Is it really better in terms of job security to be "domestically owned", whatever that means?

There's an obsession with "ownership" of businesses in this country which irritates me a lot. When a business "falls into foreign hands" it's perceived as some sort of national setback. It is not. When jobs get transferred overseas, it might be, but what would you rather see? A Japanese company opening up a plant here, or a British one opening a plant overseas? I'm not even sure what we mean by British or Japanese in this case anyway, but give me the employment opportunities in the UK every time.
The families of MG Rover staff were yesterday appealing to the government to somehow step in and save the company. I desperately hope it is saved; we surely all do. More than 10,000 jobs at the company and its suppliers are in the balance. But let's not pretend, as some people are doing, that MG Rover is the British volume car industry. I know our readers at the UK sites belonging to BMW, Honda, Jaguar, Land Rover, Nissan, Peugeot, Vauxhall and Toyota might think differently. They, along with a few famous niche manufacturers, represent the "other" 93% of British car production. No other European country has nine (or even eight) volume carmakers.
Businesses operate where it makes sense for them to do so, without sentiment. Is it really better in terms of job security to be "domestically owned", whatever that means? Governments should be supporting and investing in manufacturing jobs in their country, whoever owns the business. The nationality of the shareholders and board members shouldn't cloud the issue.