REACTION to the RBS name change on social media was swift and damning.
Former SNP MP Dr Paul Monaghan said it seemed like a poor decision that would cost the bank thousands of customers and many jobs in Scotland.
“The problems at RBS relate to poor leadership, poor customer service and low morale among its much-undervalued and loyal staff – not its name,” he said.
READ MORE Name change won’t fix RBS reputation and could alienate Scots
The National columnist George Kerevan tweeted: “Let’s not get sentimental about end of @RBS name: bank started as vehicle to transfer English bribes to Scottish lords who signed Act of Union. We need a People’s Bank.” Another Twitter user said: “Yes, a name change will expunge its venal past.”
Amongst the commentators who are customers of RBS was Douglas Hepburn, who said: “Been with the bank all my working life. But cannot agree with the name change to NatWest. RBS is a Scottish institution ... totally wrong name choice.”
Many focused on the bank’s toxic past, but Matt Thompson doubted that could be addressed by a name-change: “RBS has been accused or proven to have undertaken just about every form of shady business practice a bank can engage in and it’s tainted their brand. But the name-change is about escaping the toxic brand? Really?”
READ MORE RBS could quit Edinburgh HQ in event of Yes vote
Twitter user GrievanceMonkey said: “After the SNP blame literally everything on Westminster, our national bank is to be rebranded ‘NatWest’, which stands for National WESTMINSTER. You couldn’t make it up.”
Craig Murray suggested: “How about Royal Bank of North Britain? The Royal Glorious Union Bank? The Boris Bridge Bank? The Prince Andrew Pizza Express Bank? The We Can Steal and Gamble Away Billions and Not Go to Jail Bank?”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here