Ted Heath coined the phrase over forty years ago and two events within forty eight hours might, just might, be the start of people actually beginning to understand what it means. I have no sympathy for Fred Goodwin, something which I think I have already made clear but interestingly enough, it is not just his own "class" and fellow Knights who are expressing sympathy for the man. Some are upset that this may set a precedent, which could mean that some of them may be targeted next or, that in order to receive the big K in the first place in future, it will be required to do something useful, other than simply seek and find favour, with the government of the day.
There are other ordinary, decent people who feel sympathy for the man, because they see him as having been made a scapegoat for the entire banking industry. They argue, with justification, that Goodwin was not the only one at fault and wonder why the Chairman of RBS and the head of the Financial Services Authority (FSA) are not also being stripped of their titles. It is a good point and if any organisation deserves to be pilloried, not just for its failure to regulate the banks but for successive failures such as the collapse of Equitable Life and a whole plethora of completely useless pieces of legislation, it is the FSA. Ironically, the current head of that organisation - about to be abolished - Hector Sants, argues that Goodwin and his management colleagues in the banking industry should be banned from ever holding posts in the industry again. He should apply that also to his management colleagues in the FSA.
To watch Ed Milliband and the Labour Party dance on Goodwin's grave makes me want to throw up. The hypocrisy of that collection of sorry individuals should be thrown right back in their faces. Milliband sat in the Labour cabinet, as did many of his colleagues, which set up the system by which Goodwin et al were rewarded. They built that system which rewarded not just mediocrity but failure, and have sat in stony silence while the man who led them throughout eleven years of toadying to the rich and powerful, has himself used the system, since leaving office, to join the rich club to which he pandered. Those who condemn the humiliation of Goodwin on the grounds that it is "political", somehow forget his elevation was political, as are all the other elevations.
The other significant event is the decision by Stephen Hester to forgo his share bonus of almost £1 million. As the man given the task of turning around the Royal Bank, on an annual salary of just over a million, his rewards seemed scant, compared to those "earned" by others in the private sector or even some of his colleagues at the Royal Bank. The pressure which moved Hester to give up his bonus, an example already set by his own Chairman SirPhilip Hampton, eventually proved to be too much and whether it leads to others at the bank, such as John Hourican - set to receive £4 million bonus - to make a similar sacrifice. has yet to be seen. Now it is being seen as the growth of an "anti-business" attitude, being deliberately fostered in the UK, something which is causing real concern. Others, including the Prime Minister, see it as the end of the crony capitalism which saw chief executives and directors, rewarded out of all proportion to their contribution, by committees of their peers set up specifically for that purpose. As the gap between rich and poor in this country has widened, as people have witnessed the destruction of their pensions and the withering of public services, so the revuslion has grown, at not just the way in which the rich rewarded themselves but also the way in which it was rubbed in the noses of those who were made poorer or unemployed to make it happen.
Is this the end of the madness of the greed culture? I doubt that, unless we now see a similar backlash against the ludicrous rewards enjoyed by the sporting "heroes" of professional soccer. It is the irony of ironies that many of the same people who have been howling for the scalps of Goodwin et al, not only see nothing wrong with paying Wayne Rooney or John Terry, more in six months than most of them will earn in a lifetime, they also pillory the owners of any club which refuses to spend that kind of money. No one ever said that football fans were rational, especially when it comes to affairs of their be-loved clubs, but surely now there has to be some sanity brought back into professional sport, before many of the clubs go the same way as the banks. Perhaps the demise of a Manchester United or a Rangers is what is needed.
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Monday, 30 January 2012
Muddied Waters and a that!
The media has been exercised this week, over what has been the charge that Alex Salmond has "muddied the waters" of the "Great Discussion" on the referendum. Never mind that the media has been quite happy to let pass, the endless haverings of opponents of Scotland's independence, those who love nothing better than to portray Scots as a nation of subsidy junkies. On Sunday past, on BBC's The Big Question, it was even suggested that had it not been for the civilising hand of the Union, there would have been no Scottish Enlightenment, that our baser instincts would have been allowed to surface and that Scotland, alone of the smaller nations in Europe, is incapable of running our own affairs. Why that should be so is never explained, after all, who needs an explanation for what are deemed to be self-evident truths?
And they were fellow Scots, as the programme came from Edinburgh, and included the leader of the Scottish Conservative Party. It was she who suggested the Enlightenment was the product of the Union and, if that is the best she can produce over the next few months, the one Tory seat they hold in Scotland, for the Westminster Parliament, is almost certainly on borrowed time. Those sentiments are as nothiong of course, compard to the hysterics emanating from England, with Osborne's, "you will not be allowed to issue bank notes" to Hammond's "you will have to pay for the removal of the nuclear weapons on the Clyde" to the PM's "you will not be automatically allowed into the EU and you will be forced to use the euro" Boom! Boom! How do you like them apples?
We can afford to laugh at all of that of course, because it is just so much drivel. However, we are not immune ourselves from the drivellers. At the moment I am enjoying crossing words with the cybernats on the Tartan Army Message Board (TAMB), where Alex's mantra is as the word of God. He who questions that word, is not welcome and any suggestion that the "muddied waters" could be made clearer, for the sake of the debate, you understand, is howled down. Thus, according to one TAMBer, independence means any Union from which the Scots can extricate themselves, irrespective of the conditions of membership and that during the term of that membership, considerable damage might be done. The EU is acceptable, because Scotland can come out if we want, and that would mean we are independent, but the UK is not, because for some reason, we are not independent, despite being free to leave it when we want. Are they confused? Not according to them, because Alex has it all sussed.
We are three weeks into the campaign, we have seen the Scottish Government publication on the referendum, but are we any further forward? One would think the holding of a referendum on whether or not Scotland should be independent, would be simple and straightforward but so far, we have debated the following
1) How many questions there should be
2) The form of words to be used
3) What the words mean
4) Who will be allowed to vote
5) If we go for Dev/Max, who will be responsible and who will have most to gain/lose
6) How we determine how we get devolution
That is before we touch on the currency, defence, the EU, the euro and so on. Now Alex has decided that even if Scots vote for independence, they will still be in the United Kingdom. At first glance, his reasoning appears reasonable as the Union of the Crowns, preceded the Union of the Parliaments by over 100 years, and until Scots decide otherwise, we will still share the monarchy. It is when we look at the normal understanding of what the United Kingdom means and people's perception of what the United Kingdom is. To the rest of the world, the term United Kingdom means Great Britain, it certainly does not mean the Union of the Crowns and international recognition is the one factor we cannot afford to ignore. In an attempt to make independence sound as cozy as possible and create the mirage that as little as possible will change with independence, Smart Alex is in danger of creating a quagmire, which is totally unnecessary.
And they were fellow Scots, as the programme came from Edinburgh, and included the leader of the Scottish Conservative Party. It was she who suggested the Enlightenment was the product of the Union and, if that is the best she can produce over the next few months, the one Tory seat they hold in Scotland, for the Westminster Parliament, is almost certainly on borrowed time. Those sentiments are as nothiong of course, compard to the hysterics emanating from England, with Osborne's, "you will not be allowed to issue bank notes" to Hammond's "you will have to pay for the removal of the nuclear weapons on the Clyde" to the PM's "you will not be automatically allowed into the EU and you will be forced to use the euro" Boom! Boom! How do you like them apples?
We can afford to laugh at all of that of course, because it is just so much drivel. However, we are not immune ourselves from the drivellers. At the moment I am enjoying crossing words with the cybernats on the Tartan Army Message Board (TAMB), where Alex's mantra is as the word of God. He who questions that word, is not welcome and any suggestion that the "muddied waters" could be made clearer, for the sake of the debate, you understand, is howled down. Thus, according to one TAMBer, independence means any Union from which the Scots can extricate themselves, irrespective of the conditions of membership and that during the term of that membership, considerable damage might be done. The EU is acceptable, because Scotland can come out if we want, and that would mean we are independent, but the UK is not, because for some reason, we are not independent, despite being free to leave it when we want. Are they confused? Not according to them, because Alex has it all sussed.
We are three weeks into the campaign, we have seen the Scottish Government publication on the referendum, but are we any further forward? One would think the holding of a referendum on whether or not Scotland should be independent, would be simple and straightforward but so far, we have debated the following
1) How many questions there should be
2) The form of words to be used
3) What the words mean
4) Who will be allowed to vote
5) If we go for Dev/Max, who will be responsible and who will have most to gain/lose
6) How we determine how we get devolution
That is before we touch on the currency, defence, the EU, the euro and so on. Now Alex has decided that even if Scots vote for independence, they will still be in the United Kingdom. At first glance, his reasoning appears reasonable as the Union of the Crowns, preceded the Union of the Parliaments by over 100 years, and until Scots decide otherwise, we will still share the monarchy. It is when we look at the normal understanding of what the United Kingdom means and people's perception of what the United Kingdom is. To the rest of the world, the term United Kingdom means Great Britain, it certainly does not mean the Union of the Crowns and international recognition is the one factor we cannot afford to ignore. In an attempt to make independence sound as cozy as possible and create the mirage that as little as possible will change with independence, Smart Alex is in danger of creating a quagmire, which is totally unnecessary.
Still here Michelle?
Three weeks into the campaign and the threat of the mass exodus of celebrities from Scotland has begun, if Scots have the gall, the temerity to vote for independence. Well, there is one threat, but it comes from someone who made the same threat in 2007 - and that threat was to leave if the SNP won a majority in Holyrood and became the government. The SNP did not win a majority of seats but did form a minority government and, by any standard and compared with what went before, did rather well. Did the celebrity leave? Not a chance but she did get her share of publicity for making the threat, which was probably the intention in the first place.
Would we miss her? I suppose those who consider themselves friends might do but as her circle of friendships seems to be ever more centred in London and the South East of England, her friends may actually see more of her - despite her having lost an alleged six stones in weight. Does her presence and opinions actually matter that much to us? There might be those who see her as a role model of sorts; Alan Sugar seems to like her a lot and has her sit in judgement on those to whom he may be prepared to offer a job. Those who compete to be Lord Sugar's Apprentice, certainly display those qualities which a certain type of business magnate seem to admire and consider essential to succeed in business. The contestants tend to be strong on mendacity, ruthlessness, self-promotion, selfishness, arrogance and an almost unlimited capacity to give me the boak. Is it significant that our very own celebrity is considered eminently suited to judge whether or not the candidates for Lord Sugar actually measure up? Rod Stewart has a slightly less flattering opinion of her.
There is no doubt she has been a great business success and Scotland needs to encourage people with her kind of drive but according to a Guardian article at the end of 2010, her company employed 42 people in Scotland and 1,200 in China. She has threatened to take her business to London but of course she will hardly close the outlets which sell her products, unless spite really does get the better of her and she is prepared to lose a market because Scots decide they want to be independent. So, how much money will she be prepared to lose? Note a lot I suspect. Anyway, do these people who travel under the collective title of "celebrity", of various standing from A to Z, really believe they matter so much to the rest of us, who see more to life than hanging on the generally vacuous utterings of those we are told are "celebrities", actually give a toss whether they go or stay? They are generally surrounded by those who are prepared to feed their vanity to the point they begin to believe their own publicity and lose all sense of reality.
She has raised the ire of some of the cybernats, who delight in attacking anyone who disagrees with the mantra produced by SNP HQ, but outside of this piece and a few others that may be written, not all of them necessarily critical, she will be largely ignored. Scots have much better things to do than pay much attention to the utterings of someone whose lifestyle may not be altered one jot by independence, because independence will give them some hope that their country can finally reach its potential and alter their own lifestyles out of all recognition. Go if you must Ms Mone and feel free to hold any opinion you like on the question of Scotland's independence, but kindly keep your threats for those who might be interested.
Would we miss her? I suppose those who consider themselves friends might do but as her circle of friendships seems to be ever more centred in London and the South East of England, her friends may actually see more of her - despite her having lost an alleged six stones in weight. Does her presence and opinions actually matter that much to us? There might be those who see her as a role model of sorts; Alan Sugar seems to like her a lot and has her sit in judgement on those to whom he may be prepared to offer a job. Those who compete to be Lord Sugar's Apprentice, certainly display those qualities which a certain type of business magnate seem to admire and consider essential to succeed in business. The contestants tend to be strong on mendacity, ruthlessness, self-promotion, selfishness, arrogance and an almost unlimited capacity to give me the boak. Is it significant that our very own celebrity is considered eminently suited to judge whether or not the candidates for Lord Sugar actually measure up? Rod Stewart has a slightly less flattering opinion of her.
There is no doubt she has been a great business success and Scotland needs to encourage people with her kind of drive but according to a Guardian article at the end of 2010, her company employed 42 people in Scotland and 1,200 in China. She has threatened to take her business to London but of course she will hardly close the outlets which sell her products, unless spite really does get the better of her and she is prepared to lose a market because Scots decide they want to be independent. So, how much money will she be prepared to lose? Note a lot I suspect. Anyway, do these people who travel under the collective title of "celebrity", of various standing from A to Z, really believe they matter so much to the rest of us, who see more to life than hanging on the generally vacuous utterings of those we are told are "celebrities", actually give a toss whether they go or stay? They are generally surrounded by those who are prepared to feed their vanity to the point they begin to believe their own publicity and lose all sense of reality.
She has raised the ire of some of the cybernats, who delight in attacking anyone who disagrees with the mantra produced by SNP HQ, but outside of this piece and a few others that may be written, not all of them necessarily critical, she will be largely ignored. Scots have much better things to do than pay much attention to the utterings of someone whose lifestyle may not be altered one jot by independence, because independence will give them some hope that their country can finally reach its potential and alter their own lifestyles out of all recognition. Go if you must Ms Mone and feel free to hold any opinion you like on the question of Scotland's independence, but kindly keep your threats for those who might be interested.
Saturday, 28 January 2012
Should Fred lose his knighthood?
In a word - "Yes". He should never have been awarded one in the first place. To give the man an award "for services to banking" merely underlines what a total farce the whole honours system in the UK is. Brian Wilson, ex Scottish Labour MP and long-standing opponent of not just independence but devolution, recently wrote a condemnation of the entire system, pointing out quite justifiably, how it is class based and a means of maintaining the class structure in the UK. It never ceases to amaze me how all those self-styled left wingers in the Scottish Labour Party find their voices to oppose the corruption at the heart of the British political system, only after they have retired from the self-same system that paid them all so handsomely for so many years. I don't know what sickens me more, those who receive the awards, the ones at the very apex of the class structure, or the Labour members who watched for years in silence, while their politcal masters did their best to fill the House of Lords, with those one-time doyens and champions of the working class - the trade union leaders.
A distinction has to be made here, between those who are given the awards and "honours" at the bottom end, the long-serving firemen or dinner ladies, a point made by Wilson, and those at the top end who get the lordships and knighhoods. It is a ludicrous system that rewards those with the deepest pockets or who have worked hard to ensure that the establsihment is preserved - the heads of department in the civil service. There is something intrinsically worthwhile in rewarding people who give selflessly of their time and effort with no expectation of personal gain or even recognition and, if the system did not already exist, it would have to be invented. That is entirely different however, from the mechanism that rewards the biggest party donors or civil servants who have done no more than their job, knowing that so long as they preserve the "system" and keep their noses clean, a "K" will come with the pension. Unfortunately, in this country, it is the same system.
We will now have to observe the machinations of the Forfeiture Committee while it sits in judgement of Sir Fred, knowing that whatever it decides, will do nothing to clear the stink of hypocrisy. For a man who enjoyed the sobriquey "the shred" for his ability to shred the careers of the thousands he made redundant, allegedly would listen to advice from no one and created the biggest financial loss in British business history, driving the world's fifth biggest bank into administration, to receive a "K" for "services to banking" must rank as the greatest irony of all time. But what of those who created the environment and structure that permitted Sir Fred to shred lives, ride roughshod over his contemporaries and - despite siren words of warning - allow his vanity to destroy Scotland's biggest bank? What of Brown who created the financial system that made the banks untouchable or Blair who did so much to perpetuate the Thatcher creed of greed and self-promotion? Is Goodwin to stand alone in the firing line as Blair amasses a personal fortune and Brown goes down in history as the Chancellor who abolished "boom and bust"?
To its credit the SNP has always turned its back on having its party stalwarts rewarded with seats in the "British" House of Lords. In an independent Scotland another structure will have to be created. In the meantime, we have to thole what is there and while the entire nest of privelege could do with being "shredded", Sir Fred will do for a start.
A distinction has to be made here, between those who are given the awards and "honours" at the bottom end, the long-serving firemen or dinner ladies, a point made by Wilson, and those at the top end who get the lordships and knighhoods. It is a ludicrous system that rewards those with the deepest pockets or who have worked hard to ensure that the establsihment is preserved - the heads of department in the civil service. There is something intrinsically worthwhile in rewarding people who give selflessly of their time and effort with no expectation of personal gain or even recognition and, if the system did not already exist, it would have to be invented. That is entirely different however, from the mechanism that rewards the biggest party donors or civil servants who have done no more than their job, knowing that so long as they preserve the "system" and keep their noses clean, a "K" will come with the pension. Unfortunately, in this country, it is the same system.
We will now have to observe the machinations of the Forfeiture Committee while it sits in judgement of Sir Fred, knowing that whatever it decides, will do nothing to clear the stink of hypocrisy. For a man who enjoyed the sobriquey "the shred" for his ability to shred the careers of the thousands he made redundant, allegedly would listen to advice from no one and created the biggest financial loss in British business history, driving the world's fifth biggest bank into administration, to receive a "K" for "services to banking" must rank as the greatest irony of all time. But what of those who created the environment and structure that permitted Sir Fred to shred lives, ride roughshod over his contemporaries and - despite siren words of warning - allow his vanity to destroy Scotland's biggest bank? What of Brown who created the financial system that made the banks untouchable or Blair who did so much to perpetuate the Thatcher creed of greed and self-promotion? Is Goodwin to stand alone in the firing line as Blair amasses a personal fortune and Brown goes down in history as the Chancellor who abolished "boom and bust"?
To its credit the SNP has always turned its back on having its party stalwarts rewarded with seats in the "British" House of Lords. In an independent Scotland another structure will have to be created. In the meantime, we have to thole what is there and while the entire nest of privelege could do with being "shredded", Sir Fred will do for a start.
Why give the Unionists ammunition?
Alex Salmond is an arrogant sod, which is nae bad thing when leading a country. However, his arrogance can be a definite drawback if it leads him to treat the Scottish electorate with the type of disdain with which we have been treated for years, by the Unionists. When questioned about the SNP's decision to continue using sterling after "independence", he dismissed the question by claiming that the "Chancellor would bite the hand off us to continue to use the pound." He also claimed that 67 countries throughout the world shared their currency in exactly the same way. They do nothing of the kind and if Salmond did not know that, he should have been better advised by his advisers. But the man was a professional economist.
Now that the currency genie is out of the bottle - it has certainly taken the Unionists a heck of a long time to release it - it is not going to be returned. We are going to hear a great deal about it before the referendum because it has now been identified as one of the SNP's weak spots, and Salmond would do well to remember that peddling a series of half truths and in some cases, out and out lies, may be accepted by Nationalists but it is not going to be accepted by those Scots who have still to be convinced that independence would be good for them. We have been lied to for generations by the Westminster parties, about the true wealth of Scotland, about the size of tax revenues taken from Scotland, about the true level of expenditure in Scotland and the true value of the oil in the Scottish sector of the North Sea. We now know about the McCrone Report and how it was kept secret for thirty years, by successive governments, therefore the economic argument could be much more easily won than it was in earlier times.
The SNP has yet to explain why it intends to retain sterling after independence and simply pointing to the examples of Australia and Eire is not going to be sufficient. I could make a good argument for retainig the use of sterling as an interim measure in order to allay any fears over financial stability in the immediate aftermath of independence so why can't the SNP? The electorate is going to be very suspicious if the party continues to refuse to explain and will be outraged when it finds out that Salmond is so contemptious of them that he is prepared to lie about currency unions throughout the world, as an explanation of why the SNP intends to hold on to sterling. I use the word "lie" advisedly because to me it is inconceivable that Salmond would not have prepared an answer if he was asked about the currency, therefore either, he has been very badly advised or, he chose to lie.
It is perfectly true there are currency unions in other parts of the world, some of them, such as the countries in French Polynesia or old French African colonies, of many years standing. Then there are the more recent versions such as the eurozone but they are not all the same and they most definitely do not all follow the kind of relationship that would exist if Scotland retains sterling after voting to be independent. Currency unions can be informal where there is no common monetary policy but where the currency being used is the same and may even be pegged to another currency altogether. This is the kind of arrangement used in New Zealand and its dependent territories, where the New Zealand dollar is loosley pegged to the US dollar. India, Bhutan and Nepal have a similar arrangement with the rupee which is allowed a "managed float" against the US dollar.
That is a far cry from the system which prevails in the eurozone, where the arrangement is formal and the monetary policy followed is common to all member countries. The current crisis will ensure the level of control will be stepped up and the drive to control the Greek budget is being stepped up almost daily. Scotland has lived with the currency union that is the sterling area for years, we know how much control Scotland has had. Until the latest crisis, the SNP argued that we would have a seat on the governing committee of the European Central Bank (ECB), which would ensure that Scotland's interests would be safeguarded. What kind of dream world is that? Critics are now reminding the SNP that if an independent Scotland retains sterling, the Bank of England will simply ignore Scotland's interests - as if they were ever considered in the past.
That is the reason that Salmond's claim that the other currency unions are all the same is just so much nonsense. It is also the reason he is going to have to treat the Scottish electorate with a bit more respect, or pay the penalty.
Now that the currency genie is out of the bottle - it has certainly taken the Unionists a heck of a long time to release it - it is not going to be returned. We are going to hear a great deal about it before the referendum because it has now been identified as one of the SNP's weak spots, and Salmond would do well to remember that peddling a series of half truths and in some cases, out and out lies, may be accepted by Nationalists but it is not going to be accepted by those Scots who have still to be convinced that independence would be good for them. We have been lied to for generations by the Westminster parties, about the true wealth of Scotland, about the size of tax revenues taken from Scotland, about the true level of expenditure in Scotland and the true value of the oil in the Scottish sector of the North Sea. We now know about the McCrone Report and how it was kept secret for thirty years, by successive governments, therefore the economic argument could be much more easily won than it was in earlier times.
The SNP has yet to explain why it intends to retain sterling after independence and simply pointing to the examples of Australia and Eire is not going to be sufficient. I could make a good argument for retainig the use of sterling as an interim measure in order to allay any fears over financial stability in the immediate aftermath of independence so why can't the SNP? The electorate is going to be very suspicious if the party continues to refuse to explain and will be outraged when it finds out that Salmond is so contemptious of them that he is prepared to lie about currency unions throughout the world, as an explanation of why the SNP intends to hold on to sterling. I use the word "lie" advisedly because to me it is inconceivable that Salmond would not have prepared an answer if he was asked about the currency, therefore either, he has been very badly advised or, he chose to lie.
It is perfectly true there are currency unions in other parts of the world, some of them, such as the countries in French Polynesia or old French African colonies, of many years standing. Then there are the more recent versions such as the eurozone but they are not all the same and they most definitely do not all follow the kind of relationship that would exist if Scotland retains sterling after voting to be independent. Currency unions can be informal where there is no common monetary policy but where the currency being used is the same and may even be pegged to another currency altogether. This is the kind of arrangement used in New Zealand and its dependent territories, where the New Zealand dollar is loosley pegged to the US dollar. India, Bhutan and Nepal have a similar arrangement with the rupee which is allowed a "managed float" against the US dollar.
That is a far cry from the system which prevails in the eurozone, where the arrangement is formal and the monetary policy followed is common to all member countries. The current crisis will ensure the level of control will be stepped up and the drive to control the Greek budget is being stepped up almost daily. Scotland has lived with the currency union that is the sterling area for years, we know how much control Scotland has had. Until the latest crisis, the SNP argued that we would have a seat on the governing committee of the European Central Bank (ECB), which would ensure that Scotland's interests would be safeguarded. What kind of dream world is that? Critics are now reminding the SNP that if an independent Scotland retains sterling, the Bank of England will simply ignore Scotland's interests - as if they were ever considered in the past.
That is the reason that Salmond's claim that the other currency unions are all the same is just so much nonsense. It is also the reason he is going to have to treat the Scottish electorate with a bit more respect, or pay the penalty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)