Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


The downfall of the Scottish banks

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: 14 October 2008
• Dark day as centuries of tradition come to an end

• Chiefs Goodwin and Hornby brought down

• Government takes big stakes in RBS and HBOS

• Shares still slump on news of no dividends
'PRUDENT, cautious, responsible" and "stable, reliable, solid" – the characteristics of three centuries of Scottish bankers and their banks all seemed instantly vaporised the moment it was announced yesterday that Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland had been forced to collapse into government ownership.

The humiliation of this admission of catastrophic failure, the injury inflicted on national morale, the shame of having to go cap-in-hand to politicians, will reverberate around the nation for years, with as yet incalculable consequences for the political economy of Scotland.

Never before has the country seen the spectacle of two big bank chief executives with, at one time, more practical power at their command than any government minister, forced to depart quietly into the night with not a penny of the severance pay to which they were entitled.

The sense of complete failure is underlined by the fact that these banks are commercial companies, which prided themselves on their independence from government but are now creatures of it.

Though modern society tends to think of banks as a necessary evil, they are deeply interwoven with the history, character and economy of Scottish society and have shaped the nation in more profound ways than is often appreciated.

The Scottish reputation for thrift, for example, stems directly from the Trustee Savings Bank movement, which was founded in 1810 in the parish of Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire, by the Rev Henry Duncan – his memory is commemorated in the name of Lloyds TSB's Scottish headquarters in George Street, Edinburgh.

He was a man who was appalled by the poverty of the time and came to realise that a bank in which poor people could deposit money in good times would help sustain them in years of famine and poverty.

But the commercial banks of the time required a deposit of £10 to open an account, a sum well beyond the hopes of ordinary labourers, whose wages were counted in pennies not pounds. His solution was to create a bank where sixpence was enough to begin saving.

His iron rule, based on the three years he had spent working for a bank in Liverpool and a departure from the practices of poor-relief charitable movements of the time, was to insist that the bank would operate as a business and not as a charity.

To persuade the naturally suspicious parishioners that their money was safe, he showed off the chest in which their cash would be kept. It had three locks, with keys entrusted to three different trustworthy people – the trustees in the name of the movement.

The bank was an immediate success. In its first year, it attracted £151 in deposits, which were entrusted to the Linen Bank in Dumfries in order to earn 5 per cent interest.

The Rev Duncan, far right, laid down strict rules: "Every depositor must lodge to the amount of four shillings at least within the year, under the penalty of one shilling. Interest at the rate of five per cent is allowed to every depositor who continues a member of the bank for three years; but such as withdraw the whole of their deposits before that period receive only four per cent."

And failure to attend the annual meeting meant a fine of sixpence.

No mean publicist (the Rev Duncan founded the Dumfries and Galloway Standard newspaper to spread the message of his banking cause), he made sure that news of his innovation spread far and wide. More Trustee Savings Banks followed in Scotland, then England, then Europe and even the United States. Within ten years, the money deposited in British TSBs totalled £3 million.

If the TSB movement went a long way to alleviate poverty, the business of the Bank of Scotland and Royal Bank of Scotland was to create wealth. The Bank of Scotland was created in 1695, the only institution founded under an act of the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament to survive into modern times.

It arrived at a time of economic distress. Famines, called the "seven ill years" in Jacobite propaganda, had begun to afflict all of northern Europe as a result of a climatic downturn. Scottish merchants, anxious to trade with England and further afield, found the credit they needed for such work hard to find.

The Scottish currency, too, was unreliable, and merchants preferred to deal with English sterling, which was difficult and time-consuming with London being several days' ride away.

The arrival of the Bank of Scotland began to fix these problems. One problem it fixed was a lack of coins, particularly gold coins, which were being used by the English government to finance war against France.

The bank began experiments with paper currency, backed by its capital, which could be passed as payment from trader to merchant – they soon became sure in the knowledge that the paper note was always redeemable for hard cash at the bank's offices.

The creation of reliable currency and credit facilities did much to finance Scotland's growth during the industrial revolution. Steel mills, shipyards and engineering foundries all required vast sums of money to be created. Scottish banks provided much of it. Among the beneficiaries was Robert Owen, whose New Lanark cotton mill experiment in enlightened manufacturing was financed by Royal Bank of Scotland.

Paper currency was a major innovation that spread rapidly to the rest of Europe – an invention which founded the Scots' reputation for being clever and inventive with money.

There is a long list of inventions: 1728 – Royal Bank of Scotland invents the overdraft; 1750 – British Linen Bank, now part of HBOS, develops the first retail bank branch network; 1777 – Royal Bank of Scotland creates the world's first coloured bank notes; 1826 – Royal Bank of Scotland prints the first double-sided banknotes in an effort to thwart the counterfeiter; 1875 – the Chartered Institute of Bankers in Scotland, the world's first banking institute, is established; 1946 – National Bank of Scotland, now part of RBS, develops world's first mobile bank; 1959 – Bank of Scotland is the first UK bank to computerise its processing of bank accounts; 1972 – Royal Bank of Scotland is the first UK bank to offer house purchase loans; 1986 – Bank of Scotland launches world's first remote banking service; 1997 – Royal Bank of Scotland is the first British bank to announce a fully fledged internet banking service; 2005 – Clydesdale Bank is the first UK bank to offer ATM speech technology for the visually impaired.

Throughout, the two main banks have been shaped by, and have shaped, the country's politics.

In its early days, the Bank of Scotland was suspected, somewhat unfairly, of Jacobite sympathies. Although it kept its deposits away from the Old and Young Pretenders in the 1715 and 1745 rebellions by securing the money in Edinburgh Castle, its treasurer, David Drummond, was also treasurer of a fund raised to pay for the defence of Jacobite prisoners from the '15.

Yet the suspicions of treasonable activity were enough to help persuade monied Edinburgh Whigs of the early 18th century that the bank should have a loyal competitor. Hence the "royal" in the title of Royal Bank of Scotland, founded in 1727.

The seeds for the expansion of Scottish banks internationally were laid by the discovery of North Sea oil. The Bank of Scotland was in the lead, taking a share in providing the £360 million needed to finance the exploitation of the giant BP Forties field. The project's viability was based on the assumption that the oil was worth $4 a barrel.

Many more such ventures, and profits, for the banks followed.

This internationalisation led to the bankers' eyes opening on far horizons which – as Royal Bank of Scotland in particular began acquiring banks in the US after it beat the Bank of Scotland to buy National Westminster in 2000 – turned Scottish banking into a global player.

So why did it go so wrong? In short, it was because the Scottish banks believed the same things as did nearly everybody else; that the world had moved into an era of cheap credit, low inflation and steady growth. They believed that Wall Street, through the invention of such things as collateralised debt obligations – incredibly complex parcels of mortgages and other loans – had found new ways of raising sums that could be used to finance yet more lending.

Enthusiastically embracing derivatives trading, they believed the risks involved in this new finance could be laid off by yet more complicated mechanisms called credit default swaps. They also believed the international monetary markets would provide them with the billions in loans needed to keep this complicated business going.

To be fair, save for a few dissenting voices here and there, no-one saw how it could all unravel.

But unravel it did, as the subprime mortgage defaults in the US more than a year ago turned from a trickle into an avalanche, and the collateralised debt obligations turned into liabilities.

Should Messrs Goodwin and Hornby have foreseen these problems? Perhaps. Should they have been more prudent? Maybe. Were they and their executives so entranced by the bonuses to be won from immediate profit that they ignored questions of long-term financial viability? Possibly.

The reckoning on these questions will come, but for the moment, the urgent need is to rebuild. It could, after all, have been a lot worse. The two banks are still there, albeit with the government sitting in their boardrooms. The people who have built up the relationships of trust on which banking business depends are still there, though the trust needs some repairing.

Among the debris of battered trust lies the dictum that Sir George Mathewson drummed into his executives: that in order to retain the loyalty of RBS's army of shareholders, they had to deliver a steady stream of dividends. Now shareholders have to wait perhaps four to five years until the government's shareholding is redeemed before their dividends resume.

Scotland has been hit by the blast of the hurricane. But unlike Wall Street, where the vast and mighty investment banks have been whipped away, or Iceland, whose 320,000 people and £10 billion of annual GDP are weighed down by the huge burden of £50 billion of debt, Scotland's banks have not been levelled flat.

If the people who take charge of the banks now can show the prudence, innovation and enterprise of their forebears, the industry will rise and be a power again.

Brought to their knees in £31.5bn rescue deal

Shareholders count cost of bail-out deal

The 'boy from Paisley' who found himself at centre of a global storm

Bill Jamieson: Government's rescue plan cloaks what will be a financial Culloden

Brown calls for new Bretton Woods pact


Q&A: Government takes preference over dividend payouts in return for helping sector to stabilise

How will the deal work?

The UK Treasury is injecting £37 billion into three high-street banks – Royal Bank of Scotland, HBOS and Lloyds TSB. The aim is to give the banks the capital they need to get back to normal trading and restore confidence in the industry.

How much is each getting?

For RBS, the government will buy £5 billion of preference shares and another £15 billion of ordinary shares if, as many expect, the bank is unable to find willing private investors.

HBOS will get £11.5 billion from taxpayers, made up of £8.5 billion in ordinary shares and £3 billion in preference shares, while Lloyds TSB is to get £5.5 billion, £4.5 billion in ordinary shares and £1 billion in preference shares.

Barclays has said it is to raise £6.5 billion of new capital from private investors rather than going to the government. Barclays also said it would scrap its final-dividend payout for this year, saving it £2 billion.

What are preference shares and what are ordinary shares?

Preference shares, as the name suggests, rank ahead of ordinary shares. The Treasury will earn 12 per cent a year – a good deal for the taxpayer. Until the preference shares are paid off, ordinary shares will not get a dividend, which could take several years.

How were the amounts of money arrived at?

Under guidance from the Financial Services Authority, the government negotiated with the banks.

Banks were asked how much they would need to make sure their capital assets represented 8 per cent of their loans.

In banking, capital assets represent the combined total of physical assets and shares. The banking standard is to have capital assets that represent 8 per cent of the loan book, but the government wanted them to be over-capitalised so each was given more than enough to hit that target. RBS has been given enough to take its asset capital ratio to 11. 5 per cent, while the new merged HBOS Lloyds TSB bank will have an asset capital ratio of 8.5 per cent.

Where is the government getting the money from?

To get the money for the rescue package, the government will have to borrow from the international money markets in the form of a government gilt auction – just like the US government does for its own $700 billion bail-out plan.

Were there any strings attached to the investment?

Yes, ministers have stipulated certain conditions – no bonus will be awarded to any board member for 2008, and any bonuses earned in 2009 will be paid in shares.

No dividend will be paid on ordinary shares until the government's preference shares have been repaid. Also, RBS and Lloyds TSB/HBOS have promised they will maintain mortgage lending and small-business lending at 2007 levels.

Will this part of the deal actually work?

The Treasury said last night it was confident that it would work, primarily because the government now has representation on the boards of the banks and because, as a major shareholder, it is able to exert influence at that level as well.

Page 1 of 1

 
1

Nevsky,

Moscow 14/10/2008 00:04:16
Thanks goodness Europe and the US came to the rescue of the UK. However what the past two weeks have shown is how vulnerable a small country like the UK is in the world; one week more of being squeezed and the country would have almost certainly gone bankrupt!

Only through borrowing money from foreign markets and the intervention of Europe has staved off a failing UK the UK simple does not have the cash to deal with the magnitude of this kind of problem.

Seems the Irish got it right thankfully, cost them not a penny and the their banking system is ranked higher than that of the UK; well done Ireland, seems like the UK will be paying for the next ten years!

2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 00:05:37

'Aye' The 'forefathers' will be,...
.....'turning-in-their-graves,

However the whole scenario will affect the, 'Heart of London's' trade centre and dwindle to the USA.
3

Nevsky,

Moscow 14/10/2008 00:05:59
We should also thank Gordon who has wined and dined the bankers for 11 years and got us into this mess; nice to know that he could borrow £500 billion of taxpayers money to dave his reputation...well done!

Guiness anyone?
4

subrosa,

14/10/2008 00:18:12
# 1

There are quite a few countries smaller than Scotland who have survived this quite well.

Gordon Brown and George Bush have brought us to this and both the US and UK are the worst off. The rest of Europe is managing better.

The whole story of bringing down Scotland's banks will not be told for at least another generation. Obviously then it'll be too late to punish the perpetrators but we know who they are.

"I'll do anything to ensure Scotland stays within the Union." Indeed he will.
5

Nevsky,

Moscow 14/10/2008 00:32:34
4 Sub#

What seems impossible to me is that Brown had no knowledge as to the dangers he was taking in encouraging the markets.

He must have known how reliant the UK was on the American markets and he must also have known that is the US wobbled then the knock-on effect here would be very very severe.

Personally i do not think he forsaw ever having to borrow money from foreign markets to stop the entire UK banking sector going down the tubes; this has to be the biggest miscalculation in financial history by a UK chancellor.

His legacy will be the near destruction of Scottish Banking and the largest public debt the UK has ever had; i simply cannot believe that a chancellor was not aware of the risks!

6

EPS,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 00:34:22
For nearly 300 years Bank of Scotland was a model of prudence. The thrift of the bank and the thrift of the Scottish nation developed in partnership. If Bank of Scotland had remembered that prudence from the 1970s onwards and not followed the crowd, it would be independent still and all the stronger for it.
7

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 00:37:22


subrosa ~4,

As I have said in many a post on these forums,...

Scotland are the 'Under-Dogs'

Always have been, and Always, will be!

And with embarrassment's like Alex Salmond to,..

...'Rule-our-Roost'

We the Scots will never do any better, better start,...

...'Flying-the-Flag' of Poland from Edinburgh Castle!
8

Robbie 2,

NZ 14/10/2008 00:43:09
4 subrosa,
There are quite a few countries smaller than Scotland who have survived this quite well.
As posted before but relevant to the doctrine of trustee banks:
- two small ‘New Zealand-owned banks shrug off global credit crunch’
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10499515
Of course it may or will affect NZ but there a more important things afoot if one can believe the Kiwi media, such as Olympic Gold medallists, the Swindell twins are retiring from competitive rowing - the nations is I mourning. Bank crises that’s ’over there’ (at least at present)
9

Evolution in action,

St Andrrews 14/10/2008 00:44:25

NEXT!!!!
10

Bring it Off,

UK 14/10/2008 00:52:03
"I will not allow house prices to get out of control and put at risk the sustainability of the recovery."
Gordon Brown's 1997 Budget Statement

"Under this Government, Britain will not return to the boom and bust of the past."
Pre-Budget Report, 9th November 1999

"Britain does not want a return to boom and bust."
Budget Statement, 21 March 2000

"So our approach is to reject the old vicious circle of the...the old boom and bust."
Pre-Budget Report, 8 November 2000

"Mr Deputy Speaker we will not return to boom and bust."
Budget Statement, 7 March 2001

"As I have said before Mr Deputy Speaker: No return to boom and bust."
Budget Statement, 22 March 2006

"And we will never return to the old boom and bust."
Budget Statement, 21 March 2007

Aye right pal on ye go GORDON
11

SkeptikScot,

14/10/2008 01:08:42
For me the only thing Scottish about RBS and HBOS was in the name and the fact they provided jobs here. As far as I know both the name and some of the jobs are staying - so no big disaster.

As a (slightly puritanical) Scot, I feel they had long since lost any quality I particularly admired - they were just another bank - the banking equivalent of McDonalds.

And there is always the remote possibility that Lloyds/HBOS megabank will eventually sell off B of S and it could return to its 'prudent, cautious, responsible, stable, reliable, solid' Scottish ways. If it didn't do this I'd have no particular respect for it.
12

Dougie McGill,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 01:39:07
This is the financial equivalent of the 1978 World cup campaign.
13

!Ya basta!,

14/10/2008 03:23:08
I don't think it is fair to blame Brown for this, though he has to accept some responsibility. If he had called for additional regulation of the banking sector can you imagine the outcry?

It is clear where the real blame lies. Yet again, it is the free marketeers, the laissez faire capitalists, the neoliberals, the trade liberalisers etc.

Free markets are an ideology, they don't really exist and unbounded, they not only don't work, they are incredibly destructive. We need regulation, but not over regulation. The private sector can not exist without the public sector and there needs to be more political and media recognition of this. Once again we see public subsidy, private profit. If we don't learn this lesson and step back from what I sincerely hope is the high water market of neoliberalism, this will happen again and the West will be bankrupt. Then of course we will have war.

In the end, even Neocons don't care about ideology, all they really care about is power (as the resuce package demonstrates - which goes against all their so-called "principles" and basically uses public money to maintain the current system).

This crisis will shake itself out into a revised world order which has a chance of being a benefit to the whole world. A less unipolar world with more say for Russia, China, India and developing countries must be good. The West is weakened by this and I hope the developing world exploits our weakness in a peaceful but forceful way to redress the current huge imbalance in power and subsidising of the northern rich by the southern poor.

Sadly, terrorists of various hues are going to be emboldened by this. Just as the USSR went bankrupt because of arms escalation, so the US may follow, in fact this has always been the Al Quaida strategy. Many previous empires have gone bankrupt by over extending themselves.

In my opinion, the way to combat this is a return to the enlightenment vaues that launched modernity and some true democracy, not t
14

!Ya basta!,

14/10/2008 03:24:44
In my opinion, the way to combat this is a return to the enlightenment vaues that launched modernity and some true democracy, not the sham democracy we have now.

But this will only happen if people push for it, and nobody in the West has cared enough so far because we are too busy consuming. Change is much more likely to come from developing countries where huge numbers of people have been marginalsied by "globalisation".

What we are seeing now is a shift in global power relations not seen since WWII. And because history is about action and power in the context of ideology, nobody knows how it will turn out but we should all play our part.
15

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 14/10/2008 04:22:01
#1 - Nevsky - spot on.

Don't be kidded into thinking that this whole episode has been caused by forces outside of Brown's control. The regulatory buck has stopped at him for years - he has blundered in a massive way.

This whole affair has a certain whiff about it.

No hope of the hootsman journalists getting to the bottom of it though.

16

,

14/10/2008 04:34:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

Leonard,

Grays 14/10/2008 05:07:40
It was a sad day when TSB ceased to be the working man's bank, a great bank made in Scotland, a sad sad day.
18

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 14/10/2008 05:34:56
"Scotland has been hit by the blast of the hurricane. But unlike Wall Street, where the vast and mighty investment banks have been whipped away, or Iceland, whose 320,000 people and £10 billion of annual GDP are weighed down by the huge burden of £50 billion of debt, Scotland's banks have not been levelled flat."

The vast and mighty investment banks have not been whipped away. The only one that actually went Bankrupt was Lehman. This was the biggest mistake of this crisis that has not yet fully played out, more Banks may go to the wall when they have to honour the Credit Default Swaps on Lehmans bonds. As for the Other Might Investment Banks, Bear Sterns and Merril Lynch were bought out and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are still there, independent, but changed their regulatory status of full fledged deposit taking Banks.

It is only in the UK and Iceland that every bank has hit the wall and 75% of them Nationalized. I don't count HSBC because it is not, Majority UK owned, a Majority UK Operation and its Parent is actually in Hong Kong even if its Head Office has been in London since it purchased Midland Bank in 1993.

I don't see how Iceland is in any a worse spot than the UK given that UK GDP is $2.7 Trillion and External Debt stands at $10.3 Trillion giving you a GDP to Debt Ration of 490%, which is only marginally better than Icelands Ration of 500%.

Obviously the Authorities in London are either incapable or unwilling to properly regulate the Banks. I hope this is a wake up call for the people of Scotland to demand that the regulation of Banks in Scotland be devolved to the Scottish Government.
19

terry osser,

morden 14/10/2008 05:44:54
500 billion just to win glenrothes seems a tad too much
20

Bring it Off,

UK 14/10/2008 05:50:01
It was also clear that the subprime-mortgage crisis was brought about by too much liquidity, easy credit and inadequate government regulation.

AND WHO WAS RUNNING THE TREASURY DURING THIS TIME?
21

Cappo Del Monte,

14/10/2008 06:57:12
A quick quetion for all you banking guru's, I admit I have never been a great investor ( although I have never bought banking shares , thankfully ) but if Lloyds TSB ane going cap in hand to liebour for extra cash, how in the big ones name can they possibly buy out HBOS> They have no money, no one will lend them money, also they did make a deal at that price re-negociation should never happen
22

JSM,

ni3sh5mz 14/10/2008 07:06:24
BOS had ceased to be a Scottish run bank when it was merged and the senior jobs went to the Haliban. RBOS was brought low by management arrogance - apparently Fred had to be "persuaded" not to take the huge payoff he thought was his due !!!
GB is enjoying a "bounce" at present but don't forget who was Chancellor for ten years - it was on his watch that this whole mess brewed up
23

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta CA for more WAR VOTE McCain 14/10/2008 07:22:52
Dudes,

In a giant global economy there is no spot for a micro Independent Scotland.

Its a dream based on ignoring reality and facts.

But in every wannabe target the supporters , in this case the polarized SNP cannot see reality and manipulate facts to dream on.

At the miss-stroke of a WALL Street minute, economies around the world come crashing down . stopping centimeters short of financial armageddon.

Quite Ur dream dudes, and get real . There will be no Independent Scotland while people need jobs to live by.

Happy Haggis day

GC





24

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta CA for more WAR VOTE McCain 14/10/2008 07:24:27
# 26 correction

For Quite ...read..Quit

GC
25

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 14/10/2008 07:27:46
No severance pay? Would you care if you still got a £500,000 per annum pension? Most of us will be lucky to see £5000.. When you think about the £millions these people have been earning, superhuman wages paid to what is evidently very ordinary people you have to ask why, so here we go, why? I would also like to know why they have paid no price for being wrong, apart from some severance pay. Why is it the regulator hasn't publicly admonished them, fined them and banned them for life, the regulator is quick enough to lay waste to a small firm that didn't tick a few boxes even though nobody lost any money. If this is the fair and reasonable society that so much blood was spilled in the fight to maintain it I am a monkey's uncle, if Darwin was right of course.
26

eric,

14/10/2008 07:30:21
See london is already spinning lies about flash gordon saves the world.just like they did churchill and we all know it was eisehhower and the russians.
27

eric,

14/10/2008 07:40:54
The only people to be be subdued is our children they will be paying a heavy price in taxes for this gvts mistakes,roll on the general election.
28

Guga II,

Rockall 14/10/2008 07:42:55
#5.

With people who have attitudes like yours:

"a bit like Scotland is now no Banks to call there own, all in English hands"

that think all the money stolen from Scotland is the sole property of the English, it is little wonder that more and more people in Scotland want to be completely shot of the yoke of English colonialism.
29

fife runner,

14/10/2008 07:44:53
Goodwin and co. will still get their golden goodbyes as it is in their contract. Shows that in the private sector failure pays.
30

eric,

14/10/2008 07:52:11
33 janis .its overhyped nonsence.
31

eric,

14/10/2008 07:54:39
Smaller nations have to do things in a different way,population ,economics dooooh.
32

Nevsky,

Moscow 14/10/2008 07:55:06
35 sm753#

'World adopts British model of bank rescue' yes they are..the model of panic, massive debt and nationalisation.

Guaranteeing banks against each country was the only real way to stop the falling markets and seeing even more banks (if not countries) go to the wall.

One thing is for sure, if the UK had acted alone and Europe had resisted then the UK would have sunk further anf further.

Still the unemployment and economic figures to come out this week, watch the markets fall again as the scale of this debt and the less than optimistic prospects for the future are digested!
33

eric,

14/10/2008 08:03:33
Jobs for the boys .looking out for one another .lifeline .election,!
34

Seymour,

London 14/10/2008 08:07:00
Seems to be only one of the big banks that has not gone cap in hand to the government: HSBC, once the good old Midland Bank. What did they do right, I wonder?
35

Shug,

14/10/2008 08:09:00
Usual Scotland versus England nonsense getting spouted. Fact is that RBS and HBoS (like many other banks) were too greedy, nothing to do with governments. Not Brown's fault, not Bush's fault. The banks see their role as trying to make as much profit as possible for their shareholders, as opposed to trying to prudently and safely look after their customers money. I have no sympathy for any shareholder who has lost money. Hopefully we will see a rise in more local mutual society's where people can hopefully invest their savings in a much safer fashion
36

eric,

14/10/2008 08:11:12
Glasgow savings bank .Bank of Caledonia.Bank of Alba.:)
37

Egg Chasing Ape,

14/10/2008 08:20:34
I find it amazing how billions of pounds of taxpayer’s money is happily offered up to save these institutions that have been the subject of so much miss-management, without reference to the electorate or taxpayer. The chief execs disappear with massive pensions while the man in the street whose life may have been destroyed by their practises loses out and when he can't pay his mortgage won't get any leeway from said institutions (which his money has bailed out) before they foreclose on him. With public money taking such a large part of these banks surely public interest has to be served!

38

It's me!,

14/10/2008 08:20:51
This is what happens when you put an English grocer in charge of a Scottish bank.
39

Geo_1875,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 08:24:28
#37 TommyTommy

So why couldn't an Independent Scotland have gone cap in hand to the IMF and put itself in record debt for a generation to save Scottish banks? Is that something only Browntrousers is allowed to do on behalf of the Union?
40

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 14/10/2008 08:33:04
'PRUDENT, cautious, responsible" and "stable, reliable, solid" –

These are Scottish characteristics not British characteristics. British characteristics run in to rip off, take as much as you can and give a little as possible back.
Which is exactly why we are where we are now. We were heading no where else with this business ethic.
41

Bigwull,

edinburgh 14/10/2008 08:38:18
Still no one has told me what happened to all the massive profits these banks have been robbing from us over the last 10 years and now we have to bail out, surely those that received these payouts should be hit first? And when will British firms realise American accounting practises are shocking and not get involved in that market, it's been the graveyard for many a good firm over the years. I also think this is the beginning of the end for the USA as the worlds superpower, they are in a very similar position to we were in the 1930's broke and still trying to be the worlds policeman, I just hope the next superpower is as benevolent towards Western Europe, but I doubt it.
42

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 14/10/2008 08:38:37
5

What a load of cr*p. The English raped and pillaged a large chunk of the world and what have they given back?
division and sectarian seperation.
Nae wonder nobody will vote for our Eurovision song entries they think we are all English.
43

Ugly George,

14/10/2008 08:46:55
46 its me
"This is what happens when you put an English grocer in charge of a Scottish bank."

Fred Goodwin was born near Paisley and worked in Edinburgh. How does that make him an "English grocer"?
44

camster,

Glasgow 14/10/2008 08:47:26
The problem of the banks seems to be an Edinburgh problem. Too many big egos who think they can rule the world. Edinburgh is getting more like London every day.

On the Irish banks I suggest if you have money with them take it out. A massive exposure to property and the USA is not a heathly place to be.
45

Highland Mist,

14/10/2008 08:48:32
"Never before has the country seen the spectacle of two big bank chief executives with, at one time, more practical power at their command than any government minister, forced to depart quietly into the night with not a penny of the severance pay to which they were entitled."

ABOUT TIME TOO - THE BONUSES THAT HAVE BEEN PAID OUT TO BANKERS, AT ALL LEVELS, IN THESE BANKS, JUST TO DO THEIR JOBS OVER THE LAST DECADE HAS BEEN COMPLETE DAYLIGHT ROBBERY. THE BRANCH MEMBERS BEING SENT ON TRIPS ALL OVER THE WORLD AT REGULAR INTERVALS FOR OVERSELLING DEBT TO PEOPLE WHO DO NOT NEED AND CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE ON MORE DEBT, BONUSES OF £THOUSANDS BEING PAID OUT TO YOUNGSTERS AT THE BANK FRONT DOORS TRYING TO SELL CREDIT CARDS TO PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT BE TAKING THEM. SELLING DEBT AND SELLING DREAMS OF UNATAINABLE PROSPERITY AND LAND OWNERSHIP TO THE POOR WHO WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PAY UNLESS IT KEEPS ON COMING TO THEM VIRTUALLY FREE. WELL NOW IT HAS STOPPED. THESE MEN SHOULD NOT SIMPLY BE SACKED WITHOUT THEIR SEVERANCE, THEY SHOULD BE HAULED BEFORE THE COURTS AND THE GOVERNMENT TO ANSWER FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO THIS NATION AND ITS PEOPLE. AND THE POLITICIANS SHOULD BE ASKED WHY IT WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, IT HAS BEEN ON THE CARDS FOR YEARS. GREED HAS BROUGHT DOWN THE BANKING SYSTEM AND IT HAS BEEN A VERY LONG TIME COMING.
46

eric,

14/10/2008 08:51:40
At least london has shiney new skyline to show for the greed .Edinburgh is looking more like Blackpool of the north.You cant buy class,
47

Courtney,

East Molesey 14/10/2008 08:55:33
One of the main reasons that the "Scottish" banks have collapsed is that they had non bankers at the helm and in particular BoS had a cornflakes salesman, Andy Hornby, directing operations. No matter how bright a person is it is experience that counts. One size does not fit all!
48

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 08:58:56
55 Courtney
"One of the main reasons that the "Scottish" banks have collapsed is that they had non bankers at the helm"

Fred Goodwin has worked in banking throughout his career.
49

Highland Mist,

14/10/2008 08:59:16
#37, TommyTommy, you are absolutely correct. Gordon Brown has saved all our skins by his intervention and insistance that the world follows his lead. As soon as he had worked out what the heck was going on he devised a program of rescue and implemented it. Has put his opposite number in Parliament and Salmond in Edinburgh has been made to look a bit of a bumbling economic fool with his previous comments of Irish and Icelandic wealth. WE can all count our blessings that this sorry episode will lead to one thing - an end to the bizarre parochial notion of Scottish Independence from the rest of the UK - we are, and should be and need to be, one nation, each part is dependant on the other.

The Brown Plan has saved us all - it will go down in history as having done so (the US is now also taking his lead). Perhaps his economic astuteness comes naturally - he does come from the same town as Adam Smith - maybe we should call this "The Wealth of Nations Revisited" ?!
50

Walter Ego,

Durness 14/10/2008 08:59:27
These banks are no more Scottish than Alex Salmond in a kilt. They are global enterprises owned (until now) by other global enterprises. We should not be shedding one tear for their demise. Let us save our sympathy for the people (Scottish and non Scottish) who will lose their jobs.
51

Voice of reason,

EDINBURGH 14/10/2008 09:02:06
57 rubbish - America saved the world . Brown got us into this mess in the UK with lies about the state of the economy and voters fell for it .
52

subrosa,

14/10/2008 09:03:23
#6

Nevsky I couldn't have put that better myself.
53

Doh,

14/10/2008 09:11:00


300 years of prudent banking destroyed in 20 years of unregulated greed.

Well done Thatcher and Brown.
54

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 09:13:50
6 Nevski/60 Subrosa
You should not assume that everything is fine with the Irish banks. The share price of them was also taking a hammering last week ant the Irish govt's move has been seen my many as very risky. The Irish Independent newspaper said that Ireland was playing a "very high stakes game of poker"

Also look at tthis quote from Bloomberg

"The perceived risk of a bond default by Ireland surged to a record after the government said it will guarantee the deposits and borrowings of six lenders".
55

Alan B,

14/10/2008 09:21:05
Given the mess Brown has got the economy into he must resign. It is becoming a joke now.

We will suffer a major recession made alot worse due to his incompetence.

If one bank suffers you can blame the management. If the whole sector suffers you blame the whole regulatory framework that allowed this mess to occur.
56

The Strategist,

14/10/2008 09:23:23

If you drive a car off a cliff into the sea you have two choices. Stay in it and drown or kick out the window and get out. There is no third choice...

All Brown has done is take the most obvious choice but lets not forget shall we that it was Brown driving the car in the first place.

57

Alan B,

14/10/2008 09:24:22
#Highland Mist

Brown will go down in history as a bumbling fool.

Noone with any credibility or any economic knowlegde will absolve him of his responsibility in this crisis. It is becoming embarrassing for the uk internationally now to still have Brown bumbling through this mess.
58

OldTom,

14/10/2008 09:25:04
Nevsky # 1

I'm afraid your fairy tale view of Ireland is misplaced...very misplaced.

Their banks were on the verge of collapse a couple of weeks ago and the Irish government bailed them out to the tune of €400 billion. Now if you are prepared to look at things objectively that is €400 billion which the Irish State does not have!!!! And all this from a country whose population is less than 5 million. Just imagine how much debt Ireland is in now. If you can bear it that is!!!

The €400 billion is much much more than the UK has used to bail out the UK banks whose target market is over 60 million. That shows you the scale of Ireland's problems.

Brian Lenihan is making his budget statement today and it is expected to be the harshest in Irish History with thier public deficit running into tens of billions and house prices plummenting. Many developers are going to the wall with umpteen buildings scarring the Dublin skyline unfinished. In other words, the €400 billion has been brought on by greed, arrogance and stupidity on behalf of their banks and the politicians.

It now leaves Ireland with an unfinished infrastructure, a third world health service and a failing education system with no money to pay for it.

At least in Scotland, even though your problem has been compounded by arrogant bankers and London's bitterness, still has a good infrastructure, a damn good health service and a wonderful education system as well as a whole host of companies leading the way with world class R&D

How's that for a portrayal!!!

59

Alan B,

14/10/2008 09:27:38
#OldTom

"How's that for a portrayal!!!"

A dream. Pity we are in the middle of a nighmare.
60

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 09:41:29
I feel that many of the comments by both the media and individuals are indulging in being wise after the event. When RBS and Fred Goodwin were pursuing their aggressive expansion the perceived opinion in Scotland seemed to be that this was a good thing. A company with its HQ in Edinburgh was becoming one of the big players in world banking thus showing how Scotland with its expertise in banking could be a modern world economy.

Now that that aggressive campaign has gone belly up everybody seems to be saying that this is as a result of eschewing the safe traditional and responsible banking practices and also the fault of lax regulation.
61

AJ Fife,

14/10/2008 09:46:46
How come Broon, the "greatest ever Chancellor Britain has ever known", presided over all this. You would have thought with his "safe pair of hands" and his "wise and prudent approach", Broon could have avoided the nationalisation of Scotland's banking system!

Maybe he still is a pretendy Marxist like he was in his student days and it was his cunning plan all along!!

Can't see old 'bushy brows' Darling saving the day either.
62

Southsea,

Edin. 14/10/2008 09:47:21
For 11 years (at least!) there has been a failure of government to monitor an regulate until the point of disaster. Government has been intimately involved throughout, for example, just who recommended Sir Fred for his title – Gordon Brown.

The underlying issue I fear is a perpetual papering over difficult issues for short term perceptions required for elections. Gorgon may have managed to consolidate these debts, there is clearly a vast remaining amount of public debt built over the last decade, the off book PFI stuff etc. Just don't even look at the balance of trade and services over the last decade and what this means.

At some point the music must stop, Browns immediate problem is timing an election before then so that the stains in the fresh wallpaper are not obvious to even the most naively optimistic.
63

Alan B,

14/10/2008 10:04:18
#OldTom

In your dream world slagging of Ireland the reality is.

While Ireland has made mistakes and will suffer in this global downturn over the past 20yrs transformed itself from a poor country to one of the richest in the world. Richer than all the other big countries of europe.

Ireland has transformed in that period its job market giving its citizens are much better standard of living. People that used to leave Ireland for a better life have returned as Ireland was transformed into a hihger wage high skilled economy.

Compare that to scotland. We have grown slowly over the last 30yrs and consideribly slower than Ireland. Our young skill people still have to leave the country to find good jobs. Scotland has many more jobs now than 20yrs ago but most are low paid.

You talk of scotlands infrastructure. What? We have no motorway from Edinburgh south to England. It is not even dual carriage way. We have not complete motorway between or 2 major cities in Glas and Edin. And we do not have a motorway north to Aberdeen. The A9 is not even dual carriage way. Ireland while starting with a poor infrasture as it was a poor country has been investing alot and was transforming its infrasture.

As for the rescue plans of the UK and Ireland. Only time will tell how good they have been. So far Ireland does look to have managed its crisis better than we have. While you look at headline figures of what may if the whole thing came crashing dow. the real figure is what you actually have to pay. ie strong action can tend to avoid the real pain. The Uk has made the same sort of commitment as Ireland but done it in a piece meal manner.

Finally Ireland like the UK have been silly when it came to running up huge debt. Although Ireland was not as irresponsible when it came to public sector deficits. As such both countries will have to pay the price for these economic mistakes.

64

Mallory,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 10:04:29
#22 says...It was also clear that the subprime-mortgage crisis was brought about by too much liquidity, easy credit and inadequate government regulation.

AND WHO WAS RUNNING THE TREASURY DURING THIS TIME?...

and who was overseeing the pummping up of the US sub-prime market in the 1990s as exemplified by the Freddie and Fannie story?

Hint it wasn't the Bush Administration.

65

Nevsky,

Moscow 14/10/2008 10:04:50
Old Tom and George#

The fact remains that Ireland has not invested one penny of taxpayers money in this crisis yet; a guarantee is exactly that and not an injection of cash so your statement that is is costing the 400 billion euros is wrong; no debt has been called in as yet.

Europe has already stated that no institution will be alllowed to fail and this has in effect stregthened Irelands position and as Cowen stated given them a tool box of further measures to deal with any eventualities; their position looks even stronger today!

Ireland's full participation in Europe has virually guaranteed the survival of all of Irelands banking system!

The UK has in the meantime managed to increase public debt to the highest levels ever recorded and has left half of the banking system as a consequence in complete turmoil with the complete demise of the Scottish banking system.

The full consequences of the bailout are not even known as yet with foreign commercial loans having been taken to bail out the UK as the country cold not afford on it's own to access the level of funds required.

The lesson is that the Irish might have played a masterstroke at no expense to their taxpayers while the consequences are a reduction in banking revenue which will dwindle, tax increases, reduced public spending and the government having to borrow even more money to meet it's current obligations.

The lesson is that just about every small country in Europe has performed better than the UK in this crisis and the worst affected next to Iceland will be Scotland..solely as a consequence of being part of the UK.
66

Publius,

London 14/10/2008 10:05:00
The fall of both HBOS and RBS was precipitated by the credit crunch, but the underlying reasons were different.
HBOS fell because it was a mortgage bank - the last of the mortgage banks - just like Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley. HBOS's death warrant was signed when it failed to find buyers for its share offering in the spring and the shares were left with the underwriters.
RBS fell because its top brass are megalomaniacs. They paid far too much for a Dutch bank, they conned their shareholders into buying more shares and they still bankrupted their own company.

This suggests that the remedy in each case shold be different. Unlike others on this board I think that RBS has a brighter future than HBOS. When conditions allow RBS should sell off its American interests, insurance companies, train leasing business and some of its city ventures. It should use the money to pay off the government (by buying back the government's shares) and return to being a modest high street bank.

For HBOS the future is very dark. I'm surprised that LloydsTSB hasn't walked away altogether. The government must be applying a lot of pressure.
LloydsTSB could still walk away. It could raise £5.5 billion without going to the government in the same way that Barclays will raise money.
67

Publius,

London 14/10/2008 10:10:17
#76 Nevsky

You are mistaken. RBS was slain by Scots at its own headquarters in Edinburgh ... just like the Icelandic banks were slain by Icelanders in Reykjavic.
68

Alan B,

14/10/2008 10:10:32
#tommytommy

"The argument for Nationalism is that it is said to offer the people a better standard of living.Control over their economy."

Correct.

Luxembourg, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Iceland, Netherlands,Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland , Belgium

While Scotland has performed poorly the countries I listed above have all performed better than the big EU countries of uk, germany, italy and france with higher gdp per capita ppp. Most have not been as lucky as scotland with oil.

As such we really have to seriously ask
1)why the small countries have done better than the bigger ones in europe.
2)why scotland has done poorly in comparison.

As for this crisis. It really does not matter if you are small or big or independent or not. This crisis is not seriously an argument for independence. This crisis is just about one thing. How well your economy was managed. In many ways you could say that small economies are better managed so are in a better place in this crisis. But we have seen some examples of small countries making big mistakes eg iceland. Big countries are in a slightly better position to bail out big companies.
69

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 14/10/2008 10:10:39
Well I tell you an interesting tale:-

In a meeting a techie suggests a solution to a technical problem that has developed this solution is ignored and rubbished by director with tactical and strategical command and control. A month later during a large fanfare to the company the said director announces the "The Great Plan".

The plan turns out to be the techie solution suggested and rubbished previously.

It is not Browns plan, it's a copy of the nordic banking rescue package used in the early 90's and suggested to be used by the Brown and Darling by none other than the first minister about 6-4 weeks ago.

It's magic.
70

Alan B,

14/10/2008 10:12:09
#76 Nevsky

Good points
71

Nevsky,

Moscow 14/10/2008 10:17:01
78 Publius#

Agreed, as were Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley. The one thing the do have in common is that they failed within the framework of the UK.

The banks are not solely responsible; the regulators, the chancellor, the treasury and the government also have their portion of the blame to share.

Brown even admitted it!
72

Alan B,

14/10/2008 10:20:19
#70 Ugly George

"I feel that many of the comments by both the media and individuals are indulging in being wise after the event. When RBS and Fred Goodwin were pursuing their aggressive expansion the perceived opinion in Scotland seemed to be that this was a good thing. "

When RBS took over Natwest. The only really high profile takeover that most would notice, we were told it was becuase RBS could not survive as it was. It was a similar tail to that of BOS. Both were profitable at the time. Most people would not really know whether they were good deals or not.

The other point is. No one is againist a Scottish business expanding and doing well. However we do expect the government to ensure stability in the banking sector. I do not think anyone seriously thought the banks were being regulated in a way that was high risk to the extent the whole sector was a pack of cards.
73

Alan B,

14/10/2008 10:26:44
#Publius

HBOS fell becuase it was too dependent on the credit markets for finance and then it was going to struggle to renegotiate its loans.

there are 2 underlying problems.

1) the US house markets meant globally banks were exposed and caused a drying up of the credit markets.

2)in the uk our massively inflationary housing market had to be paid for by mortages funded by the credit markets. If we had controlled house price inflation then we would not have the same level of debt. House prices have gone up something like 150% in the last decade. If they had gone up say 25%. then we would have about half the person debt and half the morgage debt. Banks simply could not fund the mortage debt through deposits. As such the whole thing became a vicious cycle.

Controlling house price inflation and controlling the exposure of banks to the credit markets to fund mortages would have meant there was far more stability within the banking sector.

Finally Brown rather than running up huge public sector deficits should have been saving money in the good times. Then we would be in much better situation to deal with this global crisis.
74

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 14/10/2008 10:32:36
I checked up on IFRS and it has been pushed back for another year, so Brown and Darling are keeping the PFI/PPP - Public sector pension provision and Network Rail of the balance sheet.

The fiscal position of the UK is shocking, so Brown and Darling help lit the fire, stoke it, add fuel and then wonder why they have a forest fire!
75

lovina roe,

Perth 14/10/2008 10:33:44
So many good comments have been posted pointing to the role of bankers' greed and incompetence in the collapse of the British economy. Certainly Brown and Darling have brought out a plan to save the banking system but there is no getting away from the fact that, in the full knowledge of what they were doing, Brown presided over 10 years of collusion with the banks' philosophy of indulging in short term selling, so encouraging corporate and individual greed on a breathtaking scale regardless of the long term consequences.
If the senior executives of a "normal" company had bankrupted it and taken money without having the funds to repay it, then they would have been taken to court, found guilty and imprisoned for fraud. Goodwin, Holby and their cohorts will never face the consequences of their actions because, like some politicians, they are above the law. Oh yes. If you have the prime minister in your pocket you're above the law. Indeed they feel pious because they have been "persuaded" to leave without their bonuses which, we are told, they are entitled to by law. Bonuses for what? If, as I have been told, their bonuses reflect the work they did last year then they certainly are not entitled to a penny. Pensions of £500,000? They deserve no pensions. As Evan Owen pointed out they've destroyed the pensions of thousands of ordinary people.

"300 years of banking prudence destroyed by 20 years of unregulated greed." True. And unless the perpetrators of this crime are brought to justice, not just allowed to slip quietly into the wings and allowed to keep their ill gotten gains, then in a couple of years' time the same kind of greedy, ruthless, men and women will re-emerge, take control and the whole cycle will start over again.

We need to stamp on the Goodwins and Holbys, in courts of law, criminilise their methods and never, never, allow people like that to take control again.
76

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 14/10/2008 10:42:55
86

HBOS fell because there was a UK government backed run on it.
77

Mr H 2u,

Embra 14/10/2008 10:44:58
Let's boil it down to two words.

Greed.
Ineptitude.

Hell mend them.
78

Ugly George,

14/10/2008 10:46:29
76 Nevski
"so your statement that is is costing the 400 billion euros is wrong"

You addressed that to me but I did not make the statement. What I said was that the Irish strategy is acknowledged, even in Ireland, as a very high risk startegy. It may work out for them but it may not. Time will tell. It is worth cosidering that only 3 out of 27 EU countries adopted the same appraoch as Ireland. If it was such a good move why didn't the other 24 follow suit. They are obviouisly not prepared to take the risk. Now also consider what has caused the present finacial crisis - it is excessive risk taking by finacial authorities.

Also, your assertion that this has not cost the Irish govt any money is incorrect. Please read what i said in post 62. the markets clearly think that Ireland is taking a big risk as they have pushed up the cost of insuring Irish bonds against default to record levels. The Irish govt is therefore having to pay large amounts tio insure their bonds.
79

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 10:58:17
85 Alan B
"When RBS took over Natwest. The only really high profile takeover that most would notice, we were told it was becuase RBS could not survive as it was."

I can't accept your analysis. Noboby forced RBS into the takeover of NatWest. Also, having done this RBS soon went after ABN Amro in the Netherlands and, in doing so, outbid Barclays who were not prepared to go any higher. RBS did not pursue the expansion as a means to ensure survival. They pusued it as a means of expanding their empire - otherwise they would not have gone after ABN Amro. This is now patently obvious.

"No one is againist a Scottish business expanding and doing well. However we do expect the government to ensure stability in the banking sector"

When RBS was expanding I did not hear any voices in Scotland calling for tougher regulation on them to reduce the risks of these expansions. Now that the RBS policy has gone wrong people are saying, with hindsight, that there should have been tougher regulation on them.

80

bluehead,

edinburgh 14/10/2008 10:59:23
my opinion is that they are going from the frying pan into fire, in the end the whole thing will be even more disastrous than it is at the moment,the recent increases in the cost of living,which everyone knows is far more than the inflationary figure given,and with even more to come, will make it far more harder to pay mortgages,bills of all kind for heating ,transport food and everything else that is needed to live this life,plus,for all the effort put in by brown and his cronies, I still think that millions of people are in for a hard time,brown and darling speak in millions but I think it is because they find it difficult to count up to ten,where the reality of life is.
81

Green,

Dundee 14/10/2008 11:07:27
One other problem about the vast sums sucked up by these guys in salaries and benefits is the tax relief they have been able to have on their pensions fund savings.

If you have no money to put into a private pension fund, you get nothing from the government ie the rest of us.

If you are a low earner you might be able to save something, but you would get tax relief on that sum at lower tax rates.

If you get paid a huge amount, you will but a lot into your own private pensions funds and the government gave you another 40% (top tax band rate) to also put in the fund. You then gambled this through the pension funds on the stock markets, adding to their 'irrational exuberance'. Brown belatedly cut this back a bit. THe rich had a liketime cap on the amount of tax relief , they could get in pension tax relief, wait for it 1.4million pounds, only.

This is one of the causes of the present disaster by making one class of assets subject to an absurdly lax tax regime and the government's money has been lost twice. It wwas lost to the general benfit when it was given to the rich in tax relief in the first place, and its lost doubly if the stocks it was in crash. Note that someone who has had all these high rate tax reliefs is still entitled to the state pension.

People are mentioning New Zealand

20 or more years ago they stopped all this nonsensical giving tax relief to pension fund savings. You pay your NI. If you want to you also save, for anything you want, thats great. The NZ get decent comprehensive state pensions for everyone, They don't hamstring gov tax receipts by giving the richer half of earners huge tax reliefs to save for pensions that only benefit themselves.

It is thought that in Ireland and the UK the amount the gov spends on tax relief for private pension fund savers is the same or higher that the amount it pays on state pensions.
82

Calum10,

14/10/2008 11:09:46
I understand that Scottish Labour MPs were celebrating the demise of the RBOS and HBOS in the Commons bars last night.

Isn't it good to know who your friends are in troubled times.
83

Nevsky,

Moscow 14/10/2008 11:10:22
91 George#

Regardles of how many countries have followed what Ireland have done, the measures they have taken and now having been backed in Europe they look in a far far stronger position today.

As i said before Ireland, being an independent country within Europe has had virtually it's whole banking sector and every bank guaranteed!


The cost of insuring government bonds has risen but this is partly offset by the insurance paid by the Irish banks to cover any default.

So just as a quick comparison:

Ireland;

cost to taxpayer £0
banks lost 0
full guarantee on savings..yes

The UK in comparison and the figures look like a financial mad-house with no idea of estimated cost or potential risk let alone effect this level of foreign borrowing will have on the economy.


The 400 billion comment was directed at Old Tom of course and not you.

84

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 11:16:36
96 Nevski
You have contradicted yourself :

"The cost of insuring government bonds has risen but this is partly offset by the insurance paid by the Irish banks to cover any default."

"cost to taxpayer £0
banks lost 0"

Your first statement says that the cost of the extra insurance is met by both the govt and the banks yet you say subsequently that the govt and banks have not paid or lost anything. How can this be?

85

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 14/10/2008 11:19:46
Calum @ 95 The out and out lies from many quarters the Times and Telegraph et al as well as the Labour unionists is extraordinary.

So because they the Labour unionists couldn't run a bath, they project there failure as being automatic in an independent Scotland.

Right!
86

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 14/10/2008 11:23:04
97 You are having a laugh?
87

Green,

Dundee 14/10/2008 11:23:10
20

Good post
88

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 11:23:19
96 Nevski
There is another point to consider. If the UK banks recover then their share price will rise. The govt would then be able to sell all or part of its holding and make a profit for the taxpayer. I am not saying that this will definitely happen but it might well.

Also the govt will receive dividends from the bans which will also help the taxpayer.

As I said before, you should be welcoming the govt's move. It is very similar to what Norway did in the wake of their banking crisis in 1991. You have always held up Norway as a good economis model but when the UK govt follows the example of Norway you crticise it and say that it should do the same as Irealnd which does not follow the Norwegian example.

Where is the logic in that. The only logic seems to be that whatever the UK govt does is wrong and whatever another country does (when it suits you) is right
89

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 14/10/2008 11:24:50
So 97 a fireman helps start a fire in a house, returns to the firestation, the alarm goes he then goes to the fire with the only hose and says hey look at me I put out the fire!
90

Nevsky,

Moscow 14/10/2008 11:31:15
98 George#

Because as far as i understand the banks are paying the government as an insurance against default..not the taxpayer; but i am not sure what the ratio is.

Again Ireland has lost no banks and the taxpayer is not paying to bail out the banks.

The uk has lost two, part-nationaised three, the Scottish banking sector has been decimated and the taxpayer is facing a the largest bill in the history of the UK.

A lesson for independence or a reason to stay in the union? I don't think the Irish will be rushing back!
91

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 14/10/2008 11:31:47
George I think we are all welcoming the news that the banking and financial sector needs stability, but the major problems have been building up for years and the two men who created the framework, overseen the debt bubble rubbished those would said that this would cause problems in the down cycle hello boom and bust.

Now are the saviours I it takes a lot of prudence to borrow money and add it to your national debt.
92

Steve 'The Nugget' Davis,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 11:32:28
#96 - Nevsky

One point that you have missed out is that the UK government now has more control over how the UK banking industry will operate in the future and has attached a number of conditions to the funding and capital that it has guaranteed/supplied. These controls go far beyond regulation and sit at the heart of the strategy to be implemented by the banks over the coming years.

Ireland, however, has provided carte blanche guarantees without adding to it's control of the banks in any way. This smacks of the Japanese approach to their banking crisis - providing massive financial guarantees without requiring anything in return from the banks. Japan's crisis lasted for around 15 years and only started to recover when conditions were attached to the backing.
93

Sassenach Observer,

Financial capital of the best wee country in the w 14/10/2008 11:32:30
Perhaps people need to look forward rather than indulge in their Brigadoon-like sentimentalities of the past. Let's face up to the facts:

a. These banks weren't particularly Scottish and haven't been for years. In the 70s, BoS was basically Barclays bank with a saltire.

b. Like far too many people, they've been using the never-never to give the impression of being bigger than they actually had any right to be.

c. A lot of it is Brown's fault.

d. A lot of it is the banks' fault.

e. Even more of it is the fault of greedy shareholders - most of whom are institutional i.e. other banks, Standard Life and all the other "pensions" companies etc.

f. Scotland could be a lot worse off - look at Iceland

g. The Irish situation could get very interesting particularly if (when) the Euro implodes. I wouldn't want to keep any money over there

h. It isn't all over yet






94

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 14/10/2008 11:39:24
For those Scots who support independence we hope this prism will highlight to other Scots why running your country is better out of the union.

The fact that Darling has had to borrow money on the government credit card does prove that the union is not a safe haven and is fiscally bankrupt.
95

Zilperhonka,

Ireland 14/10/2008 11:41:59
"Also, your assertion that this has not cost the Irish govt any money is incorrect. Please read what i said in post 62. the markets clearly think that Ireland is taking a big risk as they have pushed up the cost of insuring Irish bonds against default to record levels. The Irish govt is therefore having to pay large amounts tio insure their bonds."

Wrong, the banks will pay for any increased cost of borrowing, in addition a fee for the guarantee will be mentioned of at least 1 billion Euros per year. If things work out all right the taxpayer will profit, i still wish the two years was up however and that the banks didn't need the guarantee...
96

Ghengis McCann,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 11:43:29
So how EXACTLY would an independent Scotland have escaped the follies of global capitalism? Would the first act of King Smug the First have been to declare Scotland a Socialist Republic and order out all foreign capital? Somehow we don't think so. We don't recall Salmond proposing any retrenchment from the free market prior to the wheels falling off the pram. Quite the opposite - he was busily cosying up to big business extolling the money to be made in a largely unfettered independent Scotland.

One thing which has become clear from this whole debacle is that apart from the Gnats' usual bluster, humbug, yah boo politics and holding out the begging bowl to Westminster, the Gnats simply have had no mature alternatives to offer here. The scale of the current problems reveals Salmond and his gang exactly for what they are - Gnat-bites on the very large backside of the global economy.

And no amount of catcalling or sloganising from the usual Braveheart apologists can gloss over their lack of ideas or answers.
97

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 11:43:44
105 Nevski
"Again Ireland has lost no banks and the taxpayer is not paying to bail out the banks".

So far! We do not know what is still to be played out. But you haven't answere my other point. Norway (who you have praised in the past) followed one route in this situation and Ireland another. Now UK is following the Norweian example and Ireland is not. How can Norway and Ireland both be right and the UK be wrong. As I said there is no logic in this.

You seem to be taking the view that, just because Ireland and Norway are small independent countries, whatever they do must be right even when they do the opposite of each other. On the other hand whatever the UK does, just because it is the UK, must be wrong.

98

Sassenach Observer,

busily applying for Fred Goodwin's job 14/10/2008 11:50:54
#109 Hmmm. A rescue package like this would have cost over 10 times as much per head in an independent Scotland. But of course it wouldn't have been needed as an independent Scotland would have been far more responsible as the banks would be controlled from Edinburgh and we would have had a Scottish PM and a Scottish Chancellor to make sure everything was done prudently - doh.....

99

Alan B,

14/10/2008 11:51:16
#92 Ugly George

I think you have misunderstook what i was saying.

You were saying we the public who are complaining now did not complain when RBS went on its expansion plans. what i was getting at most of the public were not necessarily aware of what RBS were doing. I personally did not follow RBS and knew little of what it was doing.

As the time of the Natwest takeover the RBS and the media portrayed it as necessary for RBS for its survival as it was too small. It was not portrayed by the media and RBS as risky expansionism.



100

Alan B,

14/10/2008 11:55:10
#Ugly George

Question for you. Why did the British government let the situation get so bad?

Last year with NR alarm bells must have rung. In the past yr they have done nothing to prevent the current collapse.

If banks were in such desparate need of recapitalisation why were measures not taken much earlier.

The whole thing stinks of Browns dithering.

You act to avoid a meltdown. You do not wait till the meltdown is happening.
101

Alan B,

14/10/2008 11:58:30
#Ugly George

""Again Ireland has lost no banks and the taxpayer is not paying to bail out the banks".

So far! We do not know what is still to be played out"

That is the point. There has been alot of critism of Ireland as a way of trying to justify the union. Most of us do not know if ireland plan is good, bad and how it relates to the specifics of their banking problems. But what we have had is many unionist supporters slag ireland and its management of the crisis as a way of trying to justify both the union and labours mishandling of the crisis.
102

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 14/10/2008 11:58:48
Ghengis there are parts to the financial crises external factors and internal factors not one country can have a great influence in what happens elsewhere on the planet.

The big problem for us in the internal management of the regulation of the banks and credit markets and fiscal management of the public finances.

The banks took bad decisions and terrible risks were ignored, this happend under the regulation tenure of the PM and current chancellor that actively encouraged them to do so as this fuelled the debt bubble that fuelled the economy, this sector was also a tax cash cow.

Ghengis what a lot of folk seem not to realise is that the UK in the brown stuff government is borrowing hugely to cover there existing defecit now they have borrowed more on top of that.

They are using our money as a IOU to their creditors, the current estimate of uk debt is £1.3 trillion.

Oh and your comment about the beggin bowl, this money is Scottish taxpayers money, your money. Do you not want this money to help your country.
103

Huntly loon,

Aberdeenshire 14/10/2008 11:59:15
Just because RBS and HBOS had Scotland in their names and had their boardrooms in Scotland did not make them Scottish. These banks were British if not global banks. They operated prominently in Scotland but they also operated throughout the UK. Had they remained modest in scale and only existed to serve the Scottish market then they might have not needed to be bailed out.

The Clydesdale Bank has not required support as it is run as an offshoot of the National Australia Bank. It did not try to expand into unsustainable fields. Both HBOS and RBS bit off more than they could chew, relying on a property bubble to expand. They were authors of their own misfortune. They dealt in American debt, as did many other banks in many other countries, but that does not excuse their ineptitude.

The Prime Minister cannot hide behind his rescue plan as he was quite happy to allow the credit bubble to finance his New Labour schemes. All western economies are unsound. The US and UK have been paying for two major wars for the last 5 years on the never-never. We were buying cheap Chineses goods with money we did not have.

To claim that independence for Scotland is now shown to be non-viable is mere unionist propaganda. Their glee at the demise of RBS and HBOS is not even concealed now. The collapse of the economy and the banking system appears to them to be a price worth paying to preserve the union.

An independent Scotland will need a banking system, but as can be seen from the Iceland and indeed Ireland cases, it needs to be modest and stick to providing finance for indigenous viable businesses as in the past and not attempt to go on a sending spree fro other banks on leveraged funding.

I think it is too early in this crisis to determine how it will pan out. Two weeks ago we would not have guessed we would be in the position we are in now. The run on Northern Rock seems like ages ago now and what it took to to take it into public ownership looks like small change now. N
104

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 14/10/2008 12:00:58
113 so because Brown and Darling dithered and created this mess, the same would happen in an Independent Scotland?

That's your argument please provide imperical evidence to substaniate your opinion please?
105

Publius,

London 14/10/2008 12:03:28
#83 Nevsky
#85/#86 Alan B

Thanks for your replies to my post. I agree that the government should have put a stop to some of the banks' activities before they became critical. In my opinion the government's fault is not so much lack of regulation as lack of supervision. Before Brown created the present regulatory framework the Bank of England SUPERVISED the commercial banks. It tried to rein in reckless activities before they got out of hand. Good supervision might have prevented reckless lending and reckless borrowing in the wholesale money market. Brown and Darling should be held to account for their financial regime between 1997 and 2008. They should be pushed out of office - but don't hold your breath.
That said, neither poor regulation nor poor supervision exonerates the managment of the banks for their misconduct.
106

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 12:06:39
116 Alan B
"There has been alot of critism of Ireland as a way of trying to justify the union"

I agree - this has been a feature. But there also seems to be a trend among some to support whatever Ireland does as right just because it is a small independent country.

I think all this just illustrates how difficult it is to have a meaningful discussion on the particular merits or otherwise of these issues.
107

Sassenach Observer,

14/10/2008 12:07:37
#115

Not entirely fair on Brown even though he did dither over NR.

If you remember, at that time Goodwin et al were saying they didn't have any problems. To some extent, had Brown tried to act earlier he could have precipitated a collapse in the entire UK financial sector.

Someone I forgot to mention as being partly responsible for the current mess was good old Robert Peston at the BBC whose uncanny ability to predict announcements shortly before the markets opened has not
exactly helped matters. I'm not entirely sure why something hasn't been done to stop the leaks which are clearly coming from people inside the Treasury. Whilst Peston makes it clear he doesn't have any shares and therefore doesn't benefit from his insider knowledge, there is little doubt that others have done.

108

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 14/10/2008 12:07:38
Huntly I think the example of Clydesale is an excellent one the NAB is operating in a more contained and restrictive regulation environment telling is it not.

I think it is telling if you look at the two countries that are suffering the most in the current crises, the UK and US they have had the most unregulated finacial and credit markets.
109

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 14/10/2008 12:09:46
122 I agree on Preston the financial blogs are zinging with disgust at his reporting also there has been talk he has is going to be asked to account for his reports about the TSB/HBOS merger.
110

Publius,

London 14/10/2008 12:12:11
A lof comments on Ireland, Iceland and Norway today. None of these countries has an economic and social structure that resembles Scotland, so the application of a financial regime borrowed from any of them would have different results in Scotland. Neither nationalists nor unionists can say what these results would be. The Arc of Prosperity argument was always silly, but so is the argument that because two large banks have come unstuck only the union can save Scotland's economy.
Essentially the argument for Scotland's independence is one of emotion, not of reason. No-one knows - or can know - whether Scots would be better or worse off in an independent state. Personally, I can't see independence in the near future simply the SNP is very unlikely to win more than half the seats at Holyrood or Westminster.
111

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 12:13:37
115 Alan B
"Question for you. Why did the British government let the situation get so bad?"

As I have said before, I am not going to defend Gordon Brown's handling of the economy. I don't think he has handled it well apart from some aspects between 1997 and 2001. As you know, I feel it has indulged in wreckless public expenditure since then.

The point I was trying to make is that many people in Scotland are now saying that there should be or should have been tighter regulation on the banks.

But they did not seem to be saying this one or two years ago when RBS was progressing on its rapid expansion. at that stage they appeared to welcome this expansion and tighter regulation did not appear to be an issue.
112

Alan B,

14/10/2008 12:14:36
#Publius

"That said, neither poor regulation nor poor supervision exonerates the managment of the banks for their misconduct."

Do not disagree. But we cannot directly control the management of banks. We can directly control government. We vote in government to ensure decent economic management and stability of the economy of which the banking sector is a corner stone.

As such that is why to a large degree i will focus any critisms on the government.

"not so much lack of regulation as lack of supervision"
not quite sure exactly the difference. Other than supervision is probably abit ligher touch.

I think the whole think is abit of a vicious cycle. If it is one bank blame the management if it is all of them then their is something fundamentally wrong.

Could banks really have been aware the credit markets would seize up. Why did they seize up and how could that be prevented? Mgt are under pressure if another mgt of another bank make huge profits doing a certain activity. Using the credit markets probably did not seem like being risky.

Should banks really have said we are not giving mortgages becasue the government have not controlled house price inflation. How long would a mgt have last if they had done that 5yrs ago and all the other banks were reporting huge profits.

In the uk you prvent house price inflation and then people would not have to stretch themselves buying before they are ready. People would not have buy as big as possible thinking they will lose out. People will not try to take advantage of that huge inflation to make quick money. Run a decent pension system and then people would not have to find other routes finance a pension.
113

Alan B,

14/10/2008 12:17:29
#126 Ugly George

Sorry I meant why did Brown not do more in the last yr. Was not meaning over the past decade.

Why could he not have done more to sort out the capitalisation of the banks before the whole thing has come crashing down?

114

Alan B,

14/10/2008 12:24:21
#126 Ugly George

"The point I was trying to make is that many people in Scotland are now saying that there should be or should have been tighter regulation on the banks.

But they did not seem to be saying this one or two years ago when RBS was progressing on its rapid expansion. at that stage they appeared to welcome this expansion and tighter regulation did not appear to be an issue."

1)Most people like me probably had not idea of the business model of RBS.
2)There is nothing wrong with expansionism. Many mergers and takeovers are not done through borrowing or cash but through share swaps. As such that really is not an issue.
3)i have wanted tighter control over lending from banks but that is :
a)tigher control of mortages (that is not about takeovers and mergers)
b)control of house price inflation via tigher regulation on mortgage lending. eg deposits, ratios of debt to income etc. Issues over buy to let lending. Slef certification mortgages.
c)tighter control over the funding of mortages via the credit markets to ensure stability.

Also would be expecting government to regulate to ensure that the credit markets do not dry up and if they do have plans in place. ie why can a bank not just borrow at commercial rates from BOE as it can through the inter banking system.

I would not regulate takeovers per se. Competition rules etc apart.
115

Sassenach Observer,

14/10/2008 12:26:20
#119 - Ah! so you are saying that an independent Scotland would be ruled by Scots with slightly more about them than the clowns currently down in London -even though they were elected by Scottish constituencies.

Empirical (as I think you may find we spell it in England) evidence cannot be produced to support your case or mine, since the concept of an independent Scotland is just that - a concept rather than a reality. All we can do is make certain ceteris paribus assumptions - like the fact that in your version of an independent Scotland, I would be undertaking forced labour at the state shortbread mines whilst you genuine Scots could stroll down a perpetually sunny and tram-free Princes Street, in your tartan finery, free at last from the yoke of English colonial rule and basking in the revenues from the free energy generated entirely from the hot air created by the mass debators of Holyrood.


116

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 14/10/2008 12:32:33
#91

You may not be aware but credit default swaps, the insurance on the bonds, is a completely unregulated market. The Irish government does not pay to insure the bonds. The bondholder may choose to purchase the credit default swaps if they are worried about default. You also don't actually have to have any of the Bonds to buy the credit default swaps. That is how a lot of Hedge Funds have made a packet off this Banking Crisis even though they could not short the shares.
117

Ugly George,

14/10/2008 12:34:36
128 Alan B
That is a fair point and, once again, I am not going to defend Gordon Brown. The warning signs did appear to be there from Northern Rock. I can only assume that he felt that northern Rock was a unique case due to its business model.

Northern Rock did not rely on depositors cash to provide mortgages. It borrowed on the financial markets and then used the money to lend out in mortgages. In that sense it was reall just acting as a "middleman" between some orther financial institution and the mortgage payer. I always thought (sorry - not trying to be wise after the event) that this was a dodgy business model as a middleman can very frequently be easily cut out. Anyway, when the credit crunch started, interbank or libor rates went up and Northern Rock was stuffed.

Now it appears that other banks (in particular HBOS) were engaged in similar practices and these have been more widespread than was thought. In that sense you are probably right. Measures should have been taken after the downfall of Northern Rock to prevent banks being exposed in this way. But nobody (apart from Vince Cable perhaps) seemed to be saying so at the time.
118

Alan B,

14/10/2008 12:36:26
#125 Publius

"The Arc of Prosperity argument was always silly"

Why? The basic argument for the union was scotland could not survive economically outside it. Or atleast we would do much better economically inside.

however what we have found is:
1)scotland has grown at a poor rate over 30rys
2)the countries within the arc of properity have grown a 3.6% a yr over the last decade scotland 2.2% and the uk 2.8%.
3)Luxembourg, Norway, Ireland, Switzerland, Iceland, Netherlands,Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Finland , Belgium
all have higher gdp per capita ppp than the uk, france, germany and italy.

As such the conclusion is the argument that small countries cannot survive is false. Moreover they have actually outpeformed the big ones.

Scotland has to ask.

1)Why have we done so poorly relative to the rest. underperformed the uk who has underperformed all these small european countries. the uk has being doing better than all the other big countries.

2) How long do we give the union before we decide it is not working? The argument that scotland economy is poor becuase 40yrs ago government propped up heavy idustry and did not modernise scotland economically is getting obsolete as the yrs go by and scotland still fails to shine econonomically.

3)Can we reform the union so that scotland can do well inside it? The biggest problem with the unionists are
a)in trying to defent the union they are not addressing why scotland has been failing. It is like an alcoholic you have to admit to the problem
b)so many of the unionist are labour that they end up defending a party that is a disaster.

if the lesson is small countries work and you want scotland to remain in the union, then you really need to devolve and then devolve again. That should start with fiscal autonomy. Devolve the economic tools. Allow and encourage scotland to join the euro while england remains with sterling. (NI could easily end up going down this route.) Devolve competition policy. Allow
119

Alan B,

14/10/2008 12:42:07
#Ugly George

"But nobody (apart from Vince Cable perhaps) seemed to be saying so at the time."

Not saying they were. Not even sure if Cable was saying that. Only Brown and BOE etc would really know the internals of the banks.

Even at the time of the share offers from RBS (12 billion) and HBOS surely then Brown has to ask is it enough. When the loans were going to be renegotiated and how the banks would cover that.

We sit here no really knowing what is going on in advance. And then when it come crashing down all we are left with is asking why the government did not do more.
120

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 12:43:08
132 KampungHighlander
Yes that is true but the effect of the greater perceived risk was to bring down the price of the bonds to give a greater yield. This means that the next issue of bonds will probably have to offer a higher return. The point I was making is that it is a mistake to say that the move was entirely cost free.
121

Alan B,

14/10/2008 12:43:34
#134 cont..

Allow scotland to be a member of the eu on its own right while still a member of the uk union.

For the union really to work and survive unionist have to challenge there own concepts which have turned out false. Admit what they thought would happen has not. And then use that to ensure the scotland can perform.
122

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 14/10/2008 12:44:47
131 interesting post thanks for the spelling check, so all the hot air that this proves that Scotland couldn't be independent is a complete fabrication then.

Funny how it hasn't stopped many on this forum claiming the opposite!
123

Anguished Scot,

Glasgow 14/10/2008 12:48:44
October the 13th 2008 - A very sad day for our nation. The Scottish Government may well be shell shocked and governance of financial services should have been a devolved power! Aye "Hind sight is a wonderful thing".
124

Ecco Warrier,

On the Mound/ well Deacon Brodies 14/10/2008 12:50:46
109# Tormod.
Wake up smell the coffee. Salmond's Flagship policy blown out off the water. READ.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article4938720.ece
125

New Town Resident,

14/10/2008 12:53:17
~96 Nevsky.

Do you believe that the Irish government will not be injecting capital directly into its banks? Why are you so confident about this? What do you know that the market doesn't?

1. The Republic's government are committed to make an injection under the statement issued by the EU Finance Ministers. Actually they asked for a temporary exemption for Ireland and didn't get it - right?

2. Irish bank shares are falling on the assumption the Irish banks will be diluted and restructured. If you are so confident why don't you buy these shares?

3. The Irish press assume there will be an injection - see today's Irish Independent for example. The discussion has moved on to what the associated restructuring will look like.
126

arc of insolvency,

14/10/2008 12:53:47
Yesterday could prove to be the worst day in the SNP's history. Withiout the UK, Scotland's ecconomy would have been in a very dark place yesterday. Its about time the SNP dropped Independence and started to work within the Union.
127

OldTom,

14/10/2008 12:59:33
Nevsky, Alan B

First let me point out that I am strong believer in Scotland secceeding from the Union. I am not a 'N'ationalist but a believer in taking a new direction.

Following Ireland's model is not the answer. Apart from the various differences in overall infrastructure and Scotland's broad approach to Industry, the major difference is that Ireland's success in recent years has been based on the property market (30% of economy). This false economy has been funded in the main by the Irish banks and of course more than the odd corrupt politician. Unfortunately, we in Ireland will now have to bare the brunt of this arrogance. As I said previously this €400 billion pay out will have to be paid for and if you watch the news you will see a horrendous budget statement in the Dail. There is already a massive public deficit and that is about to be increased and that is something most people in Ireland can't afford.

As for this costing Ireland nothing I'm afraid you are either living in cloud cuckoo land or believing the typical blarney coming out of Dublin.

In fact, the headlines in the Irish Times today is saying that on top of the €400 billion bail out, the Irish Government will be purchasing a stake in AIB and BOI!

I'm afraid, as I said earlier, the fairy tale is over. I'm not slagging Ireland off, its just a fact. The Government gave huge tax breaks to developers to build build build and now the country is paying for it.

Sorry, but thems the facts!!
128

Tormod,

Auld Reekie 14/10/2008 13:11:37
140 right so because the unionists in the Times or Telegraph say it is, christ it must be true!! Do me a favour pal.
129

Nevsky,

Moscow 14/10/2008 13:22:52

141 New Town residen#

One quote from the Irish Finance Minsiter should answer all your questions:


'A spokesman for the Department of Finance said there were no plans to buy stakes in the banks or provide further support beyond the €485 billion bank guarantee'
130

Arfur,

14/10/2008 13:25:10
I tell you, is every single newspaper and news program on the Labour payroll?

It is being blasted everywhere that the gov will own 60% of RBS - this is just not the case. They will own £5bn preference shares which the bank will look to pay back as soon as possible and they have UNDERWRITTEN £15bn at 65.5p. This means the shares that are not bought by shareholders and independent investors will be bought by the gov. Now this 65.5p will probably have a discount of say 10% meaning investors and shareholders will have an option price of around 71p. Shares are already creeping up to this price and by the time of the issue will be over this. RBS had a share issue a couple of months ago of which 98% of shareholders paid in and rose £12bn. There will always be shareholders who will buy to keep the bank alive and there will be those that will spot an investment opportunity. But lets say they raise half of what they raised before and got new investors of £2/3bn (Scottish business men that Salmond talked to re HBOS)This leaves £6bn of shares to the gov as well as their £5bn (which will be paid back) giving them a share %age of about 20% which will reduce to 10%. Not the doom and gloom in the papers.

As for the tool Brown who got us into this mess - people are singing his praises for what he has done????? Eh what else was there to do you only have one option and that is give cash for shares, its hardly a brainwave, rest of Europe following his footsteps, ehhh again there is only one option to pick from so its not as if they have gone look what that clever cookie over there has done - the only thing he did was be the first to do it aaaannnddd there is a reason for that - cos we are in more of a mess than them.

I also note that the directors of the Scottish banks are being told to step down but the CE of the English bank is hunky dory.

Brown has also made one other error - lending has to go back to 2007 levels......but safer practise has to be shown???? How do you do
131

Arfur,

14/10/2008 13:27:06
cont -

Brown has also made one other error - lending has to go back to 2007 levels......but safer practise has to be shown???? How do you do that then??? There is 3 realistic options You continue to lend at 100/110% of property value (biggggg no no from the gov) or you reduce lending to say 80% value but increase numbers - only problem with that is that you have to reduce your scorecards to allow more risky customers who have a higher potential to go bad or you reduce to 80%, loaned to same population and miss the target set out in the t and c's of the agreement. Well done Brownie.
132

Arfur,

14/10/2008 13:31:19
#142 arc of insolvency - 'Withiout the UK' we may have had a government that did not incourage us to lend at 110% i.e. getting us into this mess. Note most Euro countries have not been hit as hard as us? Thats cos they dont lend to the idiotic levels that Brown incouraged us to.
133

Nevsky,

Moscow 14/10/2008 13:41:07
143 Old Tom#

Agree that Ireland is not the example to follow although their low corporation tax has been a massive success and could be replicated by Scotland.

Scotland would follow neither Iceland, Norway nor Ireland's nor anyone elses fiscal policy but would of course develop it's own based on the countries strengths and weaknesses.

The question the recent crisis poses is where does Scotland end and where does the union begin; this is the real question for the unionists.

Scotland is in a political union but must have within that union the power to defend and take control of it's own institutions wherever and whenever that needs to be done.

We have quite clearly seen that Ireland, in taking fast and decisive action, has secured it's entire banking sector within the EU with not one penny required fro the taxpayer.

Scotland has proven to be politically and financially impotent and completely at the discretion and the mercy of the British state; Scotland exists within the British state it is not THE British state unless unionists are advocating complete immersion and eradication of the Scottish state and all of the country's institutions.

There is no reason i can see that within the union a seperate solution could be found for the settling of the Scottish and the English banks.

Scotland must have representation at government level on both HBOS (which should be split) and RBS and the direction of both should be steered towards the Scottish and not the UK economy.

Scotland can afford a union whether that be with England or with Europe but it can never afford any union where Scotland has no voice in the future of it's own national institutions!
134

Calum10,

14/10/2008 13:41:21
Q. How much have the Irish, Norwegian, Danish, Swedish and Finnish governments have had to borrow to save their banking system?

A. 0


Q. How much has the UK government had to borrow from the Chinese to save the UK banking system?

A. £50 billion.


Q. Who now has the greatest national debt per head of population - the UK or Iceland?

A. The UK.

We have a lot to thank Gordon Brown for to be largest indebted place in Europe, and in the top 3 worldwide.
135

The Strategist,

14/10/2008 13:45:42
#146 Arfur..

Yep I agree.. I get the feeling all the newspaper editors have been told to support Brown's actions for the "sake of the nation"..


136

The Tin Man,

14/10/2008 13:47:00
The UK has a population roughly similar to Germany, so we should export lots of cars. Also similar to France, so we should rely mostly on nuclear power. Also similar to Italy, so shops should only open for 4.1/2 days a week.
137

The Tin Man,

14/10/2008 13:50:08
We don't even know if an independent Scottish parliament would have a second house, but apparently some posters think we will have a Swedish banking system, Irish taxation, a Finnish welfare system, and a Norwegian oil fund.
138

The Tin Man,

14/10/2008 14:03:33
#143 Nevsky

There are not many Irish banks in Bristol, but there are heaps of branches of HBOS and RBS. Problems for RBS and HBOS are problems for people throughout the UK, so I can't see an independent Scottish government negociating more than 10% of the UK government's shares.
139

The Tin Man,

14/10/2008 14:09:55
#154 Fed up

Because I don't really give two whits about your beloved 'countries'. If Scotland is independent, it's fine by me. If the UK stays the same, thet's also fine by me.

Also, I don't vote for party politics. If the SNP candidate looks like the best of the bunch, I'll vote for him. If the conservative candidate looks like he would do the best job, he gets my vote.
140

The Tin Man,

14/10/2008 14:11:33
#154 Fed up

Thank you for your correction - the UK should only export 75% as many cars as Germany.
141

New Town Resident,

14/10/2008 14:32:42
#145. Clearly that settles it then. Irish bank shares are a real bargain what with all these silly people not believing an Irish Finance minister spokesperson. You buying?

~150. Your 3 questions. regarding Question 3 I think you maybe have made some mistake?

Figures I have seen are UK Governemnt debt £512B, population 60 million. Iceland government debt £100B, population 330K. Hence per person each Icelander owes £170,000 and each UK citizen £8,500. i.e 20 times as much for Iceland compared with the UK.

Interested to know what figures you are using? Tks

142

OldTom,

14/10/2008 14:32:50
Nevsky

Now were getting somewhere. I'll try not to be disparaging but if you had said that in the first place we wouldnt have got into this discussion.

Your eventual line of thought is correct and enlightened and one which we on this thread should be debating rather than the failings of Ireland!

There are plenty of people in Scotland with the confidence and foresight to see their ambitions through.

Scotland now has the opportunity to learn from all the successes and failures of the other small countries and be primed and ready (post referendum) for the negotiations to secceed from the Union.

Got to go back to work now. I've got my band aids ready for all those men standing at the door with a razor blade above their wrists and an open window ready to jump through after watching the shares in AIB and BOI tumble!!

143

Publius,

London 14/10/2008 14:39:25
#134 Alan B
You ask why I called the 'arc of prosperity' argument silly. Here's why.
(1) Ireland, Iceland and Norway have little in common with each other than being small countries in northern Europe. They don't follow the same economic and financial policies and they don't do a lot of their trade with each other. The arc has little meaning beyond geography.
(2) Economic history shows that all European countries - big and small - have gone through periods of rapid economic growth and periods of relative stagnation. The UK had an economic spurt in the 18th and 19th centuries. Germany, France and Italy all had postwar economic miracles and then slowed down.
More recently Ireland rode a Celtic tiger, Norway had an oil boom and Iceland a banking boom. Only Norway is still booming. To take the growth rate of any state for the last ten years and then argue that this will continue indefinitely is ahistorical.
(3) You produce a list of smaller west European states, but you omit Greece and Portugal. Is it because their relatively sluggish growth does not fit your model of small is good?
(4) Of the states on your list only Belgium - or Wallonia, the French-speaking region - resembles Scotland. Like Scotland Wallonia has struggled to move on from coal, steel and heavy industry. Belgium's overall growth figures are the average of stagnation in the French-speaking south and rapid growth in Brussels and the Flemish-speaking north. It could even be argued that Scotland has made a better fist of modernisation than Wallonia.
144

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 14:39:50
149 Nevsky
"Scotland must have representation at government level on both HBOS (which should be split) and RBS and the direction of both should be steered towards the Scottish and not the UK economy."

RBS does as much business under the NatWest label in other parts of the UK than it does in Scotland as RBS. Why should taxpayers from all of the UK bail out RBS just so that it can focus on the Scottish economy?
145

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 15:02:58
163 Fed Up
Publius can obviously speak for himself but I think he was replying to a post by Alan B which had mentioned smaller countries including Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland. These are all countries of approx the same size as Greece and Portugal but Alan B had not included these.

As I said Publius can speak for himself but that seems to be the context.
146

The ex Pat,

14/10/2008 15:52:47
And Brown calls himself a Scot!

He should have his citzenship removed for what he has done.

The mans a bloody disgrace
147

Darien,

Panama 14/10/2008 16:18:50
The Union started with a bust bank, and ends the same way. Three cheers for the banks.
148

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

14/10/2008 16:26:46
I have consistently argued here that this whole affair was not about independence or the union. I still stand by that.

However, in purely political terms I feel that it has somewhat deflated the Nationalist's position. It might not be fair but you can bet your bottom dollar that every time that independence is raised the unionist politicians will shout "Iceland" and scare some voters into voting against a nationalist position. In fact I'm surprised Labour have not got posters out in Glenrothes with "Vote SNP and get an Icelandic bankruptcy".

It might not be the reality but perception is everything. For many voters the perception will be that a small country could not bail itself out whilst a larger one did. That might not seem fair but it is politics. Repeat a lie often enough and enough people will believe the lie.
149

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

14/10/2008 16:30:41
#161 "Ireland, Iceland and Norway have little in common with each other than being small countries in northern Europe. They don't follow the same economic and financial policies"

In the case of Norway and Ireland they have diametrically opposed policies. One is a high tax, huigh public expenditure economy,the other is the opposite.

I have said before that the SNP would shoot themselves in the foot by using the comparisons with other countries. At the end of the day the Scottish economy needs Scottish solutions not Irish or Norwegian solutions.
150

Dougie Welsh,

Halifax 14/10/2008 16:46:52
It's this month's way for Westminster to keep their thumb on "those stupid Scotch folk".

Remember this, when the referendum comes!
151

Rocky Mt. Gal,

Larkspur, CO USA 14/10/2008 16:50:12
The sub-prime mortgage fiasco started under President Clinton and a Democrat majority Congress when they pushed Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac to dramatically increase their loans to low-income people even allowing 100% loan to value and not showing proof of identity or income. Because of these liberal social engineering policies which made no economic sense we were all set up for this catastrophic failure of major financial institutions. Alan Greenspan's (US Fed. Chairman for decades) bares some responsibility for his easy money policies. I am sick to death of the simplistic chant: "It's all President Bush's fault." Find another scapegoat please.
152

New Town Resident,

14/10/2008 17:02:17
~171. heard somebody say that Bush had tried to put a stop to the sub prime binge around 2004 but democrats in congress went on with it. any truth in this or just republican spin?
153

sonofhamish,

edinburgh 14/10/2008 17:03:05
What Darling and Brown engineered was really quite brilliant, the US rescue package had no effect and now its being adopted there as in other places.

In all other respects nu-labour is useless (witness the 42days joke) but this was job done by Gordon.

Even that failed economist Salmon has to admit this was done well.
154

New Town Resident,

14/10/2008 17:05:38
#165. so you would be opposed to an "ever closer (EU) union" then would you?
155

Alan B,

14/10/2008 17:14:15
#Publius

I did not include Greece or Portugual for the same reasons i did not include Slovenia, latvia, lithuenia etc.

I was comparing scotland with other north/western european nations. It is more like with like. Scotland for instance was of a similar wealth to Norway in the 70s. Ireland is a neighouring country who left the union poor but transformed itself.

Eastern european countries and Greece and Portugual who are were the poorest of the old 12 ecc countries are not contries i would want to compare scotland to. In a similar way i did not include Spain as large country as it was also one of the poorest countries and really detracts from any reasonable comparison.

At the end of the day scotland is not some ridiculous economic disaster. It just could and should be doing alot better.

156

JenJen,

West etc 14/10/2008 17:24:17
# 168 " In fact I'm surprised Labour have not got posters out in Glenrothes with "Vote SNP and get an Icelandic bankruptcy"."

I'm not sure this is the case, because I don't think the majority of Scottish voters associate voting SNP with voting for independence.

The polls are just too wide apart with a big majority pro-SNP, and yet independence stagnating on or around a minority one-third of voters.

157

Alan B,

14/10/2008 17:27:12
#161 Publius

1)no one is saying these countries follow the same economic model. That is actually the point of looking at the countries classified as the arc of prosperity and also the others i listed.

The point is they have all done well economically. Scotland has not by comparison.

To find out how well you are doing you have to compare your own performance and that of others. If you are coming up short we have to learn from that.

You also ignore the point of looking at these other small countries is due to the fact that labour and the tories kept going on for yrs and yrs that scotland could not do well as an independent country.

I remember an economics lecturer yrs ago saying scotland was too small to survive and prosper alone. What these small countries have shown is that is completely wrong. There is not reason a small country cannot do well.

2) Sorry that is abit of a daft argument. The whole point is to see how scotland can better perform today and then tommorrow. As such we have to look to see why we have performed so poorly in relative terms. The fact that Britain did well when it conquerer most of the rest of the world is irrelevent. As is the fact that US money underpinned German reconstruction in the 50s when it did so well.

3)As a i said above i am trying to compare like with like and as such am comparing scotlnad to the many northern western european countries.

4)That again is silly as Belgium did not have oil. Off course all the countries have unique differences. Ireland in 70s would have loved to have been in scotland position. But ireland reformed and performed amazingly well. Scotland he not really address its economic problems. For 17 yrs labour blamed the tories. And for a decade labour have done next to nothing.

Problem is i have yet to hear a unionist actually putting an economic argument together for scotland within the union. It is all about no matter how bad we do in the union it will be worse independent. None of
158

JenJen,

14/10/2008 17:27:20
#175

I agree that Ireland appears to have "left poor and got rich" but then it has never been a net contributor to the European Union until very recently indeed (and only then to a tiny extent), and now it's in recession. It has benefited from being the poorest cousin in the EU and Scotland will now never get that chance.

In a way, I think Ireland is really only setting foot on the independent road now.
159

Alan B,

14/10/2008 17:38:19
#The Federalist

"I have said before that the SNP would shoot themselves in the foot by using the comparisons with other countries. At the end of the day the Scottish economy needs Scottish solutions not Irish or Norwegian solutions."

Comparing yourself to other countries is a measure of your own performance. That does not mean that the Scottish economy does not needs Scottish solutions.

All comparing yourself to other countries does is show that small countries have performed very well. It also demostrates our relative failure.

The real question is how can Scotland transform its economic position. The problem at the moment it is British solutions for British problems and that has not addressed Scotland problems.

We need serious debate on economic policies for scotland. But we do not and cannot have one. Why? unionist parties then would have to admit the scottish parliament lacks powers to address scotland problems. They would also have to admit scotland needs as you say yourself scottish solutions to scottish problems.

Ireland has transformed itself party using low corporation tax. that is not an irish idea. That is the generally accepted method of improving an economy. Many others are learning that high taxes on business inhibits economic growth. Can scotland try this no. Why we do not have the powers.

Ireland got the filming of Rob Roy and Braveheart. Why? They gave tax breaks to encourage these films to use Ireland as a location. Scotland could not respond. Better to have tax breaks and have the associated investment than no investment at all.

Even back in the 80s what would have happened if scotland had copied Ireland and had a lower corporation tax for manufacturing. Would it have helped stop the deindustrialisation. Better to try 10% corporation tax on ship building etc than 50% of nothing etc.

there are many things scotland could and should try economically. Some will work. Some will not. But when you do not have the power to eve
160

Alan B,

14/10/2008 17:39:05
cont..

But when you do not have the power to even try you may aswell give up.
161

Alan B,

14/10/2008 17:50:07
#JenJen

Ireland is one of the richest countries in the world. GDP per capita ppp. (5th on the imf ranking in 2007 behind Luxembourg, Norway, Singapore and the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Ireland has done very well for a number of reasons. Low corporation tax is one. Seens as a good location for business English speaking and in the euro zone. While scotland got low paid low skilled international investment ireland got the high skilled stuff. Ireland tourist industry did far better than scotland. It overtook scotland in golf tourism as scotland failed to sell itself and invest properly etc. It even got as i posted about films made their which were about scotland. EU money obviously helped ireland but it did not have any of the oil wealth or the infrastructure that scotland had. But massively out performed us.

Yes it has made mistakes. It has followed the uk and us route down into huge personal debt. That will be painful in putting right.

One other thing about ireland. While poeple talk about the low corporation tax many put ireland transformation down to breaking the link with sterling and joining the erm. We have seen the detrimental effect using sterling has on the scottish economy as interest rates are set to control southern inflation costing as Eddie George the then governor of BOE said "unemployment in the north is a price worth paying to control inflation in the south". While that sound worse than it is. It shows that monetary policy for britain is simply not appropriate for scotland as it has over a prolonged period suffocated our growth.

162

JenJen,

14/10/2008 18:18:43
# Hi Alan B

Yes, the figures you cite are well known, and impressive, but there are some matching stats which are more worrying. For example, the highest level of personal debt in Europe and second highest in the world, and much lower wages than the GDP figures would suggest (wages lying bottom of the richest 10 EU countries in the private sector).

As you'll know, much more worrying is the practise of economic filtering - for example, high corp tax zone parent company sells, say, Coke syrup very cheaply to Ireland, which adds the fizzy water and exports it back to the high tax zone at a vast profit - and this is what really bumps up GDP to the kind of levels we see in the Wiki article.

All fine - but terribly precarious and open to trumping by an even lower rate of corp tax / higher sweeteners / even lower wages elsewhere, especially in Eastern Europe. And many of those "high tech" jobs are anything but - again, it's a filtration trick, assembling rather than manufacturing, and we are of course acutely aware of what happened to Silicon Glen in Scotland.

I wish them well and I have a feeling this is where it all really starts and we get to see if the Celtic Tiger has any legs.
163

Ewan M,

14/10/2008 18:35:21
At last the SNP ecconomic plans showed for what they are, financial madness. No one in there right mind can deny Scotland yesterday could have been staring into the abyss without the UK. Good luck trying to convince any of the undecided otherwise. The SNP have been found out and its time they stopped pursuing Indepedence and start working within the union. 2010 I don't think so.
164

Sassenach Observer,

14/10/2008 18:36:23
#182 Slight contradiction in your argument there. I'm not sure how Ireland following EU monetary policy is more appropriate than Scotland following British monetary policy.

Sadly the thing that actually suffocates Scottish growth is Scotland thinking that the world owes it something. The UK as a whole still suffers from a post-imperial malaise but only Liverpool as England's "self-pity city" gets anywhere near Scotland's hankering for a past which never actually existed.

Given the mess which a Scots dominated Cabinet and two spendthrift "Scottish" banks have managed to inflict on the UK economy, I doubt that anyone really thinks that Scotland is remotely capable of looking after itself. Just give it another 300 years until you've all grown up.
165

Keith Lagden,

14/10/2008 18:40:43
Oh Dear, such a bitch for the banks, what about the businesses they stiffed over the years. Time is a wonderful thing what goes around, comes around.
166

Alan B,

14/10/2008 18:43:39
#Ewan M

How do you work that out.

Brown makes a complete mess of the uk economy and you think that is an argument against independence.

Makes a lot of sense.

you say start working within the union. Problem is it does not work. How long do we keep trying to work within the union before we actuallly come to the conclusion that the union is the problem.
167

Alan B,

14/10/2008 18:53:12
#185 Sassenach

"I'm not sure how Ireland following EU monetary policy is more appropriate than Scotland following British monetary policy."

Scotland and Ireland have different issues but let me explain.

Interest rates within sterling have generally been too high for the scottish economy. No serious economist would doubt that. It is well known. As i posted even the governor of the bank of england who set interest rates has stated that.

Having interest rates that are too high for an economy strangles your economic growth. Basically if you have any understanding about monetary policy you will notice that interest rates are set to target inflation and lowered when inflation is under control to boost economic growth.

Interest rates in the uk are set too high for the north of britain largely because of the high growing south economy which needs inflation restrained. Alot is to do with the housing market.

As such unless a uk government is willing to tackle the structural issues within the uk then sterling is bad for scotland.

Personally i would support joining the euro as any measurement of euro interest rates and comparing them to the needs of scotland economy find that they are much more inline than sterling. It would also mean we would not have currency fluxations against the euro zone, which would encourage international companies to locate in scotland.

Ireland started doing better economically when it cut the link the sterling and had its own currency. To prevent currency fluxations too much it joined the ERM. This successfully helped the irish economy.

Ireland i think stupidly joined the euro when it did as it was growing at far to fast a rate that was completely unsustainable and it should have cooled the economy first. By giving up control of interest rates and not ensure economic integration with the euro zone it has made economic life more difficult. So i think while ireland should have joined the euro its timing was political and not
168

Ewan M,

14/10/2008 18:58:03
Alan B the SNP have been found out with there arc, and no matter how long your replies they won't convince anyone. Good night to you.
169

King Banana,

Edinburgh 14/10/2008 20:23:02
The banks were left, as banks should be, to run themselves with minimal intervention other than that necessary to stop them stealing. It was thought that they would be sensible.

Unfortunately it has been shown often that any system of security which relies on the phrase "Surely no-one would be so stupid as to...." is doomed. People really are that stupid and people really are that greedy.

I don't think the banks should have been propped up. They should have been allowed to fail. Only those with more than £50,000 in their accounts would have lost any money and only the super-rich would have been left crying - exactly the people who should be paying for the mess, not us ordinary people. Why should tax-payers pay for tax-avoiders' greed?
170

Sassenach Observer,

14/10/2008 20:57:08
#190 Because as always things aren't that straightforward. Love them or hate them, its thanks to Brown and Darling that we don't have tens of thousands of Edinburgh bank workers signing on at the Jobcentre this week. Of course, the original problem may well be partly the result of Brown's prudently reckless policies and there is no guarantee how long and how many people will keep their jobs. I'm not happy as a taxpayer either, but things could be a whole lot worse.
171

Rami,

Derry, New Hampshire U.S. 15/10/2008 19:03:18
Well, I will just continue to make my holiday purchases
from "good old Wal-Mart Stores"! Still the best deal
in cities and towns in the U.S. But we do know that
at least 85% of their merchandise is manufactured in
Red China for the World Markets. But as we say in the
"Colonies", "A Dollar Saved, is a Dollar Earned"!
172

Gordon (Honestly),

Brighton England 15/10/2008 20:31:28
Ok, before I start, I am not a Southerner. I filled in the nationlity box in the last UK census as Scottish. (Under where it said "other". Just like any Englishman who did not want to be classed as "British" could!) I just live in Brighton.

We should not forget that the seeds of this collapse were sown almost 30 years ago, with de-regulation, and the free market principles which politicians have worshipped ever since. (Because they beleive it wins elections!)

If economic history tells us anything, it tells us that unregulated capitalism is prone to generate inflationary bubbles as people chase an easy profit without understanding this, that to generate real wealth, work must be done. This is not a puritanical doctrine, but a simple fact.

At different times different things have been the foundation of the bubble, from tulip bulbs, to south sea investments. One thing they have in common though is that in each case, the bubble was inflated by greed, false expectations, and downright falsehood.

In our latest case, the material foundation has been property. The falsehood is that property will always increase in value. Only last night on TV I heard a person representing mortgage lenders repeat the lie. In fact compounding it by claiming that house prices had increased at an average rate of arounf 10% per annum for almost a hundred years, citing this as a reason why things would return to normal soon!

This is palpable nonesense. If this were true, the price of an average home would be close to £21million by now. Worringy no one seemed to notice this, or point out that this surely was in error. So it seems that this was simply accepted as fact.

In fact this has only been true for 30 years or so, and if the rate of increase from 1908 to 1978 of a little over 3% had continued, we would have be looking at a house price of £50,000 to £100,000. (Allowing a reasonable margin for error.)

This calculation would also place an average home in 1978 at around £
173

Vaward,

Perth 18/10/2008 04:57:33
#1

How is a tiny country like Ireland better off when its entire economy is reliant on outside influences? The celtic tiger being a rich country is a TOTAL myth! Take out those foreign companies(British and American) falsely boosting GDP and what are you left with? Same goes for Luxembourg - take out the German, French and Dutch companies ... Furthermore, how can the UK with a $3 trillion economy be classified as a small country?

Some delusional dreamers here, that's for sure.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
 


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.