Identity politics

Many on the left think that Britain has become, or is becoming, the "51st state" of the USA. Although this piece in the Guardian doesn't quite go that far, it gets close:

Britain has by now lost its sovereignty to the United States and has become a client state. As Tony Blair flies in to Washington today to be patted on the head by the US Congress, this is the sad truth behind his visit.

What I want to focus on is not whether we should be part of the US but why there is an almost universal assumption that we would enter the union as one state.

I know the US fairly well. My wife is an American. I have travelled to the US on about a dozen occasions. As far as I can recall, I have visited 33 of the 50 states - far more than most Americans. I know, therefore, that there are many regional differences in the country and that these are far greater than most Britons understand. Nevertheless, I don't think that many people in the US are in any doubt that they are American nationals. The same does not apply in the United Kingdom.

South of the border, the terms "England" and "Britain" continue to be used interchangeably. I realise that there has been a growing awareness of a separate English identity over the past decade or so, initially on the sports field, and, increasingly, since Scottish and Welsh devolution. Nevertheless, I would contend that most English people, most of the time, think that they are part of a national group that has its own state and government, one that is located in Westminster. Scots do not think the same way.

The majority here wish to remain citizens of the UK. They have though, and are very aware of having, two quite distinct identities: Scottish and British. Most Scots are proud of both. They see the United Kingdom as a multi-national state. Confusingly, perhaps, America is a multi-state nation!

If we were to become part of the US - and I think it distinctly unlikely - it would need to be as four separate states. Does anyone seriously think that North and South Dakota are more "different" than Scotland and England?

Conjecture about our becoming the "51st state" may seem somewhat removed from reality. The use of this terminology, though, shows just how out-of-touch many English based commentators are about the actual political entity that they already inhabit. They are also the best recruiting agents for the various nationalist parties that wish to break up the United Kingdom.

The "Great Charlatan" visits Washington

Gerald Warner is on top form in Scotland on Sunday today:

"Say, Hank, who is this guy"

"Says here he’s Tony B Liar, President of the United Kingdom."

"Jeez, Hank! ’Zat the Limey asshole that put the 45-minutes-tuh-Armageddon crap into Dubya’s State of the Union speech?"

"Reckon so, Bud."

"Then why in tarnation we standin’ up an’ hollerin’ fer him, like Julia Roberts was strippin’ off, or sump’n? Seems to me we soughta be givin’ him the hood an’ handcuffs treatment, down Guantanamo way."

"Hell, Bud, that’s politics. All Ah know is, every time Don Rumsfeld takes out his handkerchief, it’s a signal we gotta jump up an’ make like this guy’s the messiah."

"Say, Hank, did ya clock the wife - Sheree or some dumb Hicksville name like that? Ah’d sooner go home tuh Janet Reno."

"Yeah, an’ what about the gorrilla that’s his bodyguard, or sump’n - guy called Campbell, says he can’t function without him? That’s the kinda face we got the good taste in this country tuh hide under a Klansman’s hood."

"Here we go again - up ya get, Hank, an’ look like you’re ovatin’ from the heart. Ah’m gonna try whistlin’ through ma fingers this time - git a gold star from the party bosses."

And so it goes on.

Read the whole thing.

In support of educational freedom

These letters in today's Scotsman are a welcome rejoinder to the critics of home schooling whom I mentioned on Wednesday.

Your taxes at work

Thanks to Andrew Duffin for this one:

When judges from the Beautiful Scotland in Bloom competition stroll among the hanging baskets, flower beds and mirror-flat lawns of Coldstream next week, they will have little idea that they have stepped into the middle of a blazing row.

Residents of Coldstream are furious that their chances of winning are hindered because they miss out on council-subsidised hanging baskets

As Andrew says:

THIS is what we pay 40% income tax for? (Sorry, 51% including National "Insurance")

Tragedy in Shetland

The island of Whalsay boasts more millionaires per head of the population than any other place in Britain

But those heady days are about to disappear forever. Half the white fish fleet on which the island’s prosperity depends are set to be scrapped under the Scottish Executive’s latest vessel decommissioning scheme.

Shetland, and Whalsay in particular, will suffer more than any other fishing community in Scotland under the scheme, which will result in a total of 69 white fish boats being scrapped in a bid to save the North Sea’s fragile cod stocks.

Let us understand what is going on here. The decommissioning scheme is not being introduced to conserve fish stocks. It's being introduced because the British government has utterly failed to protect the property rights of our fishermen who have earned those rights by "homesteading" North Sea waters since time immemorial. Instead, it has meekly handed over those rights to the European Union. That "Union" in turn uses our money to subsidise the construction of foreign vessels that will be free to operate in traditional British waters. Shameful.

What would you subsidise?

Over on the Transport Blog, Brian Micklethwait writes:

I know I'm not supposed to, but I love new railway lines, no matter how much money is wasted on them. Ain't nothing like a train.

But why is Brian "not supposed to" like trains? Perhaps it's the "wasting" of money, lots of which is extracted from the taxpayer. Many libertarians and conservatives dislike railways precisely because of the almost universal state involvement. In a fully libertarian society, though, it may well turn out that railways would be more successful and roads less so. We can't tell in advance. For the sake of argument let's assume that railways need state subsidies.

I recall reading somewhere that the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises favoured privatising virtually everything but made a rare exception for the Vienna Opera House. Mises was an opera fan. If the great Mises can be granted his subsidised opera house perhaps we can allow Brian to enjoy new railways, no matter how they are financed.

Let us assume that we have achieved a society in which the only function of government is the protection of citizens from aggressors. Which single exception would you choose to be subsidised?

Bring back real education

According to Arthur Herman Scotland was Europe's first modern literate society. Male literacy was 75% by 1750 at a time when it had reached 53% in England. By the time he was sixteen, Robert Burns, the son of a poor farmer, had studied "Shakespeare, Alexander Pope, Addison's Spectator essays, Jethro Tull on agriculture, Robert Boyle on chemistry, John Locke, and enlightenment writers in the original French." So what of the present day? Things aren't quite right:

A DEVASTATING critique of adult literacy and numeracy in the Scottish workforce emerged at Westminster yesterday as the government and trades unions stood accused of neglecting the low-skilled, low wage earners in Labour heartlands throughout the UK.

The finger of blame was also pointed at Scottish education, which was said to have "let down a whole generation"

I suppose we should be glad that some Labour politicians realise that the state education system isn't working. I wasn't too surprised, though, to read that other statists are fearful of the alternatives:

MINISTERS have been accused of putting children at risk of abuse and poor teaching by scaling down checks on children who are not enrolled for school.

The Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) claims that the Scottish Executive has caved in to pressure from the vocal lobby of parents who teach their children at home.

And what's wrong with homeschooling?

Mrs Coner (of the SPTC) accused the home education groups of taking a narrow view. "This is a vocal lobby which is very much into independence and being in control. But we have to provide measures for children in a wide range of situations. I think the Executive has bowed to pressure from them"

Mrs Coner said that the SPTC, believes it is overall not in the best interests of children for them to be educated at home. She said however that parents have the right to do this and many "do a fantastic job".

Although Coner admits that some homeschoolers "do a fantastic job" she clearly dislikes parents who are "very much into independence and being in control." Surely it's much better to have parents having independent and direct control over their children's education rather than trusting the next generation to a failed state system.

Wrecks in the City: why Glaswegians are so unhealthy

The standard of health of people living in Glasgow is one of the lowest in Britain. Leftists always claim that the cause is poverty. Redistribute the wealth from more "fortunate" parts of the country and all will be well.

Not so. It looks like belief in socialism is itself a cause of bad health!

It seems those who believe the state should take responsibility for most aspects of life also tend to eschew personal responsibility for taking care of themselves. As a result, they are more likely to engage in lifestyles hazardous to their health, including drinking to excess and not exercising.

The just-published research was conducted among Russians, comparing those who longed for a to return to the old-style Soviet system with those who preferred the free-market approach to the economy.

This reminds me so much of Glasgow:

The theory is that Soviet-style socialism eventually induces passivity toward health promotion in the population. After all, previously the state provided for personal needs and the individual in turn gave up personal reliance and freedom. The state was a shelter as it provided free health care and education, old-age pensions, low-cost housing plus food and guaranteed employment.

However, the totalitarian nature and paternalism of such centrally-planned economies has been viewed as responsible for the development and spread of a psychology of passivity and irresponsibility. If they got sick, people knew that the government would take care of them and so this situation was not likely to feature a strong sense of personal responsibility for health

Glasgow has the largest stock of council houses in Europe:

But many of those homes are in a poor condition - damp, cold and in estates blighted by crime, drugs and "third world" poverty - and Glasgow City Council is unable to finance repairs because of its debt burden.

I can understand why Glasgow's politicians tore down old buildings after WWII and built the huge council estates that now blight much of the city. Nevertheless, they were wrong. The provision of subsidised housing on such a scale has turned all too many Glaswegians against entrepreneurship and that in turn has severely damaged the city's economy. Now we can also understand why so many in Glasgow are unhealthy. Down with politically produced "passivity and irresponsibility." Let's get the State out of the way and see a prosperous Glasgow that can once again be the equal of any city in the world.

What about the deep-fried Mars Bar?

Now the politically correct are saying that fast foods are addictive:

The implications of the research could send tremors through international fast-food outlets such as McDonald's and KFC, which are already facing multi-million dollar lawsuits, with customers arguing that they have became addicted to fast food that subsequently damaged their health. Until now the companies have stressed the "personal responsibility" of customers.

Personal responsibility! How quaintly old fashioned.

If I owned McDonald's I'd simultaneously shut down every restaurant throughout the world and erect giant, flashing neon signs that said: "Closed by order of the health fascists."

Free the small business

Much of the opposition to "capitalism" comes from those who are quite fond of small businesses but don't like big corporations. I don't mind how large a business becomes provided that its size is the result of unencumbered market forces. All too often that is not the case. Small businesses are cutting back on employment because of the rising cost of liability insurance:

THE ongoing crisis in the liability insurance market is costing jobs, according the Federation of Small Businesses, which says 20% of its members surveyed in a recent poll have either frozen or cut back on employment in response to increasing costs.

The UK-wide poll of 1200 small firms - defined as those employing 50 people or less - found one in five reporting a doubling of premium costs on top of last year's "dramatic" increases.

Spokesmen for small businesses are calling for "a review of all legislation and policy changes that might result in additional increases to liability insurance." Good. What they also need to point out is that government legislation usually affects small businesses disproportionately and is often introduced after lobbying by big businesses that understand this only too well. It's a good way of knocking out smaller competitors. Much of the regulatory nonsense that emanates from the European Union is done at the behest of big businesses that wouldn't be able to compete in a genuinely free market. Indeed, according to Professor Thomas DiLorenzo, pandering to special interest groups at the expense of the free market was the cause of the American Civil War.

Reform the Rotten Burghs

Now we know why all those Scottish MPs supported Blair on the question of foundation hospitals for England:

Scotland on Sunday can reveal the government has sanctioned a last-minute reassessment of proposals to slash the size of Scotland’s representation at Westminster from 72 MPs to 59.

Opposition figures claim the cull had been put off as a reward to the Scottish MPs who controversially voted to save the government from humiliating defeat on its foundation hospitals scheme, which applies only to England.

The number of Scottish MPs should be immediately cut to the proportionately correct level of 59. The reduced number of Scottish MPs should then be barred from voting on, or indeed debating, any "England only" measures in Parliament. Finally, their salaries should be halved to reflect their reduced Westminster role of being responsible solely for input into UK-wide matters. Scottish MSPs should also have their salaries reduced so that one English MP (dealing with "English" and UK affairs) should cost the same as the equivalent two-person Scottish representation.

String 'em up!

In the good old days Edinburgh graves were dug up for the purposes of medical science. On occasion, additional bodies were obtained by rather unscrupulous means. The Edinburgh authorities hanged Mr Burke in 1829 in front of a crowd of over 30,000 townsfolk.

In our more civilised era it's the political authorities themselves who vandalise graveyards:

COUNCIL workmen have been accused of vandalising a city cemetery by pushing over hundreds of headstones.

Furious residents in Kirkliston have demanded the local authority foots the bill to pay for the damage caused after the cemetery was left looking "like a bomb had hit it".

It's time for another good hanging, I think. The health and safety fascists should pay for this.

The federal question

According to Lord Palmerston, only three people understood the Schleswig-Holstein question: one was dead, the other had gone insane, and the third was himself, but he had forgotten it. Scotland has trumped Germany - or was it Denmark? - with the West Lothian question: why should Scottish MPs be allowed to vote on English domestic matters when English MPs can’t vote on equivalent Scottish legislation? This is indeed the state of affairs since the establishment of the Scottish parliament. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

Tony Blair would have been defeated on the introduction of foundation hospitals in the English NHS had he not been bailed out by Scottish Labour MPs. Not only was this a purely English matter, but those very same Scottish MPs oppose foundation hospitals in their own part of the UK and their Edinburgh colleagues have made sure that the Scottish NHS will remain unreformed. On top of this, the Health Secretary for England is a Scot, sitting for a Scottish seat, who, presumably, changes his opinion each time he crosses the border.

Enough of this nonsense.

In today’s Glasgow Herald Ruth Wishart writes:

The SNP says independence would remove the anomalies at a stroke but seems unable to persuade sufficient numbers of supporters to sign up to what's currently on offer.

It is clear that there is no majority for Scottish independence.

What we need is federalism, but, as Wishart points out:

The Liberal Democrats point to the neatness of a federal solution without solving the inherent problem of UK federalism being somewhat asymmetric when you factor an English parliament into the set up.

Regional parliaments for England would solve the "asymmetry", but there is no real demand for them in England, and, besides, why shouldn't England have its national identity recognised? I am not convinced that asymmetric federalism is an insurmountable problem. The "problem" of a federation dominated by England is largely caused by the state doing too much in the first place. Let's gradually cut back the functions of government towards its (arguably) legitimate one of protecting the citizen against aggression - and nothing else. This means having the police and court systems under the control of the various nations that make up the UK and keeping defence at the federal (UK) level.

The Freedom and Whisky constitutional plan is this:

Withdraw from the EU

Devolve all powers - except defence and foreign affairs - to the various national parliaments

Each parliament to be fiscally independent with contributions being made to the federal government in proportion to population

The federal government should be situated on the Isle of Man, which is not in any of the home countries but is equidistant from all four of them

The Irish Republic should be invited to unite with the North and rejoin the UK with Dublin taking its rightful place in the Anglosphere alongside Cardiff, Edinburgh and London

Should we subsidise an Edinburgh Opera House?

The Scotsman's George Kerevan calls on the Scottish government to spend more on the arts. I was somewhat surprised by this, but Kerevan explains:

Regular readers might wonder how I reconcile this with my normal slash-and-burn attitude to wasteful government spending and exorbitant taxes. Easy. I’m Austrian: by which I mean I am a devotee of Austrian economics and consider there is a case for state patronage of the arts as a public good which has huge spill-over effects (ie the social and economic gains are widespread). These are: national pride, an understanding of excellence, and the promotion of civilised values. My caveat is that I don’t want the money spent by politically-correct bureaucrats who judge art by the number of operas performed in the ghettos. I want Timothy Clifford of the National Galleries to be able to afford to buy wonderful classical paintings. I want stunning plays that are not about folk taking drugs. I want perfection, not disguised social work.

Well, not all "Austrians" would agree with state patronage of the arts, and certainly not Murray Rothbard. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the most famous "Austrian", Ludwig von Mises, though opposed to almost all government expenditure, supported state subsidy of the Vienna Opera House. Mises was an opera fan. I am more of a Rothbardian purist, but if we ever get to the stage that the Scottish government limits its expenditure to the arts and nothing but the arts, I shan't be too worried.

Who on earth voted Green?

A few weeks ago I wrote about the Midgeater. This year it is needed more than ever:

The midge is back - and this time it's serious.

Scientists yesterday revealed that Scotland's natural nuisance is worse this summer than ever before.

They say it's not just the countryside that is being plagued by the flying pests. A midge found in urban areas, a close cousin of the notorious Highland species, has been breeding rapidly and huge squadrons have been targeting pubs and gardens in city centres.

There is bad news for would-be Midgeater purchasers:

Sadly, stocks of the device, which cost £1000 each, sold out within two weeks of it going on sale.

And there is plenty for the wee beasties to eat, or, rather, drink:

A midge considers 1/10,000,000 of a litre of blood a good meal.

I'll stick with beer.

(Update: If the midges don't get you, the seagulls will)

They don't make them like this any more!

This has just flown past my window. Wonderful sight and sound.

Do not wear blue or green!

Anyone visiting Glasgow might like to attempt this.

Lies, damned lies and statistics

Why doesn't this surprise me?

JOHN McGrath, the socialist playwright who set up the 7:84 Theatre Company to highlight the fact that 7% of the population owned 84% of Britain's wealth, was a millionaire on paper.

He is perhaps best know for his militant theatre company that toured Scotland with works including the play The Cheviot, The Stag and the Black, Black Oil which told the story of the nation's exploitation from the Highland clearances to the oil boom.

Socialists routinely misuse statistics in support of their arguments. McGrath was at the forefront of this: ignore how people's relative wealth changes over a lifetime, don't count welfare benefits or the use of council housing as wealth, pay no attention to the difference between wealth earned in the free market and that obtained through political favour.

I say that the 7% of the population to be found in the New Labour/Guardian political complex controls the 84% of us who are trying to earn an honest living.

Off with their heads

There was no posting over the weekend because I was down in London attending the 3rd British Blogger Bash. Some of my fellow bloggers were depressed about the state of the country. One thought that we were in the equivalent of the year 1635 in terms of the civil war (the War of the Three Kingdoms according to Norman Davies). Another yearned for an immediate rising by the people against the hated Blair clique, but wasn’t too optimistic.

I commend to my two friends the latest article by Scotland on Sunday’s Gerald Warner in which he writes about the proposed ban on foxhunting in England and Wales:

POLITICIANS are trash. Even this column must occasionally voice a non-contentious opinion. For if there is one sentiment that commands nationwide consensus and is incapable of provoking controversy in the most argumentative public bar, it is the loathing and contempt for the political class that now pervades Britain. This universal alienation is unprecedented. It portends the next evolutionary change in our political history - the demise of the parliamentary system.

This is likely to be consummated in the course of the next decade, having been greatly accelerated by the advent of the poisonous phenomenon of New Labour. No man has done more to subvert British parliamentary democracy than Tony Blair: that is how he will be remembered in history.

Warner believes that:

Country people made one fatal mistake: on the day that Tony Martin was jailed, they should have marched on the prison where he was held, torn it down brick by brick and pledged that their response to the next provocation would be to treat 10 Downing Street in the same fashion.

Perhaps we are “in 1635”, for the foxhunting proposals ...

….. could accelerate a process that already looks inevitable - the British people turning their backs on the discredited talking shops at Westminster and elsewhere that have now betrayed all their legitimate expectations, not least of law and order. Subsidiarity could turn out to mean something very different from what MPs and Eurocrats intended - self-policing rural and even urban communities, for example.

There is more to constitutional change than the Great Charlatan scribbling on the back of an envelope. Parliamentary pseudo-government is doomed, just like feudalism and absolute monarchy before it. Charles I could not see it coming: neither can Blair. Yet come it will, even if its precise character cannot be predicted. As a former lefty, Blair should be familiar with the maxim of that other great charlatan, Herbert Marcuse: "Out of chaos, something will arise.”

Mr Warner regularly attracts opprobrium from the usual useful idiots. I have a funny feeling that he is merely a wee bit ahead of his time. Roll on 1649.

Growth needed

Professor Donald Macrae of Lloyds TSB says that Scotland needs more economic growth:

Scotland has the fourth lowest GDP per capita in the EU after Spain, Portugal and Greece. Our annual average real growth rate between 1973 to 2001, at an anaemic 1.6 per cent, compares unfavourably to the UK’s 2.1 per cent, Finland’s 2.6 per cent, the US at 2.8 per cent, Norway at 3.3 per cent and Ireland’s Celtic tiger performance of 5.2 per cent.

Our politicians are not facing up to this, Scotland's greatest problem. And the professor's solution:

But the biggest change lies in the Scottish Parliament itself. The link between the Parliament and the Scottish economy is tenuous at best and must be strengthened. The most obvious solution is to make the Scottish Parliament more responsible for raising the taxes it spends. Increasing fiscal devolution would have the twin benefits of focusing the attention of the Parliament on improving the Scottish economy and introducing a level of responsibility not apparent at present.

This is absolutely correct. Our MSPs act like a bunch of schoolchildren spending the pocket money supplied by over-indulgent parents. Until they are responsible for raising their own expenditure they will never understand the world of business. Of course businesses have to obtain revenue by selling to willing buyers and that's very different from collecting taxes but we need to start educating our politicians somewhere.

New Scottish air services

I posted this over on the Transport Blog

A victim of the State

56-year-old Mrs Biz Ivol is seriously ill after an apparent drug overdose:

Mrs Ivol stood trial last month on charges of cultivating, possessing and supplying cannabis, resulting from a police raid two years ago. The charges relate to the supply of cannabis-laced chocolates to fellow MS sufferers.

The case was dropped yesterday when the Orkney sheriff accepted that Mrs Ivol was too ill to make further court appearances. The MS sufferer had threatened to kill herself should she be prevented from using cannabis. She had already made arrangements for her own funeral.

Why on earth do politicians force the police to persecute and prosecute the infirm while allowing criminals to run rampant?

At least the fictional cops are free to show common sense. In a recent episode of The Bill:

PCs Cameron Tait and Honey Harman are called to an old people's home where some of the residents are behaving rather strangely. But it's not long before they find the root of the problems at the home of a green fingered resident.

Yes, he was growing cannabis and the old folk were enjoying some relaxation. PC Tate confirmed to his colleague that he had removed all of the offending plants but was seen to carefully leave one behind.

Saying no to hot air

Sadly, the plan to construct a wind farm on top of the new Scottish parliament building has been dropped:

The mini-wind farm would have generated enough power to heat water for hand basins or security lighting at Holyrood.

Surely this is wrong: the amount of hot air generated from within the building would have been enough to satisfy the electricity needs of the whole country.

How to destroy Britain

Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh and partly educated here. Nevertheless, he seems to understand nothing about Scotland. The Prime Minister's plans for a new UK supreme court were made without consulting the Scottish parliament and, unsurprisingly, it's not just the nationalists who are angry:

The SNP's criticism has been echoed by the Conservatives who have also accused Westminster of showing "contempt" for Scottish interests.

The Tory's Lord James Douglas Hamilton said: "If the prime minister on his own whim, makes a decision with fundamental, far reaching consequences, without consulting the Scottish Parliament, that is showing contempt for the institution he is trying to create."

Lord Douglas Hamilton is the epitome of loyalist British conservatism and if he is upset you know something is afoot. And it's not merely opposition politicians who are in rebellion:

Last week, Scotland's most senior Law Lord warned that plans for a supreme court could put Scots law and the devolution system at stake.

Any British supreme court must be carefully designed to accommodate the separate legal systems of Scotland and England. Failure to do this could destroy the union.