Lots of tweeting today

Here

There is no one ideal NED

That was the wonderful headline in the current issue of the Chartered Secretaries magazine.

The article goes on to say, "However, it is the NED who can offer a constructive challenge which is an essential part of good governance."

I guess that this piece wan't proofread in Scotland!

(NED = Non Executive Director)

Why do some people hate freedom?

Only SNP can fight market ideology says the ludicrous Joyce McMillan.

Ludicrous? It's almost a case of where to begin. So let's start with the title.

Why, exactly, would anyone want to fight a "market ideology"? To answer that we have to know what the term "market" means. As so often, Murray Rothbard had the answer:

The Free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is undertaken as a voluntary agreement between two people or between groups of people represented by agents

So what Ms McMillan is against is the freedom to make voluntary agreements.

This next bit is sort of correct but remains analytically lacking:

Three years ago, after all, the ordinary citizens of the West watched the financial system under which they had been living for decades hurtle towards self-destruction, and survive only with the help of massive bailouts from the public purse. It was substantially discredited, both intellectually and morally; yet three years on, we find the power of this financial system not diminished, but if anything increased. Nothing has changed, except that ordinary British citizens are now being asked to foot the bill.

First, the system had been hurtling towards destruction since long before 2008. And it was the prior subsidies from the public purse that caused that destruction! Without taxpayer guarantees for the fiat monetary system, there would have been no crash. With those subsidies, the crash was inevitable. Second, the system had indeed been discredited (totally, not "substantially") long before the crash by people like the earlier quoted Rothbard, not by anti-market folk like Joyce McMillan. Third, McMillan should make it clear that the price is being paid by taxpayers and savers, not by all "ordinary" British citizens many of whom are tax consumers.

Then our Joyce tells us that the current UK government is "perhaps the most doctrinaire pro-market administration seen in this country for a century" and that it is "bent on remedying market failure, by applying ever more drastic market solutions". Utter nonsense. The government's debt is planned to continue to grow for several years. "Doctrinaire pro-market" - you're having a laugh. And as I explained above, the crash was caused a politicised, non-market financial system. "Market solutions"? If only.

McMillan goes on to say:

Like hundreds of thousands of bred-in-the-bone Labour voters, I have never been able to bring myself to vote for the SNP; in my heart, I think social justice a far more important political principle than national identity

Oh dear. Has Ms McMillan read anything by Hayek?

To discover the meaning of what is called 'social justice' has been one of my chief preoccupations for more than 10 years. I have failed in this endeavour - or rather, have reached the conclusion that, with reference to society of free men, the phrase has no meaning whatever.

Exactly. The only kind of genuine justice there can be is one based on the free market as defined by Rothbard above.

Next we read this:

What faces us over the next ten years, though, is not a tea-party or an academic debate, but a herculean struggle to turn the tide of extreme market ideology that has already done so much damage to our societies; and to create a credible, working alternative.

I knew that the term "tea-party" would get in somewhere! But where is any evidence for extreme market ideology being practised in Scotland or the UK? The credible working alternative to the status quo is the free market.

Some final thoughts:

McMillan's world "dependent on Westminster subsidy". No - dependent on taxpayer subsidy.

"Scotland's free prescriptions and university fees". What? Scientists and professors work for nothing? Pharmacies and universities spring out of thin air?

On one thing I do agree with Joyce McMillan. I couldn't possibly vote for the Labour party.

Apologies...

... for the lack of postings recently.

There are a couple of reasons for this. First, I've not been too well for a while but now hope to start regular posts again. Second, I'm continuing to feel totally depressed at the state of the world, the UK, and of Scotland.

I wrote here about how I came to vote for the Tories at the last general election. Then in this piece I explained why I am sympathetic to Scottish independence.

The Conservative/Lib Dem government has been depressing in the extreme. They manage to increase government expenditure while almost the entire population believes that spending is going down. Of course, the rot set in when the Tories totally failed to criticise Labour's runaway expenditure. Not only that, we see the continuation of the nanny state control freakery that made normal people so hate the previous regime. And don't get me starting on the thieves at the Bank of England...

It's not much better here in Scotland. Alex Salmond made this ludicrous promise:

In a personal speech, in which he reiterated his belief in independence, the First Minister claimed that a deal could be reached on no compulsory sackings in the NHS, schools, and right across local government.

They just don't get it, do they? There's NO MORE MONEY. Another thing: why do so many Scottish politicians seem to think that most people here work in the public sector? The overwhelming majority doesn't. And most of us see no reason why public sector workers should get such good deals on wages, holidays and pensions (yes, even post-Hutton) at the expense of the taxpayers.

Enough for the moment. Mrs F&W's excellent homemade lasagna beckons...

P1020792 - 2011-03-13 at 19-06-12 a photo by David Farrer on Flickr.

You wait for one donation and then a whole lot of them come along together...

I see that Brian Souter will give money to the SNP's election campaign.

Assuming that others do so first, that is!

See here:

Brian Souter said he will match each pound from small donations up to that figure by the end of March as part of an attempt to secure £1 million for the Holyrood election on May 5.

I think this is probably a good thing. As readers will know, the financial crisis will not be resolved until the malinvestments caused by all that money printing are allowed to be liquidated. Whoever wins the next Holyrood election will come to wish that they hadn't. I'd prefer that to be the Labour party, and they seem to be the most likely winners at the moment. But it would be too awful for Labour to be elected with a huge majority. If they are to win, let it be by one vote in one constituency. Souter's money may help stop a landslide.

As I wrote here, I reluctantly voted for the Conservatives last May. I now regret that vote. The Tories haven't faced up to the seriousness of the financial crisis, nor have they made any real attempt to restore the civil liberties that were lost under the Labour regime. The nanny state lives.

Needless-to-say, no other party has a clue either, but disappointment is greatest when it's tinged with a sense of betrayal.

The UK's political class will probably bring about total national bankruptcy and sadly the SNP are as ignorant of economics as the rest of them. In such a crisis I expect that independence will be thrust upon us whether we like it or not. With the right policies an independent Scotland will do just fine. Which politicians will provide them remains to be seen.

Libertarian Alliance Ltd

Earlier today I resigned as Company Secretary of Libertarian Alliance Ltd. I've been producing the accounts of LA Ltd since it became a limited company thirty odd years ago and also earlier before its incorporation.

I shall miss playing this role in the libertarian movement but after all these years it's time to hand over to someone else.

Naturally I shall continue to support and be a member of the Libertarian Alliance. I wish my successor well.

Supping with the devil

I don't usually think that private organisations should be made to reveal their inner workings to the general public. But surely things are different when providing services to the government. Or rather, to the taxpayer.

So this is bad news:

The Scottish Government has been slapped down by the Information Commissioner for bowing to pressure from big business and abandoning plans to end the secrecy enjoyed by private contractors working for the state.

Ministers have shelved proposals to extend freedom of information legislation to cover the companies that build and run schools, hospitals, prisons and roads. The move was fiercely opposed by the firms.

If companies don't wish to face demands that are "unnecessary, costly, and at odds with promises to simplify regulation and public procurement" they have a simple solution: Don't do business with the state.

Thought for the day

What would happen if the Muslim Brotherhood/al-Qaeda were to take control of the Suez Canal?

By how much would petrol prices rise in the UK?

How much more valuable would the North Sea Oilfields become?

Would the RAF argue that both Lossiemouth and Leuchars be kept open?

What would the impact be on the accounts of UK PLC?

What would the impact be on the accounts of Scotland PLC?

What effect would all of this have on the forthcoming Holyrood election?

Just asking...

Where did the books go?

Actually, they went to London.

Here is the continuation of the tracking information from last time, and again it's in reverse chronological order:

London, United Kingdom 01/20/2011 10:53 A.M. Delivered

01/20/2011 6:44 A.M. Out For Delivery

01/20/2011 6:42 A.M. Arrival Scan

Stansted, United Kingdom 01/20/2011 5:30 A.M. Departure Scan

01/20/2011 3:37 A.M. Arrival Scan

Koeln, Germany 01/20/2011 3:26 A.M. Departure Scan

Koeln, Germany 01/19/2011 5:58 A.M. Adverse weather conditions.

It seems that the books went to another customer of the sender. A little bit of detective work on my part leads me to think that the package may have gone to the LSE!

Anyway, the books were resent and here is the next lot of tracking information:

Edinburgh, United Kingdom 26/01/2011 14:26 Delivered

26/01/2011 9:33 Out for Delivery

26/01/2011 8:00 Arrival Scan

26/01/2011 7:40 Departure Scan

26/01/2011 6:31 Arrival Scan

Castle Donnington, United Kingdom 26/01/2011 5:33 Departure Scan

26/01/2011 2:09 Import Scan

Stansted, United Kingdom 24/01/2011 23:10 Departure Scan

Castle Donnington, United Kingdom 24/01/2011 23:08 Arrival Scan

Stansted, United Kingdom 24/01/2011 21:35 Departure Scan

Castle Donnington, United Kingdom 24/01/2011 21:24 Released by clearing agency Now in-transit for delivery

Stansted, United Kingdom 24/01/2011 20:29 Arrival Scan

Philadelphia, PA, United States 24/01/2011 8:23 Departure Scan

Philadelphia, PA, United States 22/01/2011 11:52 Arrival Scan

Philadelphia, PA, United States 21/01/2011 18:35 Arrival Scan

Louisville, KY, United States 21/01/2011 16:54 Departure Scan

21/01/2011 9:19 Arrival Scan

Nashville, TN, United States 21/01/2011 4:23 Departure Scan

21/01/2011 2:29 Arrival Scan

Atlanta, GA, United States 20/01/2011 23:13 Departure Scan

20/01/2011 21:38 Origin Scan

20/01/2011 16:28 Collection Scan

United States 20/01/2011 16:48 Order Processed: Ready for UPS

And here they are on my desk:

I have to admit that it's pretty impressive that packages can be sent across the world in such short times. Government post offices certainly couldn't have come up with such systems. But leaving Stansted at 2310 having arrived at the East Midlands airport only two minutes' earlier is a wee bit unlikely, is it not?

It seems that the actual scan times have very little connection with what's displayed on the system. But is that all bad news? Not necessarily. Just how efficient would the authorities be at monitoring our every movement, should they so desire?

Hey, bro, is that Dave Cameron?

Well yes, good afternoon Mr President.

Bro, are you monitoring that guy we mentioned?

Certainly. He's now in a cafe in Deansgate, Manchester, and he's eating a bacon roll. How impressive is that?

Pretty good, bro. And where was he before that?

Five minutes' earlier he was in a bus going along the seafront at Plymouth.

Ain't that where all those religious immigrants came from?

No Mr President, they tend to come from Somalia.

Bro, I think we're getting divided by a common language here. Where was the dude before he was in Plymouth?

Fifteen minutes' earlier he was in a bar on the south side of Dublin having some Guinness with a couple of guys in expensive suits.

Hey Dave, Dublin you say? He was probably meeting his bankers! And Bro, I guess all these places must be quite close together, the way he keeps moving around in such a short time?

I suppose so Mr President, but my geography's not too good once one gets out of Notting Hill...

The wonders of modern systems

I recently ordered some books from the US. Here is the latest tracking information in reverse chronological order:

Location Date Local Time ActivityWhat's This?

Koeln, Germany 01/19/2011 5:58 A.M. Adverse weather conditions.

01/19/2011 3:43 A.M. Departure Scan

01/19/2011 12:51 A.M. Arrival Scan

Newark, NJ, United States 01/18/2011 11:00 A.M. Departure Scan

Castle Donnington, United Kingdom 01/18/2011 12:50 A.M. Released by Clearing Agency. Now in-transit for delivery.

Newark, NJ, United States 01/17/2011 6:12 P.M. Arrival Scan

Louisville, KY, United States 01/17/2011 4:17 P.M. Departure Scan

01/17/2011 10:59 A.M. Arrival Scan

Nashville, TN, United States 01/17/2011 7:13 A.M. Departure Scan

Nashville, TN, United States 01/15/2011 3:23 A.M. Arrival Scan

Atlanta, GA, United States 01/15/2011 12:14 A.M. Departure Scan

Atlanta, GA, United States 01/14/2011 11:05 P.M. Origin Scan

United States 01/17/2011 7:44 A.M. Order Processed: Ready for UPS

Atlanta would be the nearest major airport to the sender. Louisville is the main UPS hub for the US. Why via Nashville, I'm not sure - these are not musical books...

I thought that a direct flight to Europe from Louisville would have been expected but instead the goods went via the busy passenger airport of Newark. OK, fair enough. The package then seems to have reached East Midlands Airport (Castle Donnington) where it cleared customs, but after this it apparently went back to Newark! Newark, New Jersey, not Newark, Nottinghamshire.

Last night the senders e-mailed me to let me know that UPS had entered their Newark data late and that the package hadn't in fact gone back to the US but was still in the UK. OK, but then this morning the books had apparently turned up in Cologne! Now Cologne is the main UPS hub for Europe so I suppose that it's possible that a package would go from East Midlands (the UK hub) to Cologne for onward delivery to Edinburgh, bizarre though that would seem. But then, why would it first clear UK customs before going abroad again and why not fly it direct from Newark to the Cologne hub?

My theory is that the UPS system is not in chronological order again and the package actually went from Newark to Cologne and then to East Midlands.

Mrs F&W has another theory: these books on the Austrian School of Economics have a homing instinct and are trying to get to Vienna...

The sender's note says that they'll be here by Thursday evening.

Never mind the facts, what about the theory?

The SNP has made much of the claim that financial independence would lead to additional economic growth. I blogged about this back in October.

Now there's been a bit of a row about this claim:

During a bad-tempered clash, the academics distanced themselves from SNP claims that their report provided a case for fiscal autonomy.

And looking back a wee bit:

First Minister Alex Salmond referred to the report during his speech at last year's autumn SNP conference, when he said: "We know, thanks to the work of Andrew Hughes Hallett and Drew Scott, that with economic powers we could grow the Scottish economy by an extra 1 per cent a year."

In Holyrood yesterday:

Prof Hughes Hallett, of St Andrews University, said the claims about increasing GDP were "referenced in the papers" he and his colleague had written, but was unable to say what the evidence was or where it came from. He said: "Increased powers could be expected to increase the level of GDP by between 0.6 per cent and 1.3 per cent."

I'm afraid that the professor's reply was a bit weak in the circumstances. You have to be fully prepared when entering the lion's den of politics. Not having the evidence at hand does your case no good whatsoever. Does that mean that I disagree with Hughes Hallett's case? Not at all, and for reasons that may not be obvious at first.

Consider this quote:

The Austrian school is different from other schools of economics because it does not rely on complex mathematical models to prove its point. The economists of the Austrian school derive their understanding by using what is called a priori thinking—something which appeals to our logic on its own without any support of a mathematical model.

Here is a fine book that explains the differences between the a priori approach of the Austrians and the empiricism of the Chicago School of free market economics.

In my last post I showed that there is a strong positive correlation between economic freedom and national prosperity. And smaller government expenditure is positively correlated with economic growth. That's useful information, but it doesn't necessarily prove that A causes B. The a priorism of the Austrians enables us to see why freedom and low government expenditures lead to better outcomes and that's exactly why I've just placed another book order with the Mises Institute.

Here's a little a priori thought experiment:

Imagine you have a teenage child.

Scenario A: You give the teenager pocket money, say a modest £30 billion per year, no matter what he spends it on.

Scenario B: You tell the teenager that he must go out and get a job if he wants any spending money.

Will A or B produce a more economically successful child?

It really is as simple as that. And that's what economists should be telling Holyrood.

Are you free?

I see that the latest Index of Economic Freedom has come out.

The UK stands at number 16 in terms of economic freedom with a score of 74.5, down 2.0 points since last year.

Out of 183 countries only 13 show a larger drop in economic freedom in the previous twelve months than does the UK. At least our score is better than that of Zimbabwe at 22.1, never mind poor old North Korea with a mighty score of 1.0.

The figures show that there is a positive correlation between economic freedom and economic prosperity. They also show that higher government expenditure is correlated with lower economic growth.

This would seem to indicate that an independent Scotland would be strongly advised to emulate country number 1. After all, it was created by a Scot.

Clerical errors

Socialists want the state to control every aspect of our lives. A totally socialist society would be one of poverty and misery. Except for the high heid yins of course. The income differential between the leaders and the workers of the Soviet Union was far higher than corresponding differences in the West. And I'd guess that the Soviet leadership didn't spend too much time getting their own personal paperwork in good comradely order. No, that's for the little folk.

See what's happened to George Galloway:

Miranda Media, set up by the former Glasgow Kelvin MP to receive earnings from his newspaper columns and television and radio work, faces being struck off the register at Companies House.

The annual return, a crucial document which lists the company’s shareholders, directors and offices, is three months overdue.

Mr Galloway’s office said the omission was an “unfortunate clerical error” and hoped Companies House would rescind its threat to close the company.

Such behaviour gets the little people into big trouble. I had to complete one of these Annual Returns within 28 days of the year-end. It went off via the web at midday on January first. In my case getting it wrong would not be seen as an “unfortunate clerical error” by Companies House. If one of our most prominent socialists can't even run a small business properly how on earth do they think that they can run a country?

Jim the Sixth and First

One day Jim Jefferies was sitting in his office at Tynecastle when he received a strange e-mail. The Chelsea manager had just departed and Jim was being offered the job. But here’s the strange bit: Jim would be allowed to continue as Hearts manager as well.

Naturally, Jim would be expected to live in London – after all, Chelsea was a far bigger club than Hearts. Some of his junior assistants would be left running the Edinburgh team. Jim would be Hearts manager in name only. But hey, there’d been six Hearts managers called Jim and none at Chelsea.

Not all Chelsea fans were happy with the new Scots manager with all of his Scottish sidekicks and their funny accents. Indeed, a couple of years after Jim’s appointment a group of renegade fans tried to blow up Stamford Bridge, but fortunately they were apprehended in time by the groundsman. To this day, Chelsea fans celebrate this narrow escape by burning effigies of the renegade leader.

Several decades later there was a most unfortunate incident involving Jim’s successor. A mob of Arsenal fans literally tore the Chelsea man apart during a riot in Whitehall. Chelsea were expelled from the Premier League and Arsenal ruled the roost for a decade. But the people of London missed the old days and Chelsea were allowed to return. A workable compromise has emerged between the two clubs and today there is a bizarre ceremony every November in which the Chelsea manager is driven in his Bentley to the Emirates Stadium where he performs the ceremony of the “State Opening of the Season”.

Back in Edinburgh, not everyone was happy. Hearts fans had never fully accepted having an “absentee manager”. One day the club decided to take part in the Central American Cup that was to be held in Panama City. This turned out to be a disaster. Many Hearts players and fans succumbed to tropical diseases and some were beaten up by Spanish supporters. Hearts were financially ruined.

What would the Edinburgh club do? One day the Italian born wife of the French coach was seen in Gorgie Road. Were Hearts planning to join the French league? That would never be allowed by the English, would it?

The Chelsea board came up with a cunning plan. An offer that Hearts couldn’t refuse… The deal was that there’d be a merger: the creation of Hearts of Chelsea! Under this plan football would no longer be played in Edinburgh. The new, combined team would surely be a world-beater. Based in London, of course.

Despite the “merger”, fans at Stamford Bridge still called the team “Chelsea”. The full name was only to be seen on the notepaper. Many Hearts fans thought that they’d been conned. Back in Edinburgh, Tynecastle became some sort of law office, although tourists still came to stare at it and hear about its former role as a stadium.

Many years later some troublesome folk in Edinburgh began to demand the reintroduction of football in the city. Traditionalists wondered what that might lead to. Eventually, a son of Edinburgh took control of the Premier League down in London. Egged on by his Finance Director – you know, the one who was bad with numbers – the Premiership boss reluctantly agreed to allow the reintroduction of football in the Scottish “capital”. He assured people that this wouldn’t be a threat to real football. No, it would be more like a parish game.

Eventually, New Tynecastle was built by a controversial Catalan architect. On the site of a brewery. The roof of the main stand leaked initially but at least the traditional pies were available inside the unusually designed new stadium.

The first few managers of New Hearts were somewhat grey figures but the team was loyally supported by the locals. After eight years another, more colourful manager was appointed. Some cruel folk suggested that he might well have consumed some of those stadium pies himself. His assistant was said to come from the Ibrox area.

Under the club’s Articles of Association a managerial interview must be held every four years. The next interview will be in May and many fans are worried that the current incumbent may be replaced by another grey manager.

Or should I say “Gray”?

To be continued…

My first piece on Newsnet Scotland

Many years ago I read a letter in the Scotsman that went something like this:

“I’d love there to be a United Kingdom. The only trouble is that the English would never stand for it.”

That is also my position.

My own background is not untypical in today’s UK. I was born in Annan, my mother’s hometown. My father came from Millom but grew up near Penrith. I lived in Scotland until I was six, then spent three years in Leeds, back to Scotland again for another nine years and moved to London when I was 18. After not that short of 40 years down South I came up to live in Edinburgh.

My Scottish born sister has lived in England and is now in Wales. My English born sister lives in England but has also lived in Scotland and Wales. Unlike anyone else I’ve met, I’ve been to every county in the UK. I think that generally speaking Britain has been a good thing. English liberalism and the Scottish Enlightenment helped create the United States – another “good thing”, though one that would be a much better thing had it kept to its Constitution.

Politically I am a libertarian. That’s to say I believe that it’s wrong to initiate force or fraud – even if a majority votes in favour of such wrongs. Consequently, the only legitimate function of government is to protect us from those who do initiate force or fraud. That rules out government funding of schools, hospitals or welfare. Ah, a “hard right” conservative, I hear some of you saying. Not so. I favour complete freedom of speech and the abolition of all drug laws. I’m a libertarian, not a Tory. So why does this somewhat anglicised libertarian support Scottish independence?

It’s not because I think that an independent Scotland would automatically be better off. No, that would depend on the policies adopted and we’d need to get rid of a hell of a lot of socialist thinking if we were to prosper. That’s true of every country, of course. But for me, the case for independence is all about identity.

Quite frankly, I’ve had enough of the rest of the world using the word “England” to mean Britain, or the UK to be precise. Surely that’s not important, some will say. But these things do matter. I’m sure that our English friends would be rather miffed were the rest of the world to use the word “Scotland” to mean Britain. A nation and a people without identity will lack self-confidence.

The “E” word is ubiquitous. On American web broadcasts, at Italian airports, in French newspapers, from German work colleagues – they all think that we are English. And I’m fed up with it!

Until ten years ago or so all of this was something I did put up with, albeit through clenched teeth. But devolution has changed everything. We all know that things like the Barnet Formula and separate Scottish legal and educational systems long predate the re-establishment of the Scottish parliament. But, generally speaking, our southern friends hardly ever thought about Scotland and had very little knowledge of the differences between the two countries. Once Holyrood was set up, suddenly Scotland was on the English radar. We’ve had ten years of moaning about the Scottish Raj, the West Lothian Question and, above all, the “subsidy”. Of course, in a UK parliament it shouldn’t matter where the leading politicians come from. And the first opinion poll that I saw on the WLQ showed more Scots than English people in favour of removing the right of Scottish MPs from voting on England-only laws!

But what about the “subsidy”?

I don’t need to tell readers of Newsnet that the financial balance between Scotland and England is not what you’d read in the Daily Mail. I believe that the GERS figures show us to be in surplus. Few English folk have heard of this, and for that I blame the media down south. Ah, say some, Scotland should bear the cost of bailing out HBOS and RBS - then you’d have a hell of a deficit. No, Scotland shouldn’t be so-charged. And neither should England! Remember, I’m a libertarian and so I don’t think that governments should bail out any private companies. Caveat lender.

So, I’m fed up hearing that Scotland is a subsidy junkie - although it’s true that all governments are. I’m fed up hearing that waters off our shores really belong to someone else’s government – although I do believe that the oil should belong to those who discovered it. And what about the claim that there’d have been no soldiers here to help move the snow were Scotland to have been independent last week! You see, the English don’t really see us as being in a United Kingdom, but in a greater England.

The truth is that Scotland is a pretty good patch of this earth. It’s reasonably well endowed with resources and has a history of innovation and entrepreneurship. But something’s not quite right, is it? Yes, we need policies of social and economic liberty. But I don’t think that we’ll vote for those without there being a much stronger feeling of national and individual self confidence. I can’t see how that’s going to happen without independence.

Merry Christmas

P1020762 - 2010-12-20 at 13-01-01
Originally uploaded by David Farrer

P1020774 - 2010-12-23 at 15-24-05
Originally uploaded by David Farrer

P1020767 - 2010-12-20 at 13-02-32
Originally uploaded by David Farrer

"Completely seized up"

Those are the words of Tim Jeans of Monarch Airlines:

Tim Jeans, the managing director of Monarch Airlines, called for a reassessment of Britain’s transport capabilities. “We have not coped well. The infrastructure — not just at the airports but the road infrastructure — completely seized up.”

Way back in 2002 I gave one explanation for the UK's inability to sort out transport:

The dominance of London is a major cause of so many of the UK's problems. John McTernan is quite right to point out how condescending are the "metropolitan" media elite when they deign to report on or, horrors, actually have to visit the "provinces." But McTernan is wrong to suggest more public investment in London. It has too much already. In the UK, the central government collects and allocates 87% of all "public" spending. In the US, it's a mere 18%. Our EU neighbours typically collect around 50% at the centre. London's dominance is not the result of market forces. Britain's unique degree of government centralisation at one end of a long, narrow country harms all of us. The proper libertarian solution is to cut out at least 90% of government activities. If we won't do that, let's move the capital to Glasgow.

So yes, we should cut back the overcrowding in the Southeast by eliminating vast amounts of government activity. Of course, the powers that be are never going to do any such thing. Neither would they countenance moving the capital to, say, Manchester, never mind Glasgow. The chaos will continue.

Hammond Must Go!

Quite a few of our friends down south seem to think that the waters off the coast of Scotland would somehow remain under London control in the event of Scottish independence. These waters are deemed to be part of England.

Very well then. I have unilaterally decided that the M8 motorway is also part of England. Consequently, Stewart Stevenson should be reprieved.

Given that the M8 is in England, Hammond must go!

Stewart Stevenson

I was sorry to read about the resignation of Stewart Stevenson.

Mr Stevenson, who was pilloried in the Scottish media following the havoc that early snowfalls brought to Scotland's transport network, tendered his resignation to First Minister Alex Salmond.

He wrote: "Although we put in place significant efforts to tackle the event, I feel that I could have done much more to ensure that members of the public who were caught up in a difficult and frightening set of circumstances were better informed of the situation.

"I deeply regret that and for that reason I feel I should step down."

Mr Stevenson has fallen on his sword. Not too many do that.

But why am I writing this?

In July 2005 I was victim of a fake e-mail that was sent to all MSPs and I felt it necessary to e-mail each and every one of them explaining what had happened. Mr Stevenson was one of those who kindly responded. I sent him an e-mail this afternoon wishing him all the best. He replied thanking me eleven minutes later. He'll be back.

The Scottish taxpayer and the English whine

A few weeks ago I tried to answer a claim made by William Gruff over on Nourishing Obscurity.

Mr Gruff had written:

The last time I looked at the figures there were just one hundred and sixty thousand or so net tax payers in Scotland, out of a population of five million

My reply went like this:

"There were 580,500 working in the public sector in the first quarter of 2007 – down 4,900 or 0.8% – compared to the same period last year.… It compares with almost two million workers who were employed in the private sector in Scotland in the first quarter of 2007."

Thanks to the Universality of Cheese I have been directed to this fascinating site from HMR&C.

It shows total taxpayers by regions and nations within the UK.

Scotland has 226,000 taxpayers in the last full fiscal year, not 160,000. Did you spot the deliberate mistake? That's 226,000 higher rate taxpayers in Scotland. The total number of all Scottish taxpayers is 2,590,000, which fits in with my earlier analysis.

I quoted higher rate taxpayer numbers to try and deal with the question of just who is a net taxpayer. Let's look at England. Total higher rate taxpayers down south are 2,660,000 out of 25,200,000 total taxpayers. So the Scottish and English numbers are pretty similar on a per capita basis. In other words, if only 160,000 Scots are net taxpayers it looks like the number for England would be about the same on a per-capita basis. Incidentally, note that the number of higher rate taxpayers in Scotland has risen by 35% since 1999/2000, while the equivalent rise in England was just 19%. And in the current tax year it is expected that numbers of higher rate taxpayers in Scotland will rise, but fall in England.

My case has never been that Scotland is some sort of economic superpower but that it is a boringly average part of the UK and indeed a boringly average part of Europe. It can survive perfectly well as an independent country.

The relentless anti-Scottish bile in the English media and blogosphere will probably lead to a split. As someone having both a Scottish and an English background I find that a bit sad. But enough is enough. I believe that independence is now inevitable. Bring it on. I'm staying.

Are gold and silver going up?

There is a superb article in Money Week today.

Here's the killer quote:

Did you know that if you had sold your average British house in late 2004 and bought silver – just regular bars of silver – you could now sell that silver and buy 5.5 average British houses?

The point about this article isn't merely to wonder whether house prices are going up or down but to break the habit of seeing prices solely in terms of fiat money.

Whenever someone tells me that "gold is going up", I reply: "No, money is going down."

Strange smoke at the Castle (or just west of it)

DSC_3031%20-%202010-12-08%20at%2009-45-26
Originally uploaded by David Farrer

View from the office - Tuesday morning

View from the office
Originally uploaded by David Farrer

View from the office
Originally uploaded by David Farrer

View from the office - Monday morning

View from the office
Originally uploaded by David Farrer

View from the office
Originally uploaded by David Farrer