“The optics are bad, no doubt. But the simple fact is, a pay and benefits package was put together and offered for the position. This obviously included milestones that, if met, would result in a bonus. Clearly they were met.

I see it as no different to you taking the pay and benefits offered to you by your employer.

Of course, there is a very valid argument to be made that no bonuses should be paid until all the money bailed out to this bank has been retrieved. But on the other hand, a salary and benefits package for the head position must be in line with what comparable positions pay, otherwise you won't attract the right type of talent to the job.”

“I'm sorry, Allstar, you've not persuaded me. I don't know about Leicslocal. This man is paid £1.2m p.a. Why on earth does he need another £0.9m?

This company is largely owned by the taxpayer, of which I'm one. No-one has asked me, as a "shareholder" of the bank whether I support this obscene payment.”

“@CGLee: I think your argument and opinion is one that is shared with many. However, let me turn the tables to illustrate my point.

You have stated on other discussions that you are a retired police officer; meaning you worked for the tax payers of this country. No one asked me, as a "shareholder", where I support you being offered a pension which my taxes are supplementing. Of course, I have no qualms over your pension as I am sure you earned it. My point is simply that your argument can be used against anyone who is paid by public money.

Your argument that "No-one has asked me, as a "shareholder" of the bank whether I support this obscene payment." doesn't really hold any water as you are not consulted on any decisions made by the government. Your opportunity to vote is when you get your voice heard.

And to you, the pay for this banker might seem obscene. However on the scale of people in other jobs where they have to manage companies and assets on the same scale, it probably is on the low side.

People want it both ways; they want the best and brightest people running the institutions that manage their money, but they don't want to pay the going rate for them! This isn't about the moral argument of whether £2 million is fair to pay any one individual. This is a factual argument that you will not attract the people with the required experience unless you pay market value.

So I bring my argument full-circle CGLee. Did you feel you had to justify taking advantage of the pay and benefits offered to you as a police officer? You likely didn't care if someone tried to make an argument that you shouldn't have such benefits. You were offered them, you worked for them as part of your remuneration package, and you took them.

This is no different.”

“Well you were all moaning that teachers have it too easy with holidays and hours of work, now you are turning on bank workers! As City_C10 said over the issues with teaching, all jobs have their good and bad points. Bank workers get paid big bonuses and no I don't agree with it, but they have always had them, so why point it out now just because times are harder? So you didn't mind before as everyone was O.K. but now as most people are struggling this is now unacceptable, sounds like jealously to me?

* http://tinyurl.com/895beod - The teaching debate.”

“Allstar, you make a comparison with this bonus paid by the taxpayer and my police pension, which, I can assure you is not on the same scale! But I'm sure you know that.

I paid a lot of money for my pension. Whilst a serving officer I paid 11% of my salary towards the pension which I now receive, which is far more than other public sector workers pay (most of them pay about half that). Obviously police officers of my generation paid the higher rate of superannuation because we retired earlier than most, but I could have dropped dead the day after I retired, the same as someone retiring ten years later. It is a lottery after all, the same as life insurance cover.

I still maintain that a publicly owned business such as RBS should not be paying grossly inflated bonuses to senior officers of the company when the shares for that company are still in the doldrums.”

“@ CGLee: You completely missed the point of my argument. I used your pension as an example.

To use your new argument, should you have been entitled to your full yearly salary if crime rates had not dropped in any given year? How is that any different than a bonus (which is part of his salary structure) being tied to the company's shares?

The fact is, you are making judgements on a salary package you know little about. Do you know the terms of what dictates if he gets his bonus? Is it tied to stock levels? Is it tied to the risk associated with the banks investment?

You were paid by the tax payers of this country and probably felt justified in every Pound you earned in pay and benefits for the work you did. It's a little rich to now be denying someone else, who is also paid by the same taxpayers, for fulfilling the terms of his contract.

I think you see a massive difference in the fact you only earned a small percentage of what he earns. That's the simple way of looking at it and it's a populist view. The principle is the same between your public-paid compensation and his. The main difference is that you were in a union whereas he could be thrown out on his ear and has no job protection at all.”

“The bonus doesn't seem deserved. But I do get the employment contract argument. Many have said (including myself) that Soulsby took a job paying £50K a year, he has made his bed and has to lay in it. To be consistent, if this RBS executive has an employment contract that entitles him to £900K worth of shares as a bonus, then he should have it.

But the issue of huge bonuses that seem to be payable whether someone performs or not needs addressing, as far as I can see, it hasn't yet been, by either governments since 2008. I honestly don't think it will be, and I think the city bankers will take it as encouragement to do exactly what they did before.

I may be simple minded about these things, but everybody is paid to do a good job - if they do a poor job, they get demoted or sacked; if they do an outstanding job, they get promoted and maybe earn a bonus. The problem comes when people are able to dictate their own employment conditions - if I could dictate mine, I'd make sure I was entitled to huge pay off if I was sacked, a bonus if was average and a huge bonus if I did well, or better.”

“Allstar, clearly you don't know what you're talking about either. Police officers are not allowed to be members of a union. Or indeed, a political party.”

“@CGLee: I apologise for the assumption regarding the union. In Canada (where I spent most of my life), they are allowed to be in a union and I incorrectly thought the same was true here.”

“Thanks for that, Allstar.”

“Thanks for your views - I've definitely moved a bit nearer to thinking it's understandable that he gets this bonus.
I accept the need to get the best man for the job and that these kind of bonuses are what is needed and I was slightly relieved to hear it's in shares and not just cash, which at least means he might try hard to get the shares up again before he goes.
If only I trusted the government to make the right decision as the majority shareholder in RBS I'd accept their decision, but there's too much back scratching going on I'm sure.
I'm glad the amount has been highlighted and discussed and that we have more openness and scrutiny in the banking/financial sector.”

“So it seems the RBS Chairman has given up his £1.4m of shares bonus. But that there are a few others entitled to bonuses over £500K.”

“Perhaps he saw the online reaction to his bonus in forums like these and was persuaded by some of the comments.”

“Something occurred to me this morning. When Cameron was using his veto against the EU regarding the transaction fee/tax on the banking system, it seemed he had the support of the British public as he was seen as defending the English banking system.

However, now when a banker is earning the salary and bonus associated with the job of running a bank, there is much anger. In fact, overall there seems to be a vitriolic feeling toward those working in this industry.

It does seem an odd juxtaposition where the country wants to defend and protect the industry while vilifying those that work in it and run it.”