Unemployment fell in Scotland on yesterday’s new figures, while it rose everywhere else in the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that the difference was caused by the fact that the Scottish government has a (limited) ability to effectively spend forward and thus postpone the results of the Osborne public spending cuts. But the interesting result of that, is that the employment increase in Scotland was in the private sector, not the public sector, while private sector employment fell in England.
The Osborne theory – that public sector employment “crowds out” private sector employment, and cutting public sector jobs will somehow automatically increase the production of private sector jobs – appears, in this large scale example in the actual UK economy – the opposite of the truth. Cutting public sector jobs cuts private sector jobs too. That is intuitively correct – people who have just lost their job, their car and their home are going to be spending less buying things from other people.
As Miliband’s appearance before the TUC reminds us, the truth is that, were New Labour in power, the difference between what Osborne is doing and what New Labour would do is very marginal indeed. Only in Scotland do the voters have a real alternative, and they have flocked to it in droves.
While some old people will die this winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes, the Westminster government has had no trouble at all in finding over £100 billion to burn in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, in the interests of the wealthy elite in charge of a few mega-corporations. These wars have been solidly supported by all the unionist parties, with a brief wobble by the Lib Dems under the good Charlie Kennedy, quickly disposed of.
The SNP have provided the only electable alternative to extreme neo-conservative policy (including neo-liberal economic policy) available to electors in the UK. They have had stunning electoral success as a result. The Lib Dems were perceived briefly in England as opposing the neo-cons, with some justice, but were hijacked by the right wing Clegg, and their wider leadership was bought up by the present and future riches office brings in our corrupt system. But in the period the Lib Dems did seem an alternative to the neo-con Tory and New Labour parties, they rose to new heights of popularity and support.
The almost 100% correlation today between unionism and neo-conservatism among professional politicians and media pundits is why I am absolutely confident Scotland will achieve independence very soon. That neo-con recipe is well and truly rejected by the Scottish people.
But where does that leave a newly independent England? (presumably still attached to Wales, but I leave that and Irish union aside) Political progressives in England have traditionally been the most hostile to English independence because England would have a permanent Tory majority.
Well, I am not so sure it would. Only ten years ago Scotland seemed to have a permanent New Labour majority. Things change. But also, how thick do so-called progressives have to be, not to see that New Labour is absolutely another neo-con party?
Who launched the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Who introduced university tuition fees? Who brought in control orders and 28 days detention? Who sanctioned kettling? Who gave unimaginable sums of your money to the bankers? Who massively expanded the Private Finance Initiative? Who invented Academy schools? Who was complicit in torture and extraordinary rendition? Who presided over the greatest ever growth in the gap between rich and poor in this country? Answers: New Labour, New Labour, New Labour, New Labour, New Labour, New Labour, New Labour, New Labour and
New Labour.
The truth is that, within the union, there is no practical chance for England to have any government other than a government of neo-cons. It needs a seismic shift to break this up. What we have seen is that the party system is resilient even to moments when its corruption is revealed to all, as in the MPs’ expenses and Murdoch scandals. The United Kingdom as an entity is in the power of a corrupt political class controlled by corporations, for whom perpetual war, hydrocarbon dominance worldwide and access at will to taxpayers’ pockets are the necessary conditions of their existence. Only a truly seismic shock in the political landscape can save the English from this. That much-needed shock can be the break-up of the United Kingdom. Who knows how politics in England would fall out afterwards, but it cannot be worse. A shake of the kaleidoscope is a moment of great potential. England needs that.
I think that the arsehole who thinks it is down to ‘scotch c@nts’ and all his other misinformed bleating and girls blousing is lucky he can wipe his own arse, such is the likelihood of him being a window licker extraordinaire.
A total tube.
As to how ‘weak’ Scotland will be post Independence-just consider we are the only country in these Isles with the balls to not rely on our token little brits like blair to represent our political aspirations but have gone for actually changing this crap british state, and judging by what speccytwat says and his pishy view, it is in a right state.
You think the rest of the uk is going to be some force to be reckoned with…….you are up your own butt I think.
Bring it on!
Duncan,
*
An independent Scotland might provide people in Scotland with better government than they would otherwise have, but there seems no obvious reason to think so.
*
Small states are not assured of good government. Consider Bahrain, Yemen, Kuwait, Abkhazia, and many others. They live under the paw of one of the great powers, who in exchange for compliance with their wishes, are ready to tolerate unlimited abuses of the people by their compliant puppets.
*
Perhaps you see an independent Scotland remaining within NATO and the EU. But in that case, what influence do you think Scotland would have in the councils of those organizations? I would say, none. Canada has “influence” in NATO (e.g., a Canadian general is running the rape of Libya), by being a US lapdog.
*
And if Scotland pulled out of NATO and the EU it would be in an unenviable position indeed, like Libya but much closer to the nearest NATO air bases from which planes may be dispatched at any time to press the requirements of BP or other commercial interests. Moreover, Scotland would be faced with demands for long term leases or compensation payment in relation to US/UK air, naval and radar installations in Scotland. It would, in other words, be occupied territory independent in name only.
*
And what exactly would the Scots do for employment? At present 70% of the Scottish economy is taxpayer funded. Without the SE of England to cover the cost, half the jobs in Scotland would be gone — all that crazy uneconomic forestry, the welfare bureaucracy, the prisons, the military expenditures. You might have a minimum wage, but practically no one would be able to to pay it. And that fine high road to London could very well be closed by an alienated and more nationalistic England.
*
Rather than pursue the petty, and narrow nationalism of Scotland, the Scots would be wiser, I suggest, to combine with their fellow Celts and Vikings throughout the British Isles to form a powerful independent nation, that can either assert some influence from within NATO and the EU, or survive independently of both.
Ha! I see Suhayl Saadi has an ally in Kinghob, a master of the Scotch language, apparently.
Canspeccy wrote
“the forced disintegration of political and social institutions”
Examples in the UK please?
“of the culture of the people, of their language, their national feelings and their religion.”
Anyone telling English or British people they can’t have their own culture, can’t speak English and can’t choose whatever religion they like?
No-one.
“It may be accomplished by wiping out all basis of personal security, liberty, health and dignity.”
Any evidence that’s being done to any particular cultural group, rather than the billionaires and big firms stuffing it to everyone?
You have absolutely no examples of anyone forcing British people not to speak english, not to be Christian or agnostic or whatever they want to be, telling them they can’t choose to be English or British or Welsh or Scottish?
Ridiculous hyperbole based on nothing. There is no “genocide” of any form going on in the UK. The only group that might qualify are gypsies/travellers and even there it’s highly debatable
“Ridiculous hyperbole based on nothing.”
*
Based on the replacement of people of British descent by a majority of immigrant origin in many London boroughs, in Leicester and other cities.
*
As for wiping out personal security, that is precisely what offshoring of jobs is doing, both in Britain and throughout the West. There are now around 9 million in Britain who are unemployed, employed part time when they need full-time work, or who have given up the search for work in despair.
*
Social institutions such as the church, marriage, schools that instil discipline, all are being undermined by the enforcement of political correctness and the official promotion of multi-culturalism that treats British culture as merely one of many, and one that has almost entirely disappeared in many urban areas.
*
Interesting to see how the truth so gets under liberal skins.
*
So much so, that DM entirely fails to respond to anything I said about his fatuous ideas on Scottish national independence.
But the ultimate compulsion in the ethnic cleansing of the English in many areas of London and in large parts of other major cities including Leicester, Bradford etc., is the refusal of governments to stem the tide of immigration despite massive public opposition to it. This is totally contrary to the constitutional convention of the country.
Mass immigration to Britain is, however, supported by powerful business interests because it lowers wages and almost totally destroys the bargaining power of unions.
*
Oddly, many of the positions most vigorously defended on this blog, ultimately prove to serve those business interests. Break-up of the nation with its inherent power to protect the interests of the people through measures such as capital controls, tariffs and immigration controls, destruction of unions, lowering of wages, silencing of legitimate and intelligent dissent through the imposition of strict rules of political correctness, i.e., curtailment of free speech.
All of that neoliberalism affects peoples of all colours. But the hobby-horse is swinging and has taken over the thread, which was originally about other matters entirely. Race is not the central condundrum here, economics is. To attempt to turn the focus towards race arguably also serves elite interests, by divide-and-rule and by shifting the target away from those elites and their power structures. But that, largely, is the function of the Far Right – and many so-called liberals are complicit in that dynamic. On that other point, the dualism b/w ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ is a C19th one and remains dominant in the USA/North America. Many of the Left most certainly would not see themselvs as ‘liberals’.
.
Kinghob, take it easy, dude. Don’t let him get you mad. All of this, and more, has been written many times on this blog wrt Alfred’s questionable and incongruous views on race. It is important that such views be countered, firmly, rationally. One understands the fears and sense of loss that might be at the root of such views. But in the end, it is a circular dynamic that gets no-one anywhere. I suggest we consider moving on/ back to matters of English/Scottish independence, economics, etc. Movement of labour and capital are key questions, but they need to be decoupled from emotive, inflmammatory and arguably xenophobic discourses on ‘race’.
Stroll on, Macduff. Part 1:
.
http://bit.ly/nQCZRI
Stroll on, Macduff. Part 2:
.
http://bit.ly/rhIuHj
I’m sure I heard on the radio there that they are about to pillage the Libyan nation’s bank. No word of elections or democracy.
We have stepped up from just being mass murderers to being mass murderous thieves.
Bring on the Scottish Independence Referendum so that we can dis-associate ourselves from these Banksters. I would invite other UK regions to join with us then we could build a wall round London, accept their refugees, and leave the monsters to tear each other apart.
A clinical amputation may be the only way that our Nations can survive.
I tend to be someone who thinks that globalisation is a trend and a tide that can’t be ordered back and those that think otherwise are making a complete Cnut of themselves.
.
I don’t believe in the sort of “open-the-doors-and-hang-on-to-your-hats” policy of immigration that doesn’t exist anyway and is used as a strawman against “liberals” or “Hitlerites” (because we all remember how much of a liberal Hitler was in a non-existent parallel universe!) and I do think there is room for sensible discussion about immigration. Yet anyone who thinks that UK immigration policy amounts to genocide of the “British race” or the “white race” or some other kind of made-up race has already disqualified themselves from a seat at the debating table as surely as anyone would for blaming inclement weather on liberals or their own abusive behaviour on the scotch.
Not that I expect anyone to care, I do think I would be a little saddened if the Scottish left the union. I want them to stay for mostly sentimental reasons. So, I can say that if they have good reasons for leaving then they should do and I don’t need to come up with rationalizations for my emotional state.
.
I do agree with those who say that Scotland might find their independence a little more … er… thistlely than the Scots tend to pretend it will be but that’s for them to figure out. I expect a reunion within the next one hundred years whatever happens anyway.
Here’s Elvis:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSabzVne4pQ
I agree, angrysoba. Very well put.
Does anyone know what Simple Minds think of independence for Scotland? I ask it merely because their music formed the background for much of my coming-of-age and sometimes I find myself listening to songs like this and am unable to tell if it is really good or merely nostalgia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi1KRgolnsI
I don’t know what Jim Kerr’s or the other band members’ views on Scottish independence might be. They certainly were involved in Nelson Mandela’s celebrations at various times, which might suggest they are at the progressive end of the political spectrum. Apparently, Jim Kerr now lives in Sicily.
As long as he (Jim Kerr) doesn’t start banging on about immigrants… (!)
I was an XTC, Stiff Little Fingers, Undertones, Jam, Soft Boys and U2 man, myself. Since we’re talking ’80s music.
CanSpeccy wrote “Social institutions such as the church, marriage, schools that instil discipline, all are being undermined by the enforcement of political correctness and the official promotion of multi-culturalism that treats British culture as merely one of many, and one that has almost entirely disappeared in many urban areas.”
You’re talking as though culture and race were the same thing, as if cultues influencing each other and changing over time is the same as deliberate and enforced suppression of language, religion and beliefs. It’s not.
Cultures are not monolithic unchanging blocs that only change due to people forcing them to – they’ve always interacted and influenced each other and changed.
There is no “enforcement” of “political correctness” (whatever political correctness means – any definition at all here? )
CanSpeccy wrote “As for wiping out personal security, that is precisely what offshoring of jobs is doing, both in Britain and throughout the West. There are now around 9 million in Britain who are unemployed, employed part time when they need full-time work, or who have given up the search for work in despair.”
How does this apply any more to white Christians than to any other group? It doesn’t. Unemployment has risen due to cuts in public sector employment, deregulation of the private sector and slashing barriers to “free trade”, many of which were required to provide some protection against capital skipping countries at the drop of a hat.
CanSpeccy wrote “Mass immigration to Britain is, however, supported by powerful business interests because it lowers wages and almost totally destroys the bargaining power of unions.”
That’s true, but you pretend again that it’s completely uncontrolled – you know it’s not or we wouldn’t be wasting billions every year on “detention centres” with razor wire fences round them and forced deportations.
It’s also true that some of the powerful business interests and billionaires use immigrants as a scapegoat in order to distract people from the fact that big firms and billionaires are being allowed to use tax avoidance and calls for lower taxes to avoid paying any significant amount of tax, forcing taxes up for everyone else. Notice The Sun (Rupert Murdoch) and the Daily Mail (Lord Rothermere) are constantly bashing immigrants and refugees.
It’s also true that the flow of immigrants to the UK is due to the fact that the UK is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, with money flowing from Africa and other parts of the ‘developing world’ to it constantly, partly due to deliberate destabilisations like the overthrow of Lumumba in the Democratic Republic of Congo, leading to dictatorship and then civil war, both of which have been very profitable for ‘developed world’ companies.
All immigration control is in reality arbitrary chaos because the flow of money from poor to rich countries is so vast – and the difference in freedoms and safety so vast – that there’s bound to be a huge flow of immigrants and refugees seeking safety, relative democracy and enough to eat. If you want to change that you need to allow the developing countries to develop – which means letting them protect and subsidise their agriculture and industry until it develops, the same way the developed countries did in the past.
CanSpeccy wrote
“Small states are not assured of good government. Consider Bahrain, Yemen, Kuwait, Abkhazia, and many others. They live under the paw of one of the great powers, who in exchange for compliance with their wishes, are ready to tolerate unlimited abuses of the people by their compliant puppets.”
That’s true, but i don’t see Sweden or Russia having been made puppets of Russia any time recently. I suspect small countries on the North of the EU, part of it or not, are going to be relatively safe. I’d be for staying part of the EU probably. There are downsides to it but it’d give greater safety in the event of unforseen developments (e.g world war three)
There are arguments for staying in the UK and arguments for independence, upsides and downsides of each. Independence wouldn’t solve all our problems and might cause us some new ones – but i doubt it’d be the end of the world.
*
“Perhaps you see an independent Scotland remaining within NATO and the EU. But in that case, what influence do you think Scotland would have in the councils of those organizations? I would say, none. Canada has “influence” in NATO (e.g., a Canadian general is running the rape of Libya), by being a US lapdog.”
It’d have more choice than it has just now where our foreign policy is the foreign policy of Westminster governments who have done exactly what the President of the US told them to do from Thatcher on.
“And if Scotland pulled out of NATO and the EU it would be in an unenviable position indeed, like Libya but much closer to the nearest NATO air bases from which planes may be dispatched at any time to press the requirements of BP or other commercial interests. Moreover, Scotland would be faced with demands for long term leases or compensation payment in relation to US/UK air, naval and radar installations in Scotland. It would, in other words, be occupied territory independent in name only.”
As if Westminster governments don’t give BP and British Aerospace whatever they want, at the expense of all British taxpayers, including Scottish ones.
“And what exactly would the Scots do for employment? At present 70% of the Scottish economy is taxpayer funded. Without the SE of England to cover the cost, half the jobs in Scotland would be gone — all that crazy uneconomic forestry, the welfare bureaucracy, the prisons, the military expenditures. You might have a minimum wage, but practically no one would be able to to pay it. And that fine high road to London could very well be closed by an alienated and more nationalistic England.”
Less than a third of Scottish employment is in the public sector – and the proportion in the private sector is increasing. The PFIs (including PFI prisons) and the military expenditure are massive wastes of money in terms of job creation. Far more could be created by investing in new civilian technologies in energy, manufacturing and other sectors. The UK is currently buying an aircraft carrier from BAE which we won’t even have planes for. Arms manufacturing employment provides a fraction of the jobs relative to money spent of civilian manufacturing.
*
“Rather than pursue the petty, and narrow nationalism of Scotland, the Scots would be wiser, I suggest, to combine with their fellow Celts and Vikings throughout the British Isles to form a powerful independent nation, that can either assert some influence from within NATO and the EU, or survive independently of both.”
Or maybe the Hittites or the Sea Peoples? There are no Celts left, nor any Vikings. The Anglo-Saxons and the Normans conquered them and banned speaking and teaching Gaelic long ago and now almost no-one speaks it. It’s only recently been promoted again – but that wasn’t genocide because they were all white and Christian, whereas refugees and migrant workers with different coloured skins and different religions are “genocide” of white people?
I’m not really that worried – my culture includes some Celtic influence and i can study the history of the celts, but there are no Celts or vikings left.
FAO Canspeccy:
.
I’ve had enough of you derailing threads onto immigration at every opportunity you can find. You are not going to convince people that “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” are appropriate terms for describing immigration.
.
Now, you can moderate yourself, or I’m going to declare you a troll. That means I’ll be asking people not to respond to such comments so that I can delete them without disrupting the intelligibility of the thread. Got it?
Angrysoba
“I tend to be someone who thinks that globalisation is a trend and a tide that can’t be ordered back and those that think otherwise are making a complete Cnut of themselves.”
I prefer this:
Qui sait peut être un jour la mondialisation
Sera au musée, toutes les voies dégagées
Vive la liberté, on ira tous à pieds
–Wasis Diop
Duncan, superlative posts, thanks: The definitive statement.
“there are no Celts or vikings left”
‘
Ahem – I have mild Dupuytren’s disease which my doctor tells me is a Viking inheritance.
Vronsky, yes, I always thought you had horns!
Pedantry alert: the term is ‘martial law’ not ‘Marshall law’. Perhaps confused with the Marshall Plan post WWII.
“I always thought you had horns!”
.
That, from the man who always wears a hat?
Vronsky: “I predicted 20 years ago that continuing unconsidered opposition to independence could crush the Labour Party out of existence in Scotland. ” (http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/09/beauty-contest/#comments)
.
Oh, my prophetic soul.
.
http://tinyurl.com/5vv8bs9
.
(to beat the pay wall, click on the headline and then hit ‘escape’ before the story loads)
Fada beo an ardchríocha na hAlban
*
Screw Edinburgh.
*
Vivre le Highlands libre. We’ll take the oil and let those lowland bastards freeze in the dark.
*
Hey, and nobody to challenge this — see Other Mod, above. LOL