Anyone that works in banking, as I do, has been on tenterhooks over what the Independent Banking Commission would report from its interim recommendations. And, well, now we know.

There are over 200 pages in today’s IBC report but the main outcome seems to be the suggestion that banks should ringfence its retail operations (mortgages, current accounts) from the supposed ‘casino’ operations of investment management (the part of the bank that gets people a decent return on their pension).

I have had a few scattershot thoughts about this result and I just thought I’d throw them out there:

– The main priority at the moment, and presumably into the future, is to get banks lending again to boost the economy and boost employment. This suggestion of effectively splitting banks within banks will require separate pillars of capital structures and consequently achieves the exact opposite. With more money going towards capitalising ringfenced areas and a bank’s inability to use deposits on one side to fund loans on the other, the cost of funding will increase significantly. That cost will be passed on to a bank’s customers and begs the question – who wins?

– The Scottish Government did away with ringfencing in 2007 as it allowed greater flexibility and greater efficiency. If that logic applies for public spending, why should not apply for banking entities?

– I can’t help but wonder how many of the people who jeer that banks are too big have their mortgage/loans with RBS or LBG or Barclays. The quickest and cleanest way to realign a market is to pick a favourite and reward it with consumer power. That link doesn’t seem to be coming through at the moment, going by the apparent level of disgust at certain banks.

– From some of the rhetoric coming from Danny Alexander today, I am concerned at who is leading who. The Lib Dems do seem to be trying to leverage public ill-feeling towards banks, irrespective of the level of understanding that is tacked onto that ill-feeling. The strategy seems to be: ‘banks don’t like these proposals, the public doesn’t like banks, therefore we will support the proposals, irrespective of what they mean’. A dangerous game but thankfully, speaking of capital, Danny Alexander and Vince Cable don’t have much political capital left.

Yes, bonuses are too high and yes, the bluff on bank’s threats to leave the UK should be called; but we need many, well capitalised, strong banks filled with technically-minded, professional people who, yes, can command higher salaries. Unless we ditch Capitalism altogether which even in a leftie’s wildest dreams is unlikely to happen. You’d struggle to find anyone volunteering to be an accountant in a Communist state.

For me, banks will no longer be ‘too big to fail’ if we simply have more of them and we are already moving in that direction. Lloyds has to create and sell a bank under EU rules, Santander is an aggressive new entrant to the UK market, so too is Metro Bank, the Swedish Handelsbanken is quietly going from strength to strength, Edinburgh-based Tesco and Virgin seem to be gaining a foothold and mutuals, the Co-ops and Airdrie banks are always options too.

So ringfencing within banks? All things considered, I’m not yet convinced the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.