³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

The announcement on puts the Government's shareholding in a new light.

With 68% ownership of the troubled company, it was always clear that the Treasury could make demands on the way it operates. But we have repeatedly been told that the Government doesn't want to micro-manage.

Better to let the Royal Bank do what it takes in commercial terms to get itself back on to the front foot, went the argument, at which point the Government can sell off its stake, possibly at a tidy profit.

Well, with a huge paper loss on the £20bn bail-out/investment, the political pressure over the bankers' bonus culture has brought a sharp end to the talk of being hands-off.

There is, after all, no other major shareholder who would take the lead in announcing it had determined the shape of a company's remuneration policy.

Indeed, it makes you wonder why there is such interest in or concern about the prospect of RBS, and perhaps Lloyds Banking Group, becoming fully nationalised, when the Government has all the power it needs without having bought out all the shares.

The headlines on Wednesday morning, as the Treasury had hoped, are about Alistair Darling cracking the whip and bringing RBS excess under control.

But not everyone is agreed that's what has happened.

Some analysis of the figures is that the proposed bonus pot of £1bn is not far off what will be paid out - the difference being that much of it is being deferred and dependent on future performance.

Everyone is agreed that much makes a lot of sense, instead of the bonus culture depending almost entirely on short-term gain.

So even if the cut in bonuses falls some way short of the "90% cut" spin, at least it's some progress towards a more sensible, sustainable banking culture.

The episode hints at how much there's tension, manoeuvring and uncertainty in the nature of the relationship between bank management and its Government shareholder.

Neither side is quite sure what the rules of engagement are, but we're a bit clearer how it's going to work.