Money, money, money
Intriguing exchanges at Holyrood on the subject of money.
Firstly, between the first minister and Iain Gray on capital expenditure, with Annabel Goldie pitching in too. Secondly, on the subject of HBOS with Tavish Scott.
The latter first. Alex Salmond was notably coy in response to a request from Tavish Scott that the first minister should declare that the proposed take-over by Lloyds TSB was no longer necessary.
Mr Scott, the LibDem leader, said in terms that the recapitalisation engineered by the UK Government obviated the need for the take-over - and that, consequently, it would be preferable for Scotland to retain HBOS, with its Edinburgh HQ and branch structure.
My feeling is that would be Mr Salmond's preference too - if things were equal. But things are chaotic - and Mr Salmond must deal with the situation he finds, not the situation he might prefer.
Specifically, he is in detailed negotiations with Lloyds TSB about preserving jobs and decision-making influence in Edinburgh, on the presumption that the deal goes through
He needs leverage with Lloyds TSB. You don't gain leverage by informing a financial institution that you think their proposal for a merger is mince.
Right thing
However, Mr Salmond offered indications as to his thinking. He said he would have preferred the recapitalisation to have occurred some time back, thus forestalling other subsequent developments.
He noted further that the merger partly depends upon the suspension of competition rules - and that such a measure has yet to be tabled and voted upon in the Commons.
He noted still further that the merger rests upon a vote by shareholders in the two banks, given that the boards have given their support.
Which leaves us where? The deal may have logic beyond the capitalisation issue. In other words, it may still be the right thing to do.
If, however, it is not, it may yet be stopped.
So what might happen, given those alternative scenarios. Firstly, the Commons may not endorse the suspension of competition rules - although that would require the UK Government to reverse its declared position, which seems unlikely at this point.
Secondly, the shareholders may say no. Thirdly, another bid may come in. Fourthly, the deal may go through as billed.
Public debt
In essence, Mr Salmond's answers were designed to cover all those eventualities - while dealing upfront with the Lloyds TSB offer which, as he noted, remains the only prospect firmly on the table.
Turning now to the capital investment point, I thought Iain Gray made a notably good fist at putting his points. Restraining himself, he sought to project an image of consensuality - while, in fact, challenging a key aspect of the Scottish Government's economic strategy, the deployment of the Scottish Futures Trust in search of a new model for investing in schools, hospitals and the like.
Mr Gray said: suspend the SFT and go back to PFI/PPP for now in order to kick-start the economy with public projects.
Mr Salmond argued, in response, that a period of economic turmoil was the very point at which it was vital to secure value for money.
PPP/PFI, he asserted, didn't meet that criterion: plus it was about to be put on balance sheet under new rules, thus counting as public debt and removing a key element of its attraction in the past.
It was a powerful, substantive exchange with both leaders making cogent points. The winner? We'll only know that with the passage of time. If the trust comes up with the goods, then Mr Salmond will be justified. If not . . .
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.