The Super Bowl and Paid For Patriotism

For a truly mainstream American experience I would certainly recommend dropping yourself down on a swivelling stool in a Dallas bar, watching the Super Bowl, eating buffalo wings and chatting to an off duty Texan Cop. It’s how I spent Super Bowl Day 2014.

Should you just happen to tune in to the game at home somewhere in the UK don’t fret; you’ll be able to get the full flavour. You will still see the finale of the American Football season unfurl to review an onslaught of pageantry and paid for patriotism. Sit at home and gorge on the overt militarisation where pageantry is used to blur the lines between the football field and the battlefield. You will see a contest for sure: the battle for the continued blood thirst of citizens of the largest of the western imperialist states.

The essence of the show wasn’t so obvious to me back in January 2014 as we crossed the southern states. We had been following the sporting hype around the Super Bowl and we’d watched a playoff game in Philadelphia. We knew it was going to be a total cliche to find the local sports bar for the big game, but we were here for the American experience! Hailing a cab we were genuinely excited to be heading down to watch the game in a Texan bar.

Of course the bar was packed but we arrived just in time to find a little space next to a large Hispanic couple who were sat on stools way too small. Within a minute or so, as happened on almost every occasion while in the States, a local was quick to welcome us to their Bar / Borough / City / State / Nation. Our off duty Cop hit us with a “hi y’all welcome to Dallas, Texas” And we of course responded with a typically clean and crisp very British reply.

As we led up to the start of the game we had that chat about the differences between the USA (and in this case the very particular differences between Texas) and the UK. We spoke about British roads, no wider than aisles in an American supermarket. Of $20 cocktails in London; a price that would supply a Cop in beer and buffalo wings (some 40 or so) from this particular bar for the whole evening.

We covered crime and guns with our polar opposite views of the relationship between them. The Dallas Cop tried to comprehend a UK Police Officer walking the beat gunless. I waved my finger side to side and tutted loudly in response to his question “how in hell do they keep the peace with no weapon?”

We were the charming, quirky and inquisitive British couple and they were the very personification of gregarious, warm and welcoming Southern American hospitality. Despite the distance across their land and the Atlantic Ocean our shared cultural connections and a common language made us feel part of that mass of raw Texan meat ready to sizzle at the start of the Super Bowl.

All eyes fixed on the dozen screens reflecting the same snowy scene from the stadium in New Jersey.

Like all American sporting (and of course many other occasions) The Star Spangled Banner was sung before the main event: it boomed from the TV screens and from the mouths of most of the patriotic patrons.

We stayed seated and smiled while trying to look serious. We maintained a dignified exterior while cringing slightly inside. We were miles from Waco, Texas but this seemed like an automatic and mass response to rise: almost cult like. And when representatives from the military took to the sporting field our bar, no doubt like thousands of other bars in the States, shook with emotion. Another link in the cultural chain that connects American Sport and war had been welded together.

What places the Super Bowl – and all the matches played under the National Football League more widely – apart from many other mass gatherings in the US is the presence front and foremost of the military. The differences between the battlefield and the sporting field seem to have been steadily broken down by pageantry and this is no simply coincidence. 

This overt militarisation of Football recently led two Arizona Senators to uncover almost $7 million in “paid for patriotism” at sporting events, with 18 NFL teams receiving more than $5.6 million over four years. Blurring the lines between sport and war is a concern for some Americans. 

During the Super Bowl there is no respite from the “paid for patriotism”, not even during the ad breaks. In fact, this medium supports an amplification of the solider / player, sporting field / battle field connection.

During Super Bowl Week there is only one thing that’s more anticipated than the game, and that’s the commercials. In Budweiser’s “Coming Home” commercial a returning solider receives a Bud sponsored Heroes Welcome.

Connecting the theatre of sport and the theatre of war will of course be aided by multinational companies thirsty for “profit from patriotism” and back in our bar it is no exaggeration to say this advert brought 300 or so patrons once again to their feet. The majority brought to either cheers or tears. The passion led some of the biggest guys to bear hug fellow big guys, as well as of course, the tiny barmaids. Two Brits sat detached and stupefied, and increasingly many more American eyes are being opened to the dangers of this paid for patriotism.

Senators McCain and Flake’s investigation found that linking military propaganda with sporting prowess was obviously money well spent: the Pentagon had been doing it for years. But what is the purpose of linking American sport so closely with the military and American foreign policy? Why does the Pentagon rate it so highly?

An army is of course a miniature of the society that produces it and if society sees war in terms of the field of sport it perhaps sees contests that end; with a clear winner and loser; a score on one side always lower than that of the other.

We know and we are continually told that ISIS are hell bent on bringing civilians – across the Middle East as much as Western Europe – onto the battlefield. We are disgusted at their approach and their aims. Yet Western Governments – by placing the military at the heart of their institutions – do little to draw what should be a clear and profound distinction between civilian and military life. It is past the time for the west to draw this line and stick to it.

The Super Bowl has morphed to appear almost as much about the role of the military and the love of America as the celebration of a season long sporting journey for two teams. Paid for Patriotism is clearly state sponsored big business.

This year, in the UK, as the debate continues around the renewing of Trident Nuclear Weapons System keep your eyes open for our own homegrown versions of paid for patriotism. It will be coming to a stadium or bar near you. The power of imagery is not to be underestimated.

 

A timetable for Catalan Independence

It is January 2016. By June 2017 Catalonia will be independent

The independence movement in Catalonia is back on track following, eventually, the investiture of a new Catalan President.  After months of negotiations Artur Mas stood aside to allow the consensus candidate and 130th Catalan President Carles Puigdemont to take the driving seat. Closely mirroring Nicola Sturgeon replacing Alex Salmond post referendum, a younger less controversial political figure will be tasked with ultimatley bringing the independence process to its conclusion.

A timetable for Catalan Independence

In Catalonia that conclusion is for many tantalisingly close. In what would no doubt make every #Indyref2 supporting Scottish nationalist drip with envy, in Barcelona there is a roadmap to independence. Within 18 months Catalonia will – assuming of course there are no major bumps or roadblocks – be ready to  declare itself to be independent.  The new President is already working to that timetable. There’s very little doubt in Catalonia or in Spain: the countdown has started.

For the Catalan nationalists this timetable is a rallying call. It is a call to arms with an end in sight. It is a clear and shared vision by supporters of the many political parties and civic groups that support Catalan independence. The Catalan independence movement is far from a united one but this timetable is holding this movement together. Conversely there is little doubt that a lack of a timetable in Scotland is currently splitting the pro indy campaigners. The First Minister’s  recent comment in the Scottish Parliament on winning a second referendum “In the next few years” has only really mudded the waters. The Scottish Ship’s Captain – when compared to the newly charged Catalan Captain – seems a tad lost at sea.

A similar journey until now

Up until now Scotland’s and Catalonia’s journeys have tacked roughly the same course as pro indy parties have risen to power only to hold referendums that ultimately won nothing but the status quo. The sea has been rougher for one and then the other. The gift of the referendum from Westminster to Scotland was in stark contrast to Madrid’s refusal to allow a Catalan plebiscite (which they just ignored and Madrid in return just ignored the result). However the September election victory by pro indy parties in Catalonia released a new lease of life into the movement in the north of Spain. In Scotland last years UK election deflated many nationalists despite the SNP routing the Unionist parties; it was a shallow victory, as a heartless London centric Tory Government remained in Westminster.

But it is a new year and a very big year for both Scotland and Catalonia. Both Parliaments are packed with pro independent representatives. However at the moment one Parliament speaks with a loud and united voice “18 months” and the other, talks of something, well, sometime in the future.

The Scottish independence campaign is stuck in the dry dock the Catalan Cruiser is off. Their destinations appear to be the same but the routes at the moment appear very different.

Political timing or base opportunism?

The one defining skill of this Conservative Party leadership is its unmatched gift for political timing.

Political timing or base opportunism?

In politics timing is everything and right on queue enter our ever opportunist Prime Minister. If the Paris tragedies were the final pieces in the war making puzzle the first were dropped out of the box and placed on the table at the onset of summer.

But summer seems like a long time ago. So shocking was the carnage in Paris in November that it is hard to cast our minds back to the political landscape that preceded them. But should we take a moment we can see that the summer soundtrack was a monotonous Tory megamix with the aim to make us all dance to a particularly bloodthirsty tune.

The march to war started back in July

At the end of July Mr Cameron made, what was billed as, his first major UK speech on tackling extremist ideology. In that speech he set out the Government’s “five-year strategy” to deal with extremist ideology. With this speech and the anticipated media coverage he was of course building the narrative that may well lead to an increase in hostilities in Syria. Extremist ideology so the speech goes has to be dealt with at home and abroad.

The content was the focus for most but as this speech was just a rehash of one he made ten years ago I focus on the timing. The horrific massacre of tourists on a Tunisian beach at the end of June allowed Mr Cameron an opportunity he couldn’t miss to support his grand narrative: that to root out and end terror we must heap more terror on far away lands.

The echo of that last gun shot in North Africa was the sound of an increased march to war in the UK. David Cameron placed a direct link connecting those beaches – where the Foreign Office has withdrawn tourists – to the battlefields in Syria where the Ministry of Defence is already – on a small scale – engaging our military hardware.

Another piece of “good timing” over the summer came when it was “leaked” that UK armed service personal were already involved in attacks on the sovereign state of Syria. This revelation was a very useful test of likely public and parliamentary opposition to a new campaign. This “leak” approach to policy follows on from years of Labour Party spin. Every successive Government has built on the experience and knowledge of the last to become peerless in the management of the dissemination of information. The media is the first theatre of any war. Victory on that battlefield is of profound strategic importance.

Simply judging by David Cameron’s actions over the summer there was never any doubt that the aftermath of Paris would lead to more opportunist warmongering in the UK. We knew this would happen because the Government had recent form. Using the humanitarian crisis over the European summer months to propagate war Cameron and Osborne, et al, have shown beyond all doubt that they will never balk at any opportunity that comes their way.

Over the coming days, weeks and months – depending on the resilience of Labour MPs moral fibre – they will continue to skillfully and munipilatively push towards war: somehow shielding from the media spotlight that their cure is in fact the cause.

The humanitarian crisis in Syria spilling over into Europe could not have come at a more opportune time for a Government hell bent on war

As the end of summer approached The Establishment’s vile mouth piece The Sun was already depicting those against increased military action – including Labour’s new leader Jeremy Corbin – in Syria as “Cowards”. Not to be outdone by the Government in the Shakespearean duplicity The Sun told its readers that going to war in Syria is the best way to show anger and frustration at the death of Aylan Kurdi.

No coincidence that Parliament was in recess at the start of this propaganda war

As MPs headed for a break from Parliament over the summer the Tory Party had a couple of months to lobby MPs to back a fresh military campaign in Syria.

Strengthening your position while your opposition was weak was too good an invitation to miss for the opportunist PM. Labour as the main parliamentary opposition – if only numerically speaking –  welcomed their new leader in September. With the entire party focused on internal matters over the summer the timing, once again, from the Tory party perspective was priceless. With Labour electing a leader who was exceptionally unlikely to vote for military action in Syria the Tories took full advantage to split the opposition.

Mr Cameron has a well respected and recognised gift for rolling the political dice at just the right time. There is an accepted narrative that we admire his astuteness and adroitness. It is more correct of course to rile at our Prime Minister for being a callus opportunist who used the death of 130 civilians in France and 30 civilians in Tunisia to catapult his argument that we need to be at war into every home. But that is what Warmongers do; there is no level that they will not sink to bolster the blood thirst.

The power of imagery is not to be underestimated

On the political battlefield imagery is almost as important as timing. The militarisation of the return of those murder victims from Tunisia, emerging as they did from an RAF aircraft, to be carried slowly and solemnly by military personal, seemed rather incongruous for the repatriation of murdered plumbers, post office and factory workers who had tragically but simply set out on holiday. They were and remain civilians caught up in horrific tragedy.

President François Hollande’s choice of Les Invalides – the home of the military museum of France – to commemorate the victims of November’s attacks in Paris come straight from the Warmongers Handbook. Theses subtle decisions are important, deliberate and meaningful steps in the abhorrent process of militarising the civilian population.

We know and we are continuously told that ISIS are hell bent on bringing civilians – across the Middle East as much as Western Europe – onto the battlefield. We are disgusted at their approach and their aims. Yet our politicians – by honouring the dead in such overt militarised style – do little to draw what should be a clear and profound distinction. Civilians even when they are targets are not military personnel. It is past the time for the west to draw this line and stick to it. To remove all military connotations from civilian tragedy.

It is time to say no to increased military action by the UK in Syria.

Neoliberals – the real fundamentalists

Last weeks speech by David Cameron was not the first time he had a speech written for him around the hook of the “struggle of our generation”.  He used this back in 2005 while he was Shadow Education Secretary. The struggle then as now is against fundamentalism and I couldn’t agree more. However.

He focused on the evil of islamic fundamentalism. I have another view on the vilest form of extremism affecting the globe. So in that speech I replacing the following:

– Islamist terrorism
– Global terror
– Terrorists
– Islamist
– Jihadist

With “Neoliberalism”. It’s a vast improvement.

Neoliberals – the real fundamentalists

Here’s my highlights.

“And there’s no better example than the subject I would like to focus on today: the threat from extremist Neoliberalism. In recent weeks I have been outlining some of the challenges I believe we face as country – and the need to foster a new sense of shared responsibility to deal with them.”

“The challenges of Neoliberalism require exactly that kind of response. We’re all in this together, and we must act together to defend our security.”

Anti Extremist March in Edinburgh
Anti Extremist March in Edinburgh

The global threat

“Britain has joined the long list of nations to be directly targeted by Neoliberalism: Indonesia, India, Tunisia, Algeria, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Egypt, Lebanon, Qatar, Russia, Kenya, Tanzania and the United States of America.”

“The range of nations targeted by Neoliberalism underlines the global nature of the threat – as does the background of the attackers.
It is profoundly shocking to learn that those responsible were British citizens.”

“It is clearly right to say that there is no list of demands we can accept and no group of Neoliberalism we could meet and negotiate with – even if we wanted to – to stop the attacks.”

“But we can and should try to understand the nature of the force that we need to defeat. The driving force behind today’s threat is Neoliberalism. The struggle we are engaged in is, at root, ideological.”

“During the last century a strain of Neoliberalism thinking has developed which, like other totalitarianisms, such as Nazism and Communism, offers its followers a form of redemption through violence. The seeds of this ideology are various.”

“But the Neoliberalism programme is not limited to these goals. They work, like Trotskyist “transitional demands”, to rally support among the disaffected and radicalise them for the greater struggle”
“This is the establishment of a single, puritan, fundamentalist strain of Neoliberalism across the world, and the eventual advance of Neoliberalism influence across the globe.”

“Neoliberalism feeds into the bewilderment, alienation and lack of progress felt by many in the world. The corruption of many states. The lack of democracy. The concentration of power in the hands of elites whose lifestyles. All these things create resentments.”

And my personal favourite: “Those resentments are very far from being restricted to the poor. Neoliberalism, like Nazism and Communism before it, often bewitches the minds of gifted and educated young men.”

I think his latest speech could do with the same treatment.

The hidden agenda of #Indyref2

“Those who have knowledge, don’t predict. Those who predict, don’t have knowledge.”

–Lao Tzu, 6th Century BC Chinese Poet

On the 18th May 2015 I predict the following: That during the next Westminster parliament:

1. There will be no #IndyRef2
2. There will be no UK exit from Europe
3. There will be no electoral reform

Bold? Maybe.
Daring? Perhaps.
Foolish?

Only if I assume that everything fed to me by the major news channels is the whole news. These issues are chewing up inches in our papers and pixels on our TV screens. They are playing their role; shifting focus on to meaningless debates, disproportionately filling our newspapers and news bulletins. Think of them like three Nigel Farages – scary though that is.

It is not that these constitutional issues do not merit consideration. In time, they will deserve proper scrutiny. But now? Now, it is a charade. A merry dance led by the Tory Government, cheek-to-cheek with the main stream media. While we consider the impact of any of these three constitutional upheavals, Westminster acts on its quite separate and real agenda.

We can see this as a certainty because the mood music has only recently stopped playing. The Indyref2 lament is still ringing in our ears.

#IndyRef2 – The Referendum that never was

Throughout this Spring, a second referendum on Scottish independence haunted the UK General Election campaign; a bogie man created for political purpose. Indyref2 lay under the bed ready to jump out and grab you in the middle of the night, before heading downstairs and raiding the house of £7.6 Billion of your money,  then driving away in your car. With your wife.

You lost. Forget about it. Stop going on about it. Why do you keep mentioning it? Losers. This narrative, as played out, for example by Caroline Flint in her appearance on Question Time, served as the aperitif – the boxer’s jab before the left (or right) hook.

That hook was straightforward – repeated by Labour, Tory and Libdem alike. The referendum was supposed to be “once in a generation.” IndyRef2 is bad. SNP is bad. Seperatism is bad.

Yet, the only main UK political party not talking about Indyref2 was the SNP.

In interview after interview Nicola Sturgeon with equanimity, both here in Scotland and in England, fielded questions on the “imminent referendum.” The mainstream media bought the narrative sold by Tories, Labour and LibDems. The absence of any manifesto commitment from the SNP for IndyRef2 was wilfully ignored.

Just take a minute to think about that. Election campaigns are so much about events and dazzle these days. Fancy 250gsm gloss-finished brochures. Pages of policies, promises and pledges. All delivered with with a flash, bang wallop in front of a room full of adoring acolytes. In all those fresh-smelling pages there was nothing about a Scottish referendum. At no stage-managed event did Nicola Sturgeon call for it. There was no manifesto commitment. The electorate could not vote for IndyRef2. So why all those questions and all that time discussing something that no one was suggesting? Weren’t there more important things to discuss?

In Scotland, we knew that we were being led up the garden path. 56 seats for the SNP. 50% of the popular vote. Scottish Labour rejected by an electorate that had awoken during the referendum campaign, by an electorate that had grown tired of the charlatan mainstream media. We are staying up all night so that we can cast further light into the dark shadows.

Cast some light on to the Indyref2 narrative and what do you find?

A good story that has legs. “David Cameron rules out a second referendum” screams the Telegraph. Of course, David knows that he can make no such promise and anyway no one is asking for a second referendum, but hey, it plays well doesn’t it?

This story is even more diaphanous when you consider that the chances of the SNP calling for a second referendum before 2018 are as likely as Scotland returning from the World Cup with a wee golden globe statue and a look of baffled bewilderment on the faces of players and an entire nation.

The SNP will not seek a new mandate until the polls prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there will be a wide margin of victory. This story – if it really ever was one – is dead, maybe not for a generation, but certainly for a whole World Cup qualifying campaign.

The story of how IndyRef2 was used during the election campaign is a clue. It is a smoking gun which shows how the Conservative Party will drive a right-wing agenda. It is smoke and mirrors and slight of hand. The election result in England in May proves its potential. So much so that the new Tory leader, when he arrives in a few years, will be more like David Blaine than David Cameron.

This is the murky prism in which the media coverage of the entire five years of miserable Tory rule will seek to debate an IndyRef2, voting reform and the consequences of the UK exit from the EU.

EU referendum

Another referendum beckons, but this time we have recent history to help us with the outcome. When the UK government agrees to a referendum the cards will be stacked in its favour.

The establishment parties will come together with one clear voice. The media will be on-side. Money will pile into the Yes campaign from the big businesses which rely so heavily on a single market to allow them to generate large profits. They can not afford to lose the flow of a well-educated, cheap, eastern and southern european workforce that helps them keep wages low in the UK. They will do everything to stymie an exit.

David Cameron will return with concessions. Small ones. But through the lens of the media they will appear large. The status quo will be saved and we will march on as before. But before we do – imagine the scenarios to be played-out, the what-ifs put to the MPs and the pundits and the experts.

Be Prepared. Hunker down. Put on your tin hat and don’t play the game.

You can spend hours and days watching and listening to people discuss something that will not happen. You can be diverted. Or you can focus on the real politics. To do that there is one further Establishment feint to be tackled.

Electoral reform

A truly proportional electoral system would change the way the UK is governed. It would, lets be clear, be the most fundamental democratic overhaul seen in the UK since universal female suffrage. The very thought places the Establishment on edge.

The route to power in Westminster would be very different. The polarised red and blue, two choices for Downing Street swingometer would cease. Perhaps there would be a body of support for political parties less pre-disposed to the US-style capitalism seen in the UK since Thatcher. That alone is reason enough to suggest that true electoral reform will never happen. 2020 will come and go with a Westminster Government elected under the First Past the Post system.

The fact is that electoral reform is not in the Tory manifesto. And they won. Labour and the SNP have nothing to gain from reforming the Westminster voting system. Perhaps the issue is considered less important in Scotland and Wales due to devolution.

Electoral reform is a ship that’s stuck in port, waiting for a captain and cargo.  Even those who would gain from it know that their efforts are better spent fighting the elections in Wales and Scotland where a list system offers a chink in the armoury protecting the two main UK parties.

The problem, for many, is that although the system may not be very good, its preferable to the alternatives. So their will be talk and debate and the ramblings of UKIP will offer further diversion on this issue.  However, when the dust has settled and we remain where we were, the real issues will have been relegated.  Again, attracted by diversionary tactics the media will place one, two or all of these chimerical issues high on their list of priorities.

The role of the three constitutional issues

By generating enough noise they will play a major role in this government’s planned programme simply by deflecting scrutiny from their policies (or lack thereof.) This Sunday morning’s papers and political programmes were brim-full of EU, PR and IndyRef2 stories.

What is absent?

Instead three, deliberately conceived, blind alleys.

The IndyRef2, EU exit and PR will draw flack from the public and shift the the attention from where the UK media – whose job it should be to hold the UK Government to task – should sit. Articles, papers and research will be carried out to fan the flames; a whole industry chasing non stories. 24 hours-a-day, in high definition and full technicolor, a kind of shadow press leading the electorate down dark alleys and dead ends.

My hope is that enough Scots and the awakening electorate in rUK will finally realise that the mood music is phoney. This mind-numbing but hypnotic Muzak will end and a story with a passionate and politically-enlivened soundtrack will take its place. If you don’t like the music you change the channel. See the light and remove yourself from the narrative of the mainstream media.

The good bank

With the longest election campaign in living memory now drawing to a close the bizarre theatre of facts and figures, claim and counter claim has had time to cover every single major issue facing the electorate. Scotland. Housing. The economy. The debt and the deficit. Immigration. Zero hour contracts. Scotland again. Coalitions. The likelihood and legitimacy of those coalitions. Trident. The NHS. Taxes and the avoidance of those taxes.  And a little bit more about Scotland. But there is an important issue that has been as hard to find as an impromptu walk about by a Tory Minister.  Remember those banks and the financial services sector and the mess they caused? Whatever happened to all that?

Scrutinising the role of the financial services became a media and public pastime after the the sector was bailed out by the grand total of £375Billion. Since the financial crisis took hold in 2008 and during every ‘banker bonus’ time since we’ve learned to look at banking through a squinting eye as we wondered just when are we getting our money back? So considering debt and the deficit have been ubiquitous in this campaign it seems to be amiss not to focus on the continuing role of the financial services sector and to ask:

– what has happened to make sure that there isn’t another financial services led crash again? and

– can our banks, if run differently, actually do some good?

What have the political parties been saying in this campaign about the financial sector?

The Tory Manifesto mentions, what has to be seen as an admission:

“our economic growth remains uneven, too reliant on financial services.”

They then cover exactly how the role of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England will oversee the “best regulation in the world” Careful wording; not the most regulated but the “best”. The Tories talk about how their reforms covered in the Financial Services (Banking Reform Act 2013) – which will come into play in 2019 now that’s a long time in anyone’s book – will continue to strengthen the sector against future market failures.

Whatever you think of the scope of that regulation at least it is mentioned by the Tories but this seems to be the end of the reform. And to prove their lack of vision here’s the coalition government’s pre campaign announcement. Their paper “protocol for bank closures” does absolutely nothing to improve the regional support for SMEs and those consumers who most value a local bank in fact it’s not even on the agenda: “High street banks, consumer groups and the government have signed up to an industry-wide agreement to minimise the impact of branch closures” Yes, you read that correctly. Rather than looking at banks to support the regional development of the UK to how about just limit the negative impact? why set the bar high when it can be set so low?

Back to manifestos. In the Labour Manifesto there is a mention of a new way of banking and a brand new bank:

“We will develop a banking system that works for businesses in every region and every sector in Britain. The long-standing problems of our banking system mean that too many small and medium-sized businesses cannot get the finance they need to invest and grow.

Labour will establish a British Investment Bank with the mission to help businesses grow and to create wealth and jobs. It will have the resources to improve access to finance for small and medium-sized businesses, and will support a network of regional banks.”

Now this sounds good. Like someone is listening to the SME sector and a disenfranchised public. And there is a consensus that seems to be shared by the SNP and the Greens.

The SNP in their manifesto seek to hit the banks hard with an increased bank levy and a tax on banker’s bonuses. But the area of a new bank is the  most interesting part:

“….will seek seed-fund capitalisation of the Scottish Business Development Bank, enabling new investment in Scottish business growth and innovation, helping create thousands of new jobs”

The Green Party dedicate a couple of pages on reforming the Financial Sector in their manifesto. They typically peg their colours to the mast:

“The UK finance industry is a disaster area.”

And within the fruity language we again find the new (well a very old) bank:

“We will use the government-owned Royal Bank of Scotland to create a network of local banks for every city and region, ensuring that each bank is a People’s Bank, obliged to offer cheap basic banking services.”

Now this looks good a People’s Bank. A bank designed to do good?

In a variety of routes Labour, SNP and The Greens all seem to want to start to develop a new way to do banking. The route and the scope appears to differ but this overall vision has the potential to make an impact that will be felt across communities and in the wider economy and it is a shame there has been so little focus on this vision. A new approach to banking in the UK has the opportunity to affect real and meaningful economic and social change. And it is needed.

So far under the coalition government nothing much seems to have changed even in the banks that we own. As you can see from the Tory led coalition government their protocol for bank closures and their reliance on past regulation shows that the ship has sailed on more regulations. But maybe they are right, maybe we don’t need more regulation. So exactly how are things going?

RBS announced its latest figures at the end of April. A £446m loss in the year so far. According to RBS CEO Ross McEwan the bank is improving and if only they didn’t have to set aside millions of pounds to cover their potential loss owing to alleged criminal activity they would be in profit. Damn those illegal activities they can really hurt…..shareholders.

So if it’s not going so well and the opposition parties are looking at a new direction of travel is there anyone there to put meat on the bones? Thankfully there are other organisations talking about reform in the banking sector.

Local banking for the public good

At start of the election campaign the excellent Think Tank the New Economics Forum published a report entitled: “Reforming RBS: local banking for the public good”

In this detailed and explorative report the NEF pictured and supported a revisioning of RBS. A not for profit regional based financing network that focused on SMEs. In the many highlights a reformed RBS would lead to:

1. Increasing credit for the real economy. Local stakeholder banking networks focus more on small and medium enterprise (SME) lending and they increased lending to businesses and households during the recession while large commercial banks withdrew credit from the economy.

2. Protecting jobs and growing their number and quality. Investment in higher staff-to-customer ratios by local stakeholder banks with consequent tax revenues, saved welfare, and benefit costs and social benefits.

3. Improving the diversity and resilience of the UK banking system. Offering greater protection to the economy against future economic shocks. Which is  of particular interest to Scotland with %…..

4. Promoting financial inclusion through access to a current account for all UK citizens, and maintenance of universal branch coverage across the UK.

5. Rebalancing the economy. Increasing investment and economic development in regions outside London, as well as greater financial support for local social, cultural, and sporting activities.

As well as all of the above the NEF suggests that RBS would add between £8billion and £13billion to GDP over the first three years acting as a good bank. The policy could almost single handily reduce that scary £30billion cuts figure that has dominated the campaign. Not only is this a vision but it is a practical solution that adds more good than simply increasing GDP.

Reading between the lines of the red lines there are many issues where Labour can lead a progressive anti Tory alliance. The reform of our financial services starting with a look at the role of RBS could be a way in which a successful working government redraws the lines of banks, challenges them to become part of the community and to serve those communities, not to serve shareholders.

For a bank it shouldn’t be about profit. It should be about doing good. Banks shouldn’t be there to make money for their investors; they should be there to support businesses and consumers to better their lives. Wouldn’t it be great if banks measured themselves on this rather than on the bottom line? What if they could actually do good. What if you wanted to hug a banker rather than bash him?

The “Right to Debt”

Bringing a young family back to Scotland and settling in Edinburgh I’ve noticed that those dinner party type conversations seem to revolve around two things: schools and homes. Setting my stall out early (which means I make a rather truculent guest) I am pretty fixed on three things in life. I wont be sending my kid to private school, I won’t be buying a home and I won’t be attending any more dinner parties.

Returning after living in Barcelona for a few years it is obvious that the desire for the best school for your child is universal but what sets us apart from many other countries and most of Europe is our relationship with our homes.

The Right to Buy

For much of the working class British population homes had until Thatcher’s introduction of the Right to Buy scheme (within the Housing Act in 1980) been solely where you lived. Your home was an expense, like food, clothing or heating; it was never an investment. With affordable rents and hundred of thousand of new quality homes being built in the 1970s especially in the New Towns of central Scotland, you could still make your house your home and live comfortably and securely. And then something changed.

With the introduction of that Right to Buy that home almost overnight became something else. Its bricks and mortar didn’t alter but it became a nest egg. The householders in those 1.5 million homes bought their houses at a 33% to 50% discount but more importantly for society they bought the idea that their house could be so much more than their home. In fact the change was that they considered it their right to own a property. This was democracy explained in the number of rooms and the size of your garage and garden.

Many labour supporting working class voters – like my own father who bought his Livingston council house – shifted their allegiance. Working class Scots followed the dream. This injection of consumer demand and consumer led debt allowed the 1980’s UK economy to explode. Without increases in productivity or wages the boom was powered only be debt as millions of working class families took out mortgages acting on their “Right to Debt”

The Right to Buy Reborn

Fast forward 35 years and the new “Right to Buy” policy from the Conservatives has been coming for some time. The recently announced reduction in inheritance tax for properties under £2million created a wonderfully bright aspirational picture to precede the announcement that even those in housing association houses can dream of that tax free bonus. The panacea is that you can buy your home and see its value soar. A heady height will be reached before you even pay tax on its transfer to your children.

For the Tories the dream of a “home owing democracy” has been given new life with the rebirth of the poster boy Thatcherite policy. The appeal to a million voters is obvious, visceral, heart felt: to own the home you live in and to one day sell it for a large profit or pass the value on to your heirs.

This powerful starting position must be understood by those opposed to the reintroduction of this controversial policy. Of which there will be many.

The strength of those desires can not be underestimated and it could just swing the election in favour of a conservative government: the victory build on a dream. In reality however this shared but ultimately personal dream has the potential to create a nightmare for society, communities and for the UK as a whole. Thankfully the policy is only muted for England but on this ever so closely linked island the effects will be felt across the nations.

There is no policy more damaging to the health of the nation than the right to remove affordable housing stock from public to private hands without counter actions to remove the negative impacts. As Richard Murphy outlines:

“……this is about deliberately increasing inequality when its impact is already very apparent in our society. Housing is one of our  most basic rights. This is a policy that seeks to deny that to many.”

The building of wealth of the working class could be achieved with much less damage if we followed polices which saw rises in real wages and improvements in public services.

The Right to Buy policy will see shares in the banking sector rise as a million new mortgages will be required. Those with shares will see their dividends rise allowing investors who own the bigger houses to afford even bigger ones. Bonuses for bankers will rise as millions of working class families pay interest on those loans; funnelling yet more money upwards in our society. Estate agents will boom replacing more high street shops.

The economy will be falsely boosted by debt as billions of newly created money will flush through the banking system. Many families will push beyond their means and a still poorly regulated financial service sector will support unattainable desires. Household debts, already at a record high, will increase. Overindebtedness will reign. The housing bubble will continue to inflate. The relative wealth of London will race further ahead to the rest of the UK.

Screen Shot 2015-04-14 at 20.43.09

The affordable housing stock will be depleted. Many of these homes will quickly pass not to children but into the rental market offering an opportunity for thousands to make a living from rents. Almost half of the homes in the original wave of right to buy are now in the private rented sector. The commercialisation of our society will grow as many working class families strive for wealth by speculating on the value of land and property. And all the while the newly installed conservative government will hail a recovery.

Right to Buy is at the very crossroads that our society faces and for those who believe it is a horribly divisive policy the PR battle couldn’t be harder. Right to Buy places the individual against society. The aspiration of individual profit against the societal need for open access to housing. It places the haves against the have nots and it is here where the anti Right to Buy campaign will stall.

Those who oppose Right to Buy will have to defend their opposition against cries of “politics of envy” and “hypocrisy” It will not escape the heads of those households who seek this perceived financial escape that many of the commentators who speak out on the policy will own their own property. From here the opposition house is clearly built on sand.

Add to that perilous opposition the instinctive desire to provide for your children and opponents face two insurmountable cliffs. So exactly how do you counter those arguments?

The only way is to paint the reality from the palette used to create the dream. Opponents need to make that reality as powerful as the dream. Expose the scheme as a decisive policy that will not lead to riches but will burden society with further inequality. Point to an alternative route to secure the future for every family in the UK, seek to redistribute wealth through increased wages and investment in our communities.

Margaret Thatcher is dead but her ghost still stalks our society.

TTIP a treaty too far

“Driving political consensus for TTIP on both sides of the Atlantic” reads the CBI’s press release and worryingly the CBI’s John Cridland seems rather upbeat. His enthusiasm is great news for many of the directors of CBI’s members. It’s not such glad tidings for the groups mentioned in the press release; small businesses and consumers. His chipperness is no good thing for the people not mentioned; the average employee of those large CBI member businesses or me and you.

George Monbiot has been campaigning and covering the TTIP treaty for more than a year. Visiting his blog will give you your fill of information on the treaty as well as fill you with dread. TTIP is the most worrying proposal to increase corporate power ever to be  negotiated at a interstate level. Should it be passed it will place large corporations within a legal framework that would sit above even nation states.

Kudos to the CBI as a lobbying group

The CBI unashamedly represents big business and obviously does it very well judging by whom the CBI have been meeting with:

“From a US investment summit, meeting with senior US government officials at the White House, through to a Congressional roundtable with US Ambassador to the UK, Matthew Barzun………….This is the same message I delivered on this side of the Atlantic just before Christmas at our roundtable event where we were joined by 7 EU Prime Ministers!”

Jolly smashing, if you are in favour of the benefits to corporations, but who else is in those meetings? Who is there representing you and I as consumers? Or me and you as the average worker?

If we are in any way represented in these discussions it is by a politician – who will likely be bank rolled through campaign donations by some of the CBI’s members: he will know which side his bread is buttered. As the discussions progress (similar to the initial drafting) it is being carried out by exceptionally well paid corporate lawyers with little input from consumer groups or trade unions.  It is to no ones surprise that the treaty will reflect the wishes and avarice desires of those who are scribing.

“Five top reasons to support TTIP”

The CBI’s press release focuses on five top reasons to support TTIP and they all deserve to be scrutinised:

Reason one. The biggest reason is that: “small and mid-sized companies stand to benefit the most” This is totally unfounded. Trade agreements work on economise of scale. The larger countries do well and the smaller ones do badly. And within those countries the same applies to companies and regions.

I’d ask the CBI where the evidence is for this statement? As it is the biggest benefit you would expect it to be backed up by a lot of evidence so just one slice of proof would be good.

Also within the release you will find this statement: “For every customer in the UK, there will be five more in the US to sell to” Just because there are more customers in the US doesn’t mean UK companies will sell to them: there is no correlation here. John Cridland draws a tangental relationship were none exists.

In reality the majority of small and medium sized businesses will be fighting to keep a hold of their current customers. “Reason one” says nothing about the competition from the US and it should as the essence of this treaty is to limit competition not to expand it. The idea is to further open up national markets to allow large national and international businesses to take profit and market share away from small and medium sized local and national companies. Just imagine any small business you can think of going head to head with a billion dollar US conglomerate? Really is allowing multi nationals to further access the SME market going to be good for those same businesses?

Second: “TTIP will mean more choice along with lower prices for consumers”. As I’ve outlined above it will actually mean less choice. Possibly there may be more competition in the short term until multinational companies take over and limit your choices.

In the second part of this statement the CBI look to represent the interests of “consumers”. We can of course discount this simply by reading about whom the CBI represent. They don’t and can’t speak for consumers. But to give them the benefit of the doubt we can still at least question the evidence:

– How do they know that any savings will be passed on to consumers and not investors? Why should we believe that savings simply won’t generate greater profits for investors like they always have? Companies aren’t designed to reduce prices only to increase profits.

Third is that “duplicate regulation and excessive paperwork at customs” will disappear. Well, I kind of like regulation and I’d personally like to see more regulation of many more industries and better regulation of those currently regulated, like say the Banking sector. No one likes form filling for the sake of it but really if this is one of the five biggest reasons to support a treaty we are already operating on pretty thin ice.

“Fourthly, it will play to the UK’s strengths grabbing a bigger footprint for our world-leading services.” Here the CBI are spot on. For the UK’s large multinationals this treaty will help them increase returns to their investors. If this is a main goal for the treaty – which of course it is – then we are finally getting into who the treaty will really benefit.

“number five, creates jobs at home” The CBI state that a new treaty will create more jobs because there are already 1 million people working in the UK for American companies. So let’s analyse that, as it may very well be the case:

As these American corporations start soaking up business from smaller national companies of course they are going to need staff.

– The questions is will they hire more employees than those companies who shed workers?

Well that’s unlikely. Larger organisations spend less as a percentage on wages than smaller businesses and they tend to have less staff. So in fact it will cost jobs.

– And what about these new jobs?

You can expect wages to fall and conditions to worsen as multi nationals do what they are designed to do and suck as much revenue from maximising market share to generate profits for investors.

The final aspect of any job transfer (because this is the best case scenario) is the wholly negative impact on the diversity and strength of regions of the UK including of course Scotland. As most corporations, both British and British based America corporations are located in the south east of England – centring around London of course – these jobs would further inflate the London bubble while draining skills and resources from the rest of the UK. There is of course no mention of this in the CBI’s article. And I wonder what its powerful regional members think of this omission?

– And what about the profits that are being generated, who sees the benefit of those?

For every £1 spent with a local company 63p stays in that community.  For a larger business it is as low as 40p. Profits leave poorer regions of the UK and end up in the deep pockets of American and international investors.

What’s missing

Of course the crux of the release is what is not mentioned. There is no note of the negative impact on wages. “creating jobs” is a well known code word for “profits”. These is no note of how good quality, well paid jobs will be protected. Surely this should be at the heart of the negotiation terms for an organisation representing those in business?

This press release and of course the wider treaty do nothing to highlight or address the largest issue that the UK and the USA face together: the continual rise of inequality. It would be great to see TTIP have even the slightest positive impact on reducing the run away train that is the disparity of earnings. But it is not even on the fringes of the negotiations.

There we go, blaming Thatcher again

Since the modern version of “globalisation” which started in the Reagan and Thatcher era, corporate profits in the UK have soared at a factor of 5 to 1 to wages. TTIP, by acting on behalf of multinationals and their investors, will see this difference increase. Inequality will rise and the share of the benefits for those who actually do the work will continue to fall.  

Make no mistake these globalisation treaties do exactly what they are designed to do: to increase returns for those who do not work for the organisations whose interest they serve: save the senior management at these companies. Rather than dress up the treaty by mentioning “consumers” and “jobs” the CBI should have the courage to tell its members exactly what and for whom it is championing, not disguise it in poorly structured, baseless press releases.

Labour’s patriot games

I couldn’t help shifting uncomfortably. Despite the pre game beers and an atmosphere expectant of something special I felt detached from the crowd. It was Scotland v Ireland at Hampden, the first post referendum international and words sung strongly by the crowd felt hollow, carved out, meaningless.

Approximately 40,000 Scotland football fans packed the stands at Celtic Park. Decked in their Scotland outfits and Scottish garb the throng easily melted into one massive and passionate mass. On the surface I was one of them. But beneath we had parted.

For the first time at a Scotland game I just didn’t fit. Normally passionate and powerful in song a silent pall had descended. I hadn’t forgotten the words, the beer had made no dulling effect; the Scottish football anthem “Flower of Scotland” had just lost its scent.

Assuming that the crowd reflected the referendum result then more than half of my fellow fans, less than a month before, had rejected an independent Scottish nation. This thought percolated in my mind and simply wouldn’t sink. The feeling would last considerably longer than the heartburn from the half time pie.

For 20,000+ there was no issue in voting “No” and supporting Scotland as they took to the pitch, and very clearly in my mind nor should there be. No one voice has the right to call a “No” voter any less of a Scot and within the most fervent wing of the Tartan Army you’ll find many in the status quo camp. Passionate supporters one and all, but only thing they are not are patriots.

Labour’s patriot games

A supporter is one thing. A patriot is another. Both can display a passionate belief in the power and prowess in ones own country. Both can recite their nations’ verses; historical achievements and display an encyclopaedic knowledge of their countries geography. They can flawlessly make the national dish; can wear their national dress with a pride that drips from their eyes. But only a patriot wants an independent Scottish nation.

Similarly a political party can make all the noises, wear the outfits and pound its chest but a party which does not support independence can not be a patriotic party. Jim Murphy’s claim is a bubble that has already burst.

Labour as the patriotic party is like the bakery which opens and doesn’t sell any bread. It’s bun-less oven, built on a false premise: that somehow you can be a patriot and not support an independent nation. Using this false logic a patriot is someone who does not believe in a nations independence. Thanks to labour’s reworking we now have new and helpful labels for historical characters.

William Wallace and Robert the Bruce were not patriots. Neither Washington. Not Bolívar, San Martín or Martí. Nor the millions who fought for these leaders against their subjugation as they strove to become independent nations.

A partisan but not a patriot

I have no doubt whatsoever that a large percentage of those who voted “No” in the referendum did so because they considered they would be better off and so would their nation. The motivation was exactly the same for most “Yes” voters. Two different parties had come to the same cross roads and simply chosen different routes. One can argue about the path chosen, as much as the destination, but one thing we can say is that both saw the signpost “Patriot” but only the “Yes” voters could take that route.

Patriots throughout history have known that independence wouldn’t automatically lead to a materially wealthier nation just the hope of a better one. Patriots choose social justice over wealth on every occasion.

Every nation builder has their doubts that their new state would be safe and secure. Central and South American Nations who rejected imperial Spain foresaw decades of internal struggle. The Haitians who throw out the French knew that building a nation was not easy. The African and Asian states who jettisoned the Europeans saw dark times ahead. The Americans knew that a civil war would likely take place soon after the British were sent packing.

Wealth creation is never the driver in national building and a patriot knows it. Central to a patriots decision is the belief that their nation should be independent. This trumps every single other issue. You can stack the scales so high that they scrap the sky but it will never tip to that side if self determination is placed opposite: this weight is what defines a patriot.

A “No” voter can not claim this position and a party which does not even offer independence can not own the word: the word like the actions belong to those supporters of an independent nation. Pretending otherwise is just a game.

Scotland’s oil the bigger picture

In the autumn of 1999 I gatecrashed a presentation by a newly hired Department of Trade And Industry recruit. I was working at the Department of Environment at the time so it was more of a sneaking under the rope than breaking through the door type of gate crashing. But, nevertheless, I was in the DTI offices on Victoria Street, without an invite but with bated breath to hear a presentation. A presentation about North Sea oil.

My desire to nip away from the office to hear a closed door presentation on some fossil fuel wasn’t my normal form however the DTI recruit was a close friend from University who was now proudly and authoritatively presenting to a room full of senior civil servants. And this I had to see!

Every young graduate has these moments when they see for the first time their drinking partner, flat mate, football colleague, magically, almost suddenly enter normal life and become a professional. It’s a sobering prism to look through for all young graduates.

For the bespectacled, pin stripped civil servants their questioning and worrying gaze was focussed on my friend’s wild claims that the price of a barrel of crude oil would, in the near future, rise above $25. “Poppycock” someone probably said. Despite the content being clearly derided the presentation was politely applauded by the pinstripes and all too vigorously by the supportive gatecrashing mate.

How things have changed. In April 2011 the average price of oil reached $102 a barrel and that DTI recruit is now a senior civil servant; pinstriped and bespectacled.

Placing our oil in context

With the temporary fall in oil prices to below $60 a barrel the media is reporting that the oil industry is in crisis. There are of course serious concerns for companies, regions, employees, and the UK exchequer (because remember all the revenue from Scottish oil ends up in London). However to focus only on this short term reduction is to miss the much bigger picture. The much bigger picture is something that the mainstream media all too often forgets especially when it relates to corporate subsidies. 

We need to take a measured response to the “crisis” for the UK oil industry and not support the calls from corporations, government and trade unions (which is exceptionally peculiar), to cut taxes for this mature and untimely harmful industry. To call it a crisis and to focus on oil company subsidies as the answer is to ignore three exceptionally important pieces of background: the so called wider picture.

1. Where has all the money gone?

The billions of pounds which poured, slopped and dripped into company accounts and the Treasury coffers were a total boon, unknown and unplanned before the mid 1970s.

According to the ONS, since 1980 £177 billion has been sucked from the coast around the Scottish mainland and its Isles into the UK Treasury. You can guess at a higher figure earned by Oil Companies in the same period. So, let’s say £500 billion in thirty years or so. The Oil Industry and the UK Exchequer has seen a quite unimaginable boom in the profits from oil in the North Sea and from that they should have built a lot of cash reserves!

The job of any enterprise and for any government is to plan properly. The good times will come but surer than that so will the bad. Therefore the job of any organisation in the private sector or in the public sector is to be prepared. This is especially so when dealing with a product where the price can fluctuate drastically.

Before we continue to demand subsidies for oil companies we should be asking:

– what exactly have they been doing during the peak years to support a not unexpected downturn?

We should be asking our politicians:

– is our duty to start to subsidise companies in the lean years?

– is this the free market which they speak of?

We should be asking these questions before reducing their level of tax. However we are already too late as this years autumn statement chopped 2p off the level of tax oil companies have to pay. Again, let’s put this into context: this moves £470m over the next parliament from me and you to oil companies. This is on top of their current subsidy, which The UK Environmental Audit Committee claims is £12 billion a year from the UK Government: a massive corporate subsidy to an industry that has earned hundreds of billions exploiting our natural resources in the past few decades.

So typically with any bump in the road our government’s first response is to subsidise international corporations rather than to demand that they manage their affairs properly.

Oh, only to be Norwegian! Their Oil Fund has grown to a massive $850 billion. Currently this money is sitting, growing in a fund and not being used to pay for anything. However it is inconceivable that the fund would not be used to plug a hole in Norway’s finances should a drop in oil revenues continue and start to drastically affect the population. What has the UK Government done with our money? Where is the long term planning? Where is the buffer? Where is the investment from this boon?

These are the questions we should be asking not how much more subsidy do billion dollar profit companies require?

Both private businesses and the UK Government have failed to property and prudentially manage the money from our seas. I for one do not want to prop up an industry that has managed its finances so badly. No more tax cuts. They incentivise only one thing: more state sponsored miss management of our resources.

2. The oil industry is not a structurally sound industry

“Scotland and the Carbon Bubble” a report by Scottish Environmental LINK was launched in December and focuses on the preparedness of sectors of the economy, government and society should the Carbon Bubble burst. The Carbon Bubble is the reality that no more than 1/3rd of known fossil fuel reserves can be burned before we face a climate catastrophe.

There is a strong possibility that not all of the fossil fuels that the UK has access to will be burned. These ‘stranded assists’ will be left in the ground and oil companies and countries who will be expecting to earn from them will never see them realised. The financial impact of this reality for employees, regions, companies, pension funds and countries would simply dwarf this current “crisis”: picture that as big as the North Sea and this one no more than a puddle.

Scotland is of course especially susceptible to the financial impact of a carbon bubble. Our reliance on oil as an important industry is similar to our love affair with financial services. We must take this opportunity to properly diversify from fossil fuels. We have to learn the lessons from the financial crash that we can not rely on the speculative nature of certain industries to underpin our future.

3. The oil industry is not an environmentally sound industry

It was announced this month that renewables had for the first time become Scotland’s largest source of power demonstrating that our need for fossil fuels is reducing. We now have viable, secure and powerful alternatives to fossil fuels. We now have alternative clean industries for our jobs, pensions funds, regions, companies and our country.

The context of the environmental impact of more drilling, more exploration, more production and more consumption of oil scarcely receives a mention in any coverage of the oil industry. The social costs of the industry are made invisible by the main stream media. And that not only blinds the general population but it also dazes politicians.

Within the forty or so pages of the LINK Carbon Bubble Report one paragraph stood out. It was the response from the “Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee” of the Scottish Parliament. Their spokesman said that the committee was not aware of the concept of the Carbon Bubble and they did not know if it presented a risk to Scotland. No matter what you think of the likelihood of a bubble, does that sound like a country in which the full facts and opinions are openly discussed?

Before we look forward lets head back to 1998 and picture the disbelief and pleasure at the rise and rise of oil prices on the faces of those DTI officials. Imagine the glee as the revenues for the UK Treasury from North Sea oil rose and rose breaking the £100billion barrier during the Blair Government. Mirrored of course by a bigger rise in profits for oil companies.

Those billions of pounds poured, slopped and dripped into company accounts and the treasury. The dirty money swelled the coffers as a dirty and structurally unsound industry spent instead of saved.

That is the UK’s past but continuing on this path does not need to the Scotland’s future.

An independent Scot's view on the search for an independent nation