It is argued that Scottish nationalism under the stewardship of the SNP has come of age. Gone are invocations of the spirit of William Wallace or Robert the Bruce. Less frequent too are references to the barbarity of Margaret Thatcher’s rule without mandate. It is said that romanticism has been replaced with a clear-minded pragmatism. The dominant narrative north of the border is that Scotland’s prosperity would be ensured and increased if it were free to pursue its own economic and political goals, free of control from Westminster.
There is much that supports elements of this account. The SNP succeeded in presenting a convincing case that a pro-Europe, foreign investment friendly, socially conscious, independent Scotland would constitute a cause for monetary celebration. And it’s not all bluster. Mr Salmond’s high profile publicity trips to the Middle East and China, ostensibly securing bilateral trade and investment ties, are backed up by solid figures that show that foreign money has been flowing into Scotland – at a relatively steady rate – since 2002. The SNP’s dream to follow Ireland’s example of prosperity through low corporation tax, a skilled workforce, and modern infrastructure attractive to multinational companies cannot be discounted merely due to the unfortunate end that met that arc of prosperity. SNP ministers are more likely to be found quoting economic statistics than Rabbie Burns these days.
However, it is not true to say that the SNP have fully shed the garb of storytellers in favour of the trappings of statesmen. Two unforgiveable narrative flaws exist. The First Minister insists that Scotland would retain its EU membership if independence were realised but there appears to be little to support this beyond the assurances offered by the would be authors of Scotland’s “destiny.” When asked by Welsh MEP Eluned Morgan in 2004, the European Commission ruled that seceding regions would not be entitled to automatic EU membership. The Commission stated that:
Do the SNP perhaps imagine that Scotland would receive special treatment in its application to rejoin the EU? It would have to. Whatever the division of the UK’s debts on independence, Scotland would certainly not be in the fiscally sound position that is demanded of new Member States. There is also the issue of opposition from existing major members. Despite sabre rattling south of the border, the UK is not likely to stand in the way. The same cannot be said of Spain. France and Italy also boast regions with secessionist ambitions and might side with Spain were Scotland to have to seek new membership.
Yet another grim reality of the SNP’s European ambitions is that new members are obliged to enter the euro. The UK’s relative financial security – in comparison to our neighbours on the continent – is almost entirely due to our independent monetary policy. If we are to believe that Ireland’s example is to be followed – excluding, of course, its disastrous conclusion – then it should be noted that Ireland suffered rebuke from eurozone authorities for running to high a budget surplus during its boom years. The crisis engulfing continental Europe is a stark lesson in the limitations of a shared monetary policy. It is a moral conspicuously lacking in the SNP’s partisan parable.
But what if we assume that the SNP narrative is sound? That EU membership will be offered, that major Member States will not block Scotland’s ascension, that the euro will not be forced upon the UK’s most northerly constituent part? What then? A monetary union with the rest of the United Kingdom is their answer. Another twist in the tale. Not as immediately alarming as the prospect of joining the euro as it teeters on the brink of a financial abyss but troubling nonetheless. It is true that the lack of convergence that spelt disaster for the EMU does not exist between Scotland and the rest of the UK. There are disparities between regions but they are no more stark than those between the South East and North East of England. That is until the advent of Salmond’s much vaunted lowering of corporation tax, influx of foreign investment, and expansion of social provision. If an independent Scotland is to remain economically compatible with the rest of the UK then one wonders what the point of independence is. If it is not then a shared monetary policy becomes extremely problematic. Furthermore there exists the issue of an independent Scotland – under the assumption that it continues to use Sterling – without a lender of last resort. Since 2008, the Bank of England has pumped £275bn into the UK economy. Would it do so for an independent Scotland? No one knows. No one within the SNP ranks appears to have asked. It’s not relevant to the story.
Modern advocates of Scottish independence may now be armed with vague fiscal dreams and largely sound but subjective statistics but they remain storytellers. They are not engaged in a serious and sober discussion of fact. They still use the word “destiny” with alarming regularity. The case against independence may be similarly sentimental but it is not just a story. The bonds between Scots and the rest of the UK have existed through 300 years of shared history. Together we discovered, conquered, and lost much of the known world. Together we shared in the spoils and sins of Empire. Together we raised living standards for every resident of these isles. Together we stood against fascism, though not as resolutely as we like to pretend. These events are past and remain only as stories but they were once real. They were once facts. Those listening to the platitudes of the SNP today should be aware that though they contain numbers and assertions they are stories just the same. I suppose my point is this: nations are nothing but stories. They are arbitrary divisions of lands and peoples. They come to mean more than this only through shared lives and experiences. Through shared stories. I, for one, will take past stories that were once real over stories of a future that may never be.
The ACTA legislation has been signed by the EU and its Member States since August 2011, though has only been widely known recently due to the protest against SOPA and PIPA. While the European Commission has gone to great lengths to distance itself from these bills, even releasing a ’10 Myths about ACTA’ publication, the ACTA legislation appears to be the cause for the SOPA and PIPA bills. The US of A is a Member State of the EU and thus, by signing, should enforce ACTA as they see fit – according to Article 2.1 of the final text.
The reason I feel ACTA is a back door for legislation is due to the term ‘Policy Laundering’. By having global legislation which requires the protection of Intellectual Property (IP), all who signed ACTA are now bound to enforce it, even if the legislation goes against what citizens want.
What is worrisome is each party is allowed to enforce ACTA differently and the expectations of the legislation. With each party implementing different legislation, there will be no standard to criminal charges for those counterfeiting IP. Article 23 expects criminal procedures and penalties for the commercial sale of IP yet doesn’t define commercial sale, making it possible for large scale counterfeit organisations to not only be penalised differently in different places, such as varying fines before imprisonment or even straight to imprisonment. In addition there is the possibility of a minor being fined or imprisoned whether due to piracy or abetting piracy, even if it is unknowingly done.
The other problem with the varying implementation of ACTA is it may be encouraging the movement of large scale counterfeit organisations to countries not signed up to ACTA to avoid such charges. Which in turn, may possibly call for legislation like SOPA, to deal with this by cutting funding to internet companies linked to websites with known counterfeit IP and possibly leading to IP monopolies by large corporations as they will have the funds to avoid links to websites with counterfeited content, something small and start up companies cannot afford. The monopolising of research not only runs the risk of causing high prices for products such as medical drugs, but also on education – possibly slowing down progress as people could struggle to debate concepts or research it themselves if it has been protected. If taken to the extreme it could possibly mean an inability to communicate and share ideas with others over the internet and the shutting down of social media websites, if the ideas shared are the IP of large companies.
The measure of “financial privilege” appeals to the sovereign power of the Commons to set tax rates, by blocking the house of lords from making amendments to bills classed as “money bills”. The traditional logic of the procedure was fair enough; it prevented aristocrats in the unelected house from amending or overruling the Crowns levy. The argument appealed to the fact that peers had vested interests in lowering taxes, to protect their stuffed pockets from being gauged by the inland revenue, but such motives should be shielded from the democratic process.
It is ironic, then, that a procedure that was introduced to prevent the powerful from skewing the distribution of wealth in their favour is now being used to do just that. By suggesting that the welfare bill is actually a “money bill”, that is, one that has considerable effects on the countries finances, Cameron has invoked “financial privilege” to the Commons, and blocked the bill from being sent back to the lords for more amendments. This makes it now very likely that all of the socially damaging elements of the bill will be passed by Parliament.
Perversely, the move ensures that the “financial privilege” of the Commons, that the constitution grants it in reward for its supposedly more responsible nature, will irresponsibly devastate the financially underprivileged. And those who the privilege was intended to protect from the former aristocrats; those intended to benefit from the collection of taxes the most – the worst off in society – will be effectively excluded from the benefits.
No doubt, the coalition will claim that the move is legal, because the privilege doesn’t only cover taxation. In the fine print, it applies to expenditure too. This move will be unsatisfying, however, for a number of reasons.
We all know the basic economic principle that when supply is greater than demand, prices will fall. A floating exchange rate corrects the effects of trade imbalances by allowing the value of a currency to rise or fall in order to restore some equilibrium in foreign exchange markets. For example, if the US were to import $50 million of goods (expressed in yuan) from China and to export $20 million of their own goods, there is a disequilibrium which can be ‘corrected’ by movements in the exchange rate. What the US is supplying (its $20 million exports) is of lower value than what it is demanding (the $50 million imports).
The value of the dollar will weaken and the yuan will strengthen. In relation to a stronger Chinese currency, the price of the US goods would decrease for Chinese importers; fewer yuan would be needed to buy the same amount of US goods. This means that they are cheaper from the Chinese standpoint and the demand for them should increase, meaning the amount exported from the US would increase above the original amount of $20 million. The Chinese goods bought by the US would increase in price as the dollar is devalued; i.e. to make up the same value of yuan, more dollars are needed. This increased import price will decrease demand for Chinese goods and the original $50 million import expenditure should be lowered. Thus the previous more-imports-than-exports situation will be rectified of its own accord. Market forces restore equilibrium via the independent operation of the floating exchange rate.
But this is not what always happens. Instead, China manipulates the exchange rate; it creates ‘false’ demand for US dollars by buying them, keeping the dollar strong, and keeps its own currency weak by printing yuan. Alternatively, it can flood the foreign exchange markets with yuan, increasing its supply and thereby reducing its market price i.e. its exchange rate. It purposely seeks to maintain this trade imbalance. But why would it want to do this?
If China allowed its currency to strengthen – and other currencies to weaken in respect to it – importing Chinese goods would become more expensive, as seen in the $50 million US imports example above. This would make their demand fall and fewer Chinese goods would be bought. China needs to maintain its monopoly on goods by keeping their demand high. The way to do this is to make its goods cheap with a weaker currency. The side effect is inflation – a weaker currency means more yuan is needed to buy the same products internally; prices will increase for the Chinese consumers — although attempts to correct this are made through increasing interest rates.
Extra Chinese money is invested in the US Government in Treasury bonds. China then gets interest on its money in financing the US debt. But how can this work to China’s advantage if the US is in such deep debt? There is, of course, the scenario that if the US defaults, China effectively owns the country. But if it does not, China’s aim is to create demand for Treasury bonds, increasing their price and consequently reducing the interest that needs to be paid back on this debt. This also makes loans within the US easier to attain and reduces borrowing costs. If the debt is cheaper for the US, they will consume more, therefore buying more Chinese goods.
“The renewables industry is ready to invest but it requires the infrastructure to be in place. Delays cost money.”
These are the words of Cary Connoll, head of the Northern Ireland Renewable Industry Group. In a piece that ran in The Mirror today he bemoaned the relatively lackluster implementation of renewable energy infrastructure within the UK. Renewable energy clearly represents a step in the right direction for this country (and arguably globally) in so many aspects. For one it creates jobs, both skilled and un-skilled; it also reduces the dependency the UK has on foreign imports of energy resources and ultimately (and arguably most importantly) it provides green energy for the country that is sustainable and less polluting. These are the facts and they are widely known but why then is there such a lack of implementation? I refer primarily to wind turbines in this example as this is the technology that is most available and most advanced at the moment to provide a real alternative to non-renewable energy types. One might be thinking that in part it is because the Government has not promoted the issue as much as it should have and there certainly is a case for this. Although there has been a lot of talk in this area in terms of hard legislation and immovable goals the politics of renewable energy is relatively unstable. Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that it is a long-term issue and crucially far more long-term than the average political cycle; but just recently we have seen Government commit to HS2 – a project that may well outlast several political cycles by the time it is complete.
Nor can we blame business for this deluge. Samsung recently committed 100million pounds of funds towards wind turbines in Fife creating 500 jobs and many other companies (Dell, Gamesa, BNY Mellon, State Street, Amazon, Hewlett-Packard and Mitsubishi Powers Systems) have announced similar plans to invest in clean energy in Scotland specifically. This clearly is then not the private sector’s fault.
Instead it seems the threat comes from a far more mundane source; you – and more specifically your local council. ME? you cry, yes you. Because ultimately you have fallen silent on the issue. In a time of economic decline, high unemployment, changes in welfare reform and Chris Huhne, the public have more important things to worry about than where energy comes from. In fact since 2006 there has been a 10% drop in those that are convinced that climate change is really happening. That may not sound a great deal but that is 7 million people and more importantly 7 million voters. This is a problem that is not apparent in Scotland because of Salmond’s constant re-affirmament of the issue but we cannot simply blame Parliament for this issue.
I hate to use NIMBY but here I think it applies fittingly. Undoubtedly the majority of people would agree our dependence on renewable energy has to increase; but this is not a debate. It is in fact a shouting match with those in the minority shouting loudest and causing failures of projects all over the country such as those at Anglesey, Saxby Wold and even on Honda’s own industrial park in Swindon – and those are all the rejections just from today. Most of these complaints come down the either spoiling views or the noise that they make; both surely small prices to pay in the face of blighting out environment for eternity and energy prices rising beyond the already unsustainable levels they threaten now. The constant hum of a motorway, flightpath or railway is the price you pay for an extensive travel network so why should this be different?
Today the Energy Minister Charles Hendry said: “We are at the dawn of a new era…it’s important we realise the full potential that this opportunity presents”. Truer worlds are rarely spoken in politics.
Yesterday, it was reported that HMS Dauntless, one of the Royal Navy’s newest warships, is to be dispatched to the Falkland Islands (the islands’ capital Stanley and its harbour are pictured Left). This deployment comes at a time when relations between Britain and Argentina have reached a new low, with both sides hurling insults at each other across the Atlantic.
Another war with Argentina over the Falklands/Malvinas is, thankfully, very unlikely. Both our countries have changed a lot since the early 1980′s. However, although we won’t be hearing the clash of swords anytime soon, the rhetoric of brinkmanship is already causing an unpleasant ringing in our ears. In what we can be sure he feels is a witty riposte, David Cameron has turned Argentina’s anti-imperialist language against them by labelling the South American nation’s aggressive behaviour towards the Falkland Islanders as “far more like colonialism” than anything Britain had ever done. At the same time, the British media has been quick to acquiesce in the sabre-rattling; the dispatch of HMS Dauntless to the southern Atlantic has been widely reported as a major development despite the fact that, according to the MoD, it is a routine replacement for another ship already on duty in the region. Meanwhile, Argentina has persuaded its South American partners to deny anchorage to any vessels bearing the Falklands flag and has branded Prince William, who is about to commence a three-month stint with the RAF on the islands, as a ‘conquistador’.
A war of words, accompanied by a lack of negotiation between opposing camps, is a familiar situation in contemporary international relations. Two sides of a conflict refuse to sit down and discuss their spat, lest it should appear to be a sign of weakness, or an indicator of capitulation. Instead, each petty slur is met with another. Although not an (immediate) danger in the South Atlantic, in other times and places such mudslinging has often escalated into real warfare with alarming ease.
Both Argentina and Britain have longstanding and sometimes obscure arguments for their respective claims on these islands, which were uninhabited upon their discovery in the 17th Century. Furthermore, the recent discovery of oilfields off the Falklands’ shores, as well as its rich fishing grounds (and quality sheep-grazing country), has understandably riled Argentina even more.
I’d tend to agree with the sentiment that the Falklands is a rather odd relic of the imperial age. But, in the present day, it is also the place that just over 3,000 people call home.
It is the people who actually live in the territory in question who are the ones who will be affected most by any change in sovereignty. The changes in systems of taxation, education, law and governance that will come, in some degree, with the change in sovereignty will directly affect their lives in numerous ways that will not affect those who have a vested interest in the territory but live outside of it. Therefore, it should be up to those people, above anyone else, to decide their own political fate.
Perhaps one day the people of the Falklands will choose to renounce British dependency, and link-up with their Argentine neighbours to the west. Until such a time as the Falkland Islanders choose to change their political or sovereign status, their wish to maintain the status quo should be respected. And in the meantime, the posturing of the British and Argentinian governments should give way to constructive dialogue.
With an 82% shareholding in RBS, should the government do more in response to public opinion and veto future bounses, or amidst concerns that action on bonuses will lead to banking talent going abroad, should it let the market decide what top executives are paid?
The Royal Bank of Scotland seems at the public’s mercy as both the chair Sir Philip Hampton, and chief executive Stephen Hester have been forced to decline huge bonuses. By any means, this is promising stuff for Britain and fairness, but is this a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?
Last week the chairman refused a package of shares worth up to £1.4 million and yesterday Hester, after days of deliberation, reluctantly threw in the towel too. Hester’s package, a reward for his “achievements”, would have been worth nearly £1 million on top of his yearly salary of £1.2 million, which amounts to 46 times the average UK salary. For a bank that’s 82% publicly owned, cost the taxpayer billions and has sacked over 21,000 staff, nothing short of economic alchemy could have granted Hester’s bonus public assent.
At first glimpse then, it seems bankers and politicians are finally taking notice of their democratic duties. Only when the powerful begin to consider whether their actions could be justified to, and accepted by, the public they claim to serve can society call itself truly democratic. It is a requirement of any legitimate liberal regime that its people have knowledge of, and endorse the goings on of, practices that shape the prospects of their lives, such as the activities of high-up bankers, who are effectively responsible for the economic conditions of those at the bottom-end.
And there is evidence that, to a degree, ‘democracies’ are taking heed of the liberal message. Antonio Horta-Osario of Lloyds bank said he refused his bonus because of the “tough financial circumstances of people”, indicating a clear concern for fairness. Heaven forbid, public justification looks to have its hold on even the US, as right-wing Mitt Romney (eventually) and Newt Gingrich released their tax returns to assure the public they’re paying the holy nation an honest buck.
It is just possible that an interest in public justification is dawning, and it will be welcomed, but we will only know for sure when HSBC and Barclays review their bonus packages later in the year, and when we see the full effects of the governments measures to curb excessive boardroom pay. Fingers crossed, the public’s message might be strong and clear enough to get through to them.
But the Virgin Boss is not the first. In 2009 we witnessed the renown governmental drug advisor Professor David Nut speak out against the governments drug policy by sarcastically stating that horse riding had the possibility to cause more harm than some drugs, and therefore it too should be banned. Specifically, Professor Nutt’s comments were controversial and arguably revolutionary. Never before had a government scientific advisor spoken out.
People use drugs. Whether you’re a careerist civil servant who willingly obeys the political status-qua or you’re a resident upon an estate that has felt the colossal impacts that the drug trade brings, drugs are out there and as long as people continue with a desire for drugs, the consequence wont disappear.
But that doesn’t mean we or the government should give up. If there’s one clear message in Richard Branson’s vision for rehabilitating Britain it’s the manor in which both drug dealers and drug users are dealt with. Branson argues that a change in the handling of the drug trade will bring real results. Specifically, he states that the responsibility for drug users should be left for the Department of Health whilst the Home Office can concentrate on more serious organised crime such as large scale drug trafficking.
If anything, Branson has only empathised with the view that those most affected by drugs are the users themselves. Depleted and despairing, drugs serve as the catalyst for further criminal behaviour whether it’s robbing a local corner shop for drug money or a fight with a rival gang, drugs are the source. The source for a life of dependency, a source for a life of neglect and a source for a life based on feeding an addiction.
Branson also made clear the injustice in the current system. A system that shows no distinction between the users and the dealers and a system that labels all drug users as equally. But Branson has also missed the crucial point. His motive is wrong, the drug system doesn’t need reforming because it’s spent taxpayers money on the support of overcrowding prisoners, but it needs reforming because it’s failing to change: failing to adapt with an altering society.
However, that doesn’t mean I want an accepting society. I don’t want a society that ends the war against drugs because it’s failing in the same way I don’t want society to end the war on murder, even if the number of murders doubled in the space of a year. No, I want society to take a stand against drugs and say no, but I also want a society that will accept the meek; the user. You don’t send an ill man to a prison, you send him to a hospital. Drug users are used, they’re used by a drug and industry that aims to exploit addiction. And this is the message of Branson, he doesn’t want a society that say drugs are right, but a society that cares for the ill rather than throwing away the key.
One of the most commonly asked questions by both dealers and users is “Why do you care? Why do you really care what I do with my body?” What they’re missing is the real danger of a drugged society; the affect and indirect consequences upon both local communities and society. The substance is irrelevant. Whether its class A crack to low-lying cannabis, the whole trade and operation behind the use of drugs is the reason “Why we care”
I start to care when innocent children find needles when walking home from school. I start to care when a women is sexual exploited in return for drugs and I start to care when communities that have long-stood the atrocities of the Wars are gradually destroyed by the consequences of drugs.
I’m not against drugs. But I’m not for them either. I’m for justice, justice for the addicted, justice for the ill, justice for the drug lords and justice for a society that aims to be healed from dependence.
I want the war against drugs to be a battle for justice.
Political Action Committees have spent in excess of $25 million this campaign season, $8.1 million from PAC ‘Restore Our Future’ alone. PACs are primarily responsible for negative advertising against rivals. Even late night comedy show host Stephen Colbert formed his own super PAC to attack Mitt Romney. These advertisements can be harsh and unsupported and can increase the costs of advertising for those candidates who have serious messages to offer. This financial dependence on private organisations is a distortion of the political process and a propaganda tool. Not only does this corrupt the election process, but the Presidential position, too. A candidate who knows a third party was responsible for securing his win is a dangerous predicament. There is an indirect debt that may need to be paid off when in office.
However, PACs are legally forbidden to coordinate with candidates, supposedly reducing their influence in campaigns. Despite this, many PACs include former staffers of the candidates. This non-cooperation law can also be used to candidate’s advantage; they can deny involvement or even awareness of negative advertising against opponents even though this may be what they wanted; they can play innocent and avoid accountability whilst reaping the benefits of the slander. Are we criticising candidates for adhering to the non-cooperation laws? Not if they are, in fact, cooperating.
There is also the issue of misinformation. A Romney-affiliated super PAC asserted that Gingrich was paid $30,000 an hour by Freddie Mac, co-sponsored China’s one-child policy, supported taxpayer funding of abortions and was the only Speaker of the House to be reprimanded. Some of these claims are examples of PAC hyperbole and are unsupported. PAC advertisements are not necessarily informative and not only mislead the population but turn them away from interest in the election in general. However, it can also be said that to argue these advertisements can be used as false propaganda to sway votes is to argue that the American people cannot discern what is right from what isn’t and make a rational decision; is to argue that they are sheep. But if it isn’t the case that votes are swayed, why would super PACs invest so much money in this? And, regardless, it does not make PAC actions right.
There is, of course, the counter-argument that to limit this is to limit free speech. Telling people how they may spend their money is unconstitutional. But is it a limitation of free speech if we stop large corporations using money to coerce and control the public airway? In this case, is no regulation necessary for misinformation to be quelled, true views to be heard, and democracy to be achieved? Well, not if, as Seton Motley of Less Government puts it, ‘money is speech in this country’.
Do you want to be the next big thing in political blogging? We want to hear your opinion on a political issue that really interests you, so if you are aged 14-18 and would like to win a spot on our blog and the chance to film a video with an MP, ask your school [...]
Facebook
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Digg
Reddit
Delicious
Subscribe & follow: