I agree the wording provides "wriggle room". No government will sign a blank cheque.
Depositors were right to take out their money and many will continue to do so.
Trust has been broken and NR will probably pay and lose its independence.
The run may have been averted. Tomorrow will tell.
NR does not fit the "too big to fail" doctrine which makes the "guarantee" quite unusual until the wider context is factored in.
The BoE, FSA and HM Treasury in a joint EU submission (1995) stated:
"Guarantee schemes should not be designed to prevent or manage financial crises, as their most important role is to mitigate the effects of an institution’s failure by providing compensation. Measures to achieve financial stability should be delivered mainly through ensuring effective supervision. Robust crisis management procedures are also essential, as, unless planned for, normal working arrangements tend to come under severe strain and collapse altogether in crises, just when decisions are needed most urgently."
"The UK authorities believe that EU directives on guarantee schemes should continue to allow Member States to limit the amount of compensation payable andmaintain some element of ‘co-insurance’. The UK authorities believe that allowing consumers to bear an acceptable level of the cost should an institution fail, represents a proportionate way to address moral hazard."
I suggest that "ensuring effective supervision" will take on a whole new dimension from now on.