Are you sure you don't want to break up the banks?

It's unlikely that an average bank customer will pop into a branch to ask politely for the funds to takeover Walmart, though I could try. The services they require are limited in a lot of cases to the need for a debit card and some standing orders. Most might not even realise how their money is invested once handed over and frankly, don't care. If they knew that their savings were at risk from speculative activities then they might think again. But as you correctly point out, they don't really have a choice right now. I suggest we use the funds from the sale of stakes in RBS and Lloyds to capitalise new banks and create that choice.

Surely the issue is that a bank must never again be too big to fail ? If a casino bank becomes insolvent but does not hold retail deposits, it can be allowed to disappear like any other insolvent company without bringing down the whole banking system.

What a pity the FSA weren't as active in the previous years when missed regulation left us in this mess........nothing like the threat of department closure to pull the finger out though!

The real point of separation is, as Peter Feltham notes, surely, managing risk? If investment banks want to gamble with shareholders investments (with the consent of same) then fine, and the City should continue to be a benign and encouraging environment for such activities. When such a bank fails it can go bump without more ado, because the taxpayer does not have to foot the bill. If banks continue to be "so big that they cannot fail" and are engaging in risky investments, a la 2002-2007, then the taxpayer is at risk. It is self evident that this cannot be allowed to happen a second time. The only question should be how the necessary changes are to be secured.

Related issues such as the the dubiety of huge bank bonuses continuing to be paid in an age of austerity vanish if the bank in question is not required to be the subject of intervention by the taxpayer.

No matter how big any business, such as a bank, is and no matter how much good it does most of the time it must be subject to the rule of law, This law as any law should always be, should be designed to protect the people against those who are unfair, unsafe, and not truthfull. Politicians are appointed by the people to ensure that such laws exist and are adequate. This clearly points towards enforced and monitored transparency in whatever way.

Sadly for principles of decency, transparency and honesty to apply then the street should be two way and the politicians should make sure that they have to lead by example. WHERE THE DICKENS IS THAT MAN WHO MISLED AND LIED TO US ALL-- THEY CALLED HIM Right Honarable Mr BROWN once--HE DRAWS A SALARY AND ENJOYES AN ENTOURAGE OF GUARDS, BUT WHY DOES HE NOT DO HIS JOB?