Democracy, it’s a principle that governments in what we commonly refer to as “the free world” are founded upon. It has a simple principle, one individual has one vote, and every vote has the same value. No sane person would have it any other way.
The reality is somewhat different, the reality is that it only functions properly under one unique and peculiar set of social circumstances and that when these social circumstances don’t exist democracy is simply another way of saying “elected dictatorship”.
The United Nations finally got it with its declaration of March 2008 concerning rights of indigenous peoples, it’s well worth a read especially when one considers that North Sea Oil falls directly under these articles, that Scots, English and Welsh are all “indigenous peoples”. The 2008 declaration was a final summation of the earlier declaration embedded in article 1 of the UN charter which states that all peoples have the right to self determination. The UN later published a comprehensive document detailing those rights.
The above document explains why the ancient right of conquest is now considered dubious, opening the door for Welsh autonomy, and why Scots have that unalienable and ongoing right to self determination. It also explains Spain’s consternation about national movements even though they “created” a constitutional amendment recently to forbid such choice. It also explains why the Union government has been using Spain in its widely circulated scare stories.
All of this effectively ties back into democracy, Spain only managed to get its constitutional amendment through by NOT asking the people, very undemocratic. Had the Catalans, for example, had a referendum and had to pass such a measure, their vote may have been very different to that in Andalucía. To get the amendment passed each region should have been required to have submitted an affirmative vote. That’s democracy. The Catalans have an ongoing wish, or voiced expression for independence, the Andalucían’s not so much. It is inappropriate for one group of people to remove or try to remove rights from another.
In our own situation, our sham democracy, none argue that Scots, and for the most part Welsh have a different ethnic and societal background to English, that’s reflected in polls that historically and continually show a center left leaning in democratic principles.
Both nations have boundaries; both are and remain more than simple “lines on a map”. History, language and culture make us all undeniably distinct, unique and separate. There is no common bond which exists, other than London’s avarice and determination that it must be so. There is no natural circumstance that could or should weld either Celtic nation into an unbending, unyielding incorporating Union which is dominated and dictated to by another country.
Both Scots and Welsh are effectively disenfranchised; they have little democratic impact, to a lesser extent this also applies to England.
Scotland and Wales find themselves in the historical situation the EU is presently facing, where the votes and rights of the individual are diluted in favour of the “greater good”, that political super-state. Political amalgamations can work, but each unique member needs an equal voice. Greece, to a lesser extent Italy, Portugal and Spain are all being forced to follow the Franco-German model, the consequences for the nations are dire. The US with its 2 members per state in the senate is one reason why that super state endures. The US has a balance with basically proportional representation in its “House”. The EU lacks such a system; the UK lacks such a system of balanced fairness. Both are doomed to ultimate political failure.
The UK could implement fairness as it reforms the Lords, making it fully empowered and fully elected with an automatic 100 members per nation. Direct national quantitative representation, just like the US senate. The UK will not do this, it speaks too much of fairness and true democracy. It dilutes the “Game of Thrones”.
Without such a system in place it means that a vote in Scotland or Wales has less than 1/10th the value of a vote in England. It means that for Scotland or Wales to obtain what they desire, at least 45% of English must agree, and those elected must be honest. It means that every Scot and every Welsh citizen is being denied over 90% of their democratic right, even before the intrinsic and endemic Westminster failings are considered.
We fundamentally exist in the United Kingdom within what is an “elected” dictatorship. It’s a dictatorship where one individual holds primacy for a period of years, where dissenters can be “whipped” into line to ensure the masters bidding. Today’s downing street incumbents are little more than the visible participants in a modern day “Game of Thrones”, participants not principles, as the true power appears wielded by the denizens of the City.
There is no method to remove this premier, this “elected” head of state, and if our representatives fail us there is no way to remove them either. It’s not democracy; it’s lightly modified perpetuation of the “rotten boroughs’” under democracy’s guise.
The Iraq war is a case in point, Scotland and Wales found themselves powerless. In England there’s the ongoing case of privatising education, the NHS and social structures, the English discover themselves powerless in face of the onslaught of the pursuit of private profit, against societal weal. Because of their own rotten electoral system, they’re also politically impotent. A politician, any politician who doesn’t keep his or her word must be impeachable. In this corrupt dis-United Kingdom, they aren’t.
Disenfranchisement and disrespect for democracy are not just historical; they exist today, this month, and are ongoing in the Union parties. Take for instance the local council elections in Scotland, just last week. The voter’s choice absent an overall majority is for the two largest parties to work together, to compromise. They got the most votes after all. Most often the outcome was a Labour/Tory cabal arising to prevent any potential of democracy being fulfilled. Unionist parties would rather compromise policy than cooperate with the SNP.
We also had the Scottish Government referendum consultation, where Labour freely admitted creating false email addresses and submitting responses under the guise of Walt Disney characters. Such an intentional attempted perversion of democracy’s course should surely see them struck from the political party register, but no, not in this severely disenfranchised Kingdom where such aberrations are to the benefit of the establishment.
Voter turnout is low because respect doesn’t exist in our political system. How many times have we heard the comment “they’re all the same, why bother?”
There is only one effective way to correct the situation, to revert to three nations with the Northern Irish choosing their own destiny. There could be a federal structure as the Lib-Dem’s previously proposed, and then reneged upon in Scotland. Alternatively each nation could truly see a dramatic increase in enfranchisement, in democratic value as its own nation gained a true voice in its own best interests at every one of the world’s top tables, each would revert to its natural state, independent. The Scots, Welsh and even the English themselves would no longer be isolated.
Until that day arrives the Scots and Welsh have no significant input to monetary policy, to taxation methods, to social benefits, to retirements, or to health and elderly care. The English are in little better shape. The Scots and the Welsh get what London chooses based largely upon the needs and desires of “the City”. The wealth and social structure of at least two constituent nations is presently available for the avaricious potential just of one town. That is a failure of democracy; it is a dilution of value of the vote of every individual in each nation.
To convince millions of Scots to vote no to independence, to continue to surrender over 9/10th’s of their fundamental democratic rights to another in return for “warm and fuzzies” would be an incredible accomplishment. Consider that there have been no serious arguments of substance as to the Union benefits to Scotland while those based in reality consistently show how Scots have been harmed by the 1707 Union.
With even the American’s affirming Scots probable success as independent nation, as this Wall Street Journal article voices, and it’s just one example, still some of us will vote against the idea of better democracy, of more individual power, of greater liberty, of independence. This leaves us with one inescapable conclusion to every Union vote placed in the upcoming referendum.
Votes for the Union will represent a completely unprecedented success in dictatorial propaganda, better and more polished now by London than ever Goebbels or Stalin’s Pravda could have imagined, for never yet in the course of human political history will it have been possible to spin so many into giving up so much for so few.
Sunday, 13 May 2012
Friday, 11 May 2012
FAQ, the spin and the reality.
What would Scottish independence mean for the monarchy?
The Union Perspective: Under the Scottish Government’s current plans, Scotland would retain Queen Elizabeth as head of state and remain within the Commonwealth.
The Reality: Any future king or queen would likely be required to undergo a Scottish coronation instead of simply swearing an oath in a back room in London. The option for Scotland to become a republic would always remain open and would happen if it was the settled will of the people. Independence may be the best option for the Monarchy in Scotland, each new head could be voted in preferably by referendum. Election by popular acclaim followed by due crowning in Edinburgh or other Scots location with public swearing of the oaths of office could not only help to revive the Monarchy north of Tweed, but it would also ensure the monarch worked for the people.
Would an independent Scotland keep the pound?
The Union Perspective: Yes, until it chooses the Euro. But keeping Sterling would mean it loses control over monetary policy to the Bank of England, and ideally need Scotland to strike a currency union deal with the remainder of the UK.
The Reality: Yes, that is current policy. The Bank of England is part of the Treaty of Union [article 16] so would be an intrinsic part of untying that treaty. In theory Scotland is an equal partner in the Bank of England, but with the bank’s semi autonomous position there’s a lot to be negotiated. It is in Scotland’s interest to retain Sterling to prevent the possibility of a run on the currency which will inevitably be weakened if/when Scotland leaves. It is entirely possible a future Scotland will join another currency union or set her own coinage, that will be a choice of Scots in days to come. Currently, under the Union, Scotland has no say on monetary policy.
Who would get North Sea oil revenues if Scotland declared independence?
The Union Perspective: The Scottish government believes Scotland is entitled to a 90% geographical share of the North Sea's oil and gas fields, giving it 81% of all the oil and gas produced in 2010. This has not been tested and the UK government refuses to confirm this.
The Reality: International law is clear; Scotland gets over 90% of presently identified reserves. The maritime boundaries on the East also revert to historical norm/international agreement bringing more territory back to Scotland, and as yet unidentified resources in the West as far as Rockall’s boundaries will also fall under Holyrood. Berwick upon Tweed would return to Scotland, become independent, or remain with England. Berwick is legally a Scots town but will likely be given a choice due to its unique treaty history.
Could an independent Scotland have bailed out RBS and HBOS?
The Union Perspective: Not without great difficulty. The UK government spent £45bn bailing out RBS and £20bn on Lloyds, which took over Halifax Bank of Scotland to avoid its collapse. That exceeds Scotland's annual tax receipts. But most significantly, at its peak, the Treasury had £465bn at risk in cash and guarantees, well over three times Scotland's total GDP, even if a full geographical share of North Sea oil is included.
The Reality: Absolutely. International accord [but not international law, as Iceland showed no nation needs to bail out private industry] is clear; nations are expected to be responsible for debts accruing within their boundaries. When a European bank recently failed the Dutch, French and Belgians all bailed it out, proportionate to the business share in each nation. With only around 5% of the UK banking business being in Scotland Holyrood would have been responsible for somewhere around £4 billion in direct funds and less than £25 billion in guarantees.
This assumes that Holyrood would put private debt onto the public account which it could quite simply have refused to do. The real answer in hard cash is therefore anywhere between £0.00 and £4 billion would have been required. That £4 billion wouldn’t have just been “gifted”, it would have bought shares which could later be sold. An already independent Scotland could have been expected to have reserves’ like Norway [McCrone] and simply underwritten such a sum, unlike London which had to borrow it. The Union perspective also operates under an assumption that Scotland would have permitted its banks to “run riot”, it is equally likely that Scots banks would have operated under a system as secure as Canada’s or Norway’s.
Would an independent Scotland have its own armed forces?
The Union perspective: Certainly but it remains unclear how large it would be or what alliances it would forge. The Scottish government believes it will be based around the UK mobile armoured brigade being moved to Scotland, and could spend about £2.1bn, similar to defence budgets in Norway and Denmark.
The Reality: Scotland contributes £3.3 billion to UK defense. Defense spending in Scotland is now less than £1.5 billion and falling. Scotland can increase defense spending to a Nordic level by adding some £600 million in internal expenditure and still pocket over $1 billion, which currently goes to London, for future investment in her own people. The UK government is presently completing the process of disbanding almost all the Scots regiments.
What would happen to Royal Navy and RAF bases in Scotland, including Trident?
The Union perspective and Reality coincide: Alex Salmond's government believes it needs one principle airbase and one principle naval base, in addition to an army. It may take over Faslane on the Clyde as its naval base but wants the Trident submarines based there to leave. It would use the last remaining RAF base in Scotland at Lossiemouth in Moray. The exact details are fluid, but the proposals are expected to leave a stronger, better equipped, better funded military in Scotland than presently exists under the UK.
If Salmond wins a referendum can Scotland simply declare independence?
The Union Perspective: Not immediately. All the key issues, like Scotland's share of UK debt, dividing up North Sea oil fields, a possible currency union, taking over military bases and UK government offices, would need to be negotiated. Some argue the final deal should also be ratified in a referendum: Salmond has suggested it will be approved by the results of the Scottish parliament election in May 2016. It is unclear how the UK parliament would approve any deal. There would also be a transition period before that process was complete which could take several years.
The reality: Yes. Negotiations would then take place between two sovereign nation states rather than a unitary state representing three nations and one who is then of indeterminate status. The legality and political reality are even different here; Holyrood could declare independence tomorrow if it chose, legally, because it’s the representative government of Scots, but the political reality is everyone accepts a referendum is needed to make it “clean”. There is nothing to prevent a declaration on the day of a positive result, just like moving out and waiting for formal distribution of obligations. The reality is time will be required to set up taxation and social funding structures, but this should have been done before the vote if all parties are cooperating.
What do the opinion polls say?
The Union Perspective: The latest polls show a rise in support for independence and a decline in support for the UK, but the findings vary dramatically depending on what question is asked.
On 31 January 2012, Ipsos-MORI asked voters to choose based on that question, and found: 37% said yes, and 50% no. Firming up those answers to focus on only those who were certain to vote, and the proportion preferring independence rose to 39%.
However, in early February, a Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland, had a more startling finding – that 47% would vote yes to the question "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?", against 53% saying no.
The Reality: The polls are now running almost neck and neck, but often include weighting or wording which can skew the outcome if not applied correctly. Scots have not yet had the debate and it’s even. There has been little to no balance in reporting and many true facts about the state of their nation remain hidden from the average Scot.
It’s reasonable to expect that with full and honest debate, absent deception, and with the parties campaigning on the platform strengths alone the result should surpass that of the 1997 referendum which showed an average between the two ballots of a “yes” vote in the high 60’s.
Can Salmond hold a multi-option referendum?
The Union perspective: Probably, but it would involve a major political gamble. Salmond wants the freedom to give voters an extra option of voting on devo plus or devo max, to give Scotland greater autonomy within the UK. His opponents say this is technically difficult and would confuse voters. Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie has posed a question known as Rennie's riddle: if independence won 51% support but devo plus 99%, would Salmond still opt for independence? Salmond also needs someone else to campaign for devo plus in a referendum; so far no-one has offered to do so.
The Reality: Yes. It would be held just like the 1997 referendum, there would be two ballot questions, on two separate ballots. Do you want Independence, do you want Devo Max. The devo max option, like the tax question in 1997 would only come into play dependent upon the result of the other ballot. There’s no ambiguity, there’s no confusion, there’s no obfuscation.
Holyrood would need to define “Devo-Max” very precisely, and there would need to be a time limit for Westminster to agree, or that agreement would require being in place before the poll. Failure to secure the terms of “Devo-Max” would of necessity require creating a default condition of either votes for Independence or triggering a second referendum after say, twelve months, if Westminster failed to act honourably over “Devo-Max”.
Devo-Max is essentially Scots saying they will offer an opportunity to Westminster to renegotiate the 1707 treaty. Westminster can then either accept or refuse. The reality of the situation is that Westminster is strongly against significant constitutional change, it perceives Devo-Max as forcing this upon it and simply hopes it can win a “yes/no” independence vote as it did with Clegg’s PR referendum and avoid any change to the way it does business.
What does it mean for me, my life, my future citizenship?
The Union Perspective: Someone born or resident in Scotland: it should mean a greater direct say over one's government and more political freedom, but also greater economic risks, less security and more differences with England.
The Reality: A vote in an election is no longer diluted 11 to 1. There will typically be easier access to needed services, more nimble government which is closer to the people and an overall a climb of about 10 places in the world wealth table. This should signal an end to Austerity, an ability to invest inwardly and a potential which does not presently exist to protect the welfare state and social services. Scots could also realistically expect lower taxes, or equivalent taxes with better support and infrastructure. It appears the Union considers everyone should be just like England?
The Union Perspective: Non-Scottish UK citizen: not a great deal, but the UK economy will be smaller, oil and whisky might be more expensive, British identity would be diluted and Britain's status overseas could be weaker.
The Reality: There will be no UK economy. Scotland and England will become equal free trading neighbours on the world stage with fair competition, not London’s lopsided rules. There will be a period of potential constitutional upheaval as Wales and Northern Ireland figure out their future. The pound will track closely to present values until Scotland decides to leave Sterling, at that time based upon present indicators there’s a strong potential of sudden and substantial devaluation. There could be significant positives after the adjustment period with improvements in the Scots economy, democracy and accountability, or it could be simply “business as usual” at Westminster. Scotland will have a voice at the top tables which far exceeds her size and is proportionate to her wealth. British identity is something of little to no value with only a minute percentage seeing themselves as “primarily British”.
Someone outside UK: Pro and anti-Union supporters now largely agree, Scotland is expected to remain in the EU, so there will be few major changes for tourists or investors. Future EU choices would be for Scots themselves to make which will permit Scotland a direct voice at Europe’s top table on fisheries and agriculture, to name but two. With 50% of Europe’s fossil fuel supplies and 30% of its green energy potential, Scotland is expected to “punch well above her weight” and be one of the principles in future policy formulation. Most importantly Scotland will now have direct representation for her interests at every significant level.
The Union Perspective: Under the Scottish Government’s current plans, Scotland would retain Queen Elizabeth as head of state and remain within the Commonwealth.
The Reality: Any future king or queen would likely be required to undergo a Scottish coronation instead of simply swearing an oath in a back room in London. The option for Scotland to become a republic would always remain open and would happen if it was the settled will of the people. Independence may be the best option for the Monarchy in Scotland, each new head could be voted in preferably by referendum. Election by popular acclaim followed by due crowning in Edinburgh or other Scots location with public swearing of the oaths of office could not only help to revive the Monarchy north of Tweed, but it would also ensure the monarch worked for the people.
Would an independent Scotland keep the pound?
The Union Perspective: Yes, until it chooses the Euro. But keeping Sterling would mean it loses control over monetary policy to the Bank of England, and ideally need Scotland to strike a currency union deal with the remainder of the UK.
The Reality: Yes, that is current policy. The Bank of England is part of the Treaty of Union [article 16] so would be an intrinsic part of untying that treaty. In theory Scotland is an equal partner in the Bank of England, but with the bank’s semi autonomous position there’s a lot to be negotiated. It is in Scotland’s interest to retain Sterling to prevent the possibility of a run on the currency which will inevitably be weakened if/when Scotland leaves. It is entirely possible a future Scotland will join another currency union or set her own coinage, that will be a choice of Scots in days to come. Currently, under the Union, Scotland has no say on monetary policy.
Who would get North Sea oil revenues if Scotland declared independence?
The Union Perspective: The Scottish government believes Scotland is entitled to a 90% geographical share of the North Sea's oil and gas fields, giving it 81% of all the oil and gas produced in 2010. This has not been tested and the UK government refuses to confirm this.
The Reality: International law is clear; Scotland gets over 90% of presently identified reserves. The maritime boundaries on the East also revert to historical norm/international agreement bringing more territory back to Scotland, and as yet unidentified resources in the West as far as Rockall’s boundaries will also fall under Holyrood. Berwick upon Tweed would return to Scotland, become independent, or remain with England. Berwick is legally a Scots town but will likely be given a choice due to its unique treaty history.
Could an independent Scotland have bailed out RBS and HBOS?
The Union Perspective: Not without great difficulty. The UK government spent £45bn bailing out RBS and £20bn on Lloyds, which took over Halifax Bank of Scotland to avoid its collapse. That exceeds Scotland's annual tax receipts. But most significantly, at its peak, the Treasury had £465bn at risk in cash and guarantees, well over three times Scotland's total GDP, even if a full geographical share of North Sea oil is included.
The Reality: Absolutely. International accord [but not international law, as Iceland showed no nation needs to bail out private industry] is clear; nations are expected to be responsible for debts accruing within their boundaries. When a European bank recently failed the Dutch, French and Belgians all bailed it out, proportionate to the business share in each nation. With only around 5% of the UK banking business being in Scotland Holyrood would have been responsible for somewhere around £4 billion in direct funds and less than £25 billion in guarantees.
This assumes that Holyrood would put private debt onto the public account which it could quite simply have refused to do. The real answer in hard cash is therefore anywhere between £0.00 and £4 billion would have been required. That £4 billion wouldn’t have just been “gifted”, it would have bought shares which could later be sold. An already independent Scotland could have been expected to have reserves’ like Norway [McCrone] and simply underwritten such a sum, unlike London which had to borrow it. The Union perspective also operates under an assumption that Scotland would have permitted its banks to “run riot”, it is equally likely that Scots banks would have operated under a system as secure as Canada’s or Norway’s.
Would an independent Scotland have its own armed forces?
The Union perspective: Certainly but it remains unclear how large it would be or what alliances it would forge. The Scottish government believes it will be based around the UK mobile armoured brigade being moved to Scotland, and could spend about £2.1bn, similar to defence budgets in Norway and Denmark.
The Reality: Scotland contributes £3.3 billion to UK defense. Defense spending in Scotland is now less than £1.5 billion and falling. Scotland can increase defense spending to a Nordic level by adding some £600 million in internal expenditure and still pocket over $1 billion, which currently goes to London, for future investment in her own people. The UK government is presently completing the process of disbanding almost all the Scots regiments.
What would happen to Royal Navy and RAF bases in Scotland, including Trident?
The Union perspective and Reality coincide: Alex Salmond's government believes it needs one principle airbase and one principle naval base, in addition to an army. It may take over Faslane on the Clyde as its naval base but wants the Trident submarines based there to leave. It would use the last remaining RAF base in Scotland at Lossiemouth in Moray. The exact details are fluid, but the proposals are expected to leave a stronger, better equipped, better funded military in Scotland than presently exists under the UK.
If Salmond wins a referendum can Scotland simply declare independence?
The Union Perspective: Not immediately. All the key issues, like Scotland's share of UK debt, dividing up North Sea oil fields, a possible currency union, taking over military bases and UK government offices, would need to be negotiated. Some argue the final deal should also be ratified in a referendum: Salmond has suggested it will be approved by the results of the Scottish parliament election in May 2016. It is unclear how the UK parliament would approve any deal. There would also be a transition period before that process was complete which could take several years.
The reality: Yes. Negotiations would then take place between two sovereign nation states rather than a unitary state representing three nations and one who is then of indeterminate status. The legality and political reality are even different here; Holyrood could declare independence tomorrow if it chose, legally, because it’s the representative government of Scots, but the political reality is everyone accepts a referendum is needed to make it “clean”. There is nothing to prevent a declaration on the day of a positive result, just like moving out and waiting for formal distribution of obligations. The reality is time will be required to set up taxation and social funding structures, but this should have been done before the vote if all parties are cooperating.
What do the opinion polls say?
The Union Perspective: The latest polls show a rise in support for independence and a decline in support for the UK, but the findings vary dramatically depending on what question is asked.
On 31 January 2012, Ipsos-MORI asked voters to choose based on that question, and found: 37% said yes, and 50% no. Firming up those answers to focus on only those who were certain to vote, and the proportion preferring independence rose to 39%.
However, in early February, a Panelbase poll for the Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland, had a more startling finding – that 47% would vote yes to the question "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?", against 53% saying no.
The Reality: The polls are now running almost neck and neck, but often include weighting or wording which can skew the outcome if not applied correctly. Scots have not yet had the debate and it’s even. There has been little to no balance in reporting and many true facts about the state of their nation remain hidden from the average Scot.
It’s reasonable to expect that with full and honest debate, absent deception, and with the parties campaigning on the platform strengths alone the result should surpass that of the 1997 referendum which showed an average between the two ballots of a “yes” vote in the high 60’s.
Can Salmond hold a multi-option referendum?
The Union perspective: Probably, but it would involve a major political gamble. Salmond wants the freedom to give voters an extra option of voting on devo plus or devo max, to give Scotland greater autonomy within the UK. His opponents say this is technically difficult and would confuse voters. Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie has posed a question known as Rennie's riddle: if independence won 51% support but devo plus 99%, would Salmond still opt for independence? Salmond also needs someone else to campaign for devo plus in a referendum; so far no-one has offered to do so.
The Reality: Yes. It would be held just like the 1997 referendum, there would be two ballot questions, on two separate ballots. Do you want Independence, do you want Devo Max. The devo max option, like the tax question in 1997 would only come into play dependent upon the result of the other ballot. There’s no ambiguity, there’s no confusion, there’s no obfuscation.
Holyrood would need to define “Devo-Max” very precisely, and there would need to be a time limit for Westminster to agree, or that agreement would require being in place before the poll. Failure to secure the terms of “Devo-Max” would of necessity require creating a default condition of either votes for Independence or triggering a second referendum after say, twelve months, if Westminster failed to act honourably over “Devo-Max”.
Devo-Max is essentially Scots saying they will offer an opportunity to Westminster to renegotiate the 1707 treaty. Westminster can then either accept or refuse. The reality of the situation is that Westminster is strongly against significant constitutional change, it perceives Devo-Max as forcing this upon it and simply hopes it can win a “yes/no” independence vote as it did with Clegg’s PR referendum and avoid any change to the way it does business.
What does it mean for me, my life, my future citizenship?
The Union Perspective: Someone born or resident in Scotland: it should mean a greater direct say over one's government and more political freedom, but also greater economic risks, less security and more differences with England.
The Reality: A vote in an election is no longer diluted 11 to 1. There will typically be easier access to needed services, more nimble government which is closer to the people and an overall a climb of about 10 places in the world wealth table. This should signal an end to Austerity, an ability to invest inwardly and a potential which does not presently exist to protect the welfare state and social services. Scots could also realistically expect lower taxes, or equivalent taxes with better support and infrastructure. It appears the Union considers everyone should be just like England?
The Union Perspective: Non-Scottish UK citizen: not a great deal, but the UK economy will be smaller, oil and whisky might be more expensive, British identity would be diluted and Britain's status overseas could be weaker.
The Reality: There will be no UK economy. Scotland and England will become equal free trading neighbours on the world stage with fair competition, not London’s lopsided rules. There will be a period of potential constitutional upheaval as Wales and Northern Ireland figure out their future. The pound will track closely to present values until Scotland decides to leave Sterling, at that time based upon present indicators there’s a strong potential of sudden and substantial devaluation. There could be significant positives after the adjustment period with improvements in the Scots economy, democracy and accountability, or it could be simply “business as usual” at Westminster. Scotland will have a voice at the top tables which far exceeds her size and is proportionate to her wealth. British identity is something of little to no value with only a minute percentage seeing themselves as “primarily British”.
Someone outside UK: Pro and anti-Union supporters now largely agree, Scotland is expected to remain in the EU, so there will be few major changes for tourists or investors. Future EU choices would be for Scots themselves to make which will permit Scotland a direct voice at Europe’s top table on fisheries and agriculture, to name but two. With 50% of Europe’s fossil fuel supplies and 30% of its green energy potential, Scotland is expected to “punch well above her weight” and be one of the principles in future policy formulation. Most importantly Scotland will now have direct representation for her interests at every significant level.
Wednesday, 9 May 2012
Scottish independence: the spin and the reality. The difference.
There’s lots of talk in the media these days about independence. There has been such an abundance of scare stories one might think that Scotland is heading for some sort of international pariah-hood rather than statehood; that the ship of state is being launched full of holes.
Recently there was an article in the Guardian, “Scottish Independence: all you need to know” and credit should be given to that journal as it somewhat condensed the popularised view of Union supporters, the uninformed and the dependency inclined towards Scotland’s future. It was also extraordinarily useful as a tool for comparing the revisionist, highly selective Union view of history and a cosy London-centric reality against the actual historical facts and most likely future outcomes.
The media would have us believe that Devo-max, full independence, or greater fiscal responsibility are all on offer. Interestingly none are recently advocating the status quo.
The following may help people understand the differences between myth and reality surrounding Scotland’s potentials, as proposed by her elected government and the incessant scare stories/personal attacks thrown forward, shotgun effect, in opposition by adherents to the Union cause. This is an examination of the difference, if any, between balanced argument and reality, between propaganda and historical or present fact.
1. The independence issue at a glance
The Union perspective: Around a third of Scotland's 4 million voters believe that Scotland should leave the UK and become independent, ending the 305-year-old political union with England. These individuals say Scotland's economy, its social policies and its creativity would flourish if it had much greater autonomy. A majority of Scots disagree. They believe Scotland is more secure within the UK.
The reality: The 305 year old Union was forced upon Scotland, there were English troops massed at the border together with foreign conscripts in 1706. The members of parliament were bribed, the signing was in secret, and there were riots for years afterwards. The majority of Scots do not disagree with independence being resumed by Scotland, they’ve simply never had it properly debated and are therefore unable to form a balanced opinion in our current circumstances.
Scots, as a nation, have never been asked the question after full, balanced and unbiased disclosure of all relevant facts. Scots have never yet failed to demand, petition or vote for more power / home rule, since the Second World War alone this happened in 1952, 1979 and 1997, the latter two in the face of virulent unionist campaigns.
2. Why is independence being talked about now?
The Unionist perspective: The argument is now very real after the Scottish National party won an overall majority in the devolved parliament elections in May 2011, allowing it to stage an independence referendum. Alex Salmond, the first minister and SNP leader, plans to hold it in autumn 2014.
The reality: It has been on the table since the act of Union was introduced, in 1712 it was defeated only by a parliamentary filibuster; 1715 and 1745 saw loosely related rebellions; Gladstone toyed with the idea; it was to the fore in 1912 but WW1 intruded. In 1952 the home rule petition gained 2 million signatures.
In 1974 the Scots were lied to again through suppression of facts about the true status of their nation (McCrone etc). In 1979 Scots voted for a devolved parliament, the Tories were elected after Labour changed the rules of democracy and Scotland was again denied.
There were the civil movements of the late 1980’s and 1990’s, leading to the referendum in 1997, again Scots voted yes. This is simply another step in Scotland’s story, one which without Unionist fears and subversion of democratic right would have been available sometime, perhaps many times during the last three centuries. The action was inevitable, only the timing was in question.
3. A brief history, pre Union, around Union and post Union.
Pre-Union:
The Union Perspective: The Union is a living entity, it needs to grow, but it needs to do so under the direction of Westminster alone. It could do better in recognising Scotland's unique needs, values and aspirations; a little more devolution, such as the Scotland bill will fix any lingering problems.
The Reality: History shows it [the Union] should not have happened anyway, excluding this both parties agree. Scotland's interests are always secondary to England's. The UK is often run by parties which Scotland rejects. Under devolution there’s always the probability of Scotland’s needs and desires being trampled by Westminster’s wishes, as in Iraq, fisheries, agriculture, nuclear armaments and power policy. What London gives it can take.
Devo-Plus:
Recently there was an article in the Guardian, “Scottish Independence: all you need to know” and credit should be given to that journal as it somewhat condensed the popularised view of Union supporters, the uninformed and the dependency inclined towards Scotland’s future. It was also extraordinarily useful as a tool for comparing the revisionist, highly selective Union view of history and a cosy London-centric reality against the actual historical facts and most likely future outcomes.
The media would have us believe that Devo-max, full independence, or greater fiscal responsibility are all on offer. Interestingly none are recently advocating the status quo.
The following may help people understand the differences between myth and reality surrounding Scotland’s potentials, as proposed by her elected government and the incessant scare stories/personal attacks thrown forward, shotgun effect, in opposition by adherents to the Union cause. This is an examination of the difference, if any, between balanced argument and reality, between propaganda and historical or present fact.
1. The independence issue at a glance
The Union perspective: Around a third of Scotland's 4 million voters believe that Scotland should leave the UK and become independent, ending the 305-year-old political union with England. These individuals say Scotland's economy, its social policies and its creativity would flourish if it had much greater autonomy. A majority of Scots disagree. They believe Scotland is more secure within the UK.
The reality: The 305 year old Union was forced upon Scotland, there were English troops massed at the border together with foreign conscripts in 1706. The members of parliament were bribed, the signing was in secret, and there were riots for years afterwards. The majority of Scots do not disagree with independence being resumed by Scotland, they’ve simply never had it properly debated and are therefore unable to form a balanced opinion in our current circumstances.
Scots, as a nation, have never been asked the question after full, balanced and unbiased disclosure of all relevant facts. Scots have never yet failed to demand, petition or vote for more power / home rule, since the Second World War alone this happened in 1952, 1979 and 1997, the latter two in the face of virulent unionist campaigns.
2. Why is independence being talked about now?
The Unionist perspective: The argument is now very real after the Scottish National party won an overall majority in the devolved parliament elections in May 2011, allowing it to stage an independence referendum. Alex Salmond, the first minister and SNP leader, plans to hold it in autumn 2014.
The reality: It has been on the table since the act of Union was introduced, in 1712 it was defeated only by a parliamentary filibuster; 1715 and 1745 saw loosely related rebellions; Gladstone toyed with the idea; it was to the fore in 1912 but WW1 intruded. In 1952 the home rule petition gained 2 million signatures.
In 1974 the Scots were lied to again through suppression of facts about the true status of their nation (McCrone etc). In 1979 Scots voted for a devolved parliament, the Tories were elected after Labour changed the rules of democracy and Scotland was again denied.
There were the civil movements of the late 1980’s and 1990’s, leading to the referendum in 1997, again Scots voted yes. This is simply another step in Scotland’s story, one which without Unionist fears and subversion of democratic right would have been available sometime, perhaps many times during the last three centuries. The action was inevitable, only the timing was in question.
3. A brief history, pre Union, around Union and post Union.
Pre-Union:
The Unionist perspective: Pre-Union. Scotland's relations with its larger neighbour have often been difficult, none more so than in the "wars of independence" 700 years ago led by William Wallace and then Robert the Bruce who defeated Edward II, ending attempts to subjugate Scotland, at Bannockburn in 1314. After other cross border disputes and invasions the Scottish and English crowns were unified in 1603 when King James VI of Scotland became overall monarch of the British Isles.
The reality: There was no union of the crowns in 1603, there was no act of either parliament to ratify James VI assuming the English throne and enshrine his heirs as future UK monarchs. James simply became a single figurehead for both nations; nothing prevented the English or Scots from independently selecting their own monarch afterwards. Both in fact did remove a monarch at a later time, England was forced into buying an abdication while the Scots simply threw out the offending individual.
Around the time of Union:
The reality: There was no union of the crowns in 1603, there was no act of either parliament to ratify James VI assuming the English throne and enshrine his heirs as future UK monarchs. James simply became a single figurehead for both nations; nothing prevented the English or Scots from independently selecting their own monarch afterwards. Both in fact did remove a monarch at a later time, England was forced into buying an abdication while the Scots simply threw out the offending individual.
Around the time of Union:
The Unionist Perspective: Union creation and immediately post Union. In 1707, that union was cemented by Scotland and England's political union, forced on Scotland in part by a financial crisis following the abject failure of its colony in Panama, the so-called Darien adventure. All political power moved to London, but Scotland retained its own legal system, churches and universities. In 1745, the pretender to the British throne, Bonnie Prince Charlie, led the Jacobite revolt against Hanoverian rule by London. Despite reaching as far south as Derby, that ended in crushing defeat at Culloden in 1746.
The reality: Scotland’s most influential lords were bankrupt after funding Darien and looking at asset seizure by her burghs and merchants after the debacle. Darien was brought about after King William permitted his trusted friend and founder of the Bank of England, William Patterson, to go north and tout the idea. The failure of Darien came about through two causes, a Spanish blockade of the colony with English instigation support and collusion, and disease.
The Scots towns and burghs were wealthy in 1706; there was substantial trading taking place between Scotland and mainland Europe. England gained domination of a wealthy nation at a single stroke. The Union was engineered by less than fifty indebted nobles who later were remembered as “a parcel ‘o rouges in a nation”. These nobles worked to bring about the Union for personal gain and to avoid individual bankruptcy. Scotland retained not only law, religion and constitution, but her mints, taxation centres, burghs and much more. The last have since been eroded.
As William I’s chief paymaster to the nobles of Scotland, Daniel Defoe, commented in his memoirs, this was certainly a Union that Scotland’s people did not want.
Post Union:
The Union Perspective: the period of Union: In the 1800s, Scotland's economy strengthened, its cities boomed and its citizens took a leading role in the British empire. But proposals to give Scotland some form of "home rule" within the UK have been alive since William Gladstone's era as Liberal leader in the 1880s. After several failed attempts at Westminster, notably in 1913 and 1979, a Scottish parliament was finally reestablished in 1999 in Edinburgh with wide-ranging policy making and legal powers but dependent on a direct grant from London.
The reality: It took more than a century for Scotland’s economy, ravished by 1707’s Union, civil strife, uprisings, and multiple rounds of clearances and deprivation to even partially recover.
Scots became the empire’s cannon fodder, largely in part because the military offered an alternative to the mines, deportation, emigration or starvation.
Right through to the 1979 referendum the term “brain drain” was in common use as our best and brightest left our shores, shores which held no perceived hope for their future.
Scotland still has amongst the most deprived and poorest areas in Europe with some of the lowest projected life spans on earth, in spite of being one of the world’s most resource rich countries. A valid comment about Scotland under the Union is that it is the only nation to discover substantial reserves of oil and get poorer, now suffering austerity.
4. What happens next?
The Union perspective: Alex Salmond is in talks with David Cameron, the prime minister, about securing the legal powers that Holyrood needs to set up the referendum. Mr. Salmond wants to pass legislation in November 2013 but laws affecting the UK's constitution are reserved to the UK parliament. Without that power Holyrood will face lengthy battles over the legality of the poll.
David Cameron insists it can be held in September 2013; meanwhile the two men are in dispute over whether the referendum can include a second question on more powers for Holyrood within the UK, an option known as "devolution plus" or "devo max". The Tories, Liberal Democrats and Labour are offering to give Holyrood greater powers after the 2015 general election but insist the referendum has just one yes or no question on independence. Both sides need to strike a deal or risk a major confrontation.
The reality: Scotland and England exist under a treaty, the UK is not in fact a country, though commonly viewed as such by Union proponents; it is in fact a unitary state now made up of four countries, two of which, Scotland and England may choose to terminate their bilateral treaty of 1707 at any time. There is no such thing as a treaty which can’t be terminated by proper notice, as the Vienna Convention on treaty law makes clear.
Alex Salmond, Scotland, Holyrood or the Scots people need no permission from David Cameron, Westminster et al. The charter of the United Nations, to which the UK is signatory is very clear on this. What is often referred to as the UK’s constitution is actually England’s unwritten constitution. As noted in the Union perspective earlier, Scotland’s laws were protected; this also means Scotland’s ancient constitution. A recent example of this is the illegality of wheel clamping in Scotland while it remains rampant elsewhere.
There is no “requirement” for a referendum deal to be struck, however it would be an improvement if all sides could agree and move forward to present a full, fair and completely unbiased argument of their perceived relative strengths. This would ensure we have properly informed voters making what will be a highly significant decision.
5. The options – and key arguments
Option: Status quo - the UK government in charge of most taxation, welfare and economy.
Arguments for the status quo:
The reality: Scotland’s most influential lords were bankrupt after funding Darien and looking at asset seizure by her burghs and merchants after the debacle. Darien was brought about after King William permitted his trusted friend and founder of the Bank of England, William Patterson, to go north and tout the idea. The failure of Darien came about through two causes, a Spanish blockade of the colony with English instigation support and collusion, and disease.
The Scots towns and burghs were wealthy in 1706; there was substantial trading taking place between Scotland and mainland Europe. England gained domination of a wealthy nation at a single stroke. The Union was engineered by less than fifty indebted nobles who later were remembered as “a parcel ‘o rouges in a nation”. These nobles worked to bring about the Union for personal gain and to avoid individual bankruptcy. Scotland retained not only law, religion and constitution, but her mints, taxation centres, burghs and much more. The last have since been eroded.
As William I’s chief paymaster to the nobles of Scotland, Daniel Defoe, commented in his memoirs, this was certainly a Union that Scotland’s people did not want.
Post Union:
The Union Perspective: the period of Union: In the 1800s, Scotland's economy strengthened, its cities boomed and its citizens took a leading role in the British empire. But proposals to give Scotland some form of "home rule" within the UK have been alive since William Gladstone's era as Liberal leader in the 1880s. After several failed attempts at Westminster, notably in 1913 and 1979, a Scottish parliament was finally reestablished in 1999 in Edinburgh with wide-ranging policy making and legal powers but dependent on a direct grant from London.
The reality: It took more than a century for Scotland’s economy, ravished by 1707’s Union, civil strife, uprisings, and multiple rounds of clearances and deprivation to even partially recover.
Scots became the empire’s cannon fodder, largely in part because the military offered an alternative to the mines, deportation, emigration or starvation.
Right through to the 1979 referendum the term “brain drain” was in common use as our best and brightest left our shores, shores which held no perceived hope for their future.
Scotland still has amongst the most deprived and poorest areas in Europe with some of the lowest projected life spans on earth, in spite of being one of the world’s most resource rich countries. A valid comment about Scotland under the Union is that it is the only nation to discover substantial reserves of oil and get poorer, now suffering austerity.
4. What happens next?
The Union perspective: Alex Salmond is in talks with David Cameron, the prime minister, about securing the legal powers that Holyrood needs to set up the referendum. Mr. Salmond wants to pass legislation in November 2013 but laws affecting the UK's constitution are reserved to the UK parliament. Without that power Holyrood will face lengthy battles over the legality of the poll.
David Cameron insists it can be held in September 2013; meanwhile the two men are in dispute over whether the referendum can include a second question on more powers for Holyrood within the UK, an option known as "devolution plus" or "devo max". The Tories, Liberal Democrats and Labour are offering to give Holyrood greater powers after the 2015 general election but insist the referendum has just one yes or no question on independence. Both sides need to strike a deal or risk a major confrontation.
The reality: Scotland and England exist under a treaty, the UK is not in fact a country, though commonly viewed as such by Union proponents; it is in fact a unitary state now made up of four countries, two of which, Scotland and England may choose to terminate their bilateral treaty of 1707 at any time. There is no such thing as a treaty which can’t be terminated by proper notice, as the Vienna Convention on treaty law makes clear.
Alex Salmond, Scotland, Holyrood or the Scots people need no permission from David Cameron, Westminster et al. The charter of the United Nations, to which the UK is signatory is very clear on this. What is often referred to as the UK’s constitution is actually England’s unwritten constitution. As noted in the Union perspective earlier, Scotland’s laws were protected; this also means Scotland’s ancient constitution. A recent example of this is the illegality of wheel clamping in Scotland while it remains rampant elsewhere.
There is no “requirement” for a referendum deal to be struck, however it would be an improvement if all sides could agree and move forward to present a full, fair and completely unbiased argument of their perceived relative strengths. This would ensure we have properly informed voters making what will be a highly significant decision.
5. The options – and key arguments
Option: Status quo - the UK government in charge of most taxation, welfare and economy.
Arguments for the status quo:
The Union Perspective: The UK is the most successful economic and political union of modern times – change needs to be slow and careful. The UK brings security and shared risk, and common values.
The reality: The Union has not been successful for Scotland, a net contributor for almost her entire existence. Scotland has seen consistently higher deprivation, lower GDP and poorer life quality indices across the board. The Union has been successful for Westminster who has systematically asset stripped Scotland of people and resources for over three centuries. None with intelligence fights to keep a millstone, yet Westminster is fighting for retention of Scotland and states Scots are just that. London therefore either lacks intelligence or is lying. Termination is overdue for something that should never have been conceived.
Every Scots vote is diluted in worth by approximately 90%. That is a poor excuse for democracy.
Arguments Against Independence:
The reality: The Union has not been successful for Scotland, a net contributor for almost her entire existence. Scotland has seen consistently higher deprivation, lower GDP and poorer life quality indices across the board. The Union has been successful for Westminster who has systematically asset stripped Scotland of people and resources for over three centuries. None with intelligence fights to keep a millstone, yet Westminster is fighting for retention of Scotland and states Scots are just that. London therefore either lacks intelligence or is lying. Termination is overdue for something that should never have been conceived.
Every Scots vote is diluted in worth by approximately 90%. That is a poor excuse for democracy.
Arguments Against Independence:
The Union Perspective: The Union is a living entity, it needs to grow, but it needs to do so under the direction of Westminster alone. It could do better in recognising Scotland's unique needs, values and aspirations; a little more devolution, such as the Scotland bill will fix any lingering problems.
The Reality: History shows it [the Union] should not have happened anyway, excluding this both parties agree. Scotland's interests are always secondary to England's. The UK is often run by parties which Scotland rejects. Under devolution there’s always the probability of Scotland’s needs and desires being trampled by Westminster’s wishes, as in Iraq, fisheries, agriculture, nuclear armaments and power policy. What London gives it can take.
Devo-Plus:
This ensures that Scotland has to raise the taxes it spends while keeping defence and foreign affairs at UK level with the welfare state open to question or negotiation.
The Union Perspective: Some believe Scotland needs to take responsibility for the taxes it spends, and mould policies to its needs and raise the taxes to match its spending. Giving Scotland control over taxation and welfare would heavily impact all parts of the UK, require reform of the UK parliament and undermine internal unity.
The Reality: There would be agreement on this, excluding the fact it would not go far enough. Scotland could still find herself in wars that are not of her choice, at increased risk of terror attacks on her peaceful nation and she’d have no option on nuclear weapons. There is also the issue that in the probability Westminster becomes insolvent any funds Scots have, welfare, pensions et al will vanish leaving untold numbers of hard working Scots destitute.
Independence:
The Union Perspective: giving Scotland full control over all taxes, laws and North Sea oil while keeping sterling and the Queen. Scotland would face greater financial risks, lose the security of UK, and gain little that further devolution would give. It would rely on a foreign bank and be in damaging competition with its closest, larger neighbour. The Union believes this would be a disaster for both parties and fights vehemently against it.
The reality: It is not the Union’s gift, its Scotland’s natural right. There is no reason why Scotland cannot resume her proper place in the community of nations. Scots can take back control of her own destiny; e.g. taxes, how she raises and spends them, and upon whom. The pursuit and furtherance of a fairer society would be within our power - without the uncertainty of an outside authority influencing our goals and achievements. This would mean dissolution of the Treaty of Union with BOTH Scotland and England taking their full place in the world. Scotland and England would remain firm friends. Wales and Northern Ireland would then have their own choices to make which appears also to be of great concern to Westminster.
Part 2 to come: Frequently Asked Questions [FAQ] and probable nationality/identity issues.
The Union Perspective: Some believe Scotland needs to take responsibility for the taxes it spends, and mould policies to its needs and raise the taxes to match its spending. Giving Scotland control over taxation and welfare would heavily impact all parts of the UK, require reform of the UK parliament and undermine internal unity.
The Reality: There would be agreement on this, excluding the fact it would not go far enough. Scotland could still find herself in wars that are not of her choice, at increased risk of terror attacks on her peaceful nation and she’d have no option on nuclear weapons. There is also the issue that in the probability Westminster becomes insolvent any funds Scots have, welfare, pensions et al will vanish leaving untold numbers of hard working Scots destitute.
Independence:
The Union Perspective: giving Scotland full control over all taxes, laws and North Sea oil while keeping sterling and the Queen. Scotland would face greater financial risks, lose the security of UK, and gain little that further devolution would give. It would rely on a foreign bank and be in damaging competition with its closest, larger neighbour. The Union believes this would be a disaster for both parties and fights vehemently against it.
The reality: It is not the Union’s gift, its Scotland’s natural right. There is no reason why Scotland cannot resume her proper place in the community of nations. Scots can take back control of her own destiny; e.g. taxes, how she raises and spends them, and upon whom. The pursuit and furtherance of a fairer society would be within our power - without the uncertainty of an outside authority influencing our goals and achievements. This would mean dissolution of the Treaty of Union with BOTH Scotland and England taking their full place in the world. Scotland and England would remain firm friends. Wales and Northern Ireland would then have their own choices to make which appears also to be of great concern to Westminster.
Part 2 to come: Frequently Asked Questions [FAQ] and probable nationality/identity issues.
Friday, 4 May 2012
The reality of the disaster.
Listening to the local council election results on the BBC, STV, iPlayer and the rest one could be forgiven for believing there was an SNP wipeout akin to what transpired for the Liberal Democrats.
The council elections are about so much more than national parties and national issues, local personalities, effective local people, historical trends and local issues all factor into the placement of votes. When major issues such as national politics, media bias, slander by insinuation and austerity are factored into the mix of a transferrable vote system, what would ultimately happen was almost unidentifiable.
Labour did get their vote share to hold up on an increasingly small turnout, as did the SNP.
The SNP have surpassed the 400 councilor mark for the first time in their history, Labour again failed to do so.
Less than ten years ago Labour could boast of regularly achieving over 500 councilors in Scotland, riding the tails of an opposition crest that saw the party sweep much of England and Wales before it there seems to be little cause for celebration in Scotland. Had the results of the r-UK been repeated in Scotland the red rose could well have been back to its former glory days. These results never materialized.
The message for the Unionists, what they will perceive and take from this campaign is that personal attacks, repeated and incessant against prominent nationalists worked. This will become the modus operandi from now through the referendum.
In spite of an increase in seats for the SNP the Unionist focused media is spinning a simple message; it was a disaster for the Nationalists. The Nationalist juggernaut has hit the buffers. Salmond has been stopped. Even before the polls are fully counted these were the messages appearing.
This particular poll surely marked the first time that a conservative gleefully tweeted about a “Labour hold”.
The reality is that the fields are now set for the referendum and the ammunition issued. The Union will believe, in spite of the evidence, that its program of insinuation and defamation through inference was functional. The nationalists will see slower but steady gains.
The Union propaganda machine will have renewed faith in its ability; it will churn out as much negativism with renewed vigor as possible. It will save choice stories to utilise as “scoops” at opportune moments. The Nationalists will realise the truth is creating more converts. The combined Union vote share is slowly dwindling and that a Union vote is a Union vote i.e. The party is of no consequence.
Buoying the Nationalist outlook will also be the fact that the SNP put forward candidates in barely half the available seats, yet saw an electoral success rate of around 75%. This is far beyond what any individual Unionist party could ever hope to achieve. This level of success was also obtained knowing many Nationalists would be torn between party vote and that of a competent well respected incumbent - unionist or independent.
The SNP will not be unhappy that the Conservatives have seen further reductions in both their vote share and their representation at local level, that the Liberal Democrats have now been effectively marginalised simply brings the picture into sharper focus. It is now starting to be self evident to the average voter that the picture in Scotland is Nationalist/Unionist. SNP or Labour. The stage is set for 2014 with the Nationalist vote not only holding but increasing.
The demise of the Lib-Dem’s showed their vote splitting between Labour and the SNP. The Unionist vote is effectively diminished. This is not how the mainstream media will report the situation, but then with anything less than 90% of SNP candidates being elected they were never going to give a positive spin for the Nationalists anyway.
There is much to be grateful here for Alex Salmon’s party, they had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at them in the way of negative propaganda, and still they returned more councilors. Consider also that they are the national governing party in a time of austerity and that’s not simply surprising, it’s an outstanding result.
Outstanding perhaps, but a stepping stone nonetheless. 2014 is the prize. This election showed that 2014 is winnable, especially with more London induced austerity to come, but it will not be a simple or easy win, and it was never going to be.
2014 will require every resource the Nationalist movement can bring to bear; it will require every nationalist engaging with two or three individuals who perhaps hold anything from a Union to an uncertain view on 2014. It will require every sincere Nationalist to get one or two of these people to the poll in 2014, for in spite of all the spurious or contentious local issues that were involved May 3rd 2012 told us something very clearly, something the mainstream media simply can’t highlight.
May 3rd 2012 told us that the overall trend continues that with each ongoing election in Scotland the Union finds itself diminished.
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
An election this week and no polls in sight.
Clarification is required, no obviously “Scotland only” polls in sight.
The local council elections are days away. Normally before any national poll there are a flurry of opinion polls, they appear in such abundance that we often seem to know what the result will be well before any official announcement. We even get “polls of polls” for goodness sake.
These council elections are different. There have been UK wide polls, the most recent by Yougov, and there have been the usual ongoing monthly polls by UK newspapers, but no published Scots specific polls.
The important terminology there is “no published polls”, because if the internet and its various components such as the twittesphere and blogosphere are to be credited then such polls have indeed taken place.
That would give two scenarios; that some organisations are paying for polls but refusing to publish the results or that internet chatter is wildly inaccurate and no polls are being done in Scotland. We also haven’t even seen one on independence preferences in the lead up to the local elections.
That no polls were being done might have a sliver of credibility if not for the internet’s contradiction. This is, after all, “just” a local council election, and it would be notoriously more difficult to predict by polling as it doesn’t use a simple “first past the post” system. That would have us also believe that an approximate algorithm couldn’t be constructed in order to give a rough idea. The only substantial surprise in recent years was May 5th 2011, and perhaps that tells us something today.
With any election approaching there’s a high degree of interest, even among those not normally politically inclined, as to what the outcome of our perceived democracy might be. It is natural to wish to know what our friends and neighbours might be thinking or doing, yet the media is so far largely treating us to a stone-wall of silence. Yet the same media will sell its own product by supplying that same information.
Against this apparent national news blackout we’re being treated to tales of imagined wrong doing and seemingly never ending spurious accusations of impropriety on the part of our duly elected officials. Spurious is perhaps a mild word, manufactured might be better, as spurious indicates error, manufactured demonstrates intent, and there can be no other view on the current media circus than intent when a nation has the utterly incredulous situation that it’s leader consistently responds to these charges by referring himself or herself to the nations watchdogs and is just as consistently cleared of any wrongdoing.
The only other viable conjecture is media distraction from the real process, electing based upon policy stance.
The polls, which are of almost universal interest, are missing; the unsubstantiated scandals appear never ending, when one would suspect the opposite in a healthy democracy.
The first thing that we become aware of is that we do not therefore live in a healthy democracy, at best it is ailing, well on the way to imminent life support, at worst it is but a sham, an illusion to pacify the perceived unwashed. In a true democracy the people are sovereign and participate in every major decision.
The next point of note is that the polls, typically published as soon as the results are tabulated are obvious by their absence, this excludes a few “UK wide” polls where Scots subsamples are so small as to be relatively worthless.
This lack of Scots polls could be a lead on from last year, it’s unlikely all the pollsters got it so wrong then, but what happened to those that didn’t. The likelihood is that they were simply rubbished, none were printed or published. If there’s a movement afoot that you want to try to keep somewhat subdued the last thing anyone wishes is to give it momentum, impetus and renewed vigor. That’s one possibility for not publishing, for suppressing.
There’s a second reason the poll purchaser may not want to publish, where they simply don’t believe the results they’re getting. Credibility has some worth after all.
The third significant reason that one could entertain for not publishing is that there’s no sustained interest; that between the date of commissioning and the earliest date of publication the interest or fundamentals behind the story in question just died. The ongoing smear campaigns coupled to increasing political activity all indicate this isn’t the motivation here. Then there’s the fact we haven’t actually voted yet.
No Scots specific polls, are we in for a surprise on May 3rd 2012 which will make May 5th 2011 look like a storm in a teacup, either way?
There are three possible significant outcomes on May 3rd:
1 - The SNP secure some 80% or more of its increased field of candidates as elected officials.
2 – There is largely little change in the political makeup of local authority representation.
3 - Or the Nationalists lose vote share and labour again becomes the largest local party in Scotland.
Discussing the national outcomes at local level in reverse order, a switch in electoral representation of less than 5% from SNP to Labour would again see Labour as the largest local party in Scotland. This would most likely lead to “hardball” between Holyrood and Westminster in the referendum run up and substantial crowing by Labour and their supportive media about the result. Much will be made about the Nationalist “storm in a teacup” and as yet unstated real “benefits” of Union.
The middle path has the status quo largely unchanged. It may well even be proclaimed and heralded as a victory for the Union, with “unchanged” being confabulated to “no desire” for change. It’s an interesting scenario as a “largely unchanged” result in the eyes of the media and Union parties equates to an actual loss of standing being spun as a victory. The middle “unchanged” result could be anything between a small increase in SNP councilors to perhaps as many as 10% more. As part of this picture one would expect the present discourse between the respective governments at Holyrood and Westminster to continue mostly in its current vein.
Should the “unthinkable” be repeated with a similar landslide as May 5th 2011, expect there to be reasonably rapid and beneficial changes to take place. These will be changes not just good for Scotland, but helpful to England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well. If Scots elect some 80% or more of the proposed cadre of SNP candidates it will be a message London can’t ignore. The SNP will be in the position Labour was for decades, with the exception of Westminster representation which will now have the very real potential of falling to Nationalist hands at the next election, the SNP will have total dominance in Scotland.
This is a situation unacceptable to Westminster; there will be public furor, disbelief and angst with private quiet deliberation. Expect a quickly modified approach, possibly already planned for; the fear and scaremongering will continue publically while privately there will be an acknowledgement of failure.
Expect the conversations between Bute House and Downing Street to become more mature as Number 10 accepts the position it discovers itself in. After May 4th 2012 we can anticipate a better relationship between the two parliaments begin to grow, and we can look forward to the world as a whole taking much more interest in the affairs of our tiny nation. It should help to focus everything on a fair and free debate leading up to 2014.
Our choice will be revealed as the votes are counted on May 4th, appropriate announcements will be made. Until then we must simply wait as it doesn’t appear to be in the interest of those who may know to supply us with any advance notice of the possible outcome.
The local council elections are days away. Normally before any national poll there are a flurry of opinion polls, they appear in such abundance that we often seem to know what the result will be well before any official announcement. We even get “polls of polls” for goodness sake.
These council elections are different. There have been UK wide polls, the most recent by Yougov, and there have been the usual ongoing monthly polls by UK newspapers, but no published Scots specific polls.
The important terminology there is “no published polls”, because if the internet and its various components such as the twittesphere and blogosphere are to be credited then such polls have indeed taken place.
That would give two scenarios; that some organisations are paying for polls but refusing to publish the results or that internet chatter is wildly inaccurate and no polls are being done in Scotland. We also haven’t even seen one on independence preferences in the lead up to the local elections.
That no polls were being done might have a sliver of credibility if not for the internet’s contradiction. This is, after all, “just” a local council election, and it would be notoriously more difficult to predict by polling as it doesn’t use a simple “first past the post” system. That would have us also believe that an approximate algorithm couldn’t be constructed in order to give a rough idea. The only substantial surprise in recent years was May 5th 2011, and perhaps that tells us something today.
With any election approaching there’s a high degree of interest, even among those not normally politically inclined, as to what the outcome of our perceived democracy might be. It is natural to wish to know what our friends and neighbours might be thinking or doing, yet the media is so far largely treating us to a stone-wall of silence. Yet the same media will sell its own product by supplying that same information.
Against this apparent national news blackout we’re being treated to tales of imagined wrong doing and seemingly never ending spurious accusations of impropriety on the part of our duly elected officials. Spurious is perhaps a mild word, manufactured might be better, as spurious indicates error, manufactured demonstrates intent, and there can be no other view on the current media circus than intent when a nation has the utterly incredulous situation that it’s leader consistently responds to these charges by referring himself or herself to the nations watchdogs and is just as consistently cleared of any wrongdoing.
The only other viable conjecture is media distraction from the real process, electing based upon policy stance.
The polls, which are of almost universal interest, are missing; the unsubstantiated scandals appear never ending, when one would suspect the opposite in a healthy democracy.
The first thing that we become aware of is that we do not therefore live in a healthy democracy, at best it is ailing, well on the way to imminent life support, at worst it is but a sham, an illusion to pacify the perceived unwashed. In a true democracy the people are sovereign and participate in every major decision.
The next point of note is that the polls, typically published as soon as the results are tabulated are obvious by their absence, this excludes a few “UK wide” polls where Scots subsamples are so small as to be relatively worthless.
This lack of Scots polls could be a lead on from last year, it’s unlikely all the pollsters got it so wrong then, but what happened to those that didn’t. The likelihood is that they were simply rubbished, none were printed or published. If there’s a movement afoot that you want to try to keep somewhat subdued the last thing anyone wishes is to give it momentum, impetus and renewed vigor. That’s one possibility for not publishing, for suppressing.
There’s a second reason the poll purchaser may not want to publish, where they simply don’t believe the results they’re getting. Credibility has some worth after all.
The third significant reason that one could entertain for not publishing is that there’s no sustained interest; that between the date of commissioning and the earliest date of publication the interest or fundamentals behind the story in question just died. The ongoing smear campaigns coupled to increasing political activity all indicate this isn’t the motivation here. Then there’s the fact we haven’t actually voted yet.
No Scots specific polls, are we in for a surprise on May 3rd 2012 which will make May 5th 2011 look like a storm in a teacup, either way?
There are three possible significant outcomes on May 3rd:
1 - The SNP secure some 80% or more of its increased field of candidates as elected officials.
2 – There is largely little change in the political makeup of local authority representation.
3 - Or the Nationalists lose vote share and labour again becomes the largest local party in Scotland.
Discussing the national outcomes at local level in reverse order, a switch in electoral representation of less than 5% from SNP to Labour would again see Labour as the largest local party in Scotland. This would most likely lead to “hardball” between Holyrood and Westminster in the referendum run up and substantial crowing by Labour and their supportive media about the result. Much will be made about the Nationalist “storm in a teacup” and as yet unstated real “benefits” of Union.
The middle path has the status quo largely unchanged. It may well even be proclaimed and heralded as a victory for the Union, with “unchanged” being confabulated to “no desire” for change. It’s an interesting scenario as a “largely unchanged” result in the eyes of the media and Union parties equates to an actual loss of standing being spun as a victory. The middle “unchanged” result could be anything between a small increase in SNP councilors to perhaps as many as 10% more. As part of this picture one would expect the present discourse between the respective governments at Holyrood and Westminster to continue mostly in its current vein.
Should the “unthinkable” be repeated with a similar landslide as May 5th 2011, expect there to be reasonably rapid and beneficial changes to take place. These will be changes not just good for Scotland, but helpful to England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well. If Scots elect some 80% or more of the proposed cadre of SNP candidates it will be a message London can’t ignore. The SNP will be in the position Labour was for decades, with the exception of Westminster representation which will now have the very real potential of falling to Nationalist hands at the next election, the SNP will have total dominance in Scotland.
This is a situation unacceptable to Westminster; there will be public furor, disbelief and angst with private quiet deliberation. Expect a quickly modified approach, possibly already planned for; the fear and scaremongering will continue publically while privately there will be an acknowledgement of failure.
Expect the conversations between Bute House and Downing Street to become more mature as Number 10 accepts the position it discovers itself in. After May 4th 2012 we can anticipate a better relationship between the two parliaments begin to grow, and we can look forward to the world as a whole taking much more interest in the affairs of our tiny nation. It should help to focus everything on a fair and free debate leading up to 2014.
Our choice will be revealed as the votes are counted on May 4th, appropriate announcements will be made. Until then we must simply wait as it doesn’t appear to be in the interest of those who may know to supply us with any advance notice of the possible outcome.
Saturday, 28 April 2012
It’s all about the money.
It’s always been about the money; colonial expansion, government, business or just household budgets, it’s all about the money. Domestic fights, most of those rotate around the money.
For the increased rhetoric and personal “anti-Salmond” attacks in the Unionist media, it’s all about the money. The Union has good reasons to use every dirty trick in the book to keep Scotland on board, in fact it probably has somewhere around £15 billion of these reasons every year. Throw enough mud, eventually some will stick in the common perception, justified or not. It’s called propaganda and the Union army has the propaganda troops in form of Union media firmly in its trenches.
This forces the unbiased individual to try to understand why this is, what motivates the need to so virulently protect the status quo? In the end, it’s all about the money, UK plc is effectively bankrupt, but with Scotland still on board the final reckoning may be delayed somewhat. The fact it destroys the aspirations of a nation is as relevant to the Union as the feelings a banker has towards those about to be made homeless through the banking systems own profligacy.
The London perspective towards Scotland is very much the “I care not for thee in the rubber dinghy, for I am in the admiral’s barge mentality”. Boris Johnson confirmed this with his “Devo Max” for London and “Spending in Croydon will help Strathclyde” nonsense.
Untying Scotland’s share of UK income/outgoings is difficult indeed if Westminster accounting is used, GERS is still wildly inaccurate, though no longer quite so laughable as it was. London is a master of fiscal obfuscation. They tell us the finances are “too interdependent and complicated to unravel” – we’re expected to actually believe this spin in today’s computerized world.
Examining the unitary state which is today’s United Kingdom, the money aspect is stark indeed. As austerity bit and has progressed the United Kingdom is now paying out more in benefits than it raises in both income tax and national insurance.
The benefits to income tax situation is only a microcosm of the big picture. For 2011/2012 the projected level of all HMRC receipts is expected to be marginally over £580 billion. That’s being added to at an extra £120 billion or so yearly, getting on for 20% of income.
The UK has, by various accounts, total “on the books” public debts of about £1 trillion, not including unfunded pension liabilities and that the “off the books” or more difficult to ascertain debt such as PPI/PFI/PPP commitments with underwriting required for the banking debacle, the true number is said to be somewhere approaching £4 trillion.
Excluding the pension aspect, we’ve typically always paid for that from current year contributions, a “nice” real number for UK state debt is around £2 trillion.
To put that into numbers we can appreciate, £2 trillion is a debt to income ratio of almost 4:1. Using the banks own mortgage methodology they’ll loan, if we’re lucky enough to qualify, perhaps 3 times our income to us to buy a house [3:1]. So we have a situation where UK plc is in negative growth, couldn’t qualify for a mortgage, spends more than it receives every month and can still borrow.
Effectively, by the banks own rules, the UK is bankrupt – they wouldn’t lend to it as an individual. The only item preventing default is that the banks themselves can’t afford the UK to go belly up, they stand to lose too much, so they keep loaning more money. It’s Greece without the panic. Right now they’re loaning it at the ridiculously low level of about 1.8%, so our cost of that debt is artificially low. When, not if, interest rates creep back up towards 4% our cost of the debt will double. It is not unusual for nations with ongoing liquidity problems to see the cost of credit double or triple in as short a period as six months or less.
The cost to the treasury of a simply normalized interest rate will see repayments increase by about £40 billion a year, or substantially more than Holyrood’s annual budget. Add that to the £120 billion or so of increasing debt which will annually add another compounding £4.8 billion a year and there’s a realistic scenario that by the close of 2016 UK plc will be spending well over £100 billion a year on interest alone. Three times Holyrood’s budget.
The alternative for Scotland is to go it alone. In theory we’d be held liable for 8.3% of that present £2 trillion, or about £166 billion in debt. That’s an overly fair assessment as it overestimates our share of the banking crisis, reflecting it by population. If the accepted accounting for that banking bailout was used where share is allocated to each country by percentage of revenue, we’d be in far better position.
A probable worst case scenario is a UK demand to assume £166 billion of national debt.
Now we should take time to look for the deductions.
Holyrood has given notification to Westminster that it should be prepared to pay for nuclear power station decommissioning in Scotland, perhaps some £30 billion as its share. London was also advised it will need to proportionately stump up for another £30 billion or so as its cost of field decommissioning in the North Sea. The outpouring of indignation in the House of Commons at this announcement can be ignored – this obligation is the reality. If Westminster refuses to accept it Holyrood simply effectively deducts it from any potential obligation. We just don’t pay as we’re neither legally nor morally bound to.
Fixed and mobile global assets of UK plc is very difficult to quantify, but appears set to be somewhere under 100 billion, not including such items as Falklands oil, to which the UK through Cameron’s statements has renounced claim. This doesn’t include items solely within or the property of individual nations within the UK. Scotland’s share would possibly be negotiated around 10 billion.
There are substantial other costs that UK plc should properly bear, at least proportionately, such as clean ups around Dalgety Bay and Dounray.
Using these figures with the banking crisis bailout included there’s a residual value in Scotland’s portion of the banking debt of around 50%, the shares are worth an average of about half what was paid for them. Selling these shares would give Scots another offset of around £50 billion.
At day’s end we’d inherit somewhere around £200 billion in “UK debt”, and we’d expect offsets in excess of £120 billion. Not including those unfunded pensions that’s what we’d owe. The picture improves under almost any other scenario.
An £80 billion tab is about the worst to be presently expected.
Gross tax receipts per capita in the UK are about £9,500 per person, with Scots contributing substantially more than UK average that’s over £10,100 per Scot. With 5.5 million of us that’s right at £55 billion. This figure now includes a dead reckoning on Scotland’s assets allocated to “The City” simply because companies are headquartered there. It will also reflect all revenues from all sources, many of which are not included in GERS such as the exclusion for oil revenues because they are in “UK waters” or liability for Trident because it’s “in Scotland”.
Scotland has somewhere around £45 billion in outgoings, that’s a 10 billion plus surplus.
Scotland will have somewhere up to a £15 billion surplus in the event of independence, the SNP says it will be over £500 per person better off, but they’re using GERS. The tax income here was calculated using the national average per person tax paid and multiplying that by the higher ratio paid in by Scots. Quick and dirty perhaps, but exceedingly difficult to counter, spin or obfuscate. Taking the per capita contribution effectively removes the opportunity for Whitehall’s obfuscation.
The net result is a Scotland that can either be in surplus by the end of 2016, or remain part of the UK where it will have spiraling debt, a negative balance sheet, increasing austerity and in all likelihood be well on its way to following Greece, Spain and Portugal to financial oblivion.
The side effects of remaining within UK plc will be massive youth unemployment, increasing adult unemployment and substantial losses of rights and benefits across our entire society because with the upcoming pocket-money reductions from Westminster, Scotland simply will not be able to afford to maintain services and there’s absolutely nothing Holyrood will be able to do about it.
There are three Union parties with the same message: Stronger together. This message could be individualized with each proclaiming a simple truth; unity in deprivation, unity in austerity, unity in bankruptcy.
For the increased rhetoric and personal “anti-Salmond” attacks in the Unionist media, it’s all about the money. The Union has good reasons to use every dirty trick in the book to keep Scotland on board, in fact it probably has somewhere around £15 billion of these reasons every year. Throw enough mud, eventually some will stick in the common perception, justified or not. It’s called propaganda and the Union army has the propaganda troops in form of Union media firmly in its trenches.
This forces the unbiased individual to try to understand why this is, what motivates the need to so virulently protect the status quo? In the end, it’s all about the money, UK plc is effectively bankrupt, but with Scotland still on board the final reckoning may be delayed somewhat. The fact it destroys the aspirations of a nation is as relevant to the Union as the feelings a banker has towards those about to be made homeless through the banking systems own profligacy.
The London perspective towards Scotland is very much the “I care not for thee in the rubber dinghy, for I am in the admiral’s barge mentality”. Boris Johnson confirmed this with his “Devo Max” for London and “Spending in Croydon will help Strathclyde” nonsense.
Untying Scotland’s share of UK income/outgoings is difficult indeed if Westminster accounting is used, GERS is still wildly inaccurate, though no longer quite so laughable as it was. London is a master of fiscal obfuscation. They tell us the finances are “too interdependent and complicated to unravel” – we’re expected to actually believe this spin in today’s computerized world.
Examining the unitary state which is today’s United Kingdom, the money aspect is stark indeed. As austerity bit and has progressed the United Kingdom is now paying out more in benefits than it raises in both income tax and national insurance.
The benefits to income tax situation is only a microcosm of the big picture. For 2011/2012 the projected level of all HMRC receipts is expected to be marginally over £580 billion. That’s being added to at an extra £120 billion or so yearly, getting on for 20% of income.
The UK has, by various accounts, total “on the books” public debts of about £1 trillion, not including unfunded pension liabilities and that the “off the books” or more difficult to ascertain debt such as PPI/PFI/PPP commitments with underwriting required for the banking debacle, the true number is said to be somewhere approaching £4 trillion.
Excluding the pension aspect, we’ve typically always paid for that from current year contributions, a “nice” real number for UK state debt is around £2 trillion.
To put that into numbers we can appreciate, £2 trillion is a debt to income ratio of almost 4:1. Using the banks own mortgage methodology they’ll loan, if we’re lucky enough to qualify, perhaps 3 times our income to us to buy a house [3:1]. So we have a situation where UK plc is in negative growth, couldn’t qualify for a mortgage, spends more than it receives every month and can still borrow.
Effectively, by the banks own rules, the UK is bankrupt – they wouldn’t lend to it as an individual. The only item preventing default is that the banks themselves can’t afford the UK to go belly up, they stand to lose too much, so they keep loaning more money. It’s Greece without the panic. Right now they’re loaning it at the ridiculously low level of about 1.8%, so our cost of that debt is artificially low. When, not if, interest rates creep back up towards 4% our cost of the debt will double. It is not unusual for nations with ongoing liquidity problems to see the cost of credit double or triple in as short a period as six months or less.
The cost to the treasury of a simply normalized interest rate will see repayments increase by about £40 billion a year, or substantially more than Holyrood’s annual budget. Add that to the £120 billion or so of increasing debt which will annually add another compounding £4.8 billion a year and there’s a realistic scenario that by the close of 2016 UK plc will be spending well over £100 billion a year on interest alone. Three times Holyrood’s budget.
The alternative for Scotland is to go it alone. In theory we’d be held liable for 8.3% of that present £2 trillion, or about £166 billion in debt. That’s an overly fair assessment as it overestimates our share of the banking crisis, reflecting it by population. If the accepted accounting for that banking bailout was used where share is allocated to each country by percentage of revenue, we’d be in far better position.
A probable worst case scenario is a UK demand to assume £166 billion of national debt.
Now we should take time to look for the deductions.
Holyrood has given notification to Westminster that it should be prepared to pay for nuclear power station decommissioning in Scotland, perhaps some £30 billion as its share. London was also advised it will need to proportionately stump up for another £30 billion or so as its cost of field decommissioning in the North Sea. The outpouring of indignation in the House of Commons at this announcement can be ignored – this obligation is the reality. If Westminster refuses to accept it Holyrood simply effectively deducts it from any potential obligation. We just don’t pay as we’re neither legally nor morally bound to.
Fixed and mobile global assets of UK plc is very difficult to quantify, but appears set to be somewhere under 100 billion, not including such items as Falklands oil, to which the UK through Cameron’s statements has renounced claim. This doesn’t include items solely within or the property of individual nations within the UK. Scotland’s share would possibly be negotiated around 10 billion.
There are substantial other costs that UK plc should properly bear, at least proportionately, such as clean ups around Dalgety Bay and Dounray.
Using these figures with the banking crisis bailout included there’s a residual value in Scotland’s portion of the banking debt of around 50%, the shares are worth an average of about half what was paid for them. Selling these shares would give Scots another offset of around £50 billion.
At day’s end we’d inherit somewhere around £200 billion in “UK debt”, and we’d expect offsets in excess of £120 billion. Not including those unfunded pensions that’s what we’d owe. The picture improves under almost any other scenario.
An £80 billion tab is about the worst to be presently expected.
Gross tax receipts per capita in the UK are about £9,500 per person, with Scots contributing substantially more than UK average that’s over £10,100 per Scot. With 5.5 million of us that’s right at £55 billion. This figure now includes a dead reckoning on Scotland’s assets allocated to “The City” simply because companies are headquartered there. It will also reflect all revenues from all sources, many of which are not included in GERS such as the exclusion for oil revenues because they are in “UK waters” or liability for Trident because it’s “in Scotland”.
Scotland has somewhere around £45 billion in outgoings, that’s a 10 billion plus surplus.
Scotland will have somewhere up to a £15 billion surplus in the event of independence, the SNP says it will be over £500 per person better off, but they’re using GERS. The tax income here was calculated using the national average per person tax paid and multiplying that by the higher ratio paid in by Scots. Quick and dirty perhaps, but exceedingly difficult to counter, spin or obfuscate. Taking the per capita contribution effectively removes the opportunity for Whitehall’s obfuscation.
The net result is a Scotland that can either be in surplus by the end of 2016, or remain part of the UK where it will have spiraling debt, a negative balance sheet, increasing austerity and in all likelihood be well on its way to following Greece, Spain and Portugal to financial oblivion.
The side effects of remaining within UK plc will be massive youth unemployment, increasing adult unemployment and substantial losses of rights and benefits across our entire society because with the upcoming pocket-money reductions from Westminster, Scotland simply will not be able to afford to maintain services and there’s absolutely nothing Holyrood will be able to do about it.
There are three Union parties with the same message: Stronger together. This message could be individualized with each proclaiming a simple truth; unity in deprivation, unity in austerity, unity in bankruptcy.
Thursday, 19 April 2012
The Scotland Bill has cleared Holyrood.
It is now on its way to becoming fully enacted; something that was inconceivable the day after the present Holyrood administration was chosen by Scotland’s electorate.
That this bill is heading towards statute carries substantial and strong messages.
The issues that would have prevented it being passed even at Christmas have been largely deleted, not every deleterious aspect is gone, but the Bill is now palatable in the view of our elected officials, and for most who now examine it there’s little of significance that can cause harm to the devolution process.
Setting aside what’s in the Bill at present, it is worthwhile to examine what’s not there. Five of six demands made by the current Scottish government were not included, allowing Unionist parties and commentators to crow over a “climb-down by the Nat’s”. The reality of the situation is that without Westminster cooperation there would be no single additional power at all.
Holyrood has played “grown up” politics, it has recognised it has achieved everything possible in the timeframe and under the current constitutional settlement that it can achieve. By removing the severely toxic aspects of the Bill, by exposing the constitutional irrelevance of the House of Lords, and by leaving the constitutional appetite whetted but un-sated, Holyrood has gained much.
Edinburgh now has the precedent set that under the present constitutional settlement any transfer of powers will fundamentally only go from Westminster to Holyrood, unless Edinburgh is in agreement. If we Scots in future elect a government that undermines any hard won sovereignty, that will be our issue, for now the process is safe. However, a Union party in power could dramatically change that dynamic.
A precedent has also been set, and completely unheralded in Scotland’s mainstream media, together with an acknowledgment by all parties that Scots are hungry for more power in their own affairs. The precedent was re-enforced by the fact that under this repatriation of sovereign powers none saw a need to ask we Sovereign Scots if it was something we actually wanted.
Step back and think. When the ’97 referendum took place there was a whole separate question dealing solely with tax raising powers, powers designed never to be used and limited only to 3%. A short fifteen years later we witness a situation whereby that taxation share is more than tripled, but a referendum is not seen as required because all political parties tacitly acknowledge the Scots appetite is for more.
Many Scots would also agree a referendum isn’t required, as long as the process cedes authority to Holyrood. Should the reverse ever become a proposal those same individuals are likely to ferment some severe dissent, and rightly so.
As we think about the tax issue, that single change from optional to mandated tax devolution, requires alterations at HMRC to fundamentally institute a Scottish Revenue Service, one which will provide discrete accounting of Scottish income tax. That alone is a significant preparatory step on the road to independence.
The Scottish Government has also won tacit acknowledgement that the Scotland Bill isn’t the real issue anymore. This legislation has been overtaken by constitutional events that are continuing to gather pace. There is a strong likelihood that by the time the provisions of the Bill actually come into force, they will be irrelevant.
The optimist among us would rather view the Scotland Bill as a highly significant milestone, a milestone that is quietly heralding a new dawn, a sunrise showing behind the current acrimony of Westminster / Holyrood relations. In the best of worlds it would be but the first example of mature and adult negotiation between two governments who will soon need to discuss a myriad of issues as equal partners rather than as colonial power and subjugated nation. As we have seen from recent document releases concerning treatment of Kenyans during the Mao-Mao Uprising, Westminster has a history of abuse towards those seeking their own path.
Both governments appear to have reached an understanding, as evidenced by this Bill’s passing, that it is now better to clear the decks of old business and prepare the way for the future.
That David Cameron sees this as a probable future is evidenced as much by his silence to events as by his negation of the Lords amendments. The SNP in Westminster recently advised the Commons that England, the rUK would be liable for a majority share of decommissioning of current UK nuclear power stations in Scotland. That could amount to anywhere north of 25 billion. Although there was consternation in the House with several individuals giving quotes of outrage, nothing was forthcoming from Number 10.
The Commons were also advised that there would possibly be a bill for decommissioning old oil fields in Scotland’s North Sea, the price tag for that was put at 30 billion. The government of the future rUK was again silent on the issue, though Scotland’s mainstream media reported it principally as being a cost to be borne by a future Scotland. Often that which is not officially said carries more value than the witterings of interchangeable underlings.
That there will be two separate, equal governments after 2016 was verified by the bookmakers. Betting shops rarely get it massively wrong, at the initiation of the Scotland Bill the odds for Scottish Independence by 2020 could be had as high as 10/1, checking on the odds of a “NO” immediately after the announcement of the Bill’s passage showed William Hill offering 1/3 against. Although betting odds are weighted by many factors, that’s a huge change in the lifespan of a single bill with regards to the constitutional outcome of four nations.
It’s a change that could now be being mirrored by the stance of the relevant elected political leadership in each nation. We can hope.
That this bill is heading towards statute carries substantial and strong messages.
The issues that would have prevented it being passed even at Christmas have been largely deleted, not every deleterious aspect is gone, but the Bill is now palatable in the view of our elected officials, and for most who now examine it there’s little of significance that can cause harm to the devolution process.
Setting aside what’s in the Bill at present, it is worthwhile to examine what’s not there. Five of six demands made by the current Scottish government were not included, allowing Unionist parties and commentators to crow over a “climb-down by the Nat’s”. The reality of the situation is that without Westminster cooperation there would be no single additional power at all.
Holyrood has played “grown up” politics, it has recognised it has achieved everything possible in the timeframe and under the current constitutional settlement that it can achieve. By removing the severely toxic aspects of the Bill, by exposing the constitutional irrelevance of the House of Lords, and by leaving the constitutional appetite whetted but un-sated, Holyrood has gained much.
Edinburgh now has the precedent set that under the present constitutional settlement any transfer of powers will fundamentally only go from Westminster to Holyrood, unless Edinburgh is in agreement. If we Scots in future elect a government that undermines any hard won sovereignty, that will be our issue, for now the process is safe. However, a Union party in power could dramatically change that dynamic.
A precedent has also been set, and completely unheralded in Scotland’s mainstream media, together with an acknowledgment by all parties that Scots are hungry for more power in their own affairs. The precedent was re-enforced by the fact that under this repatriation of sovereign powers none saw a need to ask we Sovereign Scots if it was something we actually wanted.
Step back and think. When the ’97 referendum took place there was a whole separate question dealing solely with tax raising powers, powers designed never to be used and limited only to 3%. A short fifteen years later we witness a situation whereby that taxation share is more than tripled, but a referendum is not seen as required because all political parties tacitly acknowledge the Scots appetite is for more.
Many Scots would also agree a referendum isn’t required, as long as the process cedes authority to Holyrood. Should the reverse ever become a proposal those same individuals are likely to ferment some severe dissent, and rightly so.
As we think about the tax issue, that single change from optional to mandated tax devolution, requires alterations at HMRC to fundamentally institute a Scottish Revenue Service, one which will provide discrete accounting of Scottish income tax. That alone is a significant preparatory step on the road to independence.
The Scottish Government has also won tacit acknowledgement that the Scotland Bill isn’t the real issue anymore. This legislation has been overtaken by constitutional events that are continuing to gather pace. There is a strong likelihood that by the time the provisions of the Bill actually come into force, they will be irrelevant.
The optimist among us would rather view the Scotland Bill as a highly significant milestone, a milestone that is quietly heralding a new dawn, a sunrise showing behind the current acrimony of Westminster / Holyrood relations. In the best of worlds it would be but the first example of mature and adult negotiation between two governments who will soon need to discuss a myriad of issues as equal partners rather than as colonial power and subjugated nation. As we have seen from recent document releases concerning treatment of Kenyans during the Mao-Mao Uprising, Westminster has a history of abuse towards those seeking their own path.
Both governments appear to have reached an understanding, as evidenced by this Bill’s passing, that it is now better to clear the decks of old business and prepare the way for the future.
That David Cameron sees this as a probable future is evidenced as much by his silence to events as by his negation of the Lords amendments. The SNP in Westminster recently advised the Commons that England, the rUK would be liable for a majority share of decommissioning of current UK nuclear power stations in Scotland. That could amount to anywhere north of 25 billion. Although there was consternation in the House with several individuals giving quotes of outrage, nothing was forthcoming from Number 10.
The Commons were also advised that there would possibly be a bill for decommissioning old oil fields in Scotland’s North Sea, the price tag for that was put at 30 billion. The government of the future rUK was again silent on the issue, though Scotland’s mainstream media reported it principally as being a cost to be borne by a future Scotland. Often that which is not officially said carries more value than the witterings of interchangeable underlings.
That there will be two separate, equal governments after 2016 was verified by the bookmakers. Betting shops rarely get it massively wrong, at the initiation of the Scotland Bill the odds for Scottish Independence by 2020 could be had as high as 10/1, checking on the odds of a “NO” immediately after the announcement of the Bill’s passage showed William Hill offering 1/3 against. Although betting odds are weighted by many factors, that’s a huge change in the lifespan of a single bill with regards to the constitutional outcome of four nations.
It’s a change that could now be being mirrored by the stance of the relevant elected political leadership in each nation. We can hope.
Wednesday, 18 April 2012
We’re all in it together.
Or rather - no, we’re not, and we never have been.
There are fundamentally two governments within the UK seat of power, London. Westminster and the City of London are both calling the shots, and although the City is noticeably a shadowy figure in the background, through the power of money it’s arguably by far more influential. However, these dual policymakers don’t always have similar goals.
Demonstrably the City invariably prevails. Witness “too big to fail” and “The banking crisis”. In both scenarios City greed destroyed what it had attempted to build, and then pressured lawmakers into requiring the taxpayer to underwrite or pay for the stupidity of City policy and actions. Laws were even changed to facilitate City operations, simply recall the HBOS and Lloyds merger for just one example.
Lawmakers now see it as normal to use our public funds to bail out private industry, as long as it’s big enough to be of concern to the City. In this respect the City controls much of mainstream policy at Westminster.
It’s been that way for centuries; the City of London Corporation’s eight century old “war chest” of cash reserves used to fight anything which may be inimical to its rule and authority is exempt from FOI legislation. It does not matter to the City of London Corporation how the war to protect and shield it is undertaken, whether it’s by direct means, by association or tenuous links through simple influence or obligation.
All that matters to the money-men (and women) of the City of London is that it wins.
The City of London and by extension in common parlance, “The City” survives through money, for money is power, it is the power behind thrones, behind governments, behind political parties, behind wars. In our modern world, little survives, or even dies without access to money. Witness the administration process – the City extracts its death toll, the little people are left to fight over what remains.
The City places allegiances that provide profit above all. That was evident in its financing of the Second World War axis powers, specifically Nazi Germany, where the chairman of the Bank of England, Montague Norman was instrumental in funneling untold millions to Hitler’s coffers, including the Czechoslovakian gold reserves after the Nazi’s invaded their country.[1]
So much for the Czechs belief that they could trust the British state, sadly, like so many others, they put their faith in the City.
From that day to the present privatisation process that’s spreading the tentacles of capital and greed through England’s NHS and other public institutions, the City has played its part.
The Bank of England isn’t part of the UK state in so far as it is not directly controlled by Westminster, it is part and parcel of the City and other than to protect its base trading currency Sterling, has demonstrably worked as much for international finance and its own nefarious purposes as it has in support of either the UK government or the Crown. In cases where the City has found its purposes to be at odds with the common weal its tendencies, as noted above, have leaned towards what’s best for the City.
With the central bank and the City not dedicated to the national interest, other than as it supports their own ends, there is substantial leeway for both to work in nefarious ways against the common good and in pursuit of the profit gods.
Privatisation of education (which may be completed within 3 years, according to the NUT [2]) and the NHS in England are two prime current examples, privatisation of water in England is a recent past example. When a system is in the public domain the costs of the system are issues for the public purse, however the benefits of the system are also devolved to a common benefit. The net to commercial enterprise, excluding some ancillary contracts, is zero. The potential for profit by the private sector is close to zero.
Looking slightly more closely at water, now transferred to the private sector, the net cost to the public sector should equate to the previous net cost to the private sector, zero. Somehow in the great scheme of things the denizens of the City of London, where these transactions take place, have managed not only to facilitate the transfer of assets from public to private but to keep the public on the hook for ongoing maintenance and upgrades in projects like the London sewer renewal. This sewer project set to cost the UK billions or the equivalent of about £150 for every Scots taxpayer.
That’s £150 for an upgrade to a privately owned network that’s not even in our country.
The City has done well from its inappropriate privatisation of Water. Inappropriate because any nation or community should have universal water, health and elderly care available at basic levels. At a minimum the areas which should invariably be in the public domain for at least basic service, are fields without which life would quickly become untenable if the company controlling it was liquidated, or areas which promote societal equalisation of opportunity i.e. access to education.
Water is one such area.
The Union parties would have Scotland follow England’s example and privatise water so that we also could subsidise private profit, we’d just be doing it two countries instead of one. The Union likes standardization, it prefers everything to be the same, it constantly promotes the idea of “one country” rather than the reality of two nations bound by a political Union that has shifted and slid through time to now include two others.
Privatisation of the NHS has begun and despite the cries of doctors, nurses, consultants and physicians it will march on. It started under the Conservatives, continued under Labour and is striding forwards under this latest coalition. There is one organisation which has the power to push such a policy through successive different governments; there is one City that stands to profit from it.
NHS privatisation will be some time in coming. The very size and inertia of an organisation like the NHS will take time to move. The political groundwork must also be prepared. The charge is that the nation can’t afford the NHS, yet we’re told it can afford Trident and a near countless procession of foreign wars.
Consider the argument, the nation can’t afford the NHS, yet medical care will still be required. If the NHS doesn’t provide it in ten or twenty years it will be up to the free market, the City, to be instrumental in its provision. The difference with the City is that with everything else it will be based upon an ability to pay. There will be an inbuilt profit factor, that factor will be as much as the market will bear for such is the way of big capitol. The City would like to see profit margins of as much as 100% or more, but would possibly accept between 20% and 25% as viable. The private company my husband worked for operated on a nominal 1.43, or 43% profit margin.
With NHS expenditure in 2008/9 in England and Wales at approximately £100 billion [3] and a conservative 33% profit margin that means the immediate cost of a private health service to the nation would exceed £130 billion, or over £1,000 extra every year for taxpayers in order to satiate the City’s avarice. There would be no extra service, no premiums, that’s just to keep the waiting times and inefficiencies we have today.
Then we can open for discussion the profits to be made from health insurance.
Or we can open for discussion how an independent Scotland should tackle these issues.
There are fundamentally two governments within the UK seat of power, London. Westminster and the City of London are both calling the shots, and although the City is noticeably a shadowy figure in the background, through the power of money it’s arguably by far more influential. However, these dual policymakers don’t always have similar goals.
Demonstrably the City invariably prevails. Witness “too big to fail” and “The banking crisis”. In both scenarios City greed destroyed what it had attempted to build, and then pressured lawmakers into requiring the taxpayer to underwrite or pay for the stupidity of City policy and actions. Laws were even changed to facilitate City operations, simply recall the HBOS and Lloyds merger for just one example.
Lawmakers now see it as normal to use our public funds to bail out private industry, as long as it’s big enough to be of concern to the City. In this respect the City controls much of mainstream policy at Westminster.
It’s been that way for centuries; the City of London Corporation’s eight century old “war chest” of cash reserves used to fight anything which may be inimical to its rule and authority is exempt from FOI legislation. It does not matter to the City of London Corporation how the war to protect and shield it is undertaken, whether it’s by direct means, by association or tenuous links through simple influence or obligation.
All that matters to the money-men (and women) of the City of London is that it wins.
The City of London and by extension in common parlance, “The City” survives through money, for money is power, it is the power behind thrones, behind governments, behind political parties, behind wars. In our modern world, little survives, or even dies without access to money. Witness the administration process – the City extracts its death toll, the little people are left to fight over what remains.
The City places allegiances that provide profit above all. That was evident in its financing of the Second World War axis powers, specifically Nazi Germany, where the chairman of the Bank of England, Montague Norman was instrumental in funneling untold millions to Hitler’s coffers, including the Czechoslovakian gold reserves after the Nazi’s invaded their country.[1]
So much for the Czechs belief that they could trust the British state, sadly, like so many others, they put their faith in the City.
From that day to the present privatisation process that’s spreading the tentacles of capital and greed through England’s NHS and other public institutions, the City has played its part.
The Bank of England isn’t part of the UK state in so far as it is not directly controlled by Westminster, it is part and parcel of the City and other than to protect its base trading currency Sterling, has demonstrably worked as much for international finance and its own nefarious purposes as it has in support of either the UK government or the Crown. In cases where the City has found its purposes to be at odds with the common weal its tendencies, as noted above, have leaned towards what’s best for the City.
With the central bank and the City not dedicated to the national interest, other than as it supports their own ends, there is substantial leeway for both to work in nefarious ways against the common good and in pursuit of the profit gods.
Privatisation of education (which may be completed within 3 years, according to the NUT [2]) and the NHS in England are two prime current examples, privatisation of water in England is a recent past example. When a system is in the public domain the costs of the system are issues for the public purse, however the benefits of the system are also devolved to a common benefit. The net to commercial enterprise, excluding some ancillary contracts, is zero. The potential for profit by the private sector is close to zero.
Looking slightly more closely at water, now transferred to the private sector, the net cost to the public sector should equate to the previous net cost to the private sector, zero. Somehow in the great scheme of things the denizens of the City of London, where these transactions take place, have managed not only to facilitate the transfer of assets from public to private but to keep the public on the hook for ongoing maintenance and upgrades in projects like the London sewer renewal. This sewer project set to cost the UK billions or the equivalent of about £150 for every Scots taxpayer.
That’s £150 for an upgrade to a privately owned network that’s not even in our country.
The City has done well from its inappropriate privatisation of Water. Inappropriate because any nation or community should have universal water, health and elderly care available at basic levels. At a minimum the areas which should invariably be in the public domain for at least basic service, are fields without which life would quickly become untenable if the company controlling it was liquidated, or areas which promote societal equalisation of opportunity i.e. access to education.
Water is one such area.
The Union parties would have Scotland follow England’s example and privatise water so that we also could subsidise private profit, we’d just be doing it two countries instead of one. The Union likes standardization, it prefers everything to be the same, it constantly promotes the idea of “one country” rather than the reality of two nations bound by a political Union that has shifted and slid through time to now include two others.
Privatisation of the NHS has begun and despite the cries of doctors, nurses, consultants and physicians it will march on. It started under the Conservatives, continued under Labour and is striding forwards under this latest coalition. There is one organisation which has the power to push such a policy through successive different governments; there is one City that stands to profit from it.
NHS privatisation will be some time in coming. The very size and inertia of an organisation like the NHS will take time to move. The political groundwork must also be prepared. The charge is that the nation can’t afford the NHS, yet we’re told it can afford Trident and a near countless procession of foreign wars.
Consider the argument, the nation can’t afford the NHS, yet medical care will still be required. If the NHS doesn’t provide it in ten or twenty years it will be up to the free market, the City, to be instrumental in its provision. The difference with the City is that with everything else it will be based upon an ability to pay. There will be an inbuilt profit factor, that factor will be as much as the market will bear for such is the way of big capitol. The City would like to see profit margins of as much as 100% or more, but would possibly accept between 20% and 25% as viable. The private company my husband worked for operated on a nominal 1.43, or 43% profit margin.
With NHS expenditure in 2008/9 in England and Wales at approximately £100 billion [3] and a conservative 33% profit margin that means the immediate cost of a private health service to the nation would exceed £130 billion, or over £1,000 extra every year for taxpayers in order to satiate the City’s avarice. There would be no extra service, no premiums, that’s just to keep the waiting times and inefficiencies we have today.
Then we can open for discussion the profits to be made from health insurance.
Or we can open for discussion how an independent Scotland should tackle these issues.
Monday, 16 April 2012
The tentacles of the City of London.
Recently there was an article in The Economist misnaming Scotland as “Skintland” the cover almost totally misrepresenting the situation post independence.
There were two remarkable outcomes from the Economists graphic; first was the level of media coverage and story dissemination it generated, resulting in a superb short term publicity stunt. Second was the data showing the wealth distribution graph within the current UK. A graph which is relatively linear, progressing steadily until the topmost segment, the City of London, is reached and then there is an inordinate jump in personal GDP.
Many railed against the Scots graphic, but none appeared to question why or how the City of London has managed such an enormously disproportionate wealth gap when the odds seem to be stacked severely against such an occurrence.
In the City of London everything costs more, salaries, accommodation, food, basic necessities, transport, even parking is at a severe premium.
Under a taxation system where higher earnings should equate to higher taxes, and where there’s no “London loading” taxation exemption, the GDP differentials should self correct.
It costs more to incentivize staff to relocate to London. Organisations must account for higher property valuation overheads. In a logical world anyone could be forgiven for believing there would be a mass exodus of companies from London to other parts of the UK; that this hasn’t happened indicates a situation that goes against almost all economic models, especially in an era of almost instantaneous communication.
The answer lies in England’s past. It’s a situation that not only the UK inherited but which has spread its tentacles worldwide, has been responsible for driving UK and often world policy for centuries and from Scotland’s perspective, still continues to do so.
The City of London Corporation and its constituent members have self evidently been responsible for untold levels of global misery, and arguably uncounted loss of life.
Behind all of the atrocities, the anti democratic laws, the insane executive orders lies the power of money and the pursuit of it within the City. Behind the policy of Westminster, particularly under Tory governments lies the power of the Corporation.
The Corporation is an ancient creature, dating in its present form from William the Conqueror in 1067; it has survived largely untouched because of the power of money. Fundamentally the City of London is attractive to business headquarters because it is in effect an offshore tax haven within the British state.
William the First granted the City Corporation this special charter because he knew without it, London and therefore England was unlikely to be subdued. With the City and its resources on his side the task was achievable.
In reality “Tax Havens” are playgrounds of the very wealthy where the laws of the land of birth or residency can be avoided. It’s also significant that almost all current “tax havens” are former British colonies or current crown dependencies. The British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands; the list goes on.
The Cayman Islands' tax and secrecy laws are not designed for the benefit of the small number of residents. They exist to help wealthy people and corporations, mostly in the US and Europe, get around the rules of their own democratic societies. The outcome is one set of rules for a rich elite and another for the rest of us.
While the City of London Corporation profits, the rest of Society suffers an undue burden.
The City's status in Britain stems from a simple formula: over centuries, monarchs and governments have sought City loans, and in exchange the City has extracted privileges and freedoms from rules and laws to which the rest of first England, then Great Britain and now the UK must submit.
Historically it wasn’t all bad, the Corporation did reign in the odd unwieldy monarch, but it wasn’t altruism, it was enlightened self interest to protect its own. In modern times, post 1707, the Corporation has simply worked financial systems to its own purpose.
Whenever the Queen makes a state entry to the City, she meets a red cord raised by City police at Temple Bar, and then engages in a colourful ceremony involving the lord mayor, his sword, aldermen and sheriffs, with a character called the Remembrancer. This modern ceremony marks the political separation at the City's borders.
The Remembrancer, whose position dates from the reign of Elizabeth I, is the City's official lobbyist in parliament, sitting opposite the Speaker, and is "charged with maintaining and enhancing the City's status and ensuring that its established rights are safeguarded". His office watches out for political dissent against the City and lobbies on financial matters.
Then there is the City's Cash, "a private fund built up over the last eight centuries", which among many other things helps buy off dissent. Only part of it is visible: the Freedom of Information Act applies solely to its functions as a local authority or police authority.
The full assets of the City of London Corporation are beyond even rudimentary democratic scrutiny.
The Corporation is different from any other local authority; international finance co-mingles with ancient rites and customs that underline its separateness and power with mystifying and near invisible interconnections within its guilds.
Among the City's 108 livery companies, or trade associations is found the Fletchers (arrow-makers) as well as the Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers, whose prime aims is "to support the Lord Mayor and the City of London Corporation", and the Worshipful Company of International Bankers.
For centuries reformers in England, then Britain have tried and failed to have the corporation merged into a unified London authority. The political landscape often heaved and shifted in its direct vicinity, but the City stood immune. Resulting exemptions and immunities from law and the ability to effectively remove issues from history that the City's grandees have created are astonishing. In 1881 the Times wrote, "The City Corporation is sacred although nothing else is."
For much of the 20th century, the Labour Party had a pledge in its manifesto to abolish the corporation. Peter Mandelson's grandfather said: "Is it not time London faced up to the pretentious buffoonery of the City of London Corporation and wipe it off the municipal map?" "The City is now a square mile of entrenched reaction, the home of the devilry of modern finance."
Clement Attlee took up the baton in 1937. "Over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster," he said. "Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which has been decided by the people.
Attlee was perhaps bristling at the fact that the City of London Corporation was a driving force behind the Nazi Party.
All political organizations require money, Germany in 1930 was bankrupt, yet by 1938 she had the best infrastructure and war machine in Europe. It all had to be paid for.
Perhaps Attlee was viewing the situation in the same light as Paul Einzig, foreign editor of "Financial News," who wrote at the time in World Finance, "Practically the whole of the free exchange available to Germany for the purchase of raw materials was supplied directly or indirectly by the British Government."
One year later The City Corporation was still making money in Nazi Germany, the UK Government knew for weeks that Hitler was massing troops on the Polish border, yet in the thirteen days before declaring war on September 1, 1939, Britain shipped Germany 17,000 tons of rubber, 8,000 tons of copper, and large stocks of nickel, tin and lead.
The London "Evening Standard" for August 21, 1939 stated: "To execute the orders in time, heavy withdrawals were made from stores in the United Kingdom. A third of our stocks of rubber and a quarter of our supplies of nickel have gone and are on their way to Germany."
It might be mentioned that the City financing of Nazi Germany disappeared from the record in Sutton's post war account of the financing and support which previously included very generous representations from England's banking, insurance, munitions, transportation and oil companies.
Even after war was declared it may be construed that the City was behind Chamberlains refusal to permit the RAF in France to overfly Germany and hit German targets. German infrastructure was declared “private property” by an executive order of the Prime Minister of the day. The result was the German surprise attack in the Ardennes and the loss of the British Expeditionary force.
The City of London Corporation made its money, and the Nazi assets backing those funds were protected, for a little while at least.
Eight years later Clement Attlee, now Prime Minister charged that "from the outset a large part of the City had given every support and encouragement to German rearmament."
No part of the City of London Corporation or its officers was ever held to account.
Labour never did abolish the corporation; instead, the Greater London Council was abolished in 1986 under Margaret Thatcher. In 1996, Tony Blair got Labour to replace its pledge to abolish the corporation with a promise merely to "reform" it.
Such is the influence of the City of London Corporation over the politics of the British Isles; it is everything to do with the power of money and the revolving door between the City and the Palace of Westminster.
In 2002 this Blair charter amendment was an astonishing gift to the corporation.
Like any other local authority, the City of London is divided into wards. These elect candidates to serve on the Court of Common Council, the City's principal decision-making body. Unlike any other local authority, however, individual people are not the only voters: businesses can vote, too. Political parties are not involved - candidates stand alone as independents - and this makes organised challenge to City business consensus all but impossible.
Before 2002, the 17,000 business votes already swamped the 6,000-odd residents. Blair's reforms expanded the business vote to about 32,000 and allowed a say, based on the size of their workforce in the Square Mile, to international banks and other big players.
Voting now reflects the wishes not of the City's 300,000 workers, but of corporate managements. Organizations as diverse as Goldman Sachs and the People's Bank of China get to vote in what is arguably Britain's most important local election, and thereby obtain a direct policy line to Number 10.
The City spin on the gift was that it would be "radical change that is essential to keep a world-class financial centre". Glasman called it "a retrograde step”. These workers were effectively being subordinated to a level comparable, he said, to the voting rights of chattel owners in the pre-war American South: the slavery franchise.
What is critical to those who live in modern Britain is it means the City's rights pre-date the construction of even the Union of Parliaments, and this has placed it outside parliament's normal legislative remit.
The City evolved as an institution not so much subordinate to parliament, or the church, or the Crown, but adjacent to and intertwined with them in complex relationships.
It is no coincidence that the capital of what was once the world's greatest empire - with the City as "governor of the imperial engine", according to the historians Cain and Hopkins - has become a focus of the modern global offshore system.
The Bank of England, fixed in the heart of the City, in effect encouraged tax havens. By the 1980s, the City was at the centre of a great, secretive financial web cast across the globe, each of whose sections - the individual havens - trapped passing money and business from nearby jurisdictions and fed them up to the City: just as a spider catches insects. So, a complex merger involving a US multinational could route a lot of the transaction through Caribbean havens, whose British firms then send much of the profits up to the City.
This is the source of the City’s skewed GDP and balance sheets.
The Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, which focus heavily on European business, form the web's inner ring. In the second quarter of 2009, Jersey alone provided £135bn in bank deposits to the City. Jersey Finance, states: "Jersey is an extension of the City of London."
The next ring of the web contains the British overseas territories, such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Like the Crown dependencies, they have governors appointed by the Queen and are controlled by Britain in myriad ways, but with enough distance to allow Britain to say "There is nothing we can do" when it suits. This “not us” cry is a fallacy.
The web's outer ring contains an assortment of havens, such as Mauritius and Hong Kong. Britain does not control these, but they still feed billions in business to the City.
The corporation has two main claims to being a tax haven: it’s semi-autonomous, floating partly free from Britain (like the Cayman Islands), and it’s the hub of a global network of tax havens sucking up offshore trillions from around the world and sending it to London.
Nearly every multinational corporation has offshore subsidiaries (not counting those in London). The biggest users of offshore finance are banks. It was recently reported there are over 550 offshore subsidiaries just for Barclays, RBS and Lloyds. Banks go offshore to escape certain financial regulations, they can grow faster. This makes the City and its offshore net a big part of the “Too Big To Fail” story.
This was just one of myriad facts within the City that gave Barclay’s chief executive, Bob Diamond, the brazen cheek to tell the UK Treasury select committee on 11 January that he didn't know how many offshore subsidiaries his bank had, but that the "period of remorse and apology" for banks should now end.
What’s the purpose of the dubiously elected Lord Mayor of London; The Lord Mayor and colleagues promise to "take up cudgels on behalf of the City anywhere in the world on any subject which is of concern to the City". They appear ably aided by Westminster policy.
In the end the purpose of the City of London Corporation as a municipal authority is its least important attribute. It’s fundamentally a massively financed international offshore lobbying group pushing for international financial deregulation, tax-cutting and tax havens.
For Scots, there are two issues in the future. The first is extracting themselves from the tentacles of the City, for every Union vote is surely not a vote for democracy, it is a vote for the City and its control of government policy.
This is why Union policy is nearly identical for every party. Union policy is effectively controlled by spread betting on behalf of the City.
If Labour wins, the bondholders of the City must be placated.
If the Tories win, their backers in the City must be appeased.
If the Lib-Dem’s manage a miracle they are bound by both bondholders and backers.
There is only one solution to the trap, “YES” in 2014. Until then Scotland will be ruled by Westminster in name only, the true power lies in an adjacent square mile that our votes and democracy have no ability to impact.
Liberty or the London Corporation, it’s really that simple.
These are only some of the well over 30 articles and archives read in the making of this particular blog.
With thanks to:
New Statesman
Open Democracy
City of London Corporation
Tax Haven in the Heart of Britain
London Metropolitan Archives
The Conquerors Charter
The Nazi's British Bankers: Independent Article 1997
England Financed Germany Before WW2
Men Behind Hitler
Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler's Rise to Power
Trading With The Enemy, How the Allied multinationals supplied Nazi Germany throughout World War Two
There were two remarkable outcomes from the Economists graphic; first was the level of media coverage and story dissemination it generated, resulting in a superb short term publicity stunt. Second was the data showing the wealth distribution graph within the current UK. A graph which is relatively linear, progressing steadily until the topmost segment, the City of London, is reached and then there is an inordinate jump in personal GDP.
Many railed against the Scots graphic, but none appeared to question why or how the City of London has managed such an enormously disproportionate wealth gap when the odds seem to be stacked severely against such an occurrence.
In the City of London everything costs more, salaries, accommodation, food, basic necessities, transport, even parking is at a severe premium.
Under a taxation system where higher earnings should equate to higher taxes, and where there’s no “London loading” taxation exemption, the GDP differentials should self correct.
It costs more to incentivize staff to relocate to London. Organisations must account for higher property valuation overheads. In a logical world anyone could be forgiven for believing there would be a mass exodus of companies from London to other parts of the UK; that this hasn’t happened indicates a situation that goes against almost all economic models, especially in an era of almost instantaneous communication.
The answer lies in England’s past. It’s a situation that not only the UK inherited but which has spread its tentacles worldwide, has been responsible for driving UK and often world policy for centuries and from Scotland’s perspective, still continues to do so.
The City of London Corporation and its constituent members have self evidently been responsible for untold levels of global misery, and arguably uncounted loss of life.
Behind all of the atrocities, the anti democratic laws, the insane executive orders lies the power of money and the pursuit of it within the City. Behind the policy of Westminster, particularly under Tory governments lies the power of the Corporation.
The Corporation is an ancient creature, dating in its present form from William the Conqueror in 1067; it has survived largely untouched because of the power of money. Fundamentally the City of London is attractive to business headquarters because it is in effect an offshore tax haven within the British state.
William the First granted the City Corporation this special charter because he knew without it, London and therefore England was unlikely to be subdued. With the City and its resources on his side the task was achievable.
In reality “Tax Havens” are playgrounds of the very wealthy where the laws of the land of birth or residency can be avoided. It’s also significant that almost all current “tax havens” are former British colonies or current crown dependencies. The British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, the Cayman Islands; the list goes on.
The Cayman Islands' tax and secrecy laws are not designed for the benefit of the small number of residents. They exist to help wealthy people and corporations, mostly in the US and Europe, get around the rules of their own democratic societies. The outcome is one set of rules for a rich elite and another for the rest of us.
While the City of London Corporation profits, the rest of Society suffers an undue burden.
The City's status in Britain stems from a simple formula: over centuries, monarchs and governments have sought City loans, and in exchange the City has extracted privileges and freedoms from rules and laws to which the rest of first England, then Great Britain and now the UK must submit.
Historically it wasn’t all bad, the Corporation did reign in the odd unwieldy monarch, but it wasn’t altruism, it was enlightened self interest to protect its own. In modern times, post 1707, the Corporation has simply worked financial systems to its own purpose.
Whenever the Queen makes a state entry to the City, she meets a red cord raised by City police at Temple Bar, and then engages in a colourful ceremony involving the lord mayor, his sword, aldermen and sheriffs, with a character called the Remembrancer. This modern ceremony marks the political separation at the City's borders.
The Remembrancer, whose position dates from the reign of Elizabeth I, is the City's official lobbyist in parliament, sitting opposite the Speaker, and is "charged with maintaining and enhancing the City's status and ensuring that its established rights are safeguarded". His office watches out for political dissent against the City and lobbies on financial matters.
Then there is the City's Cash, "a private fund built up over the last eight centuries", which among many other things helps buy off dissent. Only part of it is visible: the Freedom of Information Act applies solely to its functions as a local authority or police authority.
The full assets of the City of London Corporation are beyond even rudimentary democratic scrutiny.
The Corporation is different from any other local authority; international finance co-mingles with ancient rites and customs that underline its separateness and power with mystifying and near invisible interconnections within its guilds.
Among the City's 108 livery companies, or trade associations is found the Fletchers (arrow-makers) as well as the Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers, whose prime aims is "to support the Lord Mayor and the City of London Corporation", and the Worshipful Company of International Bankers.
For centuries reformers in England, then Britain have tried and failed to have the corporation merged into a unified London authority. The political landscape often heaved and shifted in its direct vicinity, but the City stood immune. Resulting exemptions and immunities from law and the ability to effectively remove issues from history that the City's grandees have created are astonishing. In 1881 the Times wrote, "The City Corporation is sacred although nothing else is."
For much of the 20th century, the Labour Party had a pledge in its manifesto to abolish the corporation. Peter Mandelson's grandfather said: "Is it not time London faced up to the pretentious buffoonery of the City of London Corporation and wipe it off the municipal map?" "The City is now a square mile of entrenched reaction, the home of the devilry of modern finance."
Clement Attlee took up the baton in 1937. "Over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster," he said. "Those who control money can pursue a policy at home and abroad contrary to that which has been decided by the people.
Attlee was perhaps bristling at the fact that the City of London Corporation was a driving force behind the Nazi Party.
All political organizations require money, Germany in 1930 was bankrupt, yet by 1938 she had the best infrastructure and war machine in Europe. It all had to be paid for.
Perhaps Attlee was viewing the situation in the same light as Paul Einzig, foreign editor of "Financial News," who wrote at the time in World Finance, "Practically the whole of the free exchange available to Germany for the purchase of raw materials was supplied directly or indirectly by the British Government."
One year later The City Corporation was still making money in Nazi Germany, the UK Government knew for weeks that Hitler was massing troops on the Polish border, yet in the thirteen days before declaring war on September 1, 1939, Britain shipped Germany 17,000 tons of rubber, 8,000 tons of copper, and large stocks of nickel, tin and lead.
The London "Evening Standard" for August 21, 1939 stated: "To execute the orders in time, heavy withdrawals were made from stores in the United Kingdom. A third of our stocks of rubber and a quarter of our supplies of nickel have gone and are on their way to Germany."
It might be mentioned that the City financing of Nazi Germany disappeared from the record in Sutton's post war account of the financing and support which previously included very generous representations from England's banking, insurance, munitions, transportation and oil companies.
Even after war was declared it may be construed that the City was behind Chamberlains refusal to permit the RAF in France to overfly Germany and hit German targets. German infrastructure was declared “private property” by an executive order of the Prime Minister of the day. The result was the German surprise attack in the Ardennes and the loss of the British Expeditionary force.
The City of London Corporation made its money, and the Nazi assets backing those funds were protected, for a little while at least.
Eight years later Clement Attlee, now Prime Minister charged that "from the outset a large part of the City had given every support and encouragement to German rearmament."
No part of the City of London Corporation or its officers was ever held to account.
Labour never did abolish the corporation; instead, the Greater London Council was abolished in 1986 under Margaret Thatcher. In 1996, Tony Blair got Labour to replace its pledge to abolish the corporation with a promise merely to "reform" it.
Such is the influence of the City of London Corporation over the politics of the British Isles; it is everything to do with the power of money and the revolving door between the City and the Palace of Westminster.
In 2002 this Blair charter amendment was an astonishing gift to the corporation.
Like any other local authority, the City of London is divided into wards. These elect candidates to serve on the Court of Common Council, the City's principal decision-making body. Unlike any other local authority, however, individual people are not the only voters: businesses can vote, too. Political parties are not involved - candidates stand alone as independents - and this makes organised challenge to City business consensus all but impossible.
Before 2002, the 17,000 business votes already swamped the 6,000-odd residents. Blair's reforms expanded the business vote to about 32,000 and allowed a say, based on the size of their workforce in the Square Mile, to international banks and other big players.
Voting now reflects the wishes not of the City's 300,000 workers, but of corporate managements. Organizations as diverse as Goldman Sachs and the People's Bank of China get to vote in what is arguably Britain's most important local election, and thereby obtain a direct policy line to Number 10.
The City spin on the gift was that it would be "radical change that is essential to keep a world-class financial centre". Glasman called it "a retrograde step”. These workers were effectively being subordinated to a level comparable, he said, to the voting rights of chattel owners in the pre-war American South: the slavery franchise.
What is critical to those who live in modern Britain is it means the City's rights pre-date the construction of even the Union of Parliaments, and this has placed it outside parliament's normal legislative remit.
The City evolved as an institution not so much subordinate to parliament, or the church, or the Crown, but adjacent to and intertwined with them in complex relationships.
It is no coincidence that the capital of what was once the world's greatest empire - with the City as "governor of the imperial engine", according to the historians Cain and Hopkins - has become a focus of the modern global offshore system.
The Bank of England, fixed in the heart of the City, in effect encouraged tax havens. By the 1980s, the City was at the centre of a great, secretive financial web cast across the globe, each of whose sections - the individual havens - trapped passing money and business from nearby jurisdictions and fed them up to the City: just as a spider catches insects. So, a complex merger involving a US multinational could route a lot of the transaction through Caribbean havens, whose British firms then send much of the profits up to the City.
This is the source of the City’s skewed GDP and balance sheets.
The Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, which focus heavily on European business, form the web's inner ring. In the second quarter of 2009, Jersey alone provided £135bn in bank deposits to the City. Jersey Finance, states: "Jersey is an extension of the City of London."
The next ring of the web contains the British overseas territories, such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Like the Crown dependencies, they have governors appointed by the Queen and are controlled by Britain in myriad ways, but with enough distance to allow Britain to say "There is nothing we can do" when it suits. This “not us” cry is a fallacy.
The web's outer ring contains an assortment of havens, such as Mauritius and Hong Kong. Britain does not control these, but they still feed billions in business to the City.
The corporation has two main claims to being a tax haven: it’s semi-autonomous, floating partly free from Britain (like the Cayman Islands), and it’s the hub of a global network of tax havens sucking up offshore trillions from around the world and sending it to London.
Nearly every multinational corporation has offshore subsidiaries (not counting those in London). The biggest users of offshore finance are banks. It was recently reported there are over 550 offshore subsidiaries just for Barclays, RBS and Lloyds. Banks go offshore to escape certain financial regulations, they can grow faster. This makes the City and its offshore net a big part of the “Too Big To Fail” story.
This was just one of myriad facts within the City that gave Barclay’s chief executive, Bob Diamond, the brazen cheek to tell the UK Treasury select committee on 11 January that he didn't know how many offshore subsidiaries his bank had, but that the "period of remorse and apology" for banks should now end.
What’s the purpose of the dubiously elected Lord Mayor of London; The Lord Mayor and colleagues promise to "take up cudgels on behalf of the City anywhere in the world on any subject which is of concern to the City". They appear ably aided by Westminster policy.
In the end the purpose of the City of London Corporation as a municipal authority is its least important attribute. It’s fundamentally a massively financed international offshore lobbying group pushing for international financial deregulation, tax-cutting and tax havens.
For Scots, there are two issues in the future. The first is extracting themselves from the tentacles of the City, for every Union vote is surely not a vote for democracy, it is a vote for the City and its control of government policy.
This is why Union policy is nearly identical for every party. Union policy is effectively controlled by spread betting on behalf of the City.
If Labour wins, the bondholders of the City must be placated.
If the Tories win, their backers in the City must be appeased.
If the Lib-Dem’s manage a miracle they are bound by both bondholders and backers.
There is only one solution to the trap, “YES” in 2014. Until then Scotland will be ruled by Westminster in name only, the true power lies in an adjacent square mile that our votes and democracy have no ability to impact.
Liberty or the London Corporation, it’s really that simple.
These are only some of the well over 30 articles and archives read in the making of this particular blog.
With thanks to:
New Statesman
Open Democracy
City of London Corporation
Tax Haven in the Heart of Britain
London Metropolitan Archives
The Conquerors Charter
The Nazi's British Bankers: Independent Article 1997
England Financed Germany Before WW2
Men Behind Hitler
Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler's Rise to Power
Trading With The Enemy, How the Allied multinationals supplied Nazi Germany throughout World War Two
Friday, 13 April 2012
Is Holyrood fit for purpose?
The clear answer is that as a national government it must be “no”. As a product of Westminster’s machinations it served its function for less than a decade. As a vehicle of national hope and inspiration, of grass roots change it failed for the greater part of that first decade. Holyrood has come somewhat of age not because it was designed to, but in spite of the fact that it was created to forever prevent its own maturity.
Scotland’s government in Edinburgh is seeing small measures of success simply due to the overwhelming opinion of the Scots electorate, an electorate that did something it was designed to be unable to do – it elected a majority nationalist government.
The fact that a political franchise was designed to fundamentally defeat democracy declares it, quite simply and just as conclusively, not fit for purpose. The D’Hondt system isn’t intrinsically bad, it was Westminster’s modifications to it that cause issues; modifications designed to prevent Scots aspirations.
The tipping point towards reform in Scotland has been crossed as Scots became aware that the only political advancement they are likely to see is that which they take for themselves. This understanding is also evident outside our borders from the increasing crescendo of anti Nationalist verbiage in Scotland’s foreign controlled mainstream media, to such an extent that the legislature in Holyrood even stands “accused” of failing to act in areas where it has no current authority, such as closing corporation tax loopholes.
Holyrood might as well stand accused of failing to steer US foreign policy.
Opinion polls on independence are now neck and neck; momentum running with the liberty option.
Still the political parties and mainstream media appear not to want to discuss the future of democracy in Scotland. This is to be expected of Westminster backed organisations, they are devoted to protecting London rule and the illusion of democratic process perpetuated by vested interest.
The independence proponents must provide an alternative, they must provide the disenfranchised and apathetic with a way to either make a difference in the political process or believe that it will at least actually represent them. They must bring the greatest slice of franchise possible on board.
This thought process reveals a significant set of questions that remains unasked; at the forefront is what we in Scotland can learn from Westminster’s mistakes and how to apply that learning so that no part of our own resurgent nation undergoes the damages presently inflicted upon the current UK from London.
We should study as many varied systems as possible in our search for a singularly Scottish solution to good government, an enfranchised electorate and strong political accountability.
We must begin by asking ourselves why we accept, even expect breach of promise from politicians when in any other area of life they would be required to hold to their word or face consequences. Breach of promise should apply to politicians equally with any other individual.
What of the current Scottish Parliament itself, we should see if it is actually fit for purpose and thoroughly examine what can be reasonably be expected of it and the direction it will choose, and ensure that it’s path is the same one we as individuals would collectively walk.
The modified D’Hondt system of proportional representation that Scots presently live with is inappropriate. It was designed, tailored by another nation to specifically prevent a single party majority in Scotland.
Any political system must be designed to reflect the wishes of its electorate, not be put in place to defeat them. That would perpetuate the wildest dreams of history’s cruelest regimes.
In the longer term due to both the relative quantity and the method of the MSP’s elected through the list vote, it must be changed. The first past the post system is fine for constituency MP’s, the number and quantity of these is also reasonable for a nation of Scotland’s size.
The issue with the list MSP’s is that they are primarily selected by party officials, and that is hardly appropriate as the electorate begins the process already somewhat disenfranchised. The system could perhaps be adjusted by reducing the list seats to 50, still using the D’Hondt system, constituencies could be set to 70 with size determined by population.
We could have 10 regions; each would be approximately geographically equal. Each constituency within the region gets its votes totaled and that selects the list MSP’s under the D’Hondt system with the caveat that the highest number of votes on the list is also the first MSP selected. Simply because a party wins a constituency seat it should not see its list vote diminished. These all could go to a lower house.
That works fine, up to a point, it certainly is more representative of the wishes of the electorate.
The problem with a D’Hondt system is that almost invariably there is a requirement for a coalition. The present Holyrood parliament is a definite exception to that rule. Coalitions are not necessarily bad, but by their very nature they are intrinsically less stable.
The second problem with the current voting system which is fully highlighted by the corrupt and intransigent Westminster example is that there is no proper second house.
This lack of a functional second chamber leads to substantial disenfranchisement; it also helps entrench voter apathy in the current UK. Why bother voting when half the government, far more than half by numbers is now simply there for life. People who have no concern about any impact their actions may have, such as life peers, often display little thought for those they are supposed to represent. A free Scotland should outlaw lifetime political appointees.
In any nation state there should always be a balance, it is right and proper that centers of population have a strong voice, that is where the majority live, but what about rural areas who’s needs have a tendency to speak with a quieter voice at national level. They must not be relatively disenfranchised. Scotland’s rural and outlying areas must never become another northern England with little hope of ever seeing effective representation in a true democracy.
Scotland must consider areas like the Orkneys, Shetlands, and the Hebrides who’s total area, land and sea, represent massive tracts of our nation. These areas should also have an equal voice, an equal voice that would encourage enfranchisement and immobilise Westminster’s agitation towards breaking Scotland more than she already has. An undertaking from Holyrood would help win their votes also.
Allowing Scots now proportionally pay for upwards of seventy life peerages, we could easily afford a second chamber of fifty, a chamber made up of the geographical list areas rather than by population, but a chamber with its own independent voice. Each of the ten approximately equal regions can elect five additional individuals to represent them in a second chamber.
We could easily utilise an additional vote between Holyrood primary elections to achieve this balance. The second vote can happen during local council elections, there need be no significant additional expense.
Each region having an equal voice in that chamber, irrespective of population size would provide a check and balance system that is considerably less expensive than a hundred Lords a-wittering in Westminster. It would be fairer, it would be quasi federal, it would be elected not appointed and it would serve to assist in moderating any severe excesses or bias that may from time to time issue from the existing chamber at Holyrood.
A geographically elected second house in Scotland would permit the areas of sparser population to feel enfranchised. It would permit them greater representation and would help to ensure their perpetual ongoing commitment to the community of the realm.
Laws would have to pass in both chambers, or the main chamber would be required to overcome a constitutional hurdle to override the second, such as a referendum with 60% approval.
There must be other changes made within Holyrood’s chambers as Scotland walks forwards. The potential of lobbying which could be contrary to the public weal should be minimised. Restricting lobbying is not a difficult proposition; simply prohibit any elected individual from joining any organisation or subsidiary with which they had dealings when in office.
Companies and organisations should be able to donate to the political process if they choose, but those donations should simply enter a common chest that is divided up fairly, perhaps a set amount for each prospective candidate and set amount for each active individual party member. There are ways. Scotland should never become a residence for the Nuclear, the Oil or Chemical lobbies; it should always be a fair and free home for its people.
In an ideal situation our base political process must be funded by tax, and it must be tied to a percentage of GDP. The political parties should only able to raise direct funds through individual memberships.
We have a good start in Holyrood, when compared to Westminster it is already a beacon of light and openness, but it is only a start.
Scotland must have what no nation or central government in Great Britain presently has, it must have a truly representative democracy which is directly answerable to the people, and not just at election time. Our present Holyrood has defied the odds and supplied us with an opportunity to have our say in 2014, when we accept the challenge it will have outlived its purpose, a purpose it was never designed to fulfil.
Thereafter it will be to our present generations to design a new Holyrood, one truly fit for Scotland’s purpose. We must not fail those who will come after us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)