Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Definite Contributions and Grubby Purchase

Jun 30

Posted by Jeff in Society | 3 Comments

One of the saddest reflections of the state of our planet at this current time is the growing phenomenon of elderly people committing suicide out of a forced compassion from not wanting to be a bother to their offspring and to the state. This problem is at its worst in Hong Kong and Japan as these parts of the world have the highest life expectancy. However, as more and more corners of the globe see a higher share of its population in the retirement age, the trend is only set to continue apace and become a wider problem.

There are not many issues that can be solved by simply throwing money at them but, nonetheless, there is little doubt that access to care, ability to heat your own home, buy food and even just have a roof over your head are all factors that affect older people more once they reach retirement age and these concerns are all largely wrapped up in the strikes and protests that we shall see today. The level of public pension is a difficult needle to thread as, if you pay too little, then you have poverty issues for a lot of vulnerable people but, if you pay too much, there is not enough money left over to run the country efficiently.

So, what’s the answer? Well, it’s not abundantly clear and you certainly won’t find it on here but, from what I have read, the unions are only bringing problems to the table, not potential solutions, and so I cannot find much sympathy for, let alone solidarity with, the strikers today. Ed Miliband is being criticised for not supporting the strikes given he leads the ‘Labour’ party; but in calling the strikes “a mistake” he is doing just that – leading, otherwise he would just be following a crowd because they happened to lean the same way politically.

A Labour leader with an understanding of but not in thrall to the unions is a good thing and long may it continue.

In terms of the problems of an ageing population in an unequal Britain, the answer as far as I am concerned is to implement much greater equality into the system across the public sector as a whole and try to ensure that the private sector will follow suit.

There seems to be a dogged belief across the UK that the public sector has to mimic the private sector in order to be at its most efficient and optimal. It has led to PFI, raids on long term pension schemes to aid day to day cashflow, privatisations of vital national services and many other ghastly monstrosities that should never have come to pass. Why should public sector works receive a lower pension just because private sector workers do? And why should there be such a wide disparity between the pensions of the lower paid public sector workers and the higher paid?

After x years of service, regardless of the job you have worked at, be it head of a local council or sweeping the streets, you should be awarded a pension that is equitable with anyone else in the public sector that has worked for the same period. A system where each public employee pays in, say, 8% of their salary and knows that when that golden age of 64, 65, 66 or whatever it is comes, they will get a pension that they can comfortably live on, well, it would solve a lot of today’s problems.

Yes, people would take out less than they have paid in and others would take out more; but that would be a price worth paying for a fair country where minimum standards are above the poverty line and each citizen is valued.

Why should fat cats who enjoy fat cat salaries also be rewarded with a fat cat pension? They have forty years to build up a big fat private pension with their annual salary if they so choose. When did the public decide that certain pensioners deserve more money to live on than their peers after they have finished work?

When we start treating all elderly citizens as equal human beings, rather than defective goods at the wrong end of life’s conveyor belt, maybe then we can start getting somewhere in terms of a better balance to our society. And maybe so many more of the wiser, tireder generation will look ahead with enthusiasm and joy to the rest of their lives, feeling like a valuable contributor to the UK rather than an unwanted hindrance on borrowed time.

Independence in Europe?

Jun 29

Posted by Malc in Constitution, Europe | 50 Comments

At the risk of putting my own head above the parapet and being whacked the same way Stuart Winton has been, I’ve a few comments about the idea of independence in Europe that I thought I might air.  But please be nice.

One of the bedrocks of the SNP’s independence message is that Scotland would have a stronger voice within Europe – and indeed, the wider world.  You only have to read some of the comments on Stuart’s post to see those arguments voiced.  As it stands, if Scotland wants a policy pursued at EU level, it must agree it with the UK government at Westminster, and that particular policy will only be pursued if the UK government itself sees it as consistent with the wider UK interest.  Certainly a system whereby Scotland would have its own voice at this level – and the opportunity to use it – would appear to be a more attractive notion.  However, is it as simple as declaring independence (making the assumption that there is a yes vote in a referendum) one day and speaking up in Europe the next?

It seems, the answer to this question very much depends upon who you ask.

The SNP’s team of constitutional lawyers indicate that there would be no difficulty with the above situation.  In their view, it is perfectly legitimate to consider that, while Scotland will be seceding from one Union (the UK) it has given no indication that it wishes to leave another (the EU) and thus would continue its membership as previously, with various amendments since it would now sit as an independent nation-state.  This would presumably entail increased membership of the European Parliament, voting and veto rights and various other aspects of membership.

Others indicate differently.  They consider that the UK is the member state of the EU (which no one would dispute) and as such, any component part of that union which separates itself would also avail itself of the various treaty obligations which the UK holds – including membership of the EU.  Thus, Scotland would have to re-apply for membership of all the international bodies to which it would like to align.  Needless to say, independence which brings no commercial ties to Europe would be a less attractive option than independence with full EU membership as a guarantee.  Indeed, many of the European Parliament staff members – of several nations – indicated that this was what they thought the case would be, especially since the Spanish (who face a similar situation with Basques and Catalans) would likely block the first option.

Then there is a third camp, which argues that, while Scotland would have to re-negotiate membership of the EU, so too would the rest of the UK.  The point in this case is that the member state which negotiated membership of the EU originally no longer exists in the same form as it did when it negotiated membership, thus all memberships become null and void.  While this third scenario would confirm Scotland on a similar legal standing to the rest of the UK, this would come as little economic consolation if both had to re-negotiate membership – with the added problem that this time it is likely that no opt-outs would be granted (meaning adopting both Schengen and the Euro as mandatory conditions of membership).

So – several opinions but no hard facts.  Part of the reason for this is that there is no legal precedent for what might occur should part of a member state decide to secede.  Of course there are cases of secession we can look to (Czech Republic and Slovakia, Kosovo, Montenegro – even Greenland) but none where membership of the EU has been at stake.  There is a flip side – East Germany was incorporated in Germany’s membership – but that was a distinct situation (which could perhaps be repeated should Northern Ireland ever merge with the Republic of Ireland, but that’s a different issue entirely).

From discussion with MEPs of all Scottish parties and others, as well as non-partisan voices in the European Parliament in Strasbourg, it is clear that nothing is clear in this areas.  Labour’s Catherine Stihler has asked the question of the European Commission on several occasions, with the only response being that they do not comment on hypothetical situations.

Well, this is no longer a hypothetical situation – we will have a vote on independence and a very real chance that Scotland will vote for it.  There are perfectly legitimate and rational arguments on either side of this debate, and it is one which does need much further exploration – and a clear answer will surely be required before we move to the referendum.  Indeed, the answer in the latter may well depend on the answer to the former.

A quick open note to the Greek Parliament.

Jun 29

Posted by James in International | 6 Comments

Kanellos the Riot DogΚαλημέρα σύντροφοι,
You’re gathering shortly to vote on the latest package of privatisations and cuts as Europe’s latest indignants gather beneath you. Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy, the IMF, and the European Central Bank are desperate for you to vote this deal through. They tell you it’s essential for Greece’s future. If you think your interests are aligned with theirs and that they genuinely care about what’s fair for the people you represent, fine, keep going with the fire sale and the shock doctrine.

Perhaps you will succeed and they will get what they want – a shoring up of their irresponsible banking sector and the unstable currency you share with them. Wouldn’t it be great if you could save yourselves without having to do anything about the tax evasion Greeks have joked about for decades (sample line: “Greece is a poor country, but there are no poor Greeks” – not that the latter is true).

If, however, you think they’re putting their interests ahead of yours, trying to keep you on the debt and bailout treadmill while getting access to Greek assets at knockdown prices, turn them down, default on their debt and get out of the single currency. Whoever made this banner went too far, mind. Then you can start fixing your tax system on your own terms, and tackling other problems like the breaks given to some pretty corrupt monks.

It’ll be very hard – for generations the bureaucracy has served itself and cut corners, and a whole lot of money was lent to Greece on a false prospectus. But it doesn’t need to be done in a way that puts the poorest in the firing line. They are, just as in Britain, not the source of the problem, and you will get little return from squeezing them.

A degree of austerity is inevitable, but that still leaves you a choice. Austerity for the poor and a weakened state, stripped of assets to keep the French and German bankers in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed, or austerity for the tax-dodging better off, a reduction in the absurdly over-funded military, and, yes, tackling some of the truly inefficient ways the public sector works. My favourite from my Greek friends was the literally no-work job with no application process, merely a waiting list, up which you could move if you knew the right people. Over to you.

Anyway, I hope you don’t find this cheeky – it’s written with lot of love for Greece, as well as family and friendship connections. I feel your pain, even though as a political class you’re certainly primarily responsible for it, and best of luck with your tough choice today.

James

Celebrating motorway closures.

Jun 28

Posted by James in Holyrood, Transport | 14 Comments

M74 monsterToday the roads lobby, the construction industry, and their cheerleaders at Holyrood celebrate the opening of the M74 Northern Extension. They got what they and their forebears have argued for since the 1940s – another barren strip of tarmac cut right through Glasgow. They even got the chap who’s 20th in line to the throne along to show how important it is to The Firm: Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Disappointingly, not this one.

The scheme remains an overwhelmingly bad idea, whatever the cost and timescale, matters I’ll come back to shortly. The other arguments against the project – it won’t help with congestion, journey times or jobs, and it’ll be fantastically polluting – were accepted by the independent reporter, who ruled against it in 2005. To quote just one paragraph from that report:

11.100 Inevitably this recommendation will be subject to considerable criticism by those who support the road. The opposite recommendation has been considered with equal care. It is concluded that a recommendation to approve the construction of the road and the compulsory purchase of the affected properties would depend on setting aside the very serious disadvantages of the proposal in terms of objectives for the improvement of public transport and traffic reduction, CO2 emissions, the very serious environmental impacts along the route, and disregarding the potentially devastating effects on the local and wider economy due to the dislocation of existing businesses and services; and placing an unreasonable degree of confidence in employment forecasts that have not been demonstrated to be robust, and which at best would bring a relatively small number of new jobs to Scotland, the vast majority of the prospective new employment being transferred from other areas of Scotland, including other parts of the Clyde valley area. Even if a more positive view of the economic benefits were to be accepted, it would still be doubtful if this aspirational and uncertain prospect would justify the acceptance of so many negative effects.

Now even some former cheerleaders for the project have changed their tune, notably in an outstanding front page in the Scotsman yesterday. As Boris would say, this elevated motorway has already been demonstrated to be nonsense on stilts, literally, and Tom Greatrex should know better.

So for those of us who dream of a better urban Scotland, one that’s built to meet people’s needs not one that builds ever greater dependence on the car, this is a sad day. Yes – fighting it in court and through direct action delayed the scheme, and my only regret is that we didn’t do more.

SeoulBut there is, as the phrase has it, a better way. From Seoul to San Francisco, the urban motorways are coming out (thanks to Jonny for that link).

The road to the left is the 1970s Cheonggyecheon Highway through the heart of Seoul, and the river to the right is what replaced it in 2005.

The city got a new park (the river was under the motorway, believe it or not), lower traffic levels across the city, improvements in biodiversity, and better public transport.

The post above has three more examples, and this one talks about more discussions about motorway removals in Syracuse, Buffalo, Seattle, Louisville, Cleveland, New Orleans and Dallas.

That’s right. Dallas is ahead of us. We’re still building these 1960s barbarities, but Dallas, the world’s fossil fuel capital, is already talking about taking them out. Can you hear the music in your head?

The New Orleans example is also interesting. To quote the Architect’s Paper:

Decades before the hurricane, the construction of I-10 in the 1950s precipitated Treme’s decline from one of the city’s wealthiest African-American neighborhoods to an area with high poverty and vacancy rates.

And in Glasgow, both the M74 and the M8 have certainly damaged communities like Anderston Cross (h/t @geopoetic for that pic). Sooner or later, given the future shape of oil supply if nothing else, these job-killing, time-wasting and polluting roads will have to be taken down and the city rebuilt in the gaps that remain. We should treat that as an opportunity, and, depressing as it is that Ministers have wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on them, I look forward to the day that the ribbon is cut and the JCBs go in to undo all their hard work.

The details of independence?

Jun 28

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution | 12 Comments

A guest post from Dr Peter Lynch of the University of Stirling.  Peter has published widely on devolution, regionalism and the SNP, including this 1999 history of the party, as well as being a familiar voice on Radio Scotland as an election commentator.

The recent BBC Question Time of 16th June 2011 demonstrated some of the difficulties the SNP will face in getting a Yes vote at the independence referendum – the difficulty of having detailed answers to every post-independence question under the sun.

The questioner in the audience who pointed out that independence would require embassies, defence forces, the immigration service, customs service, EU membership and currency, probably did the SNP a service here.

The obvious thing about some of these issues is that they are difficult if not impossible to answer at this stage. Determining how many rifles the Scottish army will have after independence is just about as hard as determining how many the British Army has now, let alone whether they actually work. As such details are a problem, then the No campaign may well choose to drown out the independence option with endless questions they know cannot be answered and tie up the Yes campaigners in very detailed knots!

This is a problem for the SNP, but it has, in the past, provided some useful answers. Back in 1996, Allan Macartney helped to produce the Transition Report on Scottish independence, which sought to explain that independence was not a one-day wonder, but rather a gradual process of getting from the constitutional present to independence, in an orderly fashion, over several years. Getting hold of the Transition report is a challenge, though some of it was assessed by the Constitution Unit here (pdf). And, it makes interesting reading as it explains how to get to independence through a transitional process of negotiation, asset divisions, establishing institutions, policies, etc. You don’t just arrive there the day after the referendum. An actual independence day would only occur some years after the referendum.

Despite the need for a transition, devolution does provide a strong institutional platform for independence. The Scottish government already exists, with a range of organisations and civil servants responsible for policymaking. Independence is not a year zero for government or government institutions. Rather it is a case of bolting on new policy responsibilities like defence, foreign affairs, immigration, taxation, etc., onto existing government institutions and organisations (think about existing British military bases in Scotland as well as HMRC’s Centre One in East Kilbride). Sorting out these complexities is something the SNP will need to think through in the years from now to the referendum.

Of course, the politicians currently moaning about the lack of details about independence will moan even more when the Scottish government sets up commissions to study the transition to independence and any details of the independence process. The opposition parties will complain about wasting taxpayer’s money. For evidence of this, think back to the opposition’s behaviour over the white paper Choosing Scotland’s Future in 2007, as well as the ten policy papers that followed from 2008-9. Of course, complaining about them was easier than reading them and deeply ironic as they contained a fair bit of detail on the constitutional options of both independence and devo-max.