Maybe share price was the wrong phrase. I meant long-term profitability. The Govt will need to sell on RBS at some point; and it would want to do so as a a going concern, full of experienced, good quality staff. In an industry of a few, big players, competition for the best is massive and the best at RBS – the traders who consistently make the huge profits – will move on if they are not rewarded.

If you are looking to invest in a bank in 10 years time, would you put your money into the one with the best staff earning the best returns, or the one containing those willing to work for the lowest industry wage, bringing you mediocre returns?

I was specific over commissions rather than bonuses because, as always with baying crowds, the facts are far more boring than a good ole lynching. I was chatting with a friend earlier this week. He works for the trading arm of a well known bank (one that has needed no Govt bailout), and has just returned from Singapore for the holidays. I spoke with him again last night, and is happy for me to mention our first chat.

He works as part of a team of four, and all are paid a surprisingly small wage. On top of this, he receives an additional discretionary bonus based on the performance of both his wider department and the company as a whole. This is his bonus. If it is a big one, then fantastic. If it isn’t then, and I quote, “I won’t cry over it.” His total wage and bonus last year came to £50k (thanks for letting me mention that J).

However, the major part of his income is commission. Like any salesman, his commission is based squarely on the level of income both he and his immediate team generates for his employer. Last year, his commission came to a little over £300k (again, thanks again J).

So there are bonuses and there are commissions. The former is discretionary. The latter is a contractual obligation. His take is that the current furore has most certainly been caused by bundling the two separate payments into one and calling it a bonus.

Maybe that’s a comms issue for the banking sector?

So yes, totally agree with the public on bonuses. But as for commissions, well I just hope the UK Govt doesn’t go stomping all over employee rights in favour of populist political expediency.

We are a nation in pain, but should we point fingers at a set of easily identifiable targets, turn them into social pariahs, blame for all life’s ills, and ensure that everyone’s attention and anger is firmly fixed in the direction of the accused.

we have seen this strategy before: from a certain far right political party that uses exactly the same emotion-based finger-pointing as a great defence mechanism to take attention away from itself, and gain no end of cheer from those who feel cheated.

But it is ultimately a very slippery slope and does nothing to solve the underlying causes of the problem and their, and our own, part in it.

Secondly – most bonus schemes are not linked into remuneration and remain largely at the discretion of financial institutions, within boundaries. If they were, then the Treasury wouldn’t be making a fuss over contractual matters.

Thirdly – who is to say that risky stock like RBS (go back to my Dubai observation) will suffer a further loss in investor confidence if the board goes? Many investors may feel that the board is damaging the company’s public image in what it is doing, a potential devaluer in itself.

Lastly – how important is share price in the case of RBS, when we are its backers?

Forget job title or industry, wouldn’t we do the same?