Bill Jamieson: Who gets RBS if the UK breaks up?

By Bill Jamieson
Published on Saturday 14 January 2012 14:00

In any break-up, whether of households or of nations, the hottest dispute is over who gets what: that acrimonious division of the spoils. It can turn the best intentions of a velvet divorce into a war zone.

In the approach to Scotland’s independence referendum in 2014, the risks of complex and bitter argument are high. And few questions will be more complex and bitter than this: which government will be left holding the 83 per cent stake in Royal Bank of Scotland?

Now for many, a detailed statement of asset pluses and minuses will not be the deciding influence in how they cast their preference. But voters will want a reasonably accurate grasp of where they stand, whether we will have a bearable debt burden or an intolerable one, a deficit we could cope with or one that might sink us. On any divorce list, the ownership of the taxpayer stakes in RBS – and the 41 per cent stake in Lloyds Banking Group – are set to be among the most contentious.

There may seem at the outset little to discuss. RBS is indisputably a Scottish bank. It is registered in Scotland. Its head office is in Scotland. But its origin and foundation is intertwined with the Act of Union. It traces its origin to the Society of the Subscribed Equivalent Debt set up by investors in the failed Company of Scotland to protect the compensation received as part of the arrangements of the 1707 Acts of Union. The company wished to move into banking and the British government looked favourably on this as the rival Bank of Scotland was suspected of having Jacobite sympathies. The new bank came into being in 1727 as the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The story of its dramatic expansion in the decade to 2008 under chief executive Fred Goodwin is now well known. RBS grew by aggressive acquisition to become not just one of the biggest banks in the UK but one of the top five in the world. This period culminated in the take-over bid for Dutch banking giant ABN Amro.

Then came the bust. Struck down by huge exposures to US sub-prime debt and by an inability to raise funds in wholesale markets, RBS foundered in late 2008 and had to be bailed out by the UK government which took an 83 per cent stake.

This shareholding, acquired at 50p a share, is currently held by the UK Treasury on behalf of all UK taxpayers. The total cost was £45 billion. RBS shares currently stand at 24.1p. They bounced up last week on news of yet another swathe of redundancies at its global markets and investments division. But the book loss on this holding is still a colossal £23 billion. There is also a pile of some £187 billion of toxic assets to be managed.

For all these liabilities, RBS is still a formidable force in both domestic and business banking in Scotland. It may represent a liability currently, but hopefully will not always remain so. Through its history and provenance it would seem to lie squarely within the Scottish estate. But does it?

First Minister Alex Salmond does not seem to think so. He said in an interview with Channel Four news last week that an independent Scotland would not share the UK government’s exposure to the Royal Bank’s toxic assets. “The people responsible for [RBS]”, he declared, “... were the London Treasury. Unfortunately they were also responsible for regulating, or at least misregulating, the financial sector as well. I’m afraid people have to take responsibility for the past mistakes they have made”.

This would appear to leave RBS firmly within the bailiwick of Westminster.

However, objections are already being raised to this. First, it is certain the Treasury will query how an SNP administration could fairly lay claim to North Sea oil assets but choose to reject any share of a Scottish bank’s liabilities.

And second, it is by no means clear that an SNP administration would have regulated RBS any differently at the time. Indeed, by way of furnishing a historical aide memoire, Channel Four News last week produced a letter written by the First Minister to Sir Fred Goodwin in 2007 expressing full support for the ABN Amro bid, saying that it was “in Scottish interests for the RBS to be successful and I would like to offer any assistance my office can provide”. This would suggest that regulation in Scotland would have been little different.

The position of the Scottish government is that in the run up to the financial crisis the Scottish Exchequer would have received only an appropriate share of the tax revenues from RBS as taxes are typically allocated on the basis of the location of economic activity rather than HQ. And the bank bailout was to support the entire UK financial system – RBS’s assets and liabilities were spread across the UK – not just the Scottish market. Scotland would therefore take a proportionate share of liabilities. On this basis, an approximate share (such as GDP or per-capita) would be appropriate. Equally, Scotland would be entitled to a similar share of any profit ultimately arising on a sale of the 83 per cent stake.

Whether present liability, or future asset, what might the legal position be? A constitutional expert close to the original 1998 Scotland Act advises me that neither the UK’s assets nor liabilities in or outwith Scotland (and this would include the UK Government’s shareholding in RBS whether it is regarded as an asset or liability) would be automatically affected by a “yes” vote or by any subsequent Westminster Act giving Scotland independence. What is likely to happen is that in the run-up to that Act all such questions will have to be added to the long list about the currency, defence establishments, etc, which will have to be discussed and agreed between the UK and Scottish Governments and Parliaments. His counsel is that both governments should address these questions prior to the referendum being held so that (a) people know what the consequences of a “yes” vote will be and (b) even more important in the event of a vote on independence, the UK government is not held to ransom over such questions by a Scottish government claiming to represent the will of the Scottish people.

Further advice is as follows. Any policy of dividing up the shareholdings of RBS and Lloyds Banking Group would be subject to a myriad of problems. The issue is complicated by the fact that RBS (and Lloyds Banking Group) is subject to three types of support from the UK government.

First, there is the implied guarantee of solvency of the “too big to fail” banks, reckoned to be worth £50 billion a year to the UK banks. Second, there are the guarantees of retail deposits underwritten by the UK government. And third, there are specific guarantees in respect of toxic liabilities.

Dividing up the RBS shareholding between the UK and Scotland, either on a 50-50 basis or an apportionment based on population or GDP share would hit problems. Confidence in RBS and its ability to see through its current deleveraging programme rests in some part on the fact that the British state has an effective controlling interest. If that holding by the UK state is reduced then the asset backing of the bank may be questioned by the market – a market currently in little mood to give banks the benefit of any doubt. Equally, if any one of three supports currently provided are diminished by transfer to another government, that may also lead to a negative reaction in the markets.

Would an independent Scotland be able to support the current Scots-registered and headquartered banking sector ? Or might it be forced to shrink the balance sheet base radically? An alternative might be for supervision of RBS and Lloyds to remain with the UK regulator rather than any agency set up by a future independent Scottish government. But that would be a most anomalous situation: which government would be the provider of last resort support? The question of the future ownership of the RBS shareholding alone is horrendously complex and set to keep candles burning long into the night in both London and Edinburgh. And an amicable settlement looks in no way assured.

Related Articles

• Bill Jamieson: David Cameron’s referendum headache

  Pushing for an early devolution vote to satisfy ‘investor uncertainty’ may rebound on the PM

  17 Comments

• The downfall of the Scottish banks

  • Dark day as centuries of tradition come to an end • Chiefs Goodwin and Hornby brought down • Government takes big stakes in RBS and HBOS • Shares still slump on news of no dividends

  0 Comments

• Bill Jamieson: No escape from scramble for assets

  Disengaging from the UK will require give and take if the balance sheet is to be reconciled

  0 Comments

Comments

There are 12 comments to this article

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

12

bieldmaster

Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 05:49 AM

Rephrasing the headline question to;Who, in control of all their sanity and facullties would touch R.B.S.with a disenfected barge pole?

• Report Unsuitable

11

Col.Blimp III

Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 10:11 PM

I am not going to bother reading the article ... but will answer the question posed in the headline. ````````````````````````````` ````````````` ```` `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````` `````` ``````````` RBS is a PLC which the UK government owns a great deal of shares in ............ If and when the UK splits up these shares will be split pro-rata between the parties concerned.... thereafter the banks operations in Scotland will be regulated by the government of Scotland and the banks operations elsewhere will be regulated by the government in who's jurisdiction it is operating. .

• Report Unsuitable

10

Beachdair

Friday, January 20, 2012 at 02:52 AM

Mr Jamieson says "...it is certain the Treasury will query how an SNP administration could fairly lay claim to North Sea oil assets but choose to reject any share of a Scottish bank’s liabilities." He is mixing apples and oranges. ............................................................. The Treasury has already been forced to admit that revenues from the Scottish area of the North Sea must be attributed to Scotland in GERS reports - this after never before having attributed a penny to Scotland government. ........................................................................ But even in that case, the UK government promulgated the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999, which illegally moved Scotland's North Sea border to the north, thereby transferring some 6,255 statute square miles (5,540 nautical square miles) of Scottish waters to English jurisdiction. The revenues from that theft are of course not attributed to Scotland.

• Report Unsuitable

9

Beachdair

Friday, January 20, 2012 at 02:31 AM

Mr Jamieson says "...it is by no means clear that an SNP administration would have regulated RBS any differently at the time." But it is crystal clear that the SNP had no say in the regulation of RBOS or any other Scottish-registered bank.

• Report Unsuitable

8

sprog

Friday, January 20, 2012 at 01:07 AM

Whoever put up the money to buy RBS will in time recoup what they paid and perhaps make a profit into the bargain.***Good on them!*** The new owners will be free to change the name of their new acquisition just as Santander changed Alliance & Leicester when they bought it.***What is the problem Bill?***An independent Scotland will be free to issue gilts which I hope will be used to help rebuild the mutual banking sector that served the people so well for over a hundred years before the neo-cons of the Thatcher years were allowed to destroy it.

• Report Unsuitable

7

WilliamCooper

Monday, January 16, 2012 at 10:19 PM

It's a little disengenious to say that as the regulators were in London it is England who should shoulder the cost of RBS. The decision to rapidly expand was taken by the RBS board in Edinburgh. The same regulators who allowed this also governed English banks Barclays and HSBC but they didn't make the reckless decisions RBS did. Even Lloyds didn't and only end up in their present state because they were daft enough to listen to Gordon Brown who sadlled them with HBOS. It is time for some to adopt a more mature argument and stop blaming England for all their ills. RBS is a Scottish failure; if Salmond was prepared to bask in RBS' glory when it bought ABN he should be man enough to accept some of the fall-out.

• Report Unsuitable

6

GMacd

Monday, January 16, 2012 at 12:58 PM

5 - I agree with you analysis. The solution is presumably relatively simple. Scotland takes on the relevant share in the RBS debt as part of the National debt we get. In return Scotland gets the relevant proportion of the shares which would allow us to benefit from any future growth. The Bank would then have the UK Govt as its majority shareholder but as others say the Bank is predominantly currently foreign owned any way. The risk for Scotland is then that as there is no benefit or pressure for RBS to maintain its HQ is Scotland it moves to London with all the other Banks presumably resulting in thousands of job losses north of the border. This is a presumption though - we need answers to this sort of detail before any one can cast a sensible informed vote

• Report Unsuitable

5

tagascot

Monday, January 16, 2012 at 07:51 AM

Bill Jamieson - clearly still a financial illiterate - RBS is owned by its international shareholders and regulated by those jurisdictions it operates in - mainly England duh!

• Report Unsuitable

4

fourbyfour

Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 08:40 PM

This article is naive in the extreme. RBS is a UK institution, there is absolutely no doubt about that.

• Report Unsuitable

3

wee-scamp

Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Bill is mischief making again. There is nothing complex about this question at all. In fact it's very simple. RBS was regulated by the FSA, BoE and the Treasury not the Scottish Govt or any of its agencies. In addition, its main shareholders were City based fund managers and similar. They owned it and were very much responsible for failing to ensure the board behaved itself. So despite Bill emphasising the fact that at least part of RBS's businesses were Scottish registered it is of course ownership that really counts and RBS was categorically not Scottish owned. Now what to do with it post independence is a moot point. To my mind and given how little real benefit it is to Scotland then I think Scotland should let it go and agree that the English can keep it. I'd much rather start a new Scottish bank that will work with the govt and industry to help broaden and grow our economy. RBS won't. It's too broken and has an old fashioned anglo saxon economics mindset.

• Report Unsuitable

2

quarry200

Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM

RBS is domiciled in Scotand. If Scotland is mature enough to be independent it should accept the debts of its dud banks. Just like Iceland. Of course the immature will blame the english....

• Report Unsuitable

1

stu,dundee

Sunday, January 15, 2012 at 03:55 AM

whoever recieved the corperation taxes over the YEARS ,are liable,whoever was in charge of regulating the finacial institutions are liable.il take an uneducated guess and say,,westminster,. the bank of england and the fsa..unless ? scotland got back a barnett consequential on the direct corparation taxes in the good years.i fail to see why scotland should take any of the bank debt..but then this sort of jurnalism is more for the headline.i look forward to the day when the bar is set just a little of the floor.

• Report Unsuitable

Order by:

• Newest first
• |
• Oldest first

Page 1 of 1

• 1
• Show all

Logged in as:

Comment here. Start typing your comment here:

Post comment

Please adhere to our Community guidelines

Your view

Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.