Why do people want independence?

I've met John Kay a couple of times and he's a good bloke with sound economic views. His latest article has caused a bit of a row:

Scotland would "gain little" by full independence, a key economic adviser to First Minister Alex Salmond has warned.

Professor John Kay said that while the move would "clearly be economically viable", increased financial power within the Union was more likely.

Given that Scotland's GDP per capita is close to both the UK and EU averages I've always accepted that an independent Scotland would be "economically viable", as does Professor Kay. He goes on to say:

"Scotland can get many of the advantages claimed for independence if it negotiates for more autonomy, while still staying part of the Union," said Prof Kay.

But that's only so if one is talking about economics. I have no doubt at all that most nationalists are motivated by questions of identity, not finance. Of course it helps their case if the economics look good but what they are working towards is for Scotland to be a normal country.

It really is rather unusual for somewhere to have its own national legal system, its own national Church, its own national sporting teams and representation, and almost all of the other attributes of nationality and yet not be independent. That's what motivates the SNP, not whether an independent Scotland would be richer or poorer.

If I could go back in a time machine to 1707 and change future history so that the words "England" and "Scotland" were never heard of again anywhere in the world and that both had been replaced by the word "Britain", Alex Salmond would not be First Minister. Indeed, there wouldn't be a Parliament in Edinburgh. Unless we'd sensibly decentralised Britain and moved its Parliament to the more civilised part of the country...

Gresham's Law and the footballer

Bad money drives out good, says Gresham’s Law supposedly. Except that it doesn’t. Bad money only drives out good if the state imposes legal tender laws that stop the market from operating properly.

In a free market coins have a purchasing power that’s related to the quantity and fineness of their metallic content. When the state starts to “clip” coins, by reducing their size or by reducing the fineness of the metal, the natural market response is to value such coins less than unclipped ones. Market forces will lead to a coin that’s been clipped by 5% having 5% less purchasing power. The state then attempts to get round this by enforcing legal tender laws that try to enforce equal value on coins that don’t have the same physical attributes.

Naturally there is a market response to this legal tender law too. Once the existence of the clipped coins becomes known people start to pay close attention to their money. If a South African bus driver asks you for a rand for a ticket, you’re not going to hand over a Kruggerrand are you? No, you're going to hand over a "clipped" rand. The bad money circulates and the good money is hoarded and thus driven out of circulation. The market responds to the state's intervention.

In a free society the same principles would operate when it comes to freedom of speech.

I remember my first trip to the US. At a shop checkout desk there was a newspaper with a headline: “Elvis seen on Moon”. Great I thought: we’ll be getting some new records. The next day it was something like: “Alien spaceship lands in Central Park”. Damn, I’d missed it. But then I started wondering why none of the other papers were carrying these stories. By the third day it was: “Fed plans to stop inflation”. Then I knew it was all a con. The point is this: in a society that allows free speech, the right to be believed has to be earned in the marketplace. And that’s how it should be here and now.

As far as I can see there are only two justifications for restricting free speech.

First, when you agree to such a restriction in a contract. For example, you work for a pharmaceutical company and your contract of employment bans you from giving away trade secrets. If you break that agreement and are fired, you deserve what you got. Besides, that would be a civil matter with there being no question of the state threatening to lock you up.

Secondly, it is legitimate to ban speech that threatens to initiate violence.

Otherwise the right to free speech is absolute. Ultimately these ridiculous injunctions and super-injunctions are designed to protect reputations. But a reputation is what goes on in someone else’s head and it is ludicrous to legislate about people’s thoughts or about the verbal expression of those thoughts. No one else has a property right in your mouth.

Ah, I hear some of you saying: “That would mean that all kinds of scurrilous stories will fill the papers.” Yes it would – for the first week or two. But then we’d quickly learn not to believe everything we read in the press. Some of us are there already – I’m now dubious about reported sightings of Elvis. But once there is a “free for all” in communicating the market will sort it all out. Only those writers and broadcasters that get it right over a long period will be trusted. The rest will be laughed at. And that’s just how it should be.

The state’s legal tender laws were an attempt to steal from the public by forcing them to accept devalued coins. The public reacted by hoarding the sound coins.

The rich and powerful got the state to restrict freedom of speech. And now, with technology and globalisation on its side, the public reacts by demanding that our freedoms be restored.

We need to get rid of state interference in both the production of money and in the production of words. Let the people drive out the bad laws.

A Scottish Guide for English Journalists

The Maximum Eck has let me into a little secret. The Scottish Government is about to institute a contest for English journalists. The journalist with the most points gets to win the "They Just Don't Get It Award" for 2011.

Points are to be won every time the journalist uses an ever-so-worn-out cliche about Scotland.

First, every mention of the word "kilt" gets you one point. Come on now, everyone's got to get at least one point, haven't they? Happily you can lose the point if you are sufficiently well informed as to explain that kilts are only worn at weddings and at football matches (normal or rugby). Note that good planning may even enable North British kilt wearers to do a wedding and a game on the same day. This is not advisable for the groom...

Almost everyone will get two points by mentioning "Braveheart". Most southern journalists think that Gibson-Wallace was born in the Highlands. It certainly looked that way in the film. Fortunately you can lose all points accumulated so far by noting that Gibson-Wallace was probably born near Glasgow Airport. If you are really informed you may explain that one body of opinion claims that Gibson-Wallace was actually born near Prestwick Airport. Either way, he was Scotland's first plane spotter. It seems unlikely that Gibson-Wallace really did have an affair with Sophie Marceau, but then how does one explain the "Auld Alliance"?

A perennial favourite is Hadrian's Wall, as in "Let's rebuild it". Mention of this pre-Berlusconi Keynesian construction site earns the contestant three points.

But beware. As all right-thinking folk know, the Wall doesn't divide Scotland and England. Oh no, not at all. It started (as did yours truly) on the Solway Firth. But, sadly for the Wall, it started on the southern side. So unlike myself. Perhaps the pre-Berlusconians were too scared to start construction in Annan, although Toni's Cafe has been there for quite some time...

The really interesting thing is at the other end, conveniently known as "Wallsend". Just before Wallsend is the fine city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. But here's an amazing fact: It looks likely that while the centre of Newcastle would still be in England when the Wall is "rebuilt", St James's Park would find itself north of the border. The Old Firm would be increased from two to three! Howay the lads, whatever foot they kick with.

Anyway, why do these Wall revisionists want to give away 99% of Northumberland? Note the angle at which the Tyne enters the North Sea. Rebuilding the Wall means England losing a huge part of its offshore resources. George Osborne will send the Wall rebuilders homewards to think again. Assuming he knows where "up north" actually is, of course.

To earn the maximum of fours points, journalists entering the contest need to mention the dreaded Deep Fried Mars Bar:

I’ve found it; the mists of myth and legend have lifted and the deep-fried Mars bar has been tracked down. It’s served as petit fours at the Hotel du Vin in Edinburgh, as is Irn-Bru Turkish delight. I’ll type that again, in case you were distracted by the urgent necessity of extracting your teeth from the table-top: it’s served as petit fours at the Hotel du Vin in Edinburgh.

Well, the Hotel du Vin is the only place in Scotland I've been to that serves the DFMB. And the joke is that the waitress assured us locals that the evil concoction was only ever eaten by tourists. Perhaps the visiting journalist should get five points for consuming this masterpiece of Scottish cuisine. After all, it'll be on expenses.

They just don't get it, do they?

I first became interested in politics way back in the late '60s and I well remember hearing the shock news that the SNP's Winifred Ewing had taken the "safe" Labour seat of Hamilton. Around that time I started reading the Scotsman and got to know the country far better on my annual visits up from London. Back then it seemed preposterous to think that Scotland would one day become independent.

Not any more.

In the early seventies I discovered libertarianism and remain a libertarian to this day. And now I live again in Scotland but one that has changed completely from the Labour/Tory one that I left so many years ago.

After Ewing's victory at Hamilton I read a letter in (I think) the Evening Standard. It went something like this:

If Scotland became independent, the next thing is that Yorkshire would want to do so as well.

At that point I knew that "they didn't get it".

The thing's this: everyone in Scotland, whether they support independence or not, thinks that in some sense Scotland is a nation.

No one in Yorkshire thinks that in some sense Yorkshire is a nation.

Yes, Yorkshire's a very fine county - the only place I've lived in England other than London. Its inhabitants are rightly proud of their identity and like nothing better than beating those folk from the other side of the Pennines. But Yorkshire's not a nation and no-one there thinks that it is.

When the Treaty of Union was signed and then approved by the two Acts of Union in 1707 (and yes, there were two, obviously) the Scots insisted on three things:

(1) The retention of the Scottish legal system

(2) The retention of the Church of Scotland

(3) The retention of the Scottish education system

Those three "retentions" are what meant that for three centuries Scots continued to see themselves as citizens of a Scottish nation within a multi-national British state. And without those retentions the Scots would never had agreed to the merger of the two parliaments.

The problem is of course that our English friends never saw it that way. From the English point of view, when they thought about it at all, England seemed to have somehow acquired a strange, wet, mountainous additional bit of land somewhere up north. Although vaguely aware that these new "Englishmen" spoke with funny accents and were rather useful in the military, very few down South had any real idea that Scotland had retained its own different civil society as laid down in the Acts of Union. I well recall coming up here on different occasions with English friends who would exclaim: "I didn't realise that it was so different up here." And they weren't talking about the weather! Well, they ken noo...

But do they? I really don't think so. Last night I spent several hours reading the English comments on the Telegraph, the Guardian and on Political Betting. It really was extraordinary.

Would Scotland have its own embassies?

Would Scotland have its own military?

Would Scotland have its own Inland Revenue? (Hopefully not, but that's another story!)

Would Scotland have its own team at the Olympics?

Would Scotland have a head of state?

etc. etc. etc

Why is it all so mysterious? Those Scots who seek independence do so because they want their nation to be just like others. No mystery.

That incidentally, is the answer to those down south who say: "The SNP doesn't really want independence because they want to remain in the EU." Now I'm not a fan of the EU, but the point is that most Scots want to be like other normal nations. If that means out of the EU, so be it. If that means in the EU, so be it. It's the wanting to be a normal nation that's they key to what happened across Scotland on Thursday.

But Cameron, Clegg, Milliband, the BBC, and the rest of them don't get it, do they? That, in my opinion, is why independence is now inevitable.

Labour England!

I've just about recovered from the excitement of the last few days and here's an initial observation.

If we take the UK 2010 General Election results for English seats and compare them with the comparable first past the post vote in Scotland last Thursday we get an interesting result:

Labour percentage of English MPs at Westminster: 35.8%

Labour percentage of Scottish MSPs at Holyrood: 20.5%

Address to the Foundling Fathers

I mentioned the debut of the new blog Orphans of Liberty. A nice name by the way.

Here is their initial statement:

Who are we?

We are differing voices who come together under one banner – that of liberty. We are political and apolitical – some belong to parties, some do not. Some are self-professed libertarians, some are small “c” conservatives, some classical liberals – the names are varied.   However we all have one thing in common, a love of personal liberty; that casualty of the encroaching state as it seeks to micromanage our lives. In his first post for this blog, luikkerland states that writing is the the first act of rebellion. Here, then, is our defiance. Read, engage, enjoy.

Now this is all very fine but I do have one concern and that's the use of the word libertarian. Founder of the new site James Higham places himself in the Libertarian Quadrant.

Good.

But back in November I warned about the increasing use of the term "left libertarian", which I've seen quite a few times in the Orphanosphere recently.

This is what I wrote:

The point is that liberty is indivisible. The case for economic liberty is exactly the same as the case for personal liberty. The economic spectrum goes from authoritarianism to libertarianism just as does the civil liberties spectrum. The government that takes away your economic freedom is as much your enemy as one that takes away your personal freedom.

There is some evidence on my bookshelves that I became a libertarian way back in January 1972 and I don't think that I ever heard of "left libertarianism" for at least twenty years afterwards. But now it's out there in the marketplace of ideas, although its adherents might not like that term!

Here is what Wikipedia has to say:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy that upholds individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action.[1] Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs and organizations–all advocate either the minimization or the elimination of the state, and the goal of maximizing individual liberty and freedom.

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced, with minarchists advocating reduction to only state protection from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and anarchists advocating complete elimination of the state. Additionally,some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private individual ownership and often support communal ownership instead.[2][3][4] These are sometimes grouped as right-libertarians and left-libertarians respectively.

I've underlined the key quote.

I think this is highly misleading. Real libertarians believe, as stated above, in individual liberty, and only actual individuals can act. Furthermore, acting individuals who appropriate previously unowned resources are then free to decide what to do with their new property, including deciding whether that property continues to be owned by individuals, or communally through co-operatives and the like or indeed by profit-seeking companies, which are themselves a form of communal ownership.

The problem with the so-called "left libertarians" is that they only seem to accept the idea of communal ownership, and communal ownership of a particular sort. In other words they don't believe in individual liberty at all.

There is another point. Without private ownership of property there can be no long-lasting non-economic liberties either.

We real libertarians are perfectly comfortable with any pattern of ownership, so long as it is voluntary. Of course, those of us who are economically minded will point out that certain types of ownership are not conducive to material prosperity but those who chose to use their own property in that way are perfectly free to do so. But not with my property, comrades.

I'm sure that most Orphans would prefer to live in a prosperous society. That requires a defence of real libertarianism.

Orphans of Liberty

Welcome to Orphans of Liberty.

Respect

Here's some interesting news:

The Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) has achieved the highest score for charities for the second year running in research on reputation carried out by the Reputation Institute (RI).

Remind me again. What's different about the RNLI?

Oh yes:

The RNLI is independent of Coastguard and government and depends on voluntary donations and legacies to maintain its rescue service. Since the RNLI was founded in 1824 its lifeboat crews and lifeguards have saved over 139,000 lives.

Time to shrug?

I started a little company way back in January 1996. My wife and I are the sole shareholders and directors. The company was active for the first couple of years during which I was working freelance. It then became more or less dormant for four years when I was working full time elsewhere. Since returning to live in Scotland the company has sprung back to life.

Our company has never needed a bailout. It has never been overdrawn. Its annual return and accounts have always been filed with Companies House well before the deadlines. The P14 and P35 returns have always gone in on time. Those are the ones that cover tax and NI due and paid for the year. Admittedly the first time I did the P14s and P35s online took a wee bit longer than doing them on paper but the Revenue were offering a tax free bonus, so online was a no-brainer.

The corporation tax return is, or rather was, simplicity itself. Perhaps five minutes to fill it in, then photocopy it and take to the post office. Nae problem.

And so we come to this year.

The company's year-end was on Thursday 31st March. On the Saturday morning I reconciled the bank statement, which included the last client cheque for the financial year. That enabled me to work out my gross salary and employer's NI for the month. We've never bothered with dividends, what with all of the IR35 nonsense. I just want a quiet life and if that means paying a wee bit more tax, so be it.

Next, I prepared the profit and loss account and balance sheet for 2010/11. I also filed the P14s and P35 online. So, only five minutes to go for the corporation tax return which incidentally would show a £2 loss and consequently no tax actually due. I don't suppose that ukuncut would understand... One year I made a £2 profit and the Revenue wanted a cheque for 38p. I like to think that they framed a copy of that cheque on the office wall. The cheque did go through the bank. Fair enough, I'd have done the same.

But everything's changed this year. You aren't allowed to file the corporation tax return on paper any more. It must be filed online. But here's the catch: whereas the P14s and P35s are filed directly onto the Revenue's website, the corporation tax return has to be filed using iXBRL format. As you can see from the HMRC link, this requires a bit of thinking. Do I need to buy special software for the former five-minute job? Not necessarily:

HMRC provides a free product, 'Online Tax Return - CT'. This lets you file Company Tax Returns and supplementary pages A, E and J online with Accounts and Computations templates that ensures your return is submitted in the correct manner. HMRC have tested all the features of this service, and will provide support to users through the Online Services Helpdesk. This will be one of the available filing options once you have logged on to our Online Services.

"Tested"? Not quite. Although the Revenue assures me that their software works on an Apple, first one needs to download Adobe Reader. (Apple has its own equivalent). But the current version of the Reader only goes up to OSX 10.6.6 and the latest Apple operating system is 10.6.7. Do I risk a download? By the way, the Revenue's helpdesk was out of order during the busiest week of the tax year! It gets better. Before you download the HMRC software into your Adobe Reader you must first adopt the Revenue's Twelve Step Programme:

Changing settings in Adobe Reader

You’ll be able to enter data into the service but you won’t be able to view, print, add attachments, or submit the return until you have changed settings in your Adobe form. This change will ensure the Company Tax Return and accounts service operates securely.

There are twelve steps you need to take to change the settings in Adobe Reader to make the service secure.

I've used Adobe Reader on other machines before and didn't even know (or need to know) that it had "settings".

So I guess that I've spent around two hours researching the whole damned thing. I may try to use the Adobe Reader on my notebook but the company's accounts are on the Apple. And the accounts have to be filed online along with the tax return.

I used to wonder about those claims that ever increasing red tape was introduced at the request of large established companies so as to do down small potential competitors. To some extent yes, but not always surely. Now I'm not so sure. I see zero evidence that the coalition government likes or understands small business. They probably are trying to kill us off. Time to shrug?

(UPDATE: I spoke about this to a partner in a firm of Chartered Accountants on Monday evening. It's not just me. The whole iXBRL change is chaotic.)

Bill Jamieson is wrong

In today's Scotland on Sunday Bill Jamieson writes about the Eurozone bailouts.

Correctly, Bill starts by apportioning some of the blame to those countries already on the bailout list:

In this analysis, we cannot absolve the governments of these countries for a large measure of responsibility for the desperate state their economies are in. Greece fiddled the figures it supplied to the Eurozone authorities to qualify for entry. Its statistics now have to be independently verified.

The Irish government turned a blind eye to the galloping personal and corporate debt explosion that occurred under its watch. Portugal has failed to modernise its industries and undertake restructuring to stop its economy becoming ever more uncompetitive.

Unfortunately, Mr Jamieson goes on to say this:

It is now painfully obvious that a "one size fits all" interest rate regime was a fatefully simplistic project - poorly thought through, blind to potential problems and wilfully insouciant to warnings that across such dissimilar economies, problems and tensions were bound to arise. Whoever thought that Germany's strict anti-inflation culture would allow for the different economic composition and dynamics of countries as unlike Germany as Portugal and Spain?

I disagree completely. Needless to say I'm not supporting the existence of a fiat currency like the Euro. But I am opposing the easy call for countries like Greece, Portugal and Ireland to be able to seek salvation through devaluation of their own restored currencies.

Let's not beat about the bush. Devaluation means that you granny's life savings are to be stolen so as to bail out the imprudent. That's also the shameful policy of the current "Conservative"/"Liberal" government here in the UK. And that's what Bill Jamieson's policies would mean for Greece, Portugal and Ireland.

The key point is that devaluation is an invariable consequence of a fiat monetary system. That's exactly why the political class opposes sound money. They want to steal your money. The proper libertarian solution is to get government out of the money business altogether. Governments should not create money, they should not have central banks and they should not guarantee deposits.

Throughout history free people have invariably chosen a form of money that's based on something that's already been valued in the market place for other uses. Given choice, it is highly likely that people would pick precious metals like gold and silver as money. That in turn would mean that the same homogenous money was in use throughout the free world. It follows then that worldwide interest rates would converge according to the global supply of and demand for savings. That supply and demand for savings would be driven by the way in which people throughout the world valued future goods over present goods.

In such a world there would be no continuous theft of your granny's life savings by the political class. Governments would have to live within their means, however shocking a concept that may be. The Greeks, Portuguese and Irish governments should live within their means. So, of course, should ours.

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…