Toe-curling, infuriating, shaming. These are only some of the emotions I experienced while watching BBC Scotland’s documentary on the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Sub-titled The Bank that Ran out of Money, the programme laid bare the extent of the folly of RBS’s global ambitions. As one commentator put it, they thought they were spinning gold out of straw.
Worst moments? Watching Tom McKillop, a fine chemist and industrialist, clearly out of his depth – but I’ll cry few tears at his fate, given that he’s still managing to accumulate baubles on the boardroom circuit. Realising that either Goodwin didn’t have a scooby what he was doing, or if he did, he told barefaced lies to shareholders and the rest of us, year after year. But absolutely the worst was realising that an awful lot of RBS employees got unco rich on the back of selling poor Americans an unfeasible dream. Here was financial piracy and imperialism on an incredible scale, and it was cloaked in the Saltire.
At the same time, RBS was branding itself glitzily across big sporting events and sponsorship opportunities. Swashbuckling its way into everyone’s consciousness. And most of us were proud of seeing a wee Scottish company mix it with the big boys and willing to share a little of the lustre of its reputation: few of us paused to question the desirability or necessity of big being better.
Now, we have come full circle. RBS has eschewed splashing the cash in favour of grassroots community sponsorship and grantmaking in an attempt to rehabilitate itself. Yet, even this is blatant blaggarding. To vote in its Community Force competition that pits charities against each other in a bilious game of sell your need, you must register with its website and attempt to avoid the bank’s marketing clutches in the process. A sneaky way to try and drum up new customers methinks.
Such swinging extremes seem part and parcel of the Scottish psyche, epitomised by the stance of political parties over our constitutional future. We’re either too wee to be half way decent on our own, or capable of dazzling the family of nations with our greatness. The SNP, in particular, is guilty of braggadocio, albeit with the best of intentions and understandable rationale.
If your opponents constantly do down your country’s prospects, the obvious temptation is to counter that by trying to show how much better – wealthier and healthier – Scotland could be with independence. Filling Scots with hope, aspiration and big ambition is a vital tenet of Salmond’s strategy towards independence. It’s why under an SNP Government, building a sense of national pride through showcase sporting events like the Commonwealth Games and the Ryder Cup are key components of the masterplan. It’s also why the First Minister is much taken by Scotland being a world leader in renewable energy technology. Self belief is everything in the race to win hearts and minds.
But this extreme is matched by the perverse pride many Unionists take in promoting the idea that Scotland on its own would be an economic basketcase, a stance that has encouraged them to forge political careers out of keeping the Scots cringe firmly at the forefront of our approach to life. There is something far wrong with a political creed that revels in doing down a people’s ability to survive and thrive. And it has succeeded in maintaining generations under the yoke of under-achievement, making us sniffy about real success, happy to wallow in our mediocrity. How else to explain our swagger under the weight of poverty, ill-health, violence and aim always to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in everything from sporting endeavour to personal attainment?
There is a dishonesty inherent in both extremes and a little more honesty in our political discourse would go a long way. Like Goldilocks, I’d be happy with just right. Not every country can be great; this nation does not need to be rubbish; a half way house that does things decently would do for me.
I’d settle for living in a country which prioritises tackling inequality and injustice, where fairness is at the heart of the agenda.  That resolves to end the scandal of children growing up in poverty; which ensures that the most vulnerable citizens do not go without or have to fight to get what they need; where people pay what they can afford for the benefit of all. I’d settle for a Scotland that feels confident enough to remove the chip on it shoulder, but does not feel the need to wear a fur coat with nae knickers either. I’d be happy with a Scotland that is neither great nor rubbish, but just content with being good enough.
#1 by Jeff on October 18, 2011 - 10:15 am
Fab post Kate.
For me the programme showed that we need more RBS’ rather than less, but that’s not 2011 RBS’ but rather the old prudent, locally-focussed RBS’ of the 1980s. Airdrie Savings Bank is one such contender perhaps but more Scottish players to the Scottish market will help to constrain delusions of grandeur that some banks may have and, crucially, having enough players in the market will allow bad apples to go bust with little risk to the mortgage holders that can go elsewhere.
I fear the political will to make the wholesale changes that are required is waning and we’ll slip back into the old ways and we’ll have another seismic crash in the 2020s. Scotland can avoid that by going its own way and, as you say, getting things just right on its own terms.
#2 by Barbarian on October 18, 2011 - 10:23 am
Good post. One tiny thing though, I firmly believe that while the “too wee” descriptive came from the Unionist camp, the “cringe” is heartily promoted by nationalists!
I particularly like your final sentence, it should be the used as the closing phrase for the SNP conference. It has more impact than any political spin.
#3 by GMcM on October 18, 2011 - 11:13 am
I think the SNP would be better advised to adopt the first sentence of the last paragraph.
However I don’t see that happening since changing what is the heart of the agenda would effectively be the end of the SNP.
#4 by Doug Daniel on October 18, 2011 - 12:50 pm
“I’d settle for living in a country which prioritises tackling inequality and injustice, where fairness is at the heart of the agenda.”
The whole point of independence is that we think it will allow us to move towards this goal far quicker than trying to turn the rest of the UK away from the right-wing ideology that has plagued the UK since 1979, so I’m not quite sure how this would spell the end of the SNP?
Also, it’s a bit rich for a Lib Dem to be lecturing the SNP on fairness and prioritising inequality and injustice, when your party are at the heart of a government which is trying its best to make the UK even more unfair, unequal and unjust than it already is, and which is itself just a few thousand votes away from ceasing to exist in Holyrood.
#5 by GMcM on October 18, 2011 - 4:52 pm
That is the worst thing anyone has ever called me. I am downright offended by that slanderous comment!
I’m a Labour man. I will not hold this against you my good man – but beware I may throw that insult back at you at a time of my choosing 😀
#6 by Jeff on October 18, 2011 - 5:05 pm
I suspect Doug was getting you mixed up with G Hmltn.
And it could’ve been worse, he… No, it couldn’t have been worse. 😉
#7 by GMcM on October 18, 2011 - 5:13 pm
Would it be worse if he called me a Tory? Now that is a question that would need a whole new thread to consider, surely?
#8 by Doug Daniel on October 18, 2011 - 5:25 pm
Indeed, I was getting my shortened vowelless username beginning with G muddled up.
I offer my most humblest apologies GMcM, I would never knowingly accuse someone of being a Lib Dem without proof. It was most out of character.
I feel terrible now…
#9 by Richard on October 18, 2011 - 11:05 am
“There is something far wrong with a political creed that revels in doing down a people’s ability to survive and thrive.”
Hear hear!
#10 by GMcM on October 18, 2011 - 11:28 am
The chip on you shoulder looks more like a gorge going by this post.
I hope you feel better after getting that off your chest though 😀
#11 by The Burd on October 18, 2011 - 12:23 pm
Any commenter can post a snidey. I’m not sure I do have a chip on my shoulder, perhaps you’d care to expand on your argument? Oh and if you work for RBS, you might like to declare that interest.
#12 by GMcM on October 18, 2011 - 5:10 pm
I was only teasing.
Work for RBS…that is the second worst thing anyone has said to me! 😉
I do think the tone you chose for your piece swung drastically from the oppressed to the aspirational. ‘The big bad ‘unionists’ keep talking us down’ etc etc
I don’t agree with your assessment of the situation but if you do thats fair enough.
If Labour have to be realisitic about the powers that should be devolved to Scotland then I think the nationalists should be realistic about the nature of the relationship that exists between the countries on this island. We are not oppressed and the majority of people in the union don’t talk down Scotland in the way you make out.
There are people out there who do share those views but they are very few. Just asthere are people who exhibit the negatives views against the union. I think most nationalist genuinely believe independence would make Scotland better – I don’t agree.
I don’t think Scotland would necessarily become a basketcase – I do think we would be worse off. There’s a world of difference between those views.
I believe Scotland can achieve more as part of the union. I believe we can create that society you long to see by working together and not just realising that dream within the borders of this country but for all countries within the UK.
That is the difference between nationalism and socialism. My politics don’t stop at a border. Nationalism is all about borders.
#13 by The Burd on October 18, 2011 - 7:48 pm
Not in the world we live in now it’s not. Some of us believe in independence as a route to a fairer society. I think what I was trying to do is that fighting the political ground from the extremes does no one any good, and that actually there is a middle ground of territory. Of course, the reason neither Labour nor the SNP are wont to go there is because they’d discover far too much in common! I don’t want to be the best or the biggest, but I don’t think we’d be the worst off either. Like I say, good enough!
And apologies for suggesting you worked for RBS – some folk do, even some of my friends actually!
#14 by GMcM on October 19, 2011 - 9:37 am
I have a friend who works for RBS too, it’s a cross she has to bear.
Nationalism IS all about borders. If it wasn’t then it would be called internationalism.
Nationalism is about advancing the case of a nation. Socialism is about equality and fairness for people regardless of their location.
You do realise you can put forward the case for Scots without excluding others in the UK. Its why the nationalist view is so narrow-minded imo. The betterment of Scots at the expense of anyone else. Also, it is this view that clearly shows why nationalists don’t understand the union and the possibilities of the union. I want to see a fairer Scotland like you – the union is the best way to achieve that.
Let’s take the oft spouted view that Scotland is a left-of-centre country. If Scotland left the union, we’re told, it would be run by left-of-centre parties practically ad infinitum. Now that sounds great; look at the other side of the coin though.
We would be condemning the left-of-centre voters throughout rUK to right-of-centre governments ad infinitum. That isn’t advancing Socialism but narrowing it.
It is strange that people say Scotland is a left-of-centre country yet the evidence doesn’t necessarily back that up. If Scotland IS a left-of-centre country, why did people vote for policies that undermine the greater good and promote the cause of the individual in May?
If we really are a country that is socialist at heart, why did so many people want to vote for a council tax freeze which benefits the richest (and reduces the services for the poor); no graduate contribution which helps graduates who will earn more over their working lives (and reduces opportunities for poorer students to go to HE/FE); free prescription charges which were already available to 9/10 of the population (and will cost more nurses their jobs than would otherwise be the case)?
These policies promote the ‘me, me, me’ society not the ‘us, us, us’ society that I want to live in.
Salmond is playing it very smart with these types of policies. He is saying to you (the individual) that he can give you (the individual) what you (…) want; just think of what he could give you (…) if Scotland were independent. If people think of themselves at the expense of others it is much easier for him to sell independence to people. He knows that if people think of the greater good they will know that the union is the best way to advance the lives of the majority of people; not just in Scotland but in the UK.
The more people think of the greater good when electing parties into government the more that social conscience will grow and transcend the borders of these islands. If people think with the left-of-centre heads we’re told they have, they wouldn’t want to just see themselves advance, or their families, or their communities, or Scotland. They would want to see all communites, families and individuals across the UK improve their lot in life. The more people think of the greater good, the bigger they think.
Salmond needs people to think of themselves if he wants to win.
#15 by Doug Daniel on October 19, 2011 - 11:32 am
“We would be condemning the left-of-centre voters throughout rUK to right-of-centre governments ad infinitum. That isn’t advancing Socialism but narrowing it.”
New Labour would have won every election between 1997 and 2005 even without the help of Scottish votes. That’s a fact. rUK are perfectly capable of electing a (supposedly) left-of-centre party when the mood takes them. On the other hand, they also have a nasty habit of lumbering us with right-wing governments which we have no interest in voting for.
Labour supporters often accuse the independence camp of being “narrow minded” and missing the bigger picture. Well, I would say people like yourself are so concerned with trying to save everyone that you forget about the detail, and end up condemning us all. Scotland can’t force England (it’s a bit unfair to tar Wales and Northern Ireland with this brush by saying rUK) to vote for centre-left politicians, and to be honest, it’s quite arrogant to think we can or even should. I remember when America was deciding between Bush or Kerry, and the Guardian got people to send emails to Americans, pleading with them not to vote for Bush. It backfired, as the people who received these emails felt insulted that people from this little island had the cheek to tell them who they should vote for. The same is true of Scottish socialists trying to tell England who to vote for – it’s their choice, not ours.
Surely a much better way to encourage English voters to abandon the Tories is to show them an example closer to home of social democracy working to the betterment of a nation similar to itself? The English have driven themselves into a centre-right corner where each of the three main parties just offers a different shade of the same neo-liberal ideology. Even their fourth-largest party (UKIP) is on the right. They’re almost beyond saving.
The future is localism. Globalism has failed us, which is why the best nations in various UN rankings tend to be small, social democratic nations. Trying to fit everyone into the same box does not work. We would not be abandoning rUK by becoming independent, we would be helping ourselves in order to help others; and if it turns out that we can’t help them, then at least we’ve not martyred ourselves for the sake of trying to look like good little socialists.
Why is Scotland the only nation in the world which is selfish for wanting to govern itself? Why do Labour voters in Scotland not berate Ireland for doing the same thing decades ago that Scotland wants to do today?
“why did so many people want to vote for a council tax freeze which benefits the richest”
Keep having this same argument with James. Increasing the tax would punish those at the bottom of the scale far more than those at the top, where the rise is a far lower proportion of their income. Are you really saying that just because the richest save more money (in pounds, rather than in proportion of income) that we should condemn the poorest to having to spend an ever greater proportion of their income on council tax? That’s just nuts. The fairest thing to do would be to replace it, but Labour’s muck-raking during the election made sure the SNP couldn’t put anything in their manifesto about changing it (nice own goal, there), so we’re stuck with it. As a result, freezing it is far fairer to those at the bottom than raising it.
“no graduate contribution which helps graduates who will earn more over their working lives (and reduces opportunities for poorer students to go to HE/FE)”
If these graduates truly do earn more over their lives (and there is no guarantee they will even get a job, never mind a well paid one, so they could end up with the second biggest debt they will ever incur hanging over them forever) then they will pay more taxes when they are employed. That’s pretty straightforward.
Free university education is a very important principle. It’s something Scotland can be proud of, something that can define us, stating that we, as a nation, value education. There are many people who will be put off university thanks to the Tories and Lib Dems (and, apparently, Labour, who would do the same, but just charge a little less – what a bunch of heroes). I avoided graduating because to the Labour/Lib Dem graduate endowment fee because I couldn’t afford it. I wouldn’t have even bothered going to uni if I’d known I would leave with a debt the size people will now leave English universities with.
“The more people think of the greater good, the bigger they think.”
The way you talk generally sounds dangerously close to the Manifest Destiny which is what led to America deciding that it had a divine right and duty to show the world the right way to live. You have the same arrogant belief that your way is unequivocally correct, and that we must therefore push this onto other people. I mean, social democracy is correct, but then Americans probably say the exact same thing about their brand of “democracy”. If you truly believe what you say about borderless thinking, then you should be out there now, campaigning for a unified European state, and then one global state. However, i think you would be far better off learning about the difference between what you can influence and what you can’t. We can’t tell the whole world to be socialist, and we’ve proven throughout the decades that we can’t even tell the UK to be socialist. We can do far more for the world by letting Scotland be a shining example for others to try and follow, rather than just tagging along with the UK’s imperialist adventures.
#16 by GMcM on October 19, 2011 - 12:14 pm
I do know the difference between what we can and can’t influence. We can’t do it across the world but we can across the nations of the UK. Nationalists talk about those in support of the union continuing constantly saying Scotland is ‘too wee, too poor and too stupid’. Isn’t it strange that the arguments against the union from nationalists are precisely the same . We’re too wee to have an influence in the UK. Absolute nonsense. Just have a look at those imperialist adventures you mentioned. We certainly didn’t just tag along. The Burd has just said in her post above that Scots shouldn’t be content to settle for failure but to achieve what we can. I believe we can bring a socialist conscience to the UK.
I was in the first year not having to pay the graduate endowment. I wish I could’ve and I don’t even make the national average wage. Socialism’s about more than just getting things for free (through taxes admittedly); it’s about fairness and equality of opportunity. It’s about getting help and once you’ve been helped, you give something back. That is what the graduate endowment was. It put money into hardship funds which allowed people who otherwise wouldn’t be able to attend FE/HE to do so. It’s a socially responsible thing for individuals to do to raise standards and opportunities throughout society.
Also please never try and draw comparisons between Ireland and Scotland again in the context you tried above. It weakens your argument massively. When it comes to a struggle for freedom – Ireland has one; Scotland does not.
#17 by Doug Daniel on October 19, 2011 - 1:16 pm
“I do know the difference between what we can and can’t influence. We can’t do it across the world but we can across the nations of the UK.”
But that’s just it, we can’t. Scotland sent 41 Labour MPs back to Westminster in 2010 and just one Tory. We could have sent all 59 MPs back as Labour and it wouldn’t have changed the result. How has that contributed towards the greater good of a socialist utopia? We cannot influence how the rest of the UK votes, and as I say, it’s arrogant to think that we even should.
This isn’t a “too wee” argument, it’s just basic mathematics. Even if Wales had returned all Labour MPs too, we would still have the UK government we currently have. England is just too big for the rest of the UK to influence, even together. Unions with such vast size disparities cannot help but favour the main constituent part. That’s not talking down Scotland, it’s just a very basic fact.
As for graduate contributions, I’m not sure how these properly fit in with your ideology. Why should the burden of provision be placed on the shoulders of graduates? Surely an educated population is in the interests of everyone, not just those who choose to use it? Universities should be funded through general taxation, not specifically graduates. Who actually benefits most from someone studying for a medical degree: the doctor who goes on to make a very good salary his whole life, or the many people whose lives he saves in his career? With that in mind, who should really be paying for people to go to university?
“I believe we can bring a socialist conscience to the UK. “
Well I’m sorry, but it’s a naive belief which is completely disconnected from reality. We’ve tried, and it hasn’t worked – Labour only got elected by largely abandoning its socialist principles and becoming a centre-right party. It’s time to try a different approach. There’s no shame in admitting defeat if you’ve tried your best.
#18 by GMcM on October 19, 2011 - 2:03 pm
You know Doug we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I could point to achievements that have made the UK a fairer place and you could point to failures in trying to do so.
Also I am not calling for a socialist utopia, I’m a realist. I don’t believe the capitalist system is going anywhere anytime soon. I’m saying we should try and build a social conscience into that system.
This isn’t about Scotland trying to dictate to the rUK how to do things – its about Scotland working together with the other countries in the union to bring about that change.
A wee question for you: if Scotland had no oil and gas from the North Sea, would you still advocate independence on a point of principle? Even if it meant we would’ve martyred ourselves just for the sake of being good little nationalists?
Anyway this isn’t getting the work done. I’m sure this debate will continue in one shape or form in the coming months!
(I still reserve the right to label you a L** D** at any given time in future though :D)
#19 by Doug Daniel on October 19, 2011 - 3:32 pm
I think we will. I suppose this is the main problem with the SNP and Labour – both wanting broadly the same thing, but coming in exactly opposite directions to get there.
I would argue that Scotland can work together with the other countries in the union from outwith the union, and in my opinion, it would be much easier than it is trying to do so from within the union. Would I still want an independent Scotland minus the oil & gas? Yes – I think we have other things to offer the world than just the hydrocarbon industry, and besides which I have just always viewed Scotland as a country like any other country – except that we are controlled by a parliament in a different country.
But yes, we might as well let it rest there, before the insults really start flying (L** D** indeed).
#20 by Doug Daniel on October 18, 2011 - 12:02 pm
Great post Burd, and something I’ve been thinking myself recently. Ruth Davidson’s post a few weeks ago in particular highlighted one of the unionist arguments for remaining in the union – because being in the UK means we’re part of the 6th biggest economy in the world, and we’ve got a seat with the big boys at the UNSC. But like you, I don’t give a toss about being the biggest and best – I just want Scotland to be as good as it can be. With that in mind, the argument that Scotland wouldn’t be in the top 15 biggest economies or wouldn’t be in the UNSC suddenly become worthless, false arguments. Who cares if we’re not in the top 15 countries by GDP – the ones that are have populations in excess of 60 million (Canada and Australia excepted), and the countries we associate with good living standards (i.e. Norway, FInland and Denmark) are down in the 20s and 30s. Conversely, many of those top 15 countries (Mexico and the BRIC countries) are well down the table of GDP per capita (in the 50s, 60s, 90s and India down at 133), whereas the Scandinavian countries are all in the top 15. Where are the UK? A far less impressive number 22. Strange that no one shouts that one from the rooftops.
Those of us in the pro-independence camp are going to have to keep an eye out for these sort of arguments, as they appear to be the unionist idea of a “positive” case for the union – making an implicit assumption that bigger = better. These need to be challenged when they appear, as well as the knee-jerk counter-arguments that will then ensue about lack of ambition.
#21 by Scott on October 18, 2011 - 3:47 pm
The documentary continued the vilification of securitisation as a vehicle for raising finance (the basic securitisations carried out by RBS and other banks did not cause the problem of exposure to sub-prime, it was the dealing in already securitised products, and the related obligations that hit RBS Greenwich – while this came out of Gillian Tett’s contribution it was possibly dumbed down in such a way that the message was not as clear as it could be). Any sensible system of financial regulation would permit securitisation because converting illiquid into liquid assets is not, of itself, a bad thing.
Further, the documentary did not stress the blind ignorance of the leadership of RBS sufficiently. I watched the 3 part BBC2 documentary with Lagarde, Darling &c on the banking crisis, Goodwin, even at the point when the Bank of England had brought in Standard Chartered to review the RBS books, still insisted his bank did not have a capital problem but only a liquidity problem (palpable nonsense). If the documentary had tied in to wider BBC material I think it would have been useful – although I thought the use of the material from the presentations of results was excellent.
One point that did not emerge for me from the documentary was whether RBS could have survived if it had not bought ABN Amro. The implication was that it could given the exposure to subprime losses the takeover inflicted, plus the reduction of capital reserves by £27 billion. Did others take this message from it?
At the time commentators suggested only a fool would have backed that ABN Amro takeover.
#22 by Allan on October 18, 2011 - 7:16 pm
“One point that did not emerge for me from the documentary was whether RBS could have survived if it had not bought ABN Amro.”
RBS probably would have survived for as long as it took for Goodwin’s next folly to appear.
#23 by The Burd on October 18, 2011 - 7:45 pm
He just seemed to have got drunk on the idea of acquisitions for acquisition’s sake. And what was clear was that they hadn’t a clue what was happening in the US side of the business. As well as sweeping their exposure to sub-prime business under the carpet. Tiny fraction of business they said. Scandalous.
#24 by The Burd on October 18, 2011 - 7:51 pm
Your points are well made. In fact, we’ve never actually had a wider debate about what is and isn’t palatable in banking, it’s all rather been simplified and then swept under the carpet. I think Goodwin went ahead with ABN because he just didn’t want to be beaten, or perceived to be. Which shows him up for the fool he is. Still, more fool us. He got away with it and a £350,000 per year pension at our expense.
#25 by Allan on October 18, 2011 - 8:01 pm
If memory serves, RBS were vying with Barclays for ABN Amro. Then Barclays dropped out of the picture, citing the price of ABN Amro, which they felt had become too expensive for them.
I suspect that they had a sniff of that debt report that Goodwin didn’t bother himself with. I have also heard other theories that Barclays weren’t really interested in ABN Amro, that they kept jacking up the price to damage RBS. I suspect Barclays were interested, but lost interest. Whatever happened, Goodwin really couldn’t help himself.
#26 by Allan on October 18, 2011 - 7:33 pm
Having not seen the documentary, i was wondering if it was a true warts and all programme. I’ll need to seek this out later on this week…
It’s not a great surprise to hear that McKillop and Goodwin were out of their collective depth. One was a superannuated hatchet-man who just didn’t read the toxic debt report on ABN Amro before proceeding with his takeover plan. Maybe he was distracted by all the… ah… “Ugandan affairs” going on. The other gives the impression of being about as much use as Churchill the nodding dog. What is staggering is knowing that there are no criminal charges (at this moment) on the way for these people, or for other people. Considering the fate of certain high profile bankers in America, we (and you can take that any way you wish) must be a laughing stock for not bringing criminal charges against these people.
The second part of your post is great Burd. What I would say though is that the fairness agenda must strech to financial regulation, and I don’t remember very much critisism coming from the FM regarding Brown’s disasterous policy of “Light Touch Regulation” – which is where all of this started.
#27 by The Burd on October 18, 2011 - 7:44 pm
there was no criticism because the FM was advocating more of it, I seem to recall. It will always remain a mystery to me why the SNP hasn’t made more of this issue and suggested an alternative approach. Not a peep from them on the long run in allowed for decoupling the banks. You are spot on that fairness must stretch and cover all policy areas, financial regulation being one of them.
#28 by Scott on October 18, 2011 - 7:57 pm
Here’s the reason why the SNP was silent. The only political figure I know of who was in favour of the deal that broke the bank was the man that promised under his political control things would have been done differently: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/919/0103329.pdf
Such folly was inexcusable.
I am still waiting for his explanation for backing this disaster.
#29 by Barbarian on October 18, 2011 - 11:31 pm
I dare you to post that on a couple of other sites……..:p
#30 by Allan on October 19, 2011 - 6:29 pm
If memory serves, Jack “do less better”McConnell was pro the deal too. But then again, his party only enobled The Shred. It’s not as if they were pally and retained the guy who originally employed The Shred at RBS as an economic adviser…
#31 by Scott on October 18, 2011 - 7:55 pm
They did no due diligence at all regarding ABN AMro. Given Fred trained as a law graduate that is astonishing, as central to any transaction, at whatever level, is the notion that you check what you are buying.
#32 by Observer on October 18, 2011 - 8:29 pm
Alex Salmond used to work for the RBS if I am not mistaken, & was a big cheerleader for it when it was growing ever bigger, presumably because he thought it would boost confidence in Scotland. So he’s not exactly in a great position to exploit the banking crash now, which is a pity. Mind you, they were all at it, apart from a few journalists & economists who were screaming from the rooftops, what mainstream politician was warning about the crazy risks that were being taken? They all seem to have been mesmerised, with the possible exception of Cable who has relinquished whatever moral authority he might have had by backing the Tories.
Personally I would make Iain MacWhirter First Minister for life if I could, as he is the only prominent Scot who a) diagnosed the problem before it burst, and b) has a clue what to do now. He is miles ahead of the politicians. But I suspect he would turn the gig down.