ISN’T there something illogical about politicians propagating a free-market-driven system then seeking to impose anti-market restrictions and conditions for political and not commercial reasons?
I can’t remember the last time I went into a bank branch. All of our major transactions are now conducted by internet or telephone contact, the limited cash now used coming out of an ATM or supermarket cashback.
The genie is now out of the bottle and isn’t it financially responsible for banks, who are neither charities nor social service providers, to question the cost implications of maintaining unprofitable branches?
There is the argument that branches are socially important to communities, but how is this the responsibility of commercial organisations? Closing little-used branches has its own imperative in the face of our technology-based society lifestyle, now an arguably sad fact of life.
So, for once, it’s not the Westminster Government’s responsibility to stop the closures; it has no right to interfere in commercial decisions, even when the government is the major shareholder on behalf of taxpayers.
Like it or not, we need to embrace the new practices offered by developing technologies. Where the government’s responsibility does lie, however, is to ensure that all our communities have equal and unfettered access to those new technologies replacing conventional practices.
It’s long appeared sensible to me for the counters in Post Offices to facilitate the cash handling requirements of customers where a bank branch would be unprofitable. This has the advantage of providing service to customers while maintaining a valued Post Office presence in otherwise unprofitable locations; thereby Post Offices remaining social hubs of communities. They – in conjunction with mobile facilities that cater to customers’ needs for remoter areas, and internet access – provide the best opportunity for an economically viable banking service provision.
What is happening at RBS is the tip of the iceberg. They didn’t invent the technology-driven society, but if they don’t take advantage of it as others will, then we as the taxpayers bankrolling them will be quick to ask them serious questions.
Jim Taylor
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel