THE big banks have delivered a most unfortunate amount of drama in the last decade. And Wednesday proved, while we might have crawled painfully away from the darkest days of the global financial crisis, there is still plenty to unfold in the big-budget banking sector soap opera.

We had HSBC chief executive Stuart Gulliver signal that the bank would move around 1,000 jobs from London to Paris, when Brexit became effective.

His apparently frank statement of the position came just one day after Prime Minister Theresa May revealed the UK Government’s determination to take the country out of the European single market, come hell or high water.

Wednesday also saw CYBG, the Glasgow-based parent of Clydesdale Bank, announce plans to close around one-third of its branch network. This involves the closure of 40 Clydesdale Bank branches in Scotland. Clydesdale’s sister Yorkshire Bank is meanwhile facing 39 branch closures.

The axing of branches at Clydesdale Bank will heap further misery on to its loyal staff, employees who have had to endure many cost-cutting rounds over the years. The plans also represent a bitter blow to its customers, in both personal and business banking.

The Federation of Small Businesses yesterday warned of the impact on local economies of branch closures. It cited both Clydesdale Bank’s decision on branches, which is expected to result in about 200 job cuts in Scotland, and this week’s news that 181-year-old minnow Airdrie Savings Bank is to close with the likely loss of 70 posts.

HSBC’s plans may well, like those of Clydesdale and Airdrie Savings Bank, bring misery for employees, although some could probably choose to relocate to Paris. However, from HSBC’s point of view, it really has no choice. It has been patient and has kept its powder pretty dry since the June 23 Brexit vote, waiting to see what would happen.

However, with Mrs May having seemingly stated categorically that the UK will be leaving the European single market in a hard-line speech that confirmed control of immigration as the baffling priority for the Conservative Government, HSBC is understandably moving forward with its plans. HSBC, chaired by Glaswegian Douglas Flint, obviously has to reorganise its investment banking business to ensure it can continue to do all of what it does after Brexit.

Other investment banks will be following suit. Indeed, also on Wednesday, UBS chairman Axel Weber indicated about 1,000 of the Swiss bank’s 5,000 employees in London could be affected by Brexit.

Clydesdale may try to argue that technological advances make its branch closures inevitable. But many people may, for good reason, beg to differ.

Banks previously made much, from a marketing perspective, of pledges not to close branches. While this was not so long ago, the change in their stance since then has been pretty dramatic. Clydesdale is not alone. Royal Bank of Scotland, in which the UK taxpayer has a majority stake, has also been closing large numbers of branches in Scotland. So has Bank of Scotland owner Lloyds Banking Group.

However, the decision-making processes leading to these branch closure programmes are absolutely not the same as those for HSBC, UBS and other investment banks in relation to the actions they have to take because of Brexit. The UK electorate’s vote to leave the European Union was entirely outwith the banks’ control. Former prime minister David Cameron called the unnecessary referendum, and the debate became dominated by an alarming anti-immigration stance that has persisted. Many in the electorate have decided to ignore the economic reality of the situation.

In contrast to the necessity for the UK financial sector to react to Brexit, banks do have a choice when it comes to branches as they balance serving their customers against their cost base.

Royal Bank chief executive Ross McEwan, who continues to oversee major cost-cutting, has highlighted a sharp rise in mobile phone banking.

That is all well and good, but it might be interesting trying to do a transaction using a smartphone in some of the more remote places in Scotland that lack a good mobile signal and will now no longer have a branch because of the major closure programmes. And what about those loyal customers who do not want to do online banking? And the many small businesses that need to bank cash?

Banks are there to serve their customers. The customers are not there to facilitate and enable banks’ cost-cutting by being forced to use channels they feel uncomfortable with, or are not convenient for them.

Against a grim economic backdrop exacerbated by Brexit, with base rates at rock-bottom, UK banks undoubtedly face major challenges in terms of reaching their desired profit levels.

But this is all the more reason to take a long-term view, to look after loyal customers and staff to help underpin future success. Many customers with a face-to-face relationship with a particular bank would surely feel more inclined to do more of their business with that institution.

And, if a branch is too big because of changed banking patterns, there would always be smaller premises available. There is no need to go for wholesale closures and leave communities without bank branches.

We might have become slightly inured to bank branch closure programmes because there have been so many large-scale cuts in recent times. They might prompt less political protest than in the past. And, amid the technological revolution, the message from the banks seems to be that we should expect more branch closures.

None of this means, however, that the closures are any less lamentable, or that the cost to customers and staff is any less great.