http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ince-cable

Any great benefit to keeping it indefinitely?

Given it's apparently making £0.5billion a year profit, yes. £0.5billion pounds per year worth of benefit.

That's just it, that's why I'm not understanding the sale. Other than the usual greedy bastards together bit...

The basic concerns with governments holding important industrial assets are protectionism, subsidy, and the corrosion of faith in the openness of markets.


http://www.economist.com/news/britain/2 ... ing-losses

That's the general issue. If we keep the bank in government hands, does the government then have to involve itself in the running of the bank? How do we stop the bank getting political favours that are denied to its competitors? How do we know that it will never be used, for instance, to offer soft loans in order to keep politically sensitive factories open until just after an election?

We have all those things anyway. We had them from the moment the government bailed them out. If those things actually mattered they wouldn't have done so.

Sure. In the short term is one thing though; letting it become a permanent state of affairs is deemed likely to increase the temptation on all sides for misbehaviour, and of course the opportunities.

I would like to see what gov. can do with RBS. If they give it enough independence they could do well out of it. Or it could end up like NHS. Or like Post Office. Or like quangos...

You mean privatised?