Extracts from the latest annual accounts:

“A record set of results”, “Your society has continued to build upon its past success by significantly increasing its pre-tax profit and assets base”, “Demonstrated the strength of its sustainable business model” and “Recognised as the hallmarks of a good independent mutual building society.”

Said William Worsley, chairman, June 20 2008

“Our results this year are the best ever”, “Your society has no such exposure to these financial instruments (toxic assets)”, “and has behaved both prudently and sensibly by maintaining strong liquidity over the year” and “Our business is built upon the solid foundations of individual investors who have confidence in us as an independent building society.”

Said John J Carrier, chief executive, June 20 2008.

Contrast with: “Scarborough Building Society has seen difficult trading conditions leading to a substantial impact on profit and a resultant weakening capital position.”

Press Release, November 4 2008.

As we all can see, the society has disclosed that as early as June it was not involved in any structured financial products such as those that caused the collapse of the Northern Rock, yet only a few weeks later has found it necessary to find a larger, more financially secure partner or saviour.

While the loss of the name Scarborough is to say the least unfortunate, I feel it much important that members are informed as to the specific reason(s) for this disaster.

What has caused such a rapid and serious reduction in capital, who is responsible and have any bonus payments been withheld or withdrawn?

An answer to these simple questions would do as a starter.

What about publishing the half-year accounts as has been done in previous years?

Forgive me but the mere bland statement of “difficult trading conditions” is not sufficient.

Members of the society who are the ultimate owners should not be treated in such a disparaging way.

Those directors who a few months ago were very eloquent in their praise of their strategy should now be just as forthcoming in any failings.

It is possible that “maintaining confidence” could be a reason for withholding information but as a “merger” has already been rubber-stamped without reference to members this should not now be accepted as a valid reason for silence.

Geoffrey LM Young

Filey Road

Scarborough