egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
RBS to disappear outside Scotland
- Thread starter egb_hibs
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
How so? Changing their name outside Scotland is hardly them 'disappearing'?
Yeah, it looks like a strategic move rather than them "falling"
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
How so? Changing their name outside Scotland is hardly them 'disappearing'?
What's in a name indeed. If they become Natwest elsewhere, what does it all mean....
One thing it means is that a quick re-registration of head office makes RBS a brand of Natwest rather than vice versa. We'll see.
Even without that, it was really the RBS identity and branding that made it Scottish...the actual company was a combination of RBS and the far larger Natwest it acquired.
- - - Updated - - -
Why would those be different things. I agree with you that it's a strategic change, but the strategic relegation of RBS in favour of Natwest is 'the mighty falling' IMHO
Jack
Private Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
That's not what the article says.
"In England and Wales, all RBS references, outside head office and the stock exchange listing, will be changed to NatWest."
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2002
As part of their bailout by the government back in 2009 they had to agree to sell off branches to allow for more competition in the retail banking market.
Initially the plan was to sell off all Scottish branches of Natwest and English branches of RBS to Santander. Then it was changed to creating a new bank, Williams and Glynn that would consist of those branches. That idea was canned just over a week ago and now they're back to trying to sell them again.
Ultimately, the RBS brand with regards branches in England was always going to disappear so really this news isn't anything new.
Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk
Initially the plan was to sell off all Scottish branches of Natwest and English branches of RBS to Santander. Then it was changed to creating a new bank, Williams and Glynn that would consist of those branches. That idea was canned just over a week ago and now they're back to trying to sell them again.
Ultimately, the RBS brand with regards branches in England was always going to disappear so really this news isn't anything new.
Sent from my HTC 10 using Tapatalk
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
Fair enough but I still don't agree that they are faling anywhere. They are simply doing a bit of sleight of hand to retain customers under the NatWest brand. At the end of the day all the profits astill go in to the same RBS coffers. I agree that in terms of perception however they could be seen to be falling.
Jack
Private Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
I'm surprised anyone still banks with them.
Poor customer service.
Huge fines for that and ripping off their customers.
Not letting their customers get their money because of technical cock ups, at least twice!
Poor rates for savers and the Borrowers.
It's probably only because of dafties* who won't change banks despite it probably being in their best interest that the RBS is still going.
If it was Hibs and they had a customer forum it's would be in continuous meltdown.
* If you're a dafty have a look elsewhere there's loads of other banks with loads of good accounts and even some that will give you a wee wedge for moving as well as organising it all for you - including many that will take your overdraft!
Poor customer service.
Huge fines for that and ripping off their customers.
Not letting their customers get their money because of technical cock ups, at least twice!
Poor rates for savers and the Borrowers.
It's probably only because of dafties* who won't change banks despite it probably being in their best interest that the RBS is still going.
If it was Hibs and they had a customer forum it's would be in continuous meltdown.
* If you're a dafty have a look elsewhere there's loads of other banks with loads of good accounts and even some that will give you a wee wedge for moving as well as organising it all for you - including many that will take your overdraft!
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
I know what it says, which is why I said it would now only take a reverse of the HO registration to make RBS a brand of Natwest.
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
Jack
Private Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
They came up with that crap before the last time.
Lets just say Scotland did become independent and was in the EU. The RBS would stay or go where the money was. Wherever that was. They'd chase the profit.
London might still be huge. Scotland would still have unfettered access to Europe and the world and could have a subsidiary in village London. Tough call.
RBS currently mostly owned by the UK government. I wonder what inspired that statement at this time?
Shit bank anyway.
SuperTortolano
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
Feckin hate all banks, bunch of thieving basturds. Watch them all fall like dominoes when Deutsche Bank collapse's.
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
This is maybe behind the branding strategy - RBS was the brand of international expansion. The natwest branding could relate to the localism strategy now in place
Jack
Private Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2007
Seems more and more world banks are preparing to pull out of the UK, London, "within weeks" of lodging Article 50 contrary to what they're saying in public. According to the Independent.
[It wasn't known as] Nats Piss [for nothing hence the change to RBS] might have the whole square mile to itself in the Village of London.
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
Seems like yesterday when folk were adamant on here that Indy would not produce such an exodus; when it would have produced one a lot more thoroughgoing than brexit. Belief is a strange old thing. As it has happened, Scotland has maybe lucked out with brexit - especially if subsequent Indy makes us much poorer. We're well placed to become a site for near-shored jobs, a la Eastern Europe.
That said, we are not looming large within industry speculation - though the formerly Scottish banks aren't on the list:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/confidential-deutsche-bank-briefing-where-banks-post-brexit-2016-7
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
Seems like yesterday when folk were adamant on here that Indy would not produce such an exodus; when it would have produced one a lot more thoroughgoing than brexit. Belief is a strange old thing. As it has happened, Scotland has maybe lucked out with brexit - especially if subsequent Indy makes us much poorer. We're well placed to become a site for near-shored jobs, a la Eastern Europe.
That said, we are not looming large within industry speculation - though the formerly Scottish banks aren't on the list:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/confidential-deutsche-bank-briefing-where-banks-post-brexit-2016-7
Well of course we're not, because we're not an "alternative EU entity" (yet)?
Not sure what point you imagine you're making here.
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
Well of course we're not, because we're not an "alternative EU entity" (yet)?
Not sure what point you imagine you're making here.
The point I'm making is that any post brexit migration suggests that a post Indy flight would indeed have happened much though people argued it was
all bluster speculation by unionist press.
Secondly, while you are right that Scotland is not yet in play, these people are moving in search of certainty. Scotland's future is very uncertain and therefore I'm not surprised it's not featuring in (further) speculation.
That said, i do think it provides us with opportunities - but we shouldn't assume it will.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
On an oblique note, it's indicative to me of one of the most pernicious aspects of globalisation and the free movement of capital. There's jobs and lives attached to these domiciles, which as ever appear to be irrelevant footnotes at best - but hey, just move the plaque so the cash keeps flowing into the "right" pockets.
egb_hibs
Private Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2002
I agree. However it's also more complicated than the fat cats narrative allows.
In general terms, if companies don't do this, they will fold (resulting in greater job losses) as consumers will go for the cheaper option from those who do; and if nobody did it, from the cheaper option provided by overseas companies. Apart from any more scientific studies, polls on this hallowed forum have shown that people would not pay more to 'buy british'.
In these particular cases, customer protection is also a consideration. Which is I think a legal obligation on executives.
Of course the fat cats may benefit, but that's really a by product of the main problem. They keep their business viable in respect of consumers by saving x off the cost base and then cream of a small slice of that.
This leads to wealth polarisation and all kinds of grave social problems. But it cannot be solved by any given company even if they wanted to.
It needs a either a political solution - which is very difficult as it would be rejected by pro business parties (and rightly so) as hobbling them vs overseas competition, and by both pro and allegedly anti business parties, as racist. In any case, companies would just relocate (which survival may make necessary as well as protecting profits).
...or a consumer behaviour driven solution; which isn't going to happen, as a but British ethos would again be considered racist, therefore rationalising people's instinct to go for the cheaper option.
It's hard to see things changing till equilibrium of global labour rates is achieved through the rocketing fortunes of foreign labour meeting the plummeting fortunes of western labour - they don't actually need to get anywhere near actually meeting given the overheads of offshoring.
Long before that point, technology will be a far bigger killer of jobs and make this stuff look like small beer. The noughties solution of using a credit based economy to paper over depressed wages then taxing the spending it allowed to invent state jobs to employ people, is bust. It's going to be much worse for our kids.
In general terms, if companies don't do this, they will fold (resulting in greater job losses) as consumers will go for the cheaper option from those who do; and if nobody did it, from the cheaper option provided by overseas companies. Apart from any more scientific studies, polls on this hallowed forum have shown that people would not pay more to 'buy british'.
In these particular cases, customer protection is also a consideration. Which is I think a legal obligation on executives.
Of course the fat cats may benefit, but that's really a by product of the main problem. They keep their business viable in respect of consumers by saving x off the cost base and then cream of a small slice of that.
This leads to wealth polarisation and all kinds of grave social problems. But it cannot be solved by any given company even if they wanted to.
It needs a either a political solution - which is very difficult as it would be rejected by pro business parties (and rightly so) as hobbling them vs overseas competition, and by both pro and allegedly anti business parties, as racist. In any case, companies would just relocate (which survival may make necessary as well as protecting profits).
...or a consumer behaviour driven solution; which isn't going to happen, as a but British ethos would again be considered racist, therefore rationalising people's instinct to go for the cheaper option.
It's hard to see things changing till equilibrium of global labour rates is achieved through the rocketing fortunes of foreign labour meeting the plummeting fortunes of western labour - they don't actually need to get anywhere near actually meeting given the overheads of offshoring.
Long before that point, technology will be a far bigger killer of jobs and make this stuff look like small beer. The noughties solution of using a credit based economy to paper over depressed wages then taxing the spending it allowed to invent state jobs to employ people, is bust. It's going to be much worse for our kids.