The Scotsman should today have attended a press conference being given by Eric Daniels and Victor Blank, chief executive and chairman respectively of Lloyds Banking Group, which recently took over HBOS.
But Lloyds has banned City Editor, Martin Flanagan, from attending. They gave no reason.
As far as we can establish, this action is unprecedented in denying a major media organisation the right to question senior figures in a bank which has a substantial interest in Scotland, and large numbers of staff north of the Border.
Lloyds is a publicly listed company, in which we, as taxpayers, also have a substantial holding.
The group has not said exactly why it has taken this decision to prevent us being there to ask the questions that will inform our readers about a bank which has posted a £10 billion loss today.
However, it is likely to be because of our previous coverage of the bank, and its takeover of HBOS.
The Scotsman questioned whether the takeover was in the best interests of Scotland. It also questioned whether the deal - engineered by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor
- was in the interests of consumers who would face a reduction in choice.
And we also reported on Daniels' view of Scotland, something which clearly irked the American chief executive.
Readers of this blog are fair minded people so, let us just set out what was written, by whom and when
On 31 October last year 2008, Flanagan wrote a story which said this:
A SUPERBANK of Lloyds TSB and HBOS will be run from London, with none of the Scottish institution's staff at the helm, it emerged yesterday - banishing any idea that the controversial deal is a "merger".
In an interview with The Scotsman, Eric Daniels, the chief executive of Lloyds TSB, gave some insight into his vision for the combined bank and admitted he was "indifferent" to the 300-year heritage of the Bank of Scotland. His comments provoked fury among Scottish business people, who branded them "ludicrous" and warned indigenous businesses could suffer irreparable harm at the hands of the new bank.
In response, on 1 November 2008 we published a letter from Daniels. This is it in full:
Your article 'Lloyds chief's snub for Scottish bank' (31 October 2008), entirely misrepresents my views on the Bank of Scotland.
One of the many benefits of this deal is the strength and heritage of the many brands that will be held by the combined Group. I have tremendous respect for the heritage of the Bank of Scotland and the HBOS Group as a whole and I am certainly not indifferent to that heritage and did not use that word in the context that was presented in the article.
The senior management decisions that I made this week were based entirely on depth of experience, expertise and track record, and were not related to the organisation in which they serve. I was extremely fortunate to have two pools of very talented candidates to select from and I believe that the team I have appointed is exceptionally strong and will be well placed to ensure the continued success of the combined Group.
What I believe is important now is that we look to the future. We are in the midst of extremely turbulent financial times and our focus is very much on ensuring that our prudent approach to risk and our customer relationship focus is maintained.
J ERIC DANIELS
Group chief executive
Lloyds TSB
On 4 November, the following also appeared in the paper:
AN ARTICLE (The Scotsman, 31 October, 2008) quoted remarks made in an interview with the chief executive of Lloyds TSB, Eric Daniels.
Mr Daniels insists that the article misrepresented his views on the heritage of the Bank of Scotland. He says he is certainly not indifferent to that heritage and did not use that word in the context that was presented in the article.
We accept that Mr Daniels did not, as suggested in the article, admit that he was "indifferent" to the 300-year heritage of the Bank of Scotland.
He says the word was used in the context of choice of executive staff and was intended to mean that they would be chosen impartially, regardless of their background in one bank or the other.
We are happy to clarify our article in this way.
And finally, on 29 November we carried an article in Daniels's name which, included the following passage:
HBOS is central to Lloyds TSB's plan to create a very strong institution which will serve Scots well, writes ERIC DANIELS
I am immensely respectful of the cultural and historical significance attached to both the Bank of Scotland and the Mound and this will be critical for us as we plan and build the new organisation. Both banks will continue to play an important role within the new group, not just symbolically but at the heart of operations in Scotland. After all, it is the considerable strength of our brands that will prove to be the real power behind the combined group.
Fair-minded readers will see that The Scotsman was prepared to accept that Daniels did not, as suggested in the article, admit that he was "indifferent" to the 300-year heritage of the Bank of Scotland.
This is what modern newspapers do. If there is a case for clarification, there will be a clarification. We were big enough, grown up enough, to do it.
What is, frankly, pathetic about these events it that it seems people at the top of Lloyds are not prepared to similarly grown up but want to vindictively exclude The Scotsman from their press conference, which is open to other financial journalists.
You can be sure that this kind of attempt to bully us will not succeed. We will still report on Lloyds, ask pertinent questions, present the positives and the negatives.
We owe it to you as the readers - on line and in the newspaper - to do so.
