Michael Connarty: If they think Sir Fred is a good choice, RMJM are on shaky ground

BURIED among the invective penned by Allan Massie as opinion on 19 January was the argument that it was a positive and a good thing that a company employs Sir Fred Goodwin – the man who had led a major financial institution to disaster – and that it should not be questioned.

Sir Fred led Scotland into the biggest economic disaster since the Darien expedition, yet expressing doubts about the judgement of architects RMJM in employing him was scurrilously linked by the writer to acts of unjustified violence. I suggest it is better to look clearly at the component parts of the argument.

It does not follow that because RMJM is a large profitable company and part of the Scottish establishment its judgment is beyond reproach. My two customer contacts with them found them to be more costly than acceptable. On one contract they only found savings after I suggested they be sacked from the contract; in the other their price was 350 per cent higher than the winning bid.

Don't forget the eventual cost of the Scottish Parliament under their profitable guidance. The out-turn price for the Commonwealth Games village in 2014, not to mention RMJM's fees, may give readers a further useful benchmark.

If Sir Fred had sought to work for a charity as some sign of self doubt, or to make amends for the personal tragedies caused by the casino banking system he helped to create, I would not criticise such an act of restitution.

I do, however, have doubts that "Fred the Shred" could attract a charity on his past form in shutting branches, laying off workers, and investing money in dubious derivatives. At least Mr Massie accepts the truth that RMJM will be expecting Fred to be "using his address book to drum up business".

But why Sir Fred if RMJM feel they need a marketing consultant? It cannot be because his bank invested customers' money in worthless bundles of "sub-prime" mortgages. Or that they also borrowed hundreds of billions overseas to speculate in a market in worthless financial instruments, then paid their traders and themselves millions in bonuses, while posting a loss of 24.1 billion in 2008-9.

I suspect Sir Fred will not be cold-calling the public or private bodies that lost millions when the banks collapsed. No mention was made of the link between the senior executives of RMJM and Fred Goodwin because of an earlier association at the Clydesdale Bank. Pardon me for being cynical, but my 30 years as a public representative has given me plenty time to observe the Old Boys' network at work.

Since the derivatives market came crashing down, I have fought to help constituents who have lost or are struggling to keep their businesses as banks break promised financing arrangements.

Others fight for threatened homes as banks foreclose and many have lost their jobs in finance, construction, manufacturing and services under the burden placed on the economy by the failed banks.

With his bonus of 2.6m, his lump sum of 2.8m, his half pension of 342,500 each year being paid for by the public purse, 50-year-old Sir Fred will never have to ask for help when facing the frustration and indignity of arguing for a state benefit, or for a training grant to try to get back into work.

If Sir Fred had taken the fall with the rest of the country, or even had the decency to give back the 5.2m paid while RBS was piling up the disaster we are all now paying for, there might be a case for RMJM's decision. As it stands, there has been no evidence to cause me to revise my conclusion that RMJM's judgment should be questioned by its potential customers.

• Michael Connarty is Labour MP for Linlithgow & East Falkirk