The Narrow British Nationalism of Ed Milliband

Ed Milliband, UK leader of the Labour Party was in Scotland recently to give what was billed as a major speech on why the Labour Party is opposed to Scottish Independence.  You can read the whole speech here.  He claimed in his speech that he was focussing on the positive case for the UK.  I have to say I did see much that was positive, but then I am just a little biased.  To me it seemed that Ed Milliband was again and again extolling the virtues of British nationalism.  He tried to frame his argument around the need to build a progressive society in the whole of the UK, but to make his point about the importance of maintaining the UK, he had to assert that Britishness was what mattered more than anything else.  Once again we had the rather unedifying experience of someone asserting the Scottish nationalism was very, very bad, but British nationalism was very, very good.  To illustrate this I present four of the key points that Ed Milliband make in his speech.  Quotes from his speech are in italics.

His first point was that he supports Scotland as part of the UK, not because he thinks Scotland is too poor or too weak to break away:  but:  because I believe that Scotland as part of the United Kingdom is better for the working people of Scotland, and better for the working people of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Now this is rather bold claim which partly rests on the somewhat dubious notion that the Labour Party is the party of progressive social change.  Not much evidence for that in the 13 years of New Labour rule.  Remember it was the Labour government which began the process of changing the NHS in England, dismantling comprehensive schools in England and committing the UK to illegal wars.  It is also more damagingly contradicted by the recent events at Westminster.  The UK economy and welfare system is now under the control of our nasty Tory led government for goodness knows how many years, at the very least until 2015.  How on earth is that better for the working people of Scotland?  And what if the good people of England decide to return the Tories to power in 2015 for another five years - how is that supposed to be better for the working people of Scotland?  The reality is that there is nothing, absolutely nothing we in Scotland can do about this.  Why should the people of Scotland have to wait until the English decide to kick out the Tories?  We only elected one Tory MP in 2010, yet we have to suffer the ravages of this nasty government.  No benefit here. 

Ed Milliband’s second point was that if we wanted greater fairness and a more responsible capitalism, then this could only be done at a UK level.  As he put it:  But I tell you this: we can only do it together. We must reform our financial services; its rules, its culture, its institutions. But if we change the rules separately, banks would move wherever the rules were weakest. We need stronger rules together, not weaker rules apart.  Rather than advancing fairness together, the risk is a race to the bottom on bank regulation, on wages, and conditions at work. We can achieve more progress together.  He concluded this point by a direct challenge to Alex Salmond.  Mr Salmond, you can’t build fairness in Scotland by giving up on fairness in the United Kingdom.

There is some merit in this argument, but why just in the UK?  Surely there is a need for all of these progressive changes throughout the EU?  I can just as easily challenge Ed Milliband - you can’t build fairness in the UK by giving up on fairness in the EU.  On this logic, Ed Milliband ought to be arguing for a single government for the whole of the EU.  Which of course he is not.  I am sure he agrees that these progressive changes should happen at the EU level and that a Labour government would advocate for these changes within the EU.  But then so would an independent Scotland.  The only reason why Ed Milliband or anyone else would make this particular argument is that he is at heart a British nationalist.  The UK comes first and to hell with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world.  Not much of an internationalist here.

Ed Milliband’s third key point was about diversity.  He put it thus:  Britain is united in its diversity. By shared values and common interests. Not an island divided by borders on the basis of nationalities or nationalisms. But one brought together with the strength drawn from multiple identities. 

There are three points here.  One, though the island of Great Britain does not have borders, there is an international border within the British Isles.  Or has Ed Milliband forgotten about the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland?  Or does Ed Milliband not regard Northern Ireland as part of the UK?  As regards our shared values and common interests, does he seriously believe that the citizens of the Republic of Ireland do not share these values (whatever they are) or have the same interests?  Despite the border what is so different between an Irish citizen of the Republic and an Irish citizen of Northern Ireland?  Do they have different values and interests?  Thirdly, all the nations of these islands are diverse and have multiple identities.  This is certainly the case with Scotland, which owes its origins to the coming together of Scots, Picts and Angles.  Ever since Scotland has always attracted and welcomed people from different nations and cultures.  Within Scotland, most Scots are proud of their local heritage and this is certainly true of myself - a proud Fifer and proud Scot.  As the existence of the Republic of Ireland has shown, we do not need to be part of the one political Union in order to share values or interests or to celebrate diversity.

Ed Milliband concludes his piece by claiming that we are:  Bound together by common ties. Nearly half of all Scots have English relatives.

There is nothing progressive about a vision which says a pensioner in Liverpool is no concern of his, a child growing up in poverty in East London is no concern of his, a disabled person in the Midlands is no concern of his. That isn’t a progressive vision.That is shutting the door on the problems of your fellow citizens.

When a Scotsman who works in the shipyards of Govan meets an Englishman who works on the docks in Merseyside, he doesn’t see a foreigner, he sees a fellow countryman. The pensioner from Aberdeen or Ayr has more in common with the pensioner in Bristol or Bolton than with a pensioner in France or Belgium.

These famous common ties.  It is fascinating how these ties that bind us together seem to be exclusively with England.  It is quite clear from Milliband’s dismissal of Belgian and French pensioners, that Scots should only concern themselves with people from England.  How international is that!  Why should our undoubted and valued links with England supersede our links with other people?  It is interesting that he chose Belgium and France as his examples of other countries.  For I imagine that there are not many Belgians or French people living in Scotland.  But what about Italy or Poland? There has been a small, but innovative and long standing Italian community living in Scotland for well over 100 years.  Not all Scots would be so dismissive of Italian pensioners.  Or what about the many thousands of Polish people who have come to live and settle in Scotland during the past decade?  Are we to care nothing about their friends and relatives still living in Poland?  Not to mention the thousands of Scots of Indian, Pakistani or Chinese descent.  Are their family connections to be dismissed as of lesser worth than family connections in England?  And of course there are the hundreds of thousands of Scots whose family roots go back to what is now the Republic of Ireland.  Are these family roots too of a lesser kind?  I find this constant emphasis on ties and links with England deeply insulting.  I value our links with England and I too have family and friends in England. But I also have family and friends elsewhere.  And I do not value them less.  On the contrary since I have a daughter and grandson living in Switzerland, I value them more.  However, much as I love my daughter and grandson, and much as I like Switzerland, it has never occurred to me that Scotland should become part of Switzerland simply because I have relatives living there.

I find it rather sad that in order to keep Scotland within the UK, a leader of the UK Labour Party of all people, should be reduced to arguing for a narrow British nationalism.

The Positive Case for the Union - Is there One?

Yesterday the Scottish government published its consultation proposals on the referendum on Independence for Scotland.  Cue for lots of media coverage both here in Scotland and in the rest of the UK.  What I find most fascinating about the responses from the Unionists is that they invariably fall back on the claim that independence would be damaging to Scotland and to Scots.  At the same time they are desperate to make a positive case for the Union.


Is it in fact possible to make a positive case for Scotland to remain in the UK?  Looking over some of the recent comments by Unionists, their case rests on three fundamentals:  the economy, defence and British nationalism. Given that with devolution, the Scottish Parliament is now responsible for just about all domestic matters - education, health, policing, housing, justice, transport etc - this focus on the economy and defence makes sense from a Unionist perspective.


However, despite claims to the contrary, their pitch is relentlessly negative.  Their key message is that Scotland is too small, too poor, too weak and goodness knows what else, to survive as an independent country.  Without England we poor Scots would be alone and defenceless in the world and even poorer.  The Scottish Daily Mail, one of the bastions of the Union, provided a nice illustration of this in their edition from 25th January.  Entitled 1,000 days to save the Union, this front page editorial was full of dire claims of how disastrous independence would be for Scotland.  According to this bulwark of the Union an independent Scotland would "confront a deficit of at least £9billion, enforced membership of the euro and a potentially unlimited liability in the ownership of toxic banks."


Now of course, as par for this kind of diatribe, no evidence was provided to support these claims.  However what was  really fascinating about this editorial was that despite the paper's clear view that Scotland is a basket case, which could not survive without English largesse, despite all this, the Daily Mail believes that Scottish Independence "will ultimately be a disaster for the whole of the UK."  Pretty hard to square that circle I would have thought.  Not that they even begin to try.  If Scotland is so poor why on earth is the Daily Mail and other Unionists so keen to prevent our independence.  So keen to keep Scotland in the UK that they are prepared to lie and spout out unsupported propaganda.


I suspect that part of the reason for the focus on negativity is that at bottom all Unionists are British nationalists.  They are too emotionally tied to Britain and in particular notions of Great Britain that they cannot conceive of Britain without Scotland.  At heart they know that Scotland is a net contributor to the UK, which is why, like the Daily Mail, they are aware that Scottish Independence could prove a disaster for the rest of the UK.  Or more precisely the London dominated elites that currently rule the UK.  But they cannot make too much of the UK's need for Scotland, for that would confirm that Scotland could not simply survive as an independent country, but would in fact be a very rich and successful independent country.  Far easier to pretend that Scotland is a poor wee country and to fall back on the so-called glories of the past.


For a more detailed,  yet light-hearted look at the failed attempts by Unionists to specify just what benefits Scotland gets from the Union, have a look here.

The UK needs Scotland - but Scotland doesn't need the UK

As the debate about independence for Scotland heats up a bit, I am amazed at just how insistent our London based leaders are in keeping Scotland in the Union.  Such unanimity is very rare in politics.  Just think of the EU and the range of views among our political, business and media elites over what relationship the UK should have with the EU.  But when it come to Scotland, everyone in positions of power in London all share exactly the same view - Scotland must remain within the UK.

One reason given for this is that without the largesse that comes from London , we Scots would be quickly reduced to penury.  This view, while quite pervasive is of course nonsense.  I am not even sure that its proponents believe it.  But they have to say something and beyond vague generalities about being stronger together and sharing the same values and other platitudes, they fail to make any positive case for the Union.  This I think is both deliberate and revealing.  For it is my firm conviction that the UK in its current form, needs Scotland far more than Scotland needs the UK.  In particular the position and world view of our London based elites would change dramatically and for the worse (from their point of view) if the UK were to be reduced to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.  I can think of at least five reasons which explain why our elites badly need Scotland to stay in the Union.

Economic - This may come as a bit of a surprise, but despite the Unionist claims to the contrary, Scotland is a net contributor to the UK economy in more years than not.  Scotland has many successful industries, for example tourism and agricultural products.  One of which, whisky is an iconic brand throughout the world.  And of course there is North Sea Oil.  While it may have passed its peak in terms of production, there is still barrels of oil out there to be recovered and discovered.  The UK continues to depend on the taxes from North Sea oil and gas to balance its books.  Without these revenues the UK government would be in an even bigger mess than it currently is.  The revenues from Scotland’s share of these reserves are just too important for our London based elite to give up without a struggle.

Military - This was the reason the UK came into being in the first place.  England needed to secure its northern border.  While this is no longer a factor - no-one really thinks that Russia or another continental power is going to try and invade the UK.  However Scotland is still vital for the UK and its military ambitions.  It is a useful place for airbases, but most of all, it is the home for the UK’s nuclear submarines.  Where else in England , Wales or Northern Ireland could they be based?  Not a choice the military brass and politicians would want to make.

Size - Despite what many people say, size does matter.  Especially for countries that want to be seen as great powers.  Now the current UK is not that large a landmass as major countries go.  The UK is slightly larger than Romania and a bit smaller than Italy.  But without Scotland it becomes much smaller.  A UK of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be smaller than Uruguay and just slightly larger than Tunisia.  If it was just England on its own, well it would be very slightly smaller than Greece and very slightly larger than Nicaragua.  Quite a downgrade in size for a great power.  (Not to be contemplated.)

Self-Image - This is clearly related to the above in that for most of our elite and for many English people in general, Great Britain and England are pretty much the same thing.  I image that most English people would find it incredibly difficult to draw a map of the UK without Scotland.  Probably even more difficult for them to draw a map of England alone.  It is, I suspect, way beyond their ken to conceive of the UK without Scotland’s land mass to the north.   It is even worse for our London based elite, whose image of themselves is very much related to the notion of Great Britain and all that goes or rather, went with that name.  The largest Empire in the world, once upon a time.  Yet without Scotland there is no Great Britain, or rather, it reverts to a mere geographical term, without any political substance.  There would also be the loss of the Union flag.  Union Jack no more.  Whatever remains of the UK would need to devise a new flag.  And what would this new country be called?  To be Prime Minister of the UK of England, Wales and Northern Ireland does not have anything like the same ring to it as Prime Minister of the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  (We do not like this at all.)

Status and Standing in the World - Here we come to the crux of the matter.  While the economic and military aspects of Scottish independence can be negotiated and dealt with, however reluctantly, the other consequences for the rest of the UK are enormous.  Or at least for their London based elites.  Just what standing in the wider world would or could this truncated UK command.  For how much longer could this truncated and much diminished UK retain its permanent seat in the Security Council of the UN?  Many in the UK are proud to talk of the UK “punching above its weight” in international affairs.  But much of this is a residual of our Imperial past, when GB did rule the waves.  I suspect that the loss of Scotland would be seen by our London based elites and by the rest of the world as a massive blow to their power and influence.

So the next time some Unionist politician or cheerleader waxes lyrical about the UK and how much Scotland would lose from leaving, just ask yourself - how much more would the UK lose from an independent Scotland?

Austerity Isn’t Working

The current fad for government imposed austerity has taken quite a battering in the past few weeks.  Whether this will lead to any significant changes in policy is a moot point.  The dash for austerity was based on the rather dubious notion of “expansionary fiscal contraction.” Alas recent economic experience around the globe has shown this to be nonsense.  Fiscal contraction has turned out to mean what it says on the tin - contraction.  Fiscal contraction has inevitably led to economic contraction with all that has meant for working people.  Paul Krugman in a recent post quotes from an article on the Eurozone by Kevin O’Rourke:  “ Since 2010, a Europe-wide experiment has conclusively falsified the idea that fiscal contractions are expansionary. August 2011 saw the largest monthly decrease in eurozone industrial production since September 2009, German exports fell sharply in October, and now-casting.com is predicting declines in eurozone GDP for late 2011 and early 2012.”

The most recent unemployment figures for the UK confirm that austerity is not working.  Unfortunately lots more people are now not working either.  The detail behind the headline figures shows just how bad things are becoming.  The overall total of unemployed is masked by the rise in those in self-employment, in unpaid family work and on government supported schemes.  This comes to a staggering 127,000 people.  The vast majority of them are really unemployed.  The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development reckons that the rise in self-employment is not evidence of an increase in entrepreneurship, but rather due to a growing number of “odd Jobbers”, people willing to try their hand at anything to avoid being unemployed.  Now this may be a good thing, but it is a sign of a weak economy not a strong one.  The unemployment figures also show that the number of employees working full-time fell by 140,000.  There was also a rise of 44,000 in people who were in part-time work because they could not find full-time work.  Not encouraging at all.  And there are more cuts in public services to come.

Another sign of the times was the expected downgrading of the credit worthiness of various Eurozone countries, including France, which has lost its coveted AAA rating.  However the key and most interesting aspect to this announcement by S&P was the reasons they gave for this downgrading.  They stated:  “In our view, however, the financial problems facing the eurozone are as much a consequence of rising external imbalances and divergences in competitiveness between the EMU’s core and the so-called “periphery”. As such, we believe that a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating, as domestic demand falls in line with consumers’ rising concerns about job security and disposable incomes, eroding national tax revenues”.

Further evidence that austerity doesn’t work and is in fact self-defeating comes from an unlikely source - the IMF.  Their chief economist, Olivier Blanchard has recently commented on why 2011 has been such a bad year economically and looks at lessons for the future.  One in particular stands out and is worth quoting here:  “financial investors are schizophrenic about fiscal consolidation and growth.  They react positively to news of fiscal consolidation, but then react negatively later, when consolidation leads to lower growth—which it often does. Some preliminary estimates that the IMF is working on suggest that it does not take large multipliers for the joint effects of fiscal consolidation and the implied lower growth to lead in the end to an increase, not a decrease, in risk spreads on government bonds. To the extent that governments feel they have to respond to markets, they may be induced to consolidate too fast, even from the narrow point of view of debt sustainability.  I should be clear here. Substantial fiscal consolidation is needed, and debt levels must decrease. But it should be, in the words of Angela Merkel, a marathon rather than a sprint. It will take more than two decades to return to prudent levels of debt. There is a proverb that actually applies here too: “slow and steady wins the race.”  For more about this article see here.

The final coup de grâce on the failure of austerity measures comes from the latest round-up of independent economic forecasts published by the Treasury.  Their conclusions - in 2012 the UK faces lower growth, higher unemployment and a higher deficit.  You can read more about this here.

As I said at the beginning there is little prospect that our leaders will change policy direction, even in the face of such damning evidence.  I was tempted to write that we suffer from the one-eyed leading the blind, but that would be grossly unfair to one-eyed people.  Almost anyone with an open mind can see what has happened over the past three year.  No, unfortunately we suffer from being led by a group of nasty ideologues.  Wherever you look - London, Paris, Berlin or Washington - it is the same.  Governments which are predominately led by very rich and very wealthy people, preaching austerity to the rest of us.  I wonder just how much austerity the likes of Cameron, Osborne and Clegg for example have had to endure over the last two years? 

UK = Mean and Nasty

I've always regarded our current UK coalition government as mean and nasty, but it turns out that the previous Labour government was just as mean and nasty.  This was certainly the case when it came to dealing with spending on the London Olympics, due to be held this year.  Remember, it's the London Olympics, yet the then Labour government decided that spending on the London Olympics would count as of benefit to the whole of the UK and not just England or London.  A rather arcane decision one might think, but the result was to deprive the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland of a cool £330 million.


If, as common sense would suggest, the spending on the London Olympics was primarily of benefit to London as part of England, then the other nations in the UK would have been entitled to a pro-rata increase in their budget in compensation.  As a result of the Barnet formula consequentials any English spending would have automatically generated this £330 million for the devolved governments.  However the then Labour government decided that in order to keep down the costs of the Olympics, remember the London Olympics, no such consequentials would be allowed.


This was an arbitrary decision of the UK Labour government.  Which has all too predictably been upheld by the incoming Tory and LibDem coalition.   All three devolved governments vigorously challenged this decision and their complaint went to a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee which is, surprise, surprise, chaired by a UK government minister.  And this committee failed to resolve the dispute as the UK Treasury simply refused to concede any ground.  The UK government subsequently coughed up a measly £30 million to be shared among the three devolved governments.


The lessons from this affair are pretty clear.  The first is that the UK government, despite its title does not in fact represent the whole of the UK, but rather the more narrow interests of England.  The second is that the lack of a proper written constitution and recourse to an independent Constitutional Court means that it is the UK government which has final say on any disputes.  Not much in the way of respect here.  The final lesson of course is that for Scotland at least, the way out of this kind of mess is to vote for independence in the forthcoming referendum.  Who would want to be part of such a mean and nasty Union.


It is of course no great surprise that this decision has been somewhat under-reported in the mainstream Unionist media.  For a more detailed and informed account of the whole affair please read this post by Alan Trench from his blog Devolution Matters.

Rupert Murdoch - A step too far?

The recent revelations of wrongdoing at the News of the World has brought about a barrage of criticism and hostility against that newspaper’s owners - Rupert Murdoch’s News International.  The wrongdoing of course is pretty substantial and includes illegal phone-tapping and illegal payments to members of the police.  In typical fashion Murdoch has reacted immediately and has taken the unexpected decision to close down the News of the World completely.  Of course this is just a sleight of hand, as another of his papers, the Sun, will now bring out a new Sun on Sunday edition.  Rupert Murdoch clearly hopes that most of us will now simply regard the whole issue as closed.  This is most unlikely, though some MPs may be willing to continue to give cover to the Murdoch empire.

This brings us to the core of the issue - the over close relationship between politicians and the media moguls and the concentration of media ownership in a few unrepresentative hands.   For a key question is why has nothing been done about these illegal practices before now?  Evidence about these practices were first filed years ago, yet none in the then Labour government was prepared to take any action.  Rupert Murdoch was deemed to be too powerful and our leading politicians were too frightened to challenge him.  This in turn was because Murdoch, along with a few other wealthy individuals, has so much control over our media.  

It is quite incredible how unrepresentative our media has become, especially the print media.  As an article in Left Futures points out:  “Murdoch is the most notorious media mogul, but other than the Guardian – which is managed by the Scott Trust – the entire mainstream press is in the hands of wealthy plutocrats.”  It is not only the ownership that is a serious issue here, the leading journalists also come from a very restrictive background.  The same article claims that:  “The journalists themselves come from unrepresentative backgrounds – according to the Sutton Trust, over half of the top 100 journalists are privately educated, with not many over 1 in 10 having attended a comprehensive school.”    

This has enormous consequences for our political and economic life.  It no doubt explains to a large extent the rise and fall of New Labour.  It is amazing that the main left wing party in the UK, the party that is supposed to represent and advocate for the interests and well-being of working people, people who represent the vast majority of the population, has for two decades or more simply advocated and implemented traditional right wing policies.  Polices that have done more for the likes of Rupert Murdoch than for ordinary people.  We can also see this in the responses of political parties to the current ongoing financial and economic crisis.  Just about all have parroted the same neo-liberal lies.  We cannot afford decent public services and we cannot afford to increase taxes on the well-off.  Not really surprising when we realise that almost all the journalists in the mainstream media are unlikely to use many of our public services and would to subject to any increase in taxation.  

Much has been made about the need for plurality in the ownership of our media.  However this has to more than just limiting the share that any one person can own.  We need to look at who and what these owners represent.  In an open and free society there should be at least one genuine left wing newspaper.  This issue is even more acute in Scotland where all the mainstream media outlets are staunch supporters of the UK.  Despite the fact that the SNP has just won its second successive parliamentary election and this time with an overall majority.  How can it be in a supposedly free and open country that all these people are simply unrepresented in the mainstream media?

The future of Rupert Murdoch and his media empire is an important issue, but much more is at stake than just the future of one company.  We should use this opportunity to challenge the whole media set-up.

Work Longer for Less - Another Nasty from the Coalition

Another little piece of nastiness from our somewhat beleaguered government.  Today they are trying to get Parliament to agree to press ahead with raising the state pension age for women from 60 to 65 by 2018.  Then the age for everyone will rise to 66 by 2020.  Now the first part of this proposal is manifestly unfair to something around 300,000 women who will now face working up to two years longer before they can get their full state pension.  However the greatest objection should be to this notion that the state pension age needs to rise to 66 by 2018 and then almost certainly to 67 by sometime in the 2020s.

The UK is of course not alone in this and the previous government, New Labour, had also signed up to raising the state pension age.  However I have yet to find any convincing evidence that this measure is either necessary or beneficial.  There are all kinds of anomalies in the proposal.  The fact is that huge numbers of people die well before the state retirement age at the moment and that very large numbers of people only live for a very short period after reaching the age of 65.  This is particularly true for men and even more true for manual workers.  That the majority in this group are already pretty poor is quite convenient for our nasty Coalition as it was for New Labour.  After all what can the poor do - vote Labour?  Raising the retirement age will only make this inequality even worse.

The main, indeed the only justification for these proposals is that the majority of us are living longer and that the country can no longer afford to pay out such largesse.  It is all a bit rich really.  Just what then is the point of all these wonderful technological innovations and these great scientific advances if all it means is that most of us will have to work longer for a lesser pension?  It is not something that will much affect the rich.  They have never had to rely on the state pension for a dignified retirement.  It is as usual an example of the rich and the better off making it crystal clear that they are manifestly not in it with the rest of us.

I am particularly intrigued by one aspect of the assumed benefits from these changes.  Apparently at some time in the near future the government will be raising significantly more in tax from all these people who will have to keep on working a few years longer.  Now I am no expert in either economics or statistics, but if thousands of people remain in their current jobs for another year or two, surely this means that an equivalent number of people will remain unemployed for the same time.  When someone retires they are nearly always replaced by someone else.  After all the various jobs have to continue to be done.  So I fail to see the gain to the Treasury.  Someone will be employed and paying taxes and national insurance.  Whether it’s a 67 year old or a 47 year old or a 27 year cannot make much of a difference to the Treasury.  So where is the benefit?  Even worse if this does lead to an increase in unemployment there will be an inevitable increase in government spending.  So there will be even less of a benefit.  Now one can see that our nasty Coalitions plans to restrict benefits will help a little here.  But surely not by that much.

This, like most of the proposals from our nasty Coalition seems to be more ideology driven than anything else.  Punish the already weak and poor.  Protect the rich and better off.  We can afford nuclear weapons, new aircraft carriers and and ever more expensive military, which it seems is primarily used to kill innocent Muslims.  Yet we cannot, absolutely cannot afford to provide a decent retirement pension for all.

The AV Referendum

Whilst the main focus of debate and comment up here in Scotland just now is the forthcoming Parliamentary election, there is another vote taking place on the same day.  This is the UK wide referendum on the Alternative Vote - AV to one and all.   When you look at the reasons for having this referendum you have to say it is one of the most unusual referendums in the whole history of referendums, to put it mildly.  For this change in the voting system for UK elections from First Past the Post (FPTP) to AV is something that neither party in our nasty Coalition government actually wants.  The Tories don’t want any change at all and are actively campaigning for a No vote.  While the LibDems really want to change our electoral system to Proportional Representation (PR).  Their preferred system is the Single Transferable Vote (STV).  Yet the LibDems have ended up campaigning for a system that is not PR in any way whatsoever.  All to get into coalition with the Tories.  You couldn’t make it up.  The LibDems, one of the UK’s major parties with a decades old commitment to PR, gives up on this in order to get into government with the nasty old Tories.  And all for the measly promise of a referendum on a system the LibDems really abhor.  Just shows how corrupt and unprincipled the LidDems have become.

AV is only a minor change to the current system and most research has shown that it will lead to only minor changes in the overall result of UK elections.  Nevertheless it has generated a lot of fire and brimstone, though not much in the way of enlightenment.  Certainly, judging by the No campaign’s TV broadcast, their arguments are a mixture of the misleading and the downright lie.  Not very edifying!  I don’t suppose the Yes campaign will be much better.  Any electoral system based on single member constituencies is bound to be unfair and undemocratic.  A bit of tinkering here and there makes no real difference.  First Past the Post dates from the Middle Ages and should be returned there.

I find it very hard to drum up any enthusiasm for this referendum.  The only positive reason for voting Yes is that AV is at least a change, however minor.  As such it may make it slightly easier to win support for a change to a genuine PR system in the future.  Another very good reason for voting Yes is that anything that gets the mass support of the Tory party and the rightwing press has pretty much got to be bad.

Not only nasty, but incompetent too

Over the last few weeks we have been presented with a new facet of our ruling Coalition.  It turns out that they in addition to their nastiness they are also pretty incompetent.  This should not really come as much of a surprise.  However it has been shocking to see just how incapable they are.

First up was David Cameron’s rather hasty visit to Egypt and the Middle East.  Nothing wrong in principle with such a visit.  But the timing was all wrong.  Just as the region is in the continuing throes of popular democratic uprisings.  Made the Prime MInister look a bit like a Johnny come lately - over keen to jump on the bandwagon.  But only when it has shown some signs of success.  The big, but big gaff was to go accompanied by legions of military salesmen.  Not just accompanied by them, but our Prime Minister seems to think it is his job to actually promote these sales.  In the Middle East of all places - a region already awash with billions of pounds worth of the latest killing machines.  And just at the moment when masses of people are protesting against dictatorships - some of whom are quite happy to use our weapons to shoot and kill their own citizens.  It is quite incomprehensible how David Cameron could have gone ahead with this visit in these circumstances.  Not much in the way of real leadership here.

Shortly afterwards we had another example of David Cameron’s unfitness for high office.  As the Libyan government’s reaction to the popular protests begins to turn violent we have our Prime Minister at his most gung-ho, issuing all kinds of threats.  What can only have been an impromptu action on his part - designed no doubt to bolster his macho and military image.  For no sooner had his stirring words been uttered than it emerged that no-one else was on board for this kind of action.  Not the USA, not his partners in the EU, not Egypt and certainly not Russia or China.  This is not leading from the front  - this is foolhardy grandstanding of someone pretending to be a leader.

Then we have the sorry tale of William Hague our Foreign Secretary  Who initially doesn’t seem to have a clue as to the whereabouts of Gaddafi  - was he in Venezuela perhaps?  Then the delays in getting UK nationals out of the danger zones.  Something which all other countries seemed to manage without any fanfare or delays.  And of course the granddaddy cock-up of them all - the Keystone Cops approach to diplomacy in the desert.  A helicopter of armed SAS soldiers flies into rebel held territory.  Unannounced and they end up captured.  What a disgrace for the proud SAS.  At the same time we have a British naval ship in the port of Benghazi - the centre of rebel held territory.  So just what was the point of all this bravado?  The Keystone Cops approach should remain forever in Hollywood.  Not the sort of action that even a halfway sensible Foreign Secretary would sanction.

These recent foreign escapades have been the most obvious of the Coalition’s incompetence.  The others have yet to emerge fully into the public domain.  They could however prove many times more damaging to the future well being of our country.  I refer of course to the reckless way the Coalition is going about slashing public services, reducing the living standards of most people, while at the same time indulging in an untested and badly thought out so-called reform of key public services.  All to increase the opportunities for private profit and to benefit the already rich.  Time will tell to what extent these so-called reforms will turn out to be the greatest example of both nastiness and incompetence from any UK government.

Bankers’ Pay and Bonuses - A Suggestion

So, once again our nasty government shows its true colours.  Cuts to the welfare budget and wage freezes for public service workers, yet carte blanche for the bosses of our banks.  Despite promises to do something about the obscene bonus system and despite all these false, hypocritical claims that “we” are all in it together.  Clearly someone forgot to tell the bankers.  What makes all this even more galling is that in this case the government could and still can, do something about it.  After all “we” the citizens own two of our major banking groups - the Royal and Lloyds.

So here is a little suggestion for Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Osborne.  Why not simply impose a new regime for these two banks.  No bonuses and bring down the (already excessive) salaries of the top management of these two banks.  Now this is not just a matter of justice - ie if we are all in it together, then this is one way of ensuring this.  No, this measure would bring about a real measure of competition into the closed and oh so cozy world of finance.

For in effect we would have a four year or more experiment the remaining lifetime of the current parliament.  We are constantly bombarded by the very high earners that they need to get paid all this money because it is a competitive and global industry.  Of course no evidence for this has ever been produced.  Well, under this proposal we would get the evidence.  If, despite the lack of bonuses and the lowering of salaries for top management, the Royal and Lloyds still managed to attract good staff and perform well, then the argument in favour of all these high bonuses and salaries would have been proved to be illusory.  Of course it is possible that these two banks do not do as well as the others.  That’s why the government should embrace this idea with gusto.  After all anything which promotes competition is good in their eyes.  At the very least it would save us some money - in all these bonuses forgone.

However I would doubt that these banks would not be able to attract good experienced staff.  Precisely because it is a global industry!  We do not even have to rely on the English speaking world - large though that is.  After all the language of the world of finance and banking is English.  These two banks can select ambitious yet experienced staff from all over the world.  All keen to develop their own talents and most importantly to show that they can make a difference.  Sure they want to earn lots of money, but not necessarily the obscene amounts that are now on offer.

I have previously mentioned the example of Stephen Hester, the current chief executive of the Royal Banking Group.  He was appointed on an annual salary of £1.2 million.  On top of which he is entitled to annual bonuses of up to £2 million, plus further bonuses in shares.  Now let us just focus on the annual salary.   Before he took on the Royal job, Hester was chief executive of British Land on an annual salary of £400,000.  At the Royal his salary has tripled.  Now as I have argued before, does Mr Hester now work three times as hard?  What level of salary would have tempted Mr Hester to leave the relative obscurity of British Land to lead a great international company?  I have always suspected that for the vast majority of people the thrill and challenge of such a post is in large measure reward in itself.  Sure they would expect to earn more, but surely not three times their previous earnings?  What if Mr Hester had been offered an annual salary of £600,000 - would he have refused the offer?

Well under my suggestion we would at least find that out.  Mr Hester could be asked to continue in his post, but on a much reduced salary, minus bonuses (after all “we” are all in this together, aren’t we?).  He could always say no and walk away.  He will by now of course be a rather rich fellow.  But if he wanted another similar job, where would he get it?  And if he did go, I am sure there are plenty of ambitious and experienced men and women who would love the chance to run the Royal Banking Group.  The same applies of course to Lloyds Banking Group - the other state owned bank.

So why not Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Osborne?  After all this is something you can actually do - you have the power.  It would almost certainly be a very popular decision.  It might even convince some doubters that we are all in this together.  Of course the downside is that it might actually work.  That really would annoy a lot of people in the UK’s boardrooms.

Campaigning against the cuts?

One of the most surprising things about the current political situation in the UK is the absence of any effective mass campaign against the economic and social policies of the Coalition.  No matter how nasty they are, there seems to be no willingness on the part of the general public to make their opposition loud and clear.  Opposition and anger there is, but so far very little in the way of public demonstrations.  Nothing like the strikes and demonstrations in Greece and France.  Nor any new political movement such as the Tea Party in the USA.

What’s up?  As I see it, there seems to be two explanations for the lack of any mass resistance.  In the first place the cuts and the economic thinking behind the cuts are widely seen as either inevitable or at least necessary.  All the main UK political parties advocated severe cuts in public spending.  They only differed over the speed of the cuts.  In addition all the mainstream media outlets have constantly banged on about the economic crisis and the absolute need for deep cuts in public spending.   Finally the main global  economic and financial institutions - IMF, OECD, the World Bank - also support urgent austerity measures.  

Thus the writings of the many distinguished and respected economists, of both the right and the left, who have exposed the shoddy economics behind this dash to cut, are rarely heard in the mainstream media.  All we ever hear or read about is endless debated about what to cut and by how much.  The Labour party, now in opposition, should of course be leading the fight against this economic madness.  But of course since Labour in government argued for severe cuts, they can hardly do a somersault and now argue the opposite.  Especially since the majority of Labour MPs still seem to think that deep cuts in public spending is the answer.  Must be a pretty silly question if that is the answer.

The result however is that there has been no sustained challenge to the  dominant neo-liberal nonsense about an economy in crisis and on the verge of collapse.  It is therefore hardly surprising that there has been a reluctant acceptance by the general public of the cuts agenda.  

The other significant factor in all this is that so far there have been few actual cuts and probably even fewer job losses.  The Coalition has played their hand very well in this respect.  There have been lots of announcements and headline figures of huge cuts in public spending.  But as yet the axe has only grazed a bit here and there.  First of all the cuts will be phased in over the next four years, thus lessening the immediate impact.  Secondly most of the actual decisions on what to cut will be left to others.  In particular it will be local authorities who will have to balance the books.  This of course means that many people will blame their local council instead of the Coalition.  And here in Scotland most of the cuts come in the form of a reduction in the block grant.  So it will be the Scottish government which has to take the first decisions on what to cut.  Then will come the turn of the local councils.  The Coalition clearly hope that with all these actors involved, at some of the blame will attach to them, letting the Coalition off the hook.

At the moment the political situation is a bit like the phoney war at the start of World War 11.  We all something nasty is coming, but no-one knows for sure just what it will look like and when it will all start to get really bad.  This of course makes campaigning against the Coalition very difficult.  In this respect I am not sure that focussing on opposing the cuts is the right strategy.  As explained above most people, unfortunately, accept that cuts are necessary.  It is also difficult to get people fired up about opposing a generalised threat of cuts in public services.  Again, unfortunately, there will always be people who are in favour of cutting some public services.  I, for example, would be most happy to see a steep cut our defence budget.  It can also, and will be, portrayed as special pleading.  And in general terms, by focussing on resisting all cuts, you are left open to the question of well, what would you do to get us out of the economic crisis?  

This in a way gets us back  to the beginning of this post.  More than just opposing cuts, we need to find a way to challenge the whole neo-liberal charade about the economy.  No easy answers to this I’m afraid.  I would suggest that campaigning should focus as much as possible on how we got into this economic and financial mess and in particular who got us all into the mess.  Make the bankers pay!  might make a good slogan.  There is a lot of anger out there and it is this anger against the big banks and the whole parasitical financial sector, and their political lackeys that campaigns should highlight.  Unfortunately this will have to be done without the active support of any of the main UK political parties.  In fact all of them will be terrified of such a campaign as all of them are to some extent guilty.

Coalition speaks with forked tongues!

So our masters in the Coalition government have finally revealed the extent of the damage they intend to inflict on the rest of us.  On the whole it is pretty much as expected.  Here are my initial thoughts on some of the key issues about the proposals.  One thing that stands out is that not only is the Coalition nasty, but they also tell lies and lots of them.  Let’s have a look.

1. The first lie is the claim that the cuts are “fair” and that the poorest in society have been somehow protected.  It only took the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) four hours to burst that claim.  Further research shows beyond doubt that the Coalition were lying and presumably knowingly lying when they made that claim.  It is quite incredible when you think that the biggest cuts are to come in the benefits budget - so clearly the poorest are going to suffer the most.
2. Linked to the lie about fairness is the claim that “we are all in this together”.  This is a particularly galling lie coming from a government stuffed with multi- millionaires from a highly privileged background.  It would be fascinating to know just exactly what the likes of Cameron, Osborne, Clegg and co. are going to have to give up to help reduce the deficit.  At the same time we hear that the government’s friends in the City are to share bonuses of £7 billion this year.  So just who is in this together?  Certainly not the government or the very rich or the City financiers.
3. Talking of banks and their willingness to share the pain of the mess.  A mess that they - the financial companies created.  The government announces that they will introduce a levy on the banks, but it is only expected to raise £2.5 billion a year.  Why only £2.5 billion?   Well, we can’t raise more or otherwise the banks would leave the UK and set up shop elsewhere.  So much for solidarity.   And in fact due to the progressive reduction in corporation tax, most banks will end up paying nothing at all in additional tax.  Now, where is the outrage against these threats by the banks to up and leave.  If Trade Unions make any kind of threat to take industrial action the government and their friends in the media immediately accuse workers of holding the country to ransom.  Is this not exactly what the City is doing?  Their threats, if true are a form of treachery.  So why are these banks and financial companies not named and shamed?  And just where would they go?  This is all another example of lies from the government.  They won’t increase tax on the banks because they don’t want to - too many friends in the business as it were.
4. Of course there is no need to worry about any of this.  The Free Market is going to step in solve all our woes.  If you believe this then you do believe in fairies.  Most economist look for a bit in the way of evidence.  As Danny Blanchflower, former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee wrote for the Guardian,  “The Chancellor’s economic strategy is to cross his fingers and hope that the private sector will create 2.5m jobs within five years, despite the fact that between 2000 and 2008 only 1.6m private sector jobs were created. Recovery is going to be a long slog.  Contrary to claims made by various members of the government, there is no believable evidence that fiscal tightening on the scale that is being proposed has ever worked. When Canada implemented its fiscal tightening its neighbour was experiencing the Clinton boom, plus it was able to cut interest rates.”  You can read the whole article here.  And remember that letter signed by 35 so-called leading businessmen urging on the cuts and assuring everyone that the private sector will be able to make up the job losses in the public sector?  Well it turns out that most of the signatories were also lying.  Most of the companies involved have been shedding jobs over the past two years and some have privately informed their boards that they are most unlikely to take in new staff any time soon.  All because of the austerity measures imposed by the government.  Seems it is not only the government we can’t trust.  We can’t trust business leaders either.  So nothing new there!  Osama Saeed has some details here.
5. Finally we come to the grandaddy of all the lies.  The one about we had to do it guv.  Things were in such a mess and the country was on the brink of bankruptcy that we had to take drastic action or the whole world would have punished us.  Or at least the markets would have punished us with higher interest rates on our debt.  This is all a pack of lies and well documented lies at that.  The key points to bear in mind are the following.  1. the current level of government debt is not that high historically.  Between 1920 and 1960 government never fell below 100% of GDP.  Yet we all managed to survive.  2.  current government debt is not high in comparison with other countries.  In fact the UK has the lowest level of government debt as a proportion of GDP among the G7 countries.  3.  the government debt is overwhelmingly owed to UK institutions and is also long term and not due to be repaid for another 10 - 12 years.  This means there is no threat to our credit rating by the foreign money markets.  You can read more about these particular lies here, here and here.

What is most depressing about all this is not simply that our Coalition government is both nasty and lying, but that the level of coverage in our mainstream media is so pathetic.  The odd critic is allowed to raise his or her objections but the overwhelming attitude of both the print and TV media is to accept at face value the government’s line that there is no alternative to cuts - it’s just a matter of how much and how fast.  This of course makes Labour’s opposition so difficult.  They also are thirled to the basic (false) premise.  We are trapped in a situation in which virtually all our MPs, with one or two honourable exceptions, all agree with the conventional wisdom.  So much for our much lauded democracy.  

For the future we need to not just oppose the cuts, but to begin to develop an alternative economic vision.  Can Labour provide us with this?  Now, now, you don’t believe in magic fairies do you?  As a starter for ten here is a good introduction to just how stupid the conventional wisdom is.