Bank duo pose questions
They are not advancing a rival bid for HBOS. They are not setting out specific alternative financial proposals. They have not formed a consortium to rival the Lloyds TSB offer.
In fact, Sir George Mathewson and Sir Peter Burt are, mostly, simply posing the questions which others have already set out: including, from the outset, on this blog.
But they are rather intriguing questions, are they not?
Sir Peter was on the telly yesterday, Sir George on the wireless this morning. Both emphasised they wanted primarily to question the logic behind the Lloyds TSB deal: to suggest that it might not be sensible or in the wider public interest.
Question One: is this in the interests of the customers?
The two eminent bankers note that the Office of Fair Trading reckoned the deal would be anti-competitive.
That is because it would create a near oligopoly in the market: a huge conglomerate that would not be tolerated in other circumstances. Logically, that argument is confirmed by the fact that competition law has had to be set aside by the UK Government in order to permit the merger.
Against that, UK Ministers and the banks themselves argue that the circumstances demand distinctive action: that it is the only deal on the table with a prospect of creating stability.
Question Two: is this in the interests of HBOS? Why cannot the recapitalisation on offer be made available to HBOS individually, given that Lloyds also requires support? Has the merger been superseded?
Yes, say the eminences grises. No, say UK Ministers and the banks. There are further problems of liquidity. HBOS would require to be nationalised if the deal fails.
Question Three: is this in the interests of Scotland? No, say the two bankers. Scotland would be better served by an independent HBOS. Yes, say others: Scotland would not be well served by a weakened, fractured bank.
It is important to note that the Scottish issue is down the list for Burt and Mathewson, at least in the way they present their case. That is because they are pitching to shareholders more generally - but also because they believe the interests of customers outwith Scotland are jeopardised.
At this stage, it still seems most likely that merger goes ahead. But this is a significant question mark.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~21~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
In terms of what's best for "the country" (doesn't matter which one is being referred to) we can discount the views of the shareholders.
They will always vote (not unreasonably) for whatever makes them most money.
That's why we had anti-competition laws.
In essence the UK Government has created even more deregulation for the banks.
It may have seemed a good idea at the time, but subsequent decisions on public funding have made that irrelevant now.
It is inappropriate for the Government to say it is up to the shareholders, when by setting aside competition law, they have created circumstances in which the shareholders will say yes.
Complain about this comment
Sadly, HBOS had been managed into the ground over several years - their effective bankruptcy being symptomatic not merely of a couple of bad decisions, but of a financial institution in a downward spiral. Just the kind of company that RBS and HBOS wouldn't have batted an eyelid at foreclosing on themselves in the recent past.
And despite the head office on the mound, most of the operational decisions have been taken in Yorkshire for the past few years.
So, the question is, can the architects of this and the other failed Scottish bank be trusted to come back and make it good? Or will we poor taxpayers be being asked to shell out to bail them out again in a couple of years.?
Complain about this comment
#1 oldnat
Spot on - the anti-competitive aspects can only delay the recovery, whether in Scotland or the UK as a whole.
There's also the question of jobs on high streets everywhere, something likely to be in pretty short supply for a while.
Complain about this comment
I find it a bit strange: normally you would expect a takeover by Lloyds to give a good offer to shareholders as well as provide security for shareholders, at the expense of staff who lose their jobs.
However, the shareholders are complaining about the offer from Lloyds (83 percent?).
The questions they have posed a relevant. But aren't these two individuals partly responsible for setting the original business strategy that has resulted in the problems?
If the merger does not go ahead, and the Government bails out the bank, why should the shareholders benefit?
It seems that George and Peter are acting in the interests of the shareholders rather than the long term interests of the customers.
Could there be a conflict of interest? If George and Peter own shares in HBOS then to me their certainly is.
Complain about this comment
"At this stage, it still seems most likely that merger goes ahead."
Brian, I do hope you are wrong there. (Just like that nice wifie on TV who predicted the SNP had just squeezed it on by-election night!)
Complain about this comment
I note that the Economist has come out against the merger in one of their leaders this week - Call it off.
Another thought: are we all comfortable that Lord Mandelson gave this the nod? Does anyone remember voting for him? I know Gordon is fond of having unelected people in positions of authority, but this is getting ridiculous!
Complain about this comment
From the BBC article "Salmond urges HBOS to think again"
Sir George conceded that he and his partner had no specific deal to offer at present.
He said: "We're saying let us take it over and we will explore all the alternatives that will arise.
So what they are effectively saying is "Gizza Go".
What sane board of Directors are even going to contemplate such an idea? Especially since one of the first things Burt and Mathewson are likely to do is try and replace the board with their cronies.
Complain about this comment
As has been pointed out by others, this is not really a Scottish-only issue, it is about competition for the whole of the UK.
Putting aside what the 2 banks want (who wouldnt want to be in a position to have about 30% of the total banking and mortgage market in one company - they could set the UK standards on their own), the question has to be what are the 'other liquidity issues' that ministers refer to. Without giving specifics they expect sharholders to decide on the future of the bank. It does tend to reek of spin. It certainly wouldnt be the first time we have been told something is serious and so the government must be allowed to do as it pleases without scrutiny because of some non-specific problem or threat.
I am not arguing that HBOS has to be saved for Scotland, but that we should be looking to move away from a position where mega-banks are so large that their failure can bankrupt the economy.
This is nothing but the bankers trying to profit from the mess they created in the first place, and GB and AD are only to happy to be complicit in all this.
Complain about this comment
LLoyds TSB, a bank in need of financial aid from the Government, should not be taking over another bank. In fact Burt's letter demonstates that it is LLoyds which is more in need of rescue than HBOS.
Journalists should stop spreading disinformation about nationalisation. That is not required. HBOS needs recapitalisation or a better offer from another Bank. Lloyds offers no cash and no plan, and no likelihood of future profitability. The integration will consume Lloyds over stretched resources and the merged bank will eventually have to be broken up. That is not a good deal for shareholders- grand larceny would be more apt. All shareholders should reject the takeover.
Complain about this comment
Opposition to this takeover is growing.
Already we have seen newspaper leaders and editorials by financial analysts that strongly argue that this takeover does not make sense for shareholders and customers. There is no benefit, and if there is no benefit people will take their money elsewhere.
The £7 billion re-capitalisation of Lloyds also highlights that it is Lloyds and not HBOS that is financially less secure.
Finally thousands of jobs in Edinburgh and hundreds more in Dunfermline will go if this takeover goes ahead. That will deal a devasting blow to the local economy.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
As with many others I have deposits with HBOS, and despite the government's promise to protect depositors I would like to think my savings were with a strong and stable bank.
What intriques me about all of this is that if HBOS is viable and such a good business, as some suggest, the question is why are there no other offers on the table. I would have thought one should have emerged by now. Spowart's hint that a major financial institution was eying up HBOS has come to nothing.
The other thing to remember is that under Burt BOS was weakened to the point wher the merger with Halifax became necessary. Maybe the truth is LTSB is the only game in town. The sad thing is 1000's are going to pay with their jobs.
Best Wishes,
William1957.
Complain about this comment
From what I have read of this, it seems that these two gentlemen are suggesting that they should be appointed to lead an independent HBOS. Asking to usurp the present management of a publicly listed company by being parachuted in to take over, (with the comensurate levels of financial reward) seems to involve a high level of self-interest to me. Personally I wouldn't let them near the bank, independent or merged with Lloyds TSB, and as many of the shareholders who will be consulted are south of the border, any appeal to the "Scottish factor" (ie retaining an independent bank in Scotland) will fall on deaf ears there.
I have doubts about the wisdom of the proposed merger, from a future competitiveness point of view, but regard these two gentlemen as little more than carpetbaggers.
Complain about this comment
7. And these two have such sparkling records in banking!
Which two UK banks were they running until recently?
Which two UK banks have been in most financial trouble recently?
And as HBOS themselves say, these two bring no guarantees, no funds, no value and no new strategy to HBOS, other than they just want to be in charge.
This whole affair is a bad joke and a waste of everyone's time.
Complain about this comment
#13 Reluctant-Expat
"This whole affair is a bad joke and a waste of everyone's time."
Absolutely, but It's not clear whether you lay the blame with Mandelson or Brown & Darling.
Complain about this comment
14.
Brown first, then Darling, and now Mandleson!
Complain about this comment
#13 apart from running your piggy bank what experience of corporate banking have you?
Complain about this comment
I would like to think we can get it right on the HBOS take over.
In terms of jobs and a safe future.
While we on this issue, I believe that the snp missed an open goal in the Glenrothes by election, not on the HBOS situation but on the post office situation and the proposed closures of many offices.
Post offices are the pillar's of many communities and should remain open.
I totally oppose the idea to close one single post office, for many they are a safer heaven than some banks.
Complain about this comment
As a country hopper I've been able to view this argument from both north and south of the border. The issues raised are not specific to Scotland and do affect English shareholders and other stakeholders just as much. However my observation is that these questions are having much more airtime north of the border and are being almost ignored south of the border. Dismissed, if you like, as a Scottish bleat. Not so but I think the 'establisment' in the south are sleepwalking the shareholders and stakeholders into this deal. Effort needs to be made to get the questions raised and debated more publicly in the south. Mathewson and Burt have failed to do this, they need some allies.
Complain about this comment
Let's not kid ourselves, HBOS was/is a despicable company. Their trading philosophy led to their downfall. Branch managers were effectively phased out in favour of mere salesmen/women who had strict targets about how many insurance, mortgage and loan deals they could sell. No wonder the company began to sink under the weight of unserviceable debts.
Perhaps I am wrong but I think this virus set in soon after the 'merge' with Halifax. Up until then, BOS was an apparently sound and sensible company.
However, there is a very real problem with this merger in that we all know for certain that ALL the scottish jobs will go. In fact so many jobs will go that the Scottish economy will be seriously impacted. And futher, just watch how quickly the Mound is turned into a 'luxury hotel' with, 'magnificent views over Princes Street'!
I am not moved by the plaintif cries of Messrs Mathewson and Burt. They after all were in charge when the rot set in. And as other have pointed out, the shareholders are uppermost in their minds. Alex Salmond makes play on the fact that they are, 'distinguished economists'. Well Alex, they may be brilliant but we certainly haven't seen any positive results from their genius.
Alex of course worries that one or possibly two ancient institutions could be ripped from the body of Scotland. And I know that uppermost in his mind will be the job losses. There is a good case for having a resident, Scottish bank, after all upon independence we will need a Bank of Scotland. Perhaps this is another reason that Brown is reluctant to stop this merger. Odd isn't it that the two men who thought this up are Scots?
And Mandelson, this dark creature slithers in fresh from a Russian billionaire's yacht determined to push this through. Why is he sticking his ample nose into it? Should we trust this man? Would you buy a used car from him? In fact, would you buy a used paper-clip from him?
I really don't know what the answer is, I know that all these job losses are unsustainable. Is that reason enough for Brown and his, 'Band of Brothers' to rethink this? No, but then Dunfermline hasn't an upcoming bye-election. No need to worry then. My instinct says that BOS should be demerged from Halifax and Halifax should totter off and marry Lloyds. Of course this would probably result in BOS being nationalised at least temporarily. Can this be done? One would hope so. Anyway shareholders, you pays your money and takes your chances. Customers and employees, pray. You are never going to feature very highly in the Brown world.
Complain about this comment
The shotgun wedding is so HBOS board avoid disqualification once its done all of the past will be hidden by smoke and mirrors.
I still feel administration would be better,the taxpayer would have to cover the depositors.
If these two guys want a bank i suggest they start their own.
Surely with their records they could raise the cash & the retail punters would flock to an institution with no baggage.
They could start by just running credit current accounts for a monthly fee,then build up to lending over a period of years.
Complain about this comment
#17 derekbarker
We agree strongly there, Derek. The Tories began moving services away from the Post Offices, but NuLab accelerated it and if they go ahead and remove pension and benefit payment cards along with all the Lloyd / HBOS branches they're closing, there will be some very long queues on high streets and many places without services at all.
Strange times indeed.
Complain about this comment
Here I thought they were both living off their ill gotten gains, but they want more. It makes me laugh, all they way to another bank. The word eminent is slightly misguided, they got away with it! As for Mr Salmond well, we all know his speculations and how they turn out! I trust none of these chancer's.
Complain about this comment
are our postings now subject to word count restrictions???
Complain about this comment
#23 crazyislander: if_so_replace_space_with_underscore ;o)
Complain about this comment
22. Em, "chancers" is a plural not a possesive... (no apostrophe).
It just works better if you are making a big statement to punctuate it correctly.
As for the banks, well behind all the commentating on whether the customers or the employees or the shareholders will be better off, or not, is the real heart of the matter: Gordon Brown doesn't want a Scottish bank.
He sees no way of becoming the powerful British being he seeks to be by having separate Scottish banks, rather it's a bit of a threat to his power.
He is obsessed with Britishness, being British, having a British football team. Scotland gets in the ways of Brown's ambitions. Brown's "we're better in Britain" chant is actually "it's better for my (Brown's) ego in Britain".
(I'm not anti-British - the real power is as soverign states working for our common good. )
Complain about this comment
Re #19 crazyislander
I'm not sure I agree with the idea that the Halifax should be allowed to merge with (be taken over by) Lloyds as I suspect that this will still produce a single institution that has far too large a proportion of the mortgage market.
The reason for the cometition rules is to ensure that this type of thing doesn't happen as it always ends in a bad deal for the consumers.
Complain about this comment
The Uk Government's response to the Calman commission is available (34th from the bottom when you scroll down)
Complain about this comment
If Brown and Darling are in favour of the merger, there must be something about it that stinks. If they are so certain it's the only answer , why won't they let an independent body look at the whole question ? It won't cost nearly as much as getting it wrong, and whatever the outcome, at least everyone will know the right thing was done. In the past they've always been great lovers of the " public enquiry " why not this time? Is there something to hide or is there a pathological fear of being wrong and losing face. With these two, now that Campbell and Mandelson are pulling their strings, anything is possible.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
I have always had a slight suspicion that the loss if HBOS and the emasculation of RBS might just suit the Labour party and put Mr Salmond's "gas at a peep". I have no doubt that Gordon Brown is doing his absolute utmost for the British economy, but the overall British economy is not too bothered about where HBOS and RBS are based, so long as they are somewhere in Britain. I have always had a thought as well that the sentiment of the City is for all major financial institutions to be firmly based in the City - or is this just my Scottish paranoia showing?
Complain about this comment
The merger of 2 financially unsound companies cannot produce a stable bank. Both banks need to be stabilised individually or sold to other stable banks.
The proposed merged bank will in all probablity require further Government cash later on to weather the storms of recession and integration. Its size will invite demands from the EU to be broken up. It will thus end up as a series of fragmented disparate entities. This is not a means of value creation for shareholders.
Complain about this comment
19 Crazyislander
I see...it was the merger with the Halifax that caused the rot to set in? It's the only possible explanation when viewed through tartan spectacles. I could equally say that the rot set in when Halifax ceased to be a responsible mutual and became bank, in turn allowing itself to be acquired by the aggressive and ambitious Bank of Scotland with an eye on the UK property sector. I don't suppose that either of us know really! Blame Mrs T., that usually suffices!
The growing theme however that the "purebred" and prudent BoS could be demerged from the insanitary irresponsible Halifax is a standard bit of the mildly racist delusion that scars these pages. The idea of demanding the "English" Lloyds to take on the soggy Halifax loan book whilst leaving the BoS to breathe the pure unsullied Edinburgh air is preposterous. What possible business justification exists for such a plan?
Similarly, the idea that the British taxpayer should further underwrite the moribund demerged BoS simply so that it can becomes Alex's piggy bank after 2010 (or whenever it's put off till) is really stretching credulity too far.
Complain about this comment
#27 oldnat
Many thanks for the link. 128 pages of spin, I suspect, judging from the fist page, but something to be understood, I suppose.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone noticed how Scotland's one of the very few places in the world where people get to put adverts on banknotes? (BOS, RBS, Clydesdale).
Maybe they could re-coup some the money they've lost us all by selling on this valuable real-estate, "e.g this £20 note was sponsored by Burger King ... ".
Or perhaps if the merger doesn't go ahead, we could have a picture of William Wallace on the new £10 note, but if it does go ahead, we could settle for Wallace and Gromit.
Oh and before I forget, wasn't G. Mathewson Alec Salmond's old boss when Alec was a banker. In fact didn't he back the SNP in the last election. So is Alec being totally objective when he's backing his old mate to take over HBOS?
Complain about this comment
#27 oldnat
How apposite that the new thread doesn't contain a link to it.
Complain about this comment
#27 oldnat
"Nevertheless, there are areas of policy where the inevitable overlap between devolved and reserved matters has the potential to cause difficulty. Some of these relate to the devolution of land use planning powers, and analogous powers under the Electricity Acts which are the subject of executive devolution (i.e. they are exercised by Scottish Ministers even though the Scottish Parliament does not have legislative competence over them). It was clearly not the intention of Parliament in passing the Scotland Act that the use or threatened use of devolved powers should undermine the delivery of reserved policies. The Government suggests that the Commission may wish to consider how such problems might be avoided."
i.e. we didn't like it when you said we'd deny planning permission for nuclear power stations, so we'll have our ball back please.
Complain about this comment
#31 Anglophone
I make no apologies for being more concerned about Scottish jobs than I am about English ones. After all, who in England gave a damn when all our heavy industries were destroyed in favour of the Freedmanite, 'Service Economy'.
A few short weeks ago we were all told that Lloyds TSB were a traditional bank with none of the troubles of HBOS. Who was kidding who? And yes your right about the rot setting in with Halifax. Since demutualisation it was they who pioneered this, 'money shop' trading strategy and following the merger BOS followed suit. I'm not really saying that BOS was sound, indeed all suggested was that it appeared to be sound.
"Blame Mrs T"? Indeed I do but I much prefer to call her the Witch Queen of Finchley.
And if caring deeply about my country and by that I mean Scotland, makes me racist then be damned to you, I'm proud to be racist!
Complain about this comment
Before I retired several years ago I spent twenty years dealing with the old Bank of Scotland and in my experience they were stalwarts of traditional banking and avoided most of the more dupious products being developed by the banking industry. All of this changed with the acquisition of Halifax and the unfathomable decision to appoint an ex supermarket boss as chief executive. Peter Burt and George Mathewson are bankers of high repute and unquestionably better qualified than the current incumbents to find the best way forward for HBOS. In any event if Hornby and Stevenson had any integrity they would have already resigned without any of the personal financial benefits being offered by the Lloyds takeover.
Complain about this comment
I just don't see that Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling will sell Scotland down the river or that a disproportionate number of Scottish jobs will go. Labour has a lot hanging on the Scottish vote at the next election which isn't too far away.
It seems the profits of banks, before the folly, hadn't been hindered by the large 'competitive' quantity of them so why do we need so many.
If these banks are to become 'clipped winged' local entities what is their future anyway?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#31, Anglophone
You ask a good question about the justification of any plan to demerge BOS from HBOS and flog Halifax to whoever will have it. Perhaps some eminent bankers (assuming there are any left) can carry out a review to see if that is in the best interests of stakeholders (note, stakeholders, not shareholders).
Much as I would love it to be the case, I can see difficulty in saving BOS as a stand-alone bank. It had already started to go downhill before the merger with Halifax. At the branch I regularly banked at, the long-time staff left in droves and were replaced by verbal muggers who felt that I should pay them extra for the privilege of lending them my money at zero interest. Are Scots prepared to trust the current BOS? Its hard for me to tell from 3,500 miles away.
Complain about this comment
37 bill9651
Sounds like that vile Halifax luring the innocent and blameless BoS into a life of irresponsibility.
Imagine the scene at the banks party when the modestly dressed BoS leaves the happy dancing and conversation with Clydesdale and Royal and the others, enters the kitchen to see Halifax and his English gang handing around the 100% mortgages and the credit derivatives. BoS is shocked...normally she would never consort with such riff-raff. Halifax offers a joint-mortgage "try this!" he lisps. Of course at first she refuses but not wanting to seem stuffy eventually tries it, inhaling deeply!
Another victim of Banking peer pressure, she marries Halifax later, by which stage it's too late and she's doing many joint-mortgages every day! The road to ruin is assured. Halifax drinks all her money and she is left going to Mr Brown at social services for a hand-out.
Or alternatively, why not try believing that all the banks are culpable in the stampede that followed credit deregulation and demutualisation. The English/Scottish thing is self-deluding and as I've said, just a wee bit racist. They were all at it, both front feet in the trough and the two tartan banking gentlemen, recast as shining Celtic Knights were no different.
Complain about this comment
#41 Anglophone
Loved the "Maid's Ruin" story!
You only missed her moustache-twirling guardian, who allowed her to fall into dissolute ways, by removing her chastity belt.
Complain about this comment
#39 anglophone
"I'm sure that in your world view, though shipbuilding would have migrated from the Tyne and elsewhere in England to the Far East where costs were a fraction, somehow there would be a vibrant bustling industry on the Clyde."
Your not the first on these boards to have a pop at the clyde shipbuilding industry. It would be enlightening to hear your view point as to why there is still an industry on the Clyde whilst none on the Tyne?
Also, "(skirling?)" "two tartan banking gentlemen" "Celtic Knights". Whilst I don't think crazyislanders comments were appropriate your not doing your own case any good by resorting to racial stereotypes yourself.
Complain about this comment
41 Anglophone
"just a wee bit racist."
I would agree with you 100% if you could demonstrate any "racial" difference between Scotland and other parts of the UK.
Were you influenced by Neil Oliver's silly conclusion last night that the battle between Constantine and Athelstan constituted an "ethnic" division of Britain?
Complain about this comment
#25. aye_write wrote about the use of apostrophes.
I've never been particularly good with them but wanted to ask something.
You talk about "...Brown's "we're better ...etc etc" but shouldn't it be "...Browns' etc etc"?
Just thought I'd ask. I genuinely don't know the answer.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat (et Anglophone) - re the maid's ruin.
I must take issue with you: having Googled Sir Peter Birt, and studied his picture VERY carefully, I can't see any evidence of a twirly moustache.
Complain about this comment
#45 irnbru_addict
Apostrophes are used in 2 ways -
1. as a contraction : as in "that's" - meaning "that is" : the apostrophe takes the place of the space and the "i"
2. As a possessive (this belongs to someone). If Gordon Brown (not the rest of his family) owned a dog you would say "this is Brown's dog". It becomes a little more complicated when something belongs to more than one person. If the mutt belonged to the whole family (whom we would call the "Browns") then the apostrophe comes after the "s" : "this is the Browns' dog"
The one most people get wrong is "its" / "it's". There's no reason why one should have an apostrophe and the other not, but the convention is to use the apostrophe where there's a contraction -
"It's clear that Brown is an idiot", but
"Labour has a problem with Brown. He is its embarassment"
Full marks for asking.
Ex-teacher nat
Complain about this comment
#46 freakowski
Good Lord! You're right!
A quick check on the Government and the FSA photographs shows a distinct lack of facial hair there either (except maybe Hazel Blears {cheap joke}).
Cunning swine, these neo liberals!
Complain about this comment
"O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us." welcome back Anglophone, nice to see you to see you nice, it's always good to welcome a guest to these blogs who reminds us how racist and incapable we Scots really are, nothing like constructive criticism to boost one's self worth. Not that what he says has no element of truth in it, but he would do well to look up Matthew 7:3-5
Complain about this comment
Thanks Old Nat... I'm sure I'll still get it wrong.
Complain about this comment
Anglophone #39
You know, this forum has long since ceased to be a place where ideas could be floated and debated. Now we are in a situation where some contributors seem to think it is appropriate to be personally offensive.
This is unconstructive and unpleasant. we all have our opinions and we all have our pet dislikes and likes. However when some people allow their spleens to overflow with vicious invective it does nothing other than mock us all.
Anglophone, you appear to be a nasty person in that you would seek to deny the views and beliefs sincerely held by myself and others. You like many nowadays pull out the old racist card whenever you have lost the argument.
Indeed the use of the word, "racist" itself is improper as the peoples of the British Isles are 'racially' identical. Indeed we are racially identical to the people of the Punjab and to the good folks of Iran and probably most of the peoples of the world, unless you know of a, 'race with 6 heads' which would in fact qualify as another species. In other words, you have sought to reinforce your views by accusing me and others of discrimination.
I am personally affronted that you should even obliquily suggest that I have racist tendencies. I'll say it again, if your slewed view of life and current affairs compells you to accuse me of being racist because I seek to advance the wellbeing and prosperity of my country, Scotland, then I leave you with it. I am NOT in the commonly accepted fashion, racist but clearly by your arrogant and effusive rants, you have shown yourself up for being so yourself.
Have arguments on here of course and let us mock the vile politicians of all parties who have landed us all in this faecal slime. Let's however, keep the personal and offensive jibes to ourselves. we may gainsay all we like but we may not abuse each other personally.
Trust me Anglophone, you would never speak to me like this in person but I suspect this is your way, sniping behind the monitor, tickling your mallice-soaked fingers across you keyboard safe in the belief that you are invincible and beyond reproach. I know this is contradicting my earlier comments but my God, you take it oot o' me. As they say in Port Glasgow, "Yur nothin' but a midden".
Complain about this comment
50 irnbru_addict
10 out of 10 so far!
Complain about this comment
#25. aye_write wrote about the use of apostrophes.
I've never been particularly good with them but wanted to ask something.
You talk about "...Brown's "we're better ...etc etc" but shouldn't it be "...Browns' etc etc"?
Just thought I'd ask. I genuinely don't know the answer.
-----
Sorry, I nipped out to do the shopping! I can't keep up with you guys!( Four small boys to feed etc etc...)
Good for you to ask though, really. Many, perhaps, would not.
Answer: no because "Brown" is a singular. Had there been more than one Brown, i.e Browns (God forbid!!), then something belonging to them would be "Browns' ".
Thanks oldnat - you got in there first. I'm no ex-teacher (though my parents do teach, soon to retire), just more of an occassional irritating bore on the subject.
But seriously though, my father always told us children whenever we were abroad that it was very important to behave well, as we were "ambassadors for our country". He meant Scotland.
So I suppose, as it is probably obvious to any readers at home or elsewhere in the world, that I am Scottish, I think I should always attempt to make a positive impression, that's all. But in hindsight that's not your problem!
Complain about this comment
#53 aye_write
I have a theory that there is a "teaching" gene (closely related to the "pedant" gene).
My family is inundated with teachers.
Complain about this comment
That is funny, although I don't know if I have backed up or blown your theory as I had to look up "pedant"!
(Ah, it might be the word "pedantic" is derived from...yes, sad.)
Not so many teachers in my family tree. My parents were the only ones in their families to go to University though. If they were supposed to be the start of the long line...!!!
Complain about this comment
51 Crazyislander
What makes you think that I wouldn't say this to you in person? In addition to being a "nasty person" I am a 6'6" foot karate blackbelt with a special forces background ;-)
I didn't complain about your post but someone clearly went cry-babying about mine.
Look...I have no problem with your beliefs in self-determination, although I hope that. But when you and your ilk start dropping into the lazy lingua-franca in which "the English" seem to be responsible for all your perceived ills then I will react. It's my job on these threads.
The position now, presumably dictated down from activist central casting, is that since we're racially indistinguishable, how can the ugly rants on these threads be considered racist?
Neat semantics. What if we just substitute the expression "irrational xenophobia" then. Would you be comfortable with irrational xenophobia to describe your comments?
Complain about this comment
49 InmyKip
Is that the bit in the bible where Jesus tells the parable of the prodigal blogger? I had meant to stay away for ever, the looping elliptical arguments do wear you down after a while, but sometimes I read things that I can't let go...although being accused of "tickling the keyboards with my malice-soaked fingers" by CrazyIslander is a bit of first. I don't know whether to be proud or dismayed because, off-duty I'm really quite a nice guy...for an Englishman of course.
Anyway good to see that you're in fine fettle yourself.
Complain about this comment
#57 Anglophone
I think I'd enjoy a pint with you - I'm partial to English Real Ale.
Complain about this comment
May I join you for that drink chaps?
Don't want the pint rather have a wee spirit!
I note that the Europeans are not very pleased with the UK or the US, they seem to blame us for all the financial woes.
Not that the media here are keen to talk about that, they are too busy selling " The Great Gordo , Saviour of the World " story.
I don't like the rush to marry these two banks.
I don't like the waiving of law to facilitate the marriage.
Complain about this comment
59 Disgusted Dorothy
Years of working on the Continent taught me that many Europeans are deeply resentful of America and have been happily predicting the demise of the US economy for years. To blame the US solely sounds pretty self-serving.
Numerous European banks have needed bailing out, and this wasn't because they were pillars of conservative banking practice. Nearly all developed economies have indulged themselves in a massive asset bubble over the past decade (with the exception of the Japanese who started earlier). The US sub-prime debacle was trigger...the straw that broke the camel's back if you like, but certainly not the cause of the present problems. To blame the US is disingenuous, they are simply the biggest economy. We are all culpable. In the end it's like the drug addict blaming the dealer!
I too will be disappointed, but still mildly admiring if Gordon Brown does emerge to be canonised as saviour of the Western World when he is one of the chief architects of this country's economic difficulties. What a turnaround...makes Bill Clinton look like a lightweight.
Could you bring yourself to drink a pint if it was from one of those excellent Scottish micro-breweries? You still have a long way to go but I always say that despite everything, Scottish beer is still better than English whisky!
Complain about this comment
Brian,
You and your fellow reporters really should not mislead the public. Sir George is not just any old "eminent banker". He is an SNP stooge in this matter - he brings nothing to the table other than wilful disruption. The SNP are attempting to cause disruption when they don't understand the true situation or have any viable alternative solutions. Shame on them and shame on you for reporting this as anything more than cheap political sabotage.
Complain about this comment
When it comes to Political Bias on this issue, there can surely be no-one better qualified than Lord Dennis Stevenson (HBOS Chair.)
Stevenson is a personal friend of Peter Mandelson and has been involved in market-friendly think tanks such as Demos. His own consultanicies, including SRU and Cloaca Maxima (named after a large Roman sewer), have important business connections. SRU was bought by Brunswick Group in 2000 and Stevenson also has a shareholding in (and put up the money for) the New Labour-connected PR firm Lexington Communications.
Does that has anything to do with this proposed takeover deal ?
Lord Stevenson is also of course the man resposible for vetting all those peerages that were investigated by the Met. Police, with regard to the vast sums raised to fund the Labour Party.
Stevenson was instrumental in setting up that funding mechanism which has brought the Labour Party into such disrepute, so can we now believe that he is politically unbiased towards any suggestions coming from Alex Neil and Tavish Scott.
Stevenson is an under-recognised gateway for big business into Labour and has provided a great deal of Mandelson connections, saying that Tony Blair ........
"always wanted to make Labour into an alternative party of business. There were some big businessmen who were always pro-Labour: Lord Clive Hollick and Chris Haskins for instance. Blair wanted to meet the others, so I organised evenings where he could meet friends of mine. People running FTSE companies... Blair has involved businessmen to a huge extent... In fact he has almost delegated power to them."
( Sunday Times - June 1998.)
Perhaps "Yates of the Yard" will want a word in Stevenson's shell-like ear before too long ?
Complain about this comment
Brian:
At this stage, it still seems most likely that merger goes ahead. But this is a significant question mark.
[i think that they are many questions to be asked about any mergers of any banks...]
-Dennis Junior-
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS