RBS: the bank that will have to say yes Monday's assault on Royal Bank of Scotland took the form of a pincer movement. From one flank came a report accusing it of lending too little to small businesses. From the other came a report accusing it of treating those businesses badly when it does lend to them. Leaving aside the chance that the two cancel each other out (Who wants to borrow from a bank that treats borrowers badly?), the reports pose difficult questions about RBS's future. In his response to the first report, RBS chief executive Ross McEwan notes that, because the bank was rescued by the public, it must do more than any other lender to support the British recovery. But the linkage of rescue and recovery is relatively recent. RBS was saved to avert the immediate consequence of its collapse, rather than with any long-term aim in mind. Still, anyone buying shares in RBS will know that it is likely to be lending more to SMEs than it has in the recent past and to be nicer to them when it does so. Politically and economically, that is good news. But investors might not share the enthusiasm. The report into lending says that return on equity in SME lending is 3 per cent to 7 per cent. That is not the kind of return investors might expect in exchange for the risks of putting their money into RBS. One answer to this would be to nationalise the bank, which is 82 per cent owned by the state. Then, the government could dictate its lending policy without worrying about ROE. But aside from the £7bn cost and the state aid implications, there is no real need for the government to do so. It already controls RBS and politicians of all sides can give themselves a popularity boost by firing accusations at it. Little surprise that investors have voted with their feet - RBS shares are flat this year; those in local rival Lloyds are up 50 per cent. Selling it back to the stock market will be a tough job.