McKillop vs Myners
04 Apr 2009 - Bruno Prior
Much too late, but I had to get it off my chest...
Why do all the journalists and opposition politicians seem simply to have accepted Tom McKillop's version of his discussions with Lord Myners about Fred Goodwin's pension? One of them is lying, but the fact that McKillop's letter is the most recent version is hardly a reason to trust it.
Better to look at people's incentives.
What would be Myners' incentive to hear the full details of Goodwin's pension arrangements, sign it off without question, and then pretend that he had been fooled?
Compare that with McKillop's incentives to hand his old pal a parting gift on their way out the door, and stitch up the Government in the process?
And look at their records.
You may not like or agree with Myners, but his record suggests that he has wanted to do his best for what he viewed as the public good. He could have an easier and more profitable life doing other things. It is hard to see how he is in this for the money or popularity.
Compare that with McKillop's record as chairman of RBS...
I know who I believe.
Are those who have swallowed McKillop's line still impressed by the status of a senior banker? Do they somehow imagine that the old honour code is in any way still alive, and that we should simply accept Sir Tom's word as his bond?