Savers get a bigger safety net - but rates remain dire

Sterling is (still) a separate and distinct currency, so why do we have to have a limit in another currency for sterling deposits? This means in effect that the limit varies which makes it difficult for savers to keep track. This is just the thin end of the slippery slope to joining the Euro. I can hear the politicians already: 'It will be easier for our savers to keep below the limit if we join the Euro'.

And why should we have to be (only) 'In line with Europe'?

The compensation limit should be a lot higher.SAy £200000

That's much better than in Guernsey where you may only get up to £50,000, depending on the overall size of the bank and the arrangement of the retail deposits. The scheme pays out a max of £100 million in any five year period, so that makes the UK and Europe look very good.

This scheme was only forced in because landsbanki Guernsey went into Administration on Oct 7 2008, but it didn't help them.

Why not a higher figure of say £100k for example? Because The Treasury, who ultimately decide these things, have been much politicised under Brown and will now have no interest in supporting the rich as they see them i.e. those with savings of this magnitude. The notion that the figure changes with the Euro exchange rate is typical of their addled thinking. I just hope that Osborne and Alexander clear out the Treasury of Brownites and recruit some new blood of at least average intelligence. Every number and view produced by these people should be viewed with suspicion.

Anonmymous 1 - it is your thinking that is addled and likely your intelligence that is below average. The €100,000 is set in euros by the EU. Th UK will implement a figure in Sterling which approximates to this value at the time that the FSA implements the new limit in Jan 2011. It will then be fixed (obviously), not floating with the exchange rate.

I hope that if Osborne does clear out any of his Treasury officials he recruits new people of much greater intelligence than himself otherwise palpably it will be a case of the dumb leading the the dumb and tally ho Ireland here we come down the double dip rollercoaster.

Work in the Treasury do we Mike? Or just a plain old European loving Leftie?

Anyone can do better in The Treasury than the Chancellor's predecessor but one - even a dimwit like me. He brought the nation to its knees and if we head the way of Ireland it is he who is responsible.However I do think that Darling would have done a pretty good job if he had remained in position.

And I do think it preferable for the UK to have a limit of £100k without the need for any reference to the €100k.

The only reason the limit is going up to EUR100,000 is that the UK is a member of the EU.

Surely the limit is being brought into line with Europe (quite possibly under European law for all I know) as a simple political move to create a level playing field - so that no one country attempts to attract a lion's share of savers' money.

Do you lot not remember when Ireland in their desperation in the credit crisis suddenly trumped the rest of Europe with their much higher limit and caused a bit of a rumpus (it wasn't that long ago)?

mixed metaphors intentional

But where is it safe to hold more than £100,000 - if anywhere these days?

I agree but the same could be said for £50k. If anywhere? - Lloyds Bank Group - 43% owned by the Government - but their interest rates are generally dire. No wonder they have a funding problem and are reliant on the BoE and the markets.