tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17268312458350995282024-02-20T07:54:46.210+00:00red mistI don't mind if you don't like my manners. I don't like them myself. They're pretty bad. I grieve over them on long winter evenings. -- Humphrey Bogart in "The Big Sleep"red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.comBlogger195125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-38709199291425794362018-04-07T19:31:00.000+00:002018-04-07T19:31:16.752+00:00Productivity, Capital, Labour and Profits
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Productivity is a
major concern for the UK economy and we lag behind many of our
European and global competitors.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
One of the main
reasons for this problem is that when profits are generated by many
UK businesses they are squirrelled away in tax havens and re-invested
in speculative financial markets in order to avoid or evade a proper
contribution to UK taxation. This in turn means that the investment
in our capital infrastructure and our capital equipment is severely
restricted.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There seems to be a
belief in some UK business that instead of investing in new and
modern capital equipment we can plug the productivity gap by applying
ever-increasing amounts of increasingly cheap labour to our
industrial base, ignoring the fundamental economic law of diminishing
returns. And when this fails to work we get into the situation we
have now where increasing productivity places all of its eggs in one
basket, that of reducing wages even further and/or trying to maintain
the same output with fewer people.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There is a direct
connection between the criminal or morally reprehensible behaviour of
corporate tax cheats and the falling productivity rate in the UK and
it is a problem which governments must deal with, and very soon,
because it will only get worse the longer it is left unaddressed.
</div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-41380506213346427542018-04-07T19:16:00.000+00:002018-04-07T19:16:26.125+00:00The New UK Passport<br />
It is a matter of extreme regret that British jobs will be lost
following the decision to have the new post-Brexit UK passport
printed abroad.
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">What is more difficult to
understand is the hand-wringing of the Tories over both the colour
and the printing of the UK passport abroad when a large section of
their party are desperate to begin to engage in unfettered free trade
with the whole of the world market and remove the very sort of job
protection that might have saved those jobs.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">As we exit the European
Union we should prepare ourselves for British business to have to
compete globally and losing contracts abroad to lower priced
competitors is an intrinsic part of that process. It is inevitable
that this will drive down British wages as the UK tries to
compete on cost in an unregulated market.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">It makes for a very
uncertain future for UK workers who will lose the protections the EU
has imposed on employers and which the Tories condemn as 'red tape'.</span><br />
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-3411921206912888732018-02-11T21:32:00.000+00:002018-02-11T21:32:56.535+00:00Planning, Housing and the Green Belt.<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
When we think of the
‘green belt’ we have a tendency to imagine that it consists of a
narrow strip of countryside encircling a major conurbation under
constant threat from unscrupulous developers who want to desecrate it
for profit. This way of imagining it derives largely from the vocal
‘nimbyism’ of the middle classes struggling to preserve a
suburban lifestyle to which they have fled to avoid the urban centres
in which they now have very little interest. They have coined the
phrase ‘urban sprawl’ to increase the emotive pressure on
planning authorities to restrict applications overlooking the fact
that what they call urban sprawl is for the rest of us an increase in
housing stock and a decent place to live.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
They are quite happy
for those living in urban high density housing to see that density
increase provided that they themselves can reach the countryside with
the minimum of inconvenience and there is no increase in suburban
housing supply to diminish the value and exclusivity of their own
properties.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But anyone who has
travelled in Scotland can see that the way we imagine the green belt
is a fallacy. There is no ‘belt’ of green space around towns and
cities. What we have is miles of countryside and the briefest of
rail journeys will confirm that. The countryside is not being
concreted over, to the contrary, every new road or road bridge is
hailed as a triumph. There is a desperate need to expand and
improve our transport infrastructure and housing stock.</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In short, we are not
short of green but we are dreadfully short of houses and roads.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I believe that the
course we should be taking is to have a good long think about green
belt and planning policy and relax regulations for housing
development and road building. The green belt provisions were
designed largely for south of the border where needs and demands may
be different but I do not believe they meet the needs of Scotland.
We do not have the same geography nor the same problems.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Proposals to build
on brownfield sites, while superficially tempting, will come nowhere
near to meeting the housing needs of the country in its present state
and would only increase the housing density for those already living
in areas of overcrowding and attempts to increase the housing stock
by building upwards have proven disastrous. Far better brownfield
sites should be turned into urban parkland properly managed and
maintained so that those living in already crowded urban conditions
should have access to the chance of recreational use of pleasant
green space, and if that means that the journey into the countryside
for the suburban middle classes takes an extra ten or fifteen minutes
then so be it.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This is not an
argument for a removal of all restrictions on any kind of development
but I think we must look again at how we treat the ownership and
functional flexibility of land and how relaxation of restrictions
could contribute to social and economic development.</div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-33230392552530529652018-01-26T21:58:00.000+00:002018-01-26T21:58:06.374+00:00Closure of the Royal Alexandra Hospital Children's Ward<br />
<div style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The First Minister
of Scotland has endorsed the closure of Ward 15, the Children’s
Ward, of the Royal Alexandra Hospital citing as the main reason the
advice of clinicians. Basically they have resorted to flying in the
face of the well worn maxim that advisors advise and Ministers
decide. But this is a Government decision and there’s no hiding
behind expert advice can disguise that. I don’t decry the role of
experts in helping form Government decisions but if government
slavishly accept their advice and form policy only on that basis I
have to ask myself why we bother to have politicians and we don’t
just let the experts run things.</div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
What has been sadly
overlooked is that clinicians have vested interests in these
decisions. They would not be human if, when asked whether they would
recommend moving to a shiny new facility they would reject the idea.
It’s almost like a promotion and who would reject that? Why would
they want to stay in a facility that despite there being no plans to
close it only 2 years ago has been run down so quickly that a mere 2
years later it is portrayed as virtually derelict and unfit for
purpose? Why would they want to stay and fight for better facilities
at the RAH Children’s Ward when the plan of the Health Board and
the Scottish Government has clearly been to run it down at a helluva
pace? Little wonder they are demoralised and want to move.</div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The clinician
advisors are experts and when patients are presented to them they are
very good at what they do. But they have no interest in how those
patients get to them and are extremely vocal about late and missed
appointments. They are not experts in transport infrastructure but
just expect that patients will cope, and they don’t really care
how. The new hospital is very poorly served by public transport but
that counts for very little because people who have to use buses
can’t really be experts. Can they? Well they’re experts on buses
but nobody really cares about that.</div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Clinicians are also
not experts in social cohesion and the type of local services that
form a network which is the basis of a community. That isn’t their
problem. They deal with patients as individuals as they should, but
someone, and that someone should be the First Minister, should be
looking at the bigger picture and taking responsibility for keeping
communities alive. Localised health provision is a large part of
that. The Government shouldn’t be guided only by clinicians in this
respect. Investment in local health facilities is an essential part
of what defines a community and this closure is a cut in local
provision. It’s not a reorganisation. If you start with 2
facilities and end up with 1 then that’s a cut by any definition.
People in our poorest communities are the real experts in the effects
of cuts but that kind of expertise is neither wanted nor needed.
They’re dependent on local services so they must be poor. Their
expertise doesn’t count.</div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Much is made by the
SNP of the proximity of the new facility to the old one. I live about
4 minutes from the RAH and I know that it takes at least 20 minutes
to get to the new hospital from the RAH. A month ago they were
telling me it was about 15 minutes from the old one to the new. Maybe
in light traffic that could be done. Last week they were saying it
was 7 minutes and now they’re telling me it’s just 5 minutes down
the road. So maybe I worry too much. At the present rate I reckon
it’ll be at the end of my street in about a month. But I think that
might be a bit of misplaced optimism.</div>
<div style="line-height: 115%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I hope the Scottish
Government will think again, take into account the views of the other
experts I have identified, and reverse this cut.</div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-55217813386400812102018-01-25T13:40:00.000+00:002018-01-25T13:40:33.193+00:00The Offensive Behaviour at Football Act.Can I just put in my usual disclaimer. these views are entirely my own and I do not purport to represent any organisation, even those of which I might be a member.<br />
<br />
Back in my lost youth Government introduced the Litter Act. Litter was becoming a problem but it was never the intention to fill the jails with people who had dropped a sweet wrapper. Seat belt legislation was never intended to fill the jails with people who had forgotten to put on a seat belt. Similarly it was never the intention of the proposals to ban parents smacking their children to fill the jails with stressed out parents.<br />
<br />
The point of all of this legislation was to try to effect a social attitude change.and to change public behaviour so that there was a consciousness among people that acceptable behaviour had changed, and that they should seriously consider and modify their conduct. It wasn't to criminalise people. It was to send out a signal of a broad societal change and back it up with penalties for the sake of society and which would only be imposed if the signal was ignored.<br />
<br />
In the case of the OBFA it's beyond doubt that there is offensive behaviour at football matches which doesn't occur in most other sports, so to that extent the specificity of the Act could be justified. It's not impossible but it's difficult to defend the right to be offensive. I suppose there are issues of free speech but I think we're grasping at straws with that defence so I won't try. Offensive baviour at football is a stain on the fabric of our society but half a dozen police were never going to be able to jail 3 or 4 thousand chanting football fans so I think the act is best viewed, like the others I've mentioned, as a signal that a specific problem exists and needs to be addressed. It should be an indicator to young fans that the ancient bigotries of their elders, who want to be sure that their bigotries live on after them, has to change. The object of the act isn't to jail people, it's to make them conscious that society has moved on and certain things which were acceptable are no longer so. The object is to stop people being gratuitously offensive and I can't see how that is a bad thing.<br />
<br />
There are however questions around how the act is policed. There is a mis-trust of the police, not always unjustified, among certain sections of our community and over enthusiastic policing only makes it worse. The real answer to that is that people shouldn't indulge in offensive behaviour and should get as far away as possible from people who do.<br />
<br />
I know that there is very little in the OBFA that isn't addressed elsewhere in law by breach of the peace or other public order legislation but they lack the specificity to deal with this specific problem and send this specific signal.<br />
<br />
But one thing is certain in my mind. If I'm right and the act
should be treated as sending a signal then repeal of the act sends a
much worse signal to our whole society. Amend it by all means so that the offence is much clearer and people know where the boundaries are, but don't repeal it unless you can replace it. red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-15223923282042271712017-06-07T21:30:00.000+00:002017-06-07T21:30:14.440+00:00Corbyn, Labour and Independence
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
First of all can I
say that if I lived in England I would vote labour tomorrow. No if,
no buts and no hesitation. Anything is better than the Tories.</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But I would vote in
the full awareness that the Labour Party is riddled with treachery,
deceit and betrayal and has been for generations. They have had
period after period of government and done very little to advance the
country to socialism. Far from abolishing the House of Lords,
despite the opportunity many times they have never attempted it and
most of their former leaders, even the ones who purport to be
socialists went on to sit in the Lords. They will always betray the
working class. It’s in their DNA.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
They spectacularly
failed to support the miners when they really needed it. The miners
were far too left wing for them. They love to complain about the
press barons but as soon as they get a chance they cosy up to them.
That’s why, despite all of their false posturing, we still have a
media dominated by the right and which ruthlessly attacks and
mis-informs working people. Labour had had many chances to put that
right and they do nothing. They have no interest in an informed
working class. We are just here to be exploited by a team which in
the matter of the expenses scandal were not a bit better than the
Tories.</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
As for Corbyn, he
has been the subject of the treachery and betrayal which is endemic
in his party. They have tried and failed to get rid of him because
they think he’s too socialist for them. But they needn’t have
bothered because he’ll join the betrayal of the working class just
like the rest of them, it might just take a little longer. We already
know he has a penchant for deceit. Three times he was elected on a
Blairite manifesto and over a hundred times he voted against his
party. To some that might point him out as a man of principle but to
me it just says that he was quite willing to vote with or fail to
oppose the Tories if it suited him. But his supporters seem quite
proud of that. He will either betray them or he’ll be betrayed.
They just can’t help themselves.</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But as I said at the
start, if I lived in England I would vote Labour but only as a
slightly better option than the Tories.</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But I don’t live
in England. I’m a supporter of an independent socialist Scotland
and since the Labour Party in Scotland are even worse I see no
likelihood of them delivering any kind of socialism to Scotland.
When Corbyn is knifed, and it won’t take long after the election is
lost to the Tories, it is Labour in Scotland who will be in the lead
among the plotters. They still worship Blair and Brown and see
socialism as a retrograde step. So given that the road to socialism
is temporarily blocked off for me I look at my other objective and I
will cast my vote, however reluctantly to try to advance nationhood.
We are lucky in Scotland that we can manufacture the opportunity to
reboot our social system and start anew in an independent country.
Even that won’t be easy but it will be far less difficult than
turning around the Tory juggernaut that another five years of
austerity will impose on us.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So I propose to vote
for nationhood and to strengthen those who support it despite my
reservations. Nothing else can stop the Tories from breaking the
working class of Scotland and that has to be the first priority for
me.</div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-23042864112452627952016-09-05T11:47:00.000+00:002016-09-05T11:47:10.620+00:00The Service Sector and its Problems
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I’m delighted to
see the rise in output in the service sector announced today because
it means more people have a job of some sort however poorly paid.
But we really should be looking at the manufacturing sector to try to
get a proper picture of economic performance.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The problem of the
service sector is that it is predicated on the nonsensical belief
that we can get richer as a country by cutting each others hair more
often and that is just silly, but that’s how it works. Without an
improving manufacturing base the service sector is no more than a
giant ‘Ponzi’ scheme; a hoax perpetrated on us by city spivs,
treasury wide-boys and political con-men and it will end in tears as
all ‘Ponzi’ schemes inevitably do unless we do something about
it.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Prior to the
introduction of VAT we had a Selective Employment Tax which was more
or less revenue neutral. What it did was to increase the Employers’
National Insurance in industries classified as ‘service’ and
reduce the same tax for employments classified as ‘manufacturing’.
It was very successful in diverting new investment into the
manufacturing sector. Maybe it’s time to bring it back and Brexit
might just offer that opportunity if government is bold enough. But
I doubt whether they are.</div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-69371018402680985912016-05-30T23:19:00.000+00:002016-05-30T23:20:54.599+00:00How To Lose an Election (and I'm a bit of an expert)<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">I
think the first thing to do is to acknowledge that standing as RISE
in the Scottish Elections we did extremely poorly, but probably no better or worse that we
would have done standing as the SSP, and any criticism of RISE here
is only because it was as RISE that we stood. Standing as the SSP, I
don't think we would have done much better because we would have run
a very similar campaign using almost exactly the same methods as RISE
did and achieved virtually the same outcome. There was very little new
in either the approach or the policies we relied on to persuade the
voters into our camp.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">On
the positive side the SSP has learned a lot about the quality of our
social media offerings. Rise material was incomparably better than
anything we have ever produced and we fail to learn from that at our
peril. The medium was exploited about as well as it could have been.
Would that I could say the same for the message.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">As
the left, whichever name we campaign under, we keep making the same
mistake. We campaign on the things that are important to us rather
than what is important to the voters.
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Looking
at the headline policies on the main RISE leaflet,we had we were asking for a
second referendum at a time of our choosing. No doubt we were
looking for disaffected SNP supporters, but there are very few
disaffected SNP voters. Their new members haven't had time to become
disaffected and their 'old guard' wouldn't go anywhere else at any
price. Add to that the fact that 55% of the electorate had already
rejected independence very recently and we were always backing a
loser with this as a headline policy. We were competing on someone
else's turf and they had it fenced off very well. The problem is
that we knew all of this and still headlined the policy.
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">We
said no to cuts and save local services. This is a message we were
sharing with other parties. There was nothing distinctive about our
approach. It didn't tell voters clearly enough where the money was
to come from and that was where our distinction lay. We were asking
them to take us on trust when they didn't even know us.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">We
were saying we would scrap the hated council tax and that we had a
plan for an alternative that makes the rich pay. But council tax has
been frozen for years and voters, especially those on fixed incomes
like pensioners value predictability. We didn't define 'the rich' so
many would assume we meant them because they regard the poor as being
those on benefits and see themselves as being rich by comparison. We
were asking them again to trust us without really knowing who we
were.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">We
said we would de-criminalise marijuana, but we found ourselves at
hustings in towns and cities where nearly every family has had a drug
related problem or even tragedy within their ranks. Most of them
would never challenge the policy publicly but they wouldn't let our
view over-ride their own instincts without knowing us and being
convinced that we were more likely to have a solution than the
police, press and courts. They need to trust us before we can
convince them that we know best.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">We
said we should end the Police Scotland farce, but for most voters a
police officer is just a police officer. Their organisation
structure is of no interest to voters, what is important to voters is
that there are never enough police on the beat. Re-organisation of
Police Scotland is of absolutely no importance to them in the polling
booth however important it seemed to us.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Free
public transport is the final headline policy on the leaflet. But the
demographic most likely to vote already travel free on the buses and
in poll after poll car owners show no interest in giving up their
cars and you really can't sell this policy to the rest of the voters
in one line, it's a long term message for after you're trusted, so as
a headline policy I'm afraid it wasn't going to be very effective.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">All
of these policies are excellent and very important in their own
right, but they are very important to us, not to the voters. If we
are to convince the voters to vote for us we must first address their
issues. We had nothing in our headlines about health or hospitals,
education or schools, houses or housing or jobs and employment. We
focussed on the things that are important to us instead of policies
that are important to both us and the voters. Our policies should all
have been in the manifesto, but on the leaflets, as headline
policies, the ones we chose were absolutely inappropriate.
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Before
we can get people to believe we are right about our issues we have to
let them know we are addressing their issues. We have to be embedded
in their lives locally, not only in local campaigns but in their
lives. We need to be in community councils, parents' associations,
tenants' associations, fighting for them every day where they live.
We are already well established in the trade unions and we should
expand on that and that should be our model for involvement in other
organisations. I don't just mean coming along to save a school here
or a park there and hitching our wagon to a local campaign. We need
to lead our people. Voters have to believe that we believe in them,
working for them all the time and picking up the heavy end when other
parties are attending civic receptions and doing everything they can
to avoid their own people except at election times. And we should
always be recognisably representing the SSP in the community, deeply
involved and listening.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The
notion of left unity is little more than a pipe dream. If all of the
minor left parties were joined in cooperation we would still fall far
short of a critical mass in terms of electoral muscle. And for
reasons of doctrine or for other reasons some left wing parties
wouldn't join with us and some we wouldn't consider joining with.
Our future has to lie elsewhere and if we can make a success of it we
will become the pole of attraction for the rest of the left, unless
they decide that the case for left wing electoral politics is over or
carry on dreaming and getting one or two per cent in the polls.
</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">I
think there was and is a fundamental flaw in our approach and
severely compounded by the novelty of RISE. They had little or no
recognition and only when we have done the hard miles will we be able
to compete seriously for votes. We will only convince voters that
the things that are important to us affect their lives profoundly if
they trust us enough to think that we might know better than the
media what is important for them in their society, and that the new
society we advocate is possible.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span>
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
</span>
<div class="western" style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;">That
is the challenge for us in the SSP </span>and there are no short cuts.</div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-10480302354214519732014-11-15T18:08:00.000+00:002014-11-15T18:08:31.557+00:00The Scottish National Party Election Strategy<br />
I must admit to being a bit, well more than a bit really, unsettled by the latest pronouncement from the Scottish National Party that it will allow ineligible candidates to stand under an independence banner with the support of the SNP. If they want to amend their constitution to allow new celebrity members to stand then that is a matter for them, but if they are to support candidates from other parties who have been prominent in the independence movement and expect them to take the SNP whip then that is a different story.<br />
<br />
It is, and has long been my opinion that every voter who supports the aims and ambitions of the Scottish Socialist Party should have the opportunity of going into the polling booth and placing their cross against the Red Star of the SSP in every election where we have a candidate. No 'ifs' nor 'buts', we should be sailing under our own flag all of the time. If we fail to gather sufficient support from the electorate despite having the best raft of policies then so be it. It means we must work harder to get our message across. We can't blame the electorate for our own failings.<br />
<br />
But the latest plans of the SNP look like a giant step towards a social democratic one-party state within a capitalist framework and I'm not sure that such a one-party state led by the SNP and packed with the great and the good of independence minded celebrities is a price worth paying for our independence. We should be thinking long and hard before we get our people involved.<br />
<br />
We were useful in the referendum campaign and I held my tongue because the end was, in my own opinion, great enough to justify the means, but does everyone remember the howls of protest from the SNP when we were excluded from the Smith Commission despite being represented on the Yes campaign board. Neither do I, but if you lie down with dogs then you get up with fleas and we should remember that duplicity for a long time before we get involved in supporting them given their record of failure to support us. <br />
<br />
We have our own vision of independence and it doesn't coincide with theirs except at the most basic level. That is what we should be standing for and campaigning for. We should not be looking for scraps from the SNP tablered misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-62146831488274789342014-08-09T12:23:00.000+00:002014-08-09T12:23:04.203+00:00Scottish Independence Referendum and the Currency Debate.<br />
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
There seems to be a
lot of nonsense being talked about the Scottish currency in the event
of a vote for independence so I might as well get in my tuppence
worth (assuming the new currency will have tuppence as an expression
of currency). This is the situation as I understand it but I don't
claim to be an expert. It's not really as difficult as the NO
campaign would have us believe.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Plan A.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We keep the pound in
a currency union with the remainder of the UK. The benefits of this
in terms of transaction costs have been explored at some length but I
have been asked to try to explain what transaction costs are.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
For the most part
they are that portion of your money which is stolen by the money
changers when you convert from one currency to another, just as they
do when you go on holiday but on a much more massive scale when
you're buying and selling between two countries. In a currency union
these costs would be eliminated.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The drawback is that
you lose control of your monetary policy (the amount of money
circulating in your economy) as a lever of policy. That means we
will only have the same control over our monetary policy as France
and Germany have in their particular currency union and they manage
well enough. That doesn't seem to be all that scary because the
economic interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK (except London)
are broadly similar. We would retain control of our fiscal policy
(the power to tax and spend according to our own social priorities).</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Plan B.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We keep the pound
without a currency union. Because the national debt has been incurred
by the UK in support of the united currency, if we are, as the NO
campaign seems to think, effectively kicked out of the united
currency it seems unlikely that we would be required to assume part
of the united currency's accumulated debt. If we don't share the
asset it is grossly unreasonable to ask us to share in the
liabilities of the currency union. The UK Government have already
conceded that it would accept responsibility for the national debt
should we vote YES, but we understand that this was only to re-assure
the financial markets to keep their own credit rating up. That's not
the Scottish Government's preferred option. They would rather have a
currency union and accept a share of the debt.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We are told that if
we do not share the debt then borrowing on the world financial
markets would become difficult, but we already know that Scotland
would have a triple A rating. The markets have said so. Even if we
were to renounce the debt, interest rates depend on how much risk is
involved for the lender. There is little risk in lending to an oil
rich, stable democracy with a massive balance of payments surplus.
International finance are no fools and they will recognise our
renouncing of the UK's debt burden as a one off in peculiar
circumstances and since the UK government has assured markets that
the debt will be repaid they wont worry about lending to Scotland.
It's just another scare story.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
All of this is made
clear in the Scottish Government's White Paper. It's not called Plan
B but it is, and it's there for anyone to see who's interested and
geeky enough, but lazy, bought and paid for journalists can't be
bothered to look so they keep shouting that there's no Plan B. It's
just another scary lie.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
They like to talk
about a Plan B because it implies the possible failure of Plan A, so
Salmond will never refer to it as Plan B. He's old and wise enough
to realise that Plan B is a term coined by the NO campaign to imply
failure of the best option and a degree of uncertainty about planning
itself. He's a consummate politician and since Plan B is a NO
campaign term he will not accede to their terms. He knows that if you
control the terminology then you control the debate and he will end up
debating on the opposition's terms. So he will never use the
expression 'Plan B' however desperate the NO campaign are to get him
to utter the words. Language is important and all of us who are old
enough remember the cheer that went up in the house of commons when
Thatcher after years of calling it the Community Charge eventually
used the words 'Poll Tax'. It was the beginning of the end.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Plan C
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We use our own
currency. However much I would like that to happen it seems
unlikely, but if push comes to genteel jostle then it's got to be
done. It may involve a longer wait for its full benefits to show but
it'll be worth it in the long run.</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
That's my offering.
Good luck with it.</div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-38458039142555462662014-07-13T17:42:00.001+00:002014-07-13T17:44:34.880+00:00Glasgow Airport Rail Link<br />
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">
It is unfortunate that plans for the Glasgow Airport Rail link seem to be back on the agenda. We have made our reservations on these proposals clear on many occasions but would like to take this opportunity to once again look at the problems associated with this scheme.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">
We fully understand that the scheme would create many jobs both in the construction phase and in the enhanced passenger throughput for the airport, but construction firms tend to use their own on-book skilled labour force so we believe that the benefit to the people of Renfrewshire would be minimal. In return Renfrewshire would suffer all of the social, environmental and economic costs involved in making sure that travellers from Glasgow can get to their flights without ever having to set foot in Renfrewshire. It makes little sense. We also believe that the rail link would be vastly uneconomic unless heavily subsidised in its day-to-day operation and we are unsure what contribution the airport authorities would make towards both the construction and the running of this service designed to enhance the profitability of the airport.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">
We believe that if such a project has to go ahead, and we are not convinced that it must, especially when every environmental group is campaigning to reduce air travel, then there has to be a radical re-think of the whole thing from the bottom up. It is our belief that any proposed new line should go from Glasgow to Braehead, increasing the footfall to that centre which seems to be a priority for Renfrewshire Council. The line should proceed from there to Renfrew, which would increase the access infrastructure of the largest town in Scotland without a railway station and enhance the economic activity and employment in that area. It should then enter the airport from the Inchinnan end.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">
This would mean that all of the prospective jobs in construction and in the airport would be maintained and would be of some benefit to Renfrewshire and its people. It would also make the line more useful and might, through increased use, reduce the need for public subsidy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-61414948618134866412014-07-04T23:21:00.000+00:002014-07-05T06:36:51.118+00:00Reaction Formation and Councillor Terry Kelly<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Reaction formation
is believed to occur when someone finds an idea in themselves so
especially threatening that they deal with it by enthusiastically
embracing its opposite, and so it is with the New Labour Party and
Socialism.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The stand-out in
this field is Councillor Terry (TKMax) Kelly of Renfrewshire
District. There is a strong suspicion that Councillor Kelly is a
closet Socialist, despite his support for Blair's Government, his
support of the selling off of council housing to a private limited
company and his latest aberration, the stigmatising of a foodbank
user who dared to criticise the policies of the Cameron government.
Still, on his blog, he claims to be a socialist. How can this be ?
</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The councillor runs
the most vile, hate-filled blog it has been my misfortune to read.
It is filled with spiteful venom and really obnoxious, and often has
a special place for the Socialists. But Terry claims to be a
socialist and although I do not know him personally, I'm told by
those who do that he's 'ok'. So it's difficult to believe that a
vile hate-filled, spiteful, venomous, obnoxious person could charm
the voters, could they ? Unless they were modelled on Blair. I
believe the explanation is that Terry is reacting to his own shame at
allowing his own Socialism to be sold down the river for a place at
the council table and a pay of around £460 per week. But he says
he's a socialist and how could anyone think one of Tony Blair's New
Labour people would tell a lie ? I mean, I'm sure that if they live
long enough, maybe four or five hundred years, Tony Robinson and the
Time Team will find those weapons of mass destruction, right ?</div>
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So he embraces all
of the Tory policies with enthusiasm, attacking foodbank users,
manipulating Renfrewshire's assets for tax avoidance and promoting
big business at the Braehead Shopping Development. He gets into bed
with Cameron's Tories to fight against independence with more vitriol
than the Tories themselves. Nothing is too right wing for Terry,
because we believe he has to do it to cover up his embarrassment and
shame at having sold his Socialism for a paltry portion of silver and
a small sliver of power. Ashamed of his own cowardice he has to try
to be a bully, but he's not scary enough. That he has to be obnoxious, and
to lose all respect among decent people is a very small price to pay
when you have already committed the major act of betrayal of your
community and working class heritage, and you can always pass off
anger at yourself as strong commitment to principle if you are loud
enough.</div>
<br />
<div style="line-height: 200%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
And as for the real
Socialists, he hates us worst, because we are a constant reminder to
him of his shame and betrayal. We are the open sore that just wont
heal, we wont go away no matter what he does. We haunt him like a
bad dream of what he believes but dare not admit because were he to
come out of the closet as a socialist by action rather than just
words then his leader, Councillor McMillan, would dispense with the
services of his court jester as quickly as you can say Gulf War, and
then he's off the gravy train.</div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-47241547801859584462014-03-22T14:12:00.001+00:002014-03-22T14:12:43.081+00:00The Tories and the Great Pension Release Stunt<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I've been thinking long and hard about
the release of pension funds that the Tories announced in the budget.
It's unlike the Tories to trust working people with large sums of
money when they could leave it in the hands of their fat cat cronies
in the City to continue to rip us off with fees and charges on money
that's locked into their wallets. What, I ask myself, could the
motive be ? Well, I'm no Robert Peston but I can tell you what I
think.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The Tories are in trouble. Not economic
trouble, with the support of the Lib Dems they have the brass neck to
screw the poor to bail them out of that. They are in political
trouble. One of the problems that all governments face is that the
economic cycle lasts for about 8 years, despite Gordon Brown thinking
you can abolish boom and bust. That's just the way it is, You can
stretch it or shorten it but not by much. But the parliamentary cycle
only lasts for 5 years. If you come into government at the wrong time
you are in political trouble come the next election.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Osborne came into government at the
start of the downturn and 4 years later he has an upturn. Exactly as
anyone who knows about these things would have predicted irrespective
of any government action. But growth is very weak and the brakes he
put on the economy by restricting the incomes of those who have to
spend 100 % of their income every week means that consumption, which
fuels growth, can't accelerate the economy to the extent that real
cost of living issues will have been solved by the next election.
Basically the upturn will be too slow for voters to feel better off
by the time they go to the polls.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Now if you're a Tory chancellor then
you can't just go giving money to poor people who will spend it, so
traditionally, to pump up growth by consumption he would resort to
fiscal easing, or as it is better known, printing money. But that's
been tried and the ailing banks just kept the money to shore up their
ailing balance sheets. It didn't make its way into the consumption
side of the economy so the effects of the multiplier weren't
produced. I suppose I should really try to explain the multiplier
but it's complicated. So imagine you have £100 and put down a 10%
deposit on a piece of furniture. You can produce £1000 of
consumption from £100 of cash. That'll do as an explanation for the
moment I think.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In any case, another round of printing
money would have a very bad effect on the UK credit rating. It's
already under severe threat, so as an option, that would have to be a
last resort. So in the pragmatic way that the Tories always adopt in
a crisis he has looked around to see who has money he can get his
hands on. Releasing the pension handcuffs will produce significant
tax revenue in the year of the election but it will have the added,
and perhaps more important effect of injecting massive consumption
into the economy. The effect on inflation he can brazen out because
inflation is starting from a very low base, and a bit of inflation in
the system will help consumption as well. People will be more
inclined to buy now if they think things will be more expensive in
the near future, and it is obvious that a lot of the released pension
money will be spent, bringing into play the multiplier. And a lot
will go into 'buy-to-let' property fuelling a house price boom and
there's nothing like your property value rising to bring UKIP voters
back onside. It'll be a price bubble of course, but as we all know,
in a price bubble it's only the last fool in the chain who suffers,
but it might not burst before the election.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So this act of generosity to workers by
the most elitist chancellor in living memory is, as far as I can see,
no more than a political stunt to try to get the Tories back into
power with a majority government at the next election, and if they
have to wreck the pensions industry to do it then so be it. Thatcher
did it with the coal industry for the same reasons, but the miners
were the enemy. Osborne is so desperate he will do it to his friends.
He's in real trouble and his generosity is no more or less than a
very destructive election stunt. There were many other better ways to
act against the rip off artists of the pension industry, but they
wouldn't have been quite so politically expedient.</div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-37097487766279893042014-02-15T15:09:00.000+00:002014-02-15T15:09:28.945+00:00Scottish Independence. A Guide for My Friends Down South<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We need to talk. If we're going to
divorce then there needs to be an orderly transition. But some of my
English friends don't seem to grasp the fundamentals, so I'm going to
try to explain why Scotland has to vote 'Yes' in the upcoming
referendum and hope that they will understand and support us.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It has nothing to do with hating the
English. They've been our neighbours since before time was measured
and we live in harmony with them most of the time, but we're
different. The real problem is that my English friends can only see
me through English glasses. They ascribe to a completely different,
a fundamentally different set of norms and values to those that
prevail north of the border and it affects their vision as my life
experience shapes mine.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
English kids are brought up with heroes
who represent State and Empire. From Drake, Nelson and Kipling to
Churchill, the Union Jack and the Royal Family, a sense of
Englishness is rooted deep within them from their early years. They
ingest it with their mother's milk and it lasts all of their lives.
State and Empire are so deeply rooted that when Scotland becomes
independent it might be the first country to become independent of
Westminster without a shot being fired. No doubt someone wiser will correct me.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But Scots kids learn about missionaries
like Livingstone and Park who, while deeply involved in expanding the
Empire in reality, are presented as spreading Christian values in
savage worlds. Their heroes are Helen Crawfurd, John Mclean, Willie
Gallacher, Jimmy Reid, Mick McGaghey and others who led ordinary
people in a struggle against the state to improve the lives of
people. (It's just occurred to me that many of my English friends
will never have heard of Helen Crawfurd. She stood with the women of
Glasgow when they defied the English tanks in George Square in
Glasgow in 1919. But it probably didn't make the papers down there).
But back to the point, Scots kids are taught that if they have good
luck it is a gift given to them so that they can improve the lives of
others as well as their own. It's a universal duty of care and share
taught to our kids, which doesn't always last forever but is
sufficiently deep rooted to make us different. I know that this view
is controversial, but please don't tell me an anecdote about a Scot
you met who didn't ascribe to these values, I know as many of them as
you do, and there are many. But producing an anecdote and trying to
pretend that it overwhelms a mass of solid statistical evidence as
presented in social attitude surveys is a particularly Tory strategy
which might fool Sun readers but is really quite shallow. If I
deserve abuse then I'm sure I deserve a better standard of abuse than
that.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In Scotland we try to be a more
compassionate, caring set of people. Put on one side all of the
debate over how much money we get from the Barnett formula. That can
be interpreted by either side to get the result they want. Instead
look at how we spend the money we get. It is used in the main to
improve our society as a whole, to improve the lives of those who
need it, students, the disabled, the elderly and others who in
England are regarded as a drain on the economy, as welfare junkies.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Look at the social attitude surveys and
year after year you will see that we have completely different
aspirations for our society from those that prevail down south. We
integrate our immigrants to the point that they don't ghettoise
themselves, they become part of our society recognising that our
national social values are those to which all caring people can
aspire. I know that in England they feel excluded in the same way as
Scots often do. We don't always understand your ways just as much as
you don't always understand ours. Kindness to strangers is an
inherent part of our national character.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
My English friends believe that the
economy will be the deciding factor in the referendum, but they
couldn't be more wrong. The economy and the currency come only half
way up the crucial factors according to respectable independent
polling. It's really more about the psyche of the Scots people. We're
different by choice. It's a set of values instilled in us from
childhood. And it's not something we want to change. We want our
children to have those same values when they grow up. We don't aspire
for them to be rich, only to be comfortable and free of the worry of daily financial struggle. That means a welfare system that provides not
just a safety net but a platform, it shouldn't be the miserable
existence some would wish on them should they fall upon hard times.
That's a sacrifice Scots taxpayers are prepared to make which English
taxpayers seem to resent very deeply. We don't want to fund a
clinging to the last vestiges of Empire by maintaining a grossly
over-large military and a nuclear capability which impresses nobody
in the world, but allows us to intervene in all sorts of foreign wars
so we can claim a seat at the big table. We'd rather have peace and
eat with the staff.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I don't blame my English friends for
not understanding all of this. They can't possibly understand because
their whole lives has been dominated by the values of the society they
were reared in just as mine has. Their views of Scotland have been
peddled to them by a right wing media because they recognise that the
social values we have in Scotland are a danger to the obscene wealth
of their owners. So they have been fed stories of whingeing Jocks and
subsidy junkies to the point where they really believe it. They have
been encouraged to believe that our much valued social housing is an
affront to their property values. Housing for them is sold as a
competitive sport hence the ludicrous concept of a housing ladder
that leaves their kids homeless or burdened with debt. We fight hard
for our social housing but our views have been suppressed and ignored
by various Governments and media consisting of Tories of all shades.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
And the bottom line is this. If Jesus
Christ himself came up to encourage us to vote 'No' in the referendum
then I would guarantee that if he had an English accent then he would
be sent homewards to think again and the 'Yes' vote would increase.
We just wont be told that irrespective of whether we vote Yes or No, if Cameron doesn't like it then we are stuck in the status quo. We
wont be told that the pound is non-negotiable. If the pound is strong
then we have suffered the hard work and austerity that has made it
strong along with our English cousins. We have made a proportionate
contribution to its strength, so we wont be treated like that … not
any more. We're not a colony of the Empire and we wont be talked
down to or partonised any more.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The economics are important but not
crucial or anything like as important as the English politicians
think they are. It's all about pride. There's a feeling abroad in
Scotland that it's our time, our opportunity to build the kind of
society we want for ourselves without the English Government that we
didn't elect coming along every five years with the wrecking ball and
setting us back on our heels again.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So I hope my friends down south can
understand that it's not about dislike or malice, it's only about
difference. You have your way and we have ours, for better or worse,
completely and incommensurable paradigms, and if you can't help us in
our hopes then at least don't hinder us. We can do this on our own
but we can do it so much more easily with your co-operation, and you
would end up with a very good friend and neighbour, and you never
know when you'll need a friend. </div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-62911084752422720982013-10-13T12:28:00.000+00:002013-10-13T12:28:45.345+00:00Leveson and Regulation of the Press<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The press are still at it. Wittering on
about how important they are to a free democratic society as if
anyone still believed anything they read in the papers. I've got some
news for them. We are increasingly getting our news from the internet
and social media. But they still go on in their precious way about
being the guardians of freedom despite being controlled, as I've said
before by a few self important families or individuals. About the
only things they are really good for is telling us what all the other
media told us yesterday, mopping up large spillages and training
puppies where and where not to piss.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
If the press are so important in
holding governments to account then that is really a case for giving
them fewer powers, because they have usurped the role of democracy
and the democratic process. Governments should be being held to
account by the democratic process and if the press are doing that job
then it is surely the democratic process which needs to be more
powerful and not the press.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
And when it comes to holding
institutions to account, where were the press during the phone
hacking that went on for years until it eventually had to come to the
surface because it jeopardised a murder investigation? Many of the
papers did it and most of them knew. Where was the holding to account
when it came to holding their own to account? Criminal conduct was
ignored because knowing which celebrity was kissing which other
celebrity was clearly in the public interest, or so they would have
us believe. Going through pop stars' bins was vital to uncovering …
I'm not sure what.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
But I've never seen a 'kiss and tell'
story published by a newspaper, even a 'quality' newspaper, exposing
the peccadilloes of the proprietor or editor of another paper. They
must all be real paragons of virtue. But they all knew about Robert
Maxwell's conduct and published not a sniff of it until he died falling off a luxury yacht and the workers,
as usual, were left without a pension. Where was the holding to
account? As I said, they all knew.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Just as they all knew about the
systematic corruption of police and other public officials by many
newspapers, but said not a word until it all came crashing down
around their ears at Leveson. Where was the holding to account when
it came to their own? Nowhere in sight, that's where.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So I say again, I'd rather governments
were held to account by people I have elected to do the job rather
than a troop of Tory 'grandees' wielding more power than they should
have and exercising it in their own interests. They want to be above
the law and not have their conduct regulated by law. But they have
had many opportunities to put their house in order and they are being
offered what should be their last chance to act responsibly. They
should be told, 'Take it or leave it', and if they won't commit to
behaving responsibly and having an oversight body which regulates
that behaviour, then there should be legislation to make sure they do. It will
take a 60% vote in both houses of Parliament and in the Scottish
Parliament to change the deal they are being offered, and to be
honest, if all of that lot agrees you're no good then chances are
you're bloody awful. They should sign up, and sign up right now.</div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-26762628439485944012013-10-11T17:01:00.000+00:002013-10-11T17:01:04.229+00:00Leveson and a Free Press<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I see that a lot of press people are
unhappy with the regulation proposals following on from the Leveson
Enquiry so let me throw in my tuppence worth.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We all support a free press, but the
fact of the matter is that the United Kingdom hasn't had a free press
for many years. It has always been totally under the control of a few
powerful families who exercise that control in a completely
scurrilous way. They have absolutely no problem in publishing half
truths and complete falsehoods to the ruination of peoples' lives and
for the sake of, and in the name of, something that will be wrapping
a fish supper tomorrow. Provided always that it makes them money.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
They are completely undemocratic,
setting the agenda that their masters want and even claiming to
decide who governs the country, if we are to believe the 'Sun wot won
it' headlines. And who wouldn't believe the Sun.
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
All that is asked of them is that they
stay within the law and tell the truth. Is that so very difficult for
them. Those are the same rules that the rest of a free society seems
to have few problems with. But they want to be completely outwith the
law, they want to ride roughshod over everyone else's rights not to
be defamed because they know that few if any ordinary people can
afford to go to law against them.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So however distasteful, it has become
necessary to rein their excesses, and it is only their excesses that
are being restricted, because if we don't exercise some sort of
democratic control over law-breakers and corrupters in the press and everywhere else then we risk
losing democracy itself. But perhaps that is the ultimate objective
of the press barons. They want to exercise that ultimate power that
ordinary people having a right to vote denies them.
</div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-86494436219186191062013-10-11T12:26:00.000+00:002013-10-11T12:26:41.914+00:00Royal Mail PrivatisationAny good neo-liberal economist will tell you that the value of anything is simply what someone else is prepared to pay for it. <br />
<br />
So as the shares of the Royal Mail go on sale today we can know exactly what they were worth using the preferred theory of value of Cameron and his hedge fund and banker pals. And knowing what they were worth and knowing what they were sold for it is easy to see that this was a major robbery of the taxpayer to benefit the already discredited financial system of the City of London.<br />
<br />
And the saddest part is that it is ordinary working people who will have to fork out the difference in the form of cuts to schools, hospitals and other public services which could have been funded by that difference. It's a bloody disgrace and an affront to all of the people who already dug deep to bail out the banks. <br />
<br />
This was our Royal Mail and come independence it will be again. I only hope that our government, once we grasp the thistle, has the balls to take our share of it back into public ownership with minimal compensation for the greedy pigs who stole it.red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-89442670456059913192013-09-05T15:02:00.000+00:002013-09-05T15:02:08.974+00:00Horse-Racing on Good Friday and the Christian Churches.I'm not a Christian, nor am I a particular fan of horse-racing but I am a fan of quirky traditions. It is, therefore, with some regret that I heard on the radio today that the powers that be are to consider having horse-racing on Good Friday.<br />
<br />
Good Friday has always been a no racing date in the racing calendar. This was out of respect for the Christians and was intended to commemorate the soldiers gambling for the clothes of Christ at the foot of the cross.<br />
<br />
I think this proposal should be resisted (even by us old atheists). I know it's a bit quaint in today's climate of profit maximisation but there's nothing much wrong with being a bit quaint and quirky now and then. red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-22639790744197292422013-09-05T14:49:00.000+00:002013-09-05T14:49:15.440+00:00Syria and the Crown PrerogativeIt seems I was wrong in my last musings and we are not to go to war in Syria, a bloody good thing if you ask me. But there are other really beneficial outcomes from Big Dave Cameron's major parliamentary blunder. The power of the Prime Minister now and in the future has been seriously undermined, as has the power of the Crown prerogative, because unless I'm seriously mistaken, (which has been known to happen), it will be virtually impossible now for the Government to exercise the Crown prerogative to take us unwilling into a foreign war without the consent of Parliament.<br />
<br />
I'm very happy that, at long last, the back benches have found a bit of backbone and that they are starting, in some small way, to represent the views of the people who elected them to do just that. Long may it continue.red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-72401355852529918842013-08-29T12:52:00.001+00:002013-08-29T12:52:59.842+00:00Syria, Scotland and the UK Government As Parliament sits today in emergency session to discuss the merits of military intervention in Syria subject to confirmation that chemical weapons have been used, I hope they will consider the matter with some gravity. The usual response that we must back up our American allies isn't good enough. There is no doubt about the response of France. They are completely gung ho because they desperately need influence in the middle east because their oil leases in Libya are in the pocket of a jacket that's hanging on a very shaky nail.<br />
<br />
One approach might be to consider that if we intervene militarily then the lives of some of our people will be lost. That is inevitable, whether it be in the theatre of war or at home when the Syrian people exact their revenge by terror attacks in the UK. But our troops or our civilians will die one way or another as a result.<br />
<br />
Cameron and his crew may well consider that this is a price worth paying, so I urge them to consider, if by killing your children you could put an end to chemical warfare, would you kill them. or perhaps it is only a price worth paying if you are not the one who has to pay. Someone else's children will pay the price for your global ambitions, because all of this chemical warfare talk is nonsense, there are no nice ways to be killed. But the Eton / Sandhurst ethos doesn't care about that. They will sacrifice other people's children in the interests of empire without a second thought. That's what all of their training is designed to do. Those who do not belong to the elites are sub-human as far as they are concerned and unworthy of the same consideration they give their own children.<br />
<br />
This is all about being seen to be a global power. There doesn't seem to be the same moral imperative on Denmark or Norway or a host of other countries to throw away the lives of their people to retain global influence. It's about English imperial ambitions, and not even all of England, only London and the south east. The rest of the U.K. are firmly against any intervention. But the Joint Intelligence Committee will produce a review of the intelligence. The last one acquired the title 'the dodgy dossier' because they are so politically motivated that a neutral review of the facts is almost impossible. And off to war we'll go again.<br />
<br />
But Scotland can opt out of those global ambitions and try to be a country that lives at peace with its neighbours. Scottish soldiers have been at war virtually unbroken somewhere in the world for the best part of 100 years, and what have we to show for it. The massive wealth of the U.K. has agglomerated into the south east and we have been forced by the money, our money, wasted chasing dreams of empire into poverty for which we are now condemned.<br />
<br />
It doesn't have to be that way. There is a referendum on independence coming up and if we only have the courage to grasp the thistle it could be very different. It's time to say, 'enough', keep Scottish troops out of foreign wars, and call a halt to Westminster rule.<br />
<br />
<br />red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-13388075883587661122013-08-15T10:16:00.001+00:002013-08-15T10:16:57.658+00:00Commonwealth Games in Glasgow. Tories Discover Where That IsIt's nice that the Tories in Westminster seem to have discovered that you can travel north of Carlisle without falling off the end of the world, and that Big Dave Cameron has <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-23704265">offered his services</a> to help out the tartan Tories of the SNP with the organisation of the Commonwealth Games. No doubt he'll fly in, meet a few millionaires, and fly out the same day. You wont find him hanging around to see the misery and devastation he's causing in Glasgow and elsewhere.<br />
<br />
But just to remind him that Scotland has twice as many Giant Pandas as Tory M.P.s (and you can't say that often enough) and with any luck it'll soon be three times as many if the zoo gets it right. So here's hoping for one more Giant panda and one less Tory M.P.red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-36065363624700276852013-08-13T17:33:00.000+00:002013-08-13T17:33:10.105+00:00Diageo : There's Right Good Money in ButcheryDiageo former boss Paul Walsh 'earned' <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23674719">14.8 million pounds</a> in his final year with the company. No doubt he deserved every penny of it. He effected efficiencies that pushed up the share price and the shareholder returns by more than anyone ever imagined during his term of office. Of course Diageo wont pick up the bill for the social damage that it's products will cause, because Johnnie Walker and Bells whisky and Guinness are big brands internationally and generate lots of profit for the City. You and I will pick up the bill for that in the same way as the people of Kilmarnock were <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17486173">dumped</a> from his organisation to shrink the cost base and increase the profits of the group.<br />
<br />
Remind me again how we're all in this together. I can't quite get my head round that part where the seventh richest country in the world is really bankrupt and has to tax the sick to make ends meet and use foodbanks to feed hungry children.<br />
<br />
Perhaps Paul Walsh could put his hand in his pocket and help out, but I doubt it.<br />
. red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-88123647010668003292013-08-13T12:32:00.000+00:002013-08-13T12:32:00.923+00:00Beau Derek Mackay M.P. and the Payday LendersIt's good to see that Beau Derek Mackay has decided to speak out against payday lenders in the Paisley Daily Express today. But we have to ask, 'Why so late, Beau?' Renfrewshire branch of the Scottish Socialist Party were <a href="http://www.paisleydailyexpress.co.uk/renfrewshire-news/local-news-in-renfrewshire/paisley-news/2013/08/03/payday-lenders-benefit-as-debts-soar-87085-33684562/">protesting in the streets</a> a fortnight ago and we didn't see you around. It's not like the SNP to miss a passing bandwagon. Maybe it's just that you don't really want to show your face in the streets of Paisley after the performance of the SNP when they were in control of the Council. Not that Tony Blair's New Labour seem to be doing any better. <br />
<br />red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-47354623864131973842013-08-11T13:42:00.000+00:002013-08-12T07:00:40.391+00:00Global Cities and Regional Crises. London and Scottish independence<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
London
is a Global City. With New York and Tokyo it is one of the top ranked
global cities of the world. At a lower level we probably have
Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Paris and a few others. Decisions, social,
cultural, political and, especially, economic taken in top global
cities are truly global in their effects. They house the real levers
of international power.</div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Having
a global city as its capital can bring massive economic benefits to a
country in terms of international trade and in attracting
international investment and events, and looking in particular at
London it is clear that the power of the global city contributes
massively to the economic growth and performance of the economy of
the United Kingdom. The City of London generates enormous wealth and
its contribution to the U.K.'s Gross National Product cannot be
overstated.
</div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
This
means that in national terms the U.K. can be seen as one of the
richest countries in the world despite its relative lack of
geographic area. It can, and does, demand a seat on the United
Nations security council and a variety of other world institutions.
Having a successful global city as its capital helps the U.K. punch
well above its weight in the world. The result of that is that the
U.K. has to fulfil a role in world events and that means becoming
involved on a regular basis in the internal affairs of other nations
as an international policeman or 'peacekeeper' or some other modern
type of colonialism in order to maintain its position as a global
power led by a global city.</div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The
real problem, however, of having a global city as the capital city of
the U.K. is that, although global cities reside geographically in the
countries that they lead, they exist more in another notional country
where the only relationships which matter are those relationships
with other global cities. Rather than being involved with other parts
of the country London has a stronger relationship with New York and
Tokyo than it has with Glasgow or Sheffield, Newcastle or Birmingham.
Trillions of Dollars are sent whizzing around the globe in
milliseconds between London, Tokyo and New York to generate wealth
for those cities, but very little of that wealth finds its way out of
those cities and into the real wealth creating areas of their
respective countries. They are like black holes sucking in wealth and
power of which practically none escapes further than the distance of
the daily commute to the institutions of wealth and power.
</div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So
we end up with travesties like the London Olympics where billions of
pounds were raised from the whole country from taxation and lottery
funding and poured into the most affluent area of the country. The
billions of pounds of returns which we were led to expect, if it
eventually materialises will remain with the south east of the
country. It will not escape back into the economy of the whole U.K.
but it will be traded with New York and Tokyo to generate more wealth
for the global city.</div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Similarly,
the high speed rail project which is supposed to increase the flow of
wealth to the north will only serve to suck wealth and investment
into London, because given the choice, and if it is within easy
travelling distance, business in search of higher profits will not
re-locate out of a global city, it will re-locate to where the money
and the market is. The cities of Manchester and Birmingham are in
danger of becoming dormitories for workers who service the bee hive but can no
longer afford to live in London.
</div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It
ends up in a situation where the south east of the country, in
relative affluence, have little or no real understanding of the
problems and situation of the other regions. They fail to see the
problem because they don't have the problem of poverty and
deprivation experienced by those unfortunate enough to live north of
the Watford Gap. London has 281,000 millionaires (and it's been said
that one in seventeen Londoners is a Dollar millionaire) while 34% of
Glasgow primary school children receive free school meals and that
tells its own story.
</div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The
conclusion is reasonably clear. Scotland would not be deprived of the
wonderful economic benefits of the U.K. in the event of independence.
They receive very little of the benefit of the sparkling economic
performance of the economy of the south east at present and there is
no real reason to believe that the black hole of the global city of
London will surrender up any of its wealth any time in the near
future. That's not how global cities work. Global cities make nothing
but money. They trade currency back and forward between themselves
and believe that the value of their currency assets is the price the
last person paid for them. Until the bubble bursts and the last fool
in the chain has to come cap in hand to the rest of the country to
bail them out by increasing tax (but never on the rich) and cutting
benefits for the vulnerable they have created.</div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Global
cities are only good for themselves and other global cities. For the
rest of the country that they occupy geographically they are a curse.
A real economy can only be sustained in the long term by real people
producing real goods and services in the real world, not in the
cyber-world of the global city.</div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The
other regions of England can do little about it because as soon as
their representatives are elected into position they are absorbed
into the London Parliament and sucked into the black hole to become
part of the grand conspiracy. But Scotland can escape, so I'll take
my chance on government from Edinburgh.</div>
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="line-height: %; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1726831245835099528.post-12357784314440545632013-07-10T11:58:00.000+00:002013-07-10T12:00:21.393+00:00Scottish Independence Referendum and the Westminster Parliament<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
I speak here for no-one but myself
as usual. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
I’ve been thinking long and hard
about some of the questions raised by Westminster about the future of Scotland
after the Independence Referendum, so let me try to give an answer to the
Westminster Parliament to some of the key issues e.g<br />
Will we join the European Union ?.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
Will we join the Euro ?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
Will we join Nato ?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
Will we have our own currency or
piggy-back on another?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
Will we retain the Queen as head of
state ? … and,</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
What will we do about an army ? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
My answer is that it’s none of your
bloody business. These are matters that will be decided by the people of
Scotland after we are independent. You
will not bind us in advance to policies of your choosing. You are no longer our
big brother looking after us and making sure we act in the best interests of
the English parliament, we will not submit to your oversight and we will no
longer answer to you on matters that are no concern of yours. Independence will
be just what it says on the tin. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 200%;">
The political parties of Scotland
will have an election and each will, no doubt, propose a different raft of
policies, just as you do at Westminster, and for you to try to insist that a
common raft of the most fundamental policies must be agreed in advance between
all of the parties is supremely arrogant. These decisions are for the people of
Scotland and for them alone. They may well have consequences for the rump of
the UK but that should affect our decisions no more than the effect on the UK
moderates the policies of your other neighbours such as France or Germany i.e.
not at all.</div>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">So please stop interfering. You have many bigger
problems which are much more demanding of your attentions, such as filling in
your expenses.</span>red misthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08576688704520040250noreply@blogger.com0