Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Wednesday, 3rd December 2008 Change Date

The Scotsman Digital Archive - Special Christmas Offer

Premium Article !

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

Options

Premium Article !

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

Subscribe

Registered Article !

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

Scottish banks may be 50% public-owned



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: 10 October 2008
THE Westminster government could own about half of Scotland's two remaining banks under its dramatic rescue plan, analysts claimed last night.
Royal Bank of Scotland is believed to be in line for the lion's share of the potential £25 billion Treasury bail-out to shore up the ailing high-street institutions, while it is thought that HBOS – the subject of a controversial takeover bid by Lloyds TSB – may need £5 billion.

The figures from analysts Sanford C Bernstein were released as the FTSE 100 tumbled again, closing 1.21 per cent down, showing the £500 billion bail-out had done little to restore market confidence. But leading banks made gains. HBOS was up 31.20 per cent to 154p, Lloyds increased 0.83 per cent to 212p and RBS showed gains of 5.84 per cent to 96p

HSBC boosted its finances by £750 million without government help by transferring extra capital from its international parent company, HSBC Holdings, to its UK operations and, as such, has no plans to take part in the rescue plan.

It also said it had lent about £4 billion in long-term funds to other banks – a key to getting markets moving again – in the past three days.

It was still unclear how much of an active role the government will have if any bank takes up its offer of preference shares.

Under the scheme, worth an initial £25 billion with a back-up £25 billion in the coffers, banks need to raise £25 billion to increase their capital ratios.

They can do this by any means they want – including going to their shareholders or the government. Even if they do go to the government, the shares which they sell are unlikely to carry voting rights. They are expected to come in the form of a voucher, which entitles the government to dividend payouts before ordinary shareholders.

Barclays has no plans to recapitalise, but has not revealed how much it plans to raise. However, the bank is known to be planning to tap shareholders for about £3 billion – still in preference shares – and would take up the government offer if that fails.

RBS plans to take up the offer, but it is not known by how much.

Lloyds TSB and HBOS declined to comment on plans to take up the capital injection.

According to the market analysts Sanford C Bernstein, the government may own as much as 30 per cent of the combined value of RBS, Barclays, Lloyds TSB and HBOS.

RBS, at present valued at £16.55 billion, may take £8 billion from the government; HBOS, currently worth £8.5 billion, may take £5 billion and Barclays and Lloyds TSB £2.5 billion.

"The proposed injection leaves the UK banks in a strong solvency position," said Bernstein's Bruno Paulson.

"The downside is, of course, that the capital raising implies dilution, with the government potentially taking 20-30 per cent of the banks."

But he pointed out that the RBS share price plunge over the past fortnight was higher than the potential dilution.

Keith Bowman, an analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: "I think it is possible we could have part-nationalised banks, but I'm sure most of the big players will do their best to not take up the government's hand of assistance." He said the package had generally received a positive reaction and the feeling in the City was that, while it had been a long time coming, it covered the basic elements it should.

In Edinburgh, Bryan Johnston, at Bell Lawrie, said that until the details of the deal emerged, including the level of stewardship the government wanted in the banks, it was hard to judge the package.

But he added: "On balance, I prefer the concept of taxpayers' participation to the American system.

"It was a long time coming, but was quite a successful proposition."

Takeover deal questioned as HBOS shares continue to rally
DOUBTS were raised yesterday over the controversial HBOS-Lloyds deal as shares in HBOS rallied in the wake of the £500 billion government bail-out.

Tavish Scott, the Liberal Democrat leader in Scotland, claimed it was no longer "the only deal in town" and called on Alex Salmond to negotiate to keep HBOS independent. However, the First Minister rejected the calls and hinted that while the bank could have recovered if the measures were announced earlier, it was now too late.

Shares in HBOS rose another 31.2 per cent yesterday to 153.5p, while Lloyds TSB gained just 0.3 per cent to 211.75p. At this price, the Lloyds paper-swap bid values each HBOS share at 153.5p.

The stronger the HBOS share price, the more shareholders may be tempted to reject the formal offer, but Lloyds TSB and HBOS say the bid is proceeding.



The full article contains 808 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 October 2008 11:38 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Credit Crunch
 
1

subrosa,

10/10/2008 00:14:23
# 1

Explain your interpretation of the Norwegian model please. Many thanks.
2

jimboo,

in receivership 10/10/2008 00:19:54
have about 10,000 in debts, can have half of me in public ownership if they want
3

jimboo,

in hope 10/10/2008 00:20:40
and can i have a norwegian model too please.
4

SkeptikScot,

10/10/2008 00:21:02
Why are "Doubts raised over the HBOS/Lloyds merger" whenever the HBOS shares go up AND whenever they go down? It's filling the paper with what is perceived to be a "Scottish" story even when there isn't one. I use quotation marks because how Scottish can you be when the UK government owns half of your shares and god knows who is buying and selling the rest.

How about a nice, safe, old-fashioned Scottish bank (not a mega-corporation) - with a real bank manager and prudent lending policies. Oh, yes - I really don't care what it is called!
5

Rufus T. Firefly,

10/10/2008 00:21:04
#1 is definitely correct. This is a copy of the Norwegian model.
6

famous 15,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 00:44:56
I put my savings into both RBS and Hbos shares for my retiral. I did not receive huge bonuses. If the UK government think they can steal my dividends after I have lost .875 of my savings then they must ponder how I feel. and ponder!!!!
7

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 00:48:17

Re: 1,2,6

Nothing wrong with some "Norwegian Models" I have seen, they tend to be tall, with Gorgeous long hair, and a 'Figure' to die for!

Somewhere out there, your Charles, has Norwegian roots, hence my name, Linskaill.

You can 'Bank' on it, if I still belonged to Norway, I would be Married to one of these Models, and being productive, I dare say, my large family of Children, would be of economic advantage, to the Banks.
8

AVRENIM,

Montvalent 10/10/2008 01:03:06
According to wiki Iceland was settled by Norwegians and Scots.....
9

Edward,

10/10/2008 01:03:59
The total Asset value of RBS is £1,730.7 billion
Cash and balances at central banks are £35.2 billion
Treasury and other eligible bills are £42.7 billion
Total regulatory capital is £ 64.5 Billion

So why does this paper state that the RBS is only worth £16.55 billion and will have to take £ 8 Billion from the government, something doesnt gel here
10

Bring it Off,

UK 10/10/2008 01:08:59
Without an equal in British Political history GORDON BROWN is the most catastrophic, devastating, ruinous, duplicitous, dreadful, harmful and dangerous Prime Minister – (UNELECTED BY THE PEOPLE REMEMBER) that the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland has ever seen, CONGRATULATIONS MR BROWN THE WORST PRIME MINISTER IN BRITSH HISTORY ---- BUT WAIT he isnt finished yet this BUST to BUST PRUDENT CHANCELLOR WHO PRESIDED OVER RECORD GOVERNMENT DEBT WHILST ENCOURAGING RECORD PERSONAL DEBT says he is the man to solve the problems.

COME TO GLENROTHES GORDON I HAVE HALF A DOZEN EGGS WAITING FOR YOU
11

SkeptikScot,

10/10/2008 01:10:06
Maybe it was inevitable but the government now has the banks by the cohones.
12

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 01:11:14


Edward ~10,

Don't be Soo Sensible!

When you Pay your £16k, as a tax-payer, for this venture,....
......... Like-it-or-Not!

NO! Sensible argument we have, will allow you to escape, the cost to you!

Got ta GO!,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>, Thats Miss Norway, at my Door. :-**
13

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 01:13:17

Bring it Off ~12,

Are you "bring them on" clone or sommid,? :))
14

Willie Macleod,

Wick 10/10/2008 01:27:42
#16 No but I do recall and recommend +nut Hamsun.

His "The Wanderer" and "Hunger.

Sorry the censor says I cant say Hamsuns first name!
15

Willie Macleod,

Wick 10/10/2008 01:42:46
#17 The Devils Advocate.
16

Willie Macleod,

Wick 10/10/2008 01:47:21
But there again the"Deils Awa Way The Excise Man"!
17

Willie Macleod,

Wick 10/10/2008 01:48:22
Excise.
18

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 01:57:38


The dead parrot sketch in Monty Python first aired in 1969
Adding to the absurdity was the fact that parrots - being tropical birds - don't come from Scandinavia.
Or do they? For now, in a development putting the sketch in a completely different light, it turns out that the Norwegian Blue did exist.


As did our 'Banks'! :((
19

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 02:02:20

I recon Salmond, would fit into a "Monty Python" Sketch quite nicely! after watching him on TV tonight, not answering questions on, HBOS, or Free School Meals for our Children.

20

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 02:04:20

Every Question was diverted, to one of nonsense!
21

Neil Waugh,

Old Strathcona 10/10/2008 02:30:56
Alex Salmond has no choice in the matter. If the RBS and HBOS now "public" banks then the Scottish parliament and the Scottish administration should have the controlling say in how those shares are voted.
They are Scotland's banks, billions of pounds of Scotish money (through the oil revenue rip-of) are being used to inject the new capital, so they are essentially our banks.
And should be turned over to Scotland at Westminster's earliest convenience.
Or was this Gordon Brown slimey little plot all along to scuttle independence? Just asking.
22

Ugly George,

10/10/2008 05:19:33
25 Neil Waugh
"They are Scotland's banks, billions of pounds of Scotish money (through the oil revenue rip-of) are being used to inject the new capital, so they are essentially our banks."

I cannot understand how people can possibly still make this type of claim. The SNP government's own figures show that (even allocating a "geographical share" of North Sea revenues to Scotland) there was a deficit in the Scottish budget of £2.7bn in the last year for which figures are available (2006/07). Similar analysis shows that there have been deficits in each of the preceding 5 years.

Also both of these banks conduct the majority of their business elsewhere in the UK.

Your claim defies all logic and reason.
23

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 05:43:11
#12 Bring it off
Well, Gordon Brown is the Worst Prime Minister ever?
You must be about 12 years old and your mum shouldn't be letting you use your computer at this time in the morning.
I'm glad Alex Salmond's unrealistic dream of an independent Scotland is failing. His horseracing tips weren't that great either. The oil wealth of Scotland was squandered many,many years ago by Thatcher and now our even bigger asset has gone "belly up".
Alex, face up to facts, you "nosed the favourite" at the post, after a considerable amount of Scots were disenfranchised at the polls.
24

donald,

glasgow 10/10/2008 05:52:23
The Scottish Banks should be 100% publicly owned by an Independent Scottish Government.
25

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 05:56:14
#25 Your Time's Up
26

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 06:02:21
#28 Donald
I didn't think that nationalism and socialism went hand in hand.
27

Rodster,

Glasgow 10/10/2008 06:07:55
Linskaill and Johnnyf,
Can we assume you are two of the Labourites that were punching the air at the Labour party conference when the news of the HBOS difficulties came through?
A despicable bunch of carpetbaggers that revel in anything bad happening to Scotland .
A party that consistently and habitually has put its own interests before that of Scotland .
Shame on you and a plague on your house of war mongering ,lying deceiving traitors.
as to your comment that the Independence bandwagon has been stalled or stopped I would suggest you wait till November 6th then let us hear your comments then .
I feel sure the good folk of Glenrothes have a message for you and all the other Uncle Tom Quisling Westminster apologists.
28

Drum Major,

Brisbane, Australia 10/10/2008 06:08:32
The supposed buying into the banks is in fact a motgage of the country to the banks. That is why congress got so uptight about it.
29

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 06:15:44
#31 Rodster
No sorry,
My first choice was SNP. Just don't like the man at the helm.
30

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 06:19:30
28 Donald
"The Scottish Banks should be 100% publicly owned by an Independent Scottish Government"

What do uou mean by Scottish banks. Both RBS and HBOS conduct the majority of their business elsewhere in the UK.
31

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 06:23:19
Just a wee thought.
When Joe Public goes "illegally" into overdraft, sometimes the banks do it for you. Joe Public is charged £5 per day(or more dependant on youe bank) when you are in overdraft + £25 -£35 for the bounced cheque/direct debit/standing oreder.
Does that then mean thet when the banks borrow from us, and technically are in overdraft, do they pay each and every one of us £5 per day + a fee for being overdrawn in the first place + the other charges.
32

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/10/2008 06:31:02
These 2 Banks ceased to be "Scottish" Banks a long time ago. If they actually broke down their UK revenue by country you would find that they get less than 10% of total revenue from Scotland. Their may still be a lot of Scottish Shareholders but I doubt they make more than 30% of the shareholders.

RBS is an International Bank with global operations. In the US they are Citizens Bank. They own part of Bank of China and they now have a larger global foot print courtesy of their purchase of ABN Amro's international operations. Which includes a network of Branches and a domestic banking license here in Indonesia.

This crisis is Global in nature, the effects on the banks would have been the same whether Scotland was independent or not. So Unionists who try to make some argument about how these banks have done better by Scotland being part of the UK are just showing how utterly ignorant they are.

If anything the exposure to the English Property market has been the fatal flaw in the HBOS model along with relying on short term credit markets to fund long term liabilities.

Despite the supposedly informed opinions of the UK press I do not think you will see RBS gripping the poisoned chalice of selling shares to the UK government. Of all the Banks bar HSBC they have the lowest level of exposure to the English Property market and their US exposure has now become a plus since they will be able to participate in the US funded bailout. Their troubles are more that of bad timing in their ABN Amro purchase.

As they say, only time will tell. The UK is only at the begining of its property slide which is expected to last a couple more years and knock an additional 25% of current house prices. We will have to see how many banks are left standing after that.
33

Angleland Isover,

10/10/2008 06:40:07
As soon as Scotish banks merged with english banks their fate was already sealed.
34

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 06:40:19
I was trying to put a post on the site but had unfortunately put a "banned word" in there somewhere.
Fortunately,#36 kampunghighlander has rendered my argument in much more eloquent language.
Hey, GOOD ON YA SON
35

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 06:46:15
Is there for honest Poverty
That hings his head, an' a' that;
The coward slave-we pass him by,
We dare be poor for a' that!
For a' that, an' a' that.
Our toils obscure an' a' that,
The rank is but the guinea's stamp,
The Man's the gowd for a' that.

What though on hamely fare we dine,
Wear hoddin grey, an' a that;
Gie fools their silks, and knaves their wine;
A Man's a Man for a' that:
For a' that, and a' that,
Their tinsel show, an' a' that;
The honest man, tho' e'er sae poor,
Is king o' men for a' that.

Ye see yon birkie, ca'd a lord,
Wha struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho' hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a coof for a' that:
For a' that, an' a' that,
His ribband, star, an' a' that:
The man o' independent mind
He looks an' laughs at a' that.

A prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an' a' that;
But an honest man's abon his might,
Gude faith, he maunna fa' that!
For a' that, an' a' that,
Their dignities an' a' that;
The pith o' sense, an' pride o' worth,
Are higher rank than a' that.

Then let us pray that come it may,
(As come it will for a' that,)
That Sense and Worth, o'er a' the earth,
Shall bear the gree, an' a' that.
For a' that, an' a' that,
It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.
36

Angleland Isover,

10/10/2008 06:59:04
I prefer bought and sold for english gold.
37

Rob,

10/10/2008 07:03:53
I totally disagree with Skeptic Scot (13). It is the reverse - the banks have the Government by the short and curlies. The last months have seen the Governemnt (and not only ours) pour hundreds of billions into the banking system just to persuade these people to undertake the job they pay themselves so handsomely to do: and still they refuse. Some may call it hanging out for a better deal.

And the talk of restricting bonuses, exec pay etc is arrrant nonsense. When this is sorted they will be moving to Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Doha etc where they will be welcomed with open arms into the lands of super greed. Over the last 6 months these states and others have been extracting a premium of over $70 (and that's a conservative estimate) on each of the 10 billion barrels they have extracted and sold to the world. And where is that money now? What has been put into our banking system via deposits to help their valued customers and allies when they have a problem? You won't need a calculator to work out the answer but super exec jets are pretty cheap right now. Our "allies" in this world help us by buying £20 billion's worth of military jets every 20 years or so. Helps keep them safe, you know. Anyway, you can make your own mind up on the morality of disproportionate wealth.


Forget about HBOS, BOS and RBS - sad, but they have very little do with Scotland and their only interest is maintaining offices north of the border because it's cheaper than in London. These are self proclaimed "global players" - is anyone crazy enough to believe that they view 5 million Scots as even remotely important within their conquer the world vision?

A final thought - when is someone going to ask these local authorities what sort of bonuses their Treasury Departments are on? Banks are not the only institutions where heads should be rolling.
38

Ugly George,

10/10/2008 07:04:29
36 Kampunghighlander
"So Unionists who try to make some argument about how these banks have done better by Scotland being part of the UK are just showing how utterly ignorant they are."

I am not trying to make a unionist/nationalist point here but we have to consider the scale of things. If the article is correct and RBS is to receive the biggest proportion of the equity bail out (as opposed to the funds available for liquidity) then the UK govt may have an investment in RBS in the region of £10bn. As with all investments there is a risk. It might perform well but it might perform badly.

However that risk is effectively spread over 60 million people. If Scotland had to do this on its own the risk would be spread among only 5 million people -effectively investing £2000 in RBS for every person in Scotland. Would it be acceptable to have such a level of risk. What happens if RBS continues to struggle.

39

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 10/10/2008 07:05:17
Is Gordon Brown happy now? Never seen him smile so much.
40

Walter Ego,

Durness 10/10/2008 07:12:04
If Salmond had his wits about him, he'd be pushing for 100% nationalisation of the banks and 100% renationalisation of the public utilities.
41

Rob,

10/10/2008 07:13:25
#44 Salmond probably does have his wits about him- but he also has a brain: which is why he won't.
42

Johnnyf,

Scotland 10/10/2008 07:14:05
#41 Rob
Clap, Clap, Clap. Wonderful speech.
In which constituency are you standing?
I agree with so much you say, perhaps not the last paragraph, which leads me to say "Thank God, the next Baronet of Osborne is not in charge at the moment."
43

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 07:26:50
44 Walter Ego
"If Salmond had his wits about him, he'd be pushing for 100% nationalisation of the banks and 100% renationalisation of the public utilities."

At a cost of how many billions to buy out the shareholders?
44

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 07:29:21
42 George#

You are absolutely right this is what would happen if Scotland was independent and magically still in the union.

You apply the model of an independent Scotland to a bank that has never developed or been subject to the legislation in an independent Scotland..so what is the point?

What you are saying indirectly is that the UK banking sector is deeply flawed in a Scottish context; i agree.
45

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 07:32:00
George#

To take it a little further you state that £10 billion would lead to a £2000 liability for everyone in Scotland and ask if this would be acceptable.

How much is the Westminster solution levying on each head for £250 billion...excluding Bradford and Bingley and Norther Rock..how much were they again?
46

Jingsitsme,

EDINBURGH 10/10/2008 07:33:58
I would like the banks totally nationalised. Then we would see a possible end to the fat cats payouts that push up bank charges and decrease service leaving us feeling they are doing us a favour when they dare take a minute to speak with us!

I'll be very angry if large dividends are paid to those at the top in view of recent happenings.

I rather suspect they will be arrogant to start this blame culture yet again of 'it's no my fault'.

We should have a say now - not alone but together we can achieve change..........
47

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 07:35:33
48 Nevski
I am just illustrating the situation as it is now. I was not offering any conclusions. As you can see, I merely asked if such a situation is acceptable.

As far as speculation of what might have - been well that is another matter. Who knows - it might have been better - it might have been worse.
48

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 07:41:32
49 Nevski
You are confusing two different allocations of cash. The £250bn is to aid short term liquidity - it is not to buy equity in the banks. RBS will get some of this money as well on top of the £10bn or so purchase of its equity.
49

Bridged and tunnelled,

easter 10/10/2008 07:45:09
So if we got independence, and let's say we got 10% of the UK's assets (slightly above our population share), that would mean a foreign Government would own 45% of our main banks, and we would own 5%.

One example of the independence dividend?
50

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 07:45:58
49 Nevski
PS
You can see from the article that the total amount allocated for purchase of equity is only £25bn
51

izzie,

dundee 10/10/2008 07:57:21
#27 Again the issue of the NUMBER NOT AMOUNT of lost votes raises its head we do not know and will never know for which party these were intended therefore it is erroneous to say that the result of the election would have been different.

I am curious to know if this current financial situation will see the UK joining the EURO any opinions?
52

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:08:55
55 George#

The figure initially is that £25 billion is available with a further £25 billion in the coffers and that equals £50 billion.

Then there is the cost of Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley.

These are the basic figures as far as i can see and as Wall Street is falling, Asian markets are falling and the LSE has just plunged 10% in a few minutes...looks like all the banks are failing by as much as 25% already!

Looks like the initial figues will be much much higher George!


53

Bigwull,

edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:12:14
ITS AMAZING HOW A FEW THOUSAND GAMBLERS/SPECULATORS HAVE BROUGHT THE WORLD TO ITS KNEES FRIGHTENING.
It's a prime example of the Private sector good - Public sector bad policies of the last 30 years oh and no 12 obviously you never lived through the Thatcher era then, someone that Scotland never ever voted for.
54

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:12:19
56 izzie
"I am curious to know if this current financial situation will see the UK joining the EURO any opinions?"

Very unlikely. If we had been in the Euro, the govt would not have had its own central bank to control and instruct to make liquidity available for the banks. They would have had to operate through the ECB. I am not saying whethjer that is a good or bad thing - just that I cannot see the govt giving up this power.
55

Greens,

10/10/2008 08:16:01
Why persist in calling them "Scottish" banks? As soon as a company is quoted on the Stock Market it becomes multinational regardless of where its headquarters is. Have heard no mention of The Clydesdale, are Aussies better at operating banks?
56

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:17:12
Personally i think the government has made a massive mistake here, they have mis-timed the intervention and acted alone.

This is all proving to have no impact on the stock shares whatsoever, they really have made a ba**s up of this i think.

Any bets on which bank will be nationalised next?
57

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/10/2008 08:17:29
#44 and #50

Nationalizing the banks would not be a very smart idea.

If you nationalized the banks who would be in charge of running them? Most likely is would the same people who where running the regulation of financial services. These are the people who where so brain dead that they where unable to see this coming despite dire warnings by economists, the IMF and the worlds SuperBank , the Bank of International Settlements.

Do you actually believe that if Government was the sole shareholder that lending decisions would be made with out political interference? I can just see every useless back bench MP lobbying the bank to lend to all sorts of commercially unviable schemes that serve their own narrow political interests.

The banks are guilty of lending recklessly, which has been one of the major causes of the property bubble. But the regulators did nothing to reign this in because Government was enjoying the benefits of this illusionary growth.

Banks are best when they are run along commercial lines. Governments are best when they regulate.

58

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:18:57
60 Greens#

If that was the case then Iceland would not be facing bankruptcy would it?
59

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:19:53
57 Nevski
The money that went to Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley was, once again an injection of liquidity - it was not purchase of the company. Already about half of the injection for Northern Rock is paid back. Both of these were virtually bust so the govt got them for virtually nothing.

Even if the amount for equity purchase does reach £50bn - that is just over £800 per person in the UK but that is also spread between 6 companies. That averages out at about £170 per person per company.

That is entirely different to £2000 per person per company. That is the point I was making about spreading the risk.
60

Wiliam Y,

Kinross 10/10/2008 08:25:27
Over the past 30 years the culture of high st banking has changed from a culture of savings to a culture of loans. Perhaps the two opposing cultures are demanding that there should be a bank for savers and a bank for loaners.

Separate banks would employ specific worker types and perhaps automatically self regulate the que system.
61

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 10/10/2008 08:28:47
Greig, a Scot, is Norway's best known composer. Palin is responsible for the dead parrot sketch that feautred a Norwegian Blue. Put all that into the Norwegian Model and you've got Sarah who plucks Yankee heart strings whilst harpooning bears and shooting whales with a loaded hockey stick called Mom. Hee Haw.
62

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:28:49
57 Nevski
Sorry - correction
That should be 5 companies giving an average of £160/170 assuming the total is a bit over £800 per person.
63

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:29:49
George#

You are again referring to RBS in an independent Scotland and divising the liability. RBS has never operated in an independent Scotland so you just can apply that logic.

Like you said earlier, we have no way of knowing what the situation with them or BOS would have been.

What is absolutely sure is that it is the UK that is responsible for the current situation and not an independent Scotland.
64

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:30:15
69 dividing
65

,

10/10/2008 08:30:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
66

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:30:53
65 William Y
So where would the lending bank get the money for loans?
67

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:31:35
70 Nevski
Correction already made.
68

Boy Wonder,

10/10/2008 08:34:07
When I were a lad ... I remember a socialist Labour Party proudly boasting "We'll nationalise the banks!"

And it seems they've given up their principles now that they're actually doing it ...
69

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:37:56
69 Nevski
I am just illustrating the situation as it might have been. That is all. This might have happened in an independent Scotland or it might not - who knows? But the Irish banks have similar problems and Scottish banks might (or might not) have operated in the same way as Irish banks.
70

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:41:04
sm753#

The talk on the TV is mother Russia coming to the aid of Iceland and how strong Russia is...the usual pseudo-patriotic propoganda.

The loan will almost certainly be agreed but the money is very little in terms of the Russian reserves.

It's little more than a public relations stunt and a show of goodwill but i don't think there will be any strings or even a mention of NATO.

The only thing that is being mentioned here is in relation to Russias claim to the arctic oil and gas reserves and that Iceland could well be a useful friend to have.
71

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:42:41
75 Nevski
Also both HBOS and RBS do most of their business in other parts of the UK. IF Scotland had been independent would RBS and BOS have been content just to operate in Scotland or would they have sought to expand. Again who knows? But if they had chosen a similar expansion they would have been mainly regualted by the authorities in the rest of the UK as banks are regulated where they do business, not where their head office is.
72

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/10/2008 08:42:47
Q: When where the last two dates the FTSE 100 traded below 4,000

A: December 19th 1996 and Today
73

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 08:43:10
KampungHighlander (62): "Nationalizing the banks would not be a very smart idea."

I have similar misgivings, but it's preferable to systemic collapse. So long as we're following the Norwegian model of the early 1990s, this would be a temporary part-nationalization, followed by a re-privatization a few years in the future, if all goes well. The Norwegian Bank's self-analysis makes fascinating reading:

http://www.norges-bank.no/templates/article____18098.aspx

74

Fairfax,

10/10/2008 08:45:05
Nevsky (76): "It's little more than a public relations stunt and a show of goodwill but i don't think there will be any strings or even a mention of NATO."

Is there no mention of use of the former USAF base at Keflavik?
75

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:49:58
76 Nevski
I don't know about the relevance of Iceland regarding Arctic resources. Both Greenland and Norwegian Islands are further north and they would control any resources that might be present.

There could be something sinister here from Putin but I am only speculationg. He is worried about Georgia (and others) joining NATO. He might well be trying to exert some influence in this respect as Iceland is a NATO member.
76

Brodric,

10/10/2008 08:50:45
UK government should buy those shares and hand them over to the Scottish independent government, as part of the divorce settlement.
77

Edward,

10/10/2008 08:54:05
#77 Ugly George
You really are clueless arent you!
Both RBS and HBOS conduct business globally not just in the UK, they are INTERNATIONAL banks!
If Scotland were Independent there would be no change, they still would be INTERNATIONAL, just as Banco Santander conducts business in the UK under the Abbey brand
78

Rob,

10/10/2008 08:54:31
#80 Fairfax.

I agree. It took the Russians 2 minutes to come up with the dosh for Iceland. Funded from their Defence budget no doubt. As the Icelandic prime minister put it - "new friends"
79

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:54:42
83 Brodric
Why should they hand over companies which do most of their business in other parts of the UK.
80

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 08:58:41
80 Fairfax#

I don't think that there will be any conditions attached to NATO in the discussions; it will be a commercial loan as far as i can see and a goodwill gesture from Russia.

Russia is and always has been desperate to be a participant in and be accepted by the west and that is the thinking behind this offer i believe and also the Arctic!

You never can tell here though so i will post what i find out.

81

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 08:59:52
85 Edward
Before resorting to gratuitous insults please read what I said. I said that they did MOST of their business in other parts of the UK. I did not say that they did all their business in the UK. I have held shares in both these companies and I am well aware of their operations overseas including (USA and China). The oversea operations of HBOS are more limited. But the fact remains that the comment I made is true and accurate. So please check before you resort to insults.
82

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 09:05:00
88 Nevski
Is Putin renowned for his "goodwill"
83

Mr Lahey,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 09:07:01
#60 you have heard no mention of Clydesdale as it’s not quoted on the UK markets but on the Oz ones. It's parent has been badly run for years and engulfed in scandal after scandal. They are now on their third CEO in about six years. For those claiming RBS is not 'Scottish' until recently there was only one Englishman on the board. The majority of directors were Scots or other nationals. The only reason Gordon Pell was not axed when RBS took over Nat West was because of the golden handcuff he had of about £3m as a parting gift from the former Nat West board. Mark Fisher was the only other English man and Nat West survivor and he has been ‘rewarded’ with the CEO post at ABN Ambro.
What’s likely to happen now those is that Scottish influence will be diluted by the expected appointment of ‘no-nonsense’ Yorkshire man Stephen Hester to the role of CEO when Sir Fred finally pays the price for destroying what he created.
84

Rob,

10/10/2008 09:07:28
Nevsky 88. You can't seriously believe that!
85

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 10/10/2008 09:09:00
Does this mean Gordon can print his face on Scottish money? He'll love that.
86

Mr Lahey,

Edinburgh 10/10/2008 09:09:37
As an aside I notice that RBS staff are still flying club class when they travel to and from London, which includes a nice glass of Champagne before takeoff.
One can't help but be reminded of a certain emperor fiddling while Rome burned.
87

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 09:10:45
92 Rob#

I do!
88

Rob,

10/10/2008 09:18:28
Nevsky. I think you've gone native, mate: you need to come home and get re-acquainted with reality. (Although I fully confess that won't be a very happy experience!)

The Russians only think strategically - this is about their empire extension in the Arctic. To believe this is anything other than that is, in my view, very very dangerous. Russians don't do friendly gestures

89

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 09:28:35
96 Rob#

I understand your view but don't agree.
90

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 09:30:08
#47 ""If Salmond had his wits about him, he'd be pushing for 100% nationalisation of the banks and 100% renationalisation of the public utilities."

At a cost of how many billions to buy out the shareholders?"

Oh, that's an easy one. Let the banks all go bust, at which point the shares are worthless, and take them over immediately in the nation's name. Then run them the way banks were run sensibly and profitably for hundreds of years, until Thatcherism turned them from carefully-managed savings-and-loans providers into wild gambling manufacturers of totally imaginary money which has finally bowed to the inevitable and ceased to exist.
91

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 09:33:18
96 Rob#

Article from Russia Today which is pro-Kremlin..rather like the Scotsman is pro-union but neverthless sums up the general mood:

http://mnweekly.ru/columnists/20081010/55350499.html
92

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 10/10/2008 09:37:15
#100 "Brilliant, quite brilliant. A rerun of 1929. Even deeper in the smelly stuff than we are."

Do enlighten us with a rational explanation of how that would be worse than leaving them in the hands of the people who have just cost the nation half a TRILLION pounds with no perceptible benefit for it, as the FTSE continues to plunge.
93

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 10/10/2008 09:42:05
#93

I think printing Gordons visage on bog rolls would be a more popular choice.
94

TommyKaye,

UK 10/10/2008 09:42:13
greta new name for our dearleader


CRASH GORDON

95

Rob,

10/10/2008 09:48:23
Nevsky 99. Fair enough. It's an interesting article - particularly when read from the perspective of being a pro Kremlin publication. However, the strands that I fear are in it.

Commissar Brown has decided to confront Iceland for purely political grandstanding reasons. Suddenly this is not about global solutions - let's take these shits to court and get our money back - the hard man repeating for his usual mantra of best for Britons, small businesses etc etc - you know that spiel as well as me. What happened to sitting down and discussing this rationally given that it seems to affect Brits and Brit Institutions more than anyone else? Or would that not contribute to stability, transparency etc etc i.e mantra part II?
96

Nevsky,

Moscow 10/10/2008 09:49:25
From todays' telegraph on just how inept Brown is, i doubt Scotland could be any worse off with independence to be honest:

'Tim Congdon, a banking historian at the London School of Economics, said the rot had seeped through the foundations of British lending.

Average equity capital has fallen to 3.2 per cent (nearer 2.5 per cent sans "goodwill"), compared with 5 per cent seven years ago. "How on earth did the Financial Services Authority let this happen?" he asks.

Worse, changes pushed through by Gordon Brown in 1998 have caused the de facto cash and liquid assets ratio to collapse from post-war levels above 30 per cent to near zero. "Brown hadn't got a clue what he was doing," he says.

The risk for Britain - as property buckles - is a twin banking and fiscal squeeze. The UK budget deficit is already 3 per cent of GDP at the peak of the economic cycle, shockingly out of line with its peers. America looks frugal by comparison.

Maastricht rules may force the Government to raise taxes or slash spending into a recession. This way lies crucifixion. The UK current account deficit was 5.7 per cent of GDP in the second quarter, the highest in half a century. Gordon Brown has disarmed us on every front'

97

Ronaldo Stuffed Everyone,

10/10/2008 09:50:58
#11 Tired of talking drivel on the football web site and have migrated here?
First point is RBS is not and never has been an investment bank. Not unless they have chanegd the definition of an investment bank
Second point given your critical role as an adviser to the japanese IMF shouldn't you be on your way to the G7 meeting.
98

thistle do,

here n'there 10/10/2008 09:53:13
#94 Well spotted but remember they are a bunch of bankers. They're just taking the lead from "its not my fault my exciting decisions have been found out" Sir Fred. When are heads going to roll?