Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK. Show all posts

Monday, 8 September 2014

You're thinking of voting yes? Seriously?

As I write we are 10 days away from the Independence Referendum which will decide whether Scotland leaves the United Kingdom, and becomes an independent country or not.  The polls have narrowed and the result seems uncertain.  The Yes campaign has made up ground and seems to have gained some traction, in particular based on scare stories about the future of the NHS.

I believe the Yes case is actually a rather weak one, driven by nationalists who have always wanted independence simply because that is what they have always wanted - opportunistically taking advantage of a malaise across the western world of global financial crisis and disillusion with political establishments.

And the Nationalists have been joined in this enterprise by some from the left and a hotch-potch of idealists looking for change.  A disparate group.  The problem is everyone is projecting their own dreams onto Independence. It can't be about all of them.

In fact the Yes case seems to be not much more than this:  Bad things happen.  Westminster is to blame.  Vote for independence and bad things won't happen anymore.

My concern is I have seen very little, if any, serious analysis of why we have had an economic crisis and austerity, and I have seen no solutions offered up by the Yes side.  There is much said about poverty and inequality but no serious discussion about how we can tackle these issues.

What we have instead is plenty of faux anger and overstated argument.  Plenty of demonising and othering of scapegoats - mostly summed up by the concept of 'Westminster'.

The Yes campaign see themselves as the real change makers, the catalyst for a thousand lights of radical thought to make a better nation.  They believe they are civic nationalists building something new and good.  Civic nationalism of course takes its inspiration from enlightenment thought and the American Revolution of the 18th century. One of its great writers was Tom Paine. His seminal work "Common Sense" would resonate with many a Yes supporter almost as much as it inspired the revolutionaries of 1776.  In it he wrote, “We have it in our power to begin the world over again".

But here's the thing.  The Scots are in truth quite conservative.  The future that is on offer through independence, far from being progressive about how we can take forward a modern free market welfare state adapted for the 21st century, seems rather more likely to be a regressive step back to the 1970s.  This is a vision that if realised would be unlikely to achieve the results hoped for.

The challenge for Scotland remains, whether we vote Yes or No, how do we spread the prosperity we undoubtedly enjoy in the East to central and western Scotland, and how do we improve our health issues.     


But don’t take it from me.  The nationalists' case is disingenuous and a false one and there are many good reasons to remain part and parcel of Britain.  I have set many of them out below each with some background should you want to read further.


1.  It's not just about the numbers 

It's not about the numbers (Kevin Hague in Chokka Blog)


Why our shared values matter

"At the heart of Britain there is a fusion of Scottish principles of solidarity, egalitarianism and civil society entwined with English values of liberty, tolerance and pragmatism that has created a union for social justice where we pool and share risks and resources across the entire United Kingdom."

(Gordon Brown Labour)


We are not just part of Britain, we made Britain (Ruth Davidson Conservative)


I will vote No because I love Scotland (Ming Campbell Liberal Democrat)


Head and Heart (Archie McPherson)


2.  More Powers

The argument is that Scotland already enjoys the best of both worlds - we have a strong Scottish Parliament, with full control of the NHS, schools and policing, and also the strength and security of being part of the UK.

And each of the three political parties supporting Better Together has, over the last two years, considered developed and published thought through proposals for more powers and further ‘federalising’ the UK.  The three parties have made a public and joint commitment to work together to deliver more powers after a No vote.  Parties working together originally delivered devolution in 1999.  The parties have now delivered a detailed timetable about how they will move swiftly to implement this after the referendum.

Labour’s proposals

The Conservative proposals

The LibDem proposals


3. The economy

Scotland could go it alone but is better as part of the UK (The Economist)


66% of the Scottish economy is in the private sector.  About 40%, or 859,000 jobs, are dependent on trade and ownership links to the UK, while the remaining 26% are linked to the wider world economy. (Prof Ashcroft Strathclyde University - Scottish Economy Watch)


Our economy within the UK is highly interlinked and London is actually (on balance) an asset to the Scottish economy. 
(Prof Ashcroft Strathclyde University - Scottish Economy Watch)


The effect of having a border - trade flows, migration flows and capital flows are significantly lower across international borders than within a unified country. 
(Prof Ashcroft Strathclyde University - Scottish Economy Watch)


Scotland's exports to the rest of the UK accounts for 70% of our 'exports'
(Prof Ashcroft Strathclyde University - Scottish Economy Watch)


Small countries are neither more or less successful than large ones but are more volatile.  (Prof Ashcroft Strathclyde University - Scottish Economy Watch)


Some small states can do well out of independence in some ways. 
(Prof Ashcroft Strathclyde University - Scottish Economy Watch)


The greater tax receipts we have received as a result of oil were invested for the people of Scotland, creating jobs and investing in public services.  We have in effect had our oil fund all along.
(Prof Ashcroft Strathclyde University - Scottish Economy Watch)


We would not be £8.3bn better off under independence.  This is untrue. 
(Kevin Hague in Chokka Blog)


A summary of some other key talking points (Kevin Hague in Chokka Blog)

- Companies in Scotland that trade with the rest of the UK would probably be damaged and suffer job losses by the effect of establishing a border.

- GDP per head does not tell you how rich a country is - an independent Scottish economy would be a middle ranking economy with high levels of foreign ownership.

- Scotland would face some significant hurdles to EU membership and any terms on which we joined.

- The start up costs for an independent are probably close to £2.5bn after analysing the range of estimates.

- Business for Scotland does not represent business in Scotland and is not a serious think tank in any way.



4.  The NHS

The Nationalists are lying about the NHS to gain electoral advantage. (Dr Gregor on the BBC)


Health service spending in England is increasing in real terms, there is more spending per head of population on health in Scotland under devolution, the Scottish Government makes extensive use of private firms to provide healthcare, there is no political party proposing ending the NHS in England - it would be political suicide to do so.  What political arguments there are in England are over the best way to provide healthcare with an ageing population and increasing costs of technology - not over taking away free healthcare.  


5.  Poverty

The SNP's record on poverty is not a good one.  In 7 years in government in Scotland, despite having full control of health and education the SNP have not introduced a single redistributive policy - not one!




6   The EU

An independent Scotland would start her life outside the EU; even thereafter Scotland would enjoy EU membership on terms far less beneficial and generous than those enjoyed now by the UK.  (The definitive guide to the process to joining the EU following leaving the UK by Prof Adam Tomkins, Glasgow University)


7.  Pensions

Pension schemes operating between Scotland and the remainder of the UK would be classed as ‘cross-border’ under EU law if Scotland votes ‘yes’.  This means EU solvency requirements would have major cost and cash flow implications for employers with cross-border pension schemes.  This would be a major financial challenge for employers. (ICAS report)


Scotland faces a challenge to provide pensions after independence for both state pensions and private pension schemes.  (Malcolm MacLean, Pensions expert writing in Money Marketing)


Scotland faces a pensions timebomb due to our ageing population. Pooling resources across over 60m people to provide pensions is one of the big advantages of the UK.  (Daily Record)


8.  Financial Services and bailing out the banks

An independent Scotland would have seriously struggled to bail out the banks in the crash of 2007/08.  In this it is vital to understand the the distinction between giving distressed banks short-term liquidity help and bailing them out. During the crises, UK banks were, for instance, given short-term liquidity help from both the UK government and other governments where they were operating, such as the US government. The bail-out of UK banks, however, came from the UK government, to the sum of somewhere in the vicinity of £66 billion, or over half of Scotland’s GDP in 2010 (which stood at about £110 billion).  (Brad MacKay, University of Edinburgh "The Future of the UK and Scotland")


9.  The advantages of being part of the UK

If you are serious about looking into how Scotland works within the UK and the benefits to Scotland of being in the UK, and there are many, read the Scotland Analysis papers from the UK treasury.



Some of the key advantages of the UK to Scotland include

- Being part of the UK energy market

- The pooled resource across a union for social justice in pensions

- Being part of an integrated single market and currency union

- Science, research and our universities sector within the UK.

- Our financial services industry and banking within a UK sector which due to regulation, tax and currency would have to fragment after separation.

-  The value of UK Defence industries and military shipbuilding to Scotland


10.  The Nationalists' questions

Is there a democratic deficit in Scotland? (Effie Deans blog)

The McCrone Report myth - the extent of North Sea Oil was never a secret.


The Wee Blue Book from extreme nationalist website Wings over Scotland is erroneous in many of its details or deliberately misleading as it is written with an agenda of nationalist propaganda.  Consider this evidence. (Kevin Hague in Chokka Blog)


Business for Scotland do not represent businesses that employ anyone or that deal cross border.  They have no credibility.  The detail (Kevin Hague in Chokka Blog)


It's not about the SNP - yes it is! (Effie Deans blog)


Wings over Scotland is an extreme nationalist blogsite with an agenda of nationalist propaganda.  It is homophobic and mysoginistic.  It also has a consistently angry and outraged tone aiming poisoned articles at its targets.  This is negative and provokes needless hate and division and as such has no place in the debate over Scotland's future. (Edinburgh Eye)


Think again - (Nupateer.Com)


Posted by GHmltn at 11:40 2 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 8 December 2012

We're doomed - America is finished, Europe's a basket case and the Empire is dead


There has been plenty of chatter amongst the McTwitterati of late about Scotland’s relationship with Europe if we vote Yes in 2014.
The world is changing and the canvas of nations being painted in an age of crisis is very different to the past.  This changing canvas cannot be ignored if we are to consider where Scotland’s future place in the world might be.       
Today the BBC news website reports that Winston Churchill’s 1946 Zurich speech has been featured on The European Council’s YouTube channel.  There are, believe it or not, those who regard Churchill as one of the fathers of the EU.
Why?
It is because in Zurich, in the aftermath of the second World War he said, "We must build a kind of United States of Europe” to “turn our backs upon the horrors of the past" and "look to the future".
However, he also said six months before that in Fulton Missouri, "If the population of the English-speaking Commonwealth be added to that of the United States with all that such co-operation implies in the air, on the sea, all over the globe and in science and in industry, and in moral forces, there will be no quivering, precarious balance of power to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure." (This was his famous “Iron Curtain” speech.)
For Churchill believed that peace in the post war world and stability in the face of communism would be guaranteed by three things - the United States, a united Europe and the British Empire.  He was a great European but he was also an Imperialist (born in the 19th century) and an Atlanticist (he had an American mother).  He saw Britain as part of Europe but not of Europe.
Well, that was 1946 and this is now.
In the future, the USA is not going to be the world power it once was.
She must look to the Pacific and China in the east every bit as much as she must look to the Atlantic and Russia in the west.
The Empire is long since dead and the Commonwealth is not what it once was.  In fact the Commonwealth may not outlive the present Queen by much.  It certainly won’t exist in the same form as the last 40 or 50 years.
Europe has an uncertain future as the Euro currency union seems to have failed so spectacularly.
The world we are headed for will not be a world of fixed blocs, rather it will be a world of more transient treaties and alliances.  And these alliances may be with peoples we don’t necessarily have naturally close alignments with.  These will not always be homogeneous groupings.
Britain’s links with the east through our mercantile past and through some of our large companies (many of whom have strong links in the far east) will be very important.  Our trade with European markets will continue to be a cornerstone of our economy and trade and links with China will be vital both politically and economically.
While the United States will cease to be the world’s super power it will remain hugely important for many many years to come.  A close relationship with her will be a lynch-pin of stability but we must be realistic about the ‘special relationship’ as America has more diversified interests than Europe.
We also need to contain the middle-east and support peace where we can.  I say support and maintain because the middle east has been a powder keg for two millennia and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.  However, I sense that if there are to be dangers that threaten us or troubles that will spill over into wider conflict they will somehow emanate from this region.
This means I think there is still an important place for collective security.  True, NATO is an alliance founded in the Cold War but times move on and the landscape changes. 
Denmark, a successful comparable country that Scotland often looks to as a model of what we could be is interesting in this case.  Denmark sought neutrality for 200 years and to free herself from the armed camps of the empires of Europe.  But she was overrun by Germany in the 1940s and suffered under occupation. The war means many in Denmark regretted they were not part of something bigger.  Today many in Denmark feel collective security is very important to them and NATO remains popular.  This doesn’t mean they believe the Cold War is still with us but they value collective security against any enemies – whether they are known or are yet to be known in an uncertain future.
Today, Danish foreign policy is founded upon four pillars: the United Nations, NATO, the EU, and Nordic cooperation.  She is a pretty committed member of NATO – which isn’t true of all members – even though she is a small nation. Denmark is also a member of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organisation.
She is a mercantile nation who believes in free trade, collective action and collective security.
This means I think there is an important place for collective security for Scotland in the future.  I think this should be as part of what we currently call NATO but that it will continue to move on to take a post Cold War form.
I think also in this uncertain world fragmentation does not help peace or prosperity.
A say in how the globe deals with the forces that affect us is important.
Top table
I have limited care for a permanent place on the UN security council, but a place at the top table with the G8 matters.  Being part of the UK which has such a place is therefore vital.
Consider this picture.  This is the G8 at Camp David earlier this year.  It is a small world and being part of the G8 is to have very personal input with the 7 other men and women who take the fundamental decisions that affect the entire world.  This is much more than mere tokenism, and while power can often be subverted by greater forces,  having a seat at the G8 is meaningful influence.


Free trade is vital to us if we are to have growth around the world once more and if we are to adapt to and make the most of the opportunities brought by the changing balance of economic power across the planet.
Preserving the UK and what is in effect an established and successful single market and currency union is also important.  The EU is uncertain, and our relationship with it is also uncertain.  I hope it survives with us as part of it because I think the EU has probably done more to ensure peace in Europe after the war than any other body.  However, Europe’s precise course is uncertain. 
And since the UK operates as a single market and a currency union and we are not envisaging changing that bit, it seems all the better to have some political say in it and some chance of influencing affairs.
But I believe this is best served by the UK following a system of government which allows for the expression of the different interests and identities within it and, at the same time, has the influence and strength which comes with the common purpose that I have been describing. This means a distribution of powers among the nations and regions of the UK, for joint action where we need it, and for significant democratic choice and opportunity where that best serves our interests.  This should be combined with the responsibility that comes from significant financial powers.  Whether you call this subsidiarity,  decentralisation or federal government it should, I hope, go some way towards reducing the alienation many feel in the political process and re-connecting political power to people and communities.
In the world of the 21st century with its transient alliances and changing balances of power, being cut adrift as part of the fragmentation of nations will not serve Scottish foreign interests or trade well.  That way is best served by British unity, collective international interests and subsidiarity or decentralisation at home.


Posted by GHmltn at 08:00 1 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 5 September 2012

My British Identity

Watching the Paralympics this week made me think about all the column inches I have seen written about the Olympics helping the image of being British in Scotland.

I've read a lot about us all getting behind team GB and their achievements somehow affecting the way Scots feel about their nationality.  Maybe it has, but if it has I think something more fundamental has been happening than getting enthused about the Olympics and the Paralympics.

You see, I believe many of us have a sort of two pronged nationality - we are both British and Scottish at the same time - they are not mutually exclusive.  Britain is a very old country and has grown organically that way.  It is quirky and ancient.  Great Britain and Northern Ireland - the United Kingdom to give it its Sunday best title - is a country of nations and regions.  That is just the way it is - but it is a nation state and one that makes plenty of sense.

After the remarkable victory of the SNP in 2011 I was beginning to think that maybe - just maybe - the SNP might be on the right side of history and maybe there was an appetite for independence.

I began to hear the arguments repeated loudly over and over again: 'The Union has had its day', 'Independence will solve our problems', 'The union is broken and dysfunctional', 'Scotland is just like the last colony and the Secretary of State is like a Governor General', 'We must stand up and look after our own affairs', 'Where is the positive case for the Union?'

I thought - ok, these people have a cause, and it has gone on for a lifetime! Every argument has been refined, every line trialed and every objection answered.  The National question has not pre-occupied the other side, and the other side, although probably bigger, is a more disparate group.  The case for the union will come - instinct tells me there is plenty to say here.

But, for a while, I thought maybe the case for the union would stumble and would never become clear?

But, this summer it has begun to come and it has begun to deepen and it has begun to spread out.  The case for Independence on the other hand has begun to look a little threadbare, a little predictable in comparison perhaps.

For me the Olympic opening ceremony began to express some of it.  Someone tweeting about it (not a Scot and not hooked in to our National question) noted just how much there was to being British.  We captured that sense of a quirky, eccentric spirit and a sense of humour.  We captured a sense of invention and ideas - in science, in technology and in engineering.  We captured an off the wall, open, dare I say it - liberal - spirit that helps fuel our diverse arts and music.  We captured our political progress - and this is a hard one - but we have always been able to progress on a journey improving and making better what needs to improve - adult suffrage, the fight against slavery, religious emancipation, a dignified retreat from empire, rights for women, the welfare state, the journey away from racial discrimination and to a multi-cultural society - one we are probably still tackling.  The list can go on.  But what a marvellous, open, liberal, progressive, inventive people we are.

And no - we are not a dysfunctional Tory conspiracy, we are not some regressive Westminster power block somehow alien to Scotland and holding her back.  We are so much more than that.

And nor is Scotland a colony or something grafted onto a foreign and alien body.

Many nationalists regard Scotland as a separate entity to England and Wales.  They regard the UK as a union of separate parts.  It is almost as if they are separate pieces stuck together like a couple of Lego bricks - related but separate.

Scotland is absolutely part and parcel of Britain and Britain is part and parcel of Scotland.

That inventiveness has so much to thank Scotland for.  Scots engineering is widely respected and that feeds into British engineering.  Scots financial governance has a high reputation and that contributes to the success of the City (and I'm talking about high standards of banking and accountancy here, not the casino banking that has contributed so much to our troubles).

Scotland and all the constituent parts of the UK have their traditions intermingled like waters from different streams converging together into a great river.  And that is something you can't simply separate.

Gordon Brown talked about some of this recently.  He argued that “Scottish ideas of justice and community” combined with “traditional English ideas of ordered liberty and individualism” to create not only “common political rights” but also “common social and economic rights”.

I believe quite a view nationalists are romantics at heart.  They have a patriotic vision of what Scotland is and of what a separate Scotland can be - sometimes a little Ruritarian perhaps.  But we are an essential part of Britain and I want to argue that Britain is a nation state.

One language, one integrated economy, one island (almost).  And while there are cultural differences they are not large enough to amount to being a separate country.  Indeed much of our culture is a fully shared culture - and again an intermingled one.

Danny Boyle showed that to be a very modern and dynamic country - not something where we are always looking into the past.

I believe Scotland is a marvellous place, a great nation and a distinctive part of the United Kingdom.  But so much of who we are is as British people, not just Scottish people.  And its not so easy or particularly desirable to separate that out.

For Britain is a nation state - a nation of nations and regions - its quirky that way!

Posted by GHmltn at 02:30 6 comments
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 25 May 2011

What's a Special Relationship anyway?



Barack Obama addresses the Houses of Parliament today in Westminster Hall. The chatter on the news programmes is once again all about the ‘special relationship’. Or has that now become the ‘essential relationship’?

This has always struck me as something of a British obsession and of rather less concern to the Americans.

The United States is a world power and has many important international relationships.
  • China, as the new world power. 
  • Russia, although waning, is still a world power (just) 
  • Countries with enormous potential and resources like India and Brazil 
As a world power the United States needs to be at the fulcrum of geo politics which means:
  • The growth and emergence of the east
  • The dangerous instability and oil wealth of the middle east
Post cold-war Europe is less important, less at the centre of things and the balance of economic power is moving east. Also, the current American administration is supportive of supra-international bodies like the EU. Britain becomes important as part of Europe, allies but not the centre of America’s world.

In this regard the United Kingdom is just an important regional power in Europe and is not at the centre of it.

Yes, we have interests and a degree of influence around the world. However, I am not convinced we are much loved, nor, are we much hated either.

So why, post cold war, would the United States have a special relationship with the United Kingdom? We can only be one of several special relationships.

Then there is the personal element.

The UK – US special relationship has only really been there when a Prime Minister and President have been close. Think of Churchill and Roosevelt, think of Thatcher and Reagan, think of Blair and Bush (or Blair and Clinton for that matter). I’m not sure how special it was following the Bretton Woods Agreement and during the days of post war reconstruction!

Barrack Obama was brought up in Hawaii in the Pacific Ocean. He spent some time in Indonesia. His grandfather was imprisoned by the British in Kenya during the Mau Mau rebellion. He is not close to Britain.

He is an African American in a country where more and more of her people speak Spanish. Where more and more of it looks East to the Tiger economies and the People’s Republic of China. (actually they probably look West from where they sit on the globe). If his eyes are fixed anywhere else they are probably fixed on the tinder-box of the Middle East and the Islamic world.

The United Kingdom is a constant ally. Right, left or centre we are strongly of the same mindset. Our constitutional and philosophical influence on the United States is huge. Our music, film and popular culture still has some influence. We share the same language (just about).

We remain an important ally of the United States.

So let us not get too worked up about Obama removing Churchill’s bust from the oval office or being too nice to the French, he remains a friend.

Don’t forget that America is not necessarily the only show in town for us. China and the East are important to our companies and businesses too. In fact, I understand that along with many European companies the UK is in better nick than many parts of the American economy because our companies are investing in the east and can benefit from globalisation.

India has a growing influence and we have plenty of contacts there.

Europe is the corner of the globe we occupy and where most of our trade is done.

And, sometimes, America gets it wrong. Think of:
  • Iraq
  • Kyoto
  • Soft peddling with Argentina
We will not always want to follow America’s lead!

The 20th century was the American century, but in the 21st her power is just beginning to decline. The United States will remain the predominant world power in my lifetime but this will not always be so.

She is an important ally, a close ally and that goes very, very deep. This is not going to change. But the United States of America is not a special ally and we shouldn’t be hung up about that.
Posted by GHmltn at 15:20 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)