The huge pension for the ex-RBS boss has caused a lot of anger. With people losing their jobs, businesses, and homes, due to both the recession and bank foreclosures, the reason for this sense of injustice and indeed anger is understandable. Being responsible for a loss of this magnitude and yet being able to continue to live a very comfortable life on nearly £700,000 a year may not seem fair to many people.
It is likely that this is not the end examples of pay for non-performance - we may see many more over the coming months.
But putting to one side any question over what can be done in the RBS case, what is needed is greater clarity over what pension executive directors are likely to receive in future. At the moment disclosure on pensions is complex and, other than for pension specialists, of little help in understanding what pension an individual is likely to get.
Maybe there should be a new disclosure requirement in report and accounts: a requirement to disclose information not dissimilar to the benefit statements that executives receive. This show the pension that an executive is likely to receive from that actual employment; this would be much more transparent and of far greater use in enabling the public to understand what executives actually receive.