We are, through the UK government's near 60% stake, the major shareholders.

And shareholders have a right to information about the institution in which they have invested.

Which means, in my humble opinion, RBS should be a bit more open about what it is up to.

Under new chief executive Stephen Hester, the initial signs were good.

In an on the record interview with The Scotsman newspaper on 8 November Hester was commendably candid about the task ahead of him.

He was open, honest, hard-nosed and fully prepared to be quoted, in refreshing contrast to his media-wary predecessor Sir Fred Goodwin.

Indeed this new found attitude prompted me to suggest that there was a new sprit of Glasnost abroad in the RBS headquarters at Gogarburn.

Fast forward to earlier this week and a story that Hester had been in Beijing to ta

It was clear that the chief executive had been there, so the Scotsman asked RBS to confirm Hester's trip and for some details of the meeting.

Answer came there none. A point blank refusal to comment, even to confirm that Hester had been in china or the Far East at all.

All that was forthcoming was a bland statement saying: "RBS is examining all of its investments as part of the strategic review launched in the final quarter of 2008. This includes our investment in Bank of China."

Well, knock me down with a feather. On wonders whether if one asked RBS if Hester exists one might be told that they have nothing to say on the matter. "Sorry, we just can't give you that detail" said a person familiar with the situation.

Now, this news organisation does not expect a minute by minute account of the meeting, fun though it would be to see how Hester dealt with inscrutable Chinese, and they with him.

But it seems more then a little odd that the company appears to have reverted to the paranoia of the previous regime in terms of what it is up to.

There is not only the direct public interest, there is the interest of the "ordinary" shareholders, those who invested in the bank before it came close to oblivion and who want to know what is being done to re-build the battered value of their stocks.

And the end result? Well, just look at today's news story. With little to go on, many in the City are not happy at the prospect of RBS letting go of what could be, in the long term, a profitable and strategically important investment.

Of course, no decision has been taken. Of course Hester is right, as he explained to The Scotsman, to look at every option in his strategic review of the company.

But in the new circumstances that his bank finds itself in, the refusal to explain anything - even to the point of refusing to confirm that the chief executive has had important meetings - is bad for the perceptions of RBS.

But is not not just that. It is also bad for business. The less people know, the more they speculate. The more they speculate, the worse it could be for the bank.

And that's on the record.