IT is obvious from recent statements by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that they feel that they have paid adequate lip service to the cosmetic exercise of public condemnation of bankers' bonuses and it is back to business as usual ("Bonus culture 'rolls on' as RBS pays out £785m", The Herald, February 24).
For pragmatic reasons it may well be necessary to allow the Royal Bank of Scotland to follow its policy of bonus payments but there is no reason why these payments could not be paid at the end of a five-year cycle rather than annually. This would foster staff loyalty and allow bonuses to be paid conditional on true long-term improvements in the health of the business; it would also defuse some of the understandable public resentment and anger.
While it is true that the £45 billion of public money that has been used to acquire 83% of the shareholding in RBS must be protected and hopefully repaid, the manner in which Northern Rock was returned to private hands at a massive loss to the taxpayer suggests that this will never happen and we may well wave bye-bye to most or all of it. What is also overlooked is that the personal banking element of the RBS Group continues to be healthy and some taxpayers contributed a further £2 billion to the profit side of the balance sheet in this financial year. If bonuses had not been paid this year the bank may actually have recorded a small profit, which could only have improved the value of the taxpayers' shareholding in RBS.
The scenario of eventually returning a healthy valuable asset to private investors who will not have shouldered the financial burden of restructuring the company could of course be avoided if the Government did what it is entitled to do and bought the remaining 17% of shares; it could withdraw the company from private ownership, making RBS a nationalised bank.
There would be no need for structural reorganisation or changes in operational policy and Stephen Hester would still be firmly in control of the tiller. The bonus culture could even be preserved and gone would be fears of fluctuating share prices. The taxpayer would own a substantial profitable asset, the value of which would dwarf our current investment in the business.
It has already been demonstrated that RBS is "too big" to be allowed to fail; if it was publicly owned and backed by the might of the Bank of England and the UK Government it would be bullet-proof.
Why should we nurse RBS back to health just to give it away at a bargain price to those who already have more than they need?
David J Crawford,
Flat 3/3,131 Shuna Street, Ruchill, Glasgow.
I AM concerned by what our banks are costing the economy. Between buying out the shares of these bankrupt institutions and propping up their balance sheets with quantitative easing the bill now stands at more than £300 billion. And now we learn that Lloyds and RBS have set aside some £4.2 billion pounds to settle claims for "mis-selling" payment protection insurance, not to mention the bonuses paid for these invaluable services.
This is the stuff of headlines but it is more than matched by the hidden subsidies received by the banking industry.
The Bank of England estimates that the derisory interest rates paid to savers and pension funds costs us £100 billion a year whilst inflation rockets up in direct ratio to the volume of cheap credit which funds the demimonde of derivatives and shadow banking – the next seismic event waiting in the financial wings.
When I hear that an independent Scotland could not have afforded to bail out these banks and we would require the Bank of England as a lender of last resort then perhaps we do not deserve independence. If it is beyond us to even contemplate a better arrangement then perhaps we will all end up like Greece – on the cusp of self-destruction, and all because we can't get a grip on the banking system.
RF Morrison,
Millig, 29 Colquhoun Street,
Helensburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article