IT would appear that in expressing his distaste for "the state", Richard Mowbray (Letters, May 12) has forgotten that in 2008 it was this self-same state, in the persons of the taxpayers, that had to rescue, at enormous and continuing cost, those bastions of capitalism – the banks.
Would Mr Mowbray have preferred that the state had left the capitalist banks to suffer the ultimate capitalist fate of failure and liquidation; and allowed millions of savers, pensioners, investors and businesses to suffer even greater consequences?
Somehow he seeks to blame the reckless behaviour of the banks on "incompetent financial regulation". It would be interesting to have his views on whether the extensive lobbying by these same banks against the stronger regulation which is clearly required is also a failing of the state. He might also wish to comment on the current revelations that JP Morgan has suffered a gigantic loss of $2 billion after a "rogue" trader lost heavily in the casino that is worldwide banking. Does Mr Mowbray support the efforts of JP Morgan's chief executive, Jamie Dimon, when as cheerleader for the banking system he seeks to prevent the implementation of new and stronger financial regulations which, ironically, might have saved Mr Dimon from his present embarrassment?
Mr Mowbray also refers to the "personal aggrandisement" of Governments. It might be useful to examine not only the personal aggrandisement of bankers, but also their personal enrichment as they pursue enormous bonuses on top of already unrealistic salaries, even when – as is often the case – the performance of the bank has been distinctly negative, whilst the bonuses are distinctly positive.
The words of Stephen Hester, chief executive of the RBS group (bailed out by the state) on Saturday, are illuminating ("RBS axes Dutch jobs as Hester defends bonuses", The Herald, May 12). Insisting that high pay is not immoral, he is quoted as saying "I want to be paid well- there is no morality involved.." Indeed.
The "state" that Mr Mowbray derides is the club of which we are all members, like it or not, and imperfect though it is, without it there would be no checks and balances at all on the use and abuse of power and money by the few who enrich themselves at the expense of the many. Without the state, we would have the jungle. Is that what Mr Mowbray would wish for?
T Wood,
15 Huntly Avenue, Giffnock.
RBS introduces charitable donations at ATMs: not only a helpful bank, but also an eleemosynary one ("Charity begins at ATMs", The Herald, May 9). People regain faith in the financial institution, new customers join and a return to stand-alone strength is eventually achieved; on the back of this success, bonuses hike to positions above that at which they stood before. Everyone is a winner.
Ross Brown,
18 Drums Terrace, Greenock.
I HAVE a suggestion: we should march, with all the necessary approvals, through Edinburgh and throw footwear at the offices of the Royal Bank and the Bank of Scotland following the example set by Muntadar al-Zaidi of Iraq. Instead of shoes, bedroom or carpet slippers should be thrown lest anyone be hurt or property damaged and there should be a follow-up team lifting the aforementioned slippers to protect the marchers from being arrested under the litter laws. The slippers should then be auctioned off and the proceeds donated to the soup kitchens upon which increasing numbers of our fellow citizens depend.
What is needed is a series of non-aggressive, big, tongue-in-cheek gestures such as the foregoing which would attract worldwide attention to the plight we are in thanks to the bankers, who still rake in their bonuses, and their political allies, who are still in power.
John Milne,
9 Ardgowan Drive, Uddingston.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article