We could call it The Beast and the Beast.
I can't remember whether I posted before about the FSA giving the directors of a clean bill of health, but if I didn't I should have done. Which was quite remarkable considering one of the biggest banks in the world may not have quite smashed into a brick wall, but it certainly scraped along the wall for half a mile and pulled off most of the body work even if it hasn't come to a complete halt.
So what possible reason could the FSA have had for not publishing? After all the directors of RBS under investigation have all gone, so the new directors have nothing to gain by asking for anythingt to be kept confidential. Except of course it was the FSA that was responsible for supervising RBS, and for all we know the reports may have shown us how useless the FSA was in that role.
So unsurprisingly there has been a lot of government pressure on the FSA to publish more, but the FSA hve said that they are asking RBS' permission to do so. Which sounds like an evasive move on the part of the FSA, because go figure. The government wants the report published, the government controls the FSA, the government owns a majority stake in RBS, so the Treasury can tell the directors of RBS what to do, and yet the FSA tries to delay publication by asking the government controlled bank's permission to publish a report that the government wants published.
Apart from being once more disgusted at the wastefulness of the process, it is obvious that the box-tickers at the FSA are overing up their own incompetence once again.