Metropol

m_in_m wrote:Would it even be legal for Lloyds TSB to print banknotes in their name? I'm sorry, I don't understand the rules of who is allowed to print banknotes and where they are then legal tender.

Scotland have their own banknotes don't they.

Wikipedia wrote:The pound is the official currency of the United Kingdom, the Crown dependencies of Britain and three British Overseas Territories. In these areas, seven retail banks have the right to print their own banknotes in addition to the Bank of England and the dependency and territorial governments. Unlike most other countries, banknote issue in Britain is not automatically tied in with one national identity or the activity of the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_ ... d_sterling

Hymagumba wrote:

m_in_m wrote:and where they are then legal tender.

no scottish banknote is legal tender. in fact paper money isn't "legal tender" at all in scotland.

Interesting, so what does a creditor have to accept as payment - gold or something? Or do they not have to accept anything unlike the UK?

Chie wrote:Scotland have their own banknotes don't they.

they're issued by "normal" banks however, unlike in england

cdd wrote:

Hymagumba wrote:no scottish banknote is legal tender. in fact paper money isn't "legal tender" at all in scotland.

Interesting, so what does a creditor have to accept as payment - gold or something? Or do they not have to accept anything unlike the UK?

coins. however bank notes are classed as a "reasonable"form of settlement, and therefore are similar to debit cards

cdd wrote:Interesting, so what does a creditor have to accept as payment - gold or something? Or do they not have to accept anything unlike the UK?

You seem confused about the fact that Scotland is actually part of the UK, cdd.

StuartPlymouth wrote:

cdd wrote:Interesting, so what does a creditor have to accept as payment - gold or something? Or do they not have to accept anything unlike the UK?

You seem confused about the fact that Scotland is actually part of the UK, cdd.

Yes, my mistake. I hate it when you're right!

You missed out the words "rest of the" from your sentence cdd. Rather than answering the question at hand, and answering to the sentence we all knew that you meant, he chose to nitpick because he doesn't have a decent response.

Stuart, you're cdd.

James H wrote:Rather than answering the question at hand, and answering to the sentence we all knew that you meant, he chose to nitpick because he doesn't have a decent response.

That's just how Stu rolls, don't ask him anything because he'll detract with something weak and twist it around onto you through some personal insult or grabbing on one thing and holding that up instead of answering the fucking question posed. Not like it ever works but Tallow Features has a reputation to uphold.

Feel free to rough me up if I turn out to be wrong - but I expect you're about to see this merger/takeover stopped in its tracks.

That's certainly the view from some of the excellent investment consultants in my circle.

With short selling stopped and HBOS shares up 40% (and a massive 8% on the FTSE in one day) it could be that this issue has resolved itself.

As the (rather dry) joke goes -

How many stockbrokers does it take to change a lightbulb?

None. The market will correct itself.

Gavin Scott wrote:Feel free to rough me up if I turn out to be wrong - but I expect you're about to see this merger/takeover stopped in its tracks.

Which, frankly, might be a good outcome. This is a deal which under any other circumstances would have been knocked back instantly by the regulator. I find curious that it has been hailed by so many. I appreciate that current market conditions are quite distinct - this past week or so has been particularly volatile. Yet that shouldn't instantly justify every single development. A sober analysis of costs and benefits is always warranted - even (and perhaps especially) during a 'crisis'.

Mr Q wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:Feel free to rough me up if I turn out to be wrong - but I expect you're about to see this merger/takeover stopped in its tracks.

Which, frankly, might be a good outcome. This is a deal which under any other circumstances would have been knocked back instantly by the regulator. I find curious that it has been hailed by so many.

I haven't heard it "hailed" by anyone - other than the short sellers who made a mint driving the price down.

It has been met with shock, anger and derision by most of the UK, and the vast majority of Scotland.

Gavin Scott wrote:

Mr Q wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:Feel free to rough me up if I turn out to be wrong - but I expect you're about to see this merger/takeover stopped in its tracks.

Which, frankly, might be a good outcome. This is a deal which under any other circumstances would have been knocked back instantly by the regulator. I find curious that it has been hailed by so many.

I haven't heard it "hailed" by anyone - other than the short sellers who made a mint driving the price down.

Well, my impression was that global markets seemed reasonably positive about the news. HBOS shares bounced up from their lows, and it was Lloyds shares that were hit - that is, the deal was seen as good value for HBOS, and that Lloyds might have paid too much. At any rate, the point I'm getting at is that the government's view that this deal was necessary for "financial stability" seems hard to justify.

As for short sellers - I think they're an integral part of the financial system, and I'm disappointed that British, American and German regulators have now seen fit to ban the practice (though only temporarily). Short sellers perform a vital price discovery role, helping to identify market inefficiencies and correcting them. Let's not forget that the problems at Enron were apparently discovered by short-sellers - they help to uncover fradulent activity and other problems in the market. To my mind, that's more important than ever in the current financial environment.