Why I Want An Independent Scotland

The right-wing has a problem. After years of telling its supporters that Scotland does very well out of English taxpayers, it is not surprising that most Tory voters rather support the Scottish Nationalist cause. But of course this is not what the right-wing establishment wants at all. The truth is that whatever subsidy England does give to Scotland (if anything when you think of how much government is based in London) it gets much more back in power and prestige. No way do the Tories want a socialist republic on these Isles showing exactly what the English are missing out on.

Now don't get me wrong when the Scots vote on Independence as they now surely will, it will be incredibly hard for the SNP to win. For one thing, without a draft deal on how it is all going to happen, then the Scots could be voting on a blank cheque. Voting for independence with less than 10% of UK national debt taken on (as per capita it should be) is very different from say 20% of UK national debt.

I think the EU would embrace the Scots nation and the Euro would be the natural choice for its currency. Total fiscal autonomy and not having to pay towards the UK's sizeable defence bill, especially Trident will free Scotland - a big land area with a small population. Even without oil, Scotland can easily produce its entire electricity and power consumption. All from renewable sources.

But apart from thinking that Scotland will enjoy the fruits of freedom from London diktat, and plentiful raw materials, it will also be free to be a small democracy fo five million people. For me small is beautiful. Small European nations lead the way on democracy, whether it is excellent public services, large per capita GDP or green economies and high political participation. Scotland will be better off. In fact I would like to see independence for London, the North West, Midlands etc as well if at all possible. Democracy is better when small, for that reason, go for it Scotland, I wish you all the best.

The Economic Wars We Face

I don't write much about war, because strangely enough it doesn't interest me. I also don't know that much about the mechanics of war. (Arguably I don't know that much about most of what I write, but I do try to be accurate and I do try to write about higher politics rather than tittle-tattle, which I am sure cannot be said for some bloggers out there - Guido and Dale are you listening?) I sometimes descend as all bloggers do, into under-researched rant and get bogged down in detail but I do try my best within my time constraints and energy, I promise you that. (You might have guessed this is going to be a reflective post)

Anyway, back on topic, what I do know about war is that essentially it is about the battle for resources - in other words it stems from economics. This is one reason why the EU (and institutions like it - the UN perhaps?) is so important, if we put aside the undemocratic nature of the appointed Commission (appointed at the insistence of nation states), it is essentially a body to sort economic disputes and stop the outbreak of trade wars and military hostilities within Europe - particurlarly involving Germany. In that sense it has been a great success and as the environment and international conflict becomes more difficult we will need the EU and other bodies more and more.

When we look at the environmental problems we face in the future, a lot of time is spent talking about climate change. The Right will rubbish it and the left will talk serious about emissions, energy production and consumption but do very little. I believe climate change is real (not least because I remember as a teenager being knee deep in snow - I don't need an expert to tell me it doesn't snow anymore and that this has happened in just 25 years), but in a way I think we are missing the real environmental problems ahead - that is enviromental degradation caused by over-use of resources rather than a hotter climate. We waste huge amounts of resources - we are literally using up the planet and food stocks from fish to crops are falling. Couple this with the drop in underground fresh water and we can see we are heading for big problems. The 20th century was about wars over oil and energy supplies, the 21st century wars will be about water and food - a far more frightening prospect.

It will start in the developing world with mass starvation - billions will die. The developed world will not be immune to deaths - but generally prices for food and water will soar but remain affordable as we cut back on all our luxury goods. None of this is going to be pretty. But my prediction is that the world population has to come down to about 1 billion from the 9 billion predicted for 2020. We either move to the Left and manage this decline sensibly by redistributing resources or we take the Right-wing view point and scramble for everything we can get. Sadly it seems in times of crisis the Right do quite well. The Left-wing perspective requires long-term thinking, the Right-wing perspective just requires the bigger guns. We will see what happens. I am not optimistic.

Israel Has A Good Electoral System, Unlike Us.

Israel has had 18 parliamentary elections since 1949, the UK not much different with first past the post at 16 parliamentary elections, Canada has had 20 parliamentary elections since 1949 under first past the post. We should start defending Israel's PR system not just giving in to the false propaganda in the media. Yes maybe the 2% threshold should be a little higher, but this is hardly a problem on the scale of the UK or Canada where the majority of voters are completely ignored because of first-past-the-post.

Progressive Conservatism?

Can the Left simply dismiss this phrase as an oxymoron? Some on the Left (despite their initial sniggers) are trying to engage with this idea. Personally I simply do not believe or trust the Tory front bench when they talk of being progressive. How can we reconcile the vast growth in inequality during the Tory years with the Tory claims of today, that they will reduce inequality, especially when every policy they announce is clearly unreconstructed Thatcherism that increases inequality - tax cuts for savers, higher IHT thresholds, slashing public spending on infrastructure, public transport, social services etc (while increasing expenditure in areas that do not benefit the poorest - higher defence budget, increased police, managers and consultant wages, PFI and court costs). In the end the Tories spent similar amounts of taxpayers money but they shifted the burden onto the lower paid and cutback vital services that the poorest rely on the most. It was the exact opposite of progressive and I see no change from Thatcherism in the ideas emanating from Cameron and his Eton ilk of cabinet colleagues.

Public expenditure is the crux of the matter - the Cameron mantra, like Thatcher, Reagan and Bush before him is 'less state is good', while the new right 'bloggertarians' revel in 'McWhirter' ideas of freedom where the state is shrunk, they fail to see Tory history repeating itself, as Barack Obama stated in his inaugural address 'The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works'.

All progress comes from advances in efficiency (usually technological and scientific advances but also organisational) - this is where right wing bloggers like Mark Wadsworth, Devil's Kitchen and me can agree - we can see the benefits of a citizens income, land value tax and more competitive elections (i.e. proportional representation). We can all agree that some areas of government are poor value for money - where we differ is in our solutions. The Right want to do away with the state completely, whereas I want to replace the bits that don't work and expand the bits that do. I have always chosen evolutionary action over revolutionary action. While the first can be very slow, it is much less messy and without the risks of the latter. If welfare causes laziness (a key right-wing argument) then why are workers from Eastern Europe (after decades of the most interventionist state) seemingly so industrious?

Still, after saying all this - I hope there is such a thing as progressive conservatism and that the 'new Tories' defy the evidence of their mounting manifesto and subscribe to it. It seems whatever the Tories have planned for us, we will find out in less than 18 months time. The large Tory leads in the polls and Gordon Brown's inability to do humility and give the people something to like him for, all point to us finding out exactly what the Tories do have in store for us.

Euro'll Sorry Now!

Hands up if you now think we should have joined the Euro in 1999?

As the pound slides below Euro parity, I bet Longrider wishes we had joined when he could buy a Euro for 61p. His move to France will mean his salary in pounds will probably effectively halve as he pays his bills in Euros.

But obviously more important than Longrider's woes (sorry for upsetting you LR with some home truths about hypocrisy), the UK would have been forced to tackle it's runaway housing market speculation and private debt if we had joined. Long fixed-term mortgages with high deposits should have been the norm back then, we would now be far better positioned to ride out the recession. Brown is an idiot.

'Westminster system' about to make reluctant Canadians face FIFTH general election in EIGHT years!

The Tories in Canada have just suspended parliament to as they put it - 'protect democracy'. PM Stephen Harper was about to lose a vote of confidence in parliament which would have meant his minority government losing power.

Instead, because Canada has the same 'unwritten constitution' that also afflicts the UK he can get some unelected posh person (Michaelle Jean - Canadian Governor General to HRH Queen) to scrap parliament for a few months to give the Tories some breathing space to think up some propaganda to keep them in power. Nice!

FIVE general elections in EIGHT years - I can't wait to hear about how our style of electoral system is causing such instability. Oh we never will, will we, cos it doesn't fit in with the sort of right-wing propaganda they want us to hear does it?

'Where The President Is Never Black, Female Or Gay...

...And until that day, you have nothing to say to me' - sang Morrissey in 2004 on his song 'America, you are not the world'.

Even then, it seemed inconceivable that a black man could...

be president in our lifetimes yet alone in 4 years time.

In practical terms, Barack Obama is to the right of Tony Blair - so hardly a revolution, but in symbolic terms this election says a lot.

The fact the margin of victory was so small, tells us the left still have a long way to go to start setting the agenda. Even amongst financial meltdown, the left could not set the agenda against a corporate media and funding of parties. It is going to be hard for Barack to make any impact on universal healthcare and other measures with a filibustering Republican rump blocking it - but at least we now have HOPE.

US Turnout Will Still Be Lower Than Ours - So Don't Give Me Any Bull About Us Having To Copy US Elections

Even though a record 30m Americans voted before today and 135m in total are predicted to turnout by the time the polls close (the best US turnout since the 60s), we are still talking about a pitiful turnout of around 59% - appalling by Western European standards and less than the pitiful turnout in the UK general election of 2005 (which was the second worst UK turnout since 1918). So the US may be good at the...

election hype but the long queues at their polling stations are all about not having enough polling stations (part of the right-wing tactic to suppress the black vote) rather than unprecedented enthusiasm for their election - the US have nothing to crow about and we certainly don't have to follow them.

If we really want to improve turnout to over 75%, to the levels they enjoy in Belgium, New Zealand, Scandanavis etc - we might want to consider the fact all these countries have proportional representation.

Finally, I still think Obama is going to lose - I know the poll leads look unsurmountable and perhaps they are - but never underestimate the dirty tactics the right might emply to steal this election.

The states to watch are Pennsylvania and Virginia - Obama needs them to make sure of victory and both have been denied early voting and are sure to have massive queues in black areas putting off Obama supporters. Don't be surprised to see McCain also hold both Florida and Ohio and maybe even take New Mexico, the vote suppressing tactics and push polling the Republicans put in place in 2000 and 2004 have been perfected and will only be extended if they pull it off this time.

Even if Obama does manage to win despite all this - the Democrats will lose countless Senate seats as a result of the agressive undermining of democracy and find the Republicans filibuster the desperately needed proposals on healthcare and welfare - leaving Obama powerless in office.

Would You Queue FIVE Hours To Vote?

Republicans have become experts in vote suppression (even Mugabe would be impressed!). There are already legal suits being issued over low numbers of polling staff and voting booths and registration suppression. There is no doubt that more Americans want Obama than McCain (as reflected in his slim poll lead amongst registered voters), but those thinking Obama is going to 'win' this election could have a nasty shock coming. Most voters now think their vote will not be...

counted properly and think the vote will be rigged. What a terrible state for the supposed leaders of the 'free world' to be in.

I have never had to wait even one second to vote in this country and it is hard to imagine how FIVE hour queues could even develop yet alone be tolerated. It is not that hard to hold an election that is honest and reasonably accurate - even a hundred years ago it happened. The only explanation for the most powerful nation on Earth not being able to hold an election properly is corruption. And we all know which party benefits form this. Expect McCain to be crowned in 6 days time.

My Prediction: McCain Will Win.

For the following reasons:-....

1. Don't trust the polls - low turnout elections (around 50% or less) with large disparate electorates are notoriously hard for pollsters to predict accurately and US pollsters have consistently had a bad time. Leads of 3%-7% for the Democrats are too small to be clearly outside of the margin of error, the polls always miss 'shy' Republicans and then there is 'the Bradley effect' also in the Republicans favour.

2. Don't trust the media - consistently the Democrats get a rough ride and this becomes more important nearer the poll date. Some studies have found bias of 10 to 1 in the Republicans favour - Kerry had 10 times more negative stories and Bush 10 times more positive ones - this is no accident - the corporate media like to see the Republicans in power. As the election approaches expect all sorts of weird sideline narratives to dominate - focussing on the trivial 'scandals' over real issues is how the media will win it for McCain (even in these desperate economic times I think they will have people voting for Palin's wink rather than Obama's tax and healthcare plans).

3. Don't trust the count - Diebold promised to 'win it for Bush' and electronic counting of votes with no paper trail is a scary thought. Expect more imaginative ballot papers to confuse people into voting Republican and expect more dodgy counts - as in 2000 and 2004.

4. Don't trust the voter registration - expect hundreds of thousands of voters to be disenfranchised in Democratic wards in close states - one way or another they will be put off or prevented from voting whether it be 5 hour queues in poor wards in Ohio, intimidation, 'push polling' or being removed from voter rolls for having a 'similar name' to a felon. The winner decides these things and the Republicans keep winning because they decide these things.

Finally I hope for goodness sake that I am proved wrong and Obama makes history - even then, I'm not hopeful he would be any good - but surely better than McCain/Palin and their religious crowd pleasing rhetoric.

As A Democrat, Even Jesus Christ Would Lose.

The media build them up and knock them down - Barack Obama's fate, like Democrats before him, is sealed by the corporate media.

No matter how blameless a life, how saintly the Democrat candidate, the right-wing media will paint them in a bad light - even calling them 'elitist' and 'self serving' for having lived within the media rules that allowed them to progress. Catch 22!

Barack Obama may be to the right of new Labour when it comes to policy, but in US media circles he is painted as an 'anti-Christian', 'dangerous liberal leftie' and a 'national security risk'. No doubt even JC himself would be painted in these terms if he joined the Democrats.

So we end up with disgustingly ignorant, inept, corrupt, hypocritical and frightening Republican leaders of the most powerful country on Earth.

The world over, whether the UK, US, Italy or elsewhere, the corporate media straitjacket makes it harder and harder for Left leaning leaders to be elected. Democracy pah! Add in a dysfunctional electoral system that allows only a choice between poor and mediocre parties and bingo - say goodbye to real democracy.

Not Joining The Euro Has Cost Us Billions.

Centre-right Euro-sceptics love to go on about how......

Gordon Brown sold our Gold at a low price (he actually swapped it for Euro currency that has vastly appreciated and as Gold is priced in the plummeting dollar we have lost very little).

What they won't mention is that if the UK had joined the Euro currency zone from the start we could have had 1.5-2% lower interest rates and joined at an exchange rate of around 1.50EUR to the POUND instead of the current 1.25EUR.

That is a DEVALUATION in our currency of nearly 20%!!! - something that has brought down previous administrations - this is worth much more than the piffling losses from any gold sale.

While the strength of the Euro would have damaged exports that go to non-EU countries (which is less than half of our total exports), the lower interest rates would have more than compensated for this (as demonstrated by the extraordinary growth in Ireland) and long-term inflation would have been much easier to control with lower interest rates and a strengthening Euro currency to back it up.

As well as the Tories and their right-wing media friends being responsible for increasing the number of people on welfare, increasing our national debt, being responsible for the credit crunch (by irresponsible credit deregulation in the 1980s), socially oppressing our people (with inaccurate and depressing stories of 'broken Britain' thereby hardening people's attitudes to rehabilitation, abortion, sexuality etc and making it impossible for politicians to be brave), tripling inequality and doubling crime, they are also clearly totally completely inept about our future economic security.

And we want these Tories back in power? We must be mad if we throw away the progress that Labour has made because of the disenchantment with its speed of delivery - every Labour government from Attlee to Wilson has disappointed the Left but without these governments there would be less liberal attitudes to minorities, no NHS and more inequality and crime.

New Labour has actually delivered more - record improvements in education, health, transport and overall quality of life.

Despite appearences to the contrary this Labour government have delivered the biggest redistribution of wealth by the tax system to the poorest of ANY government.

Not enough in a world where incomes at the top have gone out of control - but don't let the Tories fool you into thinking that doing nothing is a better option.

Zimbabwe Exemplifies Why Iraq Was About Oil.

I reckon George Bush could win back the faith of Europeans simply by launching an invasion of Zimbabwe and removing Mugabe from power (mobile footage of Mugabe hanging would be more popular than...

the demise of Saddam).

Here is a country clearly being despotised amid universal world condemnation. When Bush invaded Iraq, he brushed aside the condemnation of Iraq's neighbours, he ignored the UN, all he needed was his 'moral crusade' (or so they told us). The objections of Zimbabwe's neighbours could equally be ignored.

It was obvious even to a child that Iraq was no threat (intelligence on Iraqi weapons was comprehensive - the gulf war and Israeli/US air attacks had completely disabled Iraq and everyone knew their rockets could not reach Europe), the weapons inspectors would have confirmed there were no WMD within weeks if the invasion had been delayed. But Bush rushed ahead. If Bush invades Zimbabwe in the next few months he would prove me wrong. But until that dubious day, I can only conclude 'oil crusade' not 'moral crusade' was the real agenda.

Was Bush's Re-Election Really That Different To Mugabes?

Listening to the news from Zimbabwe, I can't help thinking back to the US Presidential Elections in 2000 and 2004.

Restrictions on the number of polling booths in Democratic wards leading to five hour or more queues and no time for people to vote, intimidation of voters, mass media mis-information, playing the politics of fear with the electorate (white farmers in Zimbabwe, black Arabs in the US), counting and registration irregularities and biased polling officials, delays in the release of vote counts and counts stopped completely by the law courts.

All of these have happened in both the US and Zimbabwe. Now I am not saying that Republican methods in the US have been as brutal or blatant as Zanu PF in Zimbabwe, but it makes you pause for thought, doesn't it?

Geert Wilders - "I Don't Hate Muslims. I Hate Islam".

In today's Observer there is an article on Dutch MP Geert Wilders, whose new film criticising Islam is courting controversy and may soon be shown on Dutch TV.

I find Wilder's suggestion to...

ban the 'fascist' Koran itself a fascist statement. I do have sympathy with his view that Islam is the 'ideology of a retarded culture' (retarded in the sense that all religion harks back to outdated morality written many centuries ago). I also of course, vigorously defend Wilder's right to free speech (no matter how offensive it may be to some Muslim groups).

However, all sympathy for Wilders disappears when he makes statements that are obviously playing to an anti-Muslim popularism and in themself demonstrate his own fascistic tendencies.

It is fine to call the Koran 'fascist' but not to push for it to be banned. The irony of wanting to ban a 'fascist' book obviously goes over Wilder's head - the act of banning books and suppressing free speech is one of the most obvious aspects of fascism.

For this reason, I have no doubt that Wilders motives are insincere, yet despite this I have to support his right to be provocative (as long as he doesn't incite violence). Much as I may despise Wilder's motives and the inevitable racism they foster, I cannot defend those on either the Islamic or anti-Islamic sides who want to suppress free speech. The only solution to fascist arguments is to thoroughly defeat them with more argument. We should have faith in the strength of our anti-fascist arguments and through that defend free speech as sacrosanct.

Obama Or Clinton?

Millions of hours of media coverage and we still have no idea what their policies are. Believe me I have tried to find out, but the differences are small, vague and nuanced even when examining detailed websites - Barack Obama - Hillary Clinton.

This repetitive shallow coverage of issues in the TV media particularly, reflects a dying dysfunctional democracy where big money rules. This sadly is America's biggest export and it has infected media around the world.

Cops Say Legalise Drugs.

What with the BBC Horizon programme the other night bursting a few myths with a scientific(ish) countdown of the most dangerous drugs (both legal and illegal) and the repeated calls from police chiefs here for legalisation. I thought I might endulge to quote the US organisation - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition at length.

"After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams. Every year we choose to continue this war will cost U.S. taxpayers another 69 billion dollars. Despite all the lives we have destroyed and all the money so ill spent, today illicit drugs are cheaper, more potent, and far easier to get than they were 35 years ago at the beginning of the war on drugs. Meanwhile, people continue dying in our streets while drug barons and terrorists continue to grow richer than ever before. We would suggest that this scenario must be the very definition of a failed public policy. This madness must cease!

The stated goals of current U.S.drug policy -- reducing crime, drug addiction, and juvenile drug use -- have not been achieved, even after nearly four decades of a policy of "war on drugs". This policy, fueled by over a trillion of our tax dollars has had little or no effect on the levels of drug addiction among our fellow citizens, but has instead resulted in a tremendous increase in crime and in the numbers of Americans in our prisons and jails. With 4.6% of the world's population, America today has 22.5% of the worlds prisoners. But, after all that time, after all the destroyed lives and after all the wasted resources, prohibited drugs today are cheaper, stronger, and easier to get than they were thirty-five years ago at the beginning of the so-called "war on drugs"."

Says it all, really, don't you think?

Bulgaria's Abandoned Children.

To anyone who saw the documentary last night on BBC2, I am sure you will all want to sign this petition, to anyone who didn't see it, take my words it was a horrific experience to see children so neglected. It was utterly disorientating to see how indifferent the staff and government could be to the children's awful plight. I am going to sign. On the evidence of what I saw last night, not since the holocaust has their been a more worthy cause.

I cannot understand why the EU was so careful to stipulate real improvement in the institutions in Romania before they were allowed to be members this year, why not the same conditions for Bulgaria? If anyone knows the answer, let me know. One of the great uses of the EU, is to put pressure on national governments to improve things like this, lets hope the EU wakes up to this one.

Gun Laws and School Massacres.

The Tories want to legalise the .22 type of handguns used by Pekka Eric Auvinen in the Finnish School massacre (contrary to news reports this is the second school gun shooting to have occurred in Finland in the last few decades).

I can see a pattern emerging in...

who the perpetrators are of these crimes - middle class, white, rural, alienated social misfits who join legal gun clubs and amass legally owned weapons.

Your inner city lout may be using illegal weapons to help protect their drug business but they are not completely whacko. That takes rural gun nuts amassing easily available legal weapons.

There should be one question to test the suitability of someone who wants to own a gun - 'do you want a gun' - if you do, then you are not suitable to own one - simple as that.

The UK has one of the lowest gun death rates in the world, it also has some of the toughest gun ownership laws. Coincidence? I think not.

Cowardice on tax and Europe will not win us the next election.

When Ken Livingstone said Gordon Brown was to the right of Tony Blair, few took it seriously, now few of us (on the left) are laughing.

Without even having an argument, the Labour party has given in to the ideas of the extreme right. There is a fantastic discussion to be had on tax and Europe, and Labour could win the argument...if only we tried. In the face of the Tory press, it wouldn't be easy, but because basically we would be arguing for the truth...and surely, surely? even today that has to be an advantage, we could win the argument.

Opposition to inheritance tax has not come about overnight, nor has it happened by accident. It is the result of a...

sustained media campaign that started with the right-wing media in the US (and IHT abolition by Bush) and inevitably was replicated by the Express, Mail et al over here.

For many years now (surely forever?), day after day, the Tory press has relentlessly battered the EU and tax (amongst other things) with distorted stories that are never countered by the Labour party. These myths are now so pervasive that the very idea that either tax or the EU could be useful and beneficial is viewed with disdain even by bedrock Labour supporters.

To counter this and change attitudes will take a relentless campaign by the Labour government sustained right through to the next election. Gordon Brown does best and rides high in the opinion polls when he sets the agenda and argues for progressive policies not caves in to the Tories. There are plenty of possibilities to set the agenda with and put the Tories on the backfoot. There are few votes for Labour in apeing Tory policies. Labour have to let people know exactly what their aims are and how they intend to achieve them. People want to see less inequality, people want better public services and they are willing to pay for them if they can see the results. These are all Labour aspirations (or should be!) and give Labour an advantage over the Tories who only represent the privileged few.

The Tory press have persuaded people that taxation equals waste and that public services have got worse despite extra spending. This is far from the truth. As the argument over IHT shows, Labour have to counter these claims in the strongest terms if they are to win the argument. Having the truth on your side is sometimes not enough - you have to make the case as well.

It is indisputable that IHT causes less hardship than the council tax and even VAT (where is the hardship in inheriting assets of over £350k and only having to take a £20k mortgage to pay the taxes? Even someone on the dole could get a mortgage like that with those assets) yet instead of VAT and council tax (that hit the poorest the most) being reduced, we get reductions for the richest by cutting IHT. This is a terrible injustice and immoral when the top 50% already have 94% of the wealth. If even the Labour party do this, what hope have the poor got? Never has the dysfunctionality of our electoral system being made more clear than when the parties have to pay more attention to big house owners in the marginals than to the relative poverty of the majority. As Irwin Stelzer argued, if the wealthy and middle earners are honest (and stop whinging for just a second), they have done very well out of this Labour government (unfortunately the low earners have not quite done so well).

As for waste, as a percentage of public spending it is probably little different to when the Tories were in power (compare the growth in NHS admissions, doctors and nurses pay (we wanted them paid more didn't we? to the growth in NHS administrators, and you would still have auditors like this that were installed by the Tories but the Tories would reverse the FOI Act so you wouldn't hear about them), and when asked, most people have good stories about public services, especially the so derided NHS. We still spend far less than countries in Europe on our public services and this is the main cause of our problems, not a lack of efficiency (though of course, efficiency savings are always desirable).