When John Swinney issued the statement that he could not foresee the conditions being right for at least another ten years, for an independent Scotland to join the euro, it was probably as close as he could come to admitting the SNP's Euro policy was wrong and had always been wrong. Politicians are never wrong, it is changing circumstances that cause changes in policy; rarely or never, is it the fault of the political leaders who either misread the political situation, or simply do not understand the issues with which they are asked to deal. Nothing in the EU has changed to such an extent, as to cause the euro to be such a disaster for countries such as Greece, Eire et al.
Gavin McCrone, whose report on Scottish oil has earned him such a well-deserved place among SNP heroes, has pointed out, that while Greece should have never joined the euro, the same is not true of Eire, Spain or Italy and that the system itself is what is wrong. He also pointed out that "monetary union can only work if inflation is at broadly comparable rates between the member states" He could have usefully added that without fiscal centralisation, there is almost bound to be trouble, which is why it is true to say that it was also a mistake for Spain, Portugal, Italy and Eire to join. McCrone is the second substantial figure to admit to making a mistake about the euro, Charles Kennedy being the other, a few days ago. As time wears on, and it becomes politically acceptable to admit to being wrong about the euro, we will see other substantial political figures coming forward to admit support for the single currency was a mistake.
I should be glad that so many political figures in Scotland and the rest of the UK are coming forward to admit the mistake, having been campaigning for years, to keep this country out of the euro. I should be glad that people like Gordon Brown kept the UK out because it meant that Scotland did not join and is now unlikely ever to join, but no one can be glad at the damage the issue has caused. Schadenfreude is not always enoyable because in this case, the issue is too important, too many businesses in the member countries have been ruined, too many people have lost their jobs and countless billions of taxpayers' money have been wasted, for a political idea about which the adherents could not be honest. On a personal level, my opposition to EU membership and the inevitable centralising ethos of the EU, including the euro, caused me to leave the SNP and ended my position in front line politics. The question of the single currency is far from settled for the member states and more countless billions of tax will be spent before fiscal policy, as well as monetary policy, is directed from the centre. It will be that or, the system will collapse completely but, as Greece and Italy have already had their current governments appointed by the EU, it is obvious the Euro elite are not going to allow the euro to die easily.
While my delight at the death of the euro, at least as far as Scotland is concerned, is tempered by the disappointment that it took so long for people to see sense, there are no mixed feelings about the other issue which can surely work to the advantage of the national movement. The late Willie Ross, christened the SNP, the "Scots Narks". It was a name that stuck and which did damage, as did the "Tartan Tories", which did even more damage, after the decision of the party to vote against the Callaghan government. It took almost a decade for the damage to be reduced and for Labour supporters in Scotland to recognise that Callaghan was prepared to accept defeat at a general election, before giving in to devolution for Scotland, something which would take more than another decade to become a reality.
Try as they might, it was impossible for a time, for the SNP to persuade Scottish Labour supporters that Labour were as solid Unionists as were the Tories. As far as the SNP were concerned, this meant that the Labour Party in Scotland, would invariably sacrifice Scottish interests, for the interests of the Union or the UK "as a whole". That is a perfectly valid political position to take and was epitomised by Tam Dalyell, author of the "West Lothian Question", and Brian Wilson, at the time of the devolution campaign in 1979. Unbelievable as it may seem now, the SNP campaigned harder for Labour's devolution policy in 1979, than did the Labour Party in Scotland, with SNP activists, delivering Labour's official devolution leaflets because the Labour activists refused. To be labelled "Tartan Tories", particularly in light of the behaviour of the Scottish Labour Party, really stuck in the craw of many SNP activists and played its part in the attitude of many in the SNP, to the Constituional Convention.
Scots have finally come to terms with the position of the Labour Party in Scotland, as far as the Union is concerned and the announcement of the founding of the cross-party group to "save the Union" will come as no surprise. It will also make the battle lines that much clearer. When it was announced earlier in the year, that there would be little or no overt cooperation between the three main Unionist parties in the referendum campaign, there were few in the Nationalist camp who believed it. As all three parties invariably appear in the popular media, singing from the same hymn sheet to the tune of the daily scare story, it simply made sense and was more honest, to make the campaign group official. Labour activists may object to their official spokesmen sharing a platform with Tories, but the Scottish electorate are no longer fooled by the arms-length campaigning, knowing perfectly well the level of cooperation at the very top, is as close as it can be, without forming an official coalition.
When it comes to the position of the Scottish leadership of both the Tories and Labour, Ruth Davidson and Johann Lamont have been put in their place quite emphatically. David Cameron undermined Davidson's position on his last visit to Scotland, as highlighted by Michael Forsyth and Lamont seemd to be incapable of dealing with the embarrassment created by Eric Joyce, whose suspension was directly ordered by Ed Milliband, something which should have been the preserve of the Scottish leader. As neither Scottish leader has made any impact on the Scottish political scene, having their leadership undermined like this, may have gone unnoticed by the Scottish electorate but, it is something which can be exploited by the SNP. The battle is now quite clearly between London and the London leaders of the Unionist parties and Edinburgh and the Scottish Parliament. It is a position tailor-made for the SNP to exploit.
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Friday, 24 February 2012
Oil Fund or No Oil Fund? Is that The Question?
Scots must be about the most stupid people on earth, judging by the headlines in the daily newspapers, to say nothing of the comments made about the prospects for an independent Scotland. I know we are supposed to accommodate the lowest common denominator in the debates but I have to admit, I am beginning to wonder if some Unionists are actually capable of formulating any kind of rational argument. On the car radio yesterday, I tuned in to Brian Taylor's debate which came from Fettes College in Edinburgh. One contribution from the floor, in the discussion on independence, suggested that if Scotland voted "Yes" in the referendum, was there not a danger we could end up like Greece? There would be riots in the streets and people burning buildings. As he warmed to his task (probably from the heat from the burning buildings) the enthusiastic Unionist concluded, "There could be civil war!" Aye right. Away and lie down in a dark room somewhere.
Unfortunately, this kind of nonsense is not confined to the "ordinary voter" whoever that may be. Philip Hammond warned us that thousands of jobs would be lost in the defence industries, because the rUK "would not build ships in a foreign country" - the "foreign country" being an independent Scotland. Does Hammond not know what is going on in his own department, or, is South Korea not a foreign country? For the purposes of this debate, is Scotland the only "foreign country", or is it just the only country the rUK will not trade with? When questioned why an order from the Royal Navy worth £465 million, went to South Korea, a spokesman from the MOD - that is Hammond's department - said, "it represented the best commercial deal". Now why would that matter, if the rUK will not "build ships in a foreign country"?
One would assume that one of the longest serving MEPs and one who has consistently and unreservedly supported the EU, would know and understand the implications for an independent Scotland, when it came to membership of the EU. Unfortunately, it would seem that we presume too much. David Martin MEP, has been pushing the notion in The Scotsman (where else) that an independent Scotland, "having been part of another member state" would have to re-apply for entry. It is time that argument was exposed for the fallacy that it is. When Scotland decides to become independent, the UK will cease to exist because it was formed by the partnership of Scotland and England (Wales is another discussion) therefore it is wrong even to speak of the rUK. Scotland's position will not be that of a "part of another state" that has broken away, it will be one half of the partnership which created the UK and which has just dissolved the partnership, thereby ending the existence of the UK. Whatever arrangements are made with the EU for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, will have to be made with an independent Scotland. That is the constitutional reality and any attempt to downgrade Scotland's legal position should be fought every step of the way.
The major story hitting the headlines for the past week has centred on the question of an Oil Fund being created in an independent Scotland, with Unionists setting out to create as much confusion as possible. The Scotsman carried the following headline, "Go-alone Scotland 'cannot afford oil fund without major cuts'". Unfortunately, the think tank quoted, does not actually say that. The Centre of Public Policy and the Regions (CPPR) centred on the comment by Salmond that he hoped Scotland would put aside £1 billion a year of oil taxes "once fiscal conditions allowed", countering that by arguing that "in the period after independence" it would be difficult to help close the budget deficit and have the oil fund at the same time "certainly not in the size being suggested". Taken together, there is not a great deal of difference in the two statements. However, Unionists have decided to interpret the statement from the CPPR as meaning that an independent Scotland will not be able to afford an oil fund - at all, therefore independence is a waste of time, the lights will all go out and there may even be civil war - God help us.
Unfortunately, the reaction by some SNP spokespeople to the comments by the CPPR, have not been helpful, attacking the membership of the think tank as having worked at one time for the Labour Party. So what, if there are some years there will be insufficient revenues to contribute anything to an oil fund? Whatever figures are being produced now are no more than projections, based on a series of assumptions and, as those assumptions are changed, so will the projections of the revenues available. In other words, if you don't like the projections the think tank has produced, ask them to change their assumptions and they will produce other projections. Unionists can have their projections and Nationalists can have theirs and we can turn the whole argument into a farce. One year's figures neither make a case for independence nor a case against independence.
It might be helpful if we looked at some figures for oil and tax revenues, some of which are projections and some of which are factual. The latest figures for Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland (GERS) show that Scotland is in a better financial position than the UK as a whole. As a perecntage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Scotland's Net Fiscal Balance for 2009/10 was -10.6% as opposed to the UK's -11.2%. Scotland's share of oil revenues for the same year went down from £11.7 billion to £5.9 billion, which would have made it difficult to contribute Salmond's proposed £1 billion to the oil fund. Fortunately, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has forecast that oil revenues over the next five years will average £13.4 billion, of which Scotland's share will be £12.2 billion, which is a far cry from the assumptions used by the CPPR and its "diminishing oil revenues".
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) is another think tank whose findings are being used to suggest an independent Scotland would struggle financially. Under its "assumptions" Scotland's debt ratio to GDP would be around 70%, a figure the think tank seeems to think is unmanageable without severe hardship. When the conditions for entry to the single currency were being drawn up, it was decided under the Maastricht Treaty that the debt ratio for member states should be 60%, which is not all that far away from the 70% which Scotland would allegedly find a problem. We know that that figure was never adhered to by the likes of Greece, Italy etc, which is why the euro is on the verge of collapse. The OECD forecast that the UK's debt ratio to GDP would be 95% in 2012. On 31st December 2011, the figure was 64%, excluding the financial sector intervention (RBS, Lloyds etc) but when that was included, the figure was 148%. In 2010, Japan's ratio of debt to GDP was 225%, Germany's was 78.8% and in 2011, the USA's was 110%. It would seem therefore that an independent Scotland's fiscal position would be as healthy as the best economies in the world and a great deal more healthy than some others.
There are going to be a great many variables in any calculation that is made about Scotland's future economic prospects. If Scotland reduced corporation tax it would certainly encourage business growth but what we will not know is whether the gap created by the loss of revenue from each individual firm, will be more than covered by the increase in business activity. It is assumed that it will. North sea oil activity will be determined in large part by the tax regime imposed by a Scottish government. There have been three tax hikes in the past decade, imposed by Westminster governments, the last of which provoked Centrica to say it intended to abandon the North Sea. Centrica has now changed its mind and a "sympathetic" tax regime might bring on stream marginal fields currently not being developed. Any Scottish government would have to be careful however, that it did not become too sympathetic. It is assumed there are other fields waiting to be developed when the oil price is right and it is under those conditions that the proposed oil fund is likely to become a reality.
Greater economic activity in a sector of the economy as important as the oil industry will have a knock on effect in other areas. Once the multiplier effect kicks in, the increased economic activity becomes general. No government can predict with certainty what will happen in any economy, although every government claims to be able to. By the same token, no opposition can predict what will not happen. The one thing about which we can be certain, is that the Unionists will manufacture whatever statistics and assumptions are needed, to "prove" independence will be a disaster.
Unfortunately, this kind of nonsense is not confined to the "ordinary voter" whoever that may be. Philip Hammond warned us that thousands of jobs would be lost in the defence industries, because the rUK "would not build ships in a foreign country" - the "foreign country" being an independent Scotland. Does Hammond not know what is going on in his own department, or, is South Korea not a foreign country? For the purposes of this debate, is Scotland the only "foreign country", or is it just the only country the rUK will not trade with? When questioned why an order from the Royal Navy worth £465 million, went to South Korea, a spokesman from the MOD - that is Hammond's department - said, "it represented the best commercial deal". Now why would that matter, if the rUK will not "build ships in a foreign country"?
One would assume that one of the longest serving MEPs and one who has consistently and unreservedly supported the EU, would know and understand the implications for an independent Scotland, when it came to membership of the EU. Unfortunately, it would seem that we presume too much. David Martin MEP, has been pushing the notion in The Scotsman (where else) that an independent Scotland, "having been part of another member state" would have to re-apply for entry. It is time that argument was exposed for the fallacy that it is. When Scotland decides to become independent, the UK will cease to exist because it was formed by the partnership of Scotland and England (Wales is another discussion) therefore it is wrong even to speak of the rUK. Scotland's position will not be that of a "part of another state" that has broken away, it will be one half of the partnership which created the UK and which has just dissolved the partnership, thereby ending the existence of the UK. Whatever arrangements are made with the EU for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, will have to be made with an independent Scotland. That is the constitutional reality and any attempt to downgrade Scotland's legal position should be fought every step of the way.
The major story hitting the headlines for the past week has centred on the question of an Oil Fund being created in an independent Scotland, with Unionists setting out to create as much confusion as possible. The Scotsman carried the following headline, "Go-alone Scotland 'cannot afford oil fund without major cuts'". Unfortunately, the think tank quoted, does not actually say that. The Centre of Public Policy and the Regions (CPPR) centred on the comment by Salmond that he hoped Scotland would put aside £1 billion a year of oil taxes "once fiscal conditions allowed", countering that by arguing that "in the period after independence" it would be difficult to help close the budget deficit and have the oil fund at the same time "certainly not in the size being suggested". Taken together, there is not a great deal of difference in the two statements. However, Unionists have decided to interpret the statement from the CPPR as meaning that an independent Scotland will not be able to afford an oil fund - at all, therefore independence is a waste of time, the lights will all go out and there may even be civil war - God help us.
Unfortunately, the reaction by some SNP spokespeople to the comments by the CPPR, have not been helpful, attacking the membership of the think tank as having worked at one time for the Labour Party. So what, if there are some years there will be insufficient revenues to contribute anything to an oil fund? Whatever figures are being produced now are no more than projections, based on a series of assumptions and, as those assumptions are changed, so will the projections of the revenues available. In other words, if you don't like the projections the think tank has produced, ask them to change their assumptions and they will produce other projections. Unionists can have their projections and Nationalists can have theirs and we can turn the whole argument into a farce. One year's figures neither make a case for independence nor a case against independence.
It might be helpful if we looked at some figures for oil and tax revenues, some of which are projections and some of which are factual. The latest figures for Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland (GERS) show that Scotland is in a better financial position than the UK as a whole. As a perecntage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Scotland's Net Fiscal Balance for 2009/10 was -10.6% as opposed to the UK's -11.2%. Scotland's share of oil revenues for the same year went down from £11.7 billion to £5.9 billion, which would have made it difficult to contribute Salmond's proposed £1 billion to the oil fund. Fortunately, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has forecast that oil revenues over the next five years will average £13.4 billion, of which Scotland's share will be £12.2 billion, which is a far cry from the assumptions used by the CPPR and its "diminishing oil revenues".
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) is another think tank whose findings are being used to suggest an independent Scotland would struggle financially. Under its "assumptions" Scotland's debt ratio to GDP would be around 70%, a figure the think tank seeems to think is unmanageable without severe hardship. When the conditions for entry to the single currency were being drawn up, it was decided under the Maastricht Treaty that the debt ratio for member states should be 60%, which is not all that far away from the 70% which Scotland would allegedly find a problem. We know that that figure was never adhered to by the likes of Greece, Italy etc, which is why the euro is on the verge of collapse. The OECD forecast that the UK's debt ratio to GDP would be 95% in 2012. On 31st December 2011, the figure was 64%, excluding the financial sector intervention (RBS, Lloyds etc) but when that was included, the figure was 148%. In 2010, Japan's ratio of debt to GDP was 225%, Germany's was 78.8% and in 2011, the USA's was 110%. It would seem therefore that an independent Scotland's fiscal position would be as healthy as the best economies in the world and a great deal more healthy than some others.
There are going to be a great many variables in any calculation that is made about Scotland's future economic prospects. If Scotland reduced corporation tax it would certainly encourage business growth but what we will not know is whether the gap created by the loss of revenue from each individual firm, will be more than covered by the increase in business activity. It is assumed that it will. North sea oil activity will be determined in large part by the tax regime imposed by a Scottish government. There have been three tax hikes in the past decade, imposed by Westminster governments, the last of which provoked Centrica to say it intended to abandon the North Sea. Centrica has now changed its mind and a "sympathetic" tax regime might bring on stream marginal fields currently not being developed. Any Scottish government would have to be careful however, that it did not become too sympathetic. It is assumed there are other fields waiting to be developed when the oil price is right and it is under those conditions that the proposed oil fund is likely to become a reality.
Greater economic activity in a sector of the economy as important as the oil industry will have a knock on effect in other areas. Once the multiplier effect kicks in, the increased economic activity becomes general. No government can predict with certainty what will happen in any economy, although every government claims to be able to. By the same token, no opposition can predict what will not happen. The one thing about which we can be certain, is that the Unionists will manufacture whatever statistics and assumptions are needed, to "prove" independence will be a disaster.
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Greece; Tragedy or Farce. What Does it Mean for Independence?
Surprise surprise, a deal was finally struck to "save" Greece from default. Was it ever in doubt? It all depends on how cynical one is about the EU, the European political elites and the lengths to which they are prepared to push a country and its people, to save face. Will it last? That depends on whether one is prepared to listen to the latest utterings of the EU leaders, who claim the situation has been stabilised or, to the more realistic political and economic analysts, who have been warning for several years that the eurozone cannot survive. I tend to follow the latter..
What does the deal involve? Greece has been advanced another 130 billion euros or £108billion, which allows the country to redeem its debt in March, thereby preventing a default which would have pushed the country out of the euro. An estimated £107 billion has been lost, most of it carried by the private sector. The Greek people will be required to endure austerity measures which will be prolonged for the next eight years until 2020, at which time the ratio of debt to GDP, will have been reduced from the current 160% to 129% (the target was 120%). For a country which is notorious for tax evasion, where government figures have been fiddled every years since the country joined the EU and where the population retires earlier than almost any other country in the EU, is any of that even remotely realistic? The riots in the streets of Athens have lost much of their earlier intensity and it would appear there is now an atmosphere of resignation among the Greek people. The latest opinion polls show 73% of Greeks want to remain inside the euro but 49% do not believe the country will survive as a member for the next two years. This contradicts earlier polls which showed that the majority wanted to revert to the old drachma.
This is perhaps an indication that some of the anger has dissipated but it may also just be a temporary lull before more serious demonstrations are resumed. The economics of the problem have not changed; the Greek economy is no more likely to be convergent in eight years than it is now and the austerity measures will inevitably undermine the capacity for economic growth which is vital, if the required changes to the economy are ever to happen. That is what remaining in the eurozone will mean for the Greek people and when those who currently express the opinion they would want to remain as members, finally realise what membership means, inevitably there is going to be renewed anger. The important point however, is that this is only half of the equation; the rest of it involves the German people and other member states which will be required to carry the burden of the Greek bailout. Is Greek membership of the eurozone as important to them? The answer to that question in the past has been, not if it means the German taxpayer has to carry an increased share of the costs. The people of the northern European states also take a more realistic view of the potential of another Greek bailout in the not too distant future, something which they see as a "probability" rather than a "possibility".
On Sunday past, Scotland on Sunday carried a leader column which should have been written several years ago. It was peppered with "wise after the event" comments and quotes the previous Chancellor Alistair Darling who desctibes European leaders' policy towards Greece as "sheer lunacy" and who argues that Greece should be allowed an orderly default. SOS states, "the whole house of cards is collapsing", "the truth is, the Grrek economy was always incompatible with Eurozone membership", "Greece bluffed its way in by fiddling its accounts", "encouraged to do so by a complicit EU eager to expand the Eurozone empire", "It is the same integrationist obsession...", "That kind of tunnel vision can no longer be indulged" and so on, and so on. When did Alistair Darling and Scotland on Sunday waken up to the situation? Where were they and all the other "wise after the event" experts, who are now exiting the woodwork, when some of us were warning of the likely outcome of the "deals" and "blind eyes" that were turned when the Eurozone was born? The Greeks were not the only ones who fiddled their figures, nor are they the only ones who continue to fiddle their figures, year in and year out. It was all accepted, in the interests of the "European project".
Now that it has become politically acceptable to express doubts about the wisdom of pursuing the "European project" to the detriment of almost everything else, how will that effect the debate on independence? The SNP's entire European strategy is in tatters, the comfort blanket that the EU was supposed to provide for a nervous and unsure Scottish people, is looking gey threadbare. For the SNP to continue to pursue the EU strategy of joining everything and accepting everything, just so long as it emenated from the EU, is dead in the water. The danger for the National Movement now, is that the Scottish people, having been forced to accept that all things European are not what they seemed or, more importantly, are not what they were told they were, seek their comfort blanket elsewhere and that "elsewhere" is the UK. It is not enough for John Swinney to say that the SNP do not see the economic conditions being right for Scottish membership of the euro within the next decade. To suggest that it is ever likely to be "in Scotland's interest" to join the euro, means one of two things; either the SNP do not understand the likely implications of joining a euro of the future or, it is no longer pursuing independence.
If Greece remains in the euro, there are strong moves to install EU commissioners to monitor every move made by the Greek government. Greek budgets will be determined only by agreement with the EU and, having had their government imposed, the Greeks will no longer be in charge of their own taxation. This may mean that the profligacy ends but it is also the end of independence. The Greek problem has simply brought to a head, the final realisation there cannot be 17 taxation policies and only one monetary policy. I have already pointed this out earlier on this blog but the latest deal to "save" Greece underlines it more forcibly.
The SNP is now going to have to drop all pretence that Scottish membership of the euro will be acceptable "if the economic conditions are right" and, either admit the conditions will never be right or, admit the party is prepared to accept Scottish taxation being determined by the European Central Bank as the price of membership of the euro of the future. If that is to be the "end game" for the SNP, it means the party is no longer pursuing independence because no matter how it is dressed up, if a country has both its monetary and fiscal policies determined by some body furth of its own borders, it is not independent.
For the SNP to accept that as the likely scenario for the eurozone - and there is no doubt it cannot go on as it has done for the past decade - the party is going to have to start thinking ahead a little bit. It has operated on the basis of the "next press conference" and, if it ever did give the EU situation any serious thought, it was obviously wrong in its analysis of the likely consequences of the euro and the centralising nature of the political treaties. It means it has to stop offering the EU as an alternative to the UK and really start to offer independence as the only real alternative
What does the deal involve? Greece has been advanced another 130 billion euros or £108billion, which allows the country to redeem its debt in March, thereby preventing a default which would have pushed the country out of the euro. An estimated £107 billion has been lost, most of it carried by the private sector. The Greek people will be required to endure austerity measures which will be prolonged for the next eight years until 2020, at which time the ratio of debt to GDP, will have been reduced from the current 160% to 129% (the target was 120%). For a country which is notorious for tax evasion, where government figures have been fiddled every years since the country joined the EU and where the population retires earlier than almost any other country in the EU, is any of that even remotely realistic? The riots in the streets of Athens have lost much of their earlier intensity and it would appear there is now an atmosphere of resignation among the Greek people. The latest opinion polls show 73% of Greeks want to remain inside the euro but 49% do not believe the country will survive as a member for the next two years. This contradicts earlier polls which showed that the majority wanted to revert to the old drachma.
This is perhaps an indication that some of the anger has dissipated but it may also just be a temporary lull before more serious demonstrations are resumed. The economics of the problem have not changed; the Greek economy is no more likely to be convergent in eight years than it is now and the austerity measures will inevitably undermine the capacity for economic growth which is vital, if the required changes to the economy are ever to happen. That is what remaining in the eurozone will mean for the Greek people and when those who currently express the opinion they would want to remain as members, finally realise what membership means, inevitably there is going to be renewed anger. The important point however, is that this is only half of the equation; the rest of it involves the German people and other member states which will be required to carry the burden of the Greek bailout. Is Greek membership of the eurozone as important to them? The answer to that question in the past has been, not if it means the German taxpayer has to carry an increased share of the costs. The people of the northern European states also take a more realistic view of the potential of another Greek bailout in the not too distant future, something which they see as a "probability" rather than a "possibility".
On Sunday past, Scotland on Sunday carried a leader column which should have been written several years ago. It was peppered with "wise after the event" comments and quotes the previous Chancellor Alistair Darling who desctibes European leaders' policy towards Greece as "sheer lunacy" and who argues that Greece should be allowed an orderly default. SOS states, "the whole house of cards is collapsing", "the truth is, the Grrek economy was always incompatible with Eurozone membership", "Greece bluffed its way in by fiddling its accounts", "encouraged to do so by a complicit EU eager to expand the Eurozone empire", "It is the same integrationist obsession...", "That kind of tunnel vision can no longer be indulged" and so on, and so on. When did Alistair Darling and Scotland on Sunday waken up to the situation? Where were they and all the other "wise after the event" experts, who are now exiting the woodwork, when some of us were warning of the likely outcome of the "deals" and "blind eyes" that were turned when the Eurozone was born? The Greeks were not the only ones who fiddled their figures, nor are they the only ones who continue to fiddle their figures, year in and year out. It was all accepted, in the interests of the "European project".
Now that it has become politically acceptable to express doubts about the wisdom of pursuing the "European project" to the detriment of almost everything else, how will that effect the debate on independence? The SNP's entire European strategy is in tatters, the comfort blanket that the EU was supposed to provide for a nervous and unsure Scottish people, is looking gey threadbare. For the SNP to continue to pursue the EU strategy of joining everything and accepting everything, just so long as it emenated from the EU, is dead in the water. The danger for the National Movement now, is that the Scottish people, having been forced to accept that all things European are not what they seemed or, more importantly, are not what they were told they were, seek their comfort blanket elsewhere and that "elsewhere" is the UK. It is not enough for John Swinney to say that the SNP do not see the economic conditions being right for Scottish membership of the euro within the next decade. To suggest that it is ever likely to be "in Scotland's interest" to join the euro, means one of two things; either the SNP do not understand the likely implications of joining a euro of the future or, it is no longer pursuing independence.
If Greece remains in the euro, there are strong moves to install EU commissioners to monitor every move made by the Greek government. Greek budgets will be determined only by agreement with the EU and, having had their government imposed, the Greeks will no longer be in charge of their own taxation. This may mean that the profligacy ends but it is also the end of independence. The Greek problem has simply brought to a head, the final realisation there cannot be 17 taxation policies and only one monetary policy. I have already pointed this out earlier on this blog but the latest deal to "save" Greece underlines it more forcibly.
The SNP is now going to have to drop all pretence that Scottish membership of the euro will be acceptable "if the economic conditions are right" and, either admit the conditions will never be right or, admit the party is prepared to accept Scottish taxation being determined by the European Central Bank as the price of membership of the euro of the future. If that is to be the "end game" for the SNP, it means the party is no longer pursuing independence because no matter how it is dressed up, if a country has both its monetary and fiscal policies determined by some body furth of its own borders, it is not independent.
For the SNP to accept that as the likely scenario for the eurozone - and there is no doubt it cannot go on as it has done for the past decade - the party is going to have to start thinking ahead a little bit. It has operated on the basis of the "next press conference" and, if it ever did give the EU situation any serious thought, it was obviously wrong in its analysis of the likely consequences of the euro and the centralising nature of the political treaties. It means it has to stop offering the EU as an alternative to the UK and really start to offer independence as the only real alternative
Sunday, 19 February 2012
Would No Fault Compensation In Medical Cases Serve Justice In Scotland?
Justice - "the quality of being just; integrity; rightness; the awarding of what is due", frequently missing when dealing with the law, particularly in medical negligence cases. As the parents of five children, my wife and I have had to make fairly liberal use of the NHS over the years. We have seen it at its very best, and at its worst - in the same hospital. It would seem to depend on which branch of the NHS one needs to use, that determines whether or not the service and treatment are even adequate, or first class.
About four or five years ago, I was told one of the arteries in my heart was narrowing but, that there was nothing to worry about as I had always kept myself very fit. In November 2010, I took a heart attack. I felt the first slight chest pain as I made my way to the office at 8.55am, was taken to the cottage hospital in Crieff twenty minutes later by a work colleague and, when told by the nurse I was having a heart attack, I laughed and said, "It cannae be a heart attack if I'm walking about like this." By 12.15 pm, I was in the ward at Ninewells in Dundee with a stent fitted and I haven't had a twinge since. The care from start to finish was excellent, as was the aftercare since and I was back in the office eight days after the attack. I couldn't have asked for better.
Last summer, my daughter was hospitalised with suspected meningitis and detained for three days, until on the Friday, they decided to discharge her. When I called to collect her, she was sitting in the reception area being violently sick, therefore I decided to take her back to the ward, explaining to the sister in charge and asked to see a doctor, as well as for something to ease the sickness. Over the next four hours and thirty minutes, I made three requests for something to ease the sickness and something to ease a headache caused by the constant retching. Over that entire period, not a single member of staff came near my daughter's bed, nor did any doctor appear. Across the ward, an elderly woman, who was almost paralysed down one side as the consequence of a stroke, asked me to ask a member of staff to take her to the toilet, as no one had answered her buzzer. The old lady was left in the toilet on her own and almost fifteen minutes went by before I was able to get a member of staff to take her back to bed. At the end of the four and a half hours, my daughter felt well enough to leave, which we did, telling one of the nurses - the shift had changed by that time - we were leaving. Did anyone try to stop us? No. Did I complain? Yes, to my daughter's GP. Was anything done about it? You must be joking.
The latest report shows that the NHS in Scotland paid almost £49 million in compensation for medical negligence in 2009/10. The figure was £38 million in 2008/2009 and the increase over the past decade has caused so much concern that Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government have agreed that Scotland should move to a system of "No Fault Compensation" where it would not be necessary to prove medical negligence, for compensation to be paid to those who have been the victims of medical negligence. Some of the worst cases have involved mistakes at childbirth, with children left physically disabled or with severe brain damage. The largest sum paid - £5.75 million - went to a mother and her child who was left with cerebral palsy. The child was born in February 1994 but the claim was not settled - out of court - until 2010, which meant for sixteen years, the mother had to cope with a child so severely disabled, he required 24 hour attention, without the financial means to allow her to do so.
In cases such as this, the entire family is affected. Both parents are requried to sacrifice almost every other part of their lives; if there are other children, they also suffer, to say nothing of the quality of life endured by the primary victim. One of the most distrubing and despicable aspects of this kind of case, is the fact there is no limit as to how long the health authorities will prolong the agony of the family involved. I have learned to my cost, there are also no depths to which the medical staff will not sink in order to wriggle out of any responsibility for the tragedy which they caused. Medical notes will be "lost" or quite blatently altered to omit incriminating evidence, special reports will be presented, prepared by so-called "expert witnesses", despite there being no minimum standards for "experts" in this country. Of course, the claimants can also have their own "expert witnesses" and it is amazing that two or more "experts" can come to diametrically opposed opinions, not on questions of law, but whether or not some medical practitioner has actually committed an act of gross negligence. The defenders' experts will tend to find that no negligence took place.
The arguments in favour of having a system of "No Fault Compensation" tend to favour the assumption that it will change attitudes inside the NHS. The secretary of the BMA, Martin Woodrow, said, "It would address the blame culture inside the NHS which discourages physicians from reporting accidents and would end the practice of defensive medicine". This is not necessarily accepted by everyone in the profession, many of whom see the biggest problem is the level of legal fees, which according to some estimates take up 50% of total amounts paid out. Other critics of the system ask, what I consider to be the most important question of all, "If no one is ever held to be negligent, a possible consequence of a system where negligence does not have to be proved, how does the NHS weed out those who are incompetent?" It is also argued that it will in all probability, cut the waiting time before payments are made. There is no doubt the insurers or whoever is paying the bill for the compensation, which in many cases, the NHS knows is inevitable, quite deliberately use every trick in the book or that the legal system will allow, to delay cases coming to court. It took me ten years finally to be told, my case was being struck out and my daughter waited twelve years before she won an out of court settlement, which could have been agreed years earlier. There is no possible justification for that quite deliberate abuse of the legal procedures.
The No Fault system does nothing to address the problem of those groups in the public sector which have a general immunity from prosecution, no matter how guilty they are. Unfortunately this is not an area the Scottish Government has any intention of addressing and is an argument for another day. The final problem with adopting No Fault Compensation would be the levels of compensation to be paid. As so much of the total cost is legal fees, and this system would cut that substantially, it is difficult to see why there should be any problem in arriving at figures which would be fair and just - that word again - to the victims of medical negligence but it is anticipated this could be a major area of controversy. What no "system" will alter, is the perceived changes in attitude which now prevail inside the NHS. In years gone by, I could never envisage sitting in a hospital ward, asking three times for a nurse to attend to someone who was being violently sick over a four hour period, yet receiving no attention. Far less could I have ever envisaged being allowed to walk out of the ward, without anyone making any attempt to find out what was wrong. Perhaps there is a need to change the practice of defensive medicine but that is certainly not the most important attitude that needs to change.
About four or five years ago, I was told one of the arteries in my heart was narrowing but, that there was nothing to worry about as I had always kept myself very fit. In November 2010, I took a heart attack. I felt the first slight chest pain as I made my way to the office at 8.55am, was taken to the cottage hospital in Crieff twenty minutes later by a work colleague and, when told by the nurse I was having a heart attack, I laughed and said, "It cannae be a heart attack if I'm walking about like this." By 12.15 pm, I was in the ward at Ninewells in Dundee with a stent fitted and I haven't had a twinge since. The care from start to finish was excellent, as was the aftercare since and I was back in the office eight days after the attack. I couldn't have asked for better.
Last summer, my daughter was hospitalised with suspected meningitis and detained for three days, until on the Friday, they decided to discharge her. When I called to collect her, she was sitting in the reception area being violently sick, therefore I decided to take her back to the ward, explaining to the sister in charge and asked to see a doctor, as well as for something to ease the sickness. Over the next four hours and thirty minutes, I made three requests for something to ease the sickness and something to ease a headache caused by the constant retching. Over that entire period, not a single member of staff came near my daughter's bed, nor did any doctor appear. Across the ward, an elderly woman, who was almost paralysed down one side as the consequence of a stroke, asked me to ask a member of staff to take her to the toilet, as no one had answered her buzzer. The old lady was left in the toilet on her own and almost fifteen minutes went by before I was able to get a member of staff to take her back to bed. At the end of the four and a half hours, my daughter felt well enough to leave, which we did, telling one of the nurses - the shift had changed by that time - we were leaving. Did anyone try to stop us? No. Did I complain? Yes, to my daughter's GP. Was anything done about it? You must be joking.
The latest report shows that the NHS in Scotland paid almost £49 million in compensation for medical negligence in 2009/10. The figure was £38 million in 2008/2009 and the increase over the past decade has caused so much concern that Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government have agreed that Scotland should move to a system of "No Fault Compensation" where it would not be necessary to prove medical negligence, for compensation to be paid to those who have been the victims of medical negligence. Some of the worst cases have involved mistakes at childbirth, with children left physically disabled or with severe brain damage. The largest sum paid - £5.75 million - went to a mother and her child who was left with cerebral palsy. The child was born in February 1994 but the claim was not settled - out of court - until 2010, which meant for sixteen years, the mother had to cope with a child so severely disabled, he required 24 hour attention, without the financial means to allow her to do so.
In cases such as this, the entire family is affected. Both parents are requried to sacrifice almost every other part of their lives; if there are other children, they also suffer, to say nothing of the quality of life endured by the primary victim. One of the most distrubing and despicable aspects of this kind of case, is the fact there is no limit as to how long the health authorities will prolong the agony of the family involved. I have learned to my cost, there are also no depths to which the medical staff will not sink in order to wriggle out of any responsibility for the tragedy which they caused. Medical notes will be "lost" or quite blatently altered to omit incriminating evidence, special reports will be presented, prepared by so-called "expert witnesses", despite there being no minimum standards for "experts" in this country. Of course, the claimants can also have their own "expert witnesses" and it is amazing that two or more "experts" can come to diametrically opposed opinions, not on questions of law, but whether or not some medical practitioner has actually committed an act of gross negligence. The defenders' experts will tend to find that no negligence took place.
The arguments in favour of having a system of "No Fault Compensation" tend to favour the assumption that it will change attitudes inside the NHS. The secretary of the BMA, Martin Woodrow, said, "It would address the blame culture inside the NHS which discourages physicians from reporting accidents and would end the practice of defensive medicine". This is not necessarily accepted by everyone in the profession, many of whom see the biggest problem is the level of legal fees, which according to some estimates take up 50% of total amounts paid out. Other critics of the system ask, what I consider to be the most important question of all, "If no one is ever held to be negligent, a possible consequence of a system where negligence does not have to be proved, how does the NHS weed out those who are incompetent?" It is also argued that it will in all probability, cut the waiting time before payments are made. There is no doubt the insurers or whoever is paying the bill for the compensation, which in many cases, the NHS knows is inevitable, quite deliberately use every trick in the book or that the legal system will allow, to delay cases coming to court. It took me ten years finally to be told, my case was being struck out and my daughter waited twelve years before she won an out of court settlement, which could have been agreed years earlier. There is no possible justification for that quite deliberate abuse of the legal procedures.
The No Fault system does nothing to address the problem of those groups in the public sector which have a general immunity from prosecution, no matter how guilty they are. Unfortunately this is not an area the Scottish Government has any intention of addressing and is an argument for another day. The final problem with adopting No Fault Compensation would be the levels of compensation to be paid. As so much of the total cost is legal fees, and this system would cut that substantially, it is difficult to see why there should be any problem in arriving at figures which would be fair and just - that word again - to the victims of medical negligence but it is anticipated this could be a major area of controversy. What no "system" will alter, is the perceived changes in attitude which now prevail inside the NHS. In years gone by, I could never envisage sitting in a hospital ward, asking three times for a nurse to attend to someone who was being violently sick over a four hour period, yet receiving no attention. Far less could I have ever envisaged being allowed to walk out of the ward, without anyone making any attempt to find out what was wrong. Perhaps there is a need to change the practice of defensive medicine but that is certainly not the most important attitude that needs to change.
Friday, 17 February 2012
Here's Tae Us Wha's Like Us. Damn Few And They're Aw Deid
To say that David Cameron's speech on Scottish independence has had mixed reviews, is to put it mildly. I don't suppose he has a clue how patronising it sounded to Scots who have rather a better grasp of Scottish history than Mr Cameron, or whoever wrote the speech for him. He could have quite usefully led those present, in a final toast to the Scottish nation, and what more appropriate toast than the one we use ourselves, when we are feeling cynical. His address reminded me of the occasion when a good friend of mine was recounting how, when he criticised his son's effort to write a history of the SNP, his son, a professor of politics, was forced to exclaim, "How do you know so much about it that you can correct my version so much?" My friend responded, "Because I was there."
It was the second time I had heard that line put to good effect. The first was as a mature student in 1967, in a history class that was dominatd by mature students, all of whom had more experience of life than the lecturer. That it was in Dundee and the students were almost all local, added to the lecturer's difficulties when the discussions included economic history and he attempted to convince us that the 1930s were not as bad as is sometimes made out. We had one student who was considerably older than the rest of us and who kept his opinions to himself for much of the time. During one of those lectures, which had digressed somewhat from the topic, the lecturer talked about Hemmingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls", and the author's presence in Spain at the time of the civil war. Three times, the student interrupted him to say, "That's not what happened" or, "No, it wasn't quite like that". After the third interruption the lecturer in exasperation, said, "How do you know?" The response of "I was there", closed all further discussion and earned the student an aura that had not been there before.
Cameron's quick romp through Scottish history was adequate enough, if slightly inaccurate in places, and most of the great heroes he mentioned were aw deid. His approach was certainly different from the usual derision and disdain with which any mention of Scottish independence is greeted by the London political and social elites and, if this is the start of a charm offensive, Nationalists may find it will be better appreciated by Scots than what has gone before. It will be no less patronising for all that. What Cameron, and any others who have a mind to follow suit, will have to take on board, is that it will be too little and too late. There are far too many of us who "were there" during the Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown years, particularly Thatcher and perhaps Cameron is at last, beginning to realise why the very word "Tory" is still so toxic in Scotland.
When he threw in the line, "From Waterloo to the Second World War our servicemen and women have fought and won together", I don't suppose he thought for a moment of the state murder of Farquhar Shaw and the McPherson brothers, followed by the deportation of 200 of their comrades in the Black Watch, for attempting to force the British government of the time to hold to a prior agreement the regiment would not be sent to serve overseas. I don't suppose he is aware that on the first day of the Battle of Loos, which he did mention, on September 25th 1915, of 69 infantry battalions that went over the top, 35 were in Scots regiments, that 24 of those Scots battalions, in two Scottish divisions, suffered 44% of the total deaths and that there were another 11 Scottish battalions in the three other divisions which took part. Would he be aware that many of the sons of those men were in the 51st Highland Division, so treacherously betrayed by Churchill in 1940, or had he ever heard of Wolfe's dictum, "they are little mischief if they fall? If Cameron wants to dabble in Scots history, then that and a great deal more, is an integral part of it.
He really should have thought twice before saying, "The Union helps to make Scotland stronger, safer, richer and fairer." When the university lecturer was trying to tell us that the 1930s were not as bad as sometimes made out to be, he was a young Englishman, lecturing in Dundee, where men were given the sobriquet "kettle bilers" because throughout much of the 1930s they had no work and stayed at home, while their wives worked in the mills. As the PPC in Dundee West in the 1970s, I met many people whose father's first job in the 1930s was when they were called up in 1939. Whatever improvements were felt in the 1930s took some time to reach Scotland. The Scottish steel industry was a part of the price Heath was prepared to pay, to gain entry to the Common Market, just as the Scottish fishing industry is the price all Westminster governments have been prepared to pay, for continued membership.
Not only has Scotland received very little benefit from the discovery of oil but instead of the revenues being used to create a manufacturing sector in downstream activities, to replace those older industries which were struggling with foreign competition, our indiustry was allowed to die while the revenues were used to restructure the English economy or simply wasted in current consumption. Neither Wilson's and Callaghan's Labour nor Heath's and Thatcher's Tories, showed any concern for what was happening in Scotland, while exploiting Scotland's oil as fast as it could be taken from the sea. The currency union, which Cameron seems to believe was so advantageous for Scotland, imposed interest rates which were concerned with the inflationary pressure being generated by the South East of England, rather than the lack of economic growth in Scotland, and which were therefore totally unsuitable. That is likely to continue under the SNP's current intention to keep sterling, if there is a Yes vote in the referendum.
If this Union has been such a benefit to Scotland, why do we regularly lag behind in terms of economic growth; why is our health record so much worse than England's and why is our life expectancy so much worse? The history of Cameron's Union was selective to say the least and for obvious reasons, ommitted all of the above. But perhaps the most important omission, in the context of the referendum campaign, has already been noted by Alex Salmond, and that is Cameron's failure to see the parallel between his offer to the Scottish people of "more powers" if they voted "No" and that of his illustrious predecessor, Sir Alec Douglas Home, who made exactly the same offer- and then reneged. Sorry, Mr Cameron, we have heard it all before because we were there, and we have no wish to be there again
It was the second time I had heard that line put to good effect. The first was as a mature student in 1967, in a history class that was dominatd by mature students, all of whom had more experience of life than the lecturer. That it was in Dundee and the students were almost all local, added to the lecturer's difficulties when the discussions included economic history and he attempted to convince us that the 1930s were not as bad as is sometimes made out. We had one student who was considerably older than the rest of us and who kept his opinions to himself for much of the time. During one of those lectures, which had digressed somewhat from the topic, the lecturer talked about Hemmingway's "For Whom the Bell Tolls", and the author's presence in Spain at the time of the civil war. Three times, the student interrupted him to say, "That's not what happened" or, "No, it wasn't quite like that". After the third interruption the lecturer in exasperation, said, "How do you know?" The response of "I was there", closed all further discussion and earned the student an aura that had not been there before.
Cameron's quick romp through Scottish history was adequate enough, if slightly inaccurate in places, and most of the great heroes he mentioned were aw deid. His approach was certainly different from the usual derision and disdain with which any mention of Scottish independence is greeted by the London political and social elites and, if this is the start of a charm offensive, Nationalists may find it will be better appreciated by Scots than what has gone before. It will be no less patronising for all that. What Cameron, and any others who have a mind to follow suit, will have to take on board, is that it will be too little and too late. There are far too many of us who "were there" during the Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown years, particularly Thatcher and perhaps Cameron is at last, beginning to realise why the very word "Tory" is still so toxic in Scotland.
When he threw in the line, "From Waterloo to the Second World War our servicemen and women have fought and won together", I don't suppose he thought for a moment of the state murder of Farquhar Shaw and the McPherson brothers, followed by the deportation of 200 of their comrades in the Black Watch, for attempting to force the British government of the time to hold to a prior agreement the regiment would not be sent to serve overseas. I don't suppose he is aware that on the first day of the Battle of Loos, which he did mention, on September 25th 1915, of 69 infantry battalions that went over the top, 35 were in Scots regiments, that 24 of those Scots battalions, in two Scottish divisions, suffered 44% of the total deaths and that there were another 11 Scottish battalions in the three other divisions which took part. Would he be aware that many of the sons of those men were in the 51st Highland Division, so treacherously betrayed by Churchill in 1940, or had he ever heard of Wolfe's dictum, "they are little mischief if they fall? If Cameron wants to dabble in Scots history, then that and a great deal more, is an integral part of it.
He really should have thought twice before saying, "The Union helps to make Scotland stronger, safer, richer and fairer." When the university lecturer was trying to tell us that the 1930s were not as bad as sometimes made out to be, he was a young Englishman, lecturing in Dundee, where men were given the sobriquet "kettle bilers" because throughout much of the 1930s they had no work and stayed at home, while their wives worked in the mills. As the PPC in Dundee West in the 1970s, I met many people whose father's first job in the 1930s was when they were called up in 1939. Whatever improvements were felt in the 1930s took some time to reach Scotland. The Scottish steel industry was a part of the price Heath was prepared to pay, to gain entry to the Common Market, just as the Scottish fishing industry is the price all Westminster governments have been prepared to pay, for continued membership.
Not only has Scotland received very little benefit from the discovery of oil but instead of the revenues being used to create a manufacturing sector in downstream activities, to replace those older industries which were struggling with foreign competition, our indiustry was allowed to die while the revenues were used to restructure the English economy or simply wasted in current consumption. Neither Wilson's and Callaghan's Labour nor Heath's and Thatcher's Tories, showed any concern for what was happening in Scotland, while exploiting Scotland's oil as fast as it could be taken from the sea. The currency union, which Cameron seems to believe was so advantageous for Scotland, imposed interest rates which were concerned with the inflationary pressure being generated by the South East of England, rather than the lack of economic growth in Scotland, and which were therefore totally unsuitable. That is likely to continue under the SNP's current intention to keep sterling, if there is a Yes vote in the referendum.
If this Union has been such a benefit to Scotland, why do we regularly lag behind in terms of economic growth; why is our health record so much worse than England's and why is our life expectancy so much worse? The history of Cameron's Union was selective to say the least and for obvious reasons, ommitted all of the above. But perhaps the most important omission, in the context of the referendum campaign, has already been noted by Alex Salmond, and that is Cameron's failure to see the parallel between his offer to the Scottish people of "more powers" if they voted "No" and that of his illustrious predecessor, Sir Alec Douglas Home, who made exactly the same offer- and then reneged. Sorry, Mr Cameron, we have heard it all before because we were there, and we have no wish to be there again
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)