What Barclays has pulled out of a hat most recently is capital, namely up to £7.3 billion dollars from Qatar and Abu Dhabi that gives the two countries’ sovereign wealth funds a bevy of warrants, short-term convertibles and some reserve-capital instruments with a whopping 14% coupon, and – assuming all is excercised – over 30% of the company.

FT compares this to the deal offered to Barclays by the UK government:

• 10/11 per cent coupon; no warrants

• Existing shareholders would get the chance to buy new stock at an historically depressed price when, according to management, the underlying business is holding up remarkably well.

• Both shareholders and the rest of us would get a full blown prospectus, giving the London market generally some evidence that Barclays’ balance sheet really is as strong as the board insists.

I would like to think their motivation for turning down the deal from Her Majesty’s Treasury is that, you know, Barclays is making a statement that banks should only be nationalized as a last resort, and when private capital is available it should be taken even at extreme expense. You can hardly call giving up a 30% stake in your company “remaining independent,” but at least it’s not bank socialism.

There’s two big ugly problems here though that make Barclays look so much less like a capitalist saint. The UK deal had two thorns: limits on executive comp, and the requirement to issue, as you see above, a full prospectus.

So – is Barclays a champion of the capitalist system? Afraid to show us their books? Or just interested in keeping Bob Diamond on the dole to the tune of an an amount which BBC News refers to as “double figure millions in annual remuneration”? Dunno… I’m just glad I’m not a shareholder.