Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Thursday, 20th November 2008

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.

RBS shares plummet on another day of financial woe



View Video
Download Video

Video

Financial analyst David Buik on the banking crisis
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: 07 October 2008
SHARES in the Edinburgh-based Royal Bank of Scotland were down 40% at one point this morning following yesterday's market-wide slump.
RBS was the biggest victim on another day of turmoil for banks amid mounting speculation that the Government is set to spend billions on a taxpayer-funded rescue of the ailing sector.

There were also big falls for HBOS, Barclays and Lloyds TSB following crisis talks with Chancellor Alistair Darling last night.

But in an attempt to calm market nerves, RBS said: "Contrary to press speculation, RBS did not make a request to Government for capital."

Meanwhile, Iceland nationalised its second-biggest bank Landsbanki – leaving UK savers in limbo as its Icesave online website was frozen.

The wider FTSE 100 Index was 2% higher after yesterday's 7.8% slump – the biggest since Black Monday in October 1987 – as commodities bounced back slightly from the fall and oil prices rose.

But attention was firmly focused on banks, with RBS – also downgraded by investment ratings agency Standard & Poor's – later down 22% after its denial.

The bank's stock slumped after Sir Fred Goodwin and his rival bosses at Barclays and Lloyds TSB met Chancellor Alistair Darling last night – with a possible capital injection for the sector reportedly on the agenda.

The concerns caused a fresh spike in money markets as fearful banks refused to lend to each other.

The overnight lending rate, which should be virtually the same as the official 5% base rate in normal conditions, jumped more than 0.75% to 5.84%. Three month rates – used to price mortgages – widened to 6.28%
Alongside RBS's falls, HBOS was down 14% and Lloyds TSB 7% lower.

Barclays also registered big losses but recovered slightly to 4% down after denying it had called for fresh capital.

A spokeswoman for Lloyds TSB refused to comment on whether any discussions were taking place with the Government.

"We never comment on any discussions that may or may not have taken place with the Government," she said.

The banks at the meeting called for the Chancellor to act quickly but Mr Darling did not have a fully-prepared rescue plan, the BBC said.

Bank of England Governor Mervyn King and the new chairman of the Financial Services Authority, Lord Turner, were also at the meeting, although the Treasury declined to comment.

London's leading shares started today's trading with some solid gains, but the Footsie lost its momentum amid the banking sector woes.

They deepened in Iceland today, where the Government stepped in to save another of the country's major banks, Landsbanki under sweeping new powers which came into force yesterday – amid warnings that the entire country could go bankrupt.

It is the second nationalisation in little more than a week after ministers were involved in a rescue of rival Glitnir.

The wider Footsie made modest gains – mostly driven by a recovering oil price which bounced back slightly after hitting an eight-month low yesterday. Oil giants BP and Royal Dutch Shell both advanced around 4%.

The Treasury has refused to comment on Mr Darling's meeting with the banks.

Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman Vince Cable said: "It looks as if RBS are the latest victim of a speculative attack. The continuing uncertainty over the Government's intentions is proving very damaging.

"There is a growing political consensus around the ideas the Liberal Democrats have set out for the Government injecting capital into banks in exchange for shares. This will produce income for the Government and eventual profit for taxpayers from a future sale.

"There must be no question whatsoever of ministers just handing over taxpayers' money to banks or taking on their bad loans. Any injection of funds must be part of a comprehensive programme which fully protects taxpayers' interests.

"We're effectively talking about part-nationalisation, and there is no point in trying to conceal that. The Government must come clean on its plans very quickly, otherwise continued uncertainty will force more banks to the wall.

"It is much more sensible to deal with this proactively, rather than through a succession of collapses like those of Bradford & Bingley or Northern Rock."


Government set to take £50bn stake in Britain's top banks

BILL JAMIESON & LINDSAY McINTOSH


THE government is preparing to buy a huge stake in Britain's stricken banks to boost confidence in the economy as the freefall in global markets continues.

News of the drastic measure emerged after the UK's leading shares suffered their biggest ever one-day fall and as European governments failed to agree a common strategy in their war against the global financial crisis.

Under the plan, to be announced later this week, The Scotsman understands that the government will inject between £30 billion and £50 billion into the banks, with more to follow if required.

In return, the state will receive preference shares to be held for the duration of the crisis. The four key banks involved are believed to be HBOS, Lloyds TSB, Barclays and Royal Bank of Scotland.

They are understood to have agreed the capital injection in outline over the weekend and in further discussions yesterday. Indeed, yesterday's massive sell-off of bank shares leaves them with no alternative.

However, the move will raise concerns over the exposure of taxpayers to financial risk, following the use of public funds to nationalise the stricken bank Northern Rock earlier this year.

The FTSE 100 fell 7.85 per cent, wiping about £93 billion off the value of the UK's largest firms – the biggest percentage fall since the Black Monday of 1987 and the largest points fall since the index was launched in 1984.

No company was spared the agony, but the Edinburgh-based banks RBS and HBOS were among the biggest losers, with crashes of 20.46 per cent and 19.8 per cent.

RBS saw its credit rating brought down a notch by Standard & Poor's, the rating agency, indicating less certainty among key analysts as to its position. A House of Commons statement by Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, did nothing to ease the panic, as confusion reigned over what action individual European countries were taking to try to avert the crisis.

In the United States, the main Dow Jones share index fell sharply – further evidence that the American government's $700 billion (£380 billion) bail-out had not proved to be the silver bullet that many predicted it would be.

The Dow recovered in erratic trading to a loss of 369.88 points, or 3.58 per cent, to close at 9,955.50, dropping below the 10,000 mark for the first time since October, 2004.

At its worst point, the Dow was down more than 800 points, an intraday record – surpassing its previous record for a one-day decline, 778, which was set a week ago.

Underlining the economic devastation, a new report today by the British Chambers of Commerce will say that the UK is already in a recession, with business confidence, profits and turnover at record lows and unemployment set to rise by up to 350,000 in the next year.

The authoritative survey of 5,000 firms by the British Chambers of Commerce shows a worsening economic outlook and rising unemployment amid a "collapse" in confidence across all sectors of industry. In addition, the country's largest insolvency specialist has warned that more than 300 UK retailers are likely to go under in the new year, when banks cut off their lifeline funding.

Two arguments have made the unprecedented government intervention in Britain's banks an urgent necessity.

One is that they are unable, in the current chaotic conditions, to raise fresh capital from their own shareholders.

HBOS, RBS and Barclays have already raised extra capital by way of rights issues and shareholders would simply balk at a further cash request. The second is that the outlook for the global economy has nosedived over the past few weeks and banks will need additional liquidity in which to operate as trading conditions worldwide worsen.

Separate arrangements may be made for HSBC and the Spanish bank Santander, which owns Abbey and has just bought the retail operations of Bradford & Bingley.

Although they make the bulk of their profits overseas, they also have substantial operations in the UK.

The fine details have still to be worked out between government ministers and the banks over the next couple of days, but authoritative sources say that a deal should be announced before the end of the week.

Speaking to the United Jewish Israel Appeal in London last night, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, said the government was ready to take action to prevent "irresponsible risk-taking" by banks and other financial institutions.

The cash injection will be designed to lift the banks' "tier one" capital ratios – the amount of capital a bank is expected to hold to allow it to absorb losses but still protect its depositors – from about 6 per cent to between 7 and 8 per cent.

Further help for the banking system may come on Thursday with a half-point cut in interest rates.

While the Bank of England's monetary policy committee will maintain its independence, events of recent days, and in particular the scale and savagery of the falls in stock markets yesterday, should compel members to reduce rates at the earliest opportunity – and that is when they hold their regularly monthly meeting this week.

Only two days after European leaders had assembled to find a united way forward, cracks were apparent, with countries taking unilateral action.

Confusion reigned over whether Germany had guaranteed to back all savings, after Angela Merkel, the chancellor, seemed to make such a statement on Sunday, only for sources to claim that she had not intended for legislation to be drafted to back it up.

Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Austria have given their own guarantees, while Spain hinted yesterday that it might do the same.

Iceland – hugely exposed to the turmoil because of its reliance on banks – teetered precariously close to total economic chaos, as its government belatedly issued a guarantee but failed to deliver a wider escape plan.

In his speech to the Commons, Mr Darling said the £50,000 savings guarantee would come into force today, and that the Financial Services Authority would look at raising the threshold further.

But even as he spoke, markets were tumbling around the world. There were no winners on the FTSE 100, which fell almost 8 per cent, while the Dow Jones fell below the 10,000-mark for the first time in four years.

"Another Monday, another banking crisis," said Manoj Ladwa, a senior trader at ETX Capital. "Just when the market thinks it has found a base level, there's another jolt to the system. Black Mondays used to be a once-a-decade event, now they're coming along more regularly than a London bus."


Bill Jamieson: Either this desperate plan works or the economy is done for

Q&A: How new safety net for savings could benefit you

'Recession here and 350,000 jobs will go'

More than 300 retailers could go bust after Christmas

The full article contains 1850 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 07/10/2008 10:01:16
They can't blame short sellers now.
2

Nevsky,

Moscow 07/10/2008 10:16:47
1 George#

Twisted view of the world. RBS shares fall and your first thought is to snipe at Salmond. Ant bad news for Scotland is excellent news for the weasel like unionists seems to be the message over the past few weeks!
3

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 07/10/2008 10:22:50
2 Nevski
That was not a swipe a Salmond and I am not taking pleasure in this - far from it. I still hold shares in RBS so why on earth would I view this as excellent news.

The point I was making when I mentioned short sellers is that so many people (not just Alex Salmond) have called this wrong in the past and need to look at things more rationally.
4

Bigwull,

edinburgh 07/10/2008 10:27:47
1 WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THEY'RE NOT STILL AT IT?
5

K McDonald,

Glasgow 07/10/2008 10:28:39
Who is Salmond going to blame for RBS's predicament? Anyone except his incompetent Embra banker buddies is my guess.

6

famous 15,

Edinburgh 07/10/2008 10:30:16
Ugly George is correct. It would appear that the British Government sparked off the problem and that is the concensus around the financial world. "Careless talk costs banks and savings". Now if we had followed Norway??????
7

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 07/10/2008 10:31:08
4 bigwull
Short selling was stopped weeks ago.
8

Duncan in Edinburgh,

07/10/2008 10:32:26
#2 Absolute rubbish Nevsky. What has become clear over the past few weeks in fact is that this idea that someone who supports Scotland within the union is somehow "anti-Scottish" is unsupportable claptrap.

The simplistic idea that an independent Scotland would somehow be better placed to weather the storms in global capitalism is at best unproven, but from where I sit it appears utterly about-face. Right now we are gaining a great deal of strength from being part of the world's fifth largest economy, and from being part of the world's biggest economic union.

How do you think the markets would respond to an independence referendum today?
9

K McDonald,

07/10/2008 10:33:02
4 Bigwull,edinburgh 07/10/2008 10:27:47
1 WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THEY'RE NOT STILL AT IT?>>>>

Big Yin. It's all about CONFIDENCE! A commodity that has deserted RBS, as it did HBOS. All because the comany's management screwed up. Simple as that. Salmond has been pointing the finger at everyone except his banker mates - all "fully qualified economists", no doubt.
10

Duncan in Edinburgh,

07/10/2008 10:35:20
#6 Silly.
11

danielrober,

07/10/2008 10:36:14
Well i still need banking services and i have faith in these banks to deliver them. I am also very confident that the Prime Minister working with banks and the other leaders in politics and trade can deliver.

In a few months this will be over and business will still be moving. In Spring I'm still opening a tiny retail unit in London. In the Autumn I'm still opening up a slightly larger (but still tiny) unit in Glasgow to run sales in Northern Britain. In 2010 I expect to be employing about 5-10 people on a full-time/part-time mix (split between London and Glasgow).

The economy is still moving, it just recovering from one heck of a party. Some drank to much, maybe some of us did not drink enough. The point is just like parties, hang overs also go away.

Its just time to work harder that's all. All hands to the pumps and noses to the grind stones etc, etc.
12

Nevsky,

Moscow 07/10/2008 10:42:26
8 Duncan#

Any nationalist reading any of the posts over the past few weeks will realise that unionists such as yourself have constantly used what is happening to reinforce your view that Scotland is better in the UK...you are using it as a political point..some unionists even to the point of unbridled joy!

Nowhere has anyone said that Scotland would be immune to world markets, just nonsense.

But unlike Norway who are insulated to a great extent because of their HUGE reserves of cash, Scotland is suffering becuase it has NEVER instituted it's own fiscal policy..this is as a direct result of Westminster and the union!

Scotland's strength to date in the union is that 2 English banks have failed (Scots taxpayers will pay for this of course)...a country NOW in recession...public borrowing at a record high..house prices collapsing...a Scottish institution practically given away...job losses in Scotland as a result...


Some benefit we are getting, you are right! Take a reality check!
13

Nevsky,

Moscow 07/10/2008 10:45:30
danielrober#

Great time to open a business when the country is heading for recession unless you are in the house re-posession business!
14

Duncan in Edinburgh,

07/10/2008 10:45:42
#11 That's the spirit. Even an economy that isn't growing, or one that is shrinking, is still full of opportunity.
15

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 07/10/2008 10:46:06
I think we are being delivered this banking crisis in dribs and drabs. Nothing any politicians intend to do will stop it. We were told it was the sub-prime market in the USA. Then Northern Rock. Then back to the States with 'Freddie' and 'Fannie' The Lehman, AIG etc. Congress thought they had sorted out. A sticking plaster for their elections. This week the Europeans. Germany's Hypo Real estate, Fortis, the Iceland banks. Ireland, Greece etc underwriting their banks.

Today it is the freezing of the Iceland internet bank, the fall in the share price of RBS. There is no floor which the financial systtem is not going to fall through. It did not start with the American subprime. It began when the west started living off credit, spending money it did not have. Governments cannot print money to get us out of this crisis. We will become the Weimar Republic or Zimbabwe if we do. The commodities, wealth and endevour are now in the hands of Russians, the Arabs and the Chinese. We are now bust living on borrowed time. Only when the west realises that it is now a third world power and faces up to adopting the lifestyle to match its means, then this crisis will not have reached its endgame.
16

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 07/10/2008 10:46:21
12 Nevski
"Scotland's strength to date in the union is that 2 English banks have failed (Scots taxpayers will pay for this of course)..."

The latest news is that the govt are going to make £79bn available for RBS and Barclays.
17

Duncan in Edinburgh,

07/10/2008 10:48:19
#12 Of course Scotland has a fiscal policy! It is part of the UK's!

What is utterly ridiculous is that you list all of the ills currently facing our economy and then blame "the union" for them. As if an independent Scotland would be faring ANY differently.

And don't give me "if we had been independent 30 years ago". Your argument is that we should become independent now. Explain how exactly that would help.
18

David MacVicar,

web 07/10/2008 10:48:33
The Scotsman forgets to mention that Johnston press is also down another 16% today. Sub-prime toxic Journalism is also taking a knock?
19

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 07/10/2008 10:53:02
15 Huntly
Let us hope that Putin is not trying to stir things up against NATO. I have just seen on Bloomberg that Iceland has been bailed out by Russia with a $5bn loan - that is the equivalent of about $20,000 for every person in Iceland. Bearing in mind that Iceland is a NATO memebr located in the North Atlantic, is Putin doing this out of sympathy to the people of Iceland or does he want to use this as a lever of power and influence.
20

David MacVicar,

web 07/10/2008 10:55:25
17 Duncan in Edinburgh you make some fair points.

However if the past 40 years is any guideline then any measure that the UK now makes will only take into account the needs of the South and if that means sacrificing or at best ignoring the North of the UK then that is what will happen. If you think anything else is the case then you are seriously deluded.

In expectation of a rebuttal, please include some examples of where the UK has intervened in Scotland to safeguard Scottish interests over the South, should be interesting?
21

Duncan in Edinburgh,

07/10/2008 11:04:12
#20 The fundamental error you make here is the implicit assumption that bolstering our economic powerhouse (the south east) is somehow bad for the country. They don't do it to make northerners' lives a misery! They do it because it is in the best interests of the country's economy.

If we aren't prepared to share the pain of interest rates set on the basis of what the south east needs, we shouldn't have accepted the benefits of that economic powerhouse for the past decade.

We invest in London because the money made in London is spent all over the UK.

If you want a separate fiscal policy for Scotland then you cannot logically avoid wanting to subdivide fiscal policy between the regions of England, and then between the central belt and the highlands and lowlands in Scotland.

How much subdivision do you want? Independence for Freuchie?
22

Grant,

Scotland 07/10/2008 11:07:05
The idea that Scotland being in the Union is some kind of safeguard to ameliorate the global financial crisis is as intellectually bankrupt as saying an independent Scotland would be unaffected by world economic turbulence.

The whole global financial crisis has shattered the illusion that "big is better" or that interconnectedness is the best way to deal with the world. Not that I advocate a move back to autarky and protectionism. But a fundamental appraisal of the way international financial flows operate is needed, as is a return to some kind of localism. That will mean a transfer of financial and economic powers from huge centralised beheamoths like the Treasury and Bank of England to smaller units of control.
23

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 07/10/2008 11:07:56
I know we are on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to Scottish independence, but I agree with you that there are geo-political games going on beneath the surface which are being kept from us. The Georgia crisis was a 'dipping the toe in the water' Bailing out Iceland is Russia's next chess move. Their possession of the oil and gas that keeps Europe warm has not been used yet in the game. this is about Russia and Nato. China held the grandest olympics. it will never be matched and China knows it. They are sitting in the wings quietly. The perfect hosts plying their guests with drink, waiting for the drunks to start making fools of themselves before they have to throw them out into the street, and get the house back to themselves. Once Russia and the west are finished with each other the Chinese will be the world's Superpower.
24

The Strategist,

07/10/2008 11:08:57
I do not believe that any taxpayers money should be given to these banks until they change their management teams. They are self evidently not the brightest coins in the cash box. Now, they are alienating the small business community by making them pay even more for overdraft and loan facilities.

As I've said before - we need at least one new bank.. The ones we have now are morally if not technically corrupt.
25

Duncan in Edinburgh,

07/10/2008 11:11:26
#22 So neither union nor independence is good for us; neither isolationism nor inter-connectedness are beneficial things. It's almost as if you are suggesting that the best model for the world is a disparate set of nation states collaborating where appropriate.

Quite brilliant. Do you have a name for your groundbreaking theory?
26

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

07/10/2008 11:11:32
When the banks lose confidence in each other is it any suprise the shareholders do the same ?

totally man made and history will laugh at us.
27

Fairfax,

07/10/2008 11:14:37
Ugly George (19): "I have just seen on Bloomberg that Iceland has been bailed out by Russia with a $5bn loan"

According to hemscott.com, it's 4 billion Euros (i.e. $5.4 billion). I agree with your analysis: there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

It's particularly surprising that they have received nothing from Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
28

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

07/10/2008 11:17:54
Oh well, capitalism has technically failed.

29

Fairfax,

07/10/2008 11:20:38
David MacVicar (20): "However if the past 40 years is any guideline then any measure that the UK now makes will only take into account the needs of the South"

That is not the lesson of Britain post-war. Until the 1980s, British economic policy supported heavy industry, despite its union-crippled inefficiency -- effectively the South was used to support heavy industry, based overwhelmingly in North. All that occurred in the 1980s is that the subsidy was ended.

Even in this current crisis, I wonder if NR and B&B would have been saved if their base had not been Labour heartlands.
30

Buckpool Loon,

Cheshire 07/10/2008 11:25:17
#3 Ugly George. Short selling and the sub-prime have played their part by developing the cracks that have exposed an abyss.

Nobody knows yet how deep the abyss is, how far it stretches or where it will undermine. And the sad part is all this drama is based on an illusion conjured by magicians into a hollograph of substance fueled by confusion.

However for us lesser mortals this hollograph is a fundamental part of our reality, a core part of our everday living. We call it salary, wage or income and, one way or other it controls the manner and lifestyle we live withen. Arguably many see it as the major controlling factor in their lives. But the Financial Institutions and Markets - the magicians who created and serviced the hollograph - decided the rules no longer applied to them. They could 'lend' money they never had and claim interest and service charges on it. Not only money for nothing, but adding money from nothing to it. Which puts very much into question the billions of profits claimed by banks in recent years.

Given their present state of toxic flux, for anybody to question the benefits of state funds being tied into an equity holding in these institutions, is being disengenuous at best and probably delusional.

Under normal circumstance these banks would have been declared bankrupt, the consequence of which would leave the share holders with nothing.

For a government to invest in order to minimise the consequences is right and proper; for the City to cry foul is no more than trying to trade a one legged horse.
31

New Town Resident,

07/10/2008 11:27:08
~27. Methinks they are proving to the EU that they have an alternative, and very wise too. No need to hand over control of their fish and energy resources which is what the EU demands. Scots Nats should note. Expect Iceland will now maybe get Euro membership but keep their Norway model of resource control.



32

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 07/10/2008 11:30:18
I assume that the Westminster Government will now Nationalise RBS and HBoS.
33

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 07/10/2008 11:32:41
#8 Duncan

"Right now we are gaining a great deal of strength from being part of the world's fifth largest economy, and from being part of the world's biggest economic union."

You REALLY believe that Duncan?
34

David MacVicar,

web 07/10/2008 11:34:40
Duncan and Fairfax, thanks for not providing any of the examples I asked, not such a failure though since there aren't any!

You can dissaemble the whys and whats how you want, the reinvigeration of the South was fianced from AAA international loans backed by North sea oil and the now available Mcrone report showed this in part, plus the effects of an independent Scotland to a rump UK.

Fater, Northern and Scottish industry was sacrificed while at the same time the South was being bankrolled. This is irrefutable. Meantime Scotland was being told we were a basket case while the UK politicians knew the opposite. This is simply unforgivable.

So yes we are now all in the M E R D E together but it would have been in a different context if we had been independent and we are still better governing ourselves with financial accountability than under the cosh of a bunch of self serving London central liars using obfuscation as their daily bread to save the union.

'Britain stronger together weaker apart' The question is for whom is this true?
35

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 07/10/2008 11:35:28
#21 Duncan

How much money do you think that London "makes"?
36

David MacVicar,

web 07/10/2008 11:38:26
Apologies for typos in previous post...the argument remains.
37

New Town Resident,

07/10/2008 11:38:35
-22. I agree 100% with you re smaller local financial units - the USA and Germany are much better in this regard. So were we once. Personally always backed mutuals for the reasons you set out and so voted against the demutualisation of our 2 big mutuals (TSB and Standard) and lost. Also I'm now with the UK's biggest mutual, Nationwide, and thats the only vote I've won! How many Scots voted for the TSB, Standard and HBOS deals I wonder compared with the citizens of the English Midlands where I think most of the Nationwide voters live (they are from Northampton by origin). Unfortunately I don't think EU financial competition rules will ever protect mutuals per se - think they survive in Germany because effectively they are local authority municipals and in the USA because of state laws that would not be permitted in the EU financial framework structures. But maybe the surviving mutuals could do a lot more with their rule books? Certainly Nationwide seems to have made it much harder to get a demutualisation vote through and its a pity Crombie was allowed to get away with Standard in my view. Interested to know what new Standard shareholders think now and whther they are still happy with demutualisation?
38

democracy,

Scottish Borders 07/10/2008 11:39:54
Jim Murphy the new so called Scottish Secretary says only on Sunday that the UK and Europe are not in crisis but Alex Salmond's Arc of Prosperity IS!

Trying to score cheap political points at this early stage after saying he would have an amicable relationship with the First Minister, who is he kidding!

It is now blatantly obvious that his initial statement on TV in his new post, proves how inept he is going to be when he comments on the economy and gets it so wrong first time.

The very next days headlines made him look silly, but that was nothing compared to todays Headlines "RBS shares plummet on another day of financial woe"
"Car sales stall as economy hits the skids"
"RBS shares fall under £1 after bail-out fears"

Same problems all over Europe AND Asia, yet Jim Murphy says in his first statement on TV that UK and Europe are not in crisis, just to try and make a stupid little point in an attempt to belittle our First Minister.

This man has already shown us all what a clown he is, with exceptionally bad judgement!!!
39

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 07/10/2008 11:40:39
There was a generally perceived wisdom that the City of London is the power house of the UK economy and generated wealth. I have never believed this. It does not create wealth, merely creams to itself the wealth created by others.

There is only one source of weatlth and that is what nature has provided. Oil, minerals and other exhaustible resources and renewables, such as, wind/solar/hydro power, agriculture, fishing and forestry. All other industries derive from processing these and adding value. At the top of this food chain is the public services and financial institutions who take their cut through tax and interest. But they do not add to the wealth. The financial insttiutions began using there cut to generate more money, by loaning and trading their cut. This was one large game of musical chairs and pass the parcel. The music has now stopped. The parcel is only wrapping. There is nothing in the box in the middle.
40

Proximaking,

Aberdeen 07/10/2008 11:42:15
I think the Huntly loon is talking a lot of sense but not about China. There is however one power sitting watching and waiting and the time will soon be here for them to strike. "The Empire Strikes Back", ...... yup it's the good old UK and I fear for anyone who gets on the wrong side of us, China and Salmond included. Gordon Brown doesn't look in the least bit worried to me but everyone else does, including the Chinese who couldn't even be honest enough to let a little buck-toothed leprechaun sing the song, ... hardly the actions of the world's next superpower. The game someone is playing seems to be going to plan but a two year old could tell you that by now. Watch out next for massive instability in China as the reality bites that they have no markets to send goods to and all of those idle hands are found work but not by the Chinese government. We are in the end game of capitalism and totalitarianism all around the world. Interesting times. lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllll
41

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 07/10/2008 11:49:57
40 Proximaking
"We are in the end game of capitalism and totalitarianism all around the world."

This is precisely what many people were saying after the Wall St crash of 1929. It seemed to them obvious that the crash spelt the end of capitalism and the whole world would follow the the newly formed model of Soviet Socialism. It didn't work out that way though did it?
42

Fairfax,

07/10/2008 12:05:09
David MacVicar (34): "Duncan and Fairfax, thanks for not providing any of the examples I asked, not such a failure though since there aren't any!"

I implicitly provided you with several examples: union-crippled heavy industry which failed once subsidies ended in the 1980s.

"the reinvigeration of the South was fianced from AAA international loans backed by North sea oil"

North Sea Oil was indeed important in the late 1970s and very early 1980s. Once socialism had been abandoned, its importance diminished. Sadly Scotland missed its moment in 1979, or thereabouts.

"it would have been in a different context if we had been independent and we are still better governing ourselves with financial accountability"

It might have been. Then again, Norway's banking system suffered systemic collapse in the early 1990s was followed by the nationalization of their 3 largest banks. Independence is therefore neither necessary nor sufficient for avoiding financial crises. I think it's much more likely that, had Scotland seceded in (say) 1979, its banks would now be in roughly the same position, i.e. with liabilities many times Scotland's GDP. Still, if nationalization of RBS and HBOS now becomes necessary, you can continue to blame all the ills of Scotland on the evil English who have subsumed Scotland's banks -- there's always a silver lining.




43

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 07/10/2008 12:06:27
35 Connaughtboy
Recent extract from an analysis by Oxford Economics

"London pays £16 billion more in taxes than the Government spends in the capital, Oxford Economics said — equivalent to more than £2,000 for every person in the city."

44

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 07/10/2008 12:07:04
The world economy is the sum total of the producers and the consumers. When the net producers (the Russians, Arabs and Chinese) realise that the net consumers (USA and Europe) cannot pay them, they will take whatever assets the net consumers still have and start consuming the produce themselves. The west will be left with few assets that they can call their own and will have to survive on their own produce, where production and consumption are in balance. At the moment they are not. Only when our population returns to living within our means without credit will this equilibrium be restored. Our present crisis is the shifting of these tectonic plates as the earthquakes return the faultlines to equilibrium
45

The Genuine Mario Antoinette,

07/10/2008 12:07:44
it's bad there's no doubt. However , As long as peoples money is safe I dont think we are about to wave goodbye to capitalism !

Interesting though that we all sit and say nothing as half of Europes banks are nationalised.

Could you imagine the headlines if the UK's TRAINS or power utilities were renationalised ?!

If capitalism fails, I bagsy burning down HBOS HQ.

46

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 07/10/2008 12:24:02
No doubt Alex Salmond will chair a summit on this.
47

JayDeeTee,

07/10/2008 12:25:17
#45 Aye, Eurpean countries are all looking after their own banks and guaranteeing ALL deposits. So much for the EEC Union!! Meanwhile that dithering badger we have - the Chancer of the Exchequer - is not prepared to do what the Europeans are all doing so guess what will happen. Large swaithes of money will flow out of UK and into European banks. Disgraceful. Why not a Europe-wide agreement? What's the point of a European Union if we can't agree a common policy on such an important issue as this?
48

The_Reiver,

07/10/2008 12:25:49
As this crisis proceeds, the Right Dishonourable Alex Salmond is rapidly becoming the most pathetic figure. He's just like a wee boy who wants to play football with the big boys but is left shouting pointless suggestions from the side line. Thank God we don't have independence otherwise we'd be screwed like Iceland.
49

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 07/10/2008 12:26:27
45

The Genuine - if Salmond had any brains, he'd be campaigning for the nationalisation of financial institutions and the renationalisation of public utilities.
50

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 07/10/2008 12:28:49
47

JDT, I seem to remember that you were a staunch opponent of the Government's decision to help Northern Rock. Why the change in position? Your memory may be failing. Mine isn't.
51

Fairfax,

07/10/2008 12:32:06
JayDeeTee (47): "Eurpean countries are all looking after their own banks and guaranteeing ALL deposits"

Few of them have actually done so yet. In particular, neither France, Germany, nor Italy have acted in this way, although their leaders have hinted that they would do so, in so doing causing confusion The smaller economies which have formally guaranteed their deposits are bluffing, since their GDPs are substantially less then those deposits.
52

Duncan in Edinburgh,

07/10/2008 12:37:32
#47 No major economy has done this. Germany, it emerges, was making a "political statement" not a banking guarantee, when Merkel said all deposits were safe.
53

Zedd,

Fife 07/10/2008 12:39:21
I know that failing banks hurt everyone, but I can't help feeling unsympathetic, at least to those higher up the ladder. I have been overcharged, exploited as revenue fodder and sold the wrong financial products throughout my life. There was no empathy for my liquidity problems! How ironic that a lack of trust brings it all crashing down.
54

AJ Fife,

07/10/2008 12:41:59
And so the Westminster induced destruction of Scotland continuies.

Thankfully we have Mr Salmond at the tiller. If allowed, Scotland's Leader could save Scottish businesses, Scottish workers and the Scottish economy. However, to do that, we need to break free from the desperate clutches of Westminster!

55

danielrober,

07/10/2008 12:44:48
# 13 Nevsky,Moscow

The economy still keeps on moving, in spite of politics and international finance. The reason why Northern Britain more than almost anywhere else in Europe was hit so hard in the 70's and 80's was that we stopped opening up new businesses. People became enthralled with higher factors, issues and concerns rather than daily needs. Effort went into nebulous problems for house designs for millions, instead of fixing the leaking roof.

Hard working kids are still going to be leaving school and university looking for work and offering excellent benefits to employers. Customers still want to replace old things with new stuff and we all still need to eat.

So maybe i will not be a millionaire by 2014, it might now be 2018/2019. I might not have 10 full-time staff in 2010. It might now be 5 part-time staff in 2010, but they are still going to be new jobs. Business moves on and economies such as the Scotland/UK have a lot of benefits to offer and enjoy.

So lets all calm down a little, maybe have a beer, glass of wine or a decent scotch.
56

danielrober,

07/10/2008 12:49:06
# 54 AJ Fife,

Southern Britain has quite a lot to offer. One of the things it offers is a constantly modernising dialect.

I do believe your comment can be replied to with the phrase - R U a nutter. Where u living mate. U need a drink.
57

Ursus arctos horribilis,

07/10/2008 12:50:15
#23 &40 Intersting posts.

For those of us interested in the geo-political consequences of all this there was an interesting article in the Washington Post last week-"Financial Hubs See an Opening At The Top"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002718.html?sid=ST2008100100058&s_pos=


Personally I believe the root cause of the Banking Crisis is that the US has been living beyond its means for the past twenty odd years as evidenced by their massive balance of payments deficit-this was unsustainable.

I believe what we are witnessing is merely part of a major re-alignment betwen east and west and would back China to be a big winner-that is not to say China does not have problems or to prematurely write the US off as they have many assets-not to mention the most powerful armed forces in the world.

As for the UK -I can see only doom and gloom-unlike the last time when Liebour mis-management almost ruined the country there is nothing left for the incoming Tory Government left to privatise.


As to Russia baling out Iceland -in return for what-possibly a new home for the Black Sea Fleet? That was on the cards-Europe is hardly in a position to help and presumably Putin sees this as a counter to NATO trying to encircle Russia. This should set the alarm bells ringing-Iceland will suddenly find many new friends!
58

JayDeeTee,

07/10/2008 12:53:48
#50. I was but in light of what is happening and what MAY happen with European banks we cannot afford not to step in. Things have got a lot worse since Northern Rock. If we don't step in the economy will collapse.
59

AJ Fife,

07/10/2008 12:54:40
#56,

Very Vicki Pollard!

Very Unionist.

Very daniel robber

Very dunc

60

JayDeeTee,

07/10/2008 12:55:30
#51 Interesting if what you say is true.

"The smaller economies which have formally guaranteed their deposits are bluffing, since their GDPs are substantially less then those deposits."

Are they lying then?
61

John Cameron,

St Andrews 07/10/2008 13:08:48
My greatest fear is that Gordon Brown has a cunning plan to save us all. Is it possible that he can be persuaded to hide away in the bunker at No 10 chewing his fingernails and the odd carpet? I am sure we will all pull through as long as he does not try to help.
62

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 07/10/2008 13:11:22
Whether you like him or loathe him Salmond, having been an economist in a major bank (his oil formulae is still used in the industry) is at least well placed to understand the present banking crisis and capable of making sensible proposals in its wake. Whether Scotland was independent or not is of little matter in this debate as all sizes of country and economies are affected. the USA is as much a victim as Iceland, Germany or Ireland. To impute that the UK is the perfect size to weather the storm is Unionist delusion just as saying an independent Scotland would not have been affected. The problem is larger than these petty points.
As for Iceland, it was always a puzzlement how they bought their way into so many retail businesses in the UK aqs these are the first to feel the cold draughts. The Icelanders for their modest population are well provided in resources after all they have survived there since the darkages without the need for financial institutions. They have not sought EU membership and I'm sure have no desire to return the the Danish fold, so their present predicament has no relevance to whether Scotland could stand on its own. It is a non sequitur.

Whether a country is successful or not is based on the resourcefulness of its population and the sound judgement of its leaders.
63

Duncan in Edinburgh,

07/10/2008 13:16:06
#58 The problem is you actually believe the rubbish you spout.

Not that it is terribly relevant but Britain is in no way the worst hit economy in Europe! Do you even understand what just happened in Ireland? Do you seriously see that move as a triumph, evidence of strength? You are woefully uninformed if so. Ireland's act was one of desperation, and they have ended up making a guarantee they simply cannot back up, simply because they were left with no other option. To suggest that they are in a better position than the UK is - well, breathtakingly stupid.

Face painting and victimhood will do nothing for us now; you are dismissed. You lost.
64

Fairfax,

07/10/2008 13:38:04
JayDeeTee (60): ""The smaller economies which have formally guaranteed their deposits are bluffing, since their GDPs are substantially less then those deposits."

Are they lying then?"

In some cases, I suspect so, depending on other national assets. That's not to say that there's no truth to their statements: they would act to pay depositors if a single bank collapsed, for example. In the worst cases, such as Iceland, I cannot see how they can avoid financial collapse without outside help, hopefully from Scandinavian nations rather than Russia. They have reached the point at which default becomes feasible.
65

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

07/10/2008 13:42:57
Call me a cynic but there is something awfully artificial about today's RBS fall. I have a really bad feeling that somebody has been at it with a false rumour - that the RBS needed a capital injection from the government. That would be enough to drive down the share price so they can buy up cheap stock. When the price rises on the back of the rumour being proven false then they sell the stock on.

Anyone else have such a nagging doubt?
66

JayDeeTee,

07/10/2008 13:44:26
#63. Do you think people in the UK understand that Britain is not the worst hit economy in Europe? No they don't my friend - what they see are other countries guaranteeing bank deposits - whether these banks can afford to back it up or not is not thier concern. So they are all becoming frightened and are moving their money to these so called "safe" banks.
Who would blame them?

What is breathtakingly stupid, to use your words, is the failure of government to come out and tell people what exactly is going on here and what they should do.
67

Duncan in Edinburgh,

07/10/2008 13:52:21
#66 I do not buy any argument in defence of stupidity. The only counter to stupid choices is education.

The government is not saying that Irish banks are now safer than UK banks (and quite rightly in my view, since Irish sterling deposits are essentially unbackable by the Irish government because they can only access sterling from the international money markets, and we know where they are just now) and yet people are apparently moving their money into them.

The government have been very clear that they will not allow UK private depositors' money to be risked; in just exactly the same way the Germans have. The government are telling people to leave their savings where they are. It's good advice. People are ignoring it in droves. You blame the government?
68

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

07/10/2008 13:54:53
The big problem we are facing right now is that the speculators are picking off the financial institutions one at a time. I can see merits in treating each case on its own circumstances but can also see that something needs to be done to protect all of our financial institutions. Giving a 100% guarantee is not the answer - it only deals with savers concerns and not the underlying credit shortage problems. The longer this goes on the more inclined I am to the view that the only solution is a complete or partial nationalisation of the banking industry.

Also we need to end this idiotic process of repossession that happens when a mortgagee falls behind with payments. Why on earth reposses and get no income and sell an asset for a fraction of its true value? Why not accept reduced mortgage payments spread over a longer time? Or reclaiming the property but allowing rental to be paid on the property?
69

ccc,

07/10/2008 13:56:24
#61

I agree with most of your comment. However the comment re. Salmond is a little off:

"Whether you like him or loathe him Salmond, having been an economist in a major bank (his oil formulae is still used in the industry) is at least well placed to understand the present banking crisis and capable of making sensible proposals in its wake"

I think it has been proven conclusively that most economists with banks have zero clue about the bigger picture and what is going on here. Salmond fits into that group. His blaming of the HBOS debalce on 'spivs and speculators' proves that beyond any doubt.

It is amazing how much respect is given to some of these people. Considering many of them are responsible for this mess.
70

Nevsky,

Moscow 07/10/2008 13:57:15
67 Duncan#

I don't think you can blame people for moving their cash in the slightest.

Interestingly, having listened to the radio almost all of the financial big heids were on agreement that the UK government is busy chasing individual fires rather than concentrating on decisive action!

£50 billion here and £20 there as we know can be wiped off shares in an instant!
71

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 07/10/2008 13:58:00
65 The Fed.
There may have been a rumour about RBS but it does not appear to be false. As I unberstand it, both RBS and Barclays are negotiating a bail out from the govt.
72

ccc,

07/10/2008 13:59:08
#68

"The big problem we are facing right now is that the speculators are picking off the financial institutions one at a time."

No it is not. What we are seeing is big investors dropping any banking shares they have because they have completely lost any faith in the system.

Selling shares in a company you do not have faith in is not speculation. No matter what people like Alex Salmond will tell you.
73

Nevsky,

Moscow 07/10/2008 13:59:37
69#


The spive and speculators are as we speak probably making more money than they have ever made before; it's bonanza time for them, just look at the way shares are leaping about, someone is buying and selling and making billions!

Alex was spot on!
74

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 07/10/2008 14:00:58
With the Icesave bank frozen (what an apt name to have given themselves), it is only a matter of time before there is a mad rush to the ATMs to take whatever cash there is available and to keep it at home in the old teacaddy. For soon no one will accept cheques, credit cards or debit cards, and cash will be used for all transactions. No trace, no record, no bank statements. No declaring it to pay tax or VAT on. The government must be bricking it.

Icesave has I hear just gone bust and the savers in the UK will have to await compensation. They will be limited to £35k.

In the same way as there was a rush to the pumps when Grangemouth went on strike, I feel a rush on the banks cannot be far off as the population stock up on cash to tide them by for emergencies. It is most worrying
75

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 07/10/2008 14:02:33
70 Nevski
"£50 billion here and £20 there as we know can be wiped off shares in an instant!"

The money the govt is giving to banks just now is not to support their share price. It is to provide them with liquidity to carry on trading. The govt is not buying shares in these banks (RBS and Barclays) unless they plan to nationalis them.
76

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 07/10/2008 14:08:21
73 Nevski

"The spive and speculators are as we speak probably making more money than they have ever made before; it's bonanza time for them, just look at the way shares are leaping about, someone is buying and selling and making billions!

Alex was spot on!"

Alex Salmond claimed that HBOS was a sound business which was forced into a cheap takeover by short selling. You will find it very hard to find an analyst who now agrees that this was the case.

Please tell me what practice the "spivs" are up to now. Some will be selling and some will look for opportunities to buy. Some might profit and some might lose. That is the way markets work.
77

Duncan in Edinburgh,

07/10/2008 14:09:08
#74 You are actively being part of the problem. Why? Why spread rumours and undermine stability?