Coffee-Coloured Punters

Posted on September 13, 2013 by davidsberry

Being old enough to remember main cultural moves in Western society for the latter half of the 20th century, one element that keeps returning to me as various unionists meld the peoples of Britain into one prosperous happy family is a song from the seventies—Blue Mink’s Melting Pot. At the time, it encapsulated rather well the enlightened aspirations of Americans who questioned racialism and xenophobia.

It kept playing in my head as I read the speech by the Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party, Anas Sarwar to the Road Haulage Association Conference, Hampden Park, Glasgow on 10th September 2013. In stark contrast to Ms Lamont at this week’s PMQs, he offers what he regards as a positive vision of Britain as a Union and I commend him for laying off the ritual nat-bashing in doing so. The speech catalogues a series of his reasons and I mean no disrespect if I attempt to paraphrase his main argument into “bigger is better” because—together with a shared island and 300 years of history, that is what most boils down to.

There is much to commend a shared vision across as many people as possible as a force for good and his thesis that the world is simpler and more efficient bundled into larger units has plenty of examples in business, if not in nations. While individual states of the US have pride in their identity (and some dwarf many countries) no-one there or elsewhere is seriously proposing 50 seats at the UN instead of one. The EU is a laudable attempt to ensure once-warring countries jaw-jaw instead of woah-woah and the UN, while having its ineffectual moments, is clearly a force for good in a way that the League of Nations never managed to achieve.

Mr Sarwar waxes quite lyrical as he lists what he perceives as the advantages; “I passionately believe we are stronger politically, economically, socially and emotionally as part of the UK.

  • Politically;
  • our voice is stronger when we speak with one voice,
  • the influence we have through a seat at the top table,
  • which demonstrates the positive influence for change we can be.
  • Stronger in the UN,
  • Stronger in the EU,
  • Stronger in the G8
  • and stronger in the G20.”

True to the original principles of socialism, the sweeping away of national barriers and uniting all in an egalitarian workers’ paradise has a noble history. Seen, as it originally was, against a backdrop of narrow nationalism and even fascism, its appeal to lofty and humanitarian minds was strong. Mr Sarwar’s speech echoes that and therefore deserves some answer.

The short catalogue above does make a powerful argument but contains the seeds of its own disproving. The phrase “demonstrates the positive influence for change we can be” presupposes that effect is always positive. In the last 10 years, the Scots have been taken to war (and dutifully served) in Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of which a majority supported. How are we stronger if our own aspirations—positive relations with the EU; opposition to nuclear weapons; conviction about a better social programme—are consistently swept aside? Ask our fishermen watching Spaniards reel in their catch if this ‘stronger’ voice has helped them. Ask an objective observer which country—Norway or Scotland—benefited most from exploitation of roughly equal discoveries of oil in their home waters.

Then there is the logical development of what Mr Sarwar argues. If big is axiomatically good, why should the UK not become the 51st through 54th states of that other 200+year-old union—the USA? They’re the heavyweight of the planet; they speak (pace Mark Twain) the same language; they share a common culture (at least on TV) and we never hear the end of the ‘special relationship’ we enjoy with Washington. Who says that his argument vis-a-vis size has a scale that stops at Calais? Why isn’t he sticking it right up Tory noses by arguing for a United States of Europe that would surely prove his arguments in spades?

An anciliary question that neither Mr Sarwar nor any of his unionist colleagues seem keen to address is this: if the UK is such a successful union that offers its constituent parts such wonderful advantages, why would Eire not want to rejoin? After all, they shared the same political and cultural unity as the rest of the UK up until 1922. Many Irish helped build the British Empire and numbers comparable to other regions died fighting for its continued prosperity right up until the First World War. Ireland has few resources other than its people; it has no oil, coal, gas, minerals, little that supports a modern industrial nation. Yet even when their banks came close to bust and their property bubble burst harder than the UK’s not one Irish voice suggested scuttling in under the UK’s skirts again. Funny, eh?

Because one thing that Mr Sarwar and his pan-British unionists seem to miss is that people feel and behave best when they are comfortable in the knowledge of who they are. In its most fruitful form, this has little to do with knowing who you are against but a sense of common culture, common purpose and common community. This is something that—for reasons that are not entirely clear to me—at which the Scots have proved to be rather adept.

With curry bidding fair to unseat the haggis as our national dish Scots appear adept at making immigrants all Jock Tamson’s Bairns—of which, Mr Sarwar can rightly claim to be a fine example. This is consistent with the historical fact that the millions of Scots who emigrated elsewhere seldom formed ghettos but assimilated early into the mainstream. Whether as soldiers of Gustavus Aldolphus, Admirals of the Czars, merchants scattered across the Low Countries or signatures on the US Declaration of Independence, the Scots diaspora became a strong integral root of the culture where they landed.

And none of this smacked of the ‘narrow nationalism’ of which Mr Sarwar and his supposed broad-minded colleagues habitually and wrongly accuse those who want Scotland to be a normal country. If England were less paranoid about what lies across the Channel, if the New English were half as well culturally integrated as the New Scots, if the hankering for the dead days of Empire and influence were not such a driver for UK foreign policy, then his thesis that we Scots would be better off thinking of ourselves as British and remaining bound to them might have more persuasive traction. But we don’t.

Especially since the symbolic establishment of the Parliament, Scotland has amply demonstrated its unique culture and aspirations. With no disrespect intended to our English friends, Scots are more societal and less competitive than they; we are more egalitarian and less deferential; we are more emotional and less reserved, more philosophical and less ceremonious. In the last decade or so, these differences have become more marked, with the general English benign ignorance about their northern neighbours increasingly underscoring their differences to Scots themselves.

If this were not so, why would Mr Sarwar himself have to declare an end to factionalism in his party, by which he means Scots Old Labour and its MSPs being at loggerheads with New Labour and their MPs? Good luck to him in this. He is, in fact, thereby tackling the very distinctions that he pretends do not (or should not?) exist in his pan-British ideal.

National Identity in Scotland (source: Curtice Social Attitudes Survey)

National Identity in Scotland (source: Curtice Social Attitudes Survey)

Although they have been eloquent in toeing the party line on independence, a number of Mr Sarwar’s colleagues—Douglas Alexander, Jim Murphy and Tom Harris to name a few—have demonstrated a far better understanding of the hill they have to climb in convincing Scots that their better future lies with the Union. He would do well to study their more subtle understanding of what they’re dealing with. But he seems determined to stick with the uninspired moanfest droning from Holyrood’s Labour benches as Lalamont bids fair to be remembered as the leader who out-bored the hapless Iain Gray.

Though he does make a better fist of positive argument than the super-centrist Brian Wilson or the bludgeoning Ian Davidson, Mr Sarwar nonetheless ignores the cultural fact that most (and ever more) Scots identify themselves as just that (see above), even as they become more relaxed about being described as British or European. The once more homogeneous country of Britain fades into history in proportion to the coffee-coloured Scots rediscovering their mongrel roots, their own voice on social integration and the leading role they once played (from Enlightenment to universal schooling to engineering excellence) for the benefit of all.

That ‘all’ includes our good friends in England, who seem to have rather lost their once-impressive way. But only after they stop mistakenly shackling us together mainly on their terms.

Posted in Commerce, Community, Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

A Geographic Concept

Posted on September 11, 2013 by davidsberry

It seems Viking is doing a special on bulk-buy venom this week as ex-MP & Highland Free Press veteran Brian Wilson is using a vat-load in his busy  quill. His article in the Hootsmon today (Weds 11th) is well worth a read, if only to understand the mind of an entrenched commentator for whom the Union is—by definition—as good as things can ever get for Scotland. This time, he focused on what possible currency an independent Scotland could use—“Should we float our groat, stick with somebody else’s sterling or take a punt on the euro?” as Brian puts it—deriding the intermediate use of the pound sterling.

His lodestar in all of this is a paper published by the David Hume Institute Regulation, Supervision, Lender of Last Resort and Crisis Management by Dr Brian Quinn (former Deputy Head of the Bank of England). There may be few points on which Brian and I agree but his assertion that this paper is required reading for any who would debate Scotland’s future is one of them—even if our reasons for that differ.

Because Dr Quinn’s paper is another shell lobbed in a directed barrage of papers that are drip-feeding poison into Scottish ears through a willing media that this whole indy thing is madness. It needs to be taken in context with Danny Alexander’s Scottish Office Scotland Analysis publication series, including  Macroeconomic and Fiscal Performance  and Currency and Monetary Policy. Written by those in the know, such arguments deserve to be met by lucid counter-arguments. They are not merely political posturing—although they do qualify in that department too: independistas (and especially the somnambulent Yes campaign) need to deal with the fact that there are people on the union side of the argument who are just as passionate, articulate and committed as they are.

Now, my training is this fiscal field goes little further than being numerate, paying attention to events and decades of reading the Economist. Nonetheless, the partisanship in the Scotland Analysis series is not hard to expose. On the choice of Sterling as currency that Brian derides, the Scottish Office opines:

“This unilateral adoption of sterling (or “sterlingisation”) would avoid the transition and transaction costs of a change in currency but at the expense of leaving an independent Scottish state with no control over its monetary policy.

“With no ability to print money, a Scottish monetary authority could have at best only a limited function as a lender of last resort to commercial banks. The sterlingisation option would therefore impose severe constraints on monetary and fiscal policy and financial stability.”

Para 1 is fair enough—a country the size of Scotland may need to accept it does not have the clout to adopt its own viable currency—at least not until it is recognised as a hard, oil-backed denomination less volatile than gold. But this ‘lender of last resort’ fiction in para 2 has been peddled by Darling since he was Chancellor. Rather than Scotland going to the wall because of foolish HBOS/RBS profligacy in 2007/8, had it been independent, the 80% of the banks’ business being in England would have forced HM Treasury into an action similar to what happened—and perhaps not so precipitate in giving away so much to the banks as he did.

A secondary argument they make—that the proportion of a Scottish economy dependent on oil would force us into instability with volatile oil prices—ignores two facts: 1) other than the year of global insanity of 2007/8, oil has risen steadily in price from $60 to over $100 a barrel in the last ten years and its viability going forward can be validated by the £2bn+ investment already committed to the North Sea; 2) The Norwegian Krone, far from being volatile with oil prices, over the last decade has strengthened steadily in value—from 7.5 to 6 against the US$ and from 12 to 9.5 against the UK£.

But to Dr Quinn and his weighty paper, which is less obvious to expose. As a Scot, he should have appreciation of the rather differing culture that obtains here and, as a senior servant to the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street, his central banking perspective should be gospel. However, he retired in 1996, long before Irn Broon and his slippery ways infested UK central banking and, perhaps more relevant, spent three decades in the financial heart of London prior to that. Dr Quinn’s principal theses are that:—

“—a shared system of supervision would encounter difficulties, with serious weakness in governance and accountability. As a Scottish Government adopted policies which differed from those at Westminster, these flaws would increase in severity.”

“—the concept of a shared system of supervision and crisis management is seriously flawed and that its weaknesses would increase during the period of transition following independence.”

“—the clarity of responsibilities and procedures which were central objectives of the Financial Services Act 2012 would be reversed…Scottish financial institutions might face a substantial increase in their contributions to a financial compensation fund.”

“—it is important to set out the risks and challenges entailed in moving away from a system built on long experience and the practical lessons of the immediate past, to a system the nature and implications of which are at this point unexplored.”

All weighty points that do not pull punches in implied unknowns. But Dr Quinn really should get out more. The very concept of independence is fraught with uncertainties for a country—more than with any teenager leaving home and moving away, which is scary enough. But, if his “system built on long experience” provides such a desirable model for stability and foresight, what price the 2007/8 fiscal fiasco that made his much-vaunted Financial Services Act 2012 so urgently necessary?

This is the worm at the heart of his argument. He remembers good old days at the Bank—stable, omniscient—before the bright braces of Canary Wharf finished exploring the limits of the 1986 ‘Big Bang’ of financial deregulation and got themselves (and then the rest of us) into ever-deeper trouble creating ‘financial instruments’ built of papier mache, hedge funds of insubstantial twigs and ‘mortgage packages’ from bundles of unsaleable properties—all under the watchful (blind) eye of Irn Broon.

Dr Quinn is writing of another era, when words were bonds; before the similarities between Canary Wharf and Las Vegas became more that just architectural. But his assumption that ‘Scottish financial institutions’ are purely that also derives from an era when they were. But since Sir Peter Burt sold BoS down the Halifax river and RBS jumped on the same empire-building bandwagon, we no longer have the luxury of such clinical distinctions as to which country a bank belongs. The lie to the fiction that England would not have helped bale out an independent Scotland’s banks is given by the fact that:

“Barclays was bailed out to the tune of £552.32bn (at backdated exchange rates) by the US Federal Reserve and £6bn by the Qatari Government.” (Business for Scotland)

This dwarfs the £45bn that Darling squandered on RBS. None of this de facto integration of the financial world—let alone two countries with a joint interest in remaining firm friends—creeps into Dr Quinn’s work, perhaps because it was written for another era to which his own experience applies. The fact that an accommodation, such as he decries would be both necessary and desirable as an arrangement between Scotland and England, eludes him. The fact that without Scotland there IS no UK and that Scots part own all that currently belongs to the UK, including the Bank of England, also passes him by.

But to return to the other Brian and his quill-o’-the-wisp venom that claims “civil servants are being forced to waste their time on composing a white paper on independence while the legs are being kicked away from its central tenets before the tome even sees the light of day”. Let’s assume that prejudging a democratic vote is poor planning and accept that someone should be looking into repercussions of the ‘yes’ option and consider—as he seems unable to—an arrangement for independence in which:

  • England and Scotland both behave like the reasonable long-time friends they are
  • Scotland keeps the £ and places members on the Bank of England committee while
  • Considering other long-term options, such as the €, $ or even Brian’s ₲roat
  • The Scots and English FSAs work closely together to prevent any risk of repeating the cowboy days of 2007/8 (as the Scandinavians did at the time & had no such problems)
  • Just as the Scots recovered from debilitating wars and loyalties in the late 17th © to create the Enlightenment partnerip of Empire and the booming trade of the late 18th © so Scotland could be the best partner England could want—especially if England keeps antagonising Europe and fighting wars it can ill afford.

Just as Dr Quinn seems mired in pre-New Labour assumptions on monetary practice and that fiscal dictatorship by the Bank of England is an a priori good—as well as tenable—in the 21st ©, so the Mr Wilson needs to get off his preoccupation with Great Britain being the only viable country—and by extension political entity—in these islands.

If both Brians and a shed-load of Alastairs/Dannys/Gordons/etc are all so sure of the inherent inviolability of the unity of Britain, answer this question: why did the Irish leave in 1922 and why have they had no desire to return, even their recent darkest fiscal days? To shamefully misquote the great Austrian statesman Metternich (who knew a thing or two about the integrity or otherwise of countries):

“Großbritannien ist nur ein geographisches Begriff”

(Great Britain is merely a geographic concept)

Posted in Commerce, Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Disproving the First Law

Posted on September 10, 2013 by davidsberry

After a career spent largely pushing paper around in pursuit of ever more complex computer electronics, I returned to Scotland twenty years ago, bringing back an MGB already twenty years old and engaged mechanic buddy Colin to help restore it. For the next year or so, we lay over and under the beast, seeing to various ailments, many of which were age-related and involved removing seized nuts & bolts. Colin’s approach to such problems was a brisk application of WD40 and his First Law of Engineering—When in Doubt, Use a Larger Hammer.

I was reminded First Law by Jim Murphy in the defence debate at the Festival of Politics (see previous blog). He echoed what I have heard from Alastair Darling, Brian Wilson and most other unionist spokespeople when it comes to discussing defence—that Scotland walks taller and ‘punches above its weight’ by being part of the UK. That’s because the UK has a seat on the UN security council, nuclear weapons and the third biggest defence budget on the planet. It strikes me that this is Colin’s First Law writ large on a global scale. And it has all the subtlety of an air raid.

There is, in my opinion, an entire debate to be had whether the UK is in a position to be (or even pretend to be) a global power. The absence of the British emperor’s clothes on the global stage started half a century ago with Suez, became apparent in the Falklands and is the subtext of each American-poodle role UK forces have played since Operation Desert Storm. For me, the jig is up as far as modern global gunboat diplomacy is concerned; the only reason the UK can pretend any global role is as sidekick validator that the US isn’t just a self-interested bully acting alone.

To shore up this role, the UK is spending £7bn to build two aircraft carriers, for which £5.5bn for F35B fighter aircraft cannot be provided at first (and hares have been set running that the UK can’t even afford to finish both ships). Put together with a support & escort force (but no Aegis cruiser because the RN has none), a finished carrier is indeed a potent global weapon—one standing off the Syrian coast (as France’s Charles de Gaulle is currently) may give Assad food for thought. But, given that each US aircraft carrier has three times the planes and three times the clout of any European carrier AND that the USN deploys a dozen of them, both France and the UK are global tiddlers.

And yet, the UK persists in this global role. The workhorse of the RN—the Type 23 frigate is to be replaced by the Global Combat Ship (aka GCS). Because the six larger Type 45 destroyers are costing a cool £500m+ each, at £350m each, the GCS is seen as the escort workhorse well into the 21st century. Indeed it will be a capable vessel, with flexible armament for anti-air, anti-submarine and GP roles. And, at 5,400 tons (25% larger than a frigate), it should have the seaworthiness and habitability for global deployment far from bases.

But, so what? Although both French and American air strikes have been launched into Afghanistan from off the Pakistani coast, it has had trivial effects on the main conflict and done more as an exercise and show of solidarity with the hard-pressed ground troops. To replace all 13 Type 23 frigates will cost £4.5bn and at least two will be committed as escorts for each carrier (along with a Type 45 destroyer), leaving a dozen major surface units for all other tasks. The upside of a ship like the GCS is discussed in a paper from RUSI. But, given Scotland’s geographic position and the rundown of the RAF in the country, what kind of defence are we going to have?

Because what Scotland needs is a regional defence. Leave aside that not being part of the UK would probably reduce any terrorist threat close to zero. In order of probability and priority, Scotland must be provided with defence against:

  1. Terrorist attack on North Sea facilities, especially oil platforms.
  2. Fisheries protection and sovereignty enforcement (incl. drug & contraband traffic)
  3. Long-range intrusion by global powers, whether on, over or under the sea
  4. Major disasters, whether major shipwreck, storm damage or humanitarian aid
  5. Local intrusion by hostile neighbours

The GCS is the optimal platform only for the latter two. Threat No 3 can best be dealt with by long-range maritime reconnaissance aircraft (of which the UK now has none) and land-based air strikes. To best deal with Threats 1 & 2, many more smaller, faster ships would be far preferable to a half-dozen GCS (even if they were deployed in home waters).

Other countries have done the same analysis and come up with better solutions to this set of problems, especially those happy with a simply regional defence and no pretence at global deployment ability. These include:

  • USN Independence class Littoral Combat Ship —2,300 tons, 44 kts, $700m (£470m)—innovative, v. fast trimaran but expensive for what you get
  • German Braunschweig class Corvette—1,840 tons, 26 kts, $309m (£102m)—powerful for its size but teething problems with turbines
  • Spanish BAM (Buque de Acción Marítima) Offshore Patrol Vessel—2,500 tons, 20+kts $110m (£75m)—cheaper but with a high standard of automation and habitability
  • Finnish Hamina class Fast Attack Boat—250 tons, 30 kts, $100m (£68m)—innovative ‘stealth’ boat of shallow draft using water jet propulsion
  • RN River class Offshore Patrol Vessel—1,680 tons, 20 kts, $47m (£32m)—cheapest, with impressive endurance but lightly armed; until recently, leased from the builders

Given that any of the 19 RN ‘major’ ships have been notable by their absence from Scottish waters (there is usually a maximum of one anywhere in UK waters, based at Portsmouth), there is little likelihood that the UK ‘global’ posture will permit that to change. Were Scotland to acquire its ‘share’ of the RN, that would start with two frigates and one of the ‘River’ class patrol boats that are based on the Clyde. That, in itself would provide  better protection for Scottish waters, especially if a squadron of LRMR aircraft were added.

But an optimal protection would be to trade in the two 4,400-ton frigates for something more flexible. assuming that, in the RN each would be replaced by a GCS, the £700m involved could be far better spent. Such a sum (other than one US LCS) would get you:

  • a flotilla of four BAMs for sustained patrol requirements (see above)
  • a flotilla of four Hamina for rapid intercession action (e.g. guerrilla attack on a rig or chasing contraband)
  • two CN-235 turboprop LRMR aircraft to start providing recon support for such a naval

So, trading the single River for something more useful and having eight ships fit for purpose instead of three that are straight out of Engineering’s First Law seems like a deal.

Where such ships would be built is open to debate and there is some risk that they would not be built in Scottish yards. However, given the paucity of ship orders now coming from the MoD, any long term hope for those yards for a future from building RN warships is in jeopardy—whether the UK holds together or not.

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

2013 Festival of Politics V—Defence

Posted on August 30, 2013 by davidsberry

This was, for me, the highlight of the whole weekend. Unlike the other panels, which consisted largely of academics and commentators—albeit very capable ones—this featured two heavyweight politicians at the top of their game. They did not disappoint.

  • Professor Louise Richardson, Principal and Vice-Chancellor, St Andrews (Chair)
  • Angus Robertson MP for Moray, Shadow Minister for Defence & Foreign Affairs
  • Professor Hew Strachan, University of Oxford, ex-Director of Scottish School of War Studies
  • Jim Murphy MP for Eastwood, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence

It says much for the capabilities of the Chair and Hew Strachan that they managed to get their views in between the other two. And this is not to say that it denigrated into the usual political yah-boo-sucks typical of Westminster PMQ. Though they hold violently opposing views and articulate them fluently and coherently, lacing them with irony and humour to the point of entertainment, this was a real debate and one it was a privilege to witness.

Angus is as cosmopolitan a man as you can find, having worked extensively in and around Vienna and is fluent in both German and things European. His constituency was the most defence-oriented in Scotland but is now being ravaged by the 2-of-3 air bases cut meted out by the MoD. Elected in 2001 to replace the late Margaret Ewing, as Leader of the SNP group at Westminster he has galvanised his group of six to be an articulate and effective voice on behalf of Scotland putting a much larger group of Scottish Labour MPs to shame.

Jim Murphy is thoroughly deserving of the high status he has achieved. Starting with what should have been the impossible of capturing the safest Tory seat in Scotland in 1997, he showed himself adept at making it his own and now has a bigger majority than the 10,240 he overcame. Starting in 2005, he has held successively higher posts within Labour, including Secretary of State for Scotland, and was regarded as a ‘safe pair of hands’ in all. A vegetarian marathon runner, Jim has an actor’s ability to tailor his body language and delivery to the debate at hand.

After agreeing that defence was unlikely to be decisive in the independence debate, the panel nonetheless also agreed that it was one of the few vital areas of state over which the Scottish Parliament did not have control. Further harmony ensued over the idea that there was little immediate threat to scotland but that, were it to come, it was likely to be in the North Sea and from the Arctic. With themeling of the polar ise cap, the latter was likely to assume more importance than heretofore.

Hew Strachan expanded on Scotland being blessed with a relatively secure position. The biggest threat he saw was the transfer of US (and therefore NATO) focus to Asia/Pacific. This would mean Europe becoming more self-sufficient within NATO and, as co-operation on air/maritime defence is crucial, allies will be an essential element of any credible defence for Scotland. However, he was not sure that a nuclear-free Scotland with only a conventional Coulport/HMNB Clyde would be acceptable to them.

Angus’ main thesis was that the present UK military posture was not appropriate for Scotland. The more obvious elements were the complete absence of long-range maritime patrol capability since the scrapping of Nimrods and their replacement and of any major surface vessels in the critical North Sea arena. Denmark currently spends 1.7% of national wealth on defence, (UK is at 2.5%, which translates to Scotland’s share being over £3.6bn). He argued a much more appropriate defence was available for between £1.6bn (weaker & comparable to Eire) and £2.5bn (comparable capability to Denmark). The key point he made was that everyone—with the possible exception of the USA—could not afford a full-spectrum defence. Interesting data on the perceived usefulness of our £3bn-and-about-to-cost-more nuclear ‘capability’ was gathered by whatscotlandthinks.org

Those Who Think UK Nuclear Deterrence s Effective vs Various Threats (Source: whatscotlandthinks.org)

Those Who Think UK Nuclear Deterrence s Effective vs Various Threats (Source: whatscotlandthinks.org)

Jim focussed on the inability of a country the size of Scotland to maintain the level of ‘clout’ that the UK enjoys. This involves many advantages, including a seat on the UN Security Council, global deployment ability and a credible 24/7 nuclear retaliation. He did not mention any ‘special relationship’ with the US (although Cameron does and Blair did). Only the UK could afford GHQ, which is key in the fight against terrorism, especially cyber-terrorism. We can never be sure of the focus of threats as they change: in 1997, the focus was Northern Ireland and little thought was given to Afghanistan, Libya or Syria; the number of unstable states in the world continues to be double that of stable states.

Hew broadly supported this and argued the 1.7% benchmark was approaching the problem from the wrong end. He was particularly concerned with what he called “infrastructure enablers’ like training and intelligence (again referring to GHQ) and he did emphasise that Scotland’s position required that, rather than arguments about revival of Scots regiments, serious investment in air and maritime which required, as he put it, ‘expensive kit’. Where he did agree with Angus was in the need to any Scottish force to specialise, possibly in an armed policing role which other countries do poorly. Angus agreed, suggesting this was one of the key contributions that Scotland might make. He cited Scandinavia as a model; they provide 25% of all UN peacekeepers, not least because of their reputation for both competence and recognised neutrality and fairness.

As the (lively) debate progressed, it became clear that the two main protagonists were making distinct assumptions about the defence posture to be adopted. Jim clearly saw the global strategic role that the UK played for the last two centuries continuing into the 21st century and argued—quite plausibly—that only larger countries would be able to fund and deploy all the resources necessary to do that. He also argued that Scotland would lose 12,000 MoD workers contributing £1.8bn to the Scottish economy, largely in shipbuilding and the Global Combat Ship would not be built in a ‘foreign’ country. Left to itself, even if it spent £2.5bn, such funds would not go far in defence. He seemed to be recycling the gist of a negative article that appeared the same day in the Sunday Post

In riposte, Angus pointed out that the 5,000 shipyard workers would soon reduce to 1,500 as the QE class carriers neared completion and that, while less than our share of MoD money was spent in Scotland, it still paid £13.4bn of the £160bn MoD procurement budget. But, to him, the key issue was the role envisioned. Scotland had no pretensions at being a world power, especially not on the Security Council or in the nuclear club. To him, it was self-evident that Scots & English should work together, whether in re-introducing real LRMR capability towards the North, working with the Irish, developing the next generation of frigates and co-operating within NATO.

The Defence Panel (l to r) Angus Robertson; Hew Strachan; Louise Richardson; Jim Murphy

The Defence Panel (l to r) Angus Robertson; Hew Strachan; Louise Richardson; Jim Murphy

But it was left to Hew, on the back of a question from the audience, to ask if the real debate was not whether the whole UK—with or without Scotland—was of sufficient size and financial heft to support the kind of global posture that it had to date. He felt that the debate on pros and cons on Scotland’s defence might be distracting from the far more urgent question just what the UK could afford and what other elements of a broad defence spectrum besides LRMR and Harriers must be considered unaffordable.

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

2013 Festival of Politics IV—Public Attitudes

Posted on August 28, 2013 by davidsberry

Chaired by the respected Ian Macwhirter, this FoP session launched right into the psephology of the upcoming referendum vote, powered by a deluge of data and graphs from John Curtice and his usual enthusiasm for the subject. In illustrating the debate, I am indebted to the web site whatscotlandthinks.org (“Non-partisan information on attitudes to how Scotland should be governed“). The panel consisted of:

  • Ian Macwhirter, journalist & commentator (Chair)
  • Professor John Curtice, University of Strathclyde
  • Mandy Rhodes, Editor, Holyrood Magazine
  • David Walker, writer & journalist
  • Professor Richard Wyn Jones, Director of Wales Governance Centre, Cardiff Uni.
  • Dr Nicola McEwen, snr. lecturer in Politics, University of Edinburgh

In terms of support for independence, recent polls don’t, in fact, differ much from earlier ones—in fact as long ago as the 1970 Kilbrandon Commission. However, if the ‘don’t knows’ and those unlikely to vote are removed, the committed ‘Yes’ faction sits closer to 40% than the 23% currently published. I t is also interesting that the SNP strategy of the noughties (get power -> demonstrate they can govern -> support for independence will rise—a strategy to which I enthusiastically subscribed) does not seem to have worked. They have governed well since 2007 but their support base has not budged.

 

IndyIntent2

Poll Responses to “If Held Tomorrow, How Would I Vote on an Independence Referendum?” (source: Curtice/whatscotlandthinks.org)

In analysing polling intentions regarding a vote in favour of independence in more depth, a number of clear trends emerge that are hidden in the overall data. These include:

  • men are more likely to be in favour
  • working class are more likely to be in favour
  • those aged 55 to over 60 are least likely to be in favour, although…
  • in extending the franchise to 16, more voters 16-18 are not in favour than are
  • the range of feeling of “Scottishness” has little effect but “Britishness” has more
  • expectations of the economic impact of independence has a major influence

These last two are interesting discoveries. Two thirds of Scots feel strongly Scottish but are no more likely to vote ‘Yes’ than the other third. But the strength of ‘Yes’ commitment  is in almost exact inverse proportion to the strength of feeling of ‘Britishness’. Since older people tend to hold stronger feelings of British identity, this does some way to explaining the third bullet above. On the economic aspect, there is a strong correlation between optimism regarding Scotland’s economic future under independence and a desire for it.

"How do you perceive the state of the UK economy at the moment?" (source: Curtice/whatscotlandthinks.org

“How do you perceive the state of the UK economy at the moment?” (source: Curtice/whatscotlandthinks.org

 

This goes far in explaining people’s reluctance to vote ‘Yes’ in the current economy. When the public is asked its opinion in a manner that avoids facing the economic consequences, a far more positive picture emerges. David Walker posed the question: “to what extent do Scots trust the British state” this brought pretty clear answers.  Not only would people prefer the Scottish Parliament to have a dominant, if not total, control over all Scottish Affairs but the degree to which people would choose to have involvement from Westminster is minimal.

Polling results for "Who should make decisions for Scotland?" (source: Curtice/whatscotlandthinks.com

Polling results for “Who should make decisions for Scotland?” (source: Curtice/whatscotlandthinks.com

The bad news for ‘Yes’ is that so many people are still negatively influenced by the UK’s recession of the last five years and a sense that we are not yet out of it. This does, however, offer a chance for positive movement. The most positive things that ‘Yes’ has going for them is their leaders, with Salmond/Sturgeon still rated high in credibility and Cameron/Moore in negative figures (and Moore essentially unknown). Some supposedly pivotal factors do not seem to register as major with the general public—including membership of NATO or the EU; horror at the prospect of more Tory rule if Scotland remains in the Union and the sheer intertia caused by familiarity with the status quo.

Richard Wyn Jones observed that, despite 3/4 of Scots seeming to prefer ‘Devo Plus’ to either of the extreme solutions on offer (Indy/status quo), there is no sense of outrage or unfair play at this ‘third way’ not being available as an option on the September 2014 ballot. Politicians on both sides of the debate were ignoring a pretty clear requirement which, in Wales has been reflected in parties there—including Labour—accepting the wind has changed. But in England, as well as Scotland, there is an existential angst for which few politicians appear able to rise to adequate answer.

What is confusing the issue in Scotland for Mandy Rhodes was that Scottish media had lost impartiality and that this was being aggravated by institutional bias, even within scotland itself. Even when making its best effects, the Scottish media always seemed to posit a ‘glass half-empty’ scenario and never rise to a positive alternative. As an example, the same time as The Scotsman was reporting that the ‘Yes’ camp needed to capture 75% of all undecideds to have a hope of winning, Mori was observing that there was ‘all to play for’.

Perhaps the most insightful observation came from Nicola McEwen—that we are getting into a lather far too early with the vote over a year away. By any standard, the White Paper due in two months will still allow 10 months for debate and a volatility in opinion until closer to the time is to be expected. People (especially undecideds) mainly come to a conclusion only when faced with the decision. After the Crest survey in 1997, many people changed their minds positively before the actual vote on devolution.

The ‘Bottom Line’ appears to be that the ‘Yes’ campaign may be losing the argument but not nearly as badly as the ‘No’ campaign is succeeding in portraying the situation as a ‘done deal’ when polling statistics imply that it is not.

Posted in Politics | 1 Comment

2013 Festival of Politics III—Economics

Posted on August 27, 2013 by davidsberry

Rushing from the Europe session to this one with no time allowed in the schedule was another gripe I had for the organisers but, as with the earlier session, it was worth it. Chaired ably by Sir Jeremy Peat of the David Hume Institute where he has a long record of competence staying on top of debate, his panel appeared equally qualified and competent:

Economics Session: (l-r): Angus Anderson; David Bell; Jo Armstrong (Jeremy Peat behind); Bill Jamieson; Brian Quinn

Economics Session: (l-r): Angus Anderson; David Bell; Jo Armstrong (Jeremy Peat behind); Bill Jamieson; Brian Quinn

Angus Anderson made most of the running, kicking the debate off by arguing that any independence process be regarded as a divorce and that the focus should be on the economic viability of the two units that would be created. He argued that, since Scots started in the Union at 75% of English per capita GDP and now had parity, the Union had been no bad thing. This was underscored by the fact that, if Scotland took its population share of the UK debt of £1tn, that would mean a debt of around £100bn. At some 80% of GDP, this is well outside the EU requirement of 40% and, as a small country, it would be impossible to sell T-bonds to finance it the way the UK currently can.

David Bell, Brian Quinn and Jo Armstrong all weighed in along similar lines until Bill Jamieson and Jeremy Peat became the saving graces of what would otherwise have turned into a textbook Dismal Science Fest among economists—disagreeing only on the source and scale of disaster, but not on its certainty. They did also agree that there were four options to use as a currency:

  • a currency union involving the present pound
  • an informal currency union, such as some countries use the $US
  • adoption of the Euro—generally seen as inevitable if Scotland stayed in the EU
  • a revival of the pound Scots (or its equivalent)
  • (nobody mentioned using the $US and becoming their investment hub in Europe)

However, there was less clarity as which was the preferable option, mainly because the debate seemed to keep circling around to the ill-advised nature of any Yes vote in 2014. It was not that their joint argument was that the UK was doing particularly well and that, if it ain’t broke, we shouldn’t fix it. But the leitmotif from all—despite manful attempts from Jeremy Peat to keep things balanced was that, since the UK is in a tight fiscal spot, then Scotland, with 9% of its resources would ipse facto be worse off.

Of the panel, Brian Quinn seemed the least able to deal with even the concept of an Scotland outside of the UK. Perhaps his decades at the Bank of England instilled a kind of mechanistic thinking but he clearly was unable to foresee any country being run on principles differing from the B of E. In this, he reminded me of Andrew Neil, a bright Scot whose undoubted intellect and keenness on current affairs is ill-informed when it comes to opinions that need understanding of the zeitgeist now abroad in Scotland and from which their decades of residence in London seems to have disconnected them. He agreed with Jo Armstrong that Scotland was ‘overbanked’, as if—properly run—two of the world’s major banks were a burden.

When pressed by the audience, even Angus Anderson accepted that there was no definitive international law that said the remainder of the UK would necessarily become the successor state, nor that England would therefore retain full control of assets and parcel them out (or not) as they saw fit. None of the panel managed to posit any economic future scenario for Scotland that did not involve an austerity that would worsen, the looser our purse strings to London became. Questions they posed—but made little attempt to answer—included:

  • Where is it that Scotland wishes to go?
  • Who would be the winners & losers if we get there?
  • Would we continue to receive a Barnet Settlement?
  • Which currency would it be best to use?

Delving a little into the panel’s background went a long way toward explaining the consistently glum but inconsistently confusing attitudes. In his Report on the Draft Scottish Budget, David Bell sets the tone here with:

“The 2012-13 Scottish Budget is set against a world of increasing economic uncertainty. There are significant risks of further financial collapse along the lines of 2008. This would inevitably impact significantly on the Scottish economy, increasing the likelihood of a further recession. The performance of the Scottish economy since 2008 has been weak.”

But the most suspect of all must be Jo Anderson who peppered her contributions with what seemed like attempts to out-gloom even her colleagues. But then, she has ‘form’ which was exposed in detail in a nifty blog from Joan MacAlpine of two years ago in which her objectivity (if not that of the whole CPPR) was called into question:

“Ms Armstrong was an adviser to another Labour First Minister, Jack McConnell. She is also a controversial figure with what many believe are strong ideological views in favour of liberalising public services. She has advocated the privatisation of Scottish Water. She has associations with those who have most to gain from a return to PFI/PPP – the cost of which has multiplied and delivered huge profits to banks and business consultants. She was involved in the establishment of the Glasgow Housing Association, an  organisation backed by the banks, who were given the city’s entire housing stock but had the debt for that stock completely written off.”

In the 90 minutes, only the audience made any positive contribution. No speculative or positive option appeared. The glib presumption was that Scotland would appear on the world’s stage, naked and friendless, saddled with 80% debt and unable to raise capital. Nobody pointed out that ‘overbanked’ Switzerland or Liechtenstein are economic marvels. Nobody suggested that Scotland could trade the ~£50bn in future oil tax revenues to come against its debt to drop below the 40% debt level required (UK will remain above 90% indefinitely with or without us). Nobody suggested the £1.5bn released from defence and the £5bn-and-rising from energy exports to rUK could themselves pay the interest on even £80bn. The future was seen entirely in terms of a fragment of the UK behaving as a mini-UK—which is pretty much why the Scots are fed up and want to leave in the first place.

This is not to accuse the organisers of the Festival of Politics of bias—and certainly not to demean Jeremy Peat’s efforts to keep things balanced. But imagine Jeremy Clarkson chairing the film personae of Vin Diesel, Craig Statham and Gerard Butler, gathered in all seriousness to discuss gender balance, and you get some sense of the way this session went.

Posted in Commerce, Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

2013 Festival of Politics II—Europe

Posted on August 26, 2013 by davidsberry

For me, it had an inauspicious start. Booking places on-line went easily but the ‘ticketless’ tickets were anything but. Staff at the parly were their old surly selves and entirely not clued-in on where events were happening or when—to the point that one of the few notices helping you navigate the unnecessarily confusing building declared “Saturday 23rd: Tickets Sold Out“. The 23rd was Friday. All amateur stuff, typical of jobsworth ‘public servants’ who consider themselves anything but.

Holyrood1

But, once past such hurdles, the meat of the day may up for any peripheral shortcomings. Up first was a session billed as The Future of Europe & Small Nations ably chaired by Peter Jones, formerly of The Economist and longtime astute observer of the political and economic scene at this end of Britain. His panel was an eclectic but suitable mix:

While some stuck to the advertised broader topic in their 10-minute contributions, most focussed on Scotland as the small country in question and there was broad agreement on a number of factors that would apply in the case of a Yes vote in 13 months’ time:

  • Scotland remaining an EU member would be likely but not certain
  • Conditions for Scotland’s membership would be stricter—fewer opt-outs than in UK
  • That would include joining Euro—but mechanisms exist for delaying that indefinitely
  • Smaller countries can offset the dominance of larger ones by hard work and really determining how mechanisms work and learning to use them to their advantage
  • By deciding priorities and focussing only on the highest they can be effective
  • Only way to drive matters is by judicious diplomacy & quid-pro-quo with others
  • ‘Clarity’ of Berlin-Paris axis has been muddied by accession of Eastern Europe
  • Seek friends on matters in which they are largely disinterested and offer support in those they have a strong interest but you don’t (example: woo Austria, Hungary et al on fishing matters where they have little national interest)

I recall an example of this latter while on a fine evening out in Temple Bar in Dublin where our group included an ex-assistant to an Irish MEP. When challenged what good a small delegation like the Irish could achieve he grinned and said “it was amazing what wandering the corridors with blarney and a couple of bottles of Bailey’s could achieve“.

Charlie Jeffrey delved back to the 1979 vote and posited that had been ‘lost’ because people were worried about the context of an independent Scotland after the disastrous seventies and before oil wealth had become apparent. People are prone to seek comfort and shelter and the time was not ripe. By 1997, attitudes had changed greatly; there was a strong reaction against years of Thatcherism for which Scots had not voted and a new sense of purpose and identity.

Now the English element of the union has an increasingly wavering commitment to the EU and the Scots are diverging from that with a clear preference to remain (evidenced by UKIP’s paucity of traction in Scotland) a growing number of Scots prefer to stay connected with Europe. It has also become clearer that, as most of the connections with England (e.g. monarch or currency) remain, it is really only the political element that is to change—and that has been reduced largely to defence and foreign relations.

Perhaps the most thought-provoking contribution was made by Tim Phillips who claimed that “power is about what you attract and not what you project”, citing the example of Costa Rica—a small country of 4.5m, one of the two in the world with no army (the other is Iceland) but yet one of the most influential countries of Central America; it has 90% literacy rate, a solid democracy since post-WW2 reforms and the least inequality in the region. He followed by discussing Norway and Bahrain, both of whom wear their affluence lightly but responsibly.

It was, for me, an epiphany to start to visualise Scotland in this august group—countries that did not throw their weight around but whose standing was high because of their enlightened attitudes not just to their own people but to their obligations in the world. There was no consensus that Scotland would automatically remain in the EU or any other organisation of which the UK is currently a member. But it would be unlikely it would stay outside long, not least because of its valuable oil revenue and net contributor status.

OnChoir Performing Carly Simon's "Let the River Run" on Holyrood's main stairs

OnChoir Performing Carly Simon’s “Let the River Run” on Holyrood’s main stairs

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

2013 Festival of Politics I

Posted on August 24, 2013 by davidsberry

After a full day trying to scoot around Holyrood from one session to the next, a myriad of ideas, questions, opinions and opportunities compete for blog coverage. But before that, the overwhelming impression with which I was left after today was a comment that ran through the sessions like a thread. It recalled a seminal article in The New Statesman from six months ago by James Maxwell that seems even more fresh and urgent today as when first published. However illegally, I reproduce it here in full.

To Recover, the Scottish Yes Campaign Needs to Go on the Attack

by James Maxwell in the New Statesman, January 24th 2013

“By the time Mitt Romney formally launched his bid for the US presidency in late summer 2012, the race for the White House was already more or less over. For the preceding 12 months, the former Massachusetts governor had poured all his energy into securing the Republican nomination from his conservative rivals, leaving the Democrats free to bury his reputation as a successful entrepreneur under a volley of personal attacks. These attacks cast Romney, not entirely inaccurately, as a predatory capitalist whose business practices at Bain Capital had put thousands of ordinary Americans out of work or into bankruptcy. The result was that in the weeks leading up to 6 November, Romney spent more time fending off accusations that he was ‘out of touch’ than he did explaining his policies or scrutinising Barack Obama’s record. Romney’s mistake was to allow his public image to be defined negatively by his opponents before he had a chance to define it himself. 

“A comparison can be drawn between Romney’s experience and the situation Scotland’s pro independence movement currently finds itself in. Since the launches of the official ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns last year, the unionists have been far more effective at setting the terms and conditions of debate than the nationalists have. On a series of issues, most notably the currency and (until yesterday) Scottish membership of the European Union, Better Together, the official vehicle of unionism, has forced the SNP onto the back-foot. Time and time again, Scottish government ministers have been rushed out to provide what seem like hurried or improvised responses to awkward questions. With his relentless emphasis of the apparent “risks” and “hazards” of separation, Better Together chairman Alistair Darling has become an almost ubiquitous presence on Scottish TV screens. Darling’s rhetoric reflects the No camp’s key theme: that the consequences of Scotland leaving the United Kingdom are uncertain and uncertainty is bad for the Scottish economy. 

“With at least two recent polls showing a decline in support for independence, there is good reason to believe this strategy is working. The unionists have an additional advantage in the fact Scottish political culture is dominated by an essentially conservative middle-class with little enthusiasm for far-reaching constitutional reform. Worse still for the Yes campaign, the Scottish government doesn’t intend to publish its White Paper on Independence, clarifying its proposals for an independent Scottish state, until the end of the year. This grants Better Together yet more time in which to compound voters’ anxieties, increasing the likelihood that, come the final stages of the referendum debate, it will be too late for the SNP and its allies to rescue independence as a credible constitutional option in the eyes of the Scottish electorate. 

“There is another reason the pro-independence movement has struggled in the referendum PR battle: a lack of structural discipline. Although the majority of Yes Scotland activists are members of the SNP, the organisation itself is made up of a broad coalition of groups, each with their own ideas about how independence should be achieved. To some extent, this laissez-faire style acts as a source of creativity, generating new initiatives, like the Radical Independence Conference, and genuine excitement at the grassroots level. (600 people attended the launch of Yes Glasgow earlier this month.) But it also makes the task of developing a coherent message about independence extremely difficult. By contrast, Better Together is a considerably smaller and less cumbersome outfit, with a much more tightly controlled and clearly defined narrative. Its role – to erode trust in Alex Salmond and reinforce widespread concerns about secession – is relatively uncomplicated. 

“So how might Yes Scotland regain the initiative? A more effective Yes campaign would balance its aspirational account of Scotland’s ‘journey’ from devolution to independence with a critique of the British state, highlighting the democratic and international costs Scotland pays for remaining part of the UK. In particular, it would make clear the link between Scotland’s abysmal social record (one of the worst in western Europe) and the concentration of political and economic power in London and the south east. It would also aim to systematically undermine the Scottish public’s confidence in the desire and capacity of Westminster to act in Scotland’s interests, even if this means abandoning its much vaunted commitment to positive campaigning. The one thing it can’t afford to do is spend the next 20 months responding to aggressive unionist and media questioning. 

“Of course, it was the use of exactly these sorts of ‘negative’ tactics that secured Obama’s second presidential term. Recognising that the circumstances of the 2012 election were going to be very different from those of the 2008 one, Obama and his team discarded the transformative rhetoric of “hope” and “change” for a harder, more cynical approach, turning what should have been Romney’s greatest asset – his commercial success – into his greatest weakness through a sustained media offensive. Likewise, the SNP needs to acknowledge that the 2014 referendum will not be a re-run of its 2011 electoral triumph, when it bulldozed its way to victory on the back of what one commentator called a nationalist “juggernaut of joy.” The independence vote will take place against a backdrop of high unemployment, recession and austerity imposed by a discredited and corrupt Westminster class increasingly at odds with Scottish political values and preferences. There is a deep well of political dissatisfaction in Scotland: advocates of independence need to learn how to exploit it.”

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Two Genders, Separated by a Common Humanity

Posted on August 23, 2013 by davidsberry

I paraphrase Mark Twain’s pithy observation about the Americans and the British because Bill Walker’s conviction this week for unsavoury behaviour towards a number of women in his life has brought the whole spousal abuse issue back into front-page debate. The inhibitions suffered by the abused party that prevents many occurrences from being reported, let alone resolved still haunts us all.

That said, having grown up on a working class council estate in the fifties, I am neither as outraged, nor as surprised as many observers seem at the Walker case. Abuse, while not rife there, was common enough, often associated with drink that anaesthetised barren outcomes to once-youthful ambition. And, though mostly dispensed by men, there was also a significant volume of psychological abuse by wives, poisoned by the same set of frustrations. Key, however, was both genders papered it over and denied its existence, to evade judgemental social morals of the tight-knit society of the times.

None of which is an excuse. But it is offered by way of explanation to those whose morals post-date such excruciating stiff-upper-lip times why it has taken so long to arrive even at this stage when there are few apologists for Walker or his behaviour. And yet I am thrown back a quarter century when, living in San Francisco and surrounded by some of the most socially progressive thinking on the planet, I was introduced early to the complexity of gender issues and the dangers of simplistic solutions.

I have been blessed with a number of good friends who happen to be female and the biggest group of those still lives in NoCal. They each remain very different people but all were bright, urbane and witty to the point of ego-demolition (mine, not theirs). As illustration: In an auto parts store, I separate from Lin and when we hook back up she has what looks like an oil filter, brake fluid and a wrench in her basket. “What d’you have there?” I ask in all innocence. Her best pursed smile flashes; she pats my arm and, in her  throaty Kathleen Turner voice purrs “Don’t you worry your pretty li’l head about it!”

On the other hand, when a good buddy and I—both out of our depth in relationships and ‘wimmin’ at the time—went in search of insight to a feminist meeting featuring Andrea Dworkin, we both came out feeling alienated to the point of personal attack: men were the enemy, the antichrist, the sole purveyors of evil in the world. If only women ran the planet, personkind might have some future other than Armageddon.

This so infuriated me that I wrote two cathartic poems in quick succession—the first in reaction to (to me) an unreasoning partisan attitude from Dworkin et al, followed rapidly by another to balance its irony-verging-on-sarcasm. Though 25 years old and still intended more as a personal articulation of my position than anyone’s epiphany, I hope the pair below contribute to this debate on gender—which clearly still has some way to go before any definitive conclusions are drawn.

——————————————————————————

I’D LIKE

  • to take this opportunity to apologize
  • for all straight, white males.
  • …to apologize for dragging off to America
  • blacks sold by their own chieftains, Chinese refused
  • any other chance, Chicanos stifled by village dust.
  • Today they could have been
  • dying for freedom in Angola, greasing T-72 treads
  • in Tianamen, choking in that same dusty village.
  • …to apologize for being bigger, faster, meaner than you women;
  • for our magnificent, egotistical gall that bound you
  • by chocolate, by childbirth, by chapped hands to live
  • in our shadow; for even tricking your labor-saving liberation
  • into charge-card addictions and matching interiors;
  • for macho lack of any explanation—to you, or to friends
  • or even to our own sons before we die of stress,
  • silent, unrepentant.
  • .
  • …to apologize for lost lives, tribes, wars, wetlands, forests, species
  • that brought every one of you—
  • warm, fed and off the street—
  • to have education and time and choice
  • to be listening to this, to have
  • freedom to dispute
  • any part of it.
  • Nostra culpa—It’s all our fault.
  • We did it. Shouldn’t we then flood Venice,
  • torch the Louvre, rip up all of Shakespeare
  • and Mozart and the Constitution, cut off
  • each telephone, dynamite the Golden Gate
  • and every other bridge, turn back
  • the clock, pass out candles, start gathering
  • nuts? Would that make amends?
  • We’re sorry for civilization.
  • We didn’t mean it.
  • It won’t happen
  • again.

_____________________________________

I SAY

  • we shoot half the men—line ’em up,
  • perform last rites, then shoot ’em—
  • all polyester-brained lizards armed
  • with a condom, a smirk and glib ignorance
  • of language spoken by three-quarters of the human
  • race, all neanderthals who drag their trophies
  • home, nail them up any damn way
  • they please, all “I’ll-handle-it-babe” types
  • drunkenly insisting on driving even when
  • it’s her car.
  •  
  • I say
  • we men take care
  • of our own. I want no women
  • on the firing squad—no battered wives,
  • single mothers, raped teenagers, furious feminists,
  • particularly no dizzy blondes suffering
  • belated disillusion—only men who have embraced
  • their bleeding sister, tasted the salt of her
  • hidden wounds; who have seen a woman,
  • blessed with love’s garden of infinite
  • blooming, become desert; men
  • who have learned
  • that broad shoulders and a stiff cock
  • don’t make us god.
  •  
  • I say
  • we refuse them a bandana
  • so they can’t avoid looking straight 
  • down our brotherly fury sighted so deliberately
  • on them they squeeze their eyes
  • tight with expectation.
  • That’s when we lower our sights
  • to their genitals and let them
  • have it.
Posted in Community | Tagged | Leave a comment

Kailyaird Kulchur

Posted on August 22, 2013 by davidsberry

Margaret Curran MP has come in for some stick in these columns for being venally closed-minded when it comes to her nationalist political opponents. Nonetheless her piece in today’s Hootsmon has much to commend it in its broad and staunch defence of the international aspect of Scottish culture. As she says, the mounting success of the Festival(s):

“is not just in the people they bring to Scotland …but in the ideas and vision that take root during plays in theatres around the city, late at night in the Fringe, or in the marquees of the Book Festival.”

On a more general approach to culture, she goes on:

“The referendum, on both sides of the debate, is about imagining a different future, and art helps us to do that. From Burns to Robert Louis Stevenson to Liz Lochead – they have all used their experiences in Scotland to say something bigger about the society we live in; things that help us to look up and out.”

Thus far, I am nodding in vigorous agreement—and imagine most of my nationalist colleagues are too. But it’s when she takes issue with Alasdair Gray’s deprecation of who dominates our arts establishment and links it with an assertion that Alex Salmond thinks that Scots “succeed if they outperform England” that we part company because both are glibly taken out of historical context. She may rightly cite that English culture is peppered with Danes, Spaniards and Welshmen—and is all the more robust for that.

But what is missing in this era of new Scottish enlightenment when the Cringe is largely a thing of the past (and the 1999 (re)opening of Parliament largely served as its unofficial funeral) is the deformation of the Scots’ national psyche by three centuries of cultural colonialism of North Britain by an English culture whose ego and self-belief knew no bounds until empire and economy collapsed during the 20th century. Only then did Scots stop beating their children for daring to speak Lallans and discover alternatives to being force-fed received BBC pronunciation in every radio and TV broadcast.

By dismissing Gray’s comments, Ms Curran rather throws the cultural baby out with her international bathwater. If the English cultural nomenklatura were dominated by Danes or Spaniards, as its Scottish equivalent has been for centuries by English, then someone in London would soon be raising the point, if only as a matter for debate. Having gone through a Scottish education system for 16 years and emerged pig ignorant about my own culture, I have spent the last four decades trying to rectify that. It’s a joy to celebrate its revival from John Burnside through 7:84 to Black Watch.

That early thin gruel left me allergic to anything to do with Scottish Country Dance music, Andy Stewart, Harry Lauder and unable to listen to Robbie Shepherd’s Take the Floor on BBC Scotland . Such limited fare was all I heard as ‘Scottish culture’ while I was growing up. It did not fill my soul. My nationalism is rooted in a violent reaction to such kailyard as all that we Scots were capable of. Epiphany for me didn’t need to be highbrow—McMillan’s music still leaves me cold—but Connolly, Taggart and Runrig did much to start filling my native cultural void.

In all of this, I imagine I was not alone.

So when Ms Curran has a go at His Eckness for measuring us against England, I fail to see her point; who else would we be likely to measure ourselves against; they are the dominant force on these islands and we have just tholed three centuries of their cultural colonialism. Because—let’s face it—the English are as culturally unaware of others as the Americans are of them, especially when it comes to distinguishing between their own interests and the welfare of mankind.

For whereas the Scots—with the exception of a tiny minority of blinkered jingoists that every country harbours—are constantly absorbing English culture, the braying backwoodsmen on Westminster benches represent a cultural myopia from which the cosier Home Counties still suffer. Ms Curran may not have discussed the Colourists or Charles Rennie while sipping a nice Amontillado apéritif in East Grinstead or Chipping Norton—but she’d mostly get blank stares and short shrift if she tried.

Posted in Community, Education | Tagged | Leave a comment