I am conscious it is not long since I last stood here, although it feels like a lifetime." This was the opening line from Sir Fred Goodwin, chief executive of Royal Bank of Scotland, at a press conference in London yesterday.

It is less than two months since Royal announced its 2007 results (on February 28) so, as the chief executive noted, it was indeed not long since he had last stood before journalists. That said, it is difficult to disbelieve him when he says it feels like a lifetime.

In February, Goodwin was in much more confident form than some had expected amid a global credit storm which had ripped its way through the banking sector. No indication at all that Royal would need to raise capital.

Yesterday, less than two months later, he stepped up to the podium to explain the rationale for a £12bn rights issue of shares.

He took the stand as Royal also unveiled £5.9bn of additional write-downs stemming from the global credit crisis, which kicked off in earnest last summer following massive default on home loans by US households with poorer credit ratings.

And that was not the end of it. Royal yesterday also confirmed plans to boost its capital by a further £4bn, principally through a plan to sell its Direct Line and Churchill insurance businesses.

The statement outlining Royal's rights issue was not pretty. It was littered with terms such as collateralised debt obligations, and references to exposure to "monolines" (bond insurers): words which would have meant little to most outside the sector this time last year but which have since spelled many tens of billions of pounds worth of trouble for banks around the world.

Goodwin declared the world had changed since February.

Not half.

But why so suddenly?

According to Goodwin, what is unquestionably a truly seismic shift in Royal's thinking occurred because of a severe deterioration in credit market conditions in March and a marked worsening of the global economic outlook.

Goodwin even emphasised the importance to the UK economy of Royal being able to lend normally to its customers. And, on the front foot, he highlighted the importance of being able to pursue growth opportunities in India and elsewhere in Asia, following Royal's £10bn part in a consortium break-up takeover of Dutch bank ABN Amro last year.

Royal's directors appeared much more humble yesterday than they did in February. The bank expressed "regret" at having to ask shareholders to stump up £12bn.

And Royal chairman Sir Tom McKillop, although defending seemingly almost angrily the credentials of the board, conceded: "Can you debate whether we made mistakes in our judgment? Yes."

He talked of a "high degree of humility".

McKillop is right. There is plenty of room to debate whether Royal's board made mistakes in its judgment.

Equally, his comment could be applied to the directors of many other big banks around the globe.

It is an absolute matter of fact that March saw a severe, and to many unexpected, lurch for the worse in credit markets. Big US banks have had to hike their write-downs, as has UBS of Switzerland.

And it was not for nothing the Bank of England stepped in on Monday with a scheme to allow the UK's commercial banks to swap their untradeable mortgage-backed securities for Treasury bills - an exercise some believe could see it lend about £100bn.

It would be extremely surprising if Royal's rights issue were the last in the UK banking sector.

Bank of England Governor Mervyn King has himself signalled a belief that others will be following suit.

Bank of Scotland parent HBOS is declining to say what it may or may not do but, like everyone else, it is unlikely to have been overjoyed by March's credit market troubles.

Whatever happens in coming weeks, Royal has found itself first in the UK to go cap-in-hand to shareholders.

Even though it has not made its life any easier with its surprising confidence back in February, the extent of the ensuing media clamour for heads to roll is surprising.

It is worth noting it is not just Royal which has changed its tune.

The City has made a collective u-turn. Its volte-face has occured over a longer period of months than Royal's more dramatic about-turn. But it was not long ago that the City was plaguing the big UK banks for share buy-backs and dividend hikes - both capital-sapping exercises.

Now the City slickers want bigger capital ratios.

Reflecting on the London attitude toward Royal in recent years, the fevered speculation about boardroom departures is perhaps more depressing than surprising.

There has been much sniping from the UK capital, from some sections of the City and Press, about Royal's board somehow being "too Scottish". This is a fairly pathetic asssertion and one which might be viewed as most politically incorrect were it not a Scotland versus London issue.

Ayrshire-born McKillop was, after all, long-time chief executive of pharmaceuticals company AstraZeneca. A truly global business. And all the tittle-tattle about Paisley buddy Goodwin's position at Royal comes hard on the heels of him being tipped as a future chief executive of US bank Citigroup - a pretty big job.

Goodwin, in case anyone had forgotten, is the man who integrated National Westminster and other big acquisitions into Royal with some style. A good man to have about as Royal attempts to deliver maximum benefit from the ABN Amro deal.

Asked in the City yesterday whether there would be a sacrificial lamb to accompany Europe's biggest-ever rights issue, McKillop replied: "There is no single individual responsible for these events, the collection of these events. To look for a sacrificial lamb, I think, just misses the whole plot. I know it happens from time to time. I don't think that is a particularly relevant or constructive way to move forward."

Well said, Sir.