Peter Bickley: Shameful attacks on high-fliers bringing wealth creation to UK Published on Saturday 10 March 2012 06:25 Spring is sprung, the grass is riz, I wonder where them birdies is. Funny how little bits of doggerel stick in the mind so much more easily than useful information, like algebra. But what this lacks in grammatical poise it makes up in hidden depths of meaning. I don't wonder where them birdies is; I can see and hear them clustering round their feeders and knocking back sunflower seeds by the sackful. This is their side of an agreement, an unwritten contract between us. When times are tough I provide free food; in return they flitter about looking and sounding delightful and working tirelessly to keep the bugs under control. Were I to break the contract, they'll up sticks for somewhere more dependable. That's the thing about contracts and agreements; once made, they must be honoured or the consequences will be adverse. The dust seems to have settled on that furore over Royal Bank of Scotland boss Stephen Hester's non-bonus and the shredding of Fred Goodwin's gong. The gutter press has moved on to look for the next hapless victim whose vilification will sell well. No silly little worries like ethics to get in their way, so it seems. The rabble-rousers who stirred it all up and the politicians who knew a good bandwagon when they saw one are all probably feeling pretty smug. One in the eye for a rich banker who, Heaven forfend, enjoys hunting and a good kicking for a man who is down; all grist to the mill for that sanctimonious shower. I'll park Fred for the rest of this piece but stay with the chief executive of RBS; rather, I'll stay with the connection between actions and consequences. Stephen Hester had a contract, one that was entered into by government. Somehow, the party then in government but now in opposition sees nothing amiss in agitating for that contract to be broken. More disconcerting than that, today's incumbents in government found it easier to "encourage" a breach of contract than to defend a principle. Never mind whether bankers are paid far too much (yes, they are); Hester is delivering on the job he was hired to do, he is making a good fist of getting us our money back and he was entitled to better treatment than the earbashing andloss of rewards that he got. Actions have consequences; bad actions have bad and long-lasting consequences. The kinds of big hitters you need to sort out messes like the RBS will think twice before taking on the job. But it all goes much further than that; a belief that you can push people around with impunity and that the rule of the mob matters more than the rule of the law seems pretty pervasive these days. All those smug, self-interested pinheads will never admit it, but we'll all be the poorer, thanks to them.. We may not particularly like its flashier aspects but our economy depends on the City and the financial sector. Yet if our purpose was to drive it away we are doing a very good job. We slap on an economically irrational top tax rate and fine you if you are a "non-dom." Do too well and we get hysterical about your rewards. We are so determined to bolt the stable door that we make it hard for banks to do any real banking. Even the dear old Prudential is muttering about decamping elsewhere. The message seems to be pretty clear: Britain no longer values wealth creation. Worse, its word is not to be trusted. This is outrageous, it is wrong on every possible count and it is self-defeating. Apart from the unfortunate Hester, the biggest loser was the Treasury; has no-one thought how much tax and National Insurance it would have got? As an exercise in shooting oneself in the foot it's as near perfect as it can be. There might be a lesson here for Scotland: get a reputation for honesty, fairness and a genuine interest in growing the cake and who knows, them birdies might be hopping aboard the Flying Scotsman. Peter Bickley is a consultant economist