With tensions running high within the Coalition Government over Europe and some suggestions that it could split asunder, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats badly need something to agree on.
They found it yesterday when Business Secretary Vince Cable revealed that the Government is to accept "in full" the Vickers report, recommending the separation of banks' retail business from their so-called casino business.
Mr Cable likes to sound tough on such issues but what is being proposed is essentially a compromise. In opposition, he pressed hard for the complete separation of retail from investment banking, along the lines of the Glass-Steagall Act, which enforced separate ownership in the US between the 1930s and the 1990s. The Vickers Report suggested forcing banks to ringfence their retail operations rather than dispose of them.
Some Tories were concerned that even this intervention would hamper the economy and the banks themselves have lobbied hard for the proposals to be watered down. HSBC has even threatened to move its headquarters out of the UK.
The news that the Coalition is to implement Vickers is welcome. The moral hazard implicit in the banking bailout, with losses socialised while profits were privatised, was unacceptable. Never again should the cost of a bank bailout fall on taxpayers.
The move will create a more even playing field in banking, given that some players, including the Clydesdale and the mutuals, do not have investment arms.
However, celebrations would be premature. Banks will not be required to complete the move until 2019, while action is required now. Also nobody is sure quite how effective the ringfence will be and exactly where is should be placed. And, as the preparation of a green, followed by a white paper, will take several months, the big banks are expected to continue their attempts to water down the reforms.
Nor are they pain-free for bank customers. The changes are expected to cost anything between £4 billion and £12 billion. Customers will pay through higher interest rates and lower borrowing.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article