EXPLANATIONS from the Bank of Scotland as to exactly when and how its venture with Pat Robertson became a bad business deal left more than a few journalists scratching their heads yesterday.
On one hand, the bank still insists the drawbacks from the Robertson affiliation were more than outweighed by the group's broader business advances. As Peter Burt and others were quick to point out, Bank of Scotland opened 40 times more new accounts than the 500 that were lost as a direct result of the Robertson venture.
Yet at the same time, there is also the admission that Robertson's now-famous comments about homosexuals in Scotland posed a ''serious risk'' of damaging the core banking business.
This, like the bank's apology to shareholders, didn't ring entirely true.
Even if the rate of account losses had soared a few multiples as a result of those remarks, this would still amount to small beer for an organisation with annual profits of more than #1bn.
In all honesty, a lot of customers would have to get extremely irate before seriously hampering the most profitable business in Scotland.
Then there is the question of the 12 months the board of directors spent examining the deal. Despite that length of time and what was described as the full participation and agreement of the 20-strong board, it apparently never occurred to anyone that Robertson's strident views might affect the Bank of Scotland's reputation.
Sir John Shaw and his colleagues were understandably impatient - and at times gruff - about the continued media focus on the Pat Robertson venture. With such important questions still unanswered, they are understandably eager to shift the spotlight of scrutiny.
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