Am I being pedantic, or wrong?

The Guardian:

Nationwide has upped the cost of its fixed-rate deals by up to 0.86%, and state-owned Northern Rock has raised its five-year fixed rates by 0.2%, both with effect from tomorrow.

This in itself is uninteresting. If a 5 year fixed rate mortgage is about 5%, then a 0.86% rise would have a minimal impact. Compare with The Times:

Nationwide Building Society, Britain's third biggest lender, was putting up rates by up to 0.86 percentage points today, the biggest hike in mortgage rates for months. A five-year fix has jumped from 4.78 per cent to 5.64 per cent

At least now I have a decent example for when I point out the difference between "percent" and "percentage points" in class. The Guardian article goes on to say:

Britain's banks are raising mortgage costs after an increase in their own funding driven by government bond yields. As investors have become more optimistic about the health of the UK economy, they have begun to fret about the return of inflation. That has prompted them to sell government bonds, known as gilts, whose long-term value is eroded by high inflation. When the price of gilts falls, their yield – the interest rate the government must pay to borrow – goes up.

In this case I'm being more than pedantic, but I read it as confusing two things. It is correct to say that "when the price of gilts falls, their yield... goes up", but the yield isn't "the interest rate the government must pay to borrow". The yield is the return the purchaser of the gilt receives. The "interest rate the government must pay" is the coupon, which is fixed. The article is correct to say that falling gilt prices means that governments borrowing costs rise, but only because they have to offer a higher coupon.