Dear John Bulls

Share

Hello people of the United Kingdom, my name is Johann Estranger but, as I know how you struggle with other languages, just call me Johnny Foreigner.

Talking of language, I have a gripe with you. We in continental Europe were very pleased when you joined us in 1973, so much so that we made your English language one of the official ones of our community even although you were the latecomer to our party. We organised our education systems so that we taught our children to speak your language, to the extent that I would suggest that many of us do that better than many of you. That served us well when you visited us in your hordes in the south of Spain, Greece, our Mediterranean islands and everywhere else it was sunny and low cost. It enabled us to more easily see to your every need in our pubs, clubs, pubs, restaurants and pubs (but still revert to our own languages to laugh about your union jack shorts and your union jack tattoos on your sunburned bodies.)

If you know anything about language you will see that I have used the past tense in the paragraph above. That is because everything has changed and the above is soon to be in the past. You have decided that you want to leave our community, to have nothing to do with us, unless you can make money out of us and we don’t make anything from you.

The first thing that will change is that we will no longer see the need to educate our children in your language. Why should we if we are to lose contact with you? We don’t want dodgy trade deals with America and Canada (you can have them if you like) so we lose nothing there from not speaking their bastardised version of your language. We can now concentrate on teaching our children languages like Chinese, Japanese and Russian, as they will be of more use to us. “But this means that we won’t be able to speak to you when we come on holiday” I hear you say. Can I reply to that with 2 suggestions? One, maybe you should try learning another language yourselves and, 2, maybe you don’t need to communicate with us as, realistically, will you be able to afford to come to our countries on holiday anyway? (Don’t worry about us, we’ll soon replace you with those Chinese, Japanese and Russians whose languages we have learned.)

You see, you have been conned for many years about our money, our currency, the euro.  It has had its up and downs (our problems with Greece did not help and did not show us in our best light) but today – yes today – our euro beats your pound every time.

This takes us into the realms of economics. (Incidentally do you know that your word “economics” comes from the Greek “oikonomia”? You always were good at stealing anything you wanted from the rest of the world.) Sorry for digressing there, so back to economics. In 1991 our euro was worth 71p of your money. In 2016 it was about the same. However, in that year you decided to leave us, so you now need to spend 88p to buy one of our euros. That’s an “official rate” so you struggle to actually get that as you buy our euros through the bank and exchange bureau (apologies for that French word) who all charge a bit extra. So, realistically you have been paying maybe 90p to 95p. At the end of the day all this economics makes your foreign holiday travel, your beer and your chips more expensive for you.

And it won’t all end there. Once you actually leave us your pain is going to increase. Everyone, even your own government, knows that things are going to get worse for you. That’s why they first tried to hide their own reports, deny their existence and then poo-poo their own figures. It will be bad .. very bad. The best estimates show the euro costing you 95p officially by the end of 2018. (How much will the banks charge you?) By the time you are off on your own this is estimated to be £1.10. So in the 5 years from 2016 to you “getting out”, our currency will cost you around 55% more. Let’s be conservative (as you do like that word) and put it at 50%. So, your holidays will cost you half as much again within a very short time and no-one would bet against double in the future.

That’s why we think that we won’t see you here for much longer. Never mind, you will still cut a dash in your union jack shorts and union jack tattoos on the beach at Brighton and you won’t have to worry about all that sunburn.

Au Revoir

Johann

PS We’ll miss the Scots.

Share

A Letter to ‘NO’ Voters

Share

As Naomi Klein wrote in her book ‘No is not enough’, the goal (of an argument) is rarely to change minds but too often to win. With this in mind and with some humility, therefore, I’d like to set out a case for Scottish Independence. My assumption is that the vast majority on both sides want what’s best for Scotland. Those on the pro-Union side believe that Scotland’s interests are best served by some or all of: solidarity with the rest of the UK in good times and bad; that we benefit from the support we receive from the UK (best of both worlds) as our economy isn’t robust enough to sustain independence; that we’ve shared so much that to break our ties would be to alienate ourselves from a family of Nations; or a belief that the SNP is a malign influence which is unlikely to build a better Scotland .

Addressing these reasons in reverse order; an independent Scotland should reanimate politics which at present is stuck in a constitutional stand-off. With the constitutional issue settled, politics can get back to normal, in fact better than normal since the SNP are committed to introducing a written constitution and Proportional Representation electoral system for General Elections, which will enhance democracy and ensure fair political representation at Holyrood.

In the 2014 Referendum much was made of the view that independence would turn family and friends living elsewhere in the UK into foreigners. Many of us have family who live in a foreign country. I have a sister who married a Norwegian and has lived in Norway for decades. She’s still my sister and to regard her as a foreigner would seem very strange to me. I would guess that the same is true for those of you with family members living abroad, some of whom may have emigrated. I also have family living in England and I don’t expect my feelings towards them to change post-independence or visa versa.

Yes, there is a deep, shared history between Scotland and the rest of the UK and that history will remain. What will change with independence are our future histories. Even in a Scotland that remains part of the UK however there will be significant changes, not least because of Brexit. The status quo is, therefore, not on offer. Take Ireland for example, where there is an even deeper and more fraught history between it and the UK (and with England before that), yet the bonds still endure and in many ways are more positive than in the past as Ireland and the UK now interact as equals.

I don’t have facts and figures detailing the economic performance of an independent Scotland as there are no future facts. What we do have, however, are precedents. Around Scotland are a number of small independent countries; Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark all of which are more prosperous than the UK, while also being fairer, more equal societies. Just to reinforce the point, the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund (started with earnings from oil in 1995), earned £131 billion pounds in 2017 – that’s in one year! (Financial Times. 1.3.18). On the plus side, Scotland compares very favourably with all these countries in terms of the necessary conditions for prosperity (democracy, rule of law, sound finance, an educated populace plus abundant natural resources). None of the above countries rely on the ‘broad shoulders’ of a larger State and any support Scotland receives from the UK comes with a price tag as we pay for it through our contribution to the national debt.

The final point, that just because our relationship is going through a sticky patch, we shouldn’t walk away from the Union, is perhaps the most emotionally compelling and it’s true that in times past, Scotland benefited greatly from the Union. However those days (of Empire) are long gone. I think it’s fair to say that Scotland’s well-being is an afterthought to the UK Government and probably only features at all because of the constitutional question and Brexit. Remove these and I doubt there would be much thought given to what goes on up here. Instead, resources will continue to be targeted towards London and the South East.

Investing in the South East makes sense in some ways as surpluses generated there currently subsidise the rest of the UK. However, this concentration of resources on the South East has created huge imbalances in the economy. No capital city anywhere in the developed world plays such a dominant role in the economy as that of London in the UK. According to Inequality Briefing, London is the wealthiest area in Northern Europe. However, the same report points out that 9 of the 10 poorest areas in Northern Europe are in England and Wales. That’s because, to quote Vince Cable, London has become the great suction engine of the British economy. While this continues, talent will inevitably migrate to the South East, thus further eroding the economic prospects elsewhere. And despite warm words and rhetoric about Northern Powerhouses, the vast majority of infrastructure projects, essential for stimulating economic health, continue to be concentrated in the South East.

I have two questions for you. What kind of country would you like Scotland to be and how confident are you that the current political settlement can deliver that country? My own vision is for a  prosperous Scotland that has the financial resources to place the environment at the heart of policy making; one that prioritises green, sustainable working practices in every sphere, not just energy, and puts public money into those areas rather than weapons of mass destruction. And one that really cares for all its citizens through fair taxation and redistribution. I see no prospect of the UK Government delivering on that vision and the current devolution settlement severely constrains any Scottish Government from doing so.

In summary, I believe that only Independence can unlock the long-term investment required to transform Scotland. However, I also believe an independent Scotland could be a role-model for the rest of the UK. Confronted with the reality of its mortality and given Scotland’s example would, I hope, lead to a serious overhaul of the political and economic structures of the remaining United Kingdom and a more realistic view of its role in the world.

Share

Ineos and Fracking

Share

Ineos, owned by billionaire Jim Radcliff, resident in the clean environment of Switzerland, has commenced proceedings via the Scottish Courts to sue the Scottish Government over its ban on Fracking.

To be precise, two of his companies, Ineos Upstream and Reach Coal Seam Gas, went to court and “won”, firstly,  the right to a judicial review and secondly, a case to potentially sue the Scottish Government for a claim to damages under “Human Rights” laws.

We should all be very worried!

It is a remarkable situation that Scotland, in union within the UK, has vast oil and gas reserves which, almost in its entirety, is exported for processing into finished product elsewhere.

The last thing we need in the Scottish economy is an industry which, at a minimum, is highly questionable on environmental grounds and which is based on the relative absence of a benefit from “down stream” processing from our existing oil and gas wealth. Why would anyone believe that by permitting fracking across the former Scottish coal fields (closed and abandoned in the 1980s despite there being 800+ years of known reserves) that it will be of any benefit whatsoever to Scotland or her people?

We know from our recent history that when oil and gas were first discovered in the North Sea, Bernard Ingam, Personal Secretary to Margaret Thatcher, successfully drew up a plan to re-position the trajectory of the Scottish Border into the North Sea. This was directed much further north by north east and by doing so saw a significant area of sea bed re-allocated to England. At the same time he is also thought to have persuaded her, she who was Prime Minister at the time, to agree to the Shetland Island Council retaining 1p per barrel of oil landed at their storage facilities on the islands – a right which still exists to this day and one that, despite it sounding a small sum, over 40 years has vastly improved the facilities enjoyed there by the Islanders – good luck to them for it.

However his motivation and that of Mrs Thatcher was not driven by “altruism” to the Shetlanders.

This was “positioning”. The SNP were on the ascendancy and the ploy, and it was implemented in subsequent elections, was divisive. The proposition being that if Scotland ever voted for independence the UK government would encourage Shetlanders to stay within the Union thus robbing the Scottish Exchequer of the now vast oil revenue potential of the fields west of the Islands.

In effect this was and is another form of partition so liked by the British Empire, of which we now remain almost “last man standing”!

I am no lawyer, so I do not pretend to know what is the objective of the Judicial Review. It surely is within the rights of a democratically elected Government of Scotland to decide to ban a process which is potentially damaging to our natural environment.

Hopefully our Scottish Courts will uphold that right.

To also threaten to sue using Human Rights legislation is equally baffling!

Since when did a corporation acquire “human” rights?.

Surely these are rights available only to living and breathing homo sapiens?

That aside, the human rights we should be concerned about and, hopefully, our Scottish Courts will support us in, is the right to live in a clean environment. As I understand it , currently, the shale oil gas being imported to Grangemouth comes from relatively sparsely populated areas of North America. If Ineos wins a case to frack here in Scotland then that is a very different proposition.

The reserves here are in our most densely populated areas running right through the now abandoned coal seems across the entire Central Belt from Cockenzie to Lanarkshire.

One can only speculate about the damage that such irresponsible commercial activities could have on our country and the local population.

These are the real Human Rights being put at risk by this Court action.

A legal process has, however, commenced. Lord Pentland has issued his judgement.

This process could, depending on the initial findings, be protracted over several years, indeed I suspect that the “commercial strategy” is to see them go beyond Brexit in the certain knowledge that if the Scottish Courts finds against Ineos on either or both actions then an appeal will then be made to the Supreme Court which will in that timescale no longer be in Europe but in London.

Despite the much vaunted “independence” of the London Judiciary I think I could put money on them repealing the democratically elected Scottish Government’s ban on Fracking, by overturning any decision made by the Scottish Judiciary.

I hope I am wrong but I sense that “the unseen hand” is in all of this.

There is only one sure way out of this “mess in the making”- it is Scottish Independence.

Please, for ourselves and our children yet unborn, vote Yes next time.

Ian Stewart, Isle of Skye

Share

Democracy – ‘a nice idea’

Share

Asked for his views on democracy, Gerry  Adams, Sinn Fein President, said, ‘It’s a nice idea’.

There’s a delicious irony in the boast that Britain was the first modern democracy and that Westminster is the ‘mother of Parliaments’. I was reminded of this as we celebrate the 100th anniversary of (some) women gaining the right to vote. When it was built in 1870, the Palace of Westminster was designed as a men only establishment – so much for democracy. More than anything however, the suffragette movement reminded me that democracy is a journey rather than an event.

In his book ‘Democracy and its Crisis’, A.C.Grayling charts the history of democracy from its roots in pre-Christian Athens through to the present day. His thesis is that, while some European countries are fairly close to achieving democracy, it’s still a largely unfulfilled concept in most countries that claim to be democracies. He singles out both the UK and USA for particular criticism.

A recurrent theme in the book is the readiness of the electorate for democracy. In ancient Greece, Plato was very much against the idea of democracy, believing that the common man was unable to grasp the complexities of Government, the best form of which was via an Aristocracy. This word in its ancient usage meant a man (always a man), who was highly intelligent, wise and crucially, disinterested, so would be incorruptible, seeking no material gain from his power but simply wishing to do what was right for the populace. I tried to think who might fit such a tough CV and could only come up with Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi, Yoda and Gandalf.

Democracy continued to be a contentious issue after the ancient Greeks, through the Roman Empire and into medieval times. During the Peasants Revolt of 1381, the rebel priest John Ball caught the essence of the argument with the immortal question, ‘When Adam dug and Eve span, who then was the Gentleman?’, alluding to the fact that there was no aristocracy during the time of Adam and Eve, so the common man was presumably able to run his own affairs. Later, at the Putney Debates of 1647, when the Levellers met with Oliver Cromwell to press their case for the rights of the ‘common man’, they did so on the grounds that they had not fought to overthrow a King simply to be ruled by a new tyranny. Some of the Levellers were later jailed – so much for the free speech aspect of democracy!

The franchise was extended somewhat in 1832 with the Great Reform Act, when universal suffrage was declared, having been extended to property owning males over 21. However, the vast majority continued to be voiceless; in late 19th century Britain something like 85% of working men were manual labourers, none of whom had the vote and most were illiterate (compulsory public education only began in England in 1870). The ruling class were  wary of extending the franchise, as they felt that to give the vote to such an uneducated mass could lead to anarchy. Their fears were perhaps justified given the number of States that have introduced democratic institutions but have failed to deliver stable governments, for example Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Ukraine and Bolivia, partly because the voters were politically and in some cases, educationally illiterate.

It would seem that a necessary requirement for the effective exercise of democracy then is an educated electorate, both generally and politically. This seems crucial in the 21st century as the scope and scale of many of the issues of Government become ever more complex- Brexit and Scottish independence for instance, both of which require a deeper and wider understanding of the issues than a General Election which might provoke an emotional response – ‘I voted for ‘X’ because  I’ve always voted ‘X”, or voting simply for the Party promising tax cuts.

This leads me to observe that in Scotland, despite what former Scottish Labour leader, Johann Lamont, said about ‘Scots not being  genetically programmed to make political decisions’ we have the most politically literate electorate in the UK. Consider this; we have two Governments, one in Holyrood and the other in Westminster, which share responsibility for Scottish affairs and whose Executives are drawn from differing political Parties. Our elections are conducted using three different election methods; first past the post (FPTP) for Westminster elections, the d’Hondt proportional system for Holyrood elections and the Single Transferable Vote (STV) proportional representation system for Scottish Council elections. We also have in the SNP a strong third party to break up the Tory, Labour hegemony that exists in England. The 2014 Independence Referendum then focussed the attention of the electorate on what kind of country they wanted Scotland to be. Finally, we had the EU Referendum in 2016. Given the volume of political education undergone by the Scottish electorate since the 1997 devolution referendum as just outlined, it’s perhaps no surprise that Scotland, bucked the general trend and voted 62% in favour of remaining.  Since then, attitudes towards the EU seem to have hardened North and South of the Border. Recent opinion polls suggest only 45% support for remaining in the EU in England while 68% support remain in Scotland – a political chasm.

Grayling insists that the UK as presently constituted, meets very few of the criteria necessary for an effective democracy and is in effect an Elective Dictatorship. His big beef is with the first-past-the-post electoral system which provides an unfettered mandate to the Governing Party, invariably on a minority of the vote. Grayling also singles out the Whip system, which he says is frequently abused by bullying (e.g. threatening exposure of an MP’s domestic peccadilloes), threats of de-selection and/or loss of potential promotion opportunities as a consequence of defying the Whips. All these factors, Grayling says, leads to an impotent opposition which, because it is unable to influence legislation, creates a great deal of sound and fury to give the appearance that it is holding Government to account – all of which Grayling suggests is highly unsettling to the general public, whose impression tends to be that the Government is in constant turmoil. In an effective Government, where the Governing parties genuinely represent the majority of the electorate, things tend to be much quieter (boring even) as Government is allowed to get on with the business of Governing because they have a genuine mandate. I would exclude Holyrood from this tranquil nirvana as the British Nationalist politicians and pro-Union press do their utmost to stir up unrest against the SNP interloper in their cosy consensus.

Grayling’s other requirements for an effective democracy includes a written constitution, STV proportional representation voting system extended to 16 – 18 year olds, an elected second chamber which can overturn Bills and a Supreme Court which can strike down any Bill which fails to abide by the constitution.  More contentiously, Grayling asserts that voting should be compulsory, because a non-vote always favours the winner. Peter Bell made a similar point recently in iScot Magazine. Bell used a simple example of 100 voters and just 2 candidates. While 51 votes are required to win the election when everyone votes, if we assume a typical General Election turnout of around 60%, then to win only requires 31 votes, a much lower threshold and crucially, one which is only supported by a minority of the electorate, thus creating the potential for dissent.

Looking back 100 years, votes for women is a no-brainer; it’s inconceivable that women should be denied the vote. At the time, however, the suffragette movement was not not popular, even among women, who saw it as a cause of strife between them and their menfolk, rather than liberating (an example perhaps of a lack of political education). In short, most men and many women thought women should ‘know their place’, to not get ideas above their station. This caused me to compare the suffragettes with the quest for Scottish independence. Both are steps along the democratic road and like the suffragettes before it, Scottish independence appears to be supported by a minority of the electorate. So how do we change minds? Will it need an extreme gesture like that of Emily Davison, who died when she stepped in front of the King’s horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby, or will the Scottish electorate finally wake up to the democratic deficit that exists in Scotland, so clearly illustrated by a British Government that continues to ignore Scottish aspirations regarding the EU?  And what will our successors 100 years hence think, as they view an independent Scotland? I strongly suspect that, just as we do now with votes for women, they’ll scratch their heads, wonder what all the fuss was about and agree it was also a no-brainer.

 

 

 

Share

19th January 2018 – The Day Labour Political Credibility Finally Died

Share

The collapse of Carillion afforded the Labour party the chance to gain political ‘brownie points’ with the Scottish public … and they jumped in with both feet firmly placed in the mouth.

Jeremy Corbyn immediately ran to the press and said that Labour would seek an end to the ‘outsourcing racket’ and the ‘dogma of privatisation’ rife in Government procurement of services. Bold words Mr Corbyn but those assertions can be answered with three simple letters……… PFI.

PFI (Private Finance Initiative) was a scheme whereby private finance was used to build public amenities which were then paid for by way of a ‘mortgage’ over a prolonged period, usually 25 to 30 years. Sounds like a deal but it comes at a very severe cost to the public purse and saddles later administrations with huge funding difficulties.

PFI in the UK was first introduced by the Tory Party in 1992. The Labour Shadow Treasury spokesperson, Harriet Harman immediately slated the idea and called it ‘a back door to privatisation’ of public services. It looked like PFI was doomed as soon as Labour managed to get their hands on the keys to 10 Downing Street but the truth is the exact opposite. Fast forward to 1997 with arch Neo-Liberal Tony Bliar led Labour into power …

One of the first pieces of legislation passed by the new Labour administration at Westminster was the NHS (Private Finance) Act 1997. This act took the 1992 PFI initiative of the Tory party and expanded its reach and influence into the NHS across the UK. Labour did not stop there. In 2003 that dogma extended to London Underground. In 2005 it encompassed the building of schools and other public service buildings. The initial Labour opposition to PFI simply evaporated. By 2007 the cost of the projects built by Labour under the PFI schemes across the UK was £65 billion. That effectively saddled future administrations with a bill of  £215 billion … three times more than the original cost of the projects and that extra money was being funnelled directly into private hands through companies exactly like Carillion. It was, indeed still is, a licence to print money for the private sector.

Scotland did not escape the menace. The first two administrations to run the new Holyrood Parliament from 1999 were Labour coalitions with the Liberal Democrats. These coalitions seized the opportunity to show that they were in charge by openly embracing the PFI initiative of Labour at Westminster and immediately launched a series of public works, all funded by private capital. Over the next few years a total of £5.2 billion was ‘spent’ on schools and other public works through the system. The current liability due by the now SNP administration at Holyrood amounts to some £22.3 billion. That debt must be serviced by the Block Grant from Westminster, a debt that was built by Labour and the Liberal Democrats between 1999 and 2007. That Block Grant is being slowly but surely eroded by the Westminster Government in the name of ‘Austerity’ and the costs are mounting, the ability to repay the Labour ‘debt’ diminishing on a regular basis. It is effectively tying the hands of the Holyrood administration as a rising percentage of the Block Grant must be set aside to pay for the decisions of a previous Labour/Liberal Democrat administration.

This leads back rather nicely to the duplicitous political opportunism displayed by Mr Corbyn in the newspapers. His claims that only Labour will end the ‘outsourcing racket’ and the ‘dogma of privatisation’ has a very hollow ring to it when the facts about PFI and the Labour party are known. Labour attacked the PFI schemes when they were introduced by the Tory party in 1992, they wholeheartedly embraced and expanded that same scheme across the UK between 1997 and 2010 and effectively saddled the current administration with £22.3 billion of debt, and now, following the collapse of Carillion, they are back to attacking the scheme and promise to end it. Really? Is there any substance to that claim or will it simply be yet another empty gesture? Another bare-faced attempt to claw back the political moral high ground? Remember that Labour have a record of saying one thing and doing another … all I have to say is ‘Zero Hours Contracts’, Mr Corbyn. Labour have been promising to end that practice since 1995 when Bliar was elected Labour leader. They did nothing about it when they were in power at Westminster between 1997 and 2010 did they? Look it up, they actually increased the use of that practice while they were ‘fighting’ to end them.
This all adds up to one conclusion and one conclusion only … NONE of the Westminster based party machines can be trusted, none of them. All Westminster based political parties are equal but Labour are more equal than the rest. This is yet another reason why we simply must take control of our own destiny by getting away from this shameful ‘Union of Equals’. Independence is now the only way we can do that … Labour cannot be trusted.

Share

The Great ‘Outsourcing’ Con Trick

Share

The recent collapse of Carillion has served to finally expose the ‘Great Con Trick’ that is Public Service Out-Sourcing. This procedure is promoted by those of a right-wing persuasion as a way of ‘saving’ money, ‘improving’ services and increasing ‘efficiency’ to benefit the public…. Only it patently does nothing of the sort. The practice began with the infamous Maggie Thatcher, continued under the Red Tory Neo-Liberal that was Tony Bliar, further enhanced by the Tory/LibDem Doomsday coalition of 2010-2015 before the baton was picked up by the current right-wing coalition of Tory/DUP.

The collapse into oblivion of that doyen of the ‘Privatisation’ ethos that was Carillion shows how far the tentacles of that ethos reach. Carillion was born from an infrastructure company and, with a combination of political positioning through cash donations to that very Tory party and sheer unadulterated greed for (Tory awarded) Public Service contracts, it became a behemoth of a company that considered itself too big to fail, until it did indeed collapse in on itself like the public cash black hole it was.

Read through this excerpt from the BBC News website concerning one small company that sub-contracted from the Carillion cartel…… read it carefully and inwardly digest the meaning.

Shaun Weeks runs the cleaning firm Paragon Services. He told BBC 5 live Breakfast they had withdrawn the cleaner they had working full-time in a local prison.

“We’d been chasing them for money, we hadn’t been paid since July and when we heard the rumours about a week-and-a-half ago that Carillion were in a lot of trouble, we really pressed.

“Fortunately for ourselves, we did actually get paid the money that was owed to us for the work that she’d done between August and November.”

Having read that… consider this.

Carillion held the contract to supply a cleaner for that prison, they sub-contracted that service out to the company run by Mr Weeks, who then in turn engaged the lady who actually did the work. It all sounds organised, very efficient doesn’t it? Not really.

In the days before the contract was awarded to Carillion it can be assumed that the prison employed a cleaner to carry out the necessary work. That cleaner had a secure job, an acceptable salary and, beside the usual employment costs related to PAYE contributions, would only have required a minimal additional cost to the prison staff Personnel Department. The cleaner would have held a sense of attachment to the prison staff ‘family’, a sense of belonging that usually invokes pride in her job. Then it was decided to end that relationship.

The Government decided for whatever reason, and it is normally declared as being ‘in the public interest’ or ‘to be more efficient and save public money’, decided to privatise that particular cleaning service and outsource the contract….. they put the ‘con’ into contract. Carillion, presumably for the reasons mentioned at the start of this article, were awarded the contract. They tendered for the work for a price that was agreed, a price we can only guess at as it will be ‘confidential information’ between a Government Department and a Private Company. Carillion had no intention of actually employing that cleaner to carry out the contracted work so they sub-contracted the work out to the company run by Mr Weeks…. who then employed the cleaner.

Look at the situation before and after the decision to privatise the cleaning of that prison.

In the ‘old’ days the prison needed a cleaner, the prison employed a cleaner and the prison was cleaned. The cleaner was a full staff member of the prison staff with a secure job, a decent level of wages and the employment costs of that individual would be combined with all the other prison staff and be relatively modest in nature. It all sounds like an efficient use of public money to run and maintain a necessary establishment…….. BUT then the decision was made to ‘Outsource’ that service.

The contract was awarded to Carillion. Carillion decided to sub-contract that cleaning service as they did not want to employ the cleaner directly. The sub-contract was awarded to Mr Weeks who then employed the cleaner.

Now look at the associated costs involved in this convoluted state of affairs. Carillion would need to employ people to examine the work involved, compile a tender for that work including a portion of available ‘profit’ for Carillion. This is a costly business as the people involved in that tender process are specialists and do not work for peanuts. That work is then further ‘outsourced’ to Mr Weeks who would have had to compile a smaller version of the original Carillion tender for the work. The tender price submitted by Mr Weeks would necessarily have been for a lower amount than the Carillion tender for the contract as Carillion would need to hold back the costs of their initial contract tender. Mr Weeks would then seek out and employ the cleaner to carry out the work.

How many people are involved in the employment of the cleaner now?

The Prison Service have staff employed to look after the award of cleaning contracts…… Carillion have a heavy staff involvement to secure the initial contract and monitor the performance of the sub-contractor, Mr Weeks……. Mr Weeks himself now has employment costs for the cleaner and a profit margin to consider as he is, after all, in business to make a profit, as are Carillion. With all these built-in profit margins to consider just how does the ‘outsourcing’ become more efficient and cheaper than the original employment of a cleaner for the prison? In my opinion it does not, nor can it ever be so, but that is what we are told.

This case is a simplistic look at how outsourcing works and it appears to be a con trick, a way of ‘rewarding’ loyal corporate donors to one party or the other at Westminster. It is a con-trick that is being repeated all over by those of a right-wing political persuasion, a declared alliance to that ethos or not. Our local Council is making noises concerning the disposal of our refuse, and in one case has already ‘outsourced’ the work which led to a number of people losing decent steady jobs. The only way ‘outsourcing’ can be less expensive than the current provision is for the actual workers to be employed on far less beneficial terms and conditions. The ‘private’ companies will have a profit margin built into any tender price and that profit margin has to be provided, someone somewhere will need to lose out. It can only be with an increased cost to the public purse (you and me) in the price paid to the private company or by slashing the terms and conditions of employment for those who actually carry out the contracted work.

There are EU Employment laws to consider in this scenario that guarantee a certain level of working conditions, salaries, time off, holiday entitlements and the like. These employment guarantees severely limit the ability for right-wing Governments and Councils to ‘privatise’ public services or, in other words, reward their Corporate Donors with handsome contracts whilst still claiming ‘efficiency’ savings.

It all starts to provide an explanation for the headlong charge towards Brexit at any cost by Westminster. With these EU Employment Laws consigned to the political dustbin they can charge on and effectively asset-strip the whole Public Sector to the point where they’ll even try to privatise the privatisation process itself. There’s money to be made for the ‘Elite’ and their wealthy political donors. We need to stop this and stop it now. We need out of this Union and fast before it’s too late.

Share

Is God a Unionist?

Share

In his polemic ‘God is not Great’, Christopher Hitchens suggests a parallel between organised religion and fascism – both requiring an undisputed leader and absolute loyalty from the faithful. While Hitchens was perhaps being deliberately provocative, you don’t have to look far to find links between religion and (right wing) politics. Islamic fundamentalism is its most extreme manifestation; however the American religious right, the Church of England, AKA ‘the Tory Party at prayer’ and of course the Orange Order, a sectarian order created to protect the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland, is very supportive of Unionism and allegedly has a number of DUP and Scottish Tory politicians in its ranks. Even the Church of Scotland is not immune – in 1986, 45% of its members were Tory voters (Tom Devine, ‘Independence or Union?’ 2015). There seems therefore to be a correlation between the religiously devout and a desire for authoritarian leadership and adherence to the status quo (conservative with a small ‘c’ even if they don’t vote Tory).

Shortly after reading ‘God is not Great’, I had a visit from two Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were very pleasant and I engaged in a brief discussion about the likelihood of a supernatural deity. (For the record, I find it highly improbable). Towards the end of our chat, one of them asked me what I thought about the natural world?  When I said I found it amazing  she agreed, then pointing at the sea, asserted that, unlike every other substance, the sea never freezes completely and again unlike other substances, when water freezes it expands. Her conclusion seemed to be that these inconsistencies defied the laws of nature and were indicative of a ‘guiding hand’ A quick Google search after they’d left confirmed that there were perfectly logical explanations to her mysterious phenomena.

What I found extraordinary about this incident was that two apparently intelligent people, instead of carrying out the simple investigation that I did, seemed to prefer to believe in mythology and one has to ask why? Psychologist Jonas Kaplan observed that political beliefs are like religious beliefs in that both are part of who you are and are important for the social circle to which you belong. To consider an alternative view, you would have to consider an alternative view of yourself. Endorsing this apparent victory of tribalism over reason, the  Washington Post carried out a simple survey. They showed photographs of both the Trump and Obama Presidential inaugurations to Democrat and Republican supporters and asked which had the bigger crowd?  Despite clear evidence that the Obama crowd was larger, one in seven Trump supporters averred that the Trump inauguration drew the bigger crowd.

This tribalism is beautifully illustrated by Andrew Skinner. Writing in ‘Scotland in Union’, 25.7.2017 he asserts: ‘One of the things I find is not fully understood and not explained enough is “Scales of Economy”, providing services in a country the size of Scotland with a population of 5 million with lots of remote areas and islands etc, costs a lot more than providing the same services across a similar sized country with fewer Islands and a population of 60 million. So it’s clear we benefit greatly from being part of the United Kingdom’ (my emphasis)

All Skinner needed to do to understand the flaw in his argument was to look across the North Sea to Norway, which, like Scotland has a population of around 5 million. It also has ‘remote areas and islands’ in abundance throughout its 1200 kilometre length with a few fjords and major mountain ranges thrown in for good measure. Despite all these challenges, Norway seems to be doing ‘no bad’ economically as summed up by the recent headline  ‘Norway’s sovereign wealth fund hits $1 trillion’ (Independent 19.12. 2017) 

And yet, rather like Jehovah’s Witnesses, they don’t seem to want to do analysis. In an article (Herald 31.12.17, ‘Labour leader Leonard says an independent Scotland is perfectly feasible’) one reader made an unflattering comparison between the UK and Germany. In response, a  pro-Union blogger  stated: ‘Oh please. Give the rest of us a break. Random country comparison… something wrong with the UK … independence is the only answer…’

Random country, Germany! For over 100 years Germany has been the benchmark country of choice by the British state. Indeed, according to Hidden Histories, growing German economic hegemony, which was eating into Britain’s share of world industrial production, was a key factor in Britain going to war with Germany in 1914. Actually a more apt comparison for Scotland is the Scandinavian countries with which we share many similarities. All these countries are economically stronger than Scotland, while also having lower levels of inequality. Nor are they being propped up by any ‘broad shouldered’ larger Nation, so there is much we can learn from them. Even here however, staunch Unionists refuse to be drawn into serious investigation. One commentator sneered that Independistas never cite countries like Mozambique when making comparisons. Well, quite. Mozambique is as different as chalk from cheese to Scotland, gaining independence from Portugal in only 1975 after 200 years of colonial rule and zero experience of democracy. Today its GDP per head is about $1,200 compared to Scotland’s £40,000.

The ability to avoid serious enquiry therefore appears to be endemic not only in those of a strong religious persuasion, but also among staunch Unionists. But could I also be guilty of the same unquestioning myopia as staunch Unionists? I can say “no” with some confidence, because I was once a Unionist. Not a staunch Unionist it’s true but rather an unthinking Unionist. I blithely accepted what I was told, that I was incredibly lucky to live in such a tolerant, fair minded country, the mother of democracy. I was a patriot who bought my poppy, watched the pomp and circumstance of Remembrance Sunday with pride and believed the areas of the world ruled by the British Empire had been fortunate to have had such a benign protector.

Then something changed. I’m not sure exactly when; the Genesis was probably when I began questioning my own religious beliefs. It was certainly reinforced when I began reading more widely about the Northern Ireland ‘troubles’.  The more I delved the more I came to see a different picture than the one the British Establishment painted. And it turns out my increased scepticism was justified. According to recently released documents by the Irish Government under the 30 year rule, MI5 attempted to persuade the UVF to assassinate the then Taoiseach, Charles Haughey (to their credit they declined), provided the bomb that was used to blow up ‘The Miami Showband’, an Irish cabaret band, and offered to supply foot and mouth  toxins to anyone who would plant them in the Irish Republic, all in the interests of destablising the Irish economy.

So if God is a Unionist, how can this knowledge be utilised to persuade Unionists towards independence? The short answer is that we probably can’t! To attempt to change the views of those with strong convictions based on faith and dogma tends simply to radicalise them. In Politics this is creating an ultra nationalism (AKA BritNats), whose behaviour is becoming increasingly hysterical, for instance when they ridicule the new Queensferry Crossing or the Baby Box;  jingoistic – seeking to politicise the Poppy Appeal, or xenophobic – Johnny Foreigner and migrants.  While such behaviour will no doubt appeal to the Ultras, it’s likely to repel more moderate No voters and give them cause to consider whether they want to be associated with such extremism or perhaps they prefer the inclusiveness and positivity of those on the Independence movement. As Joyce McMillan observed in  The Scotsman: ‘And this, for me, is a new experience in politics – to enter a debate with a strongish view on one side of the argument and to find myself so repelled by the tone and attitude of those who should be my allies that I am gradually forced into the other camp’ 

According to a BBC report (March 2017) the number of people who regularly attend church services in Scotland has fallen by more than half over the last 30 years (from 854000 to around 390,000 ) and 42% of churchgoers are aged over 65. This mirrors the trend  among Tory party members, where the average age is 62. Meanwhile, perhaps because they tend to be more open to new ideas and are less indoctrinated than I was about Britain’s ‘greatness’, younger voters are increasingly drawn towards independence. Time is on our side.

 

Share

Wha’s Like Us?

Share

In his documentary ‘Border Country: the Story of Britain’s Lost Middleland’, shown on BBC television shortly before the 2014 Independence Referendum, the presenter Rory Stewart (Tory MP for Penrith) suggested that the England-Scotland border has historically been very fluid, that in reality there was no cultural difference between the English and the Scots on either side of the border, thus demonstrating that borders are artificial constructs. On a similar theme in a 2017 General Election speech in Edinburgh, Theresa May suggested that in the United Kingdom ‘we are all one people’, seeming to also suggest that there is no difference between Scots and other Nations of the UK. While in no way endorsing any ‘blood and soil’ Nationalism, I think there is a difference. In this article I’d like to explore why that might be the case.

The differences seem to be due to a combination of history and geography. Historically, English culture has been shaped by the Romans, Anglo Saxons and Normans, who between them created the market economy, civic institutions, the nuclear family, hierarchical structures and the rule of law. Collectively these encouraged social and economic mobility. In his book ‘The Pinch’, David (Two Brains) Willets suggests that the driving force of all these characteristics in England was the nuclear family, a unique institution when it emerged over 1000 years ago as a result of migration by Germanic Angles. Contrasting the nuclear family with the extended family or tribal structure Willets observes: ‘Big Clan style families are better than nuclear ones at spreading advantage and pooling risks, but for them to be effective people have to stay close to each other, so there is less mobility’

Willetts use of the word Clan to describe the extended family is apt as the Clan tribal structure was the norm in the Scottish Highlands until the 19th century, where the notion of economic and social mobility was an alien concept. While there was a hierarchy in Clans, it was much flatter than in English society. So while the English were living in small family groups and moving both for economic and social reasons from the early Middle-ages, the extended family of the Clan wasn’t seriously disturbed until the Clearances of the 1800s.

The Romans introduced the concept of trade and civic institutions, through the creation of market towns and guilds where goods could be exchanged, imported and exported, taking advantage of Southern England’s proximity to continental Europe and Roman lines of commerce. In Caledonia by contrast, the Romans made little impact beyond the Borders. It’s often said that this was due to the wild people who lived further North and was perhaps true to some extent, though I suspect the main reason was the lack of trading opportunities.

The Normans brought with them the feudal hierarchy of Lords, vassals and fiefs, the remnants of which are still very much evident in present-day Britain (eg the House of Lords). Whilst the Normans had a greater influence in Scotland than either the Romans or Anglo Saxons (Robert the Bruce was of partial Norman stock), again the impact was less dominant than in England. In Scotland the process was more one of assimilation where Norman Knights married into Scottish nobility. In contrast to England and particularly in Wales, where a network of castles were built to quell the natives, few great Norman castles were built in Scotland.

All these incursions tended towards the South and East of Scotland (Stewart’s ‘Borderlands’), unsurprising, as this is where the best agricultural lands were to be found. Meanwhile the North and West of Scotland continued to be dominated first by the Celts then the Norsemen. Though the Industrial Revolution had a homogenising influence throughout Britain, the Celtic culture and the Clan structure still seems to resonate in Scottish society, with an emphasis on social justice.

English hierarchical structures and Scottish egalitarianism extended to the Church. While the Reformation saw the emergence of Anglicanism, replete with Bishops, ceremony and the Monarch at its head, in Scotland the Presbyterian Church adopted an altogether simpler, flatter structure  and sought to separate Church from State. The Church of Scotland also developed a policy of ‘a school in every parish’ which gave rise to the Scots becoming the best educated citizens in the British Isles, with more universities than England until the 19th century. It’s no surprise that  Scotland was the crucible of the European Enlightenment in the British Isles.

Scotland is approximately two thirds the size of England but has only 10% of the population. These simple facts of geography perhaps also help to explain any cultural difference between the English and the Scots. South of a line between Hull and Liverpool, the English are very much an urban population with little contact with country life. It’s said that whilst you must go back 3 generations to find any direct experience of agriculture in an English family, in Scotland it’s only 2 generations. Even that doesn’t make the distinction between England and Scotland. In England the migration from country to town was often driven by a desire to ‘get on’. While this was also the case in Scotland, the shift to the towns was also a consequence of the Clearances, so the shift was more existential and less aspirational. That more people in England have made the latter choice is indisputable and what that does is to create, or at least encourage, a different mind-set, one based on ambition  rather than survival.

While there are many shades in between, country life and city life could be said to occupy opposite ends of a spectrum. So while a city lover might be upwardly mobile and status conscious, country dwellers are much more likely to be content with their lot and take a ‘live and let live’ attitude. The greater concentration of people with little or no contact with country living then becomes both a cause and a result of different priorities, priorities which in the case of England and Scotland are magnified by their different histories.

One example of how the social hierarchy in England today differs from Scotland can be seen in professions like the media and law. In England it’s almost mandatory to speak with a Standard English accent. A regional accent, from say, Liverpool, Birmingham or Tyneside is professional suicide. In Scotland by contrast, no such snobbery exists and a Scottish accent is no barrier to advancement. Indeed judging by the large number of Scottish presenters on BBC TV and radio, a Scottish accent appears to be a positive advantage. Perhaps this is because, unlike an English regional accent, a Scottish accent doesn’t carry any status assumptions.

These cultural differences are reflected in politics, which in Scotland is dominated by left of centre parties. The last time the Tories won a majority of seats in Scotland was in 1955, in an altogether more deferential age. This left leaning bias in Scotland is the major reason why Jeremy Corbyn seems to believe he can make inroads here. Meanwhile the voters in England tend to vote more consistently right wing.

What I’m not saying is that the differences between the Scots and the English are massive, rather that they are individually quite subtle but, taken collectively, lead to a cultural and ultimately, a political divergence. On a recent TV programme, the owner of a swanky London boutique hotel mentioned that he employed all Australian front-of-house staff because in his view Australians don’t know how to be snobbish – it’s not in their nature. In my experience as an Englishman, the same is true of Scots.

Share

Proportional Representation Update

Share

In this essay I compare the merits of Proportional Representation (PR) and First  Past the Post (FPTP) electoral systems. In particular I look at the potential impact on our political landscape had we adopted PR in previous UK General Elections and finally at the impact PR has had in Scotland.

The success of the Alternative for Germany Party (AfD) in the recent German elections was greeted with horror in the UK press. The AfD gained over 13% of the vote and 92 (from a total of 709) seats in the Bundestag, while the Christian Democrats of Chancellor Merkel suffered an 8% drop in vote share from 42% to 34%. As a result, the Christian Democrats have been unable to forge a workable coalition due it would seem to the inability to agree on immigration. So, there may well be fresh elections to resolve the matter. However, as Martin Kettle observes (Guardian 20.11.2017), while in the UK there’s panic if a Government isn’t formed within 48 hours of an election, the German electorate are much more relaxed about the idea that forming a workable coalition can take time.

Contrast that with the UK in which David Cameron (remember him?), in order to try to shoot the UKIP fox and quell dissent in his own Party, offered an In – Out referendum on the EU if he won the 2015 General Election (FPTP = winner takes all), this despite UKIP at the time having zero seats in Parliament. The result is that we appear to be heading out of Europe.

The argument in favour of FPTP is that they provide strong Governments. Unfortunately this ‘strength’ has all too often led to the unfettered pursuit of political ideology. After its initial success in creating the National Health Service in 1948, successive Labour Governments nationalised coal, steel, shipbuilding, railways the motor and energy industries, in fact almost anything that could move. In doing so they ceded enormous power to the Trade Unions which were then able to hold successive Governments to ransom (the Tory, Heath Government and subsequent Wilson and Callaghan Labour Governments) as a result of their joint bargaining power. The UK endured the 3 Day Week and was described as ‘the sick man of Europe’

When Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979, the ideological pendulum swung in the opposite direction with mass privatisations of some Nationalised industries (including Britoil – see Norway and Statoil), the closure of coal mines, shipyards and steel foundries which created wastelands of whole swathes of the country which have yet to recover. She also conducted a scorched-earth policy against the Trade Unions, in particular the National Union of Mineworkers and its leader Arthur Scargill, which reached its climax in the failed miners strike of 1984. Thatcher’s final political legacy, again enabled by the freedom to act bestowed by FPTP, was the Big Bang which dismantled much of the legislation that ensured the Financial sector’s integrity, thus paving the way for the Banking crash of 2007. More recently, Tony Blair’s strong Labour Government took us to war in Iraq. It should be no surprise really that two of the countries worst affected by the Banking crash and which were prepared to fly in the face of UN Resolutions to prosecute the Iraq war, were the UK and USA, two of only three advanced economies which still use a FPTP electoral system (the other is Canada).

So for over a century now we’ve had a constant battle of ideologies, first one way then the other, knocking down what went before, prior to building some new totem. From mass Nationalisation, to mass Privatisation and so on. By contrast, because PR makes it much more difficult for any single party to gain a majority of seats, in order to form a Government, political parties need to collaborate and to make compromises, thus greatly reducing the potential for ill-conceived legislation.

PR is sometimes criticised for leaving Countries in limbo while political parties indulge in horse trading, which takes time (e.g. Belgium). However, this is surely less time consuming than the repercussions of ill-considered legislation that can be bulldozed through as a result of FPTP. The process is similar to Japanese industrial consultation processes, which are exhaustive and tellingly, highly frustrating to British businesses. In the 1980’s, ICI developed identical manufacturing facilities in Japan and the UK for a new product. The British facility was built and into production faster than its Japanese counterpart. However the Japanese easily beat the British into full production due to thinking through the entire process more thoroughly at the outset.

The irony is that the UK Government has been at the forefront of introducing PR electoral systems elsewhere, notably in the devolution settlements of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland (of which more in a moment) but for UK General Elections PR is apparently a no-no as it will produce endless ‘hung Parliaments’ which, we are told, the British public don’t like and don’t understand. There’s also the argument that a Party’s manifesto has to be ditched when entering a coalition Government because it no longer has a mandate to pursue its policies. Since when has being elected with as little as 35% of the vote (which translates to about 25% of the total electorate) provided a secure mandate? The final argument is the loss of the link between a Constituency and its MP. In order to maintain this broken system therefore the Electoral Commission is charged with redrawing constituency boundaries to ensure a balance of constituency size and political persuasion to avoid potential gerrymandering!

One of the worst iniquities of the FPTP system is that of the wasted vote. A General Election in the UK usually boils down to a few hundred thousand votes in those ‘swing’ seats with a slim majority. Most of the rest are ‘safe’ seats in which it’s highly unlikely that the incumbent Party can be ousted. If you don’t vote for that Party then your vote is wasted. In PR every vote counts as was amply illustrated in the recent Scottish Local Elections which uses full-fat PR and where voters were encouraged to give each candidate a ranking irrespective of their politics on the ‘vote till you boak’ principle.

I’d like you to consider the political landscape after the 2015 General Election using PR, which would almost certainly have produced a coalition (most likely Labour /Lib Dems/Greens plus SNP confidence and supply) with say 20 UKIP MPs as part of the opposition. I think it’s safe to say there wouldn’t have been an EU Referendum. As with the AfD in Germany however, the baying of UKIP MPs on the opposition benches would almost certainly have led to tightening the EU free movement policy. This, I understand, allows anyone in the EU to stay for up to three months in another EU country after which, if they want to stay longer, they must either have a job, be a student or be able to support themselves. Successive Labour and Tory Governments never implemented the bureaucratic mechanisms required to police these rules in the belief that the costs outweighed the benefits. Immigration then became a major factor in the Brexit vote, aided by the rather strange insistence on counting overseas students as immigrants (when recent ONS statistics showed that 96% of overseas students return home after they graduate).

In his article ‘Lessons from Scandinavia’ (iScot Magazine, Nov. 2017) , Calum Martin suggests that the Scandinavian countries have avoided the death-star embrace of Neoliberal Free Market Capitalism due to a strong Social Democratic political ethos. What he doesn’t say but which is undoubtedly a key factor is that the strength of Social Democracy in Scandinavian countries is due to PR  which curbs the excesses of both left and right wing parties and in the case of the latter, ensures that rampant  Neoliberalism is kept in check.

My final observation concerns the Scottish Government. When it was conceived in the 1990s, devolution was seen as a way to counter the apparently rising tide of Scottish Independence. The new Parliament (Scottish Executive as it then was) was to have a PR electoral system. Not just any old PR however but the d’Hondt system which it was believed would ensure the SNP could never achieve a majority. To quote George Robertson, Scottish devolution would ‘kill independence stone dead’ We now know that, irony of ironies, devolution and PR were the making of the SNP and the independence movement. While it’s true that PR makes it difficult for the SNP to form a Government, the same applies to all political parties. The hubris of the Labour Government of the time was that they saw Labour dominating elections forever. They failed to factor in the possibility that devolution and PR might stimulate the electorate to vote differently once they saw that every vote counted and that, unlike other parties whose allegiances were ultimately to Westminster, any SNP MSPs would have Scotland’s interests front and centre.

Having watched Jeremy Corbyn’s closing speech at the Labour Party’s 2017 Autumn Conference in Brighton, electoral reform clearly isn’t on his radar. Meanwhile the Tories have always preferred FPTP as it enables them to win elections on a minority of the vote due to the way it splits the opposition vote (which is ironically, how the SNP almost swept the board in the 2015 GE). When they look North at the transformation that devolution and PR has wrought in Scotland, their resolve against the introduction of PR in UK General Elections can only have hardened. In which case the sclerotic UK will continue to lurch, first one way, then the other, forever looking for some political holy grail when a key component is right under their noses.

Share

Poppies

Share

It’s late October and I know we’re nearing Remembrance Sunday because every BBC presenter and studio guest has suddenly sprouted a poppy. Even Countryfile presenters are not immune; Adam Henson was filmed herding his sheep while wearing a poppy. Did he poke a pin through his waterproof jacket and will it now leak when it rains? The BBC must have a huge supply of poppies for studio guests – do the guests pay for them or do they give them back at the end of the broadcast? We need to know. An alien, taking the BBC as a yardstick of human behaviour would draw the conclusion that poppies are ubiquitous in human land.

It hasn’t always been this way. After British military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq, public support for the Armed Services was at a low ebb. The promotion of the Poppy appeal by the BBC therefore appears to be part of a coordinated campaign to change public opinion. Latterly this campaign has included Princes William and Harry, whose military service has frequently been highlighted – the BBC have made much of Harry’s deployment to Afghanistan and subsequent championing of the Invictus Games for disabled ex-servicemen and women.

I have distinctly mixed feelings about the Poppy appeal; from its purpose, to the pressure placed on us to conform, to the way remembrance can spill over into jingoism. On the one hand I feel sad at the terrible suffering and loss of life, while on the other hand I’m angry at the waste of life and the enthusiasm with which many politicians propose armed conflict, often on quite spurious or tenuous grounds to ‘defend the realm’ On remembrance Sunday we’ll no doubt hear once again the phrase ‘lest we forget’ from politicians. It’s these same politicians who recently eulogised the maiden voyage of HMS Queen Elizabeth, Britain’s biggest ever aircraft carrier as a projection of ‘British power on the world stage’

For the Royal British Legion, which organises the production and sale of poppies, the purpose of the Poppy appeal is to fund its charitable activities. The same goes for organisations such as Erskine Hospital, Help for Heroes and various military charities. However, the Military Covenant, drawn up in 2000 recognises that, in return for putting themselves in harms way, the UK has a duty of care towards military personnel who are injured, who fall ill in the line of duty (for example PTSD) or, in the event of their death, towards the families of those killed. The recent extension of the widows pension to those who remarry after losing a partner is a welcome addition to this duty of care.

So why then do we need to support all these other charitable organisations and their various fund-raising if there is this Military Covenant? Help for Heroes states that ‘funds raised are to provide services which can’t be provided by HM Govt’ Help for Heroes stresses that what it provides should not be seen as a substitute for Government support and will hold Government to account on that score. But surely it can’t be anything other than a substitute for Government funding? If ex-servicemen or their families are in want, then this suggests that HMG is not fulfilling its Covenant. By their very nature therefore, the existence of all these charities is both an indictment of Government failure to meet its obligation under the Military Covenant and must mitigate the financial commitment of HMG. It seems hypocritical that politicians who stand at the Remembrance Day commemoration at the cenotaph in Whitehall, all wear poppies which would not be necessary (except perhaps as a mark of respect) if Government funding was more generous. Meanwhile across the Atlantic, Donald Trump threatens to ‘totally destroy North Korea if it moves against the U.S. or its allies’ It seems that ‘remembrance’ is just a one day event before politicians get back to business.

When it was introduced, the Military Covenant was described as “…an informal understanding, rather than a legally enforceable deal, but it is nevertheless treated with great seriousness within the services” The reason it is a promise rather than a statutory obligation appears to be to avoid litigation by military personnel in the event of seemingly inadequate reparations. One case cites an ex-soldier receiving £152K as a result of life disabling injuries which, had this been a civilian case would have resulted in an award at least 10 times as much.

Veterans finally win right to asbestos payment (i Newspaper 1.3.2016)
The announcement is a victory for the Royal British Legion and others, whose concerns over the unfair treatment of veterans – who had been denied the six figure compensation given to civilians with the same condition – were revealed by this newspaper last year. Service personnel suffering illness or injury before 1987 could not previously sue the MOD for compensation.

Some people wear a poppy to pay respect to those who died, others wear the poppy out of patriotism, a phenomenon that seems to be growing in inverse proportion to Britain’s prestige on the world stage. There is of course the desire to show compassion; however this is in the context of a society that seems less compassionate, quietly acquiescing to cuts in welfare benefits and the bedroom tax – which ironically sometimes hit disabled ex-servicemen. Wearing a poppy can also be controversial, for example when the footballer Roy Keane wore a poppy while appearing on a TV Champions League highlights programme in 2015. As an Irishman was he aware of the numerous atrocities committed by British troops in Ireland immediately prior to Irish independence, including those at Croke Park in Dublin and during the troubles in Northern Ireland when British troops deliberately fired on unarmed civilians (Bloody Sunday)?

One of the reasons I support Scottish independence is so that we can distance ourselves from what seems to be a British addiction to foreign wars. Apparently for the past 120 years, since the start of the Boer War, British troops have been continuously on active service somewhere around the world. Pro British propagandists tell us that British troops are fighting for freedom and democracy; all too often however, in countries such as Kenya, South Africa, India, Egypt (Suez), Aden (now part of Yemen) and Cyprus, British troops were used to deny the peoples of these places the right to self-determination.

Finally, though the wearing of a poppy commemorates the deaths of servicemen, we should remember that from WW2 onwards, civilian casualties far outstrip the casualties among servicemen. For these people there is no commemoration or honours. Are they to be regarded simply as ‘collateral damage’

 

 

Share