Independence - how would you vote?

[H_B]

Yes, I think it's wise you exit the discussion at this point....

[xbl]

Yes, I think it's wise you exit the discussion at this point....

You might want to consider hiding as well, just in case anyone wants to google it. After all, much easier you hide now, rather than have to deny all knowledge when this discussion comes up again.

[Dunning1874]

This isn't true though. No one "had" to bail out either RBS or HBOS. There was no requirement for any government to do so.

Yeah, obviously we could have let them fail, but my point is that if an independent Scotland had chosen the bailout option we wouldn't have had to do anything for RBS or HBOS operations in rUK.

[the jambo-rocker]

 

It's not so much the difference between bailing out and nationalising. It's what the bailout represented.

The reason we own 80% of RBS is that it required immediate capitalisation and couldn't get it from the markets. Like Barclays and HSBC did for example.

 

Fair enough, but what the bailout is not representing is that arguably, considering the interests that RBS had with the rUK in comparison with Scotland seem to be swept under the rug.

You just need to see Alistar Darling's cringeworthy speech with his self-indulgent oscar music (and possible probable fart smells) being played in the background, about how Scotland needed it while playing down the consequences elsewhere.

[H_B]

Yeah, obviously we could have let them fail, but my point is that if an independent Scotland had chosen the bailout option we wouldn't have had to do anything for RBS or HBOS operations in rUK.

Well, that's the point though isn't it. It's why I used the Ireland example earlier.

RBS and HBOS received credit facilities and loans within the US and the UK. They were recapitalised by the UK taxpayer though. The Irish banks were recapitalised by the Irish taxpayer, despite being global entities. The Irish banks received loans from, amongst others, the UK government.

What is certain is that the bailout wouldn't have looked anything like it did in 2008 had Scotland been independent. The rUK taxpayer wouldn't have bought RBS shares. As indeed they didn't do with any foreign institution.

The Scottish government would have had to deal with an insolvent RBS in terms of recapitalisation. Of course they may reasonably argue they wouldn't have let it get to that stage through better regulation, and that is at least an arguable stance.

Even in January of this year, the Irish are still being hamstrung by their bank bailout :-

"The European Central Bank's refusal so far to give Dublin any relief on the 30-billion euro cost of bailing out Anglo Irish Bank is a major setback for government ambitions to exit an EU-IMF bailout this year and give the euro zone its first post-crisis success story.

The failure to agree a deal on Anglo Irish also overshadows the country's banks. Nearly all nationalised in the wake of a property crash and with their liabilities guaranteed by taxpayers, the fortunes of Ireland's lenders are tied to the state and they need Dublin to strike a deal with the ECB to ensure they too can make a return to full market funding.

As reported by Reuters, the ECB rejected Ireland's preferred solution for restructuring the cost of propping up Anglo Irish because it amounted to "monetary financing" of the government. Under the current arrangement, Dublin must pay 3.1 billion euros a year until 2023 to service a promissory note it issued to underwrite Anglo Irish. Finance Minister Michael Noonan had proposed converting the note into long-term government bonds that would be taken up by the Irish Central Bank."

[H_B]

You just need to see Alistar Darling's cringeworthy speech with his self-indulgent oscar music (and possible probable fart smells) being played in the background, about how Scotland needed it while playing down the consequences elsewhere.

Yes, there would have been strong reasons for the UK government, as there were for the US government, to offer loans and credit facilities to a mythical Free Scotland RBS.

But they wouldn't have shored up the balance sheets by way of share purchases. Which prevented RBS from insolvency. And weren't liabilities.

[BarryHills]

   

Fair enough, but what the bailout is not representing is that arguably, considering the interests that RBS had with the rUK in comparison with Scotland seem to be swept under the rug.

You just need to see Alistar Darling's cringeworthy speech with his self-indulgent oscar music (and possible probable fart smells) being played in the background, about how Scotland needed it while playing down the consequences elsewhere.

The one thing the bailout didn't provide was value! We're left with a inflated balance sheet funded by debt. There will be absolutely no return on investment from the acquisition of RBS (based in Edinburgh) and Hbos (Based in Halifax and Edinburgh). If the government hadn't bailed out the banks I've absolutely no doubts they would still be trading as a going concern. They would have been hovered up at market value or some kind of deal could have been struck with another financial organisation. RBS in particular have enormous tangible assets that could have been secured against a smaller bailout loan.

It's incredible that Unionist are still wanting to talk about this, given that they de-regulated the banks and created a triangular system without any accountability, they payed WAY over the odds to secure a failing private sector business. On this issue and basically any other topic Westminister/better together don't give us value for money.

[xbl]

I am honestly beginning to think H_B's tactic on this thread is to, as soon as something pro-independence comes along, derail the thread into something so mind-numbingly boring that people stop reading.

Yep. Hence the amnesia.

[H_B]

The one thing the bailout didn't provide was value!

Quite.

If the government hadn't bailed out the banks I've absolutely no doubts they would still be trading as a going concern. They would have been hovered up at market value or some kind of deal could have been struck with another financial organisation.

I think there is every doubt about this in relation to RBS.

Where were they going to get the capital from to continue to trade?

[BarryHills]

Well, that's the point though isn't it. It's why I used the Ireland example earlier.

RBS and HBOS received credit facilities and loans within the US and the UK. They were recapitalised by the UK taxpayer though. The Irish banks were recapitalised by the Irish taxpayer, despite being global entities. The Irish banks received loans from, amongst others, the UK government.

What is certain is that the bailout wouldn't have looked anything like it did in 2008 had Scotland been independent. The rUK taxpayer wouldn't have bought RBS shares. As indeed they didn't do with any foreign institution.

The Scottish government would have had to deal with an insolvent RBS in terms of recapitalisation. Of course they may reasonably argue they wouldn't have let it get to that stage through better regulation, and that is at least an arguable stance.

Even in January of this year, the Irish are still being hamstrung by their bank bailout :-

"The European Central Bank's refusal so far to give Dublin any relief on the 30-billion euro cost of bailing out Anglo Irish Bank is a major setback for government ambitions to exit an EU-IMF bailout this year and give the euro zone its first post-crisis success story.

The failure to agree a deal on Anglo Irish also overshadows the country's banks. Nearly all nationalised in the wake of a property crash and with their liabilities guaranteed by taxpayers, the fortunes of Ireland's lenders are tied to the state and they need Dublin to strike a deal with the ECB to ensure they too can make a return to full market funding.

As reported by Reuters, the ECB rejected Ireland's preferred solution for restructuring the cost of propping up Anglo Irish because it amounted to "monetary financing" of the government. Under the current arrangement, Dublin must pay 3.1 billion euros a year until 2023 to service a promissory note it issued to underwrite Anglo Irish. Finance Minister Michael Noonan had proposed converting the note into long-term government bonds that would be taken up by the Irish Central Bank."

"Lets use Ireland as an example", classic unionist code. Perhaps you should use Norway next time? You know an oil rich country like Scotland.

[BarryHills]

Quite.

I think there is every doubt about this in relation to RBS.

Where were they going to get the capital from to continue to trade?

I answered this in the very next line. Read on.

[H_B]

I answered this in the very next line. Read on.

Uh huh...

And RBS didn't go down this road because?

[BarryHills]

Uh huh...

And RBS didn't go down this road because?

They got a better deal from another lender.

[H_B]

They got a better deal from another lender.

It wasn't about getting a "deal".

RBS already had a rights issue earlier in 2008. Indeed as of last year they were being sued by a group of shareholders who allege McKillop and Goodwin lied to potential investors at that time.

They had no prospect of any external investment whatsoever when the UK government stepped in. They were done. Absolutely fucked. Liabilities in excess of assets. They couldn't continue to trade without the UK government deal.

[xbl]

They got a better deal from another lender.

Why are you even bothering?

[H_B]

Alastair Darling :-

"The fact was we knew RBS and most of the other banks were in trouble. We had a plan which was almost ready. But when I was asked to speak to Tom McKillop, who was chairman of the bank, and I said "How long can you last?" I assumed it would be two or three days. He said two or three hours and that was the only time I think in the entire banking crisis that I did feel a sudden chill – probably the closest I ever came to thinking: "This is the end." And if the package we announced the next morning hadn't worked, it would have been the end."

[vikingTON]

Alastair Darling :-

"The fact was we knew RBS and most of the other banks were in trouble. We had a plan which was almost ready. But when I was asked to speak to Tom McKillop, who was chairman of the bank, and I said "How long can you last?" I assumed it would be two or three days. He said two or three hours and that was the only time I think in the entire banking crisis that I did feel a sudden chill – probably the closest I ever came to thinking: "This is the end." And if the package we announced the next morning hadn't worked, it would have been the end."

Alastair Darling

Super-duper source you've found there, because I can't think of any reason why he would stress the importance of Government action in 'saving' banks.

This is down there with the time you wheeled out the rent-a-lecturer from Glasgow Caley as an international expert.

[BarryHills]

It wasn't about getting a "deal".

RBS already had a rights issue earlier in 2008. Indeed as of last year they were being sued by a group of shareholders who allege McKillop and Goodwin lied to potential investors at that time.

They had no prospect of any external investment whatsoever when the UK government stepped in. They were done. Absolutely fucked. Liabilities in excess of assets. They couldn't continue to trade without the UK government deal.

The bail out was small beer in the world of corporate finance, a quick look at the tangible asset base of the bank in 2008 shows over 400 billion pounds. I've absolutely no doubt there would have been other offers on the table, as it was in the best interests of many to keep the bank afloat. Sadly Tom McKillop is a very good salesman and Alastair Darling is a gullible fool.

[YOGI IS GOD]

Top 10 Unionist myths debunked - actually quite a good wee video

[H_B]

The bail out was small beer in the world of corporate finance, a quick look at the tangible asset base of the bank in 2008 shows over 400 billion pounds.

RBS's assets in 2008, at the time of the bailout were £2.2 tn. Equal to the then GDP of the UK and Spain combined.

John Hourican :-

"We all had an on-the-beaches attitude at the time,” said Hourican, who until Goodwin called him back had been working in Amsterdam unpicking RBS’s joint acquisition of ABN AMRO in what then was the biggest bank takeover in history. “The problems we were discovering were large and continuous. Every day, we would see the value of the assets we were sitting on move significantly – and usually down. A lot of the stuff on the balance sheet was becoming rapidly illiquid and very difficult to value.”

What started were many months of shrinking the books, a task which soon fell on Peter Nielsen, the former head of rates who was quickly placed in charge of the markets business, which generated the lion’s share of GBM revenues. “In those early days, every single day was spent trying to get the books down, making sure the books were smaller at the close of business than they had been at the beginning of the day,” he said. “It was a very difficult period. A lot of the systems we relied on had helped bring down the bank. It was like flying in the dark with no instruments.”

http://www.ifre.com/the-fall-and-(partial)-rise-of-rbs/21052458.article

More than three years after the bailout, a huge amount of work had been done. The balance sheet has shrunk massively – and with it, the bank’s reliance on wholesale funding markets. From the £2.2trn at the end of 2008, the bank approaches the end of this year with about £1.5trn in assets. In the GBM division, assets have more than halved and will be cut further. Capital ratios have also improved massively – from 4% prior to the bailout to 10% now.

----------------

If you think any other entity would have been interested in taking on the utter shambles of RBS, you are insane.

There would have been interest in the "good" bits of the bank, as was the case following the Barings collapse. RBS would not have continued to trade without UK government intervention.