Fighting back

This lady deserves an award:

An Aberdeen pensioner fought off two muggers who tried to steal her handbag during a street robbery.

It must have been her lucky day. She kept her handbag and she wasn't prosecuted for breaching the human rights of the muggers. Things are looking up.

Who? Whom?

There is a very good article in today's Times. (Registration may be required outside the UK).

Camilla Cavendish points out that 1 in 5 of us now work in the public sector - an increase of 354,000 since 1998.

But it doesn't end there:

Companies are forced to recruit all sorts of people — tax specialists, training managers, health and safety executives, employment lawyers — to keep on top of government initiatives.

Employment of these corporate bureaucrats has a disproportionate impact:

The companies that are most damaged by taxes and regulations are the small and medium-size enterprises that drive economic growth.

Ms Cavendish has an explanation:

Part of the reason small businesses suffer is that this Government, like its predecessors, finds it easier to talk to big business. Yet FTSE 100 companies can swallow costs that drive smaller ones into the ground. Large personnel departments can administer fashionable training, “diversity” and “people” programmes. The big guys tend to grin and bear it, reluctant to mar an evening at Chequers with unseemly complaints, and conscious of the opportunities that may come from being “on side”. The small firms are left to stagger on.

I wonder though if there's more to this than meets the eye. Instead of "grinning and bearing it", is it not possible that some large companies actually welcome taxes and regulations? The destruction of small and medium-sized competitors, not to mention the discouragement of potential entrepreneurs, is good news for established firms and may well outweigh the state's burdens on themselves. I don't doubt that this explains the extraordinary closeness between many large companies and an overweening government.

Comments

The Haloscan system recently removed old comments from this site. I have now upgraded my membership and the old comments have returned. Nevertheless,

"The comment count loader only analyzes the last 200 or so comments (500 something for premium members) so anything more than the most recent 200/500 will say 0 comments even though you can still click the link and view them all."

The comments are still there.

Save Princes Street

On matters architectural I usually find myself in Prince Charles' camp. I therefore support Malcolm Fraser's opposition to the plans for an underground shopping mall at Princes Street Gardens:

Commenting on the scheme, Mr Fraser said developers should focus their efforts on trying to improve Princes Street, rather than dig up the Gardens. "It is an entirely crass thing to do in the city, particularly when you look at Princes Street. It has a bad retail offering.

"There are nasty 60s buildings and nasty Victorian buildings, looking like broken teeth. It [the Galleries] seems entirely the wrong thing to do."

Like Fraser, I have no confidence that the unique character of the Gardens wouldn't be destroyed. I also agree that the buildings on Princes Street itself are generally eyesores and yet they look out onto the greatest urban view in the world.

Let's rebuild Princes Street in classical style.

Bring back Robert Adam, James Craig and Provost Drummond.

Read this

My friend Sean Gabb has written this excellent analysis of the problems faced by the Conservative Party. The Tories won't roll back Blairism by replacing Iain Duncan Smith or by deciding not to be the "nasty party". The situation is far more serious than most people think.

They just can't help it

Once again Glasgow's politicians show their ignorance. They seem convinced that there is a plot against Glasgow Airport:

Mr Gordon (Glasgow Council leader) has already asked Mr Stephen for a meeting on the "puzzling" use of a £6.8million Scottish Executive fund to encourage new routes.

It has failed to support any new routes from Glasgow Airport.

Forgetting for the moment whether the state should be subsidising air services, it has been made clear time and time again that the Executive's fund is available for use at any Scottish airport. The airlines decide which airport they want to fly from, not the politicians. Glasgow councillors don't seem to be able to get their heads round the idea that most economic activity is the result of a coming together of willing sellers and willing buyers. Unless something is "planned" by the state it isn't quite real. They need to realise that it's that very attitude that holds back Glasgow's economy.

Laissez-faire.

Serves him right

Former MSP Duncan Hamilton is in his early thirties and was the youngest member of the Scottish parliament until he "retired" earlier this year. He fears that he is becoming a Grumpy Old Man. Well, I agree with him on this:

Equally, I am enraged by the gross discourtesy of people parking in the space I own. A trip to the supermarket becomes like a traffic version of Russian roulette - you have a one-in-six chance of getting your space back.

Right on, Duncan.

I live very close to the centre of Edinburgh and our development has a private parking space for each flat. The spaces were provided with a parking bollard but my one scraped the bottom of the car, causing considerable damage. Like some other residents, I had to have it removed. We now have a box that is filled with old newspapers, covered with plastic sheeting and with a "No Parking" sign taped to the front. If the box is not in place, a non-resident parker will use the space within minutes - despite there being a reasonably priced public car park next door. Sometimes people move the box and use our space and on one occasion the box was dumped in a nearby rubbish bin. The local police are unable to do anything because no crime has been committed - it is a "civil" matter. The city parking authorities won't help because it is private property. When I have confronted parkers they seem utterly shocked at my suggestion that they have done anything wrong although there is large sign at the entrance stating that they are entering private property and that no parking is allowed. Apparently, I am allowed to get a contractor to move any parked vehicles but at my expense!

The root of the problem is a lack of respect for property rights. Here I have to note that Mr Hamilton was a MSP who sat on the Scottish National Party benches. Like all parties other than the Conservatives, the SNP legislated for the removal of the property rights of landowners across rural Scotland. They want to go further. From the SNP's website:

The SNP has a long-standing commitment to the modernisation of Scotland’s land laws and an SNP Government would fulfil this commitment to give people control over the future of their own communities and allow greater access to Scotland’s land.

You can't have it both ways, Duncan. When you have helped take away the property rights of country folk you are in no position to moan about someone using your property.

Silly Tories

They just can't get it right, can they?

Oliver Letwin, shadow home secretary, has tried to make amends for his recent remarks:

he apologised yesterday to his local comprehensive school for saying he would rather beg than send his children there

He certainly should apologise but not for any "offence" given to his local school. He should apologise for suggesting that he was willing to earn money by begging rather than, say, flipping burgers.

Note how Tory "modernisers" reacted to Mr Letwin's observation about the school:

They also angered modernisers in the Conservative Party who are eager to reconnect with Britain’s poorer areas where support for them has dwindled to almost nothing.

That is patronising nonsense. Poor people in inner-city areas know perfectly well that most of their local schools are useless and they also know that the Tories did nothing about this when they were last in power. If the Tories want to get votes in poorer parts of the country they need to promise immediate privatisation of sink schools and the overthrow of the educational establishment that is responsible for them.

Spy in the sky

I am a supporter of road pricing although it won't work properly until government gets out of the transport business altogether. Who knows, in a genuine free market rail may make a profitable comeback. In the meantime this idea must be rejected out-of-hand. According to the Transport Secretary (and my own MP):

Primarily, the way we expect it to happen is some sort of satellite-based system which will look at the distance you travel and will be able to differentiate things like time of day and the type of roads you’re using.

I note today that some cabinet ministers are expressing doubts about any introduction of a state identity card. Good. But I can see that the Blair clique might be able to con people into accepting ID cards as a weapon against crime, terrorism, illegal immigration or whatever. I can't though see the British people welcoming the idea that the state should be allowed to spy on our every movement, keeping records of "the distance you travel", and the "time of day and the type of roads you’re using". A surer way of stirring the forces of conservatism would be hard to imagine.

Why is investment dropping?

The Sunday Times (registration may be required outside the UK) tells us that overseas investment in Scotland is declining:

Scotland now attracts just 6.9% of the total inward investment to the United Kingdom, according to statistics released by Jim Wallace, the enterprise minister. The figure has been in steady decline after reaching a high point of about 20% in the early 1990s.

The executive’s own research showed that Scottish businesses face one of the highest tax burdens in Europe.

Our high taxation is clearly one reason for the decline but I wonder if the establishment of the Scottish parliament is also responsible. Since 1999 the world must surely have noticed that almost all of Scotland's politicians are confirmed statists, regulators and tax collectors par excellence. And yet the same politicians seem to have a vague idea that new entrepreneurs are a necessity:

Ministers want more children to regard successful entrepreneurs such as Tom Hunter, right, as role models in order to encourage positive attitudes to business at an early age. The Executive is worried by research, including a survey last year, which found that the fear of failure remains a major barrier in the minds of many would-be businessmen and women. The survey found this fear was greater in Scotland than in almost any other small nation examined. Ministers hope that by fostering confidence in, and understanding of, business in the young, they are more likely to be the wealth creators of tomorrow.

The Scottish Executive, and most of the opposition, wants to have it both ways. They want Scotland to enjoy the wealth created by businesspeople but at the same time they have a horror of any sort of inequality of outcome. But it's one or the other guys. We can all be equally poor or differently prosperous. I know which I prefer.

How IDS can become Prime Minister

The Daily Mail today (no link) has an article about two families: the Bardsleys who get £37,402 a year in state benefits and the Sprys who earn £27,000 a year after tax. Mrs Spry, who has two children, works 45 hours a week in two separate jobs and her husband was working 70 hours a week as a nightclub manager until recently but has now re-mortgaged the family home to open his own restaurant. The Bardsleys had five children when Mr Bardsley lost his job as a tree surgeon and they have subsequently had three more.

Mrs Bardsley, whose family spends £140 a week on cigarettes and £70 a week on bingo, says:

“It is not like we are defrauding the system – we are entitled to all that money.

People should leave us alone and get a life if they have a problem with us having benefits. I am an adult with a mind of my own and if I choose to have eight children, I know I can look after them, love them and provide for them, so what is the problem?"

Well, the problem is not that Mrs Bardsley seems to think that she provides for her children when they are actually funded by you, me and the Sprys. The problem is that there appears to be absolutely no opposition to this kind of outrage from any mainstream politician. If Iain Duncan Smith were to tell the Conservative Party Conference that he personally would go round to the Bardsley’s house and kick them out within one hour of becoming Prime Minister he would probably win Arnie-style.

Subsidies galore

Have a look at the fourth letter on this page:

.. it is proposed that subsidised wind farms replace the subsidised forestry that supplanted the subsidised sheep farming. The objections to this are based on the effect windmills might have on subsidised tourism.

How very true.

And down at the bottom of the Royal Mile they are making a subsidised film about a subsidised building that will (eventually) contain subsidised politicians on a site that, believe it or not, used to be a non-subsidised brewery. Well, perhaps I subsidised it myself on the odd occasion.

And now, the movie

The film being made of the Scottish parliament building is mirroring its subject:

The film has also been hit by a series of budget increases which mirror those of the Holyrood project itself. Originally planned with a budget of £370,000, with the Scottish Arts Council and BBC Scotland sharing the costs, the latest estimate is £820,000. Scottish Screen joined as an additional funding partner later on.

Yet again people are angry but I fear for the worst. The building is ten times over budget and the initial expected cost of the film was £370,000. Surely it will end up costing £3,700,000.

Where's the Terminator when you need him?

Anti-social behaviour: Who's to blame?

No sooner had I written the previous post when I noticed this article in The Herald:

A remarkable 90% of Scots have expressed support for Jack McConnell's emphasis on young people in the Scottish Executive's moves to tackle anti-social behaviour. The high level of endorsement, recorded by NFO System Three in a poll for The Herald, is found across every political party, class, geographic region, and age group. Support never falls below 85%.

The high level of support doesn't surprise me at all although I'll be amazed if anything meaningful is actually done. Already, the usual suspects are moaning:

The surprise outcome last night provoked a furious debate between politicians and campaigners, with Mr Mc-Connell and his ministers being accused of generating undue concern about the levels of youth crime in the run-up to the new anti-social behaviour bill.

I'm not at all surprised to read that Socialist Party MSPs, Professors of Criminology and single issue pressure groups are completely out of touch with the majority - the careers of these people would not exist if crime were properly dealt with.

I have just finished reading A Brief History of Crime by Peter Hitchens of the Mail on Sunday. It is an admirable survey of why crime is rising and who is to blame.

Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart (click to hear Elvis!)

I think that this guy is a nutter but what harm is he doing?

The man dubbed the "naked rambler" has been remanded in custody after appearing in court in the Highlands.

Stephen Gough, who is trying to walk naked from Land's End to John O'Groats, appeared at Dingwall Sheriff Court on Monday

The Scottish police and courts seem to be spending vast sums of our money harassing Mr Gough who has almost completed his Land's End to John O' Groats walk. Most of us would much prefer these resources to be devoted to catching burglars rather than giving additional publicity to the naked rambler.

New blog with Scottish connections

I haven't mentioned the new Adam Smith Blog although I did add a link from here a few weeks ago. Have a look at the blog: today there is a post by Alex Singleton about the possibility of Scottish independence at the instigation of England.

We don't want a socialist IoD

I was rather disappointed to read this in today's Herald:

THE new head of the Scottish section of the Institute of Directors has called for a halt to the "unrelenting torrent of abuse" that has been directed at Scottish Enterprise, the economic development agency currently looking for a new chief executive.

New IoD boss David Watt goes on to say:

"Criticism is not enough," Watt said. "You have to make alternative suggestions, and so far not many people have come up with them."

The Institute of Directors is normally very robust in defending business and regularly calls for reductions in the size of government. Alternative suggestions have been made for Scottish Enterprise: abolish it and use the savings to reduce business taxation in Scotland. I do hope that the IoD isn't becoming part of the leftist establishment.

The state is the problem

The third letter here is from Andrew Duffin, a regular F&W commentator

Elect your local sheriff

Scottish Tory leader David McLetchie will be speaking at the UK Conservative conference in Blackpool. He will be opposing the creation of regional assemblies in England. No surprise there but I was intrigued by this:

The Scottish Tory leader will also refer to reforming the police service to make it more locally accountable, although he will make no mention of the proposals to be launched this week by the shadow home secretary for smaller police forces in England and Wales with elected police chiefs in the manner of the sheriff system used in the United States.

An aide to the Scottish leader said that this was not being considered north of the border, where the problems were similar to elsewhere but the solutions would be different.

So what "different" solutions are to be advocated for Scotland? This looks like a cop-out - no pun intended but the sanction of being voted out by the people is precisely what should be faced by senior police officers and indeed judges.

More on vouchers

The Scotsman has really got the voucher bug this week with Alex Massie following up previous articles and Saturday's editorial also covering the topic.

According to the editorial:

The arguments against vouchers are twofold. First, it would benefit middle-class families who have the knowledge and mobility to use them to access the best schools geographically. Second, that stripping a failing local school of pupils and resources only makes matters worse for the children left behind in it.

These two objections are satisfactorily disposed of but I was rather surprised that the editorial didn't discuss the primary argument that has been raised against education vouchers by free market advocates in the USA. What concerns American libertarians is this: Will it not be only a matter of time before the state increases regulation of private schools that accept education vouchers thus reducing the freedom and attraction of such institutions? He who pays the piper calls the tune. This is, I believe, a real danger although I expect that British private schools are already subject to considerably greater government oversight than those in the US. Nevertheless, I do believe that a pilot voucher scheme should be tried in Scotland as the initial step towards breaking the stultifying control of our schools by members of the predator class.

Why we are free to blog

This is a photograph that I took three weeks ago at the Battle of Britain air display at RAF Leuchars

Education update

I have now noticed that the Scotsman carries an editorial today in favour of vouchers. They also write:

For instance, Judith Gillespie, of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, says: "It’s the children who achieve - the schools don’t deliver their performance. It is nonsense to suggest that a school where 40 per cent pass three Highers is better than one where 20 per cent do." Fortunately, most parents don’t agree with Ms Gillespie’s strange notion that the quality of a school’s teachers or management is irrelevant to their children’s performance.

The Scotsman is noticing the strange beliefs of Ms Gillespie that I commented upon here

What price education?

Despite the politically motivated trashing of the Scottish education system, parents still seek the best for their children:

Parents are paying up to 120 per cent above the asking price to secure a property in the catchment area of state schools with the best reputation.

As a property expert explains:

Jamie Crocket, a valuation manager for Glasgow Solicitors Property Centre, said: "To be blunt: in certain areas schools drive the market."

Some parents are calculating the cost of private education at about £6,000 a year for each child - and deciding it would be cheaper to pay an inflated price for a house near a good state school.

Finding £6,000 a year to educate each child would certainly seem to be beyond the means of all but the wealthiest. However, we need to look a bit more carefully at the figures.

In the current issue of Economic Affairs there is an excellent article by James Tooley of the University of Newcastle. Mr Tooley writes:

The average cost of private education in this country is about £5,000 per year, yet only about £2,900 is made available for each state-schooled youngster, so where would the difference be made up? The answer is easy: if you throw in all the costs of the state bureaucracies, the Department for Education and Skill (DfES), Ofsted, the Teacher Training Agency (TTA), the Qualification and Curriculum Authority (QCA), et cetera ad nauseum, and divide by the total number of pupils, then you get to precisely that magic figure of £5,000!

Clearly Mr Tooley is writing about England, but I have found these statistics covering Scotland and have been able to calculate that the average direct cost per pupil (primary and secondary) is £2,860 per year - almost exactly the same as Mr Tooley's £2,900 for England. As well as excluding the costs of the state bureaucracy, the Scottish figures:

"may not necessarily include all the costs of running the school. Other costs relating to the school may also have been incurred during the period, for example, capital spending or a proportion of total education authority expenditure on services such as those provided by advisers and psychologists."

So it looks as though we could give every Scottish parent an annual voucher for £5,000 per child to be spent on private education with no additional cost to the taxpayer. If private schools had 100% of the market instead of less than 20% I could easily see prices dropping from £6,000 to £5,000 per pupil or even lower. Let's go for it.

Let's save a bit of money

Brian Wilson, the MP for Cunninghame North, has spoken out against list MSPs - those elected to the Scottish parliament under the proportional representation system. Naturally, his targets have responded:

He was immediately accused of "throwing a tantrum", and his comments provoked an angry backlash from list MSPs, who said they were much more useful than him - and doing more work. Mr Wilson exposed the tension between those elected on party lists and constituency members, as well as the distrust that still exists between MPs and MSPs.

I find myself in unusual agreement with Colin Fox who is a "list" MSP for the Scottish Socialist Party:

"The truth is list MSPs for the SSP are very busy both with casework and campaigns in their region. Compare them to Westminster MPs with little to do and we can see the difference."

I don't of course approve of any of Mr Fox's "casework" and "campaigns" but he is right to draw attention to the fact that Scotland's Westminster MPs have little to do given that so much domestic governance is now devolved to the Edinburgh legislature. We need to make two changes. First, Scottish MPs should be banned from voting at Westminster on any matters that have been devolved to Edinburgh and second, the salaries of Scottish MPs should be halved to take account of their reduced responsibilities. What possible objection could be made by Brian Wilson?