One for all and all for one - are the boys mates in the City really going to tell them to get lost - the Chairman and CEO both have to go - as a small shareholder I am proud I voted against the ABN Amro deal - where were all those big shareholders then? and one for all - the Chairman has to go as well.

and as for enforced scrip dividends - great for the big boys - as for the small shareholder - a worthless piece of paper (since I astill own exactly the same percentage of the business as before) on which I have toi pay higher rate tax but haven't received any cash out of which to pay it.

Sorry timer to say "bye bye" to this leadership. but their mates in the City will as usual settle for second best.

Incidentally, did they give themselves a pay rise for running a bigger bank?

Richard, Newton Abbot,

Sir Fred Goodwin should go, he has destroyed shareholder value, through cavalier acquisitions. Most commentators said he was overpaying for the Dutch acquistion & was pure vanity involved in beating Barclays . Now it's his own shareholders that are being beaten.
To add to this his statements in the last few months of no rights issue must be viewed with suspicion.
If he or many members of the company have had bonus payments for the acquisition,they should be repaid now.
Sir Fred should resign now too!.

Clive Kitchener, Pulborough, Sussex

Nevermind Goodwin's positon, clearly McKillop must go. Did he not say in the Sunday Telegraph back in March unequivocally that there was no need for a rights issue? Are we to believe that leveraged loans have suddenly dropped since their end of year results in March. This is nonsense - the leveraged loan market collapsed in January this year, it is clear that they may have been economic with the truth in March. I suggest that the board's position is untenable.

JC, London,

David Davenport - here here! The clueless Churchill ads and Direct Insult force television close down in this household.
One wonders if their banking side is any better?

C Richards, Bristol,

I was employed by Churchill Insurance when they were acquired by RBS. They paid way over the odds for the business and then in true Fred Goodwin style set about stripping costs. Today they have a business that is a pale shadow of the one they bought and which they will lose many millions of pounds on disposing of. How lucky we are to have such experts manging our money...

Dave, Thirsk, Yorkshire

I am pretty alarmed by the RBS news, by my calculations the rights issue looks like it will dilute earnings by a minimum 40%.

The diluted figure is also bound to rise when, and if, they make disposals because the cash from disposals will then only earn a risk free rate of around 3% , compared with the 20 per cent return on equity RBS has been reporting in the past. This cash call will still only result in core Tier 1 equity ratio of 6% the final 2007 divi will be paid in cash but the 2008 interim will be in shares. The management are saying it will stick to a 45% payout ratio on underlying earnings.

By my calculations the number of shares in issue post the cash call that should equate to around 30p a share but that assumes bad debts do not rise, this would imply a dividend for 2008 of around 8p, of which the first half will be paid in stock that’s a dividend yield of 3% at todays price. SELL.

R G Lipsey, Wallington, UK

The same argument could be levelled at why RBS bothered to keep the Natwest name on branches after acquisition. And the answer is quite simple. Brand value. You don't purchase a strong brand only to destroy it without just cause. Churchill was already a strong brand in 2003, which is why RBS paid £1.1billion for it in the first place.

From an employee and an investor's perspective though, of which I am both, there are those within RBS who feel Sir Fred's behaviour and maverick style over the past few months has been more than questionable. The City rightly shows scepticism over any major decisions to come from Gogarburn regarding acquisitions or holding off. When the share price has tumbled so dramatically within the past year, and Johnny Cameron and his bunch are not reigned in; when there are no envisaged or viable acquisitions, and ABN Amro is then pursued; and when there is no needs for a rights issue, and then we have one...

One may say it's time for the Paisley boy to go.

RBS Employee, Edinburgh, Scotland

So if RBS (who incidentally are the custodians of my wealth) ae so savvy why do they own 2 "bucket shop" insurers who stand toe to toe every day slinging inane adverts at us to buy identical products,surely the answer would have been to consoldate the business and have a decent insurer,and shoot that damn dog.

david devonport, Great Yarmouth, UK