Salter says this to Paul Waugh of the Standard.
"Sir Fred Goodwin is a symbol of corporate greed and the honours system is there to reward service not selfishness. There's clearly a powerful case for his refusal to hand back his knightood to be considered by the Forfeiture Committee in order to preserve the integrity of the honours system.
About which I have only one complaint. Why is Salter still using the title himself?
I fully support his bid to get the knighthood formally revoked.
But perhaps there is a role for civic society here too. And so my modest proposal is that the progressive blogosphere, Labour MPs and others who wish to signal their disapproval should immediately adopt the new style "Not-Sir Fred Goodwin" while the matter is being pursued and addressed.
The workings of the forfeiture committee must be one of the less well known corners of our constitution.
Waugh notes it is "an obscure body comprised of the Cabinet Secretary, Tresaury Solicitor, Perm Sec at the Home Office and Perm Sec of the Scottish Executive".
Even we Fabian gradualists might doubt whether that will prove a hotbed of radical pressure. But could and should they ignore a Parliamentary resolution or motion which had majority support, particularly from various sides of the House?
Or might Not-Sir Fred prove amenable to a sensible compromise after all?