would i be correct in this assumption?

I will instead just limit myself to a couple of questions.
If RBS is majority owned by the gov, does this mean that a) the UK taxpayers are the shareholders or b) UK citizens are the shareholders or c) neither, in which case who are the shareholders? The gov are the managers of the shares, but who owns them?

d) would it be worthwhile setting up a website 'YOUownabank.co.uk' to create a pressure group of shareholders who might be able to influence the banks actions? I suspect that many ideas would get similar support across the political spectrum of individuals.

i.e. Why reposess a house if i) the bank can't sell it? or if they do sell it at say a knockdown price 200k > 100k say, where they are prepared to write off 100k, then why cant they make that same deal to the house owner? write off 100k and renegotiate the mortgage based on that figure? Because if they evict that householder then in many cases the council/taxpayer, i.e shareholders will then have to pay for rehousing that evictee (assuming redundancy or severe wage cuts are the reason)