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