0:00:08 > 0:00:10some time and patience. Thank you Tonight on Newsnight Scotland - the
0:00:10 > 0:00:14Royal Bank of Scotland belongs to you and me, given that taxpayers
0:00:14 > 0:00:19bailed it out, but what should we do about it? How about if we were
0:00:19 > 0:00:23all given shares in the bank and allowed to sell them if the price
0:00:23 > 0:00:27rises and keep some of the money for ourselves? We will ask whether
0:00:27 > 0:00:30the financial crash could finally put some cash in our pocket. Also
0:00:30 > 0:00:34tonight, we could learn from the Netherlands about cycle from the
0:00:34 > 0:00:39roads, but do we want to pay for them? Good evening. It is really
0:00:39 > 0:00:42not just pie-in-the-sky. The proposal has been floated by the
0:00:42 > 0:00:46Liberal Democrat Business Secretary, Vince Cable, as a possible way for
0:00:46 > 0:00:50the Government to get rid of its stake in RBS. It is a bit like the
0:00:50 > 0:00:54sell-off of public for a mullah in the 1980s, except we would not have
0:00:54 > 0:01:04to pay anything. In a moment we will be asking if the idea is
0:01:04 > 0:01:05
0:01:05 > 0:01:09bonkers, but is it even practical? The way it would work is pretty
0:01:09 > 0:01:15simple. Every citizen with a national insurance number could
0:01:15 > 0:01:20apply for shares. There could be worth about �1,000 per person. You
0:01:20 > 0:01:24could just sell up and cash in. Well, actually, the idea is that
0:01:24 > 0:01:28you could not sell until the shares reach a floor price at which the
0:01:28 > 0:01:32Government could recoup the �30 billion or so it spent on bailing
0:01:32 > 0:01:42out RBS in the first place. Depending on how you calculate the
0:01:42 > 0:01:43
0:01:43 > 0:01:48Government's stake, that would be somewhere between 400p and 500p.
0:01:48 > 0:01:52Let's say it is 500p. If the shares rise above a fiver, you could sell
0:01:52 > 0:01:56them, but you would have to give a fiver to the Government, which
0:01:56 > 0:02:03means for you to make �5, the shares would have to rise to �10.
0:02:04 > 0:02:06But what is the catch? There are so many shares, they would almost
0:02:06 > 0:02:11certainly sell at a discount, and the Government would not get the
0:02:11 > 0:02:15bail-out money back. This way, the Government does get the money back,
0:02:15 > 0:02:20but it just does not know when. You might keep hold of the shares for
0:02:20 > 0:02:24years, and the deal might turn you into Warren Buffett. In strictly
0:02:24 > 0:02:30economic terms, the Government waiting until it can shell the
0:02:30 > 0:02:34shares at a profit or giving them to you makes little difference. But
0:02:34 > 0:02:42which option would you prefer? Trusting the Government to reward
0:02:42 > 0:02:48you for a successful sale or having shares you could sell and having
0:02:48 > 0:02:52the cash in hand? Well, I am joined from Edinburgh by Peter Jones, who
0:02:53 > 0:03:02writes about finance and economics for the Times. There is something
0:03:02 > 0:03:09quite attractive about this, but also something a bit strange...
0:03:09 > 0:03:12it also deals with a political problem, initially a financial
0:03:12 > 0:03:18problem - because everybody knows that the Government wants to get
0:03:18 > 0:03:24rid of its shareholding, and because the break-even price is, as
0:03:24 > 0:03:33you say, about �5, that means that any investor who wants to buy RBS
0:03:33 > 0:03:40shares is unlikely to do so, knowing that the Government wants
0:03:40 > 0:03:45to offload their shares, so they would not be willing to buy them
0:03:45 > 0:03:53much above �5. So, it means the Government is almost bound to make
0:03:53 > 0:04:03a loss on the shares of. How would giving them to us help that
0:04:03 > 0:04:04
0:04:04 > 0:04:09problem? Because the Government could sell them off in big slices,
0:04:09 > 0:04:15and UKFI has been talking to Michael East investors about buying
0:04:15 > 0:04:19slices of these shares. But by giving them to us, if it was 45
0:04:19 > 0:04:24million individuals or 26 million taxpayers, then everybody makes
0:04:24 > 0:04:30their own decision about when to sell the shares. That means there
0:04:30 > 0:04:35is much more likely to be a steady East -- steady trickle of the
0:04:35 > 0:04:39shares on to the market. presumably, if they gave them too
0:04:39 > 0:04:49busy is, and forget to �6, some people would sell, but some people
0:04:49 > 0:04:51
0:04:51 > 0:04:56might hold on. Yes, absolutely. It is a bit unlikely. Philip Hampton,
0:04:56 > 0:05:01the chairman of RBS, was asked at the last AGM when he thought that
0:05:01 > 0:05:05the RBS shares will recover their value, and he said, not in my
0:05:05 > 0:05:13lifetime. So I think that is a bit unlikely. And there is another
0:05:13 > 0:05:20issue, this share overhang business, it might help with that, but other
0:05:20 > 0:05:24markets not also, pension funds, for example, do they not also have
0:05:24 > 0:05:28the will meet at the moment about whether all the problems of this
0:05:28 > 0:05:31organisation have really been sorted out? When it was bailed out,
0:05:31 > 0:05:37nobody had the least expectation that we would end up in the middle
0:05:37 > 0:05:43of a LIBOR scandal. Absolutely. The new management in RBS has been
0:05:43 > 0:05:49going through things, and they did not discover about the LIBOR thing
0:05:49 > 0:05:52until we were well into managing the bank -- they were well into
0:05:52 > 0:05:58managing the bank after they were put in. And some may well be other
0:05:58 > 0:06:05things. There was talk of possible problems in commodity trading.
0:06:05 > 0:06:13about, let me call it the morality, or the politics of it - people say,
0:06:13 > 0:06:17we, the taxpayers, bailed it out. But it is another thing to start
0:06:17 > 0:06:24giving people money in their pockets for nothing, is that a
0:06:24 > 0:06:29moral way for the Government to behave? You could argue that it is
0:06:29 > 0:06:34an extremely moral way of the Government getting the money back,
0:06:34 > 0:06:37since it was taxpayers money in the first place. So, for the taxpayers
0:06:37 > 0:06:45to get it back directly, avoiding the need to go through government,
0:06:45 > 0:06:50you could say that is an extremely good way of repaying taxpayers.
0:06:50 > 0:06:56Although it would not come near to meeting the cost of all the extra
0:06:56 > 0:07:00taxes and the lost public services which we have had to suffer since
0:07:00 > 0:07:07this happened. So it would be minimal compensation, in your view?
0:07:07 > 0:07:12Yes, a little bit of compensation, which have no would go a long way
0:07:12 > 0:07:17to appease quite a lot of public concern about it, and also solve a
0:07:17 > 0:07:22political problem. Thank you very much. Now, one of the ways we're
0:07:22 > 0:07:32being told to save the planet, and save ourselves, is by active travel,
0:07:32 > 0:07:34
0:07:34 > 0:07:37a jargon way of saying walk or cycle. The Transport Minister is
0:07:37 > 0:07:47heading for Amsterdam to see how they have managed to make the
0:07:47 > 0:07:49
0:07:49 > 0:07:54bicycle the normal mode of travel there. Commuting by bike is quick,
0:07:54 > 0:07:58cheap and good for the environment. But a lack of dedicated bicycle
0:07:58 > 0:08:08infrastructure means cycling in Scotland can sometimes be dangerous
0:08:08 > 0:08:13
0:08:13 > 0:08:17- very dangerous. Things are very different on the other side of the
0:08:17 > 0:08:24North Sea. In the Netherlands, segregated bike paths make cycling,
0:08:24 > 0:08:30well, child's Play. There are a lot of cycle paths, yes. Do the kids
0:08:30 > 0:08:36enjoy coming to school on the bike? Yes, and my son, he cycles himself.
0:08:36 > 0:08:42He is six years old. I have never had any serious problems with
0:08:42 > 0:08:46biking. Of course, there is the risk of getting Hick, which is
0:08:46 > 0:08:56higher. But I have never heard of someone being hit with kids on
0:08:56 > 0:09:14
0:09:14 > 0:09:20It is the result of years of work by the City Council. This is a new
0:09:20 > 0:09:25part of Amsterdam. It used to be water. It all comes at a cost, of
0:09:25 > 0:09:35course. But Dutch cycling campaigners see investment in bike
0:09:35 > 0:09:37
0:09:37 > 0:09:43routes actually saves cash. saves money on public transport. It
0:09:43 > 0:09:49saves money against measures for a air pollution. It saves money for
0:09:49 > 0:09:59health care because the Netherlands and Denmark, there is less obesity
0:09:59 > 0:10:00
0:10:00 > 0:10:06than in that surrounding countries. Made Dr Dr Dave Brennan, who films
0:10:06 > 0:10:15his daily commute to work. Today, he is testing bet Cycling
0:10:15 > 0:10:19infrastructure in Amsterdam. This a bridge cost more than �6 million.
0:10:19 > 0:10:24You can see that the numbers of people who cycle here is absolutely
0:10:24 > 0:10:29huge because of the Lords are designed to make it safe for them.
0:10:29 > 0:10:34You can see small children out cycling on the roads. It is
0:10:34 > 0:10:37something that would not happened in Scotland. They have just looked
0:10:37 > 0:10:47at the Rose and decided how to design them to make people feel
0:10:47 > 0:10:52
0:10:52 > 0:10:56safe. Cities like Amsterdam sure it is possible. But does it this equal
0:10:56 > 0:11:03political power in Scotland? At Holyrood, the Scottish government
0:11:03 > 0:11:07insists it has to balance competing demands. We are trying to modernise
0:11:07 > 0:11:14Scotland's transport infrastructure. It has been under invested in. We
0:11:14 > 0:11:18do not have motorways between our cities which we should have in a
0:11:18 > 0:11:28developed country. We have to improve the infrastructure in
0:11:28 > 0:11:33
0:11:33 > 0:11:37Aberdeen, we had to do the M74, we need their new force crossing.
0:11:37 > 0:11:43Other grounds for optimism? We do have a national plan, which no
0:11:43 > 0:11:49other country in the United Kingdom has. The aim is to have a 10% of
0:11:49 > 0:11:58trips are by bike by 2020. We are beginning to see a movement a month
0:11:58 > 0:12:04people. 3000 people demonstrated in Edinburgh, wanting to see extra and
0:12:04 > 0:12:14better facilities for cycling. Protesters will Pedal on Parliament
0:12:14 > 0:12:20
0:12:20 > 0:12:22again in the month of May. I am joined now from Edinburgh by
0:12:22 > 0:12:32Chris Oliver, chairman of the Cyclists Touring Club Scotland.
0:12:32 > 0:12:32
0:12:32 > 0:12:36Here in Glasgow is the motoring journalist Alan Douglas.
0:12:36 > 0:12:42Can you think of any structure like a bridge anywhere in Scotland that
0:12:42 > 0:12:45is specifically devoted to cycling in the way that we saw in the film?
0:12:45 > 0:12:52I do not think there is anything that has been specifically for
0:12:52 > 0:12:59cycling. There are some bridges across reverse, but not enough
0:12:59 > 0:13:03bridges and infrastructure. Why do you think that is? I think we are
0:13:04 > 0:13:08all long way behind the Netherlands. They are 40 years ahead of us. They
0:13:08 > 0:13:13have built there cycleways and integrated them with a city
0:13:13 > 0:13:21planning. They have invested significant amounts of money. For
0:13:21 > 0:13:25Scotland to catch up, the need to invest a lot more money. We need to
0:13:25 > 0:13:32see at least 5% of the transport budget invested in cycling across
0:13:32 > 0:13:40Scotland. The transport budget in Scotland is about �2 billion a year.
0:13:40 > 0:13:50We would like to see the one % they currently get increased to 25%. In
0:13:50 > 0:13:54
0:13:54 > 0:14:01city like Edinburgh, we already get five %. -- increased to 5%. What do
0:14:01 > 0:14:05you make of this? I was thinking about the bridges. Where we are,
0:14:05 > 0:14:11there are two bridges used by cyclists and pedestrians, they are
0:14:11 > 0:14:16not for cars. There are plenty of opportunities for cyclists to go
0:14:16 > 0:14:23where they want to go without having this extra investment.
0:14:23 > 0:14:29about this argument is the -- this argument that we ought to spend a
0:14:29 > 0:14:39fortune it...? There are already cycle pass around Scotland that are
0:14:39 > 0:14:39
0:14:39 > 0:14:49not used. There is a fantastic cycle pathway down the side of the
0:14:49 > 0:14:57
0:14:57 > 0:15:04Anine. But cyclists views of the road. -- A9. Is that true? There is
0:15:04 > 0:15:13a lot more cycling going on. We need safer cycling as well.
0:15:13 > 0:15:18want special treatment then? Nobody is stopping you cycling. You do not
0:15:18 > 0:15:25have to have your own that specific tracks. I think there is evidence
0:15:25 > 0:15:32that to say that separate cycle ways are safer. If you introduce
0:15:32 > 0:15:38segregated cycle ways, more people cycle. People are often afraid of
0:15:38 > 0:15:48cycling in the cities. Are we missing something pretty basic
0:15:48 > 0:15:53
0:15:53 > 0:15:58here? It rains all the time here. People do not want to get on a bike.
0:15:58 > 0:16:03In Edinburgh, if it is not raining, the windows blowing. There is a
0:16:03 > 0:16:11different climbing and that could - - a different climate and that
0:16:11 > 0:16:18could be the reason. And there are more hells. Flatness it does help.
0:16:18 > 0:16:23But if we look at Scandinavia up, Denmark, that is a cold country.
0:16:23 > 0:16:27is not the cold, it is a fight it is raining all the time. There is a
0:16:27 > 0:16:31culture of cycling there which there is not here. There is a
0:16:31 > 0:16:36growing use of cycles in Scotland. But when it comes to extra
0:16:36 > 0:16:42investment, you have to take your place along with everybody else.