Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Arguments surface in two capitals over leaders' reaction to takeover

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

Published Date: 19 September 2008
By HAMISH MACDONELL
IN POLITICAL terms, the aftermath of the takeover of HBOS was very much a tale of two cities.


In Edinburgh, Alex Salmond twice hailed the unity of the Scottish Parliament as all parties came together in the common cause of defending Scottish jobs and interest.

In London, however, Gordon Brown was under pressure from both sides of the
Border for his role in brokering the takeover.

While the Prime Minister had hoped his intervention would be seen as a positive move, in England he was accused of intervening to protect jobs in his own part of the country, while in Scotland he was painted as having aided the death of a national institution.

Meanwhile, in Scotland, following the rare display of unity at First Minister's questions yesterday, party politics began to bubble to the surface.

A source close to the First Minister argued that, given the speedy way the European Central Bank intervened to pump money into the system, Scotland would have been better off under a European regime than under the UK government.

This was derided, though, by Andy Kerr, Labour's finance spokesman. He said: "Here we have a Scottish institution taken over by a UK institution.

"We have the ability to argue for the retention of headquarters' functions and for Scottish business because we are part of the UK."

He added: "If Scotland was independent, this would be a takeover by another foreign bank. We would have little leeway in arguing against it."

"They couldn't have done anything in an independent Scotland to prevent this."

There was also a dispute over the First Minister's interpretation of the takeover, in which he portrayed HBOS as an exemplary financial institution that was preyed on by unscrupulous speculators.

A source close to Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, described this version of events as "complete nonsense", claiming that HBOS had become vulnerable because of the way it had used the money markets to finance mortgages.

The source said HBOS had been struggling and the Lloyds TSB takeover was the best possible option.

The alternative would have been a ruinous run on the bank.

Mr Brown's spokesman said: "The Prime Minister did not lobby on issues of jobs relating to any part of the UK. These are decisions taken by Lloyds."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 19 September 2008 12:00 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Halifax Bank of Scotland
 
1

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 19/09/2008 00:25:29
Andy Kerr said: "They couldn't have done anything in an independent Scotland to prevent this."

Not strictly true, of course. Russia and America have moved to stop speculative buying. It's feasible that an independent Scotland could have done the same. Instead, we have a merger that will cost jobs in Scotland. And when a bank in America is taken over in a merger no-one doubts that America should be independent.

The attempts by unionists to paper over the cracks by suggesting some kind of union dividend are apalling. This dividend seems to only ever travel in one direction - allegedly, to the benefit of Scotland. The bail out of Northern Rock was not seen as a 'union dividend'. In Scotland we are to watch one of our oldest financial institutions disappear, along with many jobs, but be grateful they haven't gone overseas. Let's face it, whether or not your job went to France, Germany or England is all the same when you've got no job.
2

Brian Hill,

19/09/2008 00:31:20
I have a feeling that Salmond's views will prevail over those of Kerr, Darling et al of the Unionist political/media cabal.

He hasn't put a foot wrong during this crisis, has displayed in depth knowledge of the subject, intelligence, confidence and leadership, all of which has been welcomed by the public and indeed most of the opposition MSPs.



3

Darien,

Panama 19/09/2008 00:32:32
Andy Kerr said: "If Scotland was independent, this would be a takeover by another foreign bank. We would have little leeway in arguing against it." Kerr is a balloon.

Actually, if Salmond was running an independent Government he would have nationalised HBOS and then the HQ, control and jobs would have remained in Scotland, and Scotland could have had its own national bank at relatively low cost (cost equiv to a couple of years oil tax revenue). That represents a major difference between an independent nationalist Gov in Edinburgh with real powers and the UK Gov in London. Scots voters need to think on that. The SNP has a Scotland agenda; Brown does not.
4

jimboo,

fife 19/09/2008 00:32:47
NINJA loans, bad investments in the H department subsidised by the BOS, would not matter so much if Brown had invested in expanding the country's manufacturing base but UK over reliant in financial sector. Wee Ecks proposed tiger economy would have been just as bad. Brown and Salmond live in one dimensional world, it is like a nation's farmers relying on one crop and creating a monoculture, one pest and all is lost. One thing, this can be laid at Browns door, "A bad boy did it and ran away" may have worked with the war but not this. It has nothing to do with parochial politics but unfettered free market policies.
5

jimboo,

Fife 19/09/2008 00:43:42
3# The SNP has a capitalist free market agenda and have abandoned the basic social democratic consensus in support of an 80/20 society which has no place for the poor and disenfranchised. See Bailllieston by election had a 22% turnout. 22% speaks volumes on our belief in democracy. Think SNP may have won as they had the most first preference votes, not sure how the count works.
6

Edward,

19/09/2008 00:43:46
Andy Kerr is actually lying through his teeth on this, or perhaps he is clueless of facts
The European Central Bank is and has made available funds to any European bank that finds itself in difficulty
I’m currently in Portugal, and have seen this shown widely on the news.
The question everyone should be asking is, why Gordon Brown did not use this faculty. Andy Kerr seems to allude that the European Central Bank is just another commercial concern, instead of the Central Bank of the EU
7

Edward,

19/09/2008 00:46:58
There is something strange, when a Prime Mimister has lunch with the head of Lloyds TSB a day or two before the trouble started for HBOS
Another question that should be considered is this, when Northern Rock had trouble, why didnt the UK government have Lloyds TSB take them over?
8

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 19/09/2008 00:55:21
In many real countries (Canada being one) there are strict limits on foreign ownership of banks. If Scots peope were in control of their own destiny, none of this might have happened.
And the London @ssholes who rigged this deal would have been told to take a hike. Or better still rounded up in a takedown by the Scottish constabulary.
Which, I hope, is still an option that Our Alex is contemplating.
Battering ram. Dead of night. Door in splinters in some Home Counties pile. Leg irons in a wee van. Sobbing suits. Back to the scene of the crime in Edinburgh for a little tough love justice - Scottish style. A Bernie Ebbers sentence comes quickly to mind.
9

somerferg,

perth 19/09/2008 01:29:52

Jimboo - please explain HOW,WHERE and WHEN the SNP "abandoned" a social democratic agenda. From where I and many others are looking the SNP have done what they promised since they were elected and continue to work against the distruptive influence of a pro-unionist media and the parasitic Wasteminster government to fight for Scotland and all Scots. More than you could ever say for the Liebour/FibDems or Tory parties ever did. Oh and as far as the recent by-election goes - GET OVER IT YOU LOST!
10

Edwardg,

19/09/2008 01:37:22
7* Edward, the government actually invited Lloyds TSB to rescue Northern Rock. However the deal collapsed when the government refused to provide a £30 billion loan which Lloyds demanded as a condition for the purchase. In other words, Lloyds were happy to buy Northern Rock as long as the tax payer shouldered all the risk. The government was actually heavily criticised for not finding a private buyer for Northern Rock which may explain their haste in the HBOS instance.
11

Edwardg,

19/09/2008 01:54:28
6* As far as I am aware the Bank of England has been pumping money into the markets over the past few days, weeks and months. Indeed, every central bank in the developed world has been doing pretty much the same thing in this respect.

3* I think thats wishful thinking on your part. HBOS, while based in Scotland (its global hq), has most of its business in England. Indeed its operational hq is in Halifax and its primary listing is on the London Stock Exchange. As a result in a hypothetical situation in which Scotland is independent and the same thing happens, the Scottish would have to act in consultation with the government south of the border. Therefore no such drastic action would be possible.

I would also like to ask those who have been expressing their horror at the fact that HBOS have been taken over by an "English Bank" to remember that the reverse happened with the Royal Bank of Scotland. RBS was transformed from a regional bank by buying the much larger "English bank" Natwest.

12

ChinaBear,

Hong Kong 19/09/2008 02:09:32
What a load of one sided rubbish in these comments. Firstly, to campare Scotland with America and Russia in such a crisis is just an insult to the intelligence. A country of 4.5m people being able to react financially the same way as countries with over 300m people and massive natural resources..... Why waste my breath.

Secondly, on the subject of the EU supporting ailing banks, well I didn't see that happen when Northern Rock went down. Again, utter rubbish.

Finally, it's time to sniff the coffee. HBOS has been badly managed. To assume that because it's Scottish and therefore it must be perfect is madness. The main customer base for the group (90%) lives South of the border. The majority of employees are South of the border and the rescue has come, wait for it ....yes South of the border. The same company in fact who rescued Scottish Widows and many Scottish jobs after that particular institution had been badly managed.

It's about time you narrow minded, insecure and twisted lot started to realise that when the chips are down, Mr Fish can do absolutely nothing. He's a completely insignificant player in the business/political landscape when this sort of scale of crisis is reached.

Focus on the facts, it's the UK as a whole and only the UK that can, has and will continue to support Scottish interests.
13

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 19/09/2008 02:42:20
Andy Kerr was a disaster as health minister. He was besotted with PPP/PFI, a fiscal elephant round our necks. My grandchildren will need to pay for this idiot's financial "skills" for years to come. Now he is the shadow finance minister under the new Scottish Labour team. And you think Alistair Darling is a waste of space! Watch this guy in operation! Hide your wallets.
14

Il Penseroso,

19/09/2008 02:47:08
China Bear GB is such a great place I see you have sought refuge from it's excellence by working in Hong Kong.Maybe you work for a GB bank there. Read up your history. It was Scottish banking expertise that made Hong Kong the success it became.
15

karinxxx,

19/09/2008 02:54:04
hmm time for hbos customers to switch to the royal bank of scotland i think.
16

walter,

19/09/2008 03:02:29
Grow up for god sake, America could not stop its 3rd and 4th biggest financial institutes going to the wall and at this time they are trying to prevent the same happening to the 2nd biggest and yous people believe that if Scotland was independent then Salmond would have been able to prevent this from happening to HBOS.
HBOS who have a customer base 4 times the population of Scotland, utter rubbish.
17

the_figures_are _fudged,

Galashiels 19/09/2008 03:57:30
The whole point is , an independent Scotland would not have sat and watched one of its banks go from £10 a share to 88p in the space of a year and taken absolutely no action.

This is what Salmond is accusing Bean and his FSA of.

So now half the mortgages in Scotland have been bought for peanuts by Lloyds TSB, and the country is set to lose thousands of banking jobs too.
18

Richardinho,

19/09/2008 04:06:19
I think in an independent Scotland circumstances would have been so different that it's impossible to say how things might have worked out.
The overall feeling that I am left with however is one of severe helplessness; The sense that Scotland was once again completely powerless to stop one of its most important institutions being laid low.
19

Sierra Foothills Scot,

Diamond Springs 19/09/2008 04:44:30
#12 ChinaBoor -
Did the UK government ask the ECB for support?

Incidentally, Since you insist on being juvenile by renaming Alex Salmond, I have given you a more appropriate name.
20

Boy Wonder,

19/09/2008 06:03:19
Aw this economic talk is giein' me a sair heid!
21

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 06:40:33
16

The fact is Walter the Scottish government didnt have the option whether they could or could not have excersized it. The problem is we will never know now.
But when these things rear their ugly heads wouldnt it be better if we had a Government in place to be in a position to interfere rather than having to rely on a Government who's best interests are served by not running interference?
Now run along Walter as I know you never answer awkward questions anyway.
Are you enjoying your council tax freeze by the way?
4% better of already eh?
22

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 06:42:00
18

Exactly and Scotland has never been anything other than powerless within this so called union.
23

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 06:44:45
12 see 21.
If this happened in China and it was the Japanese governments decision whether to run interference or not how would the Chinese people feel about it if the Japanese let their bank be taken over by a Japanese bank?
24

Eckyboo,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 06:48:20
After `Broon` and his cronies overruled the Competition Commission over the creation of this `Superbank` I think BAA should put two fingers up at the Competition Commission and keep all of the Airports they have been told they must sell.
25

LEAL,

19/09/2008 07:05:24
London Labour are anti Scottish.
26

Mikey,

19/09/2008 07:09:27
#12, ChinaBoor. Your views are neither wanted nor needed. You are a nonentity. Stick to explaining why a bullet in the back of the head is so vital for the Chinese economy!
27

Richardinho,

19/09/2008 08:01:51
#27 What is embarassing is your constant defeatism.
28

,

19/09/2008 08:33:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

BIG EYE,

Paisley 19/09/2008 08:37:55
29

I hope you are taking your pills as your powers of reasoning seem to have abandoned you altogether.
30

Brodric,

19/09/2008 08:37:58
28 - Richardhino - thankyou for coming up with a decent response to No 27 Rulesbutnotrulers. I couldn't think of anything that wasn't insulting.

No 18 Richardhino and No 22 Suchaparcelofrogues - couldn't agree more.
31

Doh,

19/09/2008 08:45:33

The government has already given far too much money to the bankers to cover up for their greed and bad management.

There are rumours that all the bad debt will be nationalised. That really is the last straw.
Private proft and national debt.

This is the end of the road for right wing economic market theories. Thatcher and New Labour have a lot
to answer for.

The banks should remain private.
But really private, they should not be traded on the stock market. Teh stock market doesnt need a bunch of ineffective silly trading - no shorting on Tuesday if there is a full moon.

We need new ideaa. Big ideas. new forms of ownership.

Mutuals, cooperatives, partnerships - not meangingless Labour soundbites about atakeholders.

Labour have passed the last 10 years acting as Tories and we have all paid the price.

32

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 08:58:58
34

Yes and while you have your head down the toilet chucking up we will all miss you terribly on these blogs.
33

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 19/09/2008 09:01:12
#12 "It's about time you narrow minded, insecure and twisted lot started to realise that when the chips are down, Mr Fish can do absolutely nothing."

We know that perfectly well, you dolt. That's why we want the situation changed, by freeing Scotland from the dead hand of Westminster before Brown and his discredited neo-liberals drag us down with the rest of their failed UK.

We know only too well how limited Holyrood's powers are, which is why we want it given all the powers of a full government that most of the world's nations enjoy. Try to keep up.
34

Grumpy,

19/09/2008 09:15:59
My only hope is that Andy Hornby gets his just deserts and gets the boot from HBOS. Took 300 odd years to build Bank of Scotland and only 7 years for The Halifax under his rule to destroy it.

Maybe he should re-apply for a job at Asda - stcking shelves.
35

Edward,

19/09/2008 09:21:33
Its curious that what is coming out now is the ban on Short trading/selling is only going to be TEMPORARY on Alistair Darlings orders!
Why is that idiot only making it Temporary instead or permanently illegal? Once again Brown and Darling fudgeing the issue. By making it temporary, it means they will not be going after the Banks or traders on this. It was curious during an interview that Brown stated that it was Banks that were involved in the Short trading scandal, but wouldnt name them. Well lets try Barclays for a start and also Lloyds TSB
as no english banks were attacked, just Scottish based banks
36

Edward,

19/09/2008 09:23:39
#29 danielrober
Grow up!
37

Alastair the First,

19/09/2008 09:26:07
This whole thing stinks. I suspect that Gordon Brown is linked to all this - has the short selling been orchestrated by his cronies to damage Scotland as an act of revenge and to try to scare people away from seizing our independence? He is a devious wee gobsh1te and I wouldn't trust him an inch. Or should that be 25.4mm?
38

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 09:29:42
The truth is that independence or not this crisis would still have happened.

Whilst a government (UK or Scottish) could have taken some sort of action on short-sellers, it was not short-sellers that brought down HBOS. HBOS was brought down by the greed and incompetence of its own management.
39

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:30:56
41 Alastair
Here we go again - yet another anti-Scottish conspiracy theory.
40

Alan B,

19/09/2008 09:36:51
#danielrober

In your rant about Salmond you seem unware of some of what has been going on. Andrew Neil's politcal program last night was illuminating.

Andrew Neil as you know is an arch unionist. However last night he was singing Salmonds praises as being the only political leader who understood the problems and was ahead of the game. (which wound up Vince Cable as he thought of himself as the only 1 of the 3 big parties that had a clue).

Salmond had been appartently lobbying Brown to do something about short selling. Brown effectively told him to get stuffed. The US now have banned short selling for a period of time and Brown has now followed suit.

Osborne of the tories has been all over the place.

So in truth the only party leader with a clue about the economics of the situation is the only leader who has an economic background.

Where Salmond leads Brown just follows the US who implemented the same policy Salmond had called for and Brown had rejected. A policy that may have saved HBOS.
41

Alan B,

19/09/2008 09:42:53
#The Federalist

It is more than just incompetence of the HBOS management it is the incompetence of the uk labour government.

The uk government should have regulated the banking industry so that it was low risk. Brown changed the regulatory regime and has continued on the dangerous deregualtion path. That has come back and bitten us badly.

Last night a labour mp was blaming the tories for it becuase of the deregulation of the mid 80s. The fact is no bank went bust under the 17yrs of tory rule but 2 have gone to the wall in effect under Browns regualatory regime.

Brown then followed this incompetence by mishandly NR. And like a house of cards once you let the first one fail then the whole thing looks dodgy.

And as i posted above, Brown seems be behind the game in dealing with short selling.
42

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 09:45:44
42

"The truth is that independence or not this crisis would still have happened"

Is this your opinion or do you have undeniable evidence?
43

Hamish Scott,

19/09/2008 09:47:02
#41
That is unfortunately quite possible. It's interesting how varied are the interpretations of Brown's role is in all this. In the English press online forums he is seen as saving Scottish jobs at the expense of English ones. If either of these possibilities are true it could be the end of Brown as PM. The truth will out.
44

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 09:47:22
42

No doubt both of these factors played a part but it couldnt have happened just with incompetant managers or else most banks would have gone under by now so the ultimate factor is down to the speculators not the management.
45

Alan B,

19/09/2008 09:48:55
#46 danielrober

For someone not interested you post in #29 about "LIES from the SNP" in a thread about the dealing with a severe economic crisis.

However it is actually Salmond due the fact he has an economic background that is the only politician (except maybe Cable) that seems to understand what is going on and how to deal with it ahead of time.

Off course their is more to life than politics but this is a thread discussing the economic meltdown of the banking sector and how competent the political parties and government have been in dealing with the crisis.

"I just believe in logical debate and recourse"
it does not seem like it when you start ranting about lies with nothing to back it up.
46

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 09:49:37
43

Yes of course there is no chance anybody in the UK government would perpetrate any act in order to prevent Scotland becomming independent or reducing the chances of it happening thats for sure.
47

Hamish Scott,

19/09/2008 09:52:29
#27
"Once again England comes to Scotland's rescue.
It's the scenario that began with the Act of Union."

No it didn't. The only parallel is that English policy pre-1707 was key in the failure of the Darien scheme just as English policy now was key in the failure of HBOS. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the Union.
48

Hamish Scott,

19/09/2008 09:55:17
#12
"It's about time you narrow minded, insecure and twisted lot."

You've landedon the wrong website, here to help:
www.telegraph.co.uk
49

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:57:34
53 Hamish Scott
So its official then? Anything that goes wrong with a Scottish institution is always the fault of the English. How puerile!
50

morris,

edinburgh 19/09/2008 09:57:54
29

Salmond was a senior economist in the banking sector with RBS Group( which is a giant in banking terms).

Politicians do not know how to run companies better than THERE managers, owners and employees say you.
(it should read THEIR of course).
If the politician in question is the same person ie has been both then your comment is nearly as crazy as you are for making it!
It depends very much upon the individual,and politicians are no different.

Just look at Andy Kerr!
51

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 09:59:17
#39 Short-sellers have been attacking a range of institutions (not just banks) including:

* Barratt Developments (house-builder)
* Persimmon (housebuilder)
* Debenhams
* HMV
* Bradford & Bingley
* Alliance & Leicester
*

Abroad short-sellers have attcaked firmks including:

* Bear Stearns (USA)
* Lehman Brothers (USA)
* Babcock & Brown (Australia)
* Macquarie Group (Australia)
* MBIA (USA)
* Morgan Stanley (USA)

This is not a phenomenon that is confined to one country or one sector. One also has to recognise that there are two types of short-seller. The first group are the longest, most-established - they will short-sell on a company that is genuinely over-priced - a company that has institutional or structural weaknesses. The second type of short-seller are the real bottom feeders - they short-sell then deliberately spread false (but plausible) rumours that a company is in trouble. HBOS have been under attack from both groups not just this week but three times previously. At least one previous attack (in March) was instigated by a false rumour.

The real crime here is not short-selling itself but the spreading of the false rumours. Such rumours may not only lead to a short-term fall in stock prices but also be self-perpetuating. Bear Stearns is a classic example of such a rumour - investors believed the bank was in trouble so withdrew their money - and so it was in trouble.

That all being said, I don't believe that this was the case with HBOS - HBOS clearly did have fundamental weaknesses - it had around £450 billion of credit but only had £250 billion in assets to cover its liabilities.
52

Me, myself and I,

Livingston 19/09/2008 10:02:49
The economies of the USA,UK,Russia,EU and the asian economies are completely intertwined due to the wonders of globalisation which suits us when we want cheap clothes and electronics.

When China has massive currency reserves, like the middle east oil economies they can now pull all the strings. We now dance to their tune after fifty years of consumption and developing a "service" economy.

We make nothing, we sell nothing and we earn nothing. Manufacturing is for the poor countries.

For several months Salmond has been claiming, ironically like Gordon Brown with the UK, that somehow Scotland was immune from the world economy. He's supposed to be an economist.

Historically Scotland always caught the disease after the south east economy. Unemploment, inflation, house price rise/falls several months behind. Always.

We may get hit later but invariably, harder. It suits Salmond to spin the blame on the UK as it suits his ultimate agenda of being the big fish in the little pond. Regardless if the rest of us are floating at the top of the pond.

Pay your debts and save money. Earn a guinea and spend a pound to be a happy man.
53

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 10:07:21
#47 Guess which politcian said this:

"Take financial services. With RBS and HBOS - two of the world's biggest banks - Scotland has global leaders today, tomorrow and for the long-term.

And a growing number of American firms - not least JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and State Street - are discovering that the Scottish financial sector can do anything you can do in London and can do it better and rather importantly in the current environment can do it at lower cost."
54

Hamish Scott,

19/09/2008 10:07:27
#55
"53 Hamish Scott
So its official then? Anything that goes wrong with a Scottish institution is always the fault of the English. How puerile!"

No. Read my post again.
It was a reply to an earlier post where someone claimed the English had rescued us with the Union and HBOS now.
I referred to two things going wrong: the Darien scheme over 300 years ago and HBOS now. I think you'll quite a few things went wrong in the intervening 300 years. And I said English policy (not the English people) played 'a key part'- not the only part.
55

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 10:09:09
#58 The phrase "No man is an island" has never been truer - those who think that somehow Scotland - or the UK for that matter - is somehow immune from the problems of global capitalism are living in cloud-cuckoo land.
56

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:11:31
61

Luckily there is nobody on these blogs that thinks that way then isnt it?
57

Alan B,

19/09/2008 10:12:04
#The Federalist

Not sure what your point is.

"And a growing number of American firms - not least JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley and State Street - are discovering that the Scottish financial sector can do anything you can do in London and can do it better and rather importantly in the current environment can do it at lower cost."

I would imagine that is because of the move for london of JP and MS to employ people in glas. Think there are a variety of reasons for it. From more available skilled labour, to decent performance once offices have been established to sept 11.

58

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:12:34
59

And guess which politician sold one of the banks down the river?
59

Hamish Scott,

19/09/2008 10:12:42
#59
I presume it must have been Alex Salmond or another indepedentista as no unionist would be that positive about anything to do with Scotland.
Given that we have 'lost' HBOS to short selling and that Alex Salmond wanted London to make it illegal and London did nothing Alex Salmod's quote is accurate: "the Scottish financial sector can do anything you can do in London and can do it better"
60

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 10:13:43
44 Alan B
I cannot accept your analysis. Any careful, objective analysis of this whole issue must conclude that the takeover of HBOS did not come about as the result of short selling. Alex Salmond's version of events is totally lacking in credibility. The alleged short selling took place on Monday and Tuesday but the news of the takeover being at an "advanced stage" (jargon for done and dusted) broke on Wednesday morning. Negotiations on a £12bn takeover cannot be set up between two boards and concluded in a few hours especially as a waiver of competition rules had to be sought. These negotiations must have started some time ago.

Also, if as he claims, HBOS is sound but was forced into a takeover on the cheap by unjustified short selling why does another bank come in with a better hostile offer now that short selling has been stopped. And, of course, if this is an unfair takeover the shareholders of HBOS can still reject it particularly as short selling is not now a factor to be considered. On news of the takeover the price of HBOS shares shot up meaning that short sellers would have been caught with an open position and lost a packet. No trader in his right mind short sells a stock if he thinks it may be taken over and no trader would deliberately force down a share price through short selling to a level where the company is vulnerable to a takeover thus resulting in a big loss on a short positiopn.

The more you look at the specific details the more you realise that Alex Salmonds version of events does not make any sense.
61

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:15:06
57

Yes of course and the fact that this happened during a constitutional crises for the government didnt hold any sway at all in spite of having a competition regulation breach and already acting to shore a bank with the same difficulties.
62

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 10:15:40
44 Alan B
Sorry - ist sentence in 2nd paragraph shouls read"why does another bank NOT come in with a better, hostile offer.
63

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:16:18
67

Alex Salmonds "version" of events is shared by many down south how many times do you have to be reminded?
64

morris,

edinburgh 19/09/2008 10:20:48
55
Firstly Westminster government (not England)is being accused,and the two in particular are a Scot (Bean)and a Londoner (Darling)who represents Edinburgh South West.Nobody is blaming England .


I suggest you read 7

What do you suppose Gordon was discussing over lunch?

Clearly it involves Lloyds TSB,so what else have they been involved in lately that would involve the attention of the Prime Minister.If there is an explanation then all they have to do is tell us what it was!
65

Alan B,

19/09/2008 10:21:19
#danielrober

My point was not regarding independence. But the management of this economic crisis. ie no matter whether you agree with independence or not Salmond appears to be well ahead of the game in how to deal with the crisis.

Your post which i came back on #29 was becuase of the bile you were spewing. I notice you have not addressed my point that one of senior political commentators who is an arch unionist was saying Salmond has lobbied Brown to take a course of action and Brown refused but has now followed suit after Bush decides to adopt the very same policy, but only after the collapse of HBOS.

Specifically regarding independence which you ask. The union has been a failure for scotland economically over the past 3 or 4 decades atleast (there is no point in arguing wether it was or was not good a hundered yrs ago). We have seen scotland continue with slow economic growth less than 2% per yr over the last 30yrs and 2.2% over the last decade trailing badly behind the rest of the uk at 2.8% which itself trails behind the group of small european countries which have averaged 3.6%.

If something is failing you deal with it. You do not say we are in a difficult period so we will hang on the the model that has failed us when times were good.
66

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 10:26:27
70 suchaparcelofrogues
If that is the case perhaps you can explain, on their behalf, the glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies I mentioned.
67

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 10:29:24
#51 The problem is that when you look at the wider picture most of the political parties follow much the same economic orthodoxy. Whilst there may be tinkering around the edges and arguments over the finer detail they all support the existing structure as it stands.

More regulation may have prevented short-sellers attacking HBOS but it would not have in all likelyhood dealt with the fundamental structural problems.

What is even more hypocritical is that SNP policy over regulation is itself confused. They cannot tell us whether there would be an independent scottish regulator after independence or if they would remain within the UK regulatory regime:

http://business.scotsman.com/personal-finance/Swinney-bids-to-quell-independence.4124748.jp

'But asked if there could be a unified system of regulation continued after independence, Swinney replied: "That certainly would be one of the options.'




68

Alan B,

19/09/2008 10:32:24
#Ugly George

I think there are a few issues.

HBOS management have run a business model (gearing etc debt to desposit ratio) that we fine until the credit crunch but then has come unstuck.

My personal view is the government should have regulated the banking industry to ensure stability ie credit to deposit ratios etc. Over the last 30 yrs we have seen more and more deregulation. The problem is it has gone too far. Banks are not normal business and underpin the whole economy and as such should not fail. Brown who changed the regulatory regime must take alot of responsibility. We all know business will try to maximise profits with the regulatory rules so it is the regulatory rules that essentially failed us. (the US are just as bad).

With regard to short selling. Yes there was underlying issues with HBOS. But the question is would it have gone bust without the short selling. Could the government have helped HBOS in a better way without waving competition rules and pushing through a merger if the short selling had not happened. Lets face it we do not know. What we do know is short selling pushed the bank to the brink.

If short selling is not a problem why have the US now banned it till Jan. So it is not Salmond alone. The US have also launched criminal investigations into the short selling over their.

Can you tell me why when Salmond asked Brown to do something about short selling he refused. But when Bush has now implemented it the UK is now following suit.

I am not saying dealing with short selling would end all problems. What i am saying is the it appear to have made problems worse, with alot of hints about illegal activity (ie spreading illegal rumours).
69

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 10:34:23
#44 Salmond may well have a clue about the economics but it does not necessarily follow that he and his party have the policies to deal with them.

My own view is that no political party would have had the policies in place to prevent this happening - none of them have ever seriously addressed the issue of personal debt and the credit boom.
70

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:34:39
73

They are only glaring discrepencies and inconsistances in your mind unless you can flesh them out can you?
71

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:36:20
76

Certainly not within the present constitutional restraints and how would it be any better within a Federal scenario?
How would a federal government be able to save the bank?
72

Alan B,

19/09/2008 10:38:02
#Ugly George

My understanding of short selling appears to be different from yours. Is it not when a trader effectively borrows share, sells them, (rumours fly around the share price drops) and then buys them back, and pockets the difference.
73

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 10:41:12
77 suchaparcelofrogues
It is now patently obvious that all you can do is hurl insults and abuse - anybody can do that but you cannot put forward any coherent argument, analysis or evidence to support your assertions and insults.
74

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 10:43:15
#75 The issue of short-sellers hides the deeper-rooted problems of HBOS and simlar financial institutions. I agree more could and should have been done over the issue but is dwarfed by the real problems. Whether regulation would have resolved issues such as over-gearing is another matter - in these matters HBOS was not even a UK firm but an international firm - it would not have taken a financial genius to avoid regulation through the transference of debt to overseas subsidiaries.

Both Salmond and darling have been blinkered in their approach to regualtion - seeing it as a Scottish/UK issue - neither it appears is willing to look at pan-European regulation which may have stopped some of the worst excesses of the industry. In any case, the whole issue is one that cannot be dealt with by one country alone - it needs coordinated international action.
75

Brodric,

19/09/2008 10:48:26
No 38 - Grumpy. He got his just desserts OK - £2 million of shares in Lloyds.

Stacking shelves in Asda would be above his credibility level. He should have to do charitable voluntary work with the poor to see what happens when greed takes over from common sense.

But WHO in their right mind would get a retailer to run a Bank. HBOS' ambition to be one of the biggest fish in the pond contributed in a large part to its demise. And the short-traders finished them off.

The prob is WHO were the short-traders. I still think something stinky is going on given that it was mooted only a few weeks ago that Scottish banks' right to print its own money should be withdrawn for the sake of financial security.

Is it not a wee bit odd that this has happened now. How convenient. HBOS was vulnerable, that is a fact, but were the short-traders connected to those that mooted taking away the right of Scottish banks to print money??
76

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:48:58
80

Yes of course it is George and its just as obvious all you can do is lie.
I prefer my methods.
77

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 10:50:32
81

So how would a Federal government handle the problem? any different from a non Federal government?
Any advantages for a Federal government in this case?
78

Edward,

19/09/2008 10:51:09
Its interesting that Alex Salmond has been calling for a total ban on short trading and made a request to Gordon Brown weeks before the fall of HBOS. But was ignored by Brown
The thing is Alex Salmond is a qualified economist, so knows a thing or two about economics
Brown on the other hand is not and neither is Darling. Now you would think that Brown and Darlin would welcome professional advise, instead of rubbishing it!
(I would loved to have seen the Alex Salmond interview on america's NBC on the subject)
Now Brown and Darling are following the US Fed's example of banning Short trading, but too late to help HBOS and they are only doing it as a temprorary measure
They never learn.
Roll on indpendence and lets be shot of fools like Brown and Darling and there Ilke. At least an Independent Scotland will be fully responsible on its decisions and not rely on the half baked interferance of Westminster
79

Alan B,

19/09/2008 10:52:21
#The Federalist

You may or may not be right about whether the other parties would have managed the economic issues better or not. But what we can do is judge how well Brown has done given that he was the chancellor for a decade.

Brown to me has been poor with the fundamentals.

1)running big budget deficits during good times so that when the global economic turns choppy we are not in a good position to deal with it. figure i saw today shows that the deficit for the month was over 10billion. We are also being taken to task for deliberate fiscal irresponsibility by the EU. Brown set himself golden rules and then proceded to break and fudge them. Apparently with pfi and unfunded public sector pension taken into account the uk debt is now more than 100% of GDP.

While you say all the parties have the same economic philosophy. the tories (atleast under thatcher) were much more about balancing budgets. When they had deficits it tended to be due to economic mismangement whereas brown has just spend far more money than was coming in during a decent economic climate.

2)house price inflation - the government has done nothing to stop this and actually encouraged it in some ways. In my view they should have control the level of mortgage to salary consisten with low house price inflation. Should also look at supply and buy to let.

3)personal debt - this is link to the whole mess with house prices.

4)regulation of the financial sector to ensure stability. Brown changed the regime and then we have seen the collapses since. He should have ensured that we banks had saving to debt ratios that meant we were more risk averse.

Yes the tories might not have been much better, who knows. Independence and this financial crisis are 2 different things and i do not see the point in confusing the 2. I was just pointing out Salmond seemed to be ahead of the game in relation to short selling. And questioned why Brown refused Salmonds request for action regarding this practi
80

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 10:58:12
79 Alan B
That is one feature of short selling but there is much more to it. The FSA have stated that they still see short selling as a "legitimate" process. It is therefore pretty clear that short selling will be reintroduced in the future with different regulations. The same will probably happen in the US.

Short selling is often used to cushion the blows of volatility in the markets. As an example if I own £10000 of shares in BP I think that they may go up in which case I make money. Alternatively, if they go down I lose. What I can do is "short" an amount - say £5000. This means that if the price goes down my losses are reduced. Alternatively, if the price goes up my gain is reduced. I have therefore reduced the level of risk while accepting a lower potential gain.

Many of the investment schemes which guarantee no overall loss and were introduced in response to past failures - endowments etc. Use some short selling and associated hedge funds to reduce risk. That is why the FSA still sees it as a legitimate process and why a total ban is unrealistic as it may well render some of these schemes unviable.

The short selling which took place on Monday/Tuesday involved traders, as you said, borrowing shares in HBOS and selling them at say 160p. If the price went down to 140p they would buy back and make a profit of 20p per share. However when the news of a takeover at 232p was announced the share price shot up to close to this level the traders who were sitting on open positions of sales at 160p had to buy them back at something close to the takeover price of 232p. They, therefore made a loss of approx 70p per share - pretty huge by these standards. Many short sellers must have got their fingers very badly burned.
81

Alan B,

19/09/2008 10:59:20
#The Federalist

"Both Salmond and darling have been blinkered in their approach to regualtion - seeing it as a Scottish/UK issue - neither it appears is willing to look at pan-European regulation which may have stopped some of the worst excesses of the industry."

I am not sure how you can blame Salmond. He has no power over these areas. Neither Salmond or Darling have not made this a scottish vs uk issue. Salmond was lobbying Brown to do something about short selling in advance of the HBOS collapse. That is not a independence/union arguement.

What makes you think Salmond has no views on European regualtion? What we do know is labour have run a lax regulatory regime for the financial sector. In there defence it is what probably makes the city of london the worlds financial capital.
82

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 11:01:28
83 suchaparcelofrogues.
There you go again - just hurling an insult by accusing me of being a liar when, once again, you cannot produce any argument or evidence to support your insults. The points I have made are factual and accurate. But then why should you let a facts interfere with your childish insults.
83

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 19/09/2008 11:14:18
As a result of this episode, the people of Scotland see Salmond for what he is - a political opportunist who puts self and party before country. Disgraceful.
84

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:15:35
89

care to point to any evidence you have produced today to put me to shame?
85

W U Merchant,

Aberdeen 19/09/2008 11:15:48
The merger talks were going on for months. Salmond knew about them. Why didn't he express his concerns earlier? Scotland deserves better.
86

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 11:18:24
83 suchaparcelofrogues
PS
On another Scotsman thread today I detailed how countries in the Eurozone who all use the Euro have the European Central Bank as the instrument for controlling currency and setting interest rates and that consequently could not have national central banks which carry out these functions. This is a commonly known and widely recognised fact by literally millions of people throughout Europe and beyond.

Your total response was "Liar, liar, pants on fire" - a rhyme my children used to use when they were about 4 years old. I will leave it to others to pass judgement on your debating prowess.
87

Ugly George,

edinburgh 19/09/2008 11:20:09
91 suchaparcelofrogues
see post 94.
QED
88

Alan B,

19/09/2008 11:21:57
#W U Merchant

How do you work that out?

What we have seen is the incompetence of the regulatory framework put in place by Brown along with the continuing deregulation of the banks to allow them to take more risk failing badly.

What we have seen is the economy struggling to cope with the huge public sector deficits as Browns has massively overspent during the decent economic type compared to the money he was bringing in.

What we have seen is record personal debt caused mainly by massive and uncontrolled house price inflation under Browns management.

And what do you do blame someone that was responsible for none of that.

What has Salmond done. He called for control round short selling. What happend Brown ignored him. A bank went bust. And now Brown follows Bush to ban short term selling for the next few months.

Anyone with a brain will see Brown is the disaster zone.
89

Alan B,

19/09/2008 11:26:19
#Ugly George

Given your details and informative response to me at #87. I am surprised that your depth of financial knowledge cannot deal with the intellectual argument "Liar, liar, pants on fire" :)
90

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:32:15
97

Come on gie the guy a break he is working to the limit of his capabilities not everybody can reach the heights of barely competant he only requires to get somebody to give him a hand.
91

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:34:49
94

But the point I was making was clear consise and accurate what more was needed?
"Oh what a fibber" perhaps?
92

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 11:36:46
97 Alan B
Thanks - it is reassuring to note that it is possible to have mature and sensible discussions on these issues with someone like yourself
93

Alan B,

19/09/2008 11:37:20
#danielrober

The point i was making was about how the financial sector is regulated. Labour changed the regulatory regime. That regime has failed.

Banks are not normal business and should be run on a more low risk basis. (in the states for instance they regulated to prevent high street banks owning investment banking after the problems in the 30s).

Banks should be regulated to make sure that there is a decent debt to deposit ratio. That is not about stopping banks investing but making sure they are financially secure.

The big problem with a bank is if it lends all it money and then depositors want the cash back it will not have it. With the credit crunch banks will not lend to each other. We need a regulatory framework that takes this into account.

With the demutualisation of building societies so they can take advantage of the financial instruments available to banks meant the whole system is more riskier.

Underpinning all this is irresponsible mortgage lending particularly in the US but also in the UK. In the uk we see the results with massive house price inflation and alot of personal debt.

For me there is nothing wrong with capitalism but like many other things it needs to be properly managed.
94

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 11:41:31
99 suchaparcelofrogues
If you are trying to wind me up into making insulting, abusive comments its not going to work. As far as your claim that your point was "clear, concise and accurate" is concerned others can read post 94 and form their own assessment over the validity and veracity of your claim.
95

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:44:50
102

I certainly hope so.
96

suchaparcelofrogues,

Scotland 19/09/2008 11:46:34
100

About time you made a start then how about something objective and honest for a change?
97

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 19/09/2008 12:04:13
101 Alan B
You are right that the financial services industry needs to be properly managed. The trick is to get the balance right. The UK in general and Scotland in particular have positive trade balances in financial services - ie they are net exporters in the sense that assets belonging to other countries are managed and traded here.

If, as a panic measure, excessive new regulation is introduced it may become too restrictive and cumbersome to conduct these services here and many may go to other countries thus resulting in a worsening of the balance of trade. That is why I and many others have reservations about a total ban on short selling as proposed by Alex Salmond. If funds cannot be managed here with short selling they may well go to be managed in another country which does allow it.
98

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 12:05:48
#88 "What makes you think Salmond has no views on European regulation?"

Salmond may have his own personal views but as far as I am aware pan-European regulation is not one of the options on the table for a post-independence Scotland. As for the UK government Darling has alread specifically ruled out any pan-European approach to regulation:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20071205/ai_n21140350
99

Patrick O'Reilly,

Coatbridge 19/09/2008 12:11:33
92

WUM, of course Salmond knew about the merger talks. That's what makes his antics so nauseating.
100

quepasache,

Caracas 19/09/2008 12:12:35
Hey Scotch gringos! Got rid of the eenglish yet. what you need is a benevolent dictaor like Mister Chavez. He always has the country interests at heart.

But I see that the english banking Sir Victor Blank - such a strange name - surely made up, can I guess his real name no these ees capitalist press...anyway he win Escocia 0 Inglese 1.

These Americans they are liars you know. They throw the worthless dollars at the problem. Tell me you Scotch Wizard postings? Whay so much money? does it mean that everybody in the US and UK defaulted on their montgages. Surely someone is still paying. That would mean that the banks get paid twice. No? It no add up.


101

anony mouse,

19/09/2008 12:15:59
I asked this on a nother post and I am keen to hear an answer.
SNP supporters on here seem to be arguing in part that all this wouldn't have happened because if Scotland had been independent then the Scottish Government would have banned short selling and this woudl have prevented the HBOS crisis.

But HBOS is listed on the London stock exchange? Exactly how would Alex Salmond have banned short selling in the London stock exchange?
102

Alan B,

19/09/2008 12:23:16
#Ugly George

Was Salmond calling for a complete ban or was he calling for regulation or a temporary measure.

The new ban as I understand it is until January. ie a short term measure to deal with the current turbulence.

Is it worthwhile allowing short term selling in shares except banks etc?

I personally think the best way to go is more to regulate the deposits to loans ratios and liquidity etc.

Question: Does it matter if the share price dropped for a period of time. Yes it would matter to the shareholders and normally that could allow it to be taken over. But a low share price is not really the problem. Was it not that they had to renegotiate loans within the next few month. A problem with little inter bank lending.
103

Alan B,

19/09/2008 12:31:15
#anony mouse

As an snp supporter I have not been making points regarding independence.

My points have been about the mismanagment of the regulatory regime by Brown. I would have wanted him to have regulated to ensure stability in the banking sector.

I also think Brown mismanaged the NR mess that held start this whole house of cards. One one bank fails the question is which is next.

On a wider note Brown has mismanaged the economy allowing huge public sector deficits in the good times meaning that we have little room to manouvre in the bad. He has failed to control house price inflation which has lead to much of the irresponsible lending and the huge levels of personal debt.

The argument about Salmond input regarding short selling is the fact that Brown ignored his advice. But has now implemented a ban on short selling for the next period after the collapse of the HBOS, to follow Bushs lead.

The quesiton is not about independence but whether if Brown had followed Salmonds call and implemented the short selling ban a week ago whether the bank would still have collapsed, particularly now that globally alot of liquidity is being pumped into the system.

Independence is a difference issue and economically that is desirable becuase of the underperformance of scotland within the union.
104

Ewan M,

19/09/2008 12:32:24
#12 I have to totally agree with you, I am really worried for my country Scotland. The SNP will try and warp and manipulate everything for their own need. I am not naive this has always happened but never to this unashambable exent.

The really crazy thing is half these nameless people on this forum buy it. Look at this to see how Scotland done out of deal caused by its own management.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article4783792.ece

If your are a patrotic Scot there is no way you you will vote for this SNP rabble. I'm sure there are plenty of blinkered people on here who think otherwise?

105

Doh,

19/09/2008 12:33:37


So one the one hand we have banks lending out money they dont have on deposit to people who cant pay it back. On the otherwe have people selling shares they dont own so as to buy them back later at a cheaper price.

Just as well Thatcher and New Labour regulate the markets or ther tax payer will have to pay bills.

It is a nonsense that doesnt need regulation it needs to be reformed, the stock market should be closed down.

106

Alan B,

19/09/2008 12:34:40
#The Federalist

The uk will rule out EU pan regulation due to the fact that it may damage the city of london. The city is the worlds financial capital partly due to the regulations. The uk government will not want to damage that position.

As Ugly George has posted there is a fine balance of regualating while not damaging an integral part of the economy.
107

anony mouse,

19/09/2008 12:40:35
Could someone of an SNP bent please explain how in an indendent Scotland the Scottish government could ban or regulate in anyway the short selling of shares in a Scottish based company which was listed on the London Stock exchange? Surely this is not possible? So in what way would Scttish independance have made any difference?
108

Sedov,

Scotland 19/09/2008 12:44:31
There is an old Bee Gees song that sums up the empty rhetoric of both Brown and Salmond, both prisoners of the system that they supporting and believe in::

"It's only words and words don't mean a thing" etc

109

Ugly George,

19/09/2008 12:48:56
110 Alan B
As you suggested, I think it is almost inevitable that new regulations limiting loan to asset value ratio will be introduced both here and in the US to prevent situations like Lehman Bros.

As far as reintroducing short selling with tighter regulations goes, this will be more complex. I think that is why they are giving themselves till January to come up with some mechanism.
110

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 12:52:07
#115 Ruling out pan-European regulation of any kind is a mistake in my opinion - Darling seems to have danced to the City's tune over the issue. Whilst co-operation with other European regulators may work it is also more likely to fail as the spivs take advantage of weaker regulation elsewhere.

Darling and others also make the mistake of assuming it is a choice between having a UK regulator or a pan-European regulator. I don't believe that it necessarily comes down to a choice between one or other. It could be perfectly possible to have a UK regulator with some pan-European regulation. The pan-European regulatory body would set the general principles and direction of regulation policy whilst the national regulators would implement the finer detail to meet the spirit of the policy.
111

guenevere,

19/09/2008 13:05:07
113. Ewan,my husband is a scot,he moved to England when he was 18,35 years later with two wonderful daughters (who were brought up with both English and Scottish heritage)he feels the same as you,salmond is nothing more than a sh=t stirrer who blames westminster and England for anything and everything. We visit my mother-in-law in Dundee on a regular basis and you can see the youths of the area with hate in their hearts for anything English,this has only been a problem since Salmond was voted in. If Scotland is not to be destroyed by this man it will take people like you to try and show the folks who salmond has"brain washed" what a bigoted self centred person he is.
112

Edwardg,

19/09/2008 13:09:18
* anony mouse, they couldn't. They would have to ask the government south of border to take action in order for such a ban to be implemented on the London Stock Exchange.They could ban it on Scottish exchanges however, but seeing as the vast majority of shares are traded in London, this would have little impact.
113

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 13:21:33
#121 The truth is that despite what some here might say this is not an argument about independence vs the union.
114

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 14:35:30
#124 Totally agree. The attempts by both nationalists and unionists to turn this sorry debacle into some sort of evidence backing their cause is tawdry indeed.

It just provides further grist to the notion that most of our representatives are just political opportunists.
115

Hamish Scott,

19/09/2008 14:41:12
#125
daniel
Is it not the case that:
1. London could have made short selling illegal before the HBOS takeover;
2. London could veto the 'merger' of HBOS and Lloyds via the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, etc?
116

Alan B,

19/09/2008 14:45:32
#123 danielrober

I do not know how your post relates to anything i have said.


It is the Fed that is arguing for EU pan regulation not me. He said both Darling and Salmond were against it but when challenged in truth we only know that Darling has ruled it out as neither of us knows Salmond position.

"Your justification is not jobs, or pro-EU actions but obsessive actions against London"

I have not specified any preference for EU regulations that is the Fed you have completely misunderstood any post i have made.

"So again what the Alec.S and the SNP are saying is anyone else other than British regulations."

I have no knowledge what regulations the snp are arguing for Salmond has not made that an issue in this crisis.

I am not sure where you are inventing all this from.

As you are refering to my post at #115 it states none of what you are accusing me off.

I said 2 things.

-Darling in the uk for understandably reasons ie city of london being the financial capital of the world, does not want to submit to EU regulations that might damage the city.
-And secondly that there is a fine balance between regualation and damaging the financial sector.

It is you who is making more of an issue in this thread about independence. The essence of my post are to do with the incompetent regulations by labour and the the mismanagement of the situation. To me independence is largely irrelevent in this issue.
117

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 14:49:08
#129 "To me independence is largely irrelevent in this issue."

It's just a pity most other Nats don't see it that way Alan.
118

Alan B,

19/09/2008 14:49:46
#SabreWulf

So do you think the US is wrong to blame short selling and ban it for until January. Open your eyes this is not about the scottish government. This is about how to deal with the financial mess. Yes we will have different opinions.

What we do know is brown ignored salmonds advice. The banks effectively went bust. It may have done so anyway. Brown then followed the US when it has not put a temp ban on short selling.

You are correct short selling is not the underlying cause it is the poor regulations that allowed banks to pursue higher risk strategies than prudently required.
119

Alan B,

19/09/2008 14:54:18
#The Federalist

The only areas where independence could have made any difference to this situation would have been if we had controlled competition policy and not allowed the BOS to be taken over in the first place by Halifax.

However that is abit of a hard argument to make given we were happy enough for RBS to take over Natwest.

But as i say it is really a different issue. The regulations i want to see would largely have to be done in london whether we are independent or not visa via deposit to loans ratio. Or at a pan eu level as you have argued.
120

Alan B,

19/09/2008 15:00:24
#125 danielrober

"Look risks need to be taken all the time. If banks did not make huge risks then there would no new technology. No steam trains, no commercial airlines, no internet. Banks are a normal business, one that produces mixed results. They win, lose, shine, fail and sometimes they merge."

Banks should be low risk businesses. Saving banks not necesarily investment banks. That is why the US regualated to keep them separate after the crash in the 30s.

Banks are not normal businesses. Banks underpin the whole financial system. We need to believe that banks will not go bust.

Banks do not invent nor do any of the things you stated. It is ordinary commercial companies that can take high risks if they want.

What we are talking about is banks lending more than is prudent. I would be surprised if there was not more regulations brought in to try to ensure financial stability particularly round the gearing and liquidity ratios.
121

Alan B,

19/09/2008 15:01:47
#131 should have been

Brown then followed the US when it has now put a temp ban on short selling.

122

LEAL,

19/09/2008 15:17:42
Gordon Brown,
What a clown,
Cast the Bank of Scotland down.
123

The Man Who Knows,

Republic of Perth 19/09/2008 15:30:31
It is clear that Alex Salmond is lying.
124

The Master,

19/09/2008 16:09:32
So, HBOS is an "exemplary institution"!!! This comment from Supernat says a great deal about his narrow nationalistic mindset: anything Scottish is obviously a child that can do no wrong to him.

If he continues to make a fool of himself with such rants, then it can only be tick tock for the surprise "resurgence" of nationalism in early twenty first century Scotland.
125

Miss H,

19/09/2008 16:22:06
130 Not only 'nats'. I have been quite taken aback by the reaction to this. There is a lot of anger out there. The SNP can only gain from this for reasons which may not be logical but nevertheless are compelling.
126

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 16:23:25
#137 The rants by some here just makes me cringe. The takeover was the worst of 3 evils for HBOS. if the takeover had not taken place then it would have meant that HBOS went down the tube ala Lehman Brothers or it would have had to be nationalised at a cost that would have made Northern Rock look like small change. Unlike the NR situation there was a serious bid on the table that HBOS felt they had to accept. In the Northern Rock case the only bid on the table was from Virgin Money which offered no guarantee of taxpayers' monies being repaid but was also seeking additional taxpayers' money to sweeten the deal. Clearly in the Northern Rock case the nationalisation route was the only feasible option.
127

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 16:28:46
#139 Mr H - the Nats have been trying to have it both ways on this by:

a) Claiming that short-selling caused HBOS to merge with LTSB

and

b) Claiming that in fact the merger had been planned for months.

It does not take a genius to work out that a) and b) cannot both be true - but then that is what some here have tried to do.

The sad thing is that this has very little to do with the independence debate and everything to do with political and economic incompetence of a range of participants.

Most anger I have seen outwith this forum has been reserved for the likes of Andy Hornby getting a £2.5 million golden handshake for his part in HBOS's demise.
128

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 16:32:34
#141 I don't believe any politicians come out of this well - and that is not only this country but abroad. Just witness the US where Democrats and Republicans have been more interested in playing the blame game because its election year than dealing with the underlying cuases of the credit crunch.
129

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 16:36:04
141 Sabrewolf#

If you count cancelling holidays to meet with the heads of banks to try and save jobs as 'populist' then i am for it.

What are you talking about?

Perhaps you could point out where Gordon Brown is (hiding as usual and very keen to distance himself from Scotland's jobs in case of an English backlash).



130

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 16:47:09
#145 So what are you here for then?
131

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

19/09/2008 16:55:41
#146 I have not actually come across much in the way of real anger - sadness perhaps but not anger as such. Most people I know and work with recognised that the merger was the only thing that could realistically save HBOS.

The only "anger" I've seen is the crocodile tears and manipulated pap from some moronic nats - the let's blame the union cringe that quite frankly is the biggest heap of cack imaginable - you have more chips on your shoulders than Harry Ramsden's and McCain's put together.

I just wonder where they all were when Halifax swallowed up BOS?
132

antifa,

19/09/2008 16:59:05
"Actually, if Salmond was running an independent Government he would have nationalised HBOS and then the HQ, control and jobs would have remained in Scotland."

Are you Alex Salmond? If not, how can you see into his soul?

Total and utter nonsense, of course. The nationalisation of a UK bank (you seem to be forgetting the 'H' in 'HBOS') by the Scottish government? Thereby taking on liabilities worth several times the country's GDP? Salmond would not - and could not - do anything so insane.

I accept that Salmond himself is doing well in this crisis: saying the right things etc. He's an intelligent guy, but his independence project is now completely dead: people will see that the pillars of the Scottish economy are crumbling, and going it alone would be a risk that most are simply unwilling to take.
133

Miss H,

19/09/2008 17:01:45
149 Well I have. The anger of people who maybe have not had an idea of what financial markets do and how they work and are pretty horrified by what they are reading.
134

antifa,

19/09/2008 17:02:53
"That anger will translate into votes for independence come the referendum, make no mistake."

That would be a completely irrational response to this crisis, but perhaps you're right.

England also looks likely to react in a moronic way by voting in a bunch of Tories that were calling for further financial de-regulation a year ago.

If that happens, I'll take my chances with independence and hope the EU can provide us with some shelter.
135

Hamish Scott,

19/09/2008 17:09:37
#150
"his independence project is now completely dead: people will see that the pillars of the Scottish economy are crumbling."

How can the Scottish economy crumbling IN THE UNION be an argument in favour of it and against independence?

How this would have panned out if Scotland was independent is impossible to say exactly because we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place. An independent Scotland probably wouldn't have allowed the HBOS merger itself. Perhaps the unionists could answer my questions in #127 as danielrober went very quiet after I posted them.
136

New Town Resident,

19/09/2008 17:16:17
#146 & 152. What exactly has changed? BOS was a subsidiary of the Halifax and the top people (Hornby and the Board) were based in London. Now they are a subsidiary of Lloyds and the top people are still based in London, even although Lloyds is actually registered as a Scottish company!

Do you perhaps object to loss of jobs/competition because of another takeover? Fair enough, but then take the trouble to see how its percieved in Halifax and Bristol before you start English bashing. In Halifax and Bristol they seem to think the decision maker (the Chancellor) is an Edinburgh MP and he's been on the radio saying he wants to see Edinburgh jobs protected. So not surprisingly the way they see it is that they are being shafted because the UK government is run by Scots. Funny the way perceptions differ isn't it?
137

Senga Jean,

19/09/2008 17:38:34
If only Scotland were INDEPENDENT we could act as they do in Switzerland. Would that not be wonderful.
138

Richardinho,

19/09/2008 17:38:36
What this event illustrates is how helpless we are in Scotland to do anything about anything. It's not been a nice feeling watching one of our biggest institutions being laid low in this way, by outside forces beyond our control.
I wouldn't like to say how being independent would have made a difference, but I feel even more strongly that I want Scotland to have control over it's own affairs so at least we can at least attempt to control our own destiny,
139

New Town Resident,

19/09/2008 17:54:53
# 158 Interpreted your frequent use of "The British establishment" doing down Scotland, e.g. post 111 to be critical of other parts of the UK - sorry if i misunderstood.

Frankly I wouldn't lose much sleep over senior Edinburgh bankers, a lot of whom aren't even British, let alone Scottish. I had a lot of meetings with another "Scottish bank" last year about them putting some money into our little Scottish engineering company. Had to go to their office in London to meet them. There was a big photo of Edinburgh castle in their lobby and every single one of them was from overseas. Investment banking expertise just moves around and can easily be got back if needed.

The takeover which I would worry about was that between Iberdrola/SP. This is a real loss of control in an industry critical to Scotland's future. Further core jobs will be lost to Scotland when EdF take over BE. How do you feel about these?



140

Marga,

Fife 19/09/2008 18:12:50
I can't believe my eyes:

Mr Brown dixit in another article in this paper:

"We are now working with our international partners about broader intervention we are in a position to take.

"The central banks have joined together to find liquidity for the system. I am talking to president Sarkozy about some of the measures the European Union can take together.

"The Chancellor is talking to the American Treasury Secretary about how we can work together to deal with the problems that we face in the economy."

He added: "Every problem that we have dealt with, we have dealt with in a way that is both decisive and designed to bring that stability into the system. We will continue to have talks with our international colleagues over the course of the next few hours."

I particularly like the pearl that GB is "talking to president Sarkozy about some of the measures the European Union can take together" - please preserve the EU from the midas touch, especially bearing in mind the small fact that the EU has conspicuously failed to lose a single bank so far. The gall of it! And the small fact that nowhere does the name of the Scottish First Minister appear among these people worth talking to.

It's almost as if this bit of bloodletting has released the man from a spell - pity it was the blood of so many of his fellow-citizens and not of big business (again).
141

Marga,

Fife 19/09/2008 18:23:18
Yes, Richardinho, Scotland is too small to count, for Brown and co. it's just collateral damage, the civilian population gets hit while the big boys play games. Sound familiar? When typing that I thought maybe it went too far, but as things stand at the moment it doesn't feel like it.

And all you federalists out there, are you still convinced that Federalism is worth the effort?
142

Marga,

Fife 19/09/2008 18:27:20
SabreWulf,

I am sure you are right, but we haven't so far seen any Europeans, including Sarkozy, queueing up to take advice from Mr Brown. Please correct me if I am wrong.
143

New Town Resident,

19/09/2008 18:28:05
#160. I don't disagree that the BoS was once a key Scottish institution, but I struggle with why you think it is now. Seems to me its about as Scottish as "Scottish Gas". Have a look at their annual reports and accounts. How many of their directors or indeed shareholders are Scottish residents? I think less than 5% in both cases, but thats only a rough stab, happy to be corrected. Sure its Scottish in that the majority of employees are Scottish residents, but then you could say the same about RAF Coastal Command for example? There's only two ways you can protect your company, you either have to keep it private, or form a employee commonwealth and be very careful whom you employ. I voted against Standard Life mutualisation on principle but most Scottish shareholders did not. But I bet you that demutualisation will mean SL is no longer a Scottish company in 10 years time?
144

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 19:51:41
169# Wulf:

Other European nations have been well prepared for this consoliadting thei banin, look at the Swiss, Germans and the French.

UK has been caught, through incompetance, with its pants well and truly down.
145

dave yae fife,

19/09/2008 20:10:18
guenevere,

Why don't you go of to the telegraph and daily mail, they talk your kind of rubish all the time.

146

,

19/09/2008 20:22:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
147

dave yae fife,

19/09/2008 20:35:21
The Spectator,

Sir you talk utter clap trap, are you a mystic that can see into the future. You state as fact what the scottish government would do and could not do. The amswers will come after 2010. Like the rest of us you should wait and see and give us all a rest from your bile.
148

,

19/09/2008 20:46:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
149

,

19/09/2008 21:00:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
150

Highland Property Bubble,

Inverness 19/09/2008 21:02:00
Wee Eck seems oblivious to the fact that Lloyds have basically prevented HBOS from going under as a result of the large exposure that it has to the overinflated UK property market.
He was on the radio today pushing for the headquarters of the new bank to be located in Scotland. The man is living in a land of pure fantasy I'm afraid.
Finally the fact that a politician refers to anyone as a "spiv" is absolutely hilarious.
151

,

19/09/2008 21:12:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
152

lulach mac gille coemgain,

19/09/2008 21:19:32
Talking about the Union - I see that Scotland, Wales, Eire and Northern Ireland are having a wee Football association League next year - where’s the Spirit of Home Unity from Englands FA . . . er . . . well they are to good for a united kingdom of football then eh ?
153

Nevsky,

Moscow 19/09/2008 21:27:17
Spectator:

Perhaps you should take over the running of the country instead of posting drunk raving on the boards.

When has Salmond encouraged people to invest, i believe the Bank of England sets rates and the Banks set the deals..none of which are answerable to the Scottish parliament i believe.

His pension will not be quite as big as the £2 million payoff re bank of Scotland boss...nor as lucrative as Tony's lecture tours though will they?
154

,

19/09/2008 21:35:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
155

Senga Jean,

20/09/2008 00:20:57
I will not be voting for the carpet baggers. Begone you onionist dividenders! STOP THIEF!
156

Calvinist,

20/09/2008 13:45:58

What guff.

HBOS ceased to be a National Scottish Institution several years ago. It was de facto an international capitalist organisation.

Salmond tries to be all things to all Scotsmen and women but he's just an arch capitalist like the rest of them. In fact he's probably worse than Brown and Darling; at least they occasionallytake responsibility for their errors. Salmond wants power without responsibility; it s always the other guy's fault. Now the irony of all this is that Swinney is off to Hong Kong to cosy up to mopre of their big business friends. Has he been asleep for the last few weeks? The deregulated capitalist dream is coming to an end. Where's the vision Alex?
157

roughrider,

Glasgow 20/09/2008 14:25:40
Labour's finance spokesman Andy clueless Kerr ha ha ha.
This clown cant even fill in an expenses form without making a mistake, he tried and failed to get the tax payer to pay for repairs to his garden wall.
Kerr is worse than hopeless to labour but a good asset for the SNP.
Keep up the good work Andy.
ha ha ha ha.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Politics

More Politics >>

More Halifax Bank of Scotland

More Halifax Bank of Scotland >>

Features

Online Supplements
Paperboy Paperboy Customised news
Scottish Business Briefing Scottish Business Briefing ...Sign up today


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.