Ransom and the Equinox

[Christopher]

I don't think Christoper is suggesting that it is unrealistic for the Equinox crew to have acted as they did, but rather it is by no means justifiable. I cannot imagine Captain Kirk or Captain Picard acting as Ransom did.

Well, yeah, of course. The whole point of the damn episode was that Ransom and his crew were the bad guys because of the total immorality of what they did. The whole point of Star Trek as a franchise, of just about any fictional series with ethical protagonists, is that killing others to serve your own self-interest is wrong and risking your own well-being to preserve the lives and safety of others, even total strangers, is right and heroic. I'm amazed this even has to be explained.

 

[timothy]

I would love to see a novel dealing with them before they get zapped to the delta quadrunt. it might be interesting to see the dissions they make leading them to abadon the ideals of starfleet and the federation.

 

[Jarvisimo]

I don't think Christoper is suggesting that it is unrealistic for the Equinox crew to have acted as they did, but rather it is by no means justifiable. I cannot imagine Captain Kirk or Captain Picard acting as Ransom did.

Well, yeah, of course. The whole point of the damn episode was that Ransom and his crew were the bad guys because of the total immorality of what they did. The whole point of Star Trek as a franchise, of just about any fictional series with ethical protagonists, is that killing others to serve your own self-interest is wrong and risking your own well-being to preserve the lives and safety of others, even total strangers, is right and heroic. I'm amazed this even has to be explained.

I agree with this in principal, certainly, as ST exists in a fictional universe where sentient beings have rights conversant to what human beings are held to have in the real world. What Branson et al did was sacrifice their higher moral values or principals for personal gain.

However ST did not always depict such choices wholly negatively. What is flashing through my head currently in this thread are episodes or stories where the high-minded principals of TOS & TNG depictions of Starfleet justifably were flung away, for 'monstrous' or 'diabolical' reasons and results. Therefore In the Pale Moonlight, Inter arma enim silent leges, The Siege of AR-558 (of course all DS9 and war-episodes, but also For the Uniform and even The Maquis before) all portray situations where the screenwriters justified as right the sacrifice of moral virtue to achieve a greater good (that is potentially equivalent to Branson getting his crew home).

More so, from Treklit, which has perhaps delved deeper into these issues, we have A Time to Heal, Zero Sum Game and Hollow Men - where I think Mack and McCormack in some ways showed the necessity of Equinox- or S31-style deeds (whilst, thankfully, to greater or lesser extent showing the human cost too - especially the mental-moral collapse of Sisko's friend in HM).

Needless to say I think the Branson crew were ill-served by the show, in that the episodes failed to create a proper moral challenge to the established characters, by failing to present sufficient justification of the Equinox actions. And they would have made excellent continuing characters. They could have been a new kind of Maquis, that is, people who sacrificed some of their moral code for some sense of collective gain, and who could challenge the main characters for their blindness to pragmatism (like Eddington to Sisko in For the Uniform)?

 

[Christopher]

However ST did not always depict such choices wholly negatively. What is flashing through my head currently in this thread are episodes or stories where the high-minded principals of TOS & TNG depictions of Starfleet justifably were flung away, for 'monstrous' or 'diabolical' reasons and results. Therefore In the Pale Moonlight, Inter arma enim silent leges, The Siege of AR-558 (of course all DS9 and war-episodes, but also For the Uniform and even The Maquis before) all portray situations where the screenwriters justified as right the sacrifice of moral virtue to achieve a greater good (that is potentially equivalent to Branson getting his crew home).

Well, morality is the first casualty of war, but at least the Federation didn't start the war. And the absolutely, overwhelmingly crucial distinction is that the officers in those situations didn't make those choices merely to protect themselves, but to protect the billions of innocents it was their duty to defend. The choices of Ransom and the Equinox crew were not made in defense of other lives, and they were not self-defense against attackers. They were the aggressors, hunting down and murdering dozens of innocent sentient beings who threatened no one. And they did it to benefit no one but themselves. "The greater good" DOES NOT mean serving only your own self-interest.

Look at it in legal terms. The law allows using force, even lethal force, to fight off someone who's actively and immediately threatening your own life or the lives of others. Those are situations where the normally immoral act of killing is forgiven as a necessary evil. But that forgiveness does not extend to someone who carjacks and kills an innocent bystander in order to drive home. That's not self-defense, it's aggravated murder. You've destroyed the life of someone who posed no threat to you or to anyone you had a duty of care for, merely because they had something you wanted to take from them. There is no legal theory under which that is justifiable as anything other than a heinous crime.

 

[Sci]

Look at it in legal terms. The law allows using force, even lethal force, to fight off someone who's actively and immediately threatening your own life or the lives of others. Those are situations where the normally immoral act of killing is forgiven as a necessary evil. But that forgiveness does not extend to someone who carjacks and kills an innocent bystander in order to drive home. That's not self-defense, it's aggravated murder. You've destroyed the life of someone who posed no threat to you or to anyone you had a duty of care for, merely because they had something you wanted to take from them. There is no legal theory under which that is justifiable as anything other than a heinous crime.

Quoted for sanity. Ransom and the Equinox crew were nothing more than murderous carjackers.

 

[SicOne]

^ Murderous carjackers who found a way home, or at least have a shot at it. Better that than dead saps who didn't have the will to do what they needed to do. I believe they would have taken their chances in a Federation court-martial when they got home.

After all, you guys did bring up necessary evil...

 

[SicOne]

However ST did not always depict such choices wholly negatively. What is flashing through my head currently in this thread are episodes or stories where the high-minded principals of TOS & TNG depictions of Starfleet justifably were flung away, for 'monstrous' or 'diabolical' reasons and results. Therefore In the Pale Moonlight, Inter arma enim silent leges, The Siege of AR-558 (of course all DS9 and war-episodes, but also For the Uniform and even The Maquis before) all portray situations where the screenwriters justified as right the sacrifice of moral virtue to achieve a greater good (that is potentially equivalent to Branson getting his crew home).

...The choices of Ransom and the Equinox crew were not made in defense of other lives, and they were not self-defense against attackers. They were the aggressors, hunting down and murdering dozens of innocent sentient beings who threatened no one. And they did it to benefit no one but themselves. "The greater good" DOES NOT mean serving only your own self-interest.

Ransom and his crew begged to differ. "The greater good" is ALWAYS gonna be subject to whatever interpretation or self-justification you can arrive at. That's fundamental human nature. Clearly, Ransom felt that "the greater good" was whatever got his ship and crew home. Did he toss and turn and weep before he made the decision to use the liquid-Schwartz alien remains for warp power? Dunno. The episode didn't discuss such useless hand-wringing, if I recall correctly.

I do seem to recall a dialogue with Ransom and Janeway, something along the lines of him telling her she could afford to have such high-falutin' morals from the nice and tidy bridge of her Intrepid-class showroom piece but when you're standing on the wrecked bridge of a besieged Nova-class with starving crewman it's a vastly different moral situation. Perhaps Christopher would be good enough to provide us with that portion of the transcript?

I believe that even James T. Kirk once said when asked by Spock about why he did what he did in ST3 and ST4 that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many...

 

[Sci]

^ Murderous carjackers who found a way home,

Uh, yeah, most carjackers do that sort of thing. Doesn't make it okay to steal a car and kill the driver.

or at least have a shot at it. Better that than dead saps who didn't have the will to do what they needed to do.

They didn't need to do anything. They victimized others to make their lives more pleasant. They violated other people's rights. They could have chosen to settle on a planet, or make an alliance with a local power. They chose not to.

I believe they would have taken their chances in a Federation court-martial when they got home.

Bullshit arguments like that make me want to support the death penalty. I mean, seriously -- you'll disregard the most important rule of morality, "Don't murder people to make life easier for yourself," because you think the punishment will be insufficiently painful?

I mean, fuck man, what's keeping you from murdering your neighbors and stealing all their money, if that's how you think? Just the fear of getting caught?

'Cos what you're telling me is, you can't be trusted to actually do the right thing without the force of society to pressure you.

After all, you guys did bring up necessary evil...

There was nothing necessary about that evil, anymore than killing someone and stealing their car is necessary.

 

[Jarvisimo]

Well, morality is the first casualty of war, but at least the Federation didn't start the war.

I must say that Federation started the war, legally (though in reaction to aggressive Dominion policies). I seem to remember Call to Arms including that situation. And though he is hostile to the Federation, the words of Senator Vreenak were not denied by Sisko:

"So you're the commander of Deep Space Nine. And the Emissary of the Prophets. Decorated combat officer, widower, father, mentor, and... oh, yes, the man who started the war with the Dominion. Somehow I thought you'd be taller..."
"Sorry to disappoint you."
"To be honest, my opinion of Starfleet officers is so low that you'd have to work very hard indeed to disappoint me."​

But why does it matter when billions are at threat, and not the thirty or so people on the Equinox - who were protecting one another, which is another form of duty and comradeship?

I will not agree with what they did, but I wish to understand why. They had - essentially - been attacked by the Caretaker, violently lost half the crew (friends, rivals, lovers?), and understandably suffered a kind of collective mental-ethical collapse. Six years in hell, not one. Survival dominated their minds. But they also possibly acted to bring comfort to loved ones back home (certainly on occasions a trait of Janeway as regards her fiancé) and possibly to get back to Federation their unfortunately gained knowledge of the previously-unexplored DQ.

They did not know there was another far more successful, far more unlikely starfleet crew swanning around the DQ with their pristine ship, infinite supply of shuttles, excellent cleaners and oddly placid terrorists onboard. This was an issue with the show, was it not? Though it is important for how we react.

The Equinox episodes forces us into a dualist good-bad morality which should not be natural to the premise of Voyager, and certainly was not to the actual execution of DS9. The crew are simply evil, there are too few shades of grey, too little of the sense that they are not too different from our weekly heroes. DS9 more successfully explored this with the aforementioned episodes in which Sisko, Ross, Bashir or others were justifiably complicit in war crimes and not too dissimilar from their Cardassian, Section 31 or Maquis partners/antagonists. And For the Uniform showed Sisko act in an erratic and possibly illegal manner, when he was not under attack.

However Voyager was established with a substantial number of the crew believing terrorism was a viable moral action (with all the dodgy or indeed evil results of that). Those people did not need to go rogue, but did, and choose to commit a war not against an aggressor, but their nation state's treaty partner.

I cannot help but be reminded of Sisko's words in The Maquis, part 2:

Well, it's easy to be a saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise. Out there in the Demilitarized Zone, all the problems haven't been solved yet. Out there, there are no saints — just people. Angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive, whether it meets with Federation approval or not!​

The Equinox was another variation on this theme, one that fell apart in part because of the show's poor execution. As unlike the contrast of Pegasus to those of Galactica, or the DS9 stuff above, the crew and state of the USS Voyager were too perfect. Voyager the ship is akin to Earth in above quotation, whereas Equinox is in the latter part. And though Sisko eventually disagreed with Hudson and the others, he also understood and empathised with them.

Finally, I do not think settlement on a DQ planet would not have been a viable alternative for the Equinox crew. They had few numbers, a lack of medical personal, an inherent psychological instability, etc, and would have suffered from immunity issues, vulnerability to predatory beings, and probably a total loss of hope. To enforce that upon them would be to essentially murder (or force a death sentence) upon these fictional murdering characters.

 

[Jarvisimo]

But yes, the Equinox people did do wrong - as wrong as if it was discovered tomorrow that British people contained the ability to cure cancer in their bone marrow, or something else miraculous, and the rest of the world flung us to the furnace for it.

However, these episodes of Voyager suffered from the issue I just wrote about, I think.

 

[SicOne]

^ Murderous carjackers who found a way home,

Uh, yeah, most carjackers do that sort of thing. Doesn't make it okay to steal a car and kill the driver.

or at least have a shot at it. Better that than dead saps who didn't have the will to do what they needed to do.

They didn't need to do anything. They victimized others to make their lives more pleasant. They violated other people's rights. They could have chosen to settle on a planet, or make an alliance with a local power. They chose not to.

I believe they would have taken their chances in a Federation court-martial when they got home.

Bullshit arguments like that make me want to support the death penalty. I mean, seriously -- you'll disregard the most important rule of morality, "Don't murder people to make life easier for yourself," because you think the punishment will be insufficiently painful?

I mean, fuck man, what's keeping you from murdering your neighbors and stealing all their money, if that's how you think? Just the fear of getting caught?

'Cos what you're telling me is, you can't be trusted to actually do the right thing without the force of society to pressure you.

After all, you guys did bring up necessary evil...

There was nothing necessary about that evil, anymore than killing someone and stealing their car is necessary.

Remember, Sci, you're talking to the guy who, in Neutral Zone discussions on the topic, cheerfully advocated vaporizing large and heavily-populated sections of Iran and Pakistan if it meant attempting to keep as many nuclear weapons and materials out of the hands of religious extremists as can possibly be arranged. Remember those chats? I'm not exactly the person to be quibbling about how to define "doing the right thing" and "necessary evil" with.

Ransom and the Equinox crew felt they needed to do this. For unknown and unexplained reasons, they did not choose to settle on the hospitality aliens world. Perhaps the hospitality aliens offered them sanctuary in return for the Equinox itself, a choice that Ransom, et al would have found completely unpalatable; granted, the hospitality aliens didn't appear so smarmy and arrogant as the Kazon, but perhaps there were good (and untold) reasons why they could not negotiate an agreement.

Maybe it was just simply one of the most human and understandable of desires...to get back home. I'm gonna circle back to this one in just a few minutes.

For whatever reasons, they chose to try and get home. In order to implement that choice, they had to do some distasteful things, such as, oh, I dunno, shovel the liquid-Schwartz aliens into the warp core? I'm sure, at least insofar as I can be sure of the motives of fictional characters in a fictional sci-fi universe, that they would have liked it if their situation had not been so dire and the need to seize and convert aliens so necessary to the task of getting home.

And as I already explained, ad nauseum, dialogue supports the premise that they had just enough power to enter orbit of this world; they were gonna have to do something if they wanted to put their choice into action.

"I mean, fuck man, what's keeping you from murdering your neighbors and stealing all their money, if that's how you think? Just the fear of getting caught?" (Again, I don't know how to divide up quotes; sorry)

Well, as you might understand, my personal day-to-day situation is vastly different from Ransom's. I actually like my neighbors; one is an Army Reservist recruiter who served as an active-duty Ranger for several years and the other is a fitness specialist and Mormon and lifelong member of the NRA. I'm just a chubby, middle-aged train-drivin' schlub, and clearly I would be on the lower rung of the survival ladder when compared to my guys on either side of my house. In fact, if the planet ever underwent an extinction-level event, I could probably be perceived as the equivalent of liquid Schwartz!

What, did you think I had a plan whereby at the first sign of nationwide EMP or something like that I promptly run over and shoot my Ranger neighbor, then utilize his weaponry to wipe out my Mormon neighbor to seize his vast storage of foodstuffs and then sell the surviving members of their households into slavery? Because I decidedly do not. I don't murder my neighbors because they're nice guys with nice families, and we've all enjoyed living in close proximity for several years in a very nice and crime-free neighborhood. In fact, I'm rather offended that you think I'd do such a thing.

"'Cos what you're telling me is, you can't be trusted to actually do the right thing without the force of society to pressure you."

What I'm telling you is why I believe the fictional actions of the fictional characters of Ransom and the Equinox crew, given the extinction-level situation they found themselves in in a fictional sci-fi universe, made rational sense to me. Obviously it's not how Starfleet officers would necessarily act in day-to-day circumstances. But what they found themselves in was not day-to-day, it was life or death. Hell, it wasn't even that cheerful of a choice. It was more like die in interstellar space or have a long shot at making it home. Their chances were slim or none. Just because I felt the goddamned fictional crew was justified in doing what they did means that I'm gonna kill my real-life neighbors. Jesus H Christ, Sci.

And now I circle back to the desire to return home. I don't know if you (by which I mean not only Sci but any of you sitting down and eating popcorn while you watch us thrash this issue out on the BBS) know any soldiers serving in the Middle East at present time and talk about recent events regarding escalating tensions between Israel and Iran and talk of pre-emptive strikes and those possibly escalating into the detonating-nuclear weapons-level of friendly disagreement between neighboring nations...but I have. Not only with my former-Ranger neighbor (who did three deployments Downrange) (and also shared with me a very interesting book, The Last Centurion by John Ringo, which discusses just this very thing) but other friends and relatives serving. A few noteworthy exceptions aside, they'd do whatever was necessary, overcome any obstacle, to return home. And woe betide anyone who gets in the way.

 

[Christopher]

But why does it matter when billions are at threat, and not the thirty or so people on the Equinox - who were protecting one another, which is another form of duty and comradeship?

It matters hugely. A ship's crew who destroys the ships of a declared enemy to defend their shores and the innocents back home is acting defensively. A ship's crew who initiates aggression against other ships or ports in order to provide exclusively for the livelihood of its own crew is a band of pirates.

"Protecting one another" is no excuse. The members of the Mafia or the Yakuza or whatever presumably act to protect their fellow gangsters when they get into a shootout with the cops, but that doesn't make them justified in killing cops. They are culpable as a group for the choice to put their collective self-interest over innocent lives, and there is no sane way to equate that with protecting the innocent (which is what the other side, the police, is doing).

Survival dominated their minds. But they also possibly acted to bring comfort to loved ones back home (certainly on occasions a trait of Janeway as regards her fiancé) and possibly to get back to Federation their unfortunately gained knowledge of the previously-unexplored DQ.

Neither of which comes remotely near being a justification for the premeditated mass murder of innocent sentient beings.

However Voyager was established with a substantial number of the crew believing terrorism was a viable moral action (with all the dodgy or indeed evil results of that).

As self-defense!! Whatever evils they committed, at least they saw it as protecting their communities against Cardassian aggressors. What the Equinox crew did was not self-defense. They didn't defend innocents from violence, they initiated violence against innocents. Yes, sometimes terrorists initiate violence against innocents too, but at least it's in response (or imagined response) to violence inflicted upon their community by members of their enemies' community. That was not the case here. They lured innocent, nonhostile beings into a trap, then killed them and used their bodies. Sounds more like pedophiles than Maquis.

Finally, I do not think settlement on a DQ planet would not have been a viable alternative for the Equinox crew. They had few numbers, a lack of medical personal, an inherent psychological instability, etc, and would have suffered from immunity issues, vulnerability to predatory beings, and probably a total loss of hope. To enforce that upon them would be to essentially murder (or force a death sentence) upon these fictional murdering characters.

Plenty of murderers, rapists, etc. ended up that way because of the horrible pasts that shaped them. That in no way makes their actions ethically defensible or right. If the Equinox crew had died, that would've been a tragedy, but abandoning their Starfleet principles and oaths so horrifically was an even greater tragedy.

Besides, why are you assuming the only option was to settle an uninhabited planet? There are friendly, advanced civilizations in the DQ that could've taken them in (as the Vostigye took in the crippled Voyager's crew in the alternate timeline of Places of Exile). Heck, the reason the Equinox crew learned about the nucleogenic aliens and gained the means to summon them was because of their encounter with the friendly, generous Ankari, an advanced spacefaring people who had readily given them food and supplies and engaged in trade with them. If their situation was so dire, they could've just lived with the Ankari long enough to rebuild the ship and get back on their feet, or even made a life there. There was never any reason given for why they couldn't have done that. So the claim that entrapping and murdering innocent sentient life forms was the only way they could survive is simply wrong. There was another alternative implicit in the episode itself. What they did was not about survival in any way, shape, or form. It was purely about getting back to familiar territory rather than building a life somewhere new. And that's an entirely selfish motivation.

 

[Jarvisimo]

Neither of which comes remotely near being a justification for the premeditated mass murder of innocent sentient beings.

Hey, I have said I am not looking to let them off the hook, I am trying to understand their fictional heads.

The Equinox perhaps suffers from the same issues as you said upthread on the Pegasus & BSG in general - people reacting too terribly to bad circumstances. As it seems, Branson & his crew seem to have perceived their period in the DQ as beginning with a kind of attack, and with massive casualties following afterwards. They went through a majorly dehumanising event, and what occurred was perhaps a recourse to 'piracy' as you define it, but it was also that hedgehog reaction of the abandoned and the damaged.

Can you not sympathise with massively disturbed and damaged individuals, such as this crew, who experienced a situation much worse than you wrote about in your Myriad story and did so for 5 years?

However Voyager was established with a substantial number of the crew believing terrorism was a viable moral action (with all the dodgy or indeed evil results of that).

As self-defense!! Whatever evils they committed, at least they saw it as protecting their communities against Cardassian aggressors. What the Equinox crew did was not self-defense. They didn't defend innocents from violence, they initiated violence against innocents. Yes, sometimes terrorists initiate violence against innocents too, but at least it's in response (or imagined response) to violence inflicted upon their community by members of their enemies' community. That was not the case here. They lured innocent, nonhostile beings into a trap, then killed them and used their bodies. Sounds more like pedophiles than Maquis.

Whoa, a bit over the top my friend, but yes, they did something grossly wrong - but it did not come out of the blue, it happened after all the other stuff before. But yes, it was indefensible, though it requires context to appreciate fully. That's all.

If the Equinox crew had died, that would've been a tragedy, but abandoning their Starfleet principles and oaths so horrifically was an even greater tragedy.

That's lovely, by the way, as a sentence

Christopher I am not disagreeing with you on the monstrosity of what happened. I feel maybe you think I actually agree with the actions of Branson and crew! Which is horrible and not accurate. But I sympathise, and wish to understand - or hypothecise - more of why.

[I wonder if I suffer from poor memory of the show, and the fact the aliens did not look human - and therefore were harder to empathise with. Perhaps I am being too anthrocentric?]

 

[Christopher]

Can you not sympathise with massively disturbed and damaged individuals, such as this crew, who experienced a situation much worse than you wrote about in your Myriad story and did so for 5 years?

Of course I can sympathize with the reasons people may commit horrible acts, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to be shocked and appalled when someone like SicOne comes along and alleges that premeditated mass murder in the name of personal convenience is actually a moral act. Saying it's understandable is one thing, saying it's right is something profoundly different.

Whoa, a bit over the top my friend, but yes, they did something grossly wrong - but it did not come out of the blue, it happened after all the other stuff before.

Yes, and most pedophiles and rapists were horribly abused as children. That doesn't make their actions right. It just means a cycle of wrongs is being perpetuated, and the only way to break the cycle is to stop people from committing the wrongs that leave other people broken and scarred to become wrongdoers themselves, or to treat and heal the wrongdoers rather than saying their actions are okay and should be allowed to continue (though I understand that isn't what you in particular are suggesting).


And please consult the thread title. The captain's name is Ransom, not Branson. I think maybe you're confusing him with Captain Braxton from the 29th century.

 

[Jarvisimo]

And please consult the thread title. The captain's name is Ransom, not Branson. I think maybe you're confusing him with Captain Braxton from the 29th century.

Excuse the poorliness of spelling; I am not confusing the two characters, in fact it is [Richard] Branson, of Virgin, which has dominance over Ransom in my head. Call it the result of too much work of late and ill attention to non-consequential details.

Yes, and most pedophiles and rapists were horribly abused as children. That doesn't make their actions right. It just means a cycle of wrongs is being perpetuated, and the only way to break the cycle is to stop people from committing the wrongs that leave other people broken and scarred to become wrongdoers themselves, or to treat and heal the wrongdoers rather than saying their actions are okay and should be allowed to continue (though I understand that isn't what you in particular are suggesting).

No I am not saying such actions should be allowed to continue - glad you do recognise and say so. I was just striving for a historian's objectivity.

In fact, I think what you have been replying to was definitely not my main thrust. What I was trying to say in my contributions to this thread was more rather commentary on the show at large. Anyway it doesn't matter, really, since we are agreed, the actions of the Equinox command crew were wrong. I think the comparison with rape or paedophilia is incorrect, but nonetheless the revulsion it conjours is key.

 

[JB2005]

I know he;s a bit of a tool sometimes...but I'm pretty sure Richard Branson doesn't go in for genocide...

 

[Jarvisimo]

I know he;s a bit of a tool sometimes...but I'm pretty sure Richard Branson doesn't go in for genocide...

No, instead now he goes for banking. Seems a smart business move, taking advantage of the current distrust of almost every other bank?

 

[JB2005]

Yup if only he'd been willing to buy out Northern Rock, before it was Nationalised, thus stopping my taxes having to fund all that toxic debt...

...oh no wait!

 

[Relayer1]

Yup if only he'd been willing to buy out Northern Rock, before it was Nationalised, thus stopping my taxes having to fund all that toxic debt...

...oh no wait!

As an old Northern Rock customer I'm pleased Virgin have them now. They are apparently a good firm to work for and seem to have a conscience.

Can't see him going for genocide...

 

[Jarvisimo]

Yup if only he'd been willing to buy out Northern Rock, before it was Nationalised, thus stopping my taxes having to fund all that toxic debt...

...oh no wait!

Oh, the national debt! And issues of privitisation! What are we to do? Go Tory, go Labour, go who knows what... But flip, as an RBS customer, I am somewhat glad my bank is still around thanks to the gov - for my miniscule savings, and rather more so for the many millions of people and businesses that would have gone caput. But then not for the massive debt the bank nationalisations seems to have saddled the country with.