"Furthermore, as someone whose pension fund was tied into the bank he ran, his risk taking with other peoples money has left a rather large hole in my future security unless the attempt at a class action in the UK against him is likely to be successful." - Emma B

The fact that your pension fund (I presume managed by others) had invested in the RBS would have nothing to do with the value of RBS shares having increased in value during the first six years of Goodwin's tenure would it?? The profits your pension scheme were able to post were down solely to "his risk taking" too so in your class action do they get deducted. Investing is exactly the same as horse racing its gambling.

What mechanism prevented those who manage your pension fund from selling their stake in RBS?? I can imagine very sound reasons why they did not sell and in the long term that decision will stand them in good stead.

Tell me are you going to need your pension soon? If not then don't worry, if you have money to invest buy bank shares and shares in insurance companies now you will make a fortune on them. Your pension fund managers know that.

Banks, insurance companies and mortgage providers had to be helped, because if they had gone to the wall as many here advocate that they should then everything would have stopped with catastrophic consequences.

The exercise I would like to see carried out is the comparison of what has happened to what would have been the case if the US Federal Reserve Bank had stepped in right at the beginning and guaranteed those loans as Fannie and Freddie implied that they would. My guess is that it would have amounted to a damn sight less than has been spent now.

And Emma B had that been done, nothing would have happened to the Royal Bank of Scotland and Sir Fred Goodwin would still have been in place making it money.