland has only a handful of branches south of the border.

Could anything go wrong?

Where will the headquarters be? These companies are extremely important to their home markets. Halifax is iconic in Yorkshire and Bank of Scotland sits astride Edinburgh.

Closing one of these headquarters could be tricky. So too would be losing either name.

Then there is the issue of management egos. Who is going to be the overall boss?

Plenty of big deals have fallen through after senior managers could not agree on the power structure.

What will it mean for customers?

I think this could be good for customers because there is a genuine fit here.

It will be beneficial if they produced a fifth force in British banking currently dominated by the big four - HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds TSB and Royal Bank of Scotland/NatWest.

Bank of Scotland's management is highly regarded and could bring something to Halifax's army of customers.

Because there is so little overlap, it is unlikely that there will be widespread branch closures. Which means there are likely to be fewer job cuts in this deal than in other banking mergers.

And what about shareholders of both banks?

Clearly the City
19

Canadian Jambo,

19/09/2008 02:26:47
Is it true that the Bank of Scotland was founded by an Englishman?
20

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 02:44:48
Bank of Scotland was founded by an Act of the Scottish Parliament on 17th July 1695, making it the first bank to be established in Scotland, and one of the first in the UK.

The Bank was set up primarily to help develop Scotland's trade, mainly with England and the Low Countries. It began business in February 1696 with a working capital of £120,000 Scots (£10,000 Sterling). The 172 original shareholders (including 36 based in London) came mainly from Scotland's political and merchant elite. What they required was a banking system which would offer long-term credit and security for merchants and landowners alike.



back to top

Matters of note
In 1696, Bank of Scotland became the first bank in Europe to successfully issue paper currency - an invaluable service given the unreliability of Scots coinage at that time. These first notes were issued in denominations of £5, £10, £50 and £100 - the first £1 note didn't appear until 1704. The Bank's right to issue notes has been maintained to the present day.

There have been threats to this right at various times in the Bank's history. In 1826, for example, there was outrage in Scotland at the London Parliament's attempt to prevent the issue of notes under £5. Sir Walter Scott wrote a series of thinly-disguised protest letters to the Edinburgh Weekly Journal under the pen-name Malachi Malagrowther. These letters provoked such a sensation that the government relented and allowed Scottish banks to continue issuing £1 notes. To this day, Scott's portrait appears on Bank of Scotland notes.





A selection of Bank of Scotland notes, from the oldest surviving note of 1716 to the new 2007 £20

back to top

Testing times

Bonnie Prince Charlie by Cosmo Alexander, 1752 (The Drambuie Collection)
The early years of the Bank's history were fairly turbulent.

Under the terms of its founding Act, the Bank had been granted a banking monopoly in Scotland for 21 years. After the monopoly expired, a
21

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 02:54:51



...... a rival bank - the Royal Bank of Scotland - was founded in 1727 by Royal Charter. There followed a generation of intense competition as the two banks tried to drive each other out of business.
During the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745, the Bank was forced to close its doors when Bonnie Prince Charlie's army occupied the city of Edinburgh. All the Bank's papers and valuables were transferred to Edinburgh Castle for safe-keeping, until the rebel army left several weeks later.
Early attempts by the Bank to establish a branch network were unsuccessful and it was not until 1774 that the first branches were opened in Dumfries and Kelso. By 1795 there were 27 branches: this had risen to 43 branches by 1860 and to 265 branches by 1939. The Bank's first permanent office in London opened in 1867.
During the latter half of the 18th and early 19th centuries there were significant changes to Scotland's banking system. The focus of economic development shifted to Glasgow and the west. One development was the rise of large-scale joint stock banks with significant numbers of shareholders. These provided much more serious competition for Bank of Scotland, particularly as most of the newcomers also had large branch networks. The increase in the number of banks - some of which pursued reckless lending policies - led to occasional failure.
Bank of Scotland London office: architectural plan by W. W. Gwyther, 1892 and photograph, 1956

Disastrous failures;
In 1857 the Western Bank collapsed. Bank of Scotland, along with the other major Scottish banks, stepped in to maintain confidence in the Scottish banking system and ensured that holders of the Bank's notes were paid.

In 1878 the City of Glasgow Bank also collapsed in spectacular fashion, ruining all but 254 of its 1,819 shareholders. The disaster shifted the focus of finance back to the more conservative practices of the Edinburgh banking community,

New century, new challenges;

First computer depart
22

Mark Renton,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 03:13:13
These are all good questions, but why does The Scotsman stop here? How about "Why are we getting trams that nobody wants?"
23

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 19/09/2008 03:21:02
In many real countries (Canada being one) there are strict limits on foreign ownership of banks. If Scots people were in control of their own destiny, none of this might have happened.
And the London @ssholes who rigged this deal would have been told to take a hike. Or better still rounded up in a takedown by the Scottish constabulary.
Which, I hope, is still an option that Our Alex is contemplating.
Battering ram. Dead of night. Door in splinters in some Home Counties pile. Leg irons in a wee van. Sobbing suits. Back to the scene of the crime in Edinburgh for a little tough love justice - Scottish style. A Bernie Ebbers sentence comes quickly to mind.
This has to be the final humiliation perpetuated by Comrade Broon.
24

celticdaft,

19/09/2008 04:46:00
How exactly is Brown to blame Tommy Kaye? He isn't a 'short seller'. He doesn't make the rules. They were there before he arrived. You have a rather simplistic way of looking at this.
I also don't get all this misty-eyed feeling for the BOS as some sort of noble patriotic institution we should be proud of. It's a bank. They take your money and invest some of it in the mess of dishonesty and instability that is the US sub prime mortgage market and lose a stack of dosh and make themselves vulnerable to a short selling frenzy and get taken over.Last thing they were thinking was the mountains and glens and noble history of the BOS. They were thinking quick buck with all the smarts of a drunk poker player.
The big tragedy of the mess we now see is that the Lehamans, Freddie macs and fannie maes did what they did cause they thought they would get a bale out. Like maxing out your credit card because daddy will pay it when you can't. Lehamans seems to have been the one that didn't get the bale out and now we are really in trouble because the government tap seems to be out of water.

It sad that the inevitable is 1000s out of jobs, rising interest rates and recession. Someone has got to pay and its going to be you and me. So thanks to all the nice banks and brokers that did all this and i for one will not be shedding a nationalist tear for the BOS. (BOS =bag of sh*t)
25

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta.CA..for more WAR ..VOTE McCain 19/09/2008 04:56:31
HBOS: The questions that must be answered...

DUHhhh!!!

And the SNP cavalry rides to the rescue DUHhhh!!!!!

Imagine the chaos were Scotland an independent state with its 5 million citizens.

Who would bail U dudes out.

When the most powerful the biggest economies in the world are struggling what chance would a tiny pip squeak nation like Scotland have . Alone and independent

The Irish were smart they hitched their shamrock waggon to the EU.

Scottish Patriotism and dead and gone histories never put bread on a table.

As for the collapse of HBOS ...suck it up dudes and move on.

Have a nice Day

GC
26

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 05:21:58
32 Neil Waugh
More ill-informed irrational comment.
HBOS may have had its HQ in Scotland but it carried out the vast majority of its business elsewhere in the UK as the Halifax part of HBOS. How then can a restriction on foreign ownership in terms of an indepependent Scotland be applicable. In the situation you are envisaging the Halifax part of HBOS would have been a foreign bank.
27

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 05:28:13
22 A Better Way
Another rant from somebody with no understanding of the issues. When will people finally accept that all this talk of how things would have been different if Scotland had control is utterly meaningless as HBOS carried out the vast majority of its business in the rest of the UK and was therefore subject to UK regulation from the FSA. Also, even if Scotland was independent HBOS shares would still be traded on the London Stock Exchange in the same way as Bank of IReland, Allied Irish Banks and overseas banks are.
28

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 05:35:10
23 Big Ron
The journalistic errors are matched by the complete lack of understanding of the issues by many who have posted hysterical rants on this site.
29

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 05:44:38
5 Druidh
Absolutely - a good point which puts the hysterical tirades of Alex Salmond and co. into some perspective. If, as he claims, HBOS was "sound" and only forced into this takeover at a knock-down price by unjustified short selling then the shareholders need not accept it. Indeed, if Alex Saolmond's version of events is accurate they would be foolish to do so. Also, if the situation is as he states, why has another bank (UK or overseas) not stepped in with a better offer.
30

Boy Wonder,

19/09/2008 05:56:12
With this takeover, you'll note it's the Scots parts of the new giant that lose out, with the disappeance of the TSB and the BoS brand names.

And will the Hootsmon now end its blind allegiance to New Labour, who have been as much the architects of this carry-on as anyone?
31

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 06:21:23
40

Would the Government give another bank the carte blanc they gave Lloyds? or would they step in with the competition regulation especially if it is an overseas bank?
And it isnt only AS version is it. Alex Salmonds "version" seems to be shared by many others South of the border including Tory newspapers.
But never let the truth get in the way of a good ol anti SNP rant.
32

TommyKaye,

UK 19/09/2008 06:22:33
Brown is TOTALLY to blame he was the Chancellor for how many years?

He was the captian of the economy he knew that banks and other mortgage providers were lending and supplying cheap money if he didnt then what the hell was he doing?

The fact is HBOS was in trouble and BROWN SH&T himself big time already Northern Rock has been a total crock up on BROWN'S watch and if HBOS was going down he was toast.

Here is the fact sheet

BROWN = UK PRIME MINISTER = NORTHERN ROCK collapsed
BROWN = UK PRIME MINISTER = HBOS Forced into closure

Therefore BROWN = failures
33

John S,

19/09/2008 06:24:44
Norway is a safe economic haven.
In the present financial storm, economic analysts describe Norway as a safe haven."Norway's sovereign global fund gives us room to manoeuvre.We may take a loss in the short term, but we'll profit in the long run.Aftenposten -17 Sep 2008

Norway pop 4,623,291- Norway's Petroleum Fund (Sovereign Global Fund), set up to pay future health and pension expenses in Europe's second-richest country.
The fund invests Norway's oil and gas wealth in foreign stocks and bonds to save for future generations when the oil runs out and to shield the Norwegian economy and currency from the threat of overheating through huge oil income.
The initial investment of $300 million was made in the spring of 1996.
The fund was valued at $387.3 billion in March 2008, Norway's central bank reported.15/04/2008
This latest figure equates to $82,000 for every person living in Norway.
34

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 06:24:46
38

Face the FACTS Georgie boy if AS had the power to bail out HBOS he would have at least made the attempt and that power only comes with full independence and control of all fiscal revenue.
He may even have intervened before BOS became HBOS.
The point being of course is that there wasnt a Scottish government in place to give us that option.
35

Andrew D,

bne 19/09/2008 06:26:24
I don't get why people say that this shows how Scotland will not survive as an independant entity.

Excuse me? It's *BECAUSE* of being tied to those damn crooks in Westminster that this happened!

You can't blame independance for something that happened while tied to England/Wales/NI.
36

LEAL,

19/09/2008 06:55:55
Gordon Brown is responsible for this.He is quite glad to see the failure of any instituition with "Scotland" in its name.His name will live in infamy in Scotland and his children and grand children will be ashamed of him.
37

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 19/09/2008 07:08:35
So now we have an even bigger firm for the FSA to regulate, will it stop that one from falling over? Does it know about some very odd lending practices? Doubt it very much, the regulator is like the police, it is easier to strangel the small firm because it can't bite back.
38

Chaplin,

19/09/2008 07:10:47
If HBoS had taken over Lloyds, the nationalist posters on here would of spouted the usual braveheart statements, It might come as a shock to them but HBos is an internationally traded company who could of been bought out by anyone. BoS ceased to be a truly Scottish company when it agreed to a merger with Halifax. Putting you're head in the sand and expecting a nationalist government to stifle foreign investment on nationalistic grounds or protect Scottish companies from foreign buyouts etc. only ends up limiting the companies growth potential and makes foreigners wary of investing in Scotland. It is one of the reasons why the UK does so well when it comes to inward foreign investment.
39

El Sabio,

Sibbertoft 19/09/2008 07:12:10
Short selling is supposed to enhance market efficiency, i.e. if you believe the text books.

Naked short selling is supposed to be illegal, I think. However, the yuppies get away with all sorts of dubious practices including rumoour mongering
40

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 07:20:57
Can anyone name me Scotlands national bank? England has one but i believe Scotland is the only country in the world without one?

I am sure the Bank of England is safe of course.
41

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 07:22:05
The Scottish Government must immediatly legislate for a Scottish Bank!
42

jj veritas,

19/09/2008 07:22:24
The directors of the bank and the government officers who allowed this disaster to grow, expand and develop should answer financially and lose there pensions, houses and assets.
43

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 07:26:24
50

No they couldnt have been bought out by anyone not without the UK governments approval.
The UK government always had the option of stepping in and preventing any merger on legal grounds.
Do you honestly think that if anybody tried a run on the Bank of England the UK government would stand still and allow it?
Stop making yer sh*te up as you go along.
44

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 07:28:19
50

Other nations protect their financial assets from speculators with legislation but Scotland is powerless to do so and that is the difference between being fully independent to being subjegated to another nation.
45

Royster,

19/09/2008 07:34:37
#54. Why? Might as well immediately legislate for a Scottish biscuit company.
46

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 07:38:37
58

You cant save yer money in a biscuit factory and you cant buy biscuits in a bank.
If you keep displaying this kind of incompetant stupidity social services may have to take your kids for their own safety.
47

Jambo Dave,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 07:39:10
Do you think we will get answers to to the above questions? Not a chance they are all in it together because it dosnt matter who you vote for the world is owned and run by oil and banks.If you need proof just read the news over the last 6 monthes.I see also Mr Balls Up keeps his job!! need I say more.
48

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 07:42:50
61

Yes of course and if a Scottish government had been in place to run interference with that merger would it have still happened?
49

jtdx,

19/09/2008 07:46:20
Question number 6 is just silly. The advantages of printing your own banknotes remain no matter where the head-office resides (Clydesdale bank still prints them). Also "Bank of Scotland" is still a pretty good-sounding brand-name, and its unlikely that Lloyds will want to lose it.
50

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 19/09/2008 07:46:23
Once again England comes to Scotland's rescue.

It's the scenario that began with the Act of Union.

It's embarrassing, but who will rescue us after independence? Alex? If he is so smart then why didn't he jump about warning us all BEFORE these terrible events?

I'm afraid the SNP remains part of the problem, not the solution.

Federation is the only sensible way forward
51

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 07:46:31
63

Any reason why it cant be a nationalised Scottish bank?
apart from the fact that Scotland doesnt have the power to nationalise it?
52

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 07:47:46
66

Oh you dont look like a troll at all.
Obviously didnt post that as a sh*t stir.
53

Retired from Edinburgh,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 07:53:27
If Gordon Brown can now end the practice of short selling ( which I had never heard of before today), and Darling was aware of HBOS's problems 6 weeks ago, why didn't he 'outlaw' it then.
54

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 07:54:45
67
Yes - one huge and compelling reason. HBOS conducts the vast majority of its business elsewhere in the UK.
How can a Scottish government "nationalise" assets outside Scotland?
55

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 07:59:47
63 Dave#

You are indeed missing something. The Bank of England is state owned, the bank of the treasury, in fact it is the national bank for the UK; the Bank of England.

Scotland has (as i said) no national bank and is the only country in the world without one (i think).
56

dyon gollins's back,

Brussels 19/09/2008 08:02:30
Time for a de-maerger of BoS and Scottish Widow's into a new Scottish financial conglomerate; go for it Alec!!
57

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:02:33
56 suchaparcelofrogues
You hurl abuse at somebody who makes a valid point when it is patently obvious that you have virtually no understanding of the issues involved.
The Bank of England is a central bank in charge of currency and is not a quoted company so the issue of a run on it does not arise. HBOS was a trading bank and a company. The two are completely different types of institution.
58

Royster,

19/09/2008 08:05:08
#59. A bank is a business like any other. A bank may be more important socially but you can at least eat biscuits... unlike HBOS share certificates.
59

Brodric,

19/09/2008 08:06:37
Splitting hairs over whether or not the Bank of Scotland was lost before or now, is irrelevant.

The point is that the Bank of Scotland (even as HBOS) was Scotland's most important and most iconic bank - printing its own money.

Sometimes entities are more than the sum of their parts - and this was the case with the Bank of Scotland.

And that we have to listen to this anti-Scottish, nasty, snickering, snide drivel about this being another reason why the Scots can't manage to be independent, is beyond the pale - and shows a significant lack of respect for Scots people.

I, for one, am sick of this. Its a very British attitude We should fight for our independence once and for all and get on with it, good or bad. I've seen countries with less the potential of this one emerge into Europe - and they are developing well. Whilst we are glued to the apron-strings of the stagnating UK with its yearnings for the long-dead Empire - and its centralised power which swallowed up all riches from the length and breadth of Britain - we won't get anywhere.

No 24 Chas is right. ..'"THE-UNDERDOG'S" Always have been, and always WILL Be!
Why do people not accept this Truth, and do something about it, instead of shedding, when thing go wrong,..'

We will always be seen as the underdogs if we don't have the courage to rise above it - and to believe in ourselves. Too long, we have believed that we are the underdogs, having been told this continually for years.




60

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:06:39
53 Nevsky
The Bank of England is a central bank which controls currency. France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Greece, Austria and many more countries are now part of the Euro zone and hence are sbject to the European Central Bank. They therefore do not have a national bank in the form of the Bank of England. Your assertion that Scotland is the only country without a national bank is, therefore, completely mistaken.
61

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 08:07:06
At the end of the day, the rules were dropped in order for HBOS to be taken-over because HBOS had made a lot of poor financial decision. HBOS will probably disappear, over time.

By the way, why would anyone want to nationalise a High Street bank? At about £2000 per person for every man, woman, and child in Scotland? That would be a good idea....
62

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 08:08:23
77

Most businesses are not protected by legislation in the event of take overs and mergers though are they? certainly no biscuit factories.
Nobody cares if somebody corners the market in buscuits but what if all UK banks were run by the same institution? a foreign one at that?
Royster you have to do something about this anti Independence phobia of yours its turning yer brain to custard.
63

Royster,

19/09/2008 08:08:49
#76. Yes, we must surrender totally to a collection of foreign nations...
64

Brodric,

19/09/2008 08:08:53
Continued:

Get off your erkies and fight for independence - and show our displeasure at the merger of the Bank of Scotland.

Question if the merger of the Bank of Scotland wasn't another way of taking away an icon for Scotland and its stature as an independent country. Only a few weeks ago, it was mooted that Scotland's power to print its own money might be taken away.

I AM NO CONSPIRACY THEORIST .....BUT DON'T YOU THINK THAT THIS IS RATHER CONVENIENT!!!

65

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 08:09:35
79

Liar liar pants on fire.
66

Scotish Exile,

19/09/2008 08:09:45
Blame the greedy incompetent bankers at HBOS for getting themselves into this mess, it is them that should be addressing matters, but they will disappear quietly into the sunset with their pockets bulging...
67

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:10:56
78 Brodric
The Royal Bank of Scotland is much bigger than HBOS. How, then, could HBOS be Scotland's most important bank.
68

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 08:11:01
80

Oh nothing political in these constitutional troubled times influenced the decision at all then?
A UK government made a decision without any political considerations at all?
69

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 08:12:18
82

But its ok for Scotland to surrender its sovereignty to England?
70

David K.,

Loch Lomond 19/09/2008 08:12:50
Sir Dennis Stevenson should be stripped of his Knighthood. Shame on you .
71

Black Five,

edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:13:46
Bank of Scotland shafted by Broon the buffon and Groucho Darling the poodle.As for that twit Hornby he`d be better going and playing with his trains,
Indeed a whole sorry mess which should not have happened.The shareholders should vote against this if this is possible.The workers will pay for Hornby`s folly and as for the name B O S it will surely dosappear.A complete and utter mess.
72

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:14:09
84 suchaparcelofrogues
What is your "liar liar pants on fire" statement meant to do. The facts I mentioned in post 79 are absolutely correct and are common knowledge to anybody with any awareness of these issues. Check them out. Sorry but your childish insults cannot alter the truth.
73

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 08:14:19
80

How much did other nations fork out to nationalise their own banks?
And why isnt there a global out cry about the massive tax increaces it caused and the cuts to services?
74

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 08:14:22
I, for one, hope that they will stop printing those stupid parochial banknotes.
75

lodger,

Highland 19/09/2008 08:14:29
Does anyone remember their Scottish history in relation to the Darien project?
The same coniving, "do the Scots down", nasty attitudes are still at work in the establishment!
76

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:16:33
There's something really whiffy here. You can't just merge two companies of this size in a couple of days. These things take months. The spivs had an unsuccessful go at HBoS a few months ago. There was obviously something wrong with the company if the sharks smelled blood in the water. I suspect HBoS hasn't been as much the hapless victim of an unsolicited corporate raid as its being made out.
77

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:17:24
93 suchaparcelofrogues
Please tell us which nations have nationalises their banks.
78

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 08:18:14
#87 superparcelofrogue

Of course you are correct - your government allowed the merger of a bank based in Edinburgh & Yorkshire, with a bank base in Edinburgh & London, in order to stem your personal ethnic-patriotic aspirations...
79

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:18:55
96 Draco
Thank goodness for some intelligent comment at last.
80

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 08:19:18
79# George:

The Bank of England is the central bank of the UK. Scotland has no national bank.

Scotland has NO central bank unlike every other european country. I am afraid you are the one who is mistaken.
81

Royster,

19/09/2008 08:20:15
#89. Well we share a lot in the EU which is good thing. However, in the UK we can still set interest rates which reflect our economic conditions (such as large scale house ownership). Unlike the Irish, who went through a boom when euro interest rates were too low and now at the beginning of a terrible housing collapse which could last a couple of decades. The UK's situation is much better.
82

FISHWICK,

berwick upon tweed 19/09/2008 08:20:55
You can only short sell a company successfully if it's potentially on the ropes already. To this extent it is a good means of weeding out the dross. When ALL the banks are potential candidates we have a problem. The problem is the almost universal banking model, not the short selling. Unfortunately at this moment of time we are not in a position to treat the patient [the banking system] but, as an emergency measure, have to treat the symptoms [the short selling]. Otherwise the whole banking system could/might/will collapse. The fear is that if speculators go for HBOS/LLOYDS/TSB we don't know how strong it is to resist. If they manage to bring it down then the whole pile goes and all the banks are basket cases and have to be nationalised. Some might say "Good, they can then become the service industry they were supposed to be!"
83

Ananurhing,

19/09/2008 08:21:49
HBOS could have been rescued by,
A. A moratorium on short selling being in place before last night.

B. Emergency liquidity funding from the BoE. The very funding that many govts. worldwide made available yesterday.

Brown's stated aim is to " do whatever it takes to preserve the union". Given that all pundits UK wide seem to accept that Glenrothes is a done deal, Brown doesn't have a lot left in his arsenal to head off the inevitable. Other than to bring the Scottish economy to its knees.

Make no mistake. this man, widely regarded as having "sociopathic" tendancies is capable of doing this. It probably makes perfectly good sense to him, and there's not a lot else he can do. He maybe didn't set the dogs on HBOS, but he certainly left them to it.

Economic scorched earth policy in Scotland to recreate the conditions that forced the union on Scotland in the first place. I'm sure he sees such tactics as sensible and legitimate.

"I will do WHATEVER it takes to preserve the union"!
84

Royster,

19/09/2008 08:21:53
#100. That's because Scotland is part of the UK.
85

Brodric,

19/09/2008 08:23:36
96 - Draco.

I couldn't agree more with you that there is something rather suspicious going on. Just a few weeks ago, it was mooted that Scottish banks right to print their own money should be withdrawn.

Very convenient that HBOS was so attacked by spivs.
86

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 08:24:26
#100 Nevski

And why would Scotland need a State Bank? Try to be realistic and live in the here-and-now.
87

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:24:36
100 Nevsky
Absolutely not. France is part of the Eurozone. Its central bank is therefore the European Central Bank which is in charge of the Euro. By definition, therefore, France and all other Eurozone countries do not have central bank. This is common knowledge. Why do you dispute it. Your statement that "Scotland has no central bank unlike every other European country" is completely contradicted by the facts.
88

Brodric,

19/09/2008 08:24:39
86 - Ugly George.

Sorry to tell you boyo, that it is not size that is always important... no matter what the girls might tell you.
89

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 08:25:10
97

Why are you too lazy to look it up for yourself?
90

1745,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:25:54
Gordon Brown said that he would do anything to stop Scotland becoming Independent... looks like he has!!
91

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 08:26:28
104# Royster:

Uk is part of Europe but still retains its own central bank i believe..apart from Scotland of course that does not have one.
92

blackley,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:26:28
Shed no tears for the Bank of scotland. After being with the bank for nigh on 35 years we withdrew our account last March when being repeatedly fobbed off by staff at the Corstorphine branch about how they were going to upgrade our son's account. Prompt results were promised and not delivered. "We'll get back to you". They didn't. We walked along the road to the Abbey and eventually opened an account there after transfer delays and more empty committments from the BoS. God rot the lot of them!
93

Richard Lionheart,

19/09/2008 08:26:33
Everything Gordon Touches turns to BROWN.

He gets into a hole and keeps digging.

He has gotten us into a hole and his one solution is keep digging!

If Labour MP's have not got the bottle to kick him out, because they know the extent of the mess he has really gotten us into, then it is only the unions that have the muscle in the Labour party to do the job.

His masterful intervention in HBOS seems to give them 40,000 good reasons to do so.
94

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 08:28:27
104:

Same goes for every other European nation..apart from Scotland i think.
95

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 08:28:33
#103 ananotherthing

HBOS was rescued by Lloyds TSB - for tax-payers, that is an infinitely cheaper and more sensible option. But you would prefer us all to have a whip-'round?
96

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:30:59
I would like to know in addition how the follow can be allowed to happen. Hornby 'earned' a transferrable bonus during the banks period of reported success, but it was this period that it was all really going wrong.

"Andy Hornby, the chief executive of crisis-hit HBOS, is to receive shares worth almost £2 million" as part of the takeover.

Rather than getting this, shouldn't all his bonuses and those of his cohorts over the past few years be returned?
97

digiRobbo,

19/09/2008 08:31:59
There we go. Market just opened and banking shares have rocketed. No short selling b*****ds around and the US taking positive action at last. Shame about the UK government
98

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:34:17
110 suchaparcelofrogues
Why should I look it up when you can enlighten and educate me quickly. Or is your comment merely a way of disguising that you do not have any evidence to support your assertion.
99

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 08:34:45
118

And it only cost Scotland a financial institution.
This of course could never have occured before naturally.
100

Royster,

19/09/2008 08:35:11
#105. That's cos you were on holiday. My mate from Cork is having real problems trying to shift his house.
101

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:36:45
#102 Fishwick

You sem like a fairly sensible chap, perhaps you can explain this to me re. short selling. If A 'lends' a share worth £10 to B, who sells it to C for a tenner, then buys it back for a fiver then gives it back to A for £5 (plus a £1 fee for having borrowed it). I can see what old our chum the spib B is gaining out of this, £4. But surely lender A is loosing £4 out of this and C is loosing a fiver. Why would anyone lend shares to B, or, knowing that B is a spiv who does this sort of thing for a living, buy shares from him? I'm confused.
102

Ken S.,

Reading 19/09/2008 08:36:46
The fundamental cause of all this lies with the bankers (or similar sounding word). The private sector is supposed to be shining examples of competence, as compared with the supposed miserable incompetence of anything done by the public sector. Yet what happens when everything goes belly-up through incompetence and recklessness in the private sector (this or any other fiasco)?

Yes, that's right, it's all the fault of government or regulator! - and add the English dimension in the case of Scotsman boards

Never in a million years did I think I might be commenting in defence of Broon & Co!
103

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 08:37:28
#119 Ugly George

I think that all countries in the Euro-zone do have their own national banks, but they are only used as instruments for enforcing ECB policy within individual countries.
104

Royster,

19/09/2008 08:38:46
#111. Well Scotland could still be independent with oil but that will run out in the not too distant future and the price is very volatile. When that's up, there's whisky and afrming. If that goes, we are on a par with Sunderland and Middlesbrough.
105

Dissector,

Stirling 19/09/2008 08:42:46
The management i.e. the executive directors especially heads of department, the CEO and CFO are 90% responsible for the collapse of HBOS. The financial structure used for funding mortgages was excessively dependent on the inter-bank market which froze after Morthern Rock - 12 months ago. The question is therefore why didn't the management initiate significant moves then - overpaid incompetence and arrogance. The FSA, the Bank of England and any other soft target can't impose strategy and this was a strategy issue. The short-sellers carry blame but only because management made massive mistakes.
106

BK,

Cyberspace 19/09/2008 08:43:37
How did it happen? in five letters B R O W N.
107

Ananurhing,

19/09/2008 08:44:21
#116 Tin Man

No. I would have liked to have seen them offered the same protection that was offered to many other banks a matter of hours after the HBOS debacle.

"HBOS was rescued by Lloyds TSB"

Look at the faces of Lloyds TSB board. They can't believe their luck.

I'm no fan of HBOS, and I'm not going to get all dewy eyed and patriotic over a PLC, but this is a black day for Scotland, and this stinks. This deal has Brown keech handed fingerprints all over it.
108

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:45:03
124 The Tin Man
They undoubtedly have govt mechanisms for collecting taxation and distributing revenue but they cannot have a central bank which is in charge of currency/interest rates etc. because this is all done by the ECB.

Anyway my point was addressed to someone who was talking about nationalising trading banks like HBOS.
109

Prudence,

Scotland 19/09/2008 08:45:05
Why are some US banks given the description as "venerable ?" Nobody is saying the "venerable " HBOS, which is older than their US counterparts.
110

Doh,

19/09/2008 08:48:30
Give them bigger bonuses and attract the best and brightest to run our most venerable institutions.

Well that is the Tory mantra.

Of course if they goof up dont worry, we will nationalise the debts and make the taxpayer cover your losses whilst you enjoy the profits.

Its time to really privatise companies and take them out of the stock market where they are just targets of speculation.

111

YHOTA,

Bathgate 19/09/2008 08:50:37
The Halifax were always arrogant and internally shambolic. Any BofS customer knows that they did not merge with Halifax they were taken over by them so far as ordinary customers are concerned. If you call the BofS you almost never end up talking to someone in Scotland. Almost every financial services company has been taken over by "UK" or foreign companies over the past ten years. Only RBS and Standard Life remain. Here are some that went:- Scottish Life, Scottish Equitable, Scottish Provident, Scottish Amicable, Gemeral Accident,Clydesdale Bank, I could go on!
112

BK,

Cyberspace 19/09/2008 08:51:35
Well we can always look forward to a drink in Edinburgh's latest J.D. Wetherspoon's pub, "The Broken Bank." It will be in a very imposing position, handy for the Royal Mile and with superb views of Princes Street.
113

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 08:52:17
125

The world is full of independent nations living comfortably without oil and gas resourses idiot boy.
114

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 08:52:51
#128 Ananotherthing

I would be surprised if the take-over was not on the cards for some time, as exp[lained by Dissector.

It is a commercial transaction, not a matter for patriotic hubris.
115

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:55:25
128 Ananurhing
HBOS now has that the protection as the shareholders can still reject the takeover. This why the claim of Alex Salmond - that a sound company was forced into a cheap takeover by short selling - lacks credibility. Short selling has now been stopped so if this is such a bad deal why don't the shareholders reject it. Alternatively if HBOS is being sold on the cheap, why doesn't another bank (UK or overseas) step in with a better hostile offer. Alex Salmond's claims make no sense.
116

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 08:58:11
#128 Anurhing

I suspect you're right. I suspect that HBoS has been on the point of going t*ts up for a good few months now and that Broon, in his best Machiavellian style, has been brokering a takeover by Lloyds for that period. Broon knew the country coudn't afford to do a Northern Rock with HBoS. Result, Lloyds gets a bargain and Broon gets to avoid having to explain that the economic model he so favoured and which was followed so enthusiastically by HBoS, ruined the oldest Scottish bank. I wonder if Broon got some sort of arrangement fee from Lloyds? It certainly takes one spiv to recognise another.
117

Royster,

19/09/2008 08:59:08
#131. I like my country stable and secure. I don't think an independent Scotland would be as stable, secure and as financially-independent as the UK and - most of all - I don't want to see an international border on the island of Great Britain. In my view, the UK has become less stable because of devolution so I would like to see Holyrood abolished. However, before the abolition of Holyrood, I think Scotland should be given a vote on independence as Scotland voted for Holyrood and the people's wishes must be paramount.
118

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 09:01:36
140

Thats ok Royster you are entitled to your opinions and sentiments now why dont you express these opinions and sentiments honestly and with conviction instead of with lies deceits and political propaganda?
If you honestly believe all that then you should be able to argue with honesty and conviction.
119

Royster,

19/09/2008 09:01:42
So you think an independent Sunderland is a viable option?
120

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 09:03:13
138

Come on he is either an idiot or a party political troll or both.
121

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 09:04:38
142

For who?
122

C. Mantic,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:04:39
In the course of one day a bank’s share price can go up and down like a wh&re’s drawers while the traders make money and someone else loses. However, the assets of the bank and its liabilities on that day probably remain reasonably constant, so the bank’s value, i.e. its net asset value, probably also remains constant.
123

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 19/09/2008 09:06:24
According to Newsnight last night there was little evidence that 'short selling' was the cause of the HBOS collapse - less than 5% of its shares were borrowed or sold-short in the months leading up to the crisis. The real problem was that the bank had lent something like £450 billion of credit but only had £250 billion in assets to cover its liabilities (the numbers may be wrong but the excess of liability over assets is right as I recall the programme).

So HBOS bosses were entirely responsible for the huge liabilities which they incurred - they could not cover their debts. What happened to all the generations of 'wise lending'? Answer - the pigs were in the trough as usual and now the poor bluddy taxpayer is left with the debt - i.e. you and me!!! Sack them and jail them.
124

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 09:10:02
#140 Royster

Personnally, I think that if Scotland became independent, the SNP would get a couple of terms of office with a strong mandate, which would be enough time to introduce the Euro.

So interest rates for bank customers living in Scotland would become more alined with the Euro-zone, and exports would be subject to Euro exchange-rates, rather than Sterling exchange-rates. I don't think much else would change, financially.
125

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:11:40
#146 Tweedmouth

Exactly. HBoS, it would appear unlike Lloyds, were enthusiastic players in Broon's economic 'miracle'. A decade of the economy being based in tick. My old gran, God bless her, could have told you it was a model doomed to go spectactularly wrong and, boy, has it.
126

Royster,

19/09/2008 09:12:18
#147. It would still be an international border whether it is policed or not. As a Briton, I would find it abhorrent but if people voted for it then so be it.
127

K McDonald,

Glasgow 19/09/2008 09:12:59
Why let reality get in the way of another opportunistic, cringe-inducing, irrational rant from Salmond. BOS was taken over by Halifax a long time ago. HBOS shares had declined dramatically over the past 9 months (from £10 to <£3) for good reason: balance sheet. Short sellers only win when they are pushing against a rotten door.

If Salmond (the "fully qualified economist") is so sure of his assertion that the HBOS was a sound business then I expect to hear him call on HBOS shareholders to reject the Lloyds TSB offer...Maybe his McSpiv paymaster Mathewson can pitch-up for the Nats.

Scotland must be a scary place to look into from the outside world these days. Absolutely everything that goes wrong in nationalists' minds is the fault of an outsider, usually English, or internally from the treacherous unionists (not real Scots).
128

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:13:39
133 YHOTA
These things work both ways. When RBS took over NatWest many people in Scotland were celebrating that Edinburgh now had the HQ of one of the biggest UK banks. So it would appear that its OK for a Scottish bank to take over an English bank but not OK for an English bank to take over a Scottish bank. Where is the logic in that?
129

Royster,

19/09/2008 09:14:17
I'm sure Lloyds TSB would sell Bank of Scotland back to the Scottish government for about 12 billion quid. That's about 2,000 quid each.
130

Royster,

19/09/2008 09:14:47
Or rather to the Scottish government.
131

Former Insider,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:15:03
Any truth in the rumour that the next Lloyds TSB advert finishes with the strap line...that's Asda price?

Seriously though having been through Lloyds takover of Scottish Widows and also the Scottish Provident/Abbey/Santander feeding chain there is no hope of jobs beign saved - the only synergies are in disposing of overlap which for two business which cover the same area will be large numbers of staff.
I am glad to see tha belatedly some action is being taken on short selling - I've been saying for a long time it is unethical and look where it has got us - I would like to see those involved named and shamed!
132

HughB,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:15:43
This is not yet a "done deal". The shareholders have to approve it first.

And what happens if they reject it and hold on to their shares.

Scotland might still have its own bank.

#154, or a small portion of Scottish oil revenue which Westminster takes from us over the years.
133

Royster,

19/09/2008 09:16:18
#153. Well, I didn't say that did I? Would like an unpolied international border between Glasgow and Edinburgh?
134

Voice of reason,

EDINBURGH 19/09/2008 09:16:25
England rides to the rescue of Scots ( again ) . Had we had oor ain Guvvurnmant HBOS widnae ha gone bust .
135

Royster,

19/09/2008 09:16:49
Should read unpoliced
136

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 09:19:56
157

They might it was a sh*te offer.
137

Royster,

19/09/2008 09:20:04
#161. I see so Barra is an independent country?
138

Ananurhing,

19/09/2008 09:20:45
#136 Tin Man

"not a matter for patriotic hubris."

Tell that to Brown.
139

tommy,

belfast uk 19/09/2008 09:21:48
Having lost a considerable amount of money by my standards in the halifax debacle,I was amazed when they telephoned me on Wednesday evening to sell me insurance.

A rendering of"nearer my God to thee" would probably have been more appropriate


the truth is out there---- somewhere
140

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:22:18
156 Former Insider
The FSA have stated that they still see short selling as a "legitimate" process. It appears that the ban is temporary and short selling will be allowed again at some time in the future with new regulations.

Many of the investment products that offer a guarantee of no losses which were introduced in the wake of the failure of schemes such as endowments depend, to some extent, on short selling as a hedge against falling asset values. It will be reintroduced fairly soon (with new regulations) or we could have another problem with some existing investment schemes becoming unviable.
141

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 09:23:02
148

Thats always a possiblity point is the choice would be our to make no somebody eleses.
142

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:24:58
162 suchaparcelofrogues.
If the offer was, in your estimation, so bad why does another bank not step in with a better hostile offer.
143

Edward,

19/09/2008 09:27:44
Couple of questions I would like answering :
Why doesnt Labour name the date for the Glenrothes by election? Listened to Good Moring Scotrland on Radio Scotland and there was mention tht more politicians of al sides are getting curious at Labour's delay

and
Why does Labour just call a General election and allow the whole of the UK the chanc to kick Brown and his loosers out?
Or are the two questions linked?
144

Former Insider,

19/09/2008 09:29:24
156 the FSA in their finest 'I see no ships mode' - the legistlation should be tightened up to prevent the spivs ruining any more companies
145

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:30:27
On coast-to-coast television and radio in the United States, the politician being seen and heard explaining the short-selling shambles which led to the extinction of the Bank of Scotland was.........Alex Salmond!
Where on earth were Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling?

Prior to this economic crisis the Americans had never heard of Alex Salmond but they have now! What an indictment of our PM and Chancellor that they have given a platform to a Nationalist politician to grab the headlines!

According to NBC, Salmond was the only U.K. politician calling for a complete ban on short-selling which is not allowed under US Federal Government anti-trust laws.
146

Ananurhing,

19/09/2008 09:31:08
#137 Ugly George

That has occurred to me re the shareholders of HBOS. But after the failed rights issue, and rock bottom share price, I would imagine it's any port in a storm for them.

It still leaves all the questions in this article unanswered, and is undoubtedly a black day for the Scottish economy. Which I am sure Brown is quite comfortable with.
147

Ken S.,

Reading 19/09/2008 09:33:51
#147 Dave from Barra ©,
"..if Engurland had the gump to join the EU.."
"Joining the EU would bring bigger stability. This half way house we have is a crock of sh!t at the moment."

Why do I need a comfort blanket? I am confident enough in my nation's* independence and stability not to need such a Union to dominate and restrict its freedom. That is surely more gumpful. This half way house we have is a crock of sh!t at the moment.

* Insert "England" or "UK", depending on the argument du jour.

;-)
148

Royster,

19/09/2008 09:34:03
Of course it's not immaterial. The ease of transit is not the question. I think Britain should have its own government not 2 or 3 based on mediaeval kingdoms and principalities.
149

suchaparcelofrogues,

19/09/2008 09:34:04
169

Probably and I am speculating here they know the UK government wouldnt allow it especially if its foreign.
Save Scotland for England not for anybody else I think the sentiment is.
There is a suspicion that this was arranged before hand between Lloyds and the UK government.
Of course this cannot hold water I mean lets face it what would possibly motivate the UK government to allow a London institute to take over a Scottish asset?
150

subrosa,

19/09/2008 09:34:16
# 58

I'm sure Tunnocks is well protected by Scottish law.
151

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 09:35:31
#167 superparcel

Exactly. Independence has very little to do with financial markets - it is a matter of the heart, not the wallet.

However, if the SNP's Euro plans were implemented, the Scottish government would have been in the hands of the ECB in Frankfurt, rather than any institution in Edinburgh or London.
152

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 09:36:18
...meaning that decisions re. bank mergers would be in the hands of the ECB....
153

Boab,

Glasgow 19/09/2008 09:37:33
Let's not get too sentimental about HBOS. Scotland also invented capitalism and arguably, banking itself. They created this dog eat dog world!

I've banked with HBOS for about 15 years. Last time I went in to ask for a loan I was served by a teeny bopper who lectured me on how I needed expensive payment protection, before turning me down.

Do I need to pay back all my credit card debt now that HBOS are in trouble? Funny how if you booked a holiday with XL, you've lost your money; but if a bank goes down, your debt still needs to be paid.
154

Andy Mac,

19/09/2008 09:39:19
Northern Rock gets bailed out by the treasury.

A Scottish bank is left to be subsumed by a London bank.



YET ANOTHER UNION DIVIDEND
155

TommyKaye,

UK 19/09/2008 09:39:22
see if Gordon Browns sums add up?

http://www.tpadata.com/browncalculator/
156

Homo Sapiens,

Elstree 19/09/2008 09:39:58
Seems to me that too many people are trying to blame "short selling" as the reason for the downfall of HBOS. It is a myth conveniently propagated by those who want to shift blame. The facts are that less than 5% of HBOS shares were held by "short sellers", therefore cannot alone account for the 90% price drop in HBOS shares over the past 6 months. Second, for a wave of short selling to sweep the carpet from under a stock, the stock must be in decline, or be seen as vulnerable (otherwise short sellers would not be willing to gamble and bet that the share price will go down - even if these short-sellers are hedge funds, who hedge their bets with a countervailing "long" bet). Thirdly and much more importantly, the fundamentals of the HBOS were poor and looking grim due to poor credit/loan making practices, over exposure to the battred UK real-estate market, and some large exposures to small group of preferred "strategic" companies/individual borrowers who are facing potential difficulties in meeting their obligations in an economic downturn.

Essentially it boils down to aggressive lending,poor due diligence of the borrowers and their abilities to repay their loans, and a belief that HBOS was TBTF (Too Big To Fail). The latter myth reinforced by the hastily arranged "shotgun marriage" with Lloyd's TSB, which will not solve the problem in any way, but will defer the solution, and compound the pain to be suffered at a later stage (or force severe regulation of the bank, which will harm the economy for the longer-term).

Instead of creating a single Giant Lloyds-HBOS, which will really be Too Big To Fail, and will require Taxpayer funds to be rescued when it's bell will be rung, the restructuring of HBOS should have separated the Mortgage lending Halifax, and the "Special Strategic Lending" operations from the retail bank. This would have allowed the original BOS to go on and serve the large retail customer base it has, leaving Halifax to face the challenges a
157

Ugly George,

edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:41:08
172 Mr Lachie Todd
Short selling has taken place at times but so has long buying where traders buy at at a higher price then talk up or "ramp" the price of a share or an asset. It is now obvious that this is what was happening to the price of oil a few months ago. It was ramped up to $147 a barrel but has now dropped over $50 to $94. How did Alex salmond react to this ramping. On the back of rising oil prices and hence extra revenues he formally requested that extra revenue should be used to set up a Scottish oil fund.

So Alex Salmond denounces the actions of "spivs and specualtors" in one instance but he was perfectly happy to seek benefits from the actions of "spivs and speculators" in another. Is this not grossly hypocritical?
158

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 09:41:20
175~ Royster:


Britain does have it's own government and it is failing or perhaps you had not noticed. That's why people are voting for the SNP and will vote 'yes' in a referendum.

You of course will defend it at any costs and no matter what the consequences are for Scotland. Hopefully in the future such servility will no longer exist in any Scots as they no longer exist in any other European country, just here and just in people such as you..we live in hope!
159

Duncan in Edinburgh,

19/09/2008 09:44:26
What silly game is the Scotsman playing with this story?

"How did Scotland lose its oldest banking institution?"

If you are talking about ownership and control moving out of Scotland, then the answer is that the Halifax took it over in 2001.

If you are talking about the loss of Bank of Scotland branches, bank notes and jobs, then the answer is IT HASN'T HAPPENED.
160

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 09:45:44
#181 Andy Mac

HBoS is in the process of being taken-over as an on-going business. Northern Rock was going into receivership.
161

Red Tower,

Dunoon 19/09/2008 09:48:30
I want the Labour government to go as much as anyone but Brown cannot possibly be blamed for the international crisis. The Bank of Scotland's demise is as much the result of poor banking strategy by its management as it is to short selling.

Most of the writers to this site are SNP and recently I have transferred my vote to that party. However the next election will be a GB election and no matter what the outcome the SNP will not form a majority in the House of Commons. The most likely outcome will be that the Tories will. That in my opinion would be as big a catastrophe. Capitalism has got us into this mess and the Tories are the child of capitalism.

No matter what, Labour is not going to win next time round. However I can foresee a revival in that party's fortunes provided the international crisis is largely resolved before the election takes place. The takeover of HBOS will not be seen as a bad move by the majority of BRITISH voters. It will be seen as prudent by those south of the border. The swing back will not be enough to secure a victory but it might just be enough to result in a hung parliament. And this outcome would be highly desirable. It will also secure a bigger SNP say in the governance of Britain and hence the future status of Scotland.

162

Hey,

19/09/2008 09:50:16
#170

"Why doesn't Labour just call a General election and allow the whole of the UK the chanc to kick Brown and his loosers out?"

Er....why on earth would labour call a general election now when they know they would lose?

What a ridiculous question - its like asking why don't turkeys vote to bring Christmas forward.
163

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 09:51:46
186

Yes Duncan I believe that point has already been made now why dont you catch up first then post.
164

subrosa,

19/09/2008 09:52:03
#3
"This why the claim of Alex Salmond - that a sound company was forced into a cheap takeover by short selling - lacks credibility."

The FSA stated HBOS was sound only on Tuesday. That must lack credibility also then. Surely the FSA must be partly responsible for stating untrue facts if your understanding is correct.

Or, the FSA was manipulated, either by Brown or Darling or both.

The whole business has a kipper smell.
165

bluehead,

edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:52:04
I smell a rat or two,!among the fishy smell!!!!!!
perhaps there is something they know that we don't.
166

subrosa,

19/09/2008 09:52:32
Ooops that should have read #137
167

Doctor Who,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:53:32
To change the subject and get back to the villain of the piece - I saw a photo of Andy Hornby today, in which he was described as looking "drawn". Better hung ,drawn and quartered, thought I. This is a man who treated our Bank of Scotland like a glorified building society, fired the experienced bankers (yes Andy - ones with bank exams/qualifications as well as THEIR degrees and MBAs.... and replaced them with young inexperienced mortgage salesmen, baby hot-shots in his own image. Is it generally known how many millions of pounds worth of shares in Lloyds Bank are owned by Hornby? Find out! - and when you do, think like me that the man has absolutely no honour. If he were Japanese, he should commit seppuku with shame. Indeed, I am sure there are many who would assist him in this, if he is unwilling to provide his guts for it.
168

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 09:53:44
184

Seeking benefits is hypocritical?
We live on a planet of hypocrites.
169

Peter A,

London 19/09/2008 09:55:03
Dear all,

I work in the City and would like to dispel some mis-conceptions

1. BoS instigated the merger with the Halifax. BoS had over expanded its balance sheet trying to keep up with the expansion of other commercial banks (especially RBS) and needed the deposit base of the Halifax to regain stability. The Halifax at the time was the UK's largest building society and was regarded as a fairly conservative institution. Although the Halifax was actually the bigger of the two companies, the BoS management and strategy dominated the new company. The HQ was also put in Edinburgh despite 80%+ of the business of HBOS being in England.

2. HBOS continued the strategy of rapid balance sheet expansion that had been followed by BoS. The conservative lending practices of the Halifax were relaxed. Despite the enormous deposit base provided by the Halifax, HBOS became increasingly reliant upon the wholesale money markets - ie it funded much of its lending by borrowing from other banks.

3. The over expanded balance sheet and reliance upon the money markets for funding lies at the heart of HBOS's problems. This is exactly the same problem that brought down Northern Rock.

4. The short sellers were correct. They were merely predicting that the business model of HBOS was flawed and that it would struggle to survive if the money markets cut off the supply of funds - which of course happened. A bank can not get into trouble because its share price falls, it can only get into trouble if its balance sheet is too small for the credit it has issued.

Many of the comments here see this as some form of an attack on Scotland. If there are any victims here it is the work force of the Halifax. If the Halifax had remained independent it may or may not have avoided the credit excesses of the past few years - we will never know. But its current situation is a direct result of its merger with BoS. HBOS followed the expansionary strategy of BoS and used the deposit base of the very
170

Peter A,

London 19/09/2008 09:58:18
Cont...largely English customers of the Halifax to do so.
171

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 09:59:15
#191 subrosa

If HBoS was not a sound business, why on earth would Lloyds TSB want to take it over? Let's not have any no-brainers, please.
172

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 10:00:13
#43 TommyKaye,

Aye Brown has rather incompetently managed the morbid symptoms. Don't forget who gave us the disease. De-regulation of the banks and building societies was the "brain"-child of presided of Thatcherism and Raygunomics. You think all would have been well if Wheatcroft and George Osborne had been running the asylum?
173

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:00:14
187

Yet before it was going into receivership it was in a position to be taken over as an on going business and if Lloyds had made an offer then the UK government would have blocked it on the grounds of competition regulation as they did before with Lloyds.
Nothing funny about all of this occuring to you yet?
174

Duncan in Edinburgh,

19/09/2008 10:02:26
#190 If so then why are idiots like #176 still talking about English conspiracies to take over a Scottish asset?

Perhaps you should put your brain in gear first and then post.
175

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 10:02:42
197#

Just why was HBOS described as 'secure' with no problems in attracting funding then?
The fact that shares have soared 50% today in lots of markets today shows that ALL institutions are at the whim of the prevailing mood and actions of the brokers.
176

Red Tower,

Dunoon 19/09/2008 10:04:02
#198 If a business acquisition is cheap enough it not a "no-brainer" to make it. Staff can always be sacked. It can be made profitable.
177

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 10:05:12
197#

The prevailing greed of traders is more directly to blame than anything. It is their fear of losing money that causes all of this mess.
178

noswod,

Honestus 19/09/2008 10:06:38
Hornby should be sacked alongside Broon and Darling. The management are to specificaly to blame for the shambles. Borrowing short (overnight) and lending long 25 years is banking and barking madness. Someone should have told the Greengrocer at the top of HBOS you can only lend what you take in deposits don't follow the Northern Rock they will go bust. Outside of the Bank there has been total institutional failure by all to intervene. As for the crisis management of HBOS it did not exist. Brown (Edin Univ) and Darling (Edin South) did not have a clue on what is happening and panicked. Lloyds ever the opportunist have bought cheap and will suck the soul out of the Bank of Scotland sucking all the blood out of it until its closed down as theres no one in Scotland with any money left. (Just like the TSB & Scottish Widows) As a seperate country trying to deal with this crisis Slamond would have been sunk as it would overwhelmed any independant banking system and a similar quick fix deal would have had to be done. Lets face it we have all been relegated to a branch office by this. The only way forward is to keep taking the money from them doon sooth. Unfortunately any concept of prudent Edinburgh banking went out the window when the Harvard educated Greengrocer joined HBOS and started to sell mortgages like tins o beans. So sad, the fabric of our society again gets ripped apart this time the Ned's are wearing suits.
179

subrosa,

19/09/2008 10:08:51
# 169
'If the offer was, in your estimation, so bad why does another bank not step in with a better hostile offer.'

Possibly because another bank wouldn't get the 'nod' from Gordon Brown. Wonder what the pay-off is for him. On the board when he's kicked out of No 10? Guaranteed sum to top up his party's coffers ( all legit and above board of course)? Aye, of course.
180

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:09:08
201

Yes of course Duncan this UK government wouldnt even consider such an action it wouldnt even occur to them.
You know I admire how you carry on with such an obvious mental disability its inspiring in its own charming little way.
181

sweet76,

19/09/2008 10:09:10
The reason why short sellers targeted HBOS is beacuse they had foreseen a weakness in the HBOS business plan which they exploited. It's easy to blame the short sellers but really they have very little influence over an entire market.
A few years ago Llyods was charged by some investors as being too cautious a claim that wasn't laid at the door of HBOS who are now paying the price. This situation has nothing to do with the union divide but with the managers of HBOS putting themselves in a vunerable position.
Assuming that it gets past the monoplies tape and that this new super bank does't use it's power adversely then it could be a good thing for Britain.
182

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 10:10:14
#200 superparcel

Yes, the goverment has ignored some rules to allow the potential take-over to go ahead.

What is your point? Please choose:

1. HBoS devalues more, and is taken-over at a lower price.

2. HBoS devalues more, and gradually slides into insovency.

3. The government spends 12 billion on buying another bank with our money.

There is an international banking crisis. What do you suggest?


183

Liz,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 10:10:32
Newsnight on Tuesday summed this problem up very simply.
Lloyds TSB are in a strong position now as they retained sensible lending practices over the recent boom. Whilst they may not have made quite so many billions, their lending books and deposits are far more secure than at either HBOS or RBS. Lending silly money to any muppet with a pulse was always going to end in tears as has been proven both here and in the US.

HBOS (and RBS who are next to be taken over) have brought these problems on themselves and therefore the banks themselves deserve little sympathy. I have some sympathy for the staff of course hopefully not too many of them will loose out.
184

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 10:11:56
#196 Peter A, London
Thank you for that post. Nice to see some rational points.

I also admire your courage in coming out as "working in the city". Can't be easy to admit these days ;-)

Had the building societies remained in mutual ownership and the banks kept out of irresponsible mortgage lending, we would not be in this mess of gross over inflation in the housing market masquerading as economic development and progress.
185

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 10:12:51
209#

HBOS was a secure institution..the government did not need to spend one penny all it had to do was to back the bank with securities.

You will notice today it's shares up 50% on the surety of Lloyds...got it?
186

Sedov,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:12:53
Capitalism is ok when its going well and you hear very little about the speculators, short selling etc when all in the garden is rosy. When its not so good, like at present, then the profit system turns on itself and the blame game begins. when you run with the devil, you die with the devil. PS the previous HBOS is my bank as well and I fear for the jobs of the average paid bank worker as any take over has its downs for existing staff.
187

Ananurhing,

19/09/2008 10:13:05
#184 Ugly George

I don't get the hypocrisy. As many posters have said, there's very little Salmond can do about either situation. As Scotland's head of Govt. I would fully expect him to rage against the demise of one of the country's key institutions, and to try to maximise revenue on the trade in it's capital assets.
188

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 10:16:10
Tin Man:

You will also notice that most other european countries, certainly Germany, France and Switzerland are consolidating their banking INTERNALLY with other banks precisely to prevent takeovers and to secure their customers and their countries investments..the beauty of being independent and having the foresight to act of course.
189

FISHWICK,

berwick upon tweed 19/09/2008 10:17:01
*122 Draco & *146 Tweedmouth
1. Shorting:
As I understand it "naked" short selling has been banned - where you short sell without even having any shares. I presume where you "borrow" the shares they are "returned" at the original price - but I don't know! So the speculator "buys" from the lender @ $10, short sells at $10, buys back ["closes"] @ $5, pockets $5 and returns the shares @ $10 and pays a nominal fee for the "hire" out of his profit.
2. HBOS.
Looks like HBOS was a basket case anyway so shorting just tipped it out of the basket. That's how it's meant to work. Unfortunately many of the others have been driven by greed and inflated egos and are ripe for picking off. That's why I implied that longterm-wise it might be better to let them all go down; but in the short-term there'd be global economic mayhem if not disater.
190

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:17:27
213

No doubt the same can be said for any system eh?
191

Peter A,

London 19/09/2008 10:17:32
202

Clearly - as shown by events, those statements were incorrect. Share prices are usually a better guide than statements by management, regulators, and politicans.

Shares are up today for two reasons:

1. the unwinding of short positions. Hedge funds are taking off their shorts which means they have to buy stock. This is a technical effect that will last a few days.

2. Much more importantly the US authorities are considering setting up a public trust that will take over the risky assets of the banks. This would repeat what the US did in the late 1980's to resolve its Savings and Loan crises and indeed what Sweeden did in the 1990's did when its banking sector collapsed.

192

The Tin Man,

19/09/2008 10:20:15
#212 Nevsy

It is just business, mate. Don't take it so personnally.

Got it?
193

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 10:23:41
214 Annaurhing
I accept that he is entitled and in fact duty bound to do the best he can in both circumstances but he has to adopt the appropriate tone. He can't cast doubt on the morality of traders when the outcome doesn't suit him in one instance and then seek to benefit from the same form of immoral practice in another instance. If this is not hypocrisy I don't know what is.
194

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:23:59
209

Option 3 looks to me to be the best of the options you have given to me how about you whats your best option?
allowing a single institute to take over 24% of all UK banking business thus giving total power to charge extrotionate banking rates and charges to their customers?
We all know what happens when private companies get the bit between their teeth and total control of a monopoly look at our utility companies for the perfect outlook on the future of UK banking.
Not to mention the sudden loss of thousands over jobs overnight nor the unique constitutional blow to Scotland.
195

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 10:25:12
219#

Will that appear on the redundancy letters?
196

Publius,

London 19/09/2008 10:25:47
Couple of points:
(1) As others have said it was NOT short selling that brought down HBOS. It brought itself down by its own recklessness - financing mortgages from money borrowed in an international money market that is always volatile and is now poisoned by securities based on US sub-prime mortgages. Mainly-mortgage banks are a danger to themselves and a menace to others. The old Bank of Scotland signed its own death warrant when it merged with the Halifax. Let's hope that LloydsTSB has not signed its own death warrant by merging with HBOS. I suspect that the government has given LloydsTSB a secret guarantee of support in the event of an even deeper black hole being found in HBOS.
(2) Some of my English colleagues are upset by Alex Salmond and some the of the comments on this board. They point out that there was no sympathy from Scotland when Alex Salmond's bank - RBS - took over NatWest and shredded thousands of jobs in England. One said - tongue in cheek - 'it's payback time'.
197

Peter A,

London 19/09/2008 10:29:29
211

your building society point is possibly true. However, many of the early casualties of the credit crunch were state owned regional banks in Germany and elsewhere. Indeed the last major financial crises in the US was amongst their Savings and Loan companies which were similar to our building societies. The Japanese banking crises of the 1990's infected all types of institutions.

As for working in the City - it is certainly very interesting !

198

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:31:17
223

"They point out that there was no sympathy from Scotland when Alex Salmond's bank - RBS - took over NatWest and shredded thousands of jobs in England. One said - tongue in cheek - 'it's payback time'."

They didnt do it with the help of the SNP though did they?
199

Here Today HBOS Tomorrow,

19/09/2008 10:32:12
Yes Salmond is as usual making political capital out of what was essentially mismanagement by HBOS (going back probably about 8-10 years). While the numbers vary it is now becoming clear that HBOS had to find somewhere between 100-150bn to carry on trading at some point within the next 12 months, one estimate puts it at about 198bn. HBOS has not been a sound bank for sometime, which is evidenced by the fact that 48% of its funding came from the wholesale bank markets. This is certainly less than Northern Rock but is such a huge % of the banks cash funding that should that dry up (as it has) then the only option was a rescue or collapse. Also keep in mind not all of this is housing related debt, much of it is private equity funding which HBOS has been "very successful" in brokering. Much of this is now very difficult to refinance, and as of last August it was rumored that around 500bn of this was coming up for renewal around now, and HBOS no doubt has a chunk of that dubious pie to fund.

In the end this was nothing other than a case of seriously bad management. I for one am now trying to bank with mutual organisations where to borrow you need to have saved, such as credit unions or building societies. That encourages some form of common bond and responsibility.
200

Edward,

19/09/2008 10:32:56
#210 Liz,Edinburgh
On what ill informed basis to you state that RBS are next to be 'taken over'?
RBS is totally different to HBOS, in that HBOS business became dominated by the mortgage market, ie the 'Halifax' part of the bank
RBS are well respected on both sides of the Atlantic. to the extent that it was called in by the US Fed (along with other US banks) as it is the largest overseas Bank in the US, to discuss the Lehmann Bros problem. RBS, like other large banks have experienced difficult times, but will weather the storm.
HBOS shares were down, due to their mortgage exposure, but were targetted (along with RBS) by short trading, which is a dispicable form of trading, using other peoples shares. Clearly you plainly dont understand that
201

subrosa,

19/09/2008 10:33:42
# 223
'Some of my English colleagues are upset by Alex Salmond'

Some of my English friends are so impressed by the way Alex Salmond has spoken out and fronted the problem that they want him down in Westminster.
202

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 10:34:24
I've been trying to flush out some Tory supporters of Thatcherite de-regulation - (just in case Brown's current troubles and incompetence obscure the original ownership of the shambles) - but no heads have appeared above the parapet. Shame!
203

Brodric,

19/09/2008 10:36:53
We have to look at who installed Hornby in the first place.

Its true that HBOS over-extended itself, but up to the time of Patullo, BoS was a well working bank in the same vein as Lloyds. After Halifax, all went downhill.
204

Ananurhing,

19/09/2008 10:38:04
#220 Ugly George

What's he supposed to do? " Nope, we'll not have any of that money. It's ill gotten gains from immoral practises."

I think it all boils down to how much of HBOS's woes are due to speculation, and how much is down to market manipulation. I don't know and I suspect you don't either.
I'd like to hear Peter A's comments on that.

Either way, if your agenda is Scottish independence, the loss of HBOS is a serious blow.
205

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 10:39:47
#228 subrosa
Re Salmond, "spivs and speculators" seems to have caught the imagination almost as well as "from Stalin to Mr Bean".

Both sound bites I'll grant you but both hit a nerve.
206

Publius,

London 19/09/2008 10:40:01
#196 Peter A

One mistake in your potted history - but an important one. Halifax was a stand-alone bank for several years before it merged with the Bank of Scotland.
Halifax was the first building society to demutualise and become a bank. Others followed and none of these building societies-turned-banks has been a success. The only freestanding ones remaining are Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley.
When the Bank of Scotland looked for a partner, it should have turned to a proper bank not a mortgage bank. Things might then have turned out differently.
207

Scheme,

19/09/2008 10:41:27
We’re constantly hearing from the unionists how this mess is proof that Scotland could not manage as an independent country. FYI: This has happened while part of this union, not as an independent country.

There is no way of telling how it would have panned out in an independent Scotland; but one thing is for sure, an independent Scottish government with full responsibility for the country’s finances, would have put a lot more effort into trying to save HBoS than Brown and his cronies did.
208

Edward,

19/09/2008 10:41:41
#223
'RBS - took over NatWest and shredded thousands of jobs in England. One said - tongue in cheek - 'it's payback time'
Actually I remember what happened (as you obviously have memory loss!)
Natwest were in trouble, it was Barclays that was going to 'ride to the rescue' except Barclays, just wanted the Natwest business without the Natwest employees. RBS made an offer, which was rubbished by the English media as they considered Barclays more important and 'bigger'. Natwest decided to go with the RBS offer as it guarnteed to retain as many branches as it could, which funnily enough is still the case, as I have seen a couple of times where a town or high street has both Natwest and RBS branches.
Curiously Barclays and the English Media didnt learn their lesson as regards RBS, as the media were trumpeting Barclays as the obvious winner for ABN Ambro and ddnt consider RBS. Barclays even mortgaged themselves to the hilt, by selling shares of Barclays to Chinese and middle east banks (Barclays are not as British as they make out!), even stating they would move HQ to Amsterdam. Intersetingly the shareholders of ABN Ambro came to the same conclusion as the Natwest shareholders and management and saw through Barclay's
209

Liz,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 10:42:41
#233
I doubt Bradford and Bingley will be with us much longer - they followed the Norther Rock school of questionable banking and will be following them down the same route very shortly.
210

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:43:39
233

I think the whole idea of the merger was because both banks had diverse business interests. BOS was specialising in business banking while Halifax was the biggest mortgage lender the merger allowed both banks to dip into each others well.
As usual everything is done for the benefit of shareholders not customers.
211

Publius,

London 19/09/2008 10:44:12
#231 Ananurhing

You write "I think it all boils down to how much of HBOS's woes are due to speculation, and how much is down to market manipulation".

Answer: very little or nothing of either. HBOS was the author of its own collapse.
212

Liz,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 10:45:40
#227
It has been in the news plenty recently that HSBC are trying to do a deal - its not my fault you have not seen it....
213

TWC,

Ayrshire 19/09/2008 10:47:07
There must be a trail to the peole who loaned the stock, these managers were not representing the share holders.
They must be prosecuted, there is no excuse.
214

Guga II,

Rockall 19/09/2008 10:48:29
Bank of Scotland, born 1695, murdered by Maggie Broon 2008.

215

Ken S.,

Reading 19/09/2008 10:53:07
#228 subrosa,
"Some of my English friends are so impressed by the way Alex Salmond has spoken out and fronted the problem that they want him down in Westminster"

Not 'arf!
'Twould be nice to have someone batting for UK or England, like he does for Scotland.
216

Publius,

London 19/09/2008 10:53:58
#235 Edward

Fred Goodwin became 'Fred the Shred' because of the jobs he shredded at NatWest.

Taking over ABN AMbro has not done RBS much good. RBS paid an extortionate price. It then had to issue a huge amount of new shares and sell off businesses including the successful joint venture with Tesco. And now it's worth less than it was before it started.

217

Duncan in Edinburgh,

19/09/2008 10:54:38
#207 So, to recap: I point out that HBOS is still a fully functioning extant Scottish institution; you mock me pointing out that this point has already been made; I ask why, in that case, you persist in bemoaning its "loss"; and you call me mentally ill.

These forums really are edifying at times.

Tell me, what were your previous abusive usernames that you were forced to dump?
218

A McBay,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 10:54:44
Oh how the mighty are fallen. The Haifax was once the world's biggest building society, known in the industry as "the slumbering giant". It took over the Leeds Permanent and Birmingham Midshires before demutualisation, and in terms of its assets as a building society it was massive.

Whet it merged with BoS a few years back, the merger deal was around £11bn I recall, so I don't understand this stuff about a £12bn "superbank" now.

During its life as a building society, it had a reputation, well deserved, for prudent lending, perhaps due to its Yorkshire mentality (definition of a Yorkshireman - a Scot with the generosity squeezed out of him). Dear Prudence seemed to go out the window when it became a plc and the relentless drive for shareholder profit took over.

The only bright side in this sad affair is that we might have an end to those gratingly awful TV adverts.
219

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:59:40
244
So to recap I pointed out to you that the point you made has already been made almost exactly actually and recomended more or less you go over the blog and catch up with the debate which I thought might have helped you with your further posts and you get all sh*tty about it.

"Tell me, what were your previous abusive usernames that you were forced to dump"

Well AM2 for one and then Highland Mighty I have managed to hang onto Kimba and English voice though
How about you? or do you get to keep your logon no matter what you post?
220

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 11:03:34
#239 Liz re #227

You may well both be right - HSBC may see a gap in the monopolies policy that Loyds have just climbed through. It would not be beyond their resources (although it may be out-with their morals) to organise a run on RBS. But then, how are HSBC placed? Anyone fancy a punt on them?
221

Peter A,

London 19/09/2008 11:05:26
233

BoS wanted the deposit base of the Halifax to underpin its expansionary strategy. That is why it instigated the merger.
222

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 11:06:43
There is one reason and one reason only for the Bank of Scotland's woes. That is the fact that people live on credit nowadays---there is a "borrowing" culture.

Well, any supply of money is finite and if you keep lending it out, you will eventually reach the point where nothing is left and all your "assets" are on paper. That is more or less what happened to HBOS.

Stupid labour are to a great extent to blame as they have presided over a crazy, unregulated housing market and encouraged people to live on credit.

I fail to see how the daft Nationalist/Unionist arguement has started here. These are BANKS for christs sake, not the damn crown jewels or the Stone of Scone. The Bank of Scotland lost any "Scottish Heritage" it may have had some time ago when it merged with Halifax. Since then it has become just another big bank. Those in Yorkshire could equally well claim it to be "theirs". Please stick to the point rather than going out of your way to grind on with the same old worn-out arguement.
223

TWC,

Ayrshire 19/09/2008 11:08:02
What if the Lloyds take-over is rejected? with the short selling protection could HBos yet survive?
224

C U Jimmy,

Mauchline 19/09/2008 11:09:03
I'm sure that Westminster saw this coming and probably encouraged it, this was one way to to put the brakes on Scottish independence.
225

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:12:18
251

Certainly a possiblity with some merit.
226

Jambo Dave,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 11:13:11
196P.A.Nobody can argue with the facts you have kindly posted on here today as you will have far better gen on whats going on.
I think what is p1ssing off the public is that all this must have been well known down there for some time but nobody including Broon and Darling have done sod all to get to grips with it.
The public just see your CITY types as fat cats over paid for the work they do in the markets with my money.All the under hand dealing with my pension money
with no penalty when it goes t1ts up.We have to trust all you folks down there who end up linning there pockets running banks ect.
We also think it strange there has been work done on this deal for some time?Insider trading?who knows?you know who knows.
227

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 11:14:40
250#

Let's just hope that the shareholders reject the offer!
228

Ananurhing,

19/09/2008 11:17:05
#249

I think the nationalist argument centres around job losses, branch closures, and the loss of a key institution in a future independent Scotland.

That and how much this plays into Brown's hands in his attempts to preserve the union.

Unionists jumped on this issue yesterday cynically trying to scrape some currency for their argument from HBOS's corpse.
229

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 11:17:27
Guga (241): "Bank of Scotland, born 1695, murdered by Maggie Broon 2008."

This should read: committed suicide by over-dependence on the wholesale credit markets. Like Publius, I suspect Brown's role has been to tacitly guarantee government help if there are more problems lurking in HBOS -- without that Lloyds TSB might have remained aloof, in which case we would now be facing either a collapsing high-street bank, rather than a subsumed one, or one of the largest nationalizations in our history. In either case, there would have been one constant: Scottish whinging that it was all the fault of evil England.
230

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 19/09/2008 11:17:31
We live in a capitalist society. We are all at the mercy of the big speculators. The demise of the Bank of Scotland is no surprise.
231

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:19:18
257

You should have been able to make money on it then if it was so expected.
How much did you make?
232

JSeymour,

London 19/09/2008 11:19:51
The only people responsible for the collapse of HBOS were HBOS management sitting in Edinburgh. They lent too much money against too few assets, and could only survive by borrowing money for their long-term debts from other banks in the short-term markets. When those markets became unavailable (as broader counterpart confidence collapsed), HBOS could not service their debts and the collapse became inevitable. Short-sellers only delivered the coup-de-grace to an institution that was killed by management in Edinburgh.

These are exactly the same mistakes as made by Northern Rock. They thought they could inflate their business with risky mortgage lending, causing a house price bubble in the process.

In common with Northern Rock, HBOS have a relatively inexperienced management with little international experience. Most of Andy Hornby's career was in ASDA! He saw banking as a consumer business, not as managing savings as capital risks. In comparison, Lloyds TSB have an experienced and international management, based in one of the world's most important financial centres. Lloyds have grown conservatively over the last ten years, did not get greedy, did not loan more than they could justify, did not inflate the housing market and as a result have survived and prospered. All credit to them.

Thank goodness for the speed and flexibility of the FSA and government in giving the nod to this takeover. The only alternative was for HBOS to collapse as Lehmans had on Monday, which would actually have been disastrous for employment and savers.
233

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 11:22:39
Publius (243): "It then had to issue a huge amount of new shares and sell off businesses including the successful joint venture with Tesco."

If I recall correctly, Tesco decided to pull out in order to enter retail banking without a partner. I wonder if they considered buying HBOS?
234

Ananurhing,

19/09/2008 11:23:54
#251 C U Jimmy

I'm certain of it. If you're trying to impose an unpopular union on Scotland, lay siege to it's economy and financial institutions. It's been done before I believe.
235

Glasgow Expat,

Desert 19/09/2008 11:26:31
What the idiots do not understand is that banning short selling INCREASES volatility and can result in faster falls in share prices! People must now use options to hedge their risk and that causes a build up of a long position by the market makers who eventually have to dump all their stock. Maybe they'll ban options next and decree that we all must be bullish and optimistic all the time. Denial is not just a river in africa.
236

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:29:35
262

Funnily enough share prices have risen dramatically since the announcement in fact because of the announcement pity you cant erase your comments after you commit them eh?
237

Glasgow Expat,

Desert 19/09/2008 11:32:40
263 - I am not talking about today which is obviously a short covering rally. I am talking about over the next few weeks or months if the ban stays in place.
238

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 11:33:34
#249 Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Good grief - I find myself agreeing with you! Must go and lie down in a darkened room.
239

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 11:35:18
#262 Glasgow Expat

Can you enlighten me by defining "market makers" please?
Are they speculators in disguise?
240

JSeymour,

London 19/09/2008 11:36:10
All this nationalist/socialist commentary is obviously rubbish. HBOS was destroyed from Edinburgh, and saved by a bank in London. It lent too much, got too greedy, and was unable to keep robbing Peter to pay Paul when the short-term interbank markets closed. It also seems to have been employing as many people as Lloyds-TSB with half the customers, so any job losses were clearly long-overdue.

HBOS could not have been 'saved' by any government, except in last resort by one with exceptionally deep pockets. Had HBOS been regulated by an independent Scotland, that regulation would likely have been worse as HBOS would have had huge leverage over the government. Witness also the economically-illiterate comments of Salmond.

Unless management had made different decisions the bank would still have collapsed, but a Lloyds-TSB rescue would not have been possible as EU competition authorities would have to have been consulted and would not have reacted with due speed. An independent Scotland could not have afforded a bail out, leaving employees and savers destitute, or would now be saddled with more debt compared to GDP than your average banana republic.

Good luck with that.
241

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 11:36:23
Why were RBS not encouraged to take over HBOS with the government security that seem to have been given by Westminster? Perhas it would have created too large a Scottish institution?
242

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:36:53
264

Who knows how the markets will react short or long term isnt that the point? if they were predictable the world would be overwhelmed with billionaires.
243

Navvy,

19/09/2008 11:36:55
AitchBOSS was a silly name, thant goodness it will disappear. The Bank of Scotland disappeared in a but half a name when it was taken over - merged they claim - by the Halifax which got its wealth by demutualising. Please not the the still mutual nationwide is doing fine.

All this was driven by the greed of the senior management. As a limited company HBOS or rather Halifax was able to borrow money from dubious sources unavailable to a mutual society - more greed.

Management effectively left years ago Edinburgh, the building on the mound is a mere shell. Retail banking follows the Haliax system and is grossly incompetent. I was forced to migrate to the vastly inferior Halifax then HBOS internet banking which prevents - due to lingering Halifax licences - access to my Jersey account


Lloyde TSB have been through this mill before so perhaps their management is better

My only regret is the loss of the Bank of Scotland name and its rare position of being a royal chartered body and not a plc
244

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:38:11
268

You have obviously missed the plot the idea is for a London institute to take over a Scottish business interest.
245

Nevsky,

leamington spa 19/09/2008 11:43:12
271#

Seems that has been the preferred choice by Brown and Darling but let's not forget the Union at any expense is their mantra, even to the detriment of their own country.
246

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:47:51
272

As Brown said I will do everything in my power to preserve the union.
247

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 11:49:59
268 Nevsky
If RBS had taken over HBOS the combined bank would have had a huge proportion (a virtual monopoly) of retail banking in Scotland. There would also have been a huge duplication of functions in Scotland meaning that the number of redundancies in Scotland would have been enormous. For both of these reasons a takeover by RBS would not have been in Scotland's interests.
248

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 11:51:54
Nevsky (268): "Why were RBS not encouraged to take over HBOS with the government security that seem to have been given by Westminster?"

Are memories so short? RBS was forced to raise £12 billion earlier this year to restore its dodgy balance sheet, not least because of its part in the acquisition of ABN-AMRO, which they must now deeply regret: see the following article from April, which also mentions HBOS' fundamental problems:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/investing-and-markets/tips-and-tactics/article.html?in_article_id=440893&in_page_id=23

"Perhas it would have created too large a Scottish institution?"

Is it possible for you to understand that this has nothing to do with Scotland per se? Bank of Scotland acquired Halifax, continued its expansion based on the assumption that the wholesale credit markets would continue to provide cheap money, and has now paid the price -- there's no mystery here, nor does the blame lie with short-sellers. As you can see from the link above, or from the FT site, its share price has been declining all year: it had merely reached its crisis point.
249

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:52:01
274

And no doubt it would have been blocked under the competition regulation funny that.
Not in the national interest for a Scottish company to take over a UK company but its ok for a London company to take over the monopoly eh?
250

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:53:33
275

Where did Lloyds find the 12 billion spare cash I wonder when every other bank by all accounts are tightening their belts?
251

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 11:55:33
274#

Why are redundancies via an English company any better?
People can go to any number of banks so no monopoly but it would have created a massive bank that would probably would have mainitained ALL its interests in Scotland...big difference between that and a London based Lloyds i would assume.
252

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:55:41
274

More than 40000? and you are going to show us more evidence to your statements? oh hold on you havent shown any evidence to back up anything you have said yet.
253

Glasgow Expat,

Desert 19/09/2008 11:57:57
266 - market makers are people who "make" the buying and selling prices in stocks. Without them there is no market. They take this risk (of making prices that people buy and sell off) to enable the market to function efficiently. And everyone in the market is speculating. When you buy a share you are taking a gamble. This is lost on wee eck and the like.
254

BowBel,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:59:44
Quite simply - VOTE WITH YOUR FEET! VOTE AGAINST THIS! and save our jobs
255

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 12:00:38
275# Fairfax:

Not according to many analysts including the FSA who stated that HBOS was a secure intitution with no problems in raising short to medium term finance.

256

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 12:00:41
suchaparcelofrogues (277): "Where did Lloyds find the 12 billion spare cash I wonder when every other bank by all accounts are tightening their belts?"

Not all banks are tightening their belts: Barclays has just bought large chunks of Lehmans, for example. As for where did they find the money, Lloyds are now reaping the rewards of not following the herd -- they largely avoided the temptation of funding massive expansion by dependence on the wholesale credit market.
257

Alan B,

19/09/2008 12:01:03
#Royster

Are you mad. Sterling interest rates have always been too high for the scottish economy. Do you not remember the head of the BOE saying unemployment in the north was a price worth paying to control inflation (and hence properity) in the south.

Joining the euro should be a priority for scotland.
258

Ananurhing,

19/09/2008 12:01:32
#273 suchaparcelofrogues

I think what he said was he would do "Whatever it takes to preserve the union". Which would suggest he would consider operating outside of his powers.

Nothing would surprise me. Broon's ego couldn't bear going down in history as being the worst PM of all time, and losing the union on his watch.
259

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 12:02:14
282#

I agree..every share holder in Scotland should vote against this full stop. With US stabilising so will the UK banks..just wait it out.
260

Alan B,

19/09/2008 12:03:20
#Fairfax

"Bank of Scotland acquired Halifax"

It was Halifax who merged but effectively took over BOS. It was the Halifax management that took over and were based at the halifax headquarters.
261

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 12:03:45
Nevsky (283): "Not according to many analysts including the FSA who stated that HBOS was a secure intitution with no problems in raising short to medium term finance."

Look at HBOS' share price over the last year and think again: if many analysts had believed this, HBOS would not have seen this decline. If the FSA had said anything else, then that would have immediately led to utter collapse: they didn't lie, but neither did they provide a complete answer.
262

Liz,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 12:04:22
#277
Probably becuase they behaved less like kids in a sweet shop and behaved with restraint and sense in a time when many banks were splashing cash they did not have on lending ventures which have since proved worthless. The HBOS management are to blame for this mess and it sounds like they are lucky Lloyds TSB were in a position to bail them out.
263

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 12:06:58
Consider the Darien Scheme. Some rich "Scottish" speculators came up with a money making scheme. It was ill thought out, under-planned and under funded - but had the potential to be extremely successful. The rug was eventually pulled out by King William (yes him) who, out of self interest, refused to allow English trading companies to co-operate and trade with the venture.
When the scheme collapsed, the now considerably less rich speculators sold out the rest Scotland in return for a bail-out from England. The RBS was, if I'm not mistaken, set up to handle the funds for the bung. Plus ca change.....
264

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 12:12:29
Alan B (288): "It was Halifax who merged but effectively took over BOS."

It was certainly a merger, and I was wrong to state BoS acquired Halifax without further qualification. My intended meaning was that the expansionist culture of BoS dominated the new bank.
265

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 12:14:56
#267 JSeymour, London

I'm sure a Scottish government could have raised a few quid to nationalise the HBoS, asset stripped it and got rid of the rest. Lloyds seem to think it was a worthwhile exercise.
266

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 19/09/2008 12:15:04
So it's unanimous then. Brown's and idiot and Scotland should an independent nation once again.
Amazing how it only took 293 posts to reach this obvious conclusion. Ain't blog democracy wonderful.
267

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 12:15:39
Embra Don (291): "The rug was eventually pulled out by King William (yes him) who, out of self interest, refused to allow English trading companies to co-operate and trade with the venture."

England did not wish to become involved in a silly scheme, hence William's actions. Even had William supported Darien, Parliament would almost certainly have overruled him.
268

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 12:23:28
Lara Crofter (292): "It's pretty clear that this fiasco has been engineered by the British establishment to weaken Scotland and/or prevent Scotland from becoming independent."

It's certainly clear that, no matter what the circumstances, some Scots will take that view. But consider: every bank on the planet which became dependent on cheap money supplied by the wholesale credit market has had these problems, and for many institutions they have been fatal. Is the British establishment responsible for the failure of Lehmans, for example?

"Bear in mind that this isn't the first time a British government has instigated financial collapse in Scotland."

Lloyds' acquisition of HBOS has avoided the financial collapse of a UK high-street bank.

"It won't be the last, unless of course we do the proper thing and take full control of our own affairs."

It's still possible for an independent country to completely screw up, and history is littered with such failures. To give other examples: the Dutch Tulip bubble, the South Sea bubble and, of course, Darien.
269

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 12:23:30
284

Ah maybe helped with insider information from the UK government perhaps?
270

Scotfree,

Erskine 19/09/2008 12:24:22
A point no-one has made is that Short selling is an extremely risky form of business with limited gains on the up side (the existing price of the share) and potentially unlimited losses on the downside (the difference on the future price of a share. It also requires significant numbers of shares to be available and the effective cooperation of the third parties and the government as any restraint on selling leaves the party exposed to the risk involved. In short without some form of insider knowledge or trading it is any easy thing to stop particularly when it involves major institutions. Unless, of course, as in the case of Hobs the insider knowledge comes from the heads of Lloyds, the heads of Hobs and the former head of the treasury and prime minister and involves the cooperation of the former rights issue company of Hobs who make the shares available.
The Hobs shareholders must surely be asking question on:
The timing of financial support
The timing of short term trading announcements
The involvement of the Prime Minister and ex head of the treasury
The £3million bonus given to "failed" Hobs Chairman and MD
The almost certain insider trading with information being provided by Hobs directors Lloyds Chairman and the ex head of the Treasury (Gordon Brown)

It should also be noted that there was little trading of shares by the majority of shareholders, the game was played with the excess shares left from the rights issue this year. How convenient.

It should also be noted that the main reason for Hobs alleged problems was its control / exposure (sic) of 20% of Britain’s mortgages.
The new company will control 30% of British mortgages. No Cash is given for the Hobs shares only paper (Lloyd’s shares.).

On the political front you can be sure that the Lloyds directors will have no problem in threatening any remaining staff in Scotland that they will pull out of Scotland if independence is achieved. However as the Bank of Scotland was created by an act of
271

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 12:25:16
297

Not an impossible scenario to imagine though is it?
A distinct possiblity at least dont you think?
272

Liz,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 12:25:25
Oh dear,
No one is more responsible for all this than the management of HBOS.
It is not the fault of the English/Scottish/Americans it was the poor management and risky money making stratagy this bank employed.
Brown is an idiot I agree and his reputation for 'prudence' is surely finally to be put to rest.
273

Ananurhing,

19/09/2008 12:26:16
#292 Lara Crofter

Don't know how much the fiasco has been engineered by them, but it's certainly being capitalised on.
274

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 12:26:20
299

Yes it is unless of course its orchestrated?
275

Scotfree,

Erskine 19/09/2008 12:27:11
A point no-one has made is that Short selling is an extremely risky form of business with limited gains on the up side (the existing price of the share) and potentially unlimited losses on the downside (the difference on the future price of a share. It also requires significant numbers of shares to be available and the effective cooperation of the third parties and the government as any restraint on selling leaves the party exposed to the risk involved. In short without some form of insider knowledge or trading it is any easy thing to stop particularly when it involves major institutions. Unless, of course, as in the case of HBoS the insider knowledge comes from the heads of Lloyds, the heads of HBoS and the former head of the treasury and prime minister and involves the cooperation of the former rights issue company of HBoS who make the shares available.
The HBoS shareholders must surely be asking question on:
The timing of financial support
The timing of short term trading announcements
The involvement of the Prime Minister and ex head of the treasury
The £3million bonus given to "failed" HBoS Chairman and MD
The almost certain insider trading with information being provided by HBoS directors Lloyds Chairman and the ex head of the Treasury (Gordon Brown)

It should also be noted that there was little trading of shares by the majority of shareholders, the game was played with the excess shares left from the rights issue this year. How convenient.

It should also be noted that the main reason for HBoS alleged problems was its control / exposure (sic) of 20% of Britain’s mortgages.
The new company will control 30% of British mortgages. No Cash is given for the HBoS shares only paper (Lloyd’s shares.).

On the political front you can be sure that the Lloyds directors will have no problem in threatening any remaining staff in Scotland that they will pull out of Scotland if independence is achieved. However as the Bank of Scotland was created by an act of
276

Ken S.,

Reading 19/09/2008 12:27:44
#285 Alan B,
"Joining the euro should be a priority for Scotland."

Why do you think that getting Scotland away from perceived financial control by one other country will be improved by placing yourself under control by various other countries under a "One size fits all" ECB?

A bit of googling suggests that southern Europe finds it a bit difficult when policy seems more beneficial to northern Europe.
277

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 12:30:19
# 296 Fairfax,
William was never asked to become involved. He forbade English colonial companies (who had trading monopolies) to trade with the Darien outpost in order not to upset the King of Spain.
Darien was hardly a silly scheme - facilitating trans-shipment of goods from the Atlantic to the Pacific rather caught on after all.
278

Ananurhing,

19/09/2008 12:31:40
What a difference a day makes. Would you look at that.
" Morgan Stanley stocks are now officially bullish."
But would you credit it?
279

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 12:31:45
292 Lara Crofter
Not again - yet another claim of some devious anti-Scottish conspiarcy. Please tell us how the "British Establishment" could force the boards of two companies to come to an agreement if those two boards did not feel that it was the best option - were they bribed? Do you think that the board of Lloyds TSB would accept a false arrangement just to prevent Scottish independence. They are answerable to their shareholders after all. Also, if HBOS has, as you appear to be believe, been somehow hijacked why does another bank not step in with a better offer as they still can do.
280

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 12:33:52
suchaparcelofrogues (298): "Ah maybe helped with insider information from the UK government perhaps?"

I can just see it now. Gordon Brown whispers to Eric Daniels: "I've recently heard from a secret source [brandishing the Financial Times and a selection of business pages from the broadsheets] that HBOS isn't doing very well. Apparently their share price has been declining for a year!"

The UK government probably has provided some encouragement along the lines that the Treasury will help if further financial disasters are hidden within the HBOS portfolio, and rightly so: the alternative would be far worse. Of course, if HBOS shareholders reject the deal, and if HBOS doesn't pull through, then I suspect that will also be blamed on England.
281

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 12:35:01
#286 Ananurhing

I fear the Union may outlive Broon's watch - but not by much.
282

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 12:37:04
309

Not just Gordon Brown but Maggie Thatcher John Major etc etc or is that beyond the realms of possiblities for you also?

Yes of course the UK government only ever does anything above board legal and proper.
Grow up.
283

jinkyjo,

glasgow 19/09/2008 12:37:50
Did anybody catch Andrew Neill last night on his crappy politics show? He seemed to suggest that the Government was unable to ban short-selling at the beginning of the week because the Americans vetoed it. It only went ahead today because the Americans also decided to ban it today. If it is true it's an absolute disgrace.
284

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 12:38:33
# 296 Fairfax,

re #306. Sorry - I didn't intent to divert from the thread - just found the history of the RBS's creation amusing.
285

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 12:38:34
304
Your assertion that the short sellers had inside knowledge of the takeover does not tally. If a company is about to be taken over its share price almost always goes up as did the share price of HBOS when the news of the merger broke.
Why on earth would short sellers sell if they knew this was going to happen. They would have been undertaking trading that they knew would hit them with a big loss.
286

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 19/09/2008 12:38:39
Does the Scottish constabulary have a serious crimes squad?
If so, then: "Let's get ready to rumble!!!"
Surely gutting a country's primary financial institution for personal gain is worth a decade or so on one of "Cool Hand" Kenny MacAskill's therapeutic chain gangs.
287

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 12:39:42
Embra Don (306): "He forbade English colonial companies (who had trading monopolies) to trade with the Darien outpost in order not to upset the King of Spain."

He did indeed, since that was the general will of Parliament: William, as a grandson of Charles I married to a grand-daughter of Charles I, was fully aware of the limitations of his power.

"Darien was hardly a silly scheme - facilitating trans-shipment of goods from the Atlantic to the Pacific rather caught on after all."

It caught on in a different time, when Spanish power had ended and better technology was available.
288

dirtydirtydirty,

edinburger 19/09/2008 12:41:50
s???u?q ?p???? ?o ??unq
289

dirtydirtydirty,

edinburger 19/09/2008 12:42:23
bunch of greedy bankers if you ask me!
290

Here Today HBOS Tomorrow,

19/09/2008 12:45:28
#305, well as a Scot who lives now under the ECB, I can tell you things are a bit better here. With the rising Euro my trips home are now about 25% cheaper than they were a year ago. Interest rates are lower and fewer banks have collapsed. One major bank was bought out, but not due to liquidity problems and a few smaller German banks have lost a couple of billion each - in one case Barclays gave them bad advice which lost them this money in about 3 months. In general the ECB is not perfect but the banking regulations in each state (which is till devolved) here are often tighter making the chaos less likely.

While the real EU (i.e. not Her Majesty´s Subjects) will probably see some downturn I don't think it will be as bad as the hit suffered in the UK where 30% of GDP is down to financial services and whats more the UK has almost no real exports, or ability to earn hard currency out with the pyramid scheme that is the financial sector. Add to that the gross over valuation of property and rising inflation and people in the UK are getting screwed on all ends, and that is before you consider rising interest rates - inspite of banks being given cheap funding by the BoE.

Well it seems my predictions of HBOS going t*ts up some years ago were correct, I have had the nick for several years. Although I have to say I do feel sorry for the normal staff who are largely surrounded by managerial idiots.
291

Ananurhing,

19/09/2008 12:47:01
#310 Embra Don

Agreed! I would've laid money on Broon'n'bust being "blown back to Scotland" by Guy Fawlkes day. Which was Fawlkes's intention for all Scots in parliament.
Now I'm not so sure. Will Labour really try to switch leaders with all these bullets flying?
292

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 12:47:35
re # 229

Come on guys? There must be some Tory de-regulating de-mutualisers out there! Come out and explain why we should vote for your lot when we get the chance to get rid of Broon.

AM2 - are you still on holiday? New Town Resident?
293

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 12:47:47
suchaparcelofrogues (311): "Not just Gordon Brown but Maggie Thatcher John Major etc etc or is that beyond the realms of possiblities for you also?"

That's right, nast England is attacking Scotland. To quote another Englishman addressing Scots: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
294

Alan B,

19/09/2008 12:50:02
#Ken S

There are 3options for scotland.

1)scottish currency. this would give the most appropriate monetary policy for scotland but would have the disadvantage of currency fluxations against both sterling and the euro

2)sterling: sterling interest rates have generally been too high for scotland over a prolonged period of time. The uk really has a north south divide. The south needs higher interest rates to stop inflation becuase if grows faster. The north needs lower interest rates as growth has been suffocated by having too high interest rates.

Monetary policy (interest rates) are set to be consistent with a targeted inflation rate. (the euro still uses money supply but to the same end). If growth is slow you simply lower interest rates unless you are in danger of breaching your inflationary goals.

As i pointed out above the bank of england governor talked about unemployment in the north being a price worth paying to control inflation in the south. Much of this is due to the south east housing market.

3)euro: the euro have lower interest rates that sterling over a prolonged period of time. The euro is really based on the DM which also had lower interest rates. As such the lower interest rates of the euro are better for the slow growing scottish economy than the higher interest rates that suffocate scotlands economic growth.

No option is perfect. The euro will not solve scotlands economic problems itself but it will help.

It will also help scotland be a location of choice for companies wanting to trade within the eurozone.

The best senario for scotland was if the uk were to all join but there are real problems for england joining both politically and economically.

You are correct that a one size fits all can be a problem. We have seen that in the uk. But it is a better fit for the scottish economy. You have to choose between the 3 option all with advantages and disadvantages.

Many of the problems some of the eurozone countries have
295

Alan B,

19/09/2008 12:50:42
cont...

Many of the problems some of the eurozone countries have is due to economic mismangement as decisions are taken for political reasons. Abit like unionist supporters support for sterling while wanting the euro only if britain would join.
296

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 19/09/2008 12:51:44
# 5 is right - the shareholders of both banks still have it within their control to reject this deal and now that some kind of "stability" has been restored following actions against these short term tradings then there should be no real reason why HBOS should now disappear.

If the shareholders truly believe in fair competition then the future should be better served by having two seperate banks rather than one larger dominant bank in the UK.
297

Scotfree,

Erskine 19/09/2008 12:53:13
Ugly George

You can be sure that those involved in the short selling would have been informed prior to any announcement been made and been able to close their positions. They would then be free to speculate on a rise of the share so gaining on the up and downside. Your comment only reinforces my argument that this would have been impossible to carry out without insider information and the full cooperation and involvement of the key parties mentioned. Also of interesting that the BBC commentator is informed with a ready story before anyone else.
I note my original story was cut off it should have ended.

On the political front you can be sure that the Lloyds directors will have no problem in threatening any remaining staff in Scotland that they will pull out of Scotland if independence is achieved. However as the Bank of Scotland was created by an act of the Scottish parliament it can only be rescinded by an Act of the Scottish parliament.

A public enquiry into this fraud should be a first priority for the sake of all the victims of this crime. Gordon Brown is not only a war criminal but a fraudster of the first order.
298

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 13:04:13
#320 Ananurhing,

Even if they thought a change at the top would be a good idea, finding a suitable candidate might be as difficult as finding one for Glasgow East or Glenrothes. They are doomed.
Question is - how will Scottish voters react? Last night, when Andrew Neil suggested that Glenrothes would be a watershed, Vince Cable appeared to dismiss Scottish politics as of little significance. (and he is about the only Lib Dem with any credibility left).
We may achieve independence because former Labour voters recognise Thatcher's chum Tina. There is no alternative. Do we stand on our own feet - or put up with another generation - at least - of Toryism?
299

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 13:06:55
312 jinkyjo
If that is true then it merely shows how financial markets are intertwined and shows how any country is limited in how it can react indepently.

Many, if not virtually all, of the investment banks have operations in both London and New York and many companies are traded on both stock exchanges. Wall Street may have taken the view that if short selling was banned in London on Monday the dealers would just get in touch with their colleagues in New York to arrange the short selling there. I am not sure if this was the situation but it would not surprise me if it was.
300

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 13:08:17
Lara (328): "Seriously, I don't really see anyone blaming the English here, Fairfax."

Hmm.

"You know what? I am convinced that the Scots and English would be much more productive in working together if we were independent nations."

No disagreement there.
301

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 13:09:30
328 Lara crofter
Does that mean I can drink with my wife but not go to bed with her?
302

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 13:09:47
#328 Lara Crofter

Spot on! Better a good neighbour than a dis-satisfied tenant.

I was tempted to pursue your bedfellows analogy with a reference to arguments about who's shafting who.....
303

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 13:11:56
332 Ugly George

Surely you don't expect her to sleep with someone ugly when she is sober? ;-)
304

Alan B,

19/09/2008 13:12:58
#Ugly George

You would be better going to bed with someone elses wife.
305

Ken S.,

Reading 19/09/2008 13:14:23
#324/5 Alan B
Ta for that.
I live and learn!
306

Ananurhing,

19/09/2008 13:19:31
#329 Embra Don

Only caught a fleeting glimpse of Cable last night. I thought he was being dismissive of Broon's future regardless of Glenrothes, rather than dismissing Scottish politics. I don't think any unionist politician would disregard the political scene in Scotland. So much is riding on it.

Another generation of toryism just isn't going to happen. If Cameron even looks the wrong way at Scotland or Barnett, it'll drive former labour voters into the independence fold. Whatever it takes, as Broon'n'bust said.
307

Booster,

19/09/2008 13:19:34
Would a certain Mr Brown have had at the back of his mind a thought that a failed HBOS would strengthen the unionist cause?
Fear is the unionists strongest weapon against the separatists and I wouldn't put it past him to seize every opportunity he can to put the boot in if he thinks he can get away with it.
308

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 13:20:03
#324 Alan B,

You are in serious danger of raising the level of the Scotsman comment/blogs.
309

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 13:20:22
327 Scotfree
Sorry but I can't accept your analysis. The short sellers would have had to close their short positions by buying back. This would have forced the price back up before the announcemant of the takeover but this did not happen to any significant extent. If we are to believe that short selling was a significant factor then it must have been carried out by several different individuals in several different companies. If one or two of them had the inside knowledge which would have put them at at an advantage why on earth would they share that knowledge and so dilute the advantage they had. That does npot make sense. Or are you saying that some director from either HBOS or LLoyds TSB contacted all the different traders to tip them off. Any director undertaking insider dealing info on such a large scale is bound to be caught and could face a prison sentence.
310

Ken S.,

Reading 19/09/2008 13:21:43
#339 Embra Don

Leave him be.
Educating an Englishman is a worthy endeavour.
311

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 19/09/2008 13:22:01
#332

If yer missus is uglier than a mud fence then you're probably better off just getting p!ssed.
312

JSeymour,

London 19/09/2008 13:22:40
Nationalism and Socialism, what a wonderful combination. Lara Crofter you're off topic: have a rant somewhere else.

Hilarious to think that the collapse of HBOS has been somehow 'engineered' by the government! What are these people on?! Was Elvis involved? HBOS management in Edinburgh got greedy, lent out too much money in excessive mortgages, inflated the housing market across the Union, and got caught out when they couldn't borrow short term funds from the interbank market. HBOS have single-handedly undermined the Scottish reputation for prudence and financial acumen. If they hadn't been saved by Lloyds-TSB (ownership - international; Chief Exec - American) the whole lot of them would have been out of a job and many savers would have lost money (above the secured limit).

Saving HBOS risks Lloyds-TSB's own creditworthiness and triples their exposure to bad mortgages, and could even lead to their own collapse.

What sort of patriotism is it to prefer the collapse of a bank to having it owned by an international bank in London? What sort of patriotism to ignore the failings of the management in Edinburgh and pretend that someone else (witches? Jews? the Union?) are to blame.

Scottish bankers and economists have shaped the modern financial system by being part of the most successful political union of the last two centuries. Not by sitting in Edinburgh, creating bad loans, but by taking their abilities out into the wider world.

Scotland will be well-served by having a Bank of Scotland as a division of a strong international bank based in one of the world's most important financial centres.
313

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 13:24:39
335 Alan B
Thanks for the advice. I didn't know that you had seen my wife.
314

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 13:25:00
#337 Ananurhing

Hope you are right on both counts. I have a lot of respect for Cable. The rest of the party (of which I used to be a supporter) seem to have lost their way. Mind you, Charlie Kennedy might make a good leader of the opposition in Holyrood post independence....
315

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 13:28:43
Thanks for the fun all. Work Calls - (well after Lesley Riddoch on Radio Scotland)
316

Fidelio,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 13:36:15
I would like to welcome the bankers back to the real world with a almighty bump!!
It all had to end somewhere and there was always going to be casualities along the way.
It a boom and bust economy that Gordon and Tony have created with short terms gains and long term pain.
Oh well its not as if they could not see it coming - I did and I am just a geezer of the mean streets of Edinburgh.
317

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 13:37:18
343 JSeymour, London

Even as a nationalist I largely agree.

However, from our perspectve up here, having to go through Heathrow to get into the wider world has become a serious pain. (for the hard of thinking that IS a euphemism for Westminster)

Amsterdam and Dubai provide a better service.
318

JSeymour,

London 19/09/2008 13:43:40
348 Embra Don

Absolutely agreed on Heathrow. The real problem is the dominance of London within the whole Union, not of England or Scotland. That centralisation (economic, political, demographic) has sucked all power out of the cities and serves the rest of the Union (wherever you are) poorly.

It's London we need to break up, not the Union...
319

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 13:48:59
J seymour:

What a condescending pratt!
320

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 13:51:41
349 JSeymour

Only England on its own can do that. Separation may concentrate minds. If England de-centralised it would be much better for all concerned. However, until that happens, the status quo does not work.
Post de-centralisation we could consider a federal re-union. Ireland might be interested in that too - or perhaps not
321

Nevsky,

leamington spa 19/09/2008 13:52:04
343#

'Scotland will be well-served by having a Bank of Scotland as a division of a strong international bank based in one of the world's most important financial centres'


What utter utter utter garbage! Why not have the Bank of England as a division of Paribas as the economy has is in such a mess!

322

Embra Don,

19/09/2008 13:55:39
#349 JSeymour
We can't help you break up London. Some would say we have done our best by lending you Broon, Darling, Reid et al - but that would be churlish.
323

JSeymour,

19/09/2008 13:58:13
Nevsky:

And so your argument is lost.

To quote from Nevsky: 'HBOS was a secure institution..the government did not need to spend one penny all it had to do was to back the bank with securities.'

Well what are we all doing here?! Let's make Nevsky head of the new Scottish Financial Services Authority! 'Hah ya sassanachs, ya canna take our bank if we let it go bankrupt first!'

You're hoping that HBOS ended up like Northern Rock? Or more like Lehmans?
324

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 14:00:37
352 Nevsky
You still do not appear to understand the difference between a central banks like the Bank of England, ECB and trading banks like HBOS, BNP Paribas. Their functions are completely different. It is not feasible to have a central bank as part of a trading bank.
325

JSeymour,

London 19/09/2008 14:11:03
Embra Don

Well, I watched Yugoslavia falling apart (and spent some time there dealing with the aftermath). The problem is that some politicians use the breakup for their own personal goals, breeding nationalism and hatred, and once they have that new power they are unlikely to let it go. And once they have it, you find out that they were just nationalists after all.

Agreed the status quo does not work. In fact it seems to be making things worse as Salmond et al make use of the uncertainty and remaining grievances to fan the flames. We need a new settlement, perhaps with equal home nation representations in a new House of Lords, more devolved powers and so on. Whatever works: the Union is worth saving.

I'm not sure I can see that voters in England can do it alone, though. Perhaps we're doomed.



326

JSeymour,

London 19/09/2008 14:30:32
Fidelio: to be fair to Gordon and Tony (may they both rot...) the real blame here lies with:

a) the US Federal Reserve keeping interest rates so low for so long, and then raising them by 5% within a matter of months; and

b) the managers of banks who got greedy and soaked the market in mortgage debt;

c) credit rating agencies who assessed debt as 'safe' (AAA) whilst being paid a commission to do so; and probably

d) those of us who took out mortgages and loans which we knew we could not afford.
327

thistle do,

here n'there 19/09/2008 14:36:08
I thought at one time that independance might be ok. Then I read the nationalists on these threads. They have such a narrow view of life and its always somebody else's fault. If this thread shows Scottish knowledge of financial management and economics then heaven help us.
328

dude,

wishaw 19/09/2008 14:37:55
The first thing that came to mind when this was going on was that the london establishment saw an opportunity to mess up the obvious national bank of Scotland come independance, i think this is the real reason behind Alex salmonds fury.

How easy was it to bring down a bank, 2 or 3 days of short selling and the bank is f*cked, cue the knight in shining armour Loyds TSB, who already took over the TSB, remember them another Scottish bank, now the TSB and the BOS names are gone.

Dont usually do conspiricy theories but this is just too convenient
329

JSeymour,

London 19/09/2008 14:41:50
Col. BlimIV*

Well, I mostly agree, but is politics just law or is it organic? It's taken too long but there's no good reason not to give it a try.

Yugoslavia was economically screwed because of too much debt (loaned to them by us to keep them in the Non-Aligned camp).

I would blame the nationalists more. There were very few 'unionists' or 'Yugoslavs'; Milosevic and Tudjman and Karadzic and the rest were all nationalists and used real grievances to drive the country apart for personal and political gain.

I'm a Unionist and I don't believe anything to be 'mine' except what I have right here at home. I do think that England and Scotland would be poorer culturally and economically apart, as would be the wider world. We need an equal union, as a matter of negotiation.

330

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 14:43:20
#360 Idiotic comment of the day. International capitalism does not give two hoots about national boundaries - all it cares about is how to make a fast buck.
331

dude,

wishaw 19/09/2008 14:53:36
#362 The Fudster

We live in treacherous times my friend, remember Brown saying he would do anything to preserve the Union, at all costs.

The fact he knew all about this maybe weeks before it happened tells you something, even if he just sat on his hands he is complicit in the disapearance of Scotlands oldest bank
332

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 14:56:17
361#

I agree totally apart from all of your facts. Scotland would be poorer culturally independently...i think not..poorer financially..i think not either.

The union is finished anyway, only the administrative process awaits and no more Scottish soldiers dying or nuclear weapons or loathsome Tories.

What exactly would we lose?
333

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 15:05:21
There has been some nonsense written in the last few days about short-selling..

Whether we like it or not short-selling has a role to play in the price discovery mechanism. It is easy to point to the profits made on successful shorts but one has to recognise that in general those who short are going against long-term market trends. They are just as likely to get their fingers burnt (as many did earlier in the week) as to make a profit. The process of going long - buying shares as a long-term investment is a lot less risky as losses are limited (the price can only go down to zero) but gains are unlimited (there is no limit on how high the price can go).

Moreover, it is not the process of shorting as such that needs to be dealt with but those who deliberately spread false and malicious rumours about companies they are shorting.
334

Sedov,

Scotland 19/09/2008 15:06:57
#362 Correct - and it would withdraw investment and funds from an "independent" Scotland which tried to control or regulate the banks in isolation to international action even within the present global economic system. Although to be fair to ex socialist Salmond, he would not dare take arbitary action.
335

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 15:07:19
#363 "he just sat on his hands he is complicit in the disapearance of Scotlands oldest bank"

Bank of Scotland disappeared when it was swallowed up by the Halifax.

I didn't see many politicians complaining at the time.
336

Jo Larkinson,

19/09/2008 15:09:24
2328

Lara, you said "I think the union is forcing us into a marriage whereas, in fact, one thing you should never do is marry one of your best friends."

There may be someone who is best friends with their ex, but I've not met them yet. Sorry, bitter experience! Might just have to be a bitter pill we all swallow.
337

JSeymour,

London 19/09/2008 15:17:59
Nevsky

Those are the same arguments as the nationalists in the Balkans. Nationalists everywhere are the same: narrow, insular, racist and thick.

Scottish fashion designers at one of the world's leading fashion shows, Scottish journalists writing and editing magazines and newspapers read and respected across the world, the flow of theatre and musical talent between the cities of the UK, British scientists and entrepreneurs learning and working in universities and companies both sides of the border, Scottish economists and development workers as representatives of themselves and Britain across the world, Scottish soldiers serving in Sierra Leone or the Balkans to help those places recover from nationalist wars. Without a Union all that would be gone or much diminished. The (immensely positive) influence of Scots on the world would be near invisible as a tiny state, and we would have destroyed the combined creative force of the whole of British talent.

Yeah, better to be narrow and provincial. But you seem to be managing perfectly well on your own, why drag the whole country along with you?!
338

The Strategist,

19/09/2008 15:34:36
I really don't understand why everyone is so agitated by this. After all, apart from the direct jobs what else of note has HBOS done for Scotland.. It's certainly - along with RBS and others - helped force up house prices and that's been our biggest growth industry. But, it hasn't invested much in creating new Scottish companies and has stood aside as Scottish companies got swallowed up by overseas companies.

Personally - from a long term strategic economic standpoint - I won't miss HBOS and neither will Scotland and actually, we wouldn't miss RBS either.

What we should be doing is mobilising the Shires and City councils and getting them to agree to setting up a new mutual bank between where profits stay mainly in Scotland and are used to the benefit of Scotland.
339

The Man Who Knows,

Republic of Perth 19/09/2008 15:35:35
A question for Alex Salmond: when did you first learn about the merger talks?
340

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 15:59:53
369# Seymour:

Nothing of what you have said does not appertain to an independent Scotland, neither will the achievements be reduced in the future.

'The (immensely positive) influence of Scots on the world would be near invisible as a tiny state'

The statement above proves not only amusingly insulting for its lack of insight and comedy value but also clearly demonstrates you as being both arrogant and patronising.

Your statement about nationalists is equally laughable. Perhaps you can tell the Iriah, Norwegians, Danes, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania..not forgetting every other country that has achieved it's independence jusy what a nasty little nationalistic lot they are.



341

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 16:10:57
369# Seymour:

Also please have the moral and intellectual decency NOT to include a Scottish independence movement with ethnic wars in Europe or elsewhere.

Nationalists are so thick that they are running Scotland more efficiently that the Unionists have thus far managed so you broad assertion that ALL are thick i find a bit puzzling.

Perhaps you are bright enough to take over and run the country, but i doubt it.

One last point, i think you will find that a great deal of blood has been expended on this earth because of the British Empire, or have you forgotton our cozy relationship with the history of just about every country of the former (thank goodness) empire.

Scotland as an open and equal partner with every other country is much more preferable than being subservient under the British 'hehaws' and not one bit parochial you will find.

tata...time for tiffin

342

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 17:25:59
Dude (360): "the london establishment saw an opportunity to mess up the obvious national bank of Scotland come independance"

A central bank is not the same as a trading bank. The Bank of Scotland, despite its name, could not have become Scotland's national bank post-independence without ending its existence. Your conspiracy theory therefore makes no sense. In any case, please try to understand: most of the shareholders in HBOS are based in England.

"How easy was it to bring down a bank, 2 or 3 days of short selling and the bank is f*cked"

You have mistaken the short-selling coup-de-grace with its year-long decline. HBOS has been hemorrhaging funds since the credit crunch began last summer. It is a sign of its relative strength that it lasted so long and, had further problems not occurred in the US, it might have survived, although that had been looking increasinglly unlikely in recent months.
343

Scotfree,

Erskine 19/09/2008 17:45:28
340 Ugly George
Either your purpose is obfuscation (like many of the spiv comments herein) or you haven't properly read my points.
To reemphasise
1. The reason given for the takeover was to end massive short selling of the share.
2. It is admitted that the head of Lloyds met with Gordon Brown to ensure his support (i.e. non intervention) in the takeover. Support is given to Lloyds, denied to HBoS, further support after the takeover is given to ensure no trading against Lloyds as short selling is (now mysteriously able to be) outlawed. An agreement, which was not only going to involve the destruction of Scotland’s second largest company but also create a (theretofore illegal) near monopoly.
3. The cost of the takeover is £22Billion. This was a nice day’s work, for a bank whose prior worth of £100billion will soon be recovered. For a potential gain of £80 billion they have to pay of an ex chancellor (Blair now has properties of £10million from where?) together with a few million (officially) to The HBoS directors, quite a bargain by any measure.
4. £50 Billion was provided over six months to Northern Rock, to ensure competitiveness and protect labour votes in North England, but at no time is there protection for HBoS (well why would there be when it's demise has already been agreed to.)
5. Information on the deal would have been tightly held and individual traders would act on instruction from those in the know, very convenient when the short sellers are acting in the interests not only of themselves (as they may suspect) but the interests of bigger players such as the main conspirators in Lloyds and HBoS (and no doubt elsewhere.)
6. One has in addition to be equally suspicious of the BBC commentator getting an exclusive (from where?) on the takeover and being quickly able to spread the disinformation “spin” on the takeover. The big lie has always been a hallmark of propaganda; the BBC is the master of lies.
344

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 18:17:00
Scotfree (375):"1. The reason given for the takeover was to end massive short selling of the share."

The takeover was to prevent HBOS going bankrupt. The short-selling was simply the final blow, but HBOS has seen its share-price diminish since the credit crunch began, since it was apparent that its expansion had been funded by the wholesale credit market.

"Support is given to Lloyds, denied to HBoS, further support after the takeover is given to ensure no trading against Lloyds as short selling is (now mysteriously able to be) outlawed."

Even without short-selling, the fundamental problem for HBOS remains: the need to refinance vast loans originally funded by the now defunct wholesale credit market. Its fall would have been less precipitous without short-selling, but it would probably have occurred anyway.

"which was not only going to involve the destruction of Scotland’s second largest company"

It's HBOS, not BOS: the majority of shares are owned by English companies and individuals. In any case, it's being assimilated by Lloyds, not destroyed.

"but also create a (theretofore illegal) near monopoly."

They will be a very big player, certainly, with some 30% of UK mortgage lending -- potentially bad, but not a monopoly.

"£50 Billion was provided over six months to Northern Rock, to ensure competitiveness and protect labour votes in North England, but at no time is there protection for HBoS"

NR was certainly supported for political reasons, but it's important to understand the difference in scale: HBOS has _much_ larger liabilities, and its nationalization would be much more expensive. In any case, becoming part of Lloyds is not destruction.

"Information on the deal would have been tightly held and individual traders would act on instruction from those in the know"

Such a secret would be too big to be kept. In any case, there is no need for such conspiracy theory: the short-sellers believed that the time had come for HBOS and, given
345

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 18:24:04
the short-sellers believed that the time had come for HBOS and, given its circumstances, were probably correct.
346

Sile,

Planet Earth 19/09/2008 18:52:19
Calm down here is the news from the hated neighbours, You can all breath easy the co signatries of the Scottish Claim of Right have stayed loyal to you all Mr Darling admitted yesterday on radio that to enable the purchase of HBOS to be rushed through the normal procedures. Lloyds have agreed that the BOS will continue to print Scottish money and that the job losses will be south of the border so don't fret you have not been the proverbial lamb for slaughter the English will be..
347

Sile,

Still Planet Earth 19/09/2008 18:55:08
p.s fair price for your votes at glenrothes. as long as you don't work for HBOS in England
348

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta CA for more WAR VOTE McCain 19/09/2008 19:26:04

RERUN

HBOS: The questions that must be answered...

DUHhhh!!!

And the SNP cavalry rides to the rescue DUHhhh!!!!!

Imagine the chaos were Scotland an independent state with its 5 million citizens.

Who would bail U dudes out.

When the most powerful the biggest economies in the world are struggling what chance would a tiny pip squeak nation like Scotland have . Alone and independent

The Irish were smart they hitched their shamrock waggon to the EU.

Scottish Patriotism is dead and gone history never put bread on any table.

As for the collapse of HBOS ...suck it up dudes and move on.

Have a nice Day

GC
349

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 19:40:44
381 Dude:

Neither American nor dude dude. Unionist troll...back to you little hole and think up another moniker..doode!
350

AM2,

Scotland,UK 19/09/2008 19:44:16
#246 suchaparcelofrogues

What was that you were saying about "AM2"?
351

Dr K G,

Riyadh 19/09/2008 19:44:27
Hello, dear homeland, I write you from the Middle East this time. Why, if BoS had to merge with someone, was the Basque Bank Santander not allowed the time to make a proposal? We Scots have more in common economically and politically with the Basques. The Lloyds-TSB quick-step takeover looks like a Unionist ploy that also props up the good old Bwitish FTSE. Wake up, please!
352

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 19:44:47
380:

Nobody wants Scottish OR English jobs to go. You are missing the point deliberatly i think and prefer to concentrate on being a 'little Englander'.

I am sure those in England are just as worried.
353

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 19:47:14
384 Dr#

RBS would have been a better bet with government guarantee.
354

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 19:48:37
384#

Perhaps the creation of a Scottish 'super bank' that could threaten the independence of all English banks was completely out of the question for Broooon.
355

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 20:04:06
383

What run out of new accounts already?
356

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 20:05:34
Dr K G (384): "Why, if BoS had to merge with someone, was the Basque Bank Santander not allowed the time to make a proposal?"

Any bank can still make an offer -- Lloyds made the offer first, but HBOS shareholders have yet to agree. However, there doesn't seem to be a clamour for HBOS at present. Further, Santander, like RBS, spent lots of money on ABN-AMRO, all of which seems to have been wasted in retrospect. Still, why don't you email Banco Santander to express your Pan-Celtic Scottish conspiracy theories?
357

K McDonald,

Glasgow 19/09/2008 20:09:17
RBS would have been a better bet with government guarantee.<<<<<

Salmond's RBS Banker mate Mathewson would certainly approve of such a move. Do you think Mathewson knew of the HBOS/LTSB merger talks, which allegedly started 6 weeks ago? If so do you think he told Salmond?

Personally I disagree that UK taxes should be spent bailing out a nominally Scottish commercial bank that had been operating a now discredited business model.

By the way, does Donald Trump qualify as a Spiv?
358

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 20:09:55
Nevsky (385): "RBS would have been a better bet with government guarantee."

RBS has no spare money. As I pointed to you earlier, they have already had to raise billions in a rights issue once this year, having spent far too much on their expensive joint-acquisition of ABN-Amro. The world will become clearer if you spend more time thinking and less time concocting dubious anti-English conspiracy theories.
359

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 20:17:09
389

Would that be the theory that the UK government would never take the constitutional situation into consideration when it comes to selling off Scottish assets? that pan celtic theory?
No conspiricies possible or likely with this government eh?
360

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 20:19:52
391

Oh please according to every unionist conspircy theorist on these blogs only Lloyds has the money to pull this off.
GTF just another dishonest make it up as you go along troll.
361

K McDonald,

Glasgow 19/09/2008 20:24:04
RBS blew it when they indulged in the macho pissing competition with Barclays for ABM-Amro. Winners curse that may have left them vulnerable to a takeover by some really nasty foreign Bank.

The old RBS would never have gone after ABN-Amro. Sadly in recent years Embra finance has adopted the Wall Street/City swagger in order to be players. This week they have been found out.
362

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 20:26:26
suchaparcelofrogues (392): "the UK government would never take the constitutional situation into consideration when it comes to selling off Scottish assets?"

The UK government isn't selling Scottish assets, but it is trying to help Lloyds avert the bankruptcy of a British bank.
I suspect that the fact that it's BoS is highly politically relevant, since its demise would affect Labour's rapidly diminishing Scottish Labour vote. In fact, if RBS has the cash, then I suspect the government would have equally strongly supported a bid. As for Scottish assets, HBOS is owned by its shareholders, the majority of whom are probably English.

"No conspiricies possible or likely with this government eh?"

Not at all -- here's one. The Lloyds takeover document states "In addition, the management focus is "to keep jobs in Scotland"."

How strange that keeping jobs in Scotland is explicitly mentioned, but not jobs in England and Wales! I wonder what the Scottish reaction would have been had it explicitly mentioned jobs in England, say, but not Scotland. Several English newspapers have picked up on this, e.g.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4783792.ece
363

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 20:27:42
394

Amazing how many bloggers have indepth knowledge of all the UK banks assets abilities and capabilities to hand eh?
Or alternatively what is not so amazing is how many bloggers on here are just full of sh*t.
364

Friar Tuck,

19/09/2008 20:30:52
Maybe The Bank of Scotland name can be saved by amalgamating or merging all the Scottish banks. Dump the Halifax part and give it to lloyds TSB. How about it Holyrood? You can do it by passing a law. (And while you're at it, ban the use of English money and convert to Euros.)
365

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 20:32:06
suchaparcelofrogues (393): "Oh please according to every unionist conspircy theorist on these blogs only Lloyds has the money to pull this off."

I'm not a unionist, nor have I suggested that only Lloyds has the funds to do this -- only that RBS clearly doesn't. Alternative banks with cash would include Credit Suisse, for example. However, no other bank has so far made an offer.
366

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 20:34:45
395

Ah yes the official party political line where would these blogs be without it?

Not at all -- here's one. The Lloyds takeover document states "In addition, the management focus is "to keep jobs in Scotland"."

Not so surprising if its a conditional part of the agreement thrashed out during the negociations.
Whether they keep to that part of the bargain when the smoke clears is anybodies guess but if it costs them money then they wont.
Shareholders first and last with mergers staff and customers will be left to suck on the hind t*t.
Mind you saying that the share holders havent got that great a deal in fact its relatively p*sh poor considering the 12 billion price tag. It wouldnt surprise me if they turned it down and then what?
The next move will put all the theories to the test.
367

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 20:35:34
398

How do you know the RBS doesnt have the funds or can raise the necessary funds?
368

K McDonald,

Glasgow 19/09/2008 20:36:16
395
How strange that keeping jobs in Scotland is explicitly mentioned, but not jobs in England and Wales! I wonder what the Scottish reaction would have been had it explicitly mentioned jobs in England, say, but not Scotland. >>>>

I think nuclear war would be a more attractive fate to face than the narrow-minded-nat-rage-fest that would follow such an announcement.





369

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 20:40:26
401

None of this is the Scottish Governments fault nor design you want to cry about it shed yer tears in Westminster. Its mainly the Scots who are disgusted with this deal and its mainly the unionist/english trolls who are stirring up the blogs agreeing or pretending to agree with the deal.
so get over yourself.
370

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 20:43:44
suchaparcelofrogues (399): "Ah yes the official party political line where would these blogs be without it?"

What party line? I'm a right-of-centre English nationalist who will probably vote Conservative at the next election.

"Not so surprising if its a conditional part of the agreement thrashed out during the negociations."

How surprising: a statement giving explicit preferential treatment to Scottish jobs does not provoke your ire. I suspect the HBOS and Lloyds employees in England and Wales do not share your mild reaction. This clause will make it much harder to trust our Scottish PM and Chancellor with English jobs. It really is time for you to take them back.
371

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 20:51:36
suchaparcelofrogues (398): "How do you know the RBS doesnt have the funds or can raise the necessary funds?"

I don't know that RBS is unable to do it, but it really doesn't seem likely, for the following reasons. Their £12 billion rights issue back in April did not go well -- see Forbes:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/04/22/rbs-rights-issue-markets-equity-cx_vr_0422markets04.html

They also spent lots of money acquiring ABN-Amro. This all points towards RBS not making an HBOS offer. As for raising the funds by borrowing, that's hardly likely in the current climate.
372

dude,

wishaw 19/09/2008 20:58:54
382 Nevsky,Moscow 19/09/2008 19:40:44
381 Dude:

Neither American nor dude dude. Unionist troll...back to you little hole and think up another moniker..doode!

You dont have to be american to be dude, and i will have you know i have always had the same moniker Mr Nevskyster.

And i also have to inform you i am a paid up member of the SNP, yes the progressive government of Scotland, up the revolution....
373

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 21:00:45
404

"I don't know that RBS is unable to do it, but it really doesn't seem likely, for the following reasons. Their £12 billion rights issue back in April did not go well -- see Forbes:"

Your post at 398

"I'm not a unionist, nor have I suggested that only Lloyds has the funds to do this -- only that RBS clearly doesn't"

Your post at 391

RBS has no spare money. As I pointed to you earlier, they have already had to raise billions in a rights issue once this year, having spent far too much on their expensive joint-acquisition of ABN-Amro.


Dont tell me again youre not making this up as you go along.
In fact every post you have made is theory supposition and guess work and all of it compliled with predudice not fact.
Feel free to express any opinion and supposition you wish but dont try and dress it up as hard fact.
374

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 21:01:05
403# Fairfax:

Unless it escaped your attention (it has not everyone elses) the clause is ambigious and had NO meaning.

Second the PM and darling have been bending over backwards to stress that they have not even broached the subject of protecting Scottish jobs over English ones.

375

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 21:05:03
407

As I said before all consideration will be given to the shareholders first and last the staff and customer will be left sucking on the hind t*t.
376

,

19/09/2008 21:08:25
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
377

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 21:08:45
Nevsky (407): "Unless it escaped your attention (it has not everyone elses) the clause is ambigious and had NO meaning."

I see no ambiguity here, nor is the sentence obviously meaningless, although it is vague. You still haven't answered my question: what would be the Scottish reaction if it had stated “the management focus is to keep jobs in England”, rather than “the management focus is to keep jobs in Scotland”?

"Second the PM and darling have been bending over backwards to stress that they have not even broached the subject of protecting Scottish jobs over English ones."

I thought your earlier view was that they were evil duplicitous unionists. I'm interested to read of your sudden faith in their veracity.
378

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 21:11:36
409

Socialism and democracy.
379

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 21:13:20
Fairfax#

I agree the English shold be very angry if preferential treatment is gigen to Scotland i have no problem with that at all although the statement does mean absolutly nothing and is just management speak for 'yes yes of course we will'.

They are both unionists as they have been making quite clear that they in no way even broached the subject of Scotland in their talks in case they fely an English backlash..the union comes before principle and bottle and at the expense of their own constituents.

They are true Unionists.
380

,

19/09/2008 21:34:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
381

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 21:34:48
suchaparcelofrogues (406): "Dont tell me again youre not making this up as you go along. In fact every post you have made is theory supposition and guess work and all of it compliled with predudice not fact."

The RBS £12 billion rights issue in April 2008 was fact. The £11 billion RBS paid for ABN-Amro in 2007 (in a consortium including Santander) was fact. The current difficulty of raising large sums on the wholesale credit market is fact. All of these can easily be established by Google searches. The natural conclusion from all of these is that RBS probably doesn't have the cash to make an offer for HBOS, and couldn't raise the cash by borrowing. If you have an argument otherwise, then why not provide it?

382

Scotfree,

Erskine 19/09/2008 21:34:56
Faifax 377 etc
"Right of centre English Nationalist?"
Well let’s deal with your points
1. HBoS was not bankrupt or being saved from bankruptcy, you should perhaps examine the meaning of Bankruptcy. On the eve prior to the takeover it banking ratios were described as excellent and bankruptcy is something entirely separate from the share price and share manipulation.
2. Need to refinance its loans. No again. HBos had refinanced to the tune of several Billions in the last few months.
3. Its HBOS, not BOS: the majority of shares are owned by English companies and individuals. In any case, it's being assimilated by Lloyds, not destroyed. Er No again, you seem to confuse the registration of a company with the trading of its shares in a Stock market. HboS is a company registered in Scotland. The ownership of the shares is irrelevant in that regard although your English nationalist sentiments would seem to prefer that the majority of the shareholders being ripped off are English. Are you sure you’re an English nationalist?
4. Reading is as much a problem as understanding I did not say monopoly but near monopoly. The (English) (sic) law states what constitutes a monopoly in this market and any takeover requires the approval of the monopolies and mergers commission, who have previously stopped Lloyds from taking over other banks. That is why Gordon Browns approval of an illegal act with the assurance the law will be changed is astonishing.
5. NR was certainly supported for political reasons, but it's important to understand the difference in scale: HBOS has _much_ larger liabilities, and its nationalization would be much more expensive. Over 6 months (not one hour) Northern Rock was supported to the tune of £50 billion. HboS was “bought” for £23billion (50 is bigger than 23 in Scotland). As I mentioned above HboS was not bankrupt with excellent banking ratios, one aspect of not being bankrupt is that our assets exceed your liabilities. Do they teach business in Englan
383

,

19/09/2008 21:36:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
384

Scotfree,

Erskine 19/09/2008 21:37:42
Faifax 377 etc
"Right of centre English Nationalist?"(cont)


5. NR was certainly supported for political reasons, but it's important to understand the difference in scale: HBOS has _much_ larger liabilities, and its nationalization would be much more expensive. Over 6 months (not one hour) Northern Rock was supported to the tune of £50 billion. HboS was “bought” for £23billion (50 is bigger than 23 in Scotland). As I mentioned above HboS was not bankrupt with excellent banking ratios, one aspect of not being bankrupt is that our assets exceed your liabilities. Do they teach business in England? I’m sure they do but as you seem to be confused there are many excellent sites on the web that can explain these definitions.
6. Becoming part of Lloyds is not destruction. Tell that to the HBos staff in Edinburgh. Tell it to the Brit Oil staff in Glasgow. Tell that the workers in Ravenscraig. Tell that.. I could go on, as an English Nationalist this might not resonate with you.
7.. Such a secret would be too big to be kept. In any case, there is no need for such conspiracy theory. Er. Well we are informed that Gordon Brown did indeed agree to the deal over drinks with the MD and the discussions had been going on between the parties for several weeks. So it’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a conspiracy fact. And the “big secret” was kept secret.

We are now informed that HboS along with most other banking shares have risen by 30% today. What a surprise!
385

,

19/09/2008 21:39:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
386

,

19/09/2008 21:41:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
387

K McDonald,

Glasgow 19/09/2008 21:48:55
Nev, 412

They are both unionists as they have been making quite clear that they in no way even broached the subject of Scotland in their talks in case they fely an English backlash..the union comes before principle and bottle and at the expense of their own constituents.>>>

Every single decision made, every word uttered, policy proposed by non-SNP politicians is examined by the Nat Thought Police for homeopathic traces of treacherous anti-Scottishness. Tartan PC is the unseen hand that guides all who operate within the Scottish political scene.
388

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 21:54:35
Scotfree (415): "HBoS was not bankrupt or being saved from bankruptcy, you should perhaps examine the meaning of Bankruptcy."

Bankruptcy had certainly not yet occurred, but that was the logical end to the share price reducing further. I have been informal, certainly, but it's more vivid than stating "extrapolating the decline, bankruptcy will occur in a matter of days".

"Need to refinance its loans. No again. HBos had refinanced to the tune of several Billions in the last few months."

It has refinanced by borrowing short: the loans will need to be refinanced fairly soon, at ever higher rates, assuming they could find lenders.

"HboS is a company registered in Scotland. The ownership of the shares is irrelevant in that regard although your English nationalist sentiments would seem to prefer that the majority of the shareholders being ripped off are English."

I see little point is describing a company as a Scottish asset if its share owners are mostly English. Nor do I think the share owners are being ripped off: their fate would likely be complete loss otherwise. Of course, they can still decide to try their luck and vote against the Lloyds offer.

"Reading is as much a problem as understanding I did not say monopoly but near monopoly."

30% of mortgages is not a near monopoly, although it would certainly be viewed as undesirable, and would normally be refused permission. Since the alternative would be the total collapse of a high street bank, I don't find Brown's wish to change law surprising.

"As I mentioned above HboS was not bankrupt with excellent banking ratios, one aspect of not being bankrupt is that our assets exceed your liabilities."

I'm astonished. You still haven't understood the key ingredient running through the credit crunch since its inception: the banks no longer believe in one another's financial viability -- if they did, there would be no credit crunch. Furthermore, banks no longer believe other banks even know whether the
389

Fairfax,

19/09/2008 21:55:39
"As I mentioned above HboS was not bankrupt with excellent banking ratios, one aspect of not being bankrupt is that our assets exceed your liabilities."

I'm astonished. You still haven't understood the key ingredient running through the credit crunch since its inception: the banks no longer believe in one another's financial viability -- if they did, there would be no credit crunch. Furthermore, banks no longer believe other banks even know whether they're viable. Thus the correct statement that HBOS' assets exceeds their liabilities (at least on paper) is of little use.
390

,

19/09/2008 22:05:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
391

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 22:07:37
It is now being claimed that HBoS could have been saved, IF the FSA and Government had acted sooner?

RBS, Scotland's last independent bank, must now be under threat? For the present time, the UK short-selling ban and US intervention appears to have stabilised the markets but I wonder how long it will be before the Royal Bank of Scotland, and possibly companies like Standard Life, are finally picked off?

In a few years time, Scotland could well be left with a shell of a financial services industry with very little employment? After asset stripping Scotland's financial services industry, it will simply be closed, or moved South? One poster summed it up perfectly:
the BoS HQ will end up as just another pub!

After the recent destruction of Scotland's manufacturing industries nothing will be left!

How will the Scots Unionist parties react to any further attack on Scots companies? Will the Scots Unionists, who are bereft of ambition, just accept our inevitable fate? No doubt Scots Unionists will give the usual lame excuses that live in a global market, and we must accept our lot in life, which will be the benevolent "Union Dividend"?

In other words Scotland will become the most dependent and subsidised nation on earth, and the Scots only alternative to unemployment will be to continue to emigrate by the plane load!


392

K McDonald,

Glasgow 19/09/2008 23:02:44
424 Mr. Lachie Todd,Edinburgh 19/09/2008 22:07:37

Lachie, there is no one to blame except HBOS management. They relied on a cash supermarket for survival. The cash supermarket was shutdown. The business was doomed to fail. The Banks that did not rely on the cash supermarket for their supplies survived and will prosper.

Cash is king. This should be the lesson learned for all from this extraordinary week.
393

john z,

edinburgh 19/09/2008 23:14:34
Thank you Scotsman for asking these questions. These need to be pushed HARD. This cannot be let to happen, with no answers.

The whole merger is a sham.

Why was The Bank of Scotland allowed to fail, before short selling was banned within 24 hours. This stinks, big time.

People in Scotland are right to be furious about this very, very, dodgy 'deal.

394

john z,

edinburgh 19/09/2008 23:23:10
Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, 2007-2008. Traitor.
395

john z,

edinburgh 19/09/2008 23:23:49
HBOS, incidentally, was financially sound.
396

K McDonald,

19/09/2008 23:30:12
Why was The Bank of Scotland allowed to fail, before short selling was banned within 24 hours. This stinks, big time.>>>>

Aslo...why did the US taxpayer not step in earlier to pledge $2 trillion dollars (of money they dont really have)to suck up the toxic debt thus stabalising global markets. This would have saved HBOS. Was Washington in cahoots with London, I wonder? The swines. I am furious!
397

Tobytoo,

Southington, u.s.a. 19/09/2008 23:32:37
#405 Dude
Calm down, anyone with a bit of common sense would know that Nevsky #382 was referring to G.C. #381 and Nevsky is not the first one to think that G.C. is not an American.
398

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

20/09/2008 00:15:28
#428 "428 john z,edinburgh 19/09/2008 23:23:49
HBOS, incidentally, was financially sound."

Lending £450 billion in credit but only having £250 million in assets to cover it is not being financially sound. HBOS had a shortfall of £200 billion that the credit markets could not/would not supply.
399

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

20/09/2008 00:18:01
#424 RBS have been Scotland's last independent bank for some time - or have you forgotten that the H in HBOS stands for Halifax?
400

Scotfree,

Erskine 20/09/2008 00:26:41
Fairfax 422
Right of Centre English Nationist (?)
I have stated previously that with the existing union with England Scotland is (to paraphrase the Germans on Ausro Hungary)fettered to a Corpse. Assuming you are an English Nationalist you would better attend to your own education and the dreadful fate that awaits England than gloating over Englands latest fraud on Scotland.

423 I suppose you are (struggling) to refer to solvency. HBoS was not insolvent. As I mentioned above Shares in all banks including HBoS have risen by 30% today.

Interestingly your best hope for the anti Scottish and right wing (sic) English NationalistsIan Gray sugested that you and your ilk be burnt alive. If thats how he feels you can imagine how the rest of us feel.
401

Scotfree,

Erskine 20/09/2008 00:32:11
#431 More spiv disinformation.
If HBoS had and exposure of £200 billion then so now does Lloyds. As Gray would say may you and your ilk "go to the fire".
402

Fairfax,

20/09/2008 00:49:04
Scotfree (433): "I suppose you are (struggling) to refer to solvency. HBoS was not insolvent. "

To repeat my earlier comment: I'm astonished. You still haven't understood the key ingredient running through the credit crunch since its inception: the banks no longer believe in one another's statements of financial viability -- if they did, there would be no credit crunch. Furthermore, banks no longer believe other banks even know whether they're viable. Thus the correct statement that HBOS' assets exceeds their liabilities (at least on paper) is of little use. Equally useless is the statement that HBOS is solvent.

"you would better attend to your own education and the dreadful fate that awaits England than gloating over Englands latest fraud on Scotland."

In fact I shall be using your posts in slightly more than two weeks in a short seminar on reactions to the credit crunch here in Cambridge -- thus your writing will indeed be educating the English. It often surprises the English quite how twisted and bitter a small minority of Scots can be.




403

Scotfree,

Erskine 20/09/2008 02:06:27
435 Fairfax
Fame at last!
What is your main discipline - Comedy or Tragedy? It can't be business/ finance, I've tried my best to teach you poor soul, but where's the gratitude? The dominie is bitter and twisted but I'll steal his material nevertheless. Aren't you giving the English a bad name? Not cricket from an English Nationalist?

Well an right wing English Nationalist and a Cambridge don (or is it lecturer, is it a famous college or Cambridge tech. Well after tonight you can do some homework on the meaning of Solvency, Bankruptcy and perhaps even the history of the Nationalist struggle. The was a time when you could describe, with the typically pompous hypocrisy of English Nationalists, that those who hold Scottish freedom dear are but "a bitter and twisted minority", but these days are long gone. The flag in the wind has become a very storm and will in good time be a rampant hurricane. Scotland will be free!

Incipit Tragoedia!
404

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 20/09/2008 11:31:28
413

Only if you can top it with a list of successful capitalist democracies?
405

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 20/09/2008 11:33:38
414

And where you facts turn to fiction is when you add as a natural conclusion.
That is not a fact it is your bias opinion not a "natural conclusion" at all otherwise we would all share it.
Exactly like I said make it up as you go along.

 

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.