As RBS has clarified, the bonuses are not set in stone under the bail-out deal that was done.

Which is something of an inconvenient truth for some people - which is why Cleggy has had to lie about it.

No bonuses in a PLC are set in stone.

Is derwent right in what he said Mintball? With the dates showing it was a previous government that approved them? And this Hester geezer got millions of shares last year which would definitely have been under a previous government. So why the uproar now?

Back in yer boxes everyone - Hester's turned down his £1m bonus. See, he's a lovely man after all.

I think it's come up as an issue now because there is increasing anger at the scale of renumeration among the highest earners – particularly in the context of the lie that is 'we're all in it together'. People are seeing their own pay cut or frozen – 'austerity, don't ya know' – yet a small section of society seems utterly immune to this.

Did Labour approve a bonus scheme? I'm sure. New Labour was a continuation of the core economic policies of the previous 20 years, so this would hardly be a revelation. They presided over a continuing growing disparity between the very rich and everybody else, and were all too friendly with big business and finance.

Rather than start another thread – here's an interesting little factoid from Dr Eoin Clarke via Twitter (hence its briefness): "Labour grew the economy £15,000,000,000 in their last 13 weeks in Government. Osborne grew the economy just £5bn in 550 days."

Thank you.

I see what you mean. People must be disgruntled about being told one thing by a government who is telling them to buckle up, but allowing a majority government owned bank to give its staff millions in bonuses. Now I understand the animosity.

Don't follow politics back home much, bar the odd complaint here and there... as you can tell.

Actually, rereading one thing you said. I suspect New Labour would not be totally innocent in this, as despite what you pointed out re the fiscal policies of the previous 20 years, it was them that were at the helm when the GFC kicked in, the RBS were saved and the very same people that are being complained about today were allowed to have millions in salaries, shares, bonuses and bonus incentives by New Labour. Difference is, New Labour didn't say "buckle up" so to speak.

Please tell me that you don't seriously believe that UKFI operate totally independent of any government influence

Oh indeed. As I said, New Labour had continued with very much the same economic policies of the previous 20 years, so such sucking-up to big finance/business was, far from being out of the ordinary, entirely in keeping with the previous 30 years.

Perhaps there really also was a belief that these people were so special and rare that they needed such renumeration packages – or they'd disappear somewhere else. I do suspect that that idea has become ingrained in many walks of life. It's partly what's been behind the big rises in pay for council bosses and senior managers in recent decades, since local government was told firmly that it needed to recruit 'proper' businesspeople from 'proper' businesses – and therefore would have to pay the 'market rate'. Which was, in itself, part of a very long-term demonisation of the public services as a whole.

Mere pocket money for the man - which he'll probably pick up next year instead.

Being that RBS/Natwest have sold off their investment business in the last year I'm not sure what it is that a CEO will do in the business now that doesn't involve signing orders for paperclips and worrying about what colour the seat fabric should be on the counters ?

Perhaps you could point out where I said there was no government influence ? What I said was that UKFI ultimately has the accountability for and control of these investments.

UKFI's mandate is with HM Treasury, not HM Government, and they are legally bound to operate on a commercial, arms length basis.

Of course there will be government and political influence, but the directors of UKFI have to operate within their mandate otherwise they will be acting illegally. UKFI is independent in the same way that Bank of England is, but it will always be subject to influence by whichever government is in power that's just a fact of life.