A stark and humiliating contrast – Alex Salmond and Johann Lamont on the Sunday Politics

Can anyone imagine Lamont, Rennie or Davidson - or Cameron, Clegg or Miliband - arguing economically and fiscally with such competence?

Alex Salmond's clear answers on a range of questions won't stop unionists asking same questions again and again.

Scotland has the right man at the right time in its history - it has chosen him twice, and will choose independence in the referendum.

Sadly, we don’t have to imagine Johann Lamont on the economy and fiscal matters – here she is. Over-promoted, economically and fiscally inadequate, and way out of her depth. Scottish Labour should not have put a decent, hard-working politician in this unenviable position. I like her, I believe she cares - but she should not have put herself forward for this job. And, since she does care about Scotland and Scots, she's in the wrong party ...

The butterfly emerges, flaps its wings and triggers – what?

Autumn 2014 starts on the 23rd of September, so  the earliest date for the referendum is 23rd September 2014, and the latest date before the winter solstice is 20th December 2014. Seasons calculator (Don’t ask me about the shortfall of two days 2012-2014 – ask an astronomer.) So we have between  32 months and 35 months to go until the most important decision facing Scots since 1707 arrives.

It will also be the most important event facing the United Kingdom, a highly significant event for the Republic of Ireland, an event of vital interest for the European Union, and an event major interest for the rest of the world. It may spell the end of Britain as a nuclear power, and therefore the end of the US/Britain links on the so-called ‘independent’ nuclear deterrent, it will have a fundamental and incalculable effect on NATO, and on the perception of the rest of the world of ‘Britain’, in the sense that it still exists, as a world power.

Is this responsibility one that is too great to bear for a little nation at the north end of Europe with a population of just over 5 million?

Chaos theory often uses the metaphor of the flapping of a butterfly’s wings, Lorenz having postulated that this tiny event could lead to a hurricane.

Already there are those in the UK - and on the right-wing of American politics - who are asking if this emergent butterfly should even be allowed out of the chrysalis, much less flap its wings.

A coalition of the British right-wing - that is the Labour Party allied to the Tory/LibDem Government - has formed to frustrate the efforts of Scotland to achieve self-determination as a nation.

But because of a highly inconvenient commitment to at least the semblance of democratic politics, in nations that have long since neutered the voice of the people in a conspiracy of wealth, privilege and power, this is proving hard to do.

And the global financial crisis, allied to the manifest failure and incompetence of the UK government, and the increasing tendency of the US government to retreat from international entanglements and put its own shaky house in order, not to mention the great upheaval of the Arab Spring haven’t helped. Confusion reigns in the corridors of power.

And so there is to be a great public debate. But behind the scenes, the profoundly undemocratic forces of patronage, threat and bribe, the military industrial complex and structurally undemocratic organisations and ad hoc groupings formed for this purpose alone, will exert an insidious influence on that debate.

What will counterbalance this? The crisis of capitalism has now arrived with a vengeance, and the brutal impact of the attempts of the rich to solve it by attacking the poor and vulnerable are just beginning to be felt, with the full horror yet to unfold. The UK Party that should have been poised to be the defenders of the ordinary people, the Labour Party, has for half a century or more instead been a fundamental part of the power structure, and is impotent because it has fundamentally and fatally compromised its core values.

England is left bereft of a political voice, and has only the trades unions, themselves compromised by their links to Labour, as their last best hope. There are some welcome signs that the trades unions recognise this, and are beginning the painful process of extricating themselves from the Labour Party’s dead grasp.

Scotland, in contrast, has a political voice, has a political party, and a vibrant new spirit is emerging, a new awareness, and a new resolve to embrace the spirit of the age - the zeitgeist -and make a new nation.

This butterfly will flap its wings, will fly freely, and its flight will not trigger a destructive hurricane, but a great, cleansing wind of positive change.

Saor Alba

Lamentable Labour and lamentable Lamont – and a master class from Alex Salmond in the economics of independence

This lamentable performance from Johann Lamont, with its laboured scripted one-liners and prepared insults, demonstrates why Labour is unfit to govern Scotland, and indeed has been for a very long time. She has learned nothing from the disastrous mistakes of her predecessor, Iain Gray, and seems locked in the same style and script.

The contrast with the First Minister's responses is painful. Alex Salmond delivers a master class in the economics of dependence on the UK versus the freedom from constraints that would come with independence, which would deliver the economic tools to liberate Scots from the economic stagnation and now near-collapse that Labour and now the Coalition have wreaked upon the UK.

The inherent contradictions built in to the dependency relationship between Scottish Labour, UK Labour and the Tory-led Coalition are evident every time Johann Lamont opens her mouth.

The Scottish people have recognised this in the May 2011 election, Scottish trades union members clearly must have recognised it also. UK trades union leaders are facing up to it, with some of the most damning indictments ever delivered by trade union barons against a Labour Party Leader and Labour Opposition, the voters of England recognise it.

But as yet, Scottish trades union leader cannot find the courage to speak up for their members, for severing the political link with Labour, for ending the political levy, and most of all, for throwing their weight behind the independence of their country.

Scotland’s independence referendum–the law and the Supreme Court

An extract from what I had to say on the law and Scotland on 13th October UK Supreme Court - constitutional and independence implications

This also contains links to a number of earlier blogs on Scottish Law and the Supreme Court – see URL links.

EXTRACT

Thursday, 13 October 2011

In the light of the recent UK Supreme Court judgment (I spell it judgment against my instincts towards judgement because I believe this is legal practice) and certain remarks about what the Scottish Parliament can and cannot do - which some have interpreted as a shot across the SNP Government’s bows in relation to the referendum - a number of correspondents have asked me if I plan to comment. Firstly, this is properly Peat Worrier’s blog territory, and secondly, I have said pretty much what I wanted to say about the UK Supreme Court in the following blogs -

The UK Supreme Court and the Scottish legal system

The UK Supreme Court–FMQs 16th June 2011 – Holyrood

The UK Supreme Court, the judges–and the Union’s future

The UK Supreme Court–the debate polarises and takes on new dimensions

DAVID CAMERON’S STATEMENT, COMMONS DEBATE 10th Jan. AND SUBSEQUENT FALLOUT

I am not a lawyer. Fortunately, nationalists have a lawyer who blogs – Lallands Peat Worrier, who recently outed himself on television, revealing a long-haired young man – Andrew Tickell who was not at all like the image built up by many readers of his superb blog, who may have fondly imagined him, as I did, as a crusty old Edinburgh lawyer in a old leather armchair, with whisky in hand.

Anyone who wants an informed and authoritative account of the law as it relates to Scottish and UK affairs, independence and referendums should go to his blog Lallands Peat Worrier

My perspective of the law as it affect Scotland’s independence is that of an informed voter, with a special knowledge of negotiation and the dynamics of reaching agreement in situations of conflict, especially ones that are defined by formal and perhaps legally binding agreements and contracts. In other words, my expertise lies in defining how a party to a dispute should regard the law and how that party or parties may - or may not - use the law to resolve disputes, i.e. a client perspective.

FUNDAMENTALS AS I SEE THEM

The law as it applies to political and constitutional matters is a very different beast to the criminal law and civil law, especially when that law reaches beyond the nation state, e.g. European Law, international law and human rights legislation.

The issue between Scotland and the UK involves Scottish Law, UK Law, especially as it relates to devolution, European Law and potentially international law.

Two ancient legal systems exist side by side, and have done for over 300 years in the United Kingdom. The Union made one aspect of that law supreme across the UK through the UK Parliament, Westminster. Scotland has its Parliament and its devolved administration by courtesy of that law, The Scotland Act, and the extent of the Scottish Parliament’s powers are determined by that Act, and can be altered or revoked by the UK Parliament.

The UK and Scotland are also bound by European law and by the European Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.

Until the establishment of the UK Supreme Court, appeals on certain matters of law went to Strasbourg. The UK Supreme Court was set up to provide a UK Court of Appeal on Human Rights matters, but also to rule on constitutional matters.

It was no coincidence that the UK Supreme Court was set up with such powers at the same time as the Westminster Government became aware that the independence of Scotland had become a very real possibility, with huge constitutional implications.

Scotland’s wish to be independent means that it wishes to be independent of all UK law, and therefore of the UK Supreme Court. But that system of law, and specifically that court – the UK Supreme Court - can restrict or frustrate Scotland’s attempts to be secure its independence – or at least, it can attempt to do so.

It can be argued that it was set up at this time to permit it to do exactly that, and no amount of high rhetoric about the rule of law can obscure that stark possibility. All the indicators in the dispute that has built up since the UK Prime Minister’s ill-judged intervention into Scottish affairs tend to support that conclusion.

That is not to say that the UK Supreme Court would accept this attempt to politicise its role – one can hope that they wouldn’t - but remember the the UK decided to go into an illegal war in Iraq on very dubious grounds, based on legal advice at the highest level, advice that was changed at the last moment.

The message is – We, the UK Government, will use the legal system that Scotland’s independence seeks to be free of to control and limit its right to consult the Scottish people. Unless Scotland accepts the UK Parliament’s conditions for the referendum and its right to control and monitor it with its own designated bodies, the UK Supreme Court will be used to challenge, delay and block the referendum, and declare it illegal.

In other words, the interest group that wants to keep Scotland in the Union, and bound by this framework of law, will attempt to use that law to stop Scotland from determining whether the voters of Scotland wish to remain a part of that legal system.

Of course, all of this mumbo-jumbo is cloaked in language that suggest that the UK has Scotland’s best interests at heart, and that they wish to facilitate the referendum. No one who watched and listened to all of yesterday’s one-and-a-quarter hour debate in the Commons could seriously entertain such a proposition.

This is a stark, high-stakes political game, with the law being used as a tool in that game to maintain the dominant power structure.

The UK Government -

- did not want a Nationalist Government – the devolved settlement and the electoral system were specifically designed to prevent nationalists from ever gaining power

- did not want a referendum at all, and frustrated attempts by the minority Scottish Government to call one in the last term of SNP Government

- now, faced with the inevitability of a referendum being called, the UK Government wants it to be held at a time and in a manner that will ensure that independence is rejected, and are willing to use the law and specifically the new UK Supreme Court to block or delay the referendum if their conditions are not met.

The Scottish Government, in contrast, wants to hold the referendum on their timescale, identified broadly in the election campaign as the second half of the Parliamentary term, and now specifically confirmed as Autumn 2014, with the Scottish Government determining the timing, eligibility to vote, the questions and the question formulation. They also want to win.

This is not a legal dispute – it is naked power politics, with a willingness to use the law to further the political objectives of each party to the dispute.

But the SNP Government can claim the moral high ground, because their wish is to determine the will of the Scottish electorate democratically, and to accept their verdict.

The last thing the UK Government want is to allow the Scottish people their voice, because the Scottish people have decisively rejected the two parties that now constitute the UK Government.

The last thing the Labour Party wants is for the voice of the Scottish people to be heard, because the Scottish people decisively rejected them on May 5th 2011, as the people of the UK decisively rejected them in May 2010.

The UK Labour Party will have a dismal future when Scotland becomes independent. All Scottish Labour politicians (MPS) in Westminster (and all Scottish Tory and LibDems MPs) would become redundant overnight, Scottish Lords would be in a very strange place indeed, and only Scottish Labour politicians in Holyrood, i.e. MSPs, would have a political future, and perhaps a bright one, in the new Scotland.

Some are beginning to recognise this.

COMMERCIAL AND CIVIL ANALOGIES

Consider what happens if a breakdown occurs in a a civil contract of long duration. Firstly, let it be clearly stated that it does not take both parties to end the relationship – it only requires that one is determined to end that relationship. The only question then is the manner in which the relationship is ended. It can be done amicably and legally by agreement and by observing the previously agreed terms of the relationship, or one party can simply walk away unilaterally, leaving the other party to determine how they will react.

The other party cannot stop the relationship ending – they can only attempt to penalise the party walking away, by either invoking legal penalties provided for in the original contract, or attempting to secure damages by law.

Ideally, parties negotiate the terms of the breakup without invoking the law, or perhaps use the law to assist in the negotiations and the drafting of the agreed settlement.

The decision on whether or not to use the law in such dispute is made by the parties to the dispute, unlike under the criminal law, where if a breach occurs, the prosecuting authorities may decide to invoke the law whether or not the parties agree.

(If I murder another person, the decision to invoke the law and to prosecute does not lie with the dependants of the deceased. If I rob a bank, the bank can’t decide to let me off – a crime has been committed and the law will act regardless of the will of the parties.)

The way in which disputes over the independence of nations are resolved follow loosely the same principles – independence can be achieved by negotiation, with reference to the law, it can be achieved by force, ignoring the law – i.e by revolution - or it can be achieved by UDI – a unilateral declaration of independence. If this is not challenged, it is called a velvet revolution, e.g Slovenia.

There is are abundant historical examples of countries achieving their independence, some very recent, many from the British Empire, and there are current examples that are works in progress, e.g. the Arab Spring.

Of one thing you can be sure – the law will not be the key determinant in Scotland’s future – it will be the will of the people, and, I hope, the good sense of the politicians, with minimal reference to the law.

Read my previous blogs (see links above) for more information. If the law itself interests you, read the estimable Lallands Peat Worrier.

Saor Alba!

Alex Salmond on the World at One–BBC radio 29th December 2011

The EU and Scotland–Michael Moore fumbles and bumbles through Cameron’s EU veto shambles

Cameron’s EU fiasco–a failure of negotiation and an act of political cowardice

The referendum, the Law–and Gordian knots …

I have run the risk of late of wandering into legal territory that is beyond my expertise and competence, and defeats my aim of offering clarity to ordinary voters rather than political anoraks. I felt it was a risk worth running. But let me say this again -

The law is a process which now and again delivers justice and equity, but often doesn't. We can expect the kind of war of legal experts that has erupted recently to intensify until the debate proper starts.

The thrust towards independence by any nation is not driven by law, nor is it determined by law – it is determined by the will of the people, however it manifests itself. The law is a necessary adjunct to the negotiations after independence becomes an inevitability.

I fervently hope that we can determine the will of the Scottish people by a referendum properly conducted by the Scottish Parliament at a time that is right.

When the chips are down – and they may well be – no one needs a legal licence to determine the will of the people.

There is at, the very least, a critical mass of people in Scotland – call it a significant majority if you want –who passionately want - and will demand - their independence. Every indicator shows that. They will not accept their aspirations being buried in legal jargon and posturing.

The United Kingdom is a deeply socially and economically divided nation, with gross inequalities and injustices, and the legal system has often failed – some might say endemically failed – to remedy that, because in far too many areas, the law is the tool of a rich and powerful Establishment.

Claiming to know the mind of silent majorities and challenging the validity of democratic mandates is the instant resort of dictatorships, whether cloaked by the trappings of democracy or not, when they get a democratic result they don’t like. This has been done repeatedly in respect of the clear and unequivocal mandate delivered by the Scottish people to its present government.

Silent majorities – and that includes non-voters – are usually silent because they have nothing to say. The fate of nations is determined by those who are active as voters and individuals in the political process. By definition, the majority of them are not political sophisticates – but they have a vote, a voice, and they will be heard, come what may.

But the present crisis of capitalism, for that is what it is, represent a great wind of change blowing across the UK, Europe and our planet.

The political Left are in disarray worldwide and have nothing to offer in this great crisis, one that they forecast for a century or more but are now totally ill-equipped politically to handle.

There are great threats to democracy within the crisis, and both vested Establishment and financial interests and vicious neo-fascist interests that have both the will and the means to exploit it.

No amount of learned legal analysis will deliver either independence or the maintenance of the Union, because the people will either speak and act or they won’t, and the legal analysis will be meaningless to most of them. The ballot box has already sent a clear signal of their will, and the referendum will send another.

The UK Government is running grave risks in the negative and aggressive threatening way, with thinly-concealed threats to destabilise the Scottish economy, in which they are politicising the independence debate, in exactly the same way as the previous Canadian Government.

Scotland will not accept this.

The Scottish Government has relied to date on the process of rational debate and conventional politics, with spectacular success, to keep the independence debate on a rational footing. I hope we manage to keep it that way. The alternative are best not contemplated …

Independence and the voters - where are we at?

I try to maintain a perspective that reflects that of an ordinary voter. This is almost certainly a vain attempt, since ordinary voters are not SNP party members, or indeed members of any political party, nor do they expend a considerable amount of effort on writing about politics, and although I am no sense a political or legal expert, I have acquired an awareness of the main political issues that is greater than that of most voters, but falls well short of political sophistication.

So what about the voters – how do I see them? A politician or a psephologist will see them  through a web – or a prism – of demographic tables, social groupings and with the benefit of research, questionnaires, focus group, etc. and I can only offer a perception. Here it is …

A core group comprises party activists, not necessarily party members – voters who have a very tangible allegiance, understand the issues, the options and the policy differences and who make a fundamental contribution to our democracy in a range of ways. This group entertains few doubts as to how they will vote in any key political event, be it election or referendum, unless of course a major policy rift opens in their party, or a crisis of confidence creates the possibility of a change of allegiance, e.g. disaffected LibDems. (I myself was such a disaffected Labour voter, and jumped the dyke in 2007.)

There is also a highly aware sector of the electorate who know what they are talking about in certain areas, including some who are clearly professional in their fields, and can claim authority for their views, and some who are not and cannot, but are nonetheless well-informed. In almost any day’s letters in the Scottish press I can find correspondents who seem to be ordinary voters, but who are better informed than I am on aspects of the political debate, whether it be legal, constitutional, scientific or economic.

Among my range of friends, relatives and contacts, there is a clear majority who give little attention to politics or world affairs on a day to day basis, unless or until a major event impinges on their consciousness, or, significantly, when a major political decision point is imminent, such as a local election, a Scottish Parliamentary election or a general election – or a referendum! Then they focus, and try to make up lost ground and evaluate the arguments. I cannot claim that my range of contacts in any way constitutes a representative sample, but I suspect this may constitute the majority group of voters.

Within this group there are those who are essentially apolitical, holding no party allegiance, and who would not place themselves anywhere on the left/right spectrum. Nonetheless, they do occupy a position on that spectrum – and a few key questions rapidly establish it – but they simply do not label themselves as such, and conceive of themselves as pragmatists. Members of this group are sometimes described as floating voters – they must by definition exist, or governments would never change and MSPs and MPs would never lose their seat nor new candidates be elected.

I have to reluctantly face the undeniable fact that there are also political primitives out there who know little, are not well-informed, but nonetheless hold strong opinions. This group, always an uncomfortable one for a democrat to contemplate – and the malleable raw material of the demagogue and the anti-democrat – nonetheless have a vote, and most of them probably exercise their right to vote. They may also have long-term, fixed party allegiances. This is the group that terrifies the Labour and Tory Parties among whose support they are concentrated, lest they defect – and they have, notably in May 2011. As a democrat, I must respect this group’s right to exist and to vote, and fight down my elitist instincts to patronise or even despise them, if for no other reason than the fact that most of the people I grew up with and loved were part of this group, and in a sense so was I.

And of course there are those who have opted out of the political process – or say they have – the “Politicians are all the same, out for themselves – I wouldn’t vote for any of them …” brigade, a group for which I have mainly contempt, leavened with a little pity – but not much. My fear about this group is that when the chips are down, in a big political decision point, such as a referendum, they do actually vote, and for the most reactionary option they can find.

What messages are coming across to all of these groups on independence?

You’ll have to wait for my answers to that, if indeed I have any – I’m still sorting my thoughts out on it …

The Ladybird Book of devo max – suitable for unionists under 304 years old

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin …

Once upon a time, there was an independent – that means free, children – nation called Scotland. It ran all its own affairs, worked hard and spent its own money. Then another nation bullied them into giving away all their money and the results of all their hard work, but promised to give some of it back if they didn’t cause any trouble and did what they were told.

The big bully nation went on to bully lots of other nations to do the same thing, but over a long time, most of them got fed up, told the big nation to get lost, and went back to spending their own money. They became independent – that means free – again.

But Scotland still gave away all of its money and all of its talent and hard work, and the big nation got richer, especially in the big city called London – that’s where Dick Whittington and Ken Livingstone used to live, and where Boris Johnson now lives – while Scots got poorer and died younger.

Scotland was ruled by a party called Labour, who liked the big nation, because they could go there and get rich by working in a palace called Westminster. If they were lucky, they became Lords and never had to do any real work again.

But some Scots didn’t like their money and their talent and their oil being stolen, so they started a party of their own to try and get their money back. And they wanted to be independent – that means free – again, and not have to bully other nations to give away their money and their freedom.

Labour didn’t like this, because if it succeeded, it would spoil their party and they wouldn’t be able to go to London and get rich, like Dick Whittington and Boris. And they wouldn’t be able to become Lords and stay rich by doing nothing when the ordinary Scots people got fed up with them, and wouldn’t elect them anymore.

So Labour decided to give Scotland a tiny wee bit of its independence – that means freedom – back, and they called this devolution. Scots would be allowed to play little games in a corner of the playground, and spend a tiny wee bit of money, but they couldn’t play in the big boys and girls’ game.

But now the Scots own party, called the SNP, want to be independent – that means free – but if they have to let the big nation continue to bully other nations with the threat of a big bomb which they keep on submarines in Scotland, at least they want to spend all of their own money, and run almost all of their own affairs.

That’s called devolution max, children, but a nice cosy term for it is devo max. The big boys call it full fiscal autonomy, but that too big a word for Labour to say. It’s not independence – that means freedom – but it’s better than nothing.

But it still leaves Scotland with the big bomb – which they don’t want – and it still lets the big nation bully other nations, and send young Scots to die while they’re doing it.

It’s not hard to understand, if you think about it, children, although the big nation – and the misguided Scots who support it – have great difficulty in understanding it. Or perhaps they just don’t want to understand.

Now that’s naughty isn’t it ?

Let’s finish up with a song – what would you like, children? Rule Britannia or Flower of Scotland? I thought you’d say that …

Are you sitting comfortably? Then we’ll begin …

Citigroup – the company attacking Scotland’s referendum and renewables targets.

David Cameron alighted on Citigroup’s investment advice to companies proposing to invest in Scotland like a fly on to a pile of shit at PMQs today.

Perhaps we should know a little more about this giant financial corporation – too big to fail – as it tries to wreck Scotland’s renewables investment by advising against investment “this side of a referendum”.

CITIGROUP

Citigroup webpage

Wkipedia on Citigroup

Citigroup used to be the largest company and bank in the world by total assets - until the global financial crisis of 2008. Today it is ranked 10th in size by composite index.

Citigroup suffered huge losses during the global financial crisis of 2008 and was rescued in November 2008 in a massive stimulus package by the U.S. government.

Despite its huge losses during the global financial crisis, Citigroup Inc. built up an enormous cash pile in the wake of the financial crisis with $462 billion USD, which is more than Sweden's nominal GDP of $458 billion USD

Citigroup and the Subprime mortgage crisis

Heavy exposure dodgy mortgages in the form of Collateralized debt obligation (CDOs), compounded by poor risk management led Citigroup into trouble as the subprime mortgage crisis worsened in 2008.

The company used complex mathematical risk models but never included the possibility of a national housing downturn, or the prospect that millions of mortgage holders would default on their mortgages.

The Head of Trading, Thomas Maheras was close friends with senior risk officer David Bushnell, which undermined risk oversight.

On the board of directors of Citigroup, was one Robert Rubin.He and a Charles Prince were said to have been influential persuading the company to move towards MBS and CDOs in the subprime mortgage market.

Robert Rubin, as US Treasury Secretary was said to be influential in lifting the regulations that allowed Travelers and Citicorp to merge in 1998.

As the crisis began to unfold, Citigroup announced on April 11, 2007, that it would eliminate 17,000 jobs, or about 5 percent of its workforce,  to cut costs and bolster its long underperforming stock.

Even after securities and brokerage firm Bear Stearns ran into serious trouble in summer 2007, Citigroup decided the possibility of trouble with its CDO's was so tiny (less than 1/100 of 1%) that they excluded them from their risk analysis. 

US Federal Government bail-out assistance

Over the past several decades, the United States government has engineered at least four different rescues of the institution now known as Citigroup.

Raul Salinas and alleged money laundering

In 1998, the General Accounting Office issued a report critical of Citibank's handling of funds received from Raul Salinas de Gortari, the brother of Carlos Salinas, the former president of Mexico.

The report, titled "Raul Salinas, Citibank and Alleged Money Laundering", indicated that Citibank facilitated the transfer of millions of dollars through complex financial transactions to hide the paper trail of funds. Citibank took on Raul Salinas as a client even though they did not make a thorough inquiry as to how he made his fortune

Conflicts of interest on investment research

In December 2002, Citigroup paid fines totalling $400 million, with the amount split between the states and the federal government.

The fines were part of a settlement involving charges that ten banks, including Citigroup, deceived investors with biased research.

The total settlement with the ten banks was $1.4 billion. .

Plutonomy memo

On October 16, 2005, a memo detailing how America was losing its grasp as a democracy, but rather becoming a Plutonomy. The memo was leaked to the public causing outcry against the memo's secretive nature of keeping the nation's wealthiest 1% in power over America through politics.

Enron, WorldCom and Global Crossing bankruptcies

Citigroup paid out over $3 billion in fines and legal settlements for their role in financing Enron Corporation, which collapsed amid a financial scandal in 2001.

In 2003, Citigroup paid $145 million in fines and penalties to settle claims by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Manhattan district attorney's office.

In 2005, Citigroup paid $2 billion to settle a lawsuit filed by investors in Enron. In 2008, Citigroup paid $1.66 billion to the Enron Bankruptcy Estate, which represented creditors of the bankrupt company.

In 2004, Citigroup paid $2.65 billion to settle a lawsuit concerning their role in selling stocks and bonds for WorldCom, which collapsed in 2002 in an accounting scandal.

In 2005, Citigroup paid $75 million to settle a lawsuit from investors in Global Crossing, which filed bankruptcy in 2002. Citigroup was accused of issuing exaggerated research reports and not disclosing conflicts of interest.

Citigroup proprietary government bond trading scandal

Citigroup was criticized for disrupting the European bond market by rapidly selling €11 billion worth of bonds on August 2, 2004 on the MTS Group trading platform, driving down the price, and then buying it back at cheaper prices.

2008/2009 federal rescue from bankruptcy

As the subprime mortgage crisis began to unfold, heavy exposure to toxic mortgages in the forms of Collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), compounded by poor risk management, led the company into serious trouble. Its stock market value dropped to $20.5 billion, down from $244 billion two years earlier. As a result, Citigroup and federal regulators negotiated a plan to stabilize the company.

On November 24, 2008, the U.S. government announced a massive stimulus package for Citigroup, designed to rescue the company from bankruptcy while giving the government a major say in its operations. The Treasury would provide another $20 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds in addition to $25 billion given in October. The Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) would cover 90% of the losses on its $335 billion portfolio after Citigroup absorbed the first $29 billion in losses. In return the bank would give Washington $27 billion of preferred shares and warrants to acquire stock. The government would obtain wide powers over banking operations. Citigroup agreed to try to modify mortgages, using standards set up by the FDIC after the collapse of IndyMac Bank, with the goal of keeping as many homeowners as possible in their houses. Executive salaries would be capped.

As a condition of the federal assistance, Citigroup's dividend payment was reduced to one cent per share.

In September 2011, a book titled Confidence Men|- Wall Street, Washington and the Education of a President, written by former Wall Street reporter Ron Suskind, states that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner ignored a 2009 order from President Barack Obama to break up Citigroup in an enormous restructuring and liquidation.

N.B. The Treasury Department denied the account in an e-mail to the media stating "This account is simply untrue …” Aye, right …

SUMMARY

In my view, Citigroup is exactly the kind of unaccountable global financial institution that caused the crash, but was too big to fail.

It is exactly the kind of company and the kind of behaviour that has caused protesters to camp outside St. Paul's in London and in George Square in Glasgow.

Would you buy a used car from anybody with the above record, never mind accept their advice on investing in renewable energy in Scotland - the country that led the first industrial revolution and will a make a major contribution to the next one?

Keep your advice and your big mouth out of Scotland’s affairs, Citigroup - and stop interfering in our democracy.

An academic's view of independence - and a nationalist one

The clips speak for themselves...

It's full

independence as

a nation for the

First Minister

and the SNP.

Let the Unionists

make their case

for lesser options.

 Let the people of

Scotland decide.

Saor Alba!

What Scots thought about government in 2010 - Scottish Social Attitudes Survey

A fascinating document, the findings of which are not as easily attacked by the Unionists as the ComRes poll and other samples.

But the big question is where does Scotland stand today? And where will it stand on the fateful day when its electors cast their votes on independence?

On that day, be on the right side of history, Scots - vote YES for freedom.

Scottish Tories wait nervously for the Great Schism – but hyphens could help …

What the Tories in Scotland - and this contest - need is more hyphenated surnames. A Tory without a hyphen is not a real Tory. But there's a hyphen on this panel, and one lady who sounds posh enough to have a hyphen but hasn't.

My suggestion is Murdo Fras-Er, Jackson Car-Law, Ruth David-Son, etc. - like Sir Malcolm Rif-Kind.

You'll never manage without a hyphen, Ruth ...

And David, it's not enough to put the stress on the last syllable of Mundell - it has to be Mun-Dell.

What the SNP says about defence

From the SNP website - Policy on defence

All of the text below is verbatim from SNP.org – the bold and red highlighting is mine.

The SNP wants Scotland to be a normal country making its own decisions about defence and peacekeeping. Only when priorities are set in Scotland can we prevent our brave servicemen and women being ordered into illegal conflicts. The historic regiments of Scotland have been destroyed through amalgamation and downsizing; an independent Scotland will redress this.

A Scottish Defence Service

The priority of the Scottish Defence Services (SDS), in partnership with Scotland’s neighbours and allies, will be to safeguard our land, sea and air space. The SDS will initially be equipped with Scotland’s negotiated share of UK defence resources. Service and pension conditions will be at least equal to those of the UK forces.

The SDS will be a professional force supported by reserve forces with employment opportunities open to everyone meeting the appropriate standard. MoD civilian support personnel employed in Scotland at Independence will have the opportunity to remain in the Scottish MoD or Scottish civil service. Scotland will maintain active defence commitments with its friends and allies through the United Nations, European Union and Partnership for Peace.

No to Nuclear

The SNP reaffirms that no nuclear weapons will be based on independent Scottish soil.

An independent SNP government will not be part of a nuclear-based commitment such as NATO.

SNP priorities in defence are that:

• Defence policy should be made in Scotland’s national Parliament.

• Scotland’s armed services should be well remunerated, equipped and trained.

• Historic regiments will be re-established as part of the SDS.

• Military facilities, including strategic airforce stations, should not be downsized at the present time.

• Nuclear weapons will be banished from Scotland forever.

• Counter terrorism provision will be enhanced, and plans will include elements of the regular and reserve SDS as part of a co-ordinated strategy.

• Military practice will be reviewed to balance the necessity of training against the disturbance to communities.

 

A fair deal for our soldiers and their families

Our soldiers and their families deserve to be treated with respect, both during and after service. Bereaved families should not have to wait years to lay loved ones to rest, or to find out the circumstances surrounding the deaths.

The Scottish Government will continue to work with the UK Government to find a way to allow military inquests to be heard in Scotland requiring changes to current legislation. No family should have to wait 3 years to put loved ones to rest, and by moving inquests to Scotland, we can remove current backlogs in the system.

LibDems - the failed, bitter, vengeful UK party that attacks the SNP

This is the failed, discredited party that attacks the most successful party in Britain - the Scottish National Party.

It has five - yes, 5 - MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. It would be obliterated if a UK general election was called now. It has lied to the electorate. It has failed to deliver in Coalition. It is now Tory in all but name.

Its former Scottish leader, Tavish Scott, is now bitter, vengeful towards the SNP, and blames his own UK party for wrecking his political career. Well, they helped, Tavish, but you did a pretty good job of wrecking it yourself ....

And the Colonial Governor of Scotland, Michael Moore, a LibDem, attacks the SNP. the decisively elected government of Scotland, and in doing so, attacks the Scottish people.

Adjectives for LibDems - ineffectual, naive, expedient - and vicious in failure ...

Scotland’s unsung growth industry–What Labour Must Do journalism. And some faces of Labour …

It seems unfair, among all the congratulation being heaped upon the Scottish food and drink industry today for their superb performance and growing international reputation, not to mention another small, but significant growth area – What Labour Must Do journalism. Two prime exponents of this new literary genre are John McTernan and Michael Kelly, with their principal market being The Scotsman.

Critics sometimes call attention to the repetitive similarities in the product range, and its lack of intellectual content, but this is mere carping in the face of the apparently insatiable appetite of the editor of The Scotsman and other newspapers for this traditional product. The spin offs, including television and radio punditry, are substantial.

The brand image is based almost wholly on the minor celebrity status of the two principal suppliers some years ago, when they were close to centres of power. The brand appears under various product identities, which are essentially variations of the core brand What Labour Must Do. Two examples, one yesterday and one today exemplify these variations - Scottish Labour needs to show a desire for change - John McTernan and Labour must take a breath - Michael Kelly, both in The Scotsman.

It is heartening and inspiring, that from the sad decline of a major political party into a confused, values-free, significantly corrupt, shambolic entity with no sense of direction or purpose, at least two entrepreneurs have managed to find a way to turn the situation to advantage, in the true, honourable journalistic tradition of exploiting the misfortune of politicians, a kind of schadenpolitik, if I may offer a German/Russian hybrid.

Michael Kelly’s  article today says essentially – calm down, dears – no rush on the independence debate or a new leader, just stagger on under Iain Gray.  Tom Harris is lauded for his ‘bravery’. But Kelly accurately characterises the refusal of Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander to get involved as fear of Alex Salmond and fear of damaging their Westminster careers. (As someone once said, that kind of Scotsman would do almost anything rather than damage his career. ) And he also says, without any sense of irony as a unionist, that UK Labour politicians see the Scottish Parliament as the second division, and want to play with the big boys on a world stage. Again, true to the form of this genre of political article, there is not a word about values, objectives, principles or policies – it’s all about political structure and tactics. Labour is now a mindless, power-seeking machine, and Scottish Labour is just a wee rusty cog in that blind juggernaut.

I made some reference to the John McTernan article yesterday, but let’s take a longer look -

J.McT contrasts Murdo Fraser’s boldness, characterised as a ‘nuclear option’ – an appropriate allusion from one WMD party to another – with the ‘resounding silence’ from Labour that followed the Tom Harris call for radical change. McTernan makes the trenchant point that every Scottish Leader, from Dewar through to Iain Gray, managed to become leader 'without having to define themselves intellectually or politically’. He goes on to pick Johann Lamont as his favourite, but asks what she believes in.

McTernan, a Blairite, has the chutzpah to quote Joe Hill, the legendary American Labour organiser. John, I have to say that Joe Hill would retch at the sight of the thing the Labour Party became under Blair, Brown, Mandelson and Campbell.

Nevertheless, John McTernan is right to ask what Scottish Labour and their bosses, UK Labour, believe in? But he offers no answer, because there isn’t one. Where belief, vision, values, integrity and a burning concern for justice and equity once existed, there is now an empty echoing hall, haunted by the ghosts of those destroyed by New Labour and Blair.

 

POSTSCRIPT – FACES OF LABOUR

Scottish white hope Tom Harris MP features in the i today – cover story MPs pay family members £3m a year – as one of the top group who pay family members more that £40,000 a year. Tom Harris employs his wife as office manager.

Sir Stuart Bell, MP for Middlesbrough claims £82,896 in staffing cost, his constituents complain he is impossible to contact, he has not held a constituency surgery in the town for 14 years, and has no office in the town. He conducts such business as he does from his home outside the town. He pays his wife £35,000 a year as office manager.

Margaret Moran MP will appear before magistrates on the 19th of September facing 21 charges relating to her parliamentary claims for expenses.  Five charges allege forgery, a very serious offence at law.

Ah, The People’s Party – fearless crusaders for justice and equity for the common people, doughty fighters for the poor.

Scottish Unionists in disarray–campaign shambles - Newsnight Scotland

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh …

Michael Moore - what a left hand! What a ******!

Michael Moore pose 6 questions–but I have only one for him …

Examining Michael Moore’s voting record, (Voting record) I see a principled man – or at least one who voted as I might have done on most – but not all – key issues. Then I remind myself that most of this voting was done in opposition, when the LibDems had – or claimed to have – liberal, democratic principles. All of that, as we now to know, vanished when they entered the Coalition, and the thin veneer of principle was rapidly stripped off, revealing the rotten Tory woodwork underneath.

And of course, there’s nothing like a ministerial car, salary and perks, not to mention the hollow trapping of being a colonial governor, to erode principle and give free rein to a natural inclination towards pomposity. But, as a leading member of a party that has welshed on its manifesto commitments, betrayed those who voted for it in May 2010, and which has reduced the party in Scotland to a pathetic little group in Holyrood, Michael Moore entertains no self-doubt about his right to lecture the Scottish Government, elected by a decisive mandate by the people of Scotland, who also gave the LibDems and Tavish Scott two fingers in May 2011.

If he had taken the trouble to read Your Scotland, Your Voice Nov. 2009 he would have found most of the answers in a document almost two years old, produced as part of a conversation with the people of Scotland. And of course, that thinking has been developed and refined and is the subject of on-going research and development within the party in the lead-up to the referendum on independence.

But Michael Moore’s imperial mind has been focused by the prospect of losing his plumed hat and his white horse when the Scottish Office becomes redundant and is consigned to a sordid footnote in history (except for Niall Ferguson, who may wish to publish several tedious volumes on its glorious past) and by the fact that if a general election was conducted in the next year, his party would face UK-wide obliteration, and even the border voters of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk might wish to think again about their MP.

What does the Scotsman have to say about all of this? Michael Kelly, in an article on sectarianism and the deeply non-productive and unfortunate comments by Paul McBride, QC has, for once many considered and important things to say, and I am in broad agreement with him – a first for me! But Oor Michael cannot risk being thought to be in favour of independence when he rightly criticises McBride’s doomsday scenario, so he has a little disclaimer in his second paragraph. I quote -

“I am as keen as the next home rule unionist to prevent the creation of a state, socially, economically and politically inferior to the one we have in which we currently enjoy living.”

The state “in which we currently enjoy living” – the UK – is the one that is nearly bankrupt, bleeding itself to death with foreign wars and interventions, corrupt in its Parliament, in its institutions, in its banking, and in its unelected power and privilege.

This is the state that for over 300 years has exploited Scotland, its people and its resources, a state that is still being disproportionately funded by Scotland, not only in economic terms but in the blood of its servicemen and women, who have consistently sustained a casualty rate, proportionate to population, higher than the rest of the UK. Their reward has been to be called heroes – which they are – and to have their ancient regiments eliminated, merged, in a sustained attempt to remove their Scottish identity, to be inadequately equipped by an incompetent M.O.D. Ask Rose Gentle, a Scottish mother whose 19-year-old son, Fusilier Gordon Gentle, was killed in Basra in 2004.

Scotland’s reward for the rape of its people, talent and resources has been poverty, poor housing, destruction of its industrial infrastructure, and a lower life expectancy for men and women than the rest of the UK. This lethal colonial ravaging of Scotland has only begun to be ameliorated by the Scottish National Party, who in just over four years of government - most of it in minority government, blocked at every opportunity by a cynical and expedient unionist opposition – have given news spirit and new hope to the Scottish people, who have rewarded them with a giant vote of confidence.

Michael Kelly’s party, in contrast, presided over the decline of Scotland for half a century, until their dead and cynical hegemony was successfully challenged by the SNP in 2007. Before the Scottish Labour Party we had an equally dead hand, that of the party of empire, blood, death and privilege, the Tory Party, now an irrelevancy in Scotland.

And what of the Scotsman lead article? It has the front to talk of honest answers. Under its present editorial team and proprietorship, it rarely asks honest questions – they are loaded unionist propaganda - and even more rarely provides honest answers. In its instincts it is Tory, but recognises the death of that party in Scotland. It is now in a dilemma – it is anti-Labour, but pro-Union, but the only hope for the Union is Labour. It was forced, in a fit of realism during the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary campaign, to recognise that the SNP had the only managerially competent politicians in Scotland, so it backed them, but was emphatically not backing an independent Scotland.

It was utterly taken aback by the election results, and now is in an even greater dilemma, trying to balance the twin threats of declining circulation caused by its progressive irrelevance as a voice for Scotland, and its irrational and emotional attachment to the Union. It gives occasional – and very welcome - space to real Scottish voices such as Joan McAlpine, but the balance is never in doubt, with columnists such as Alan Massie, Michael Kelly, et al, and of course the consistently unionist voice of its editor, Bill Jamieson. The Scotsman has never really recovered from Andrew Neil, Thatcherite and Unionist par excellence.

So let me close with a message to Michael Moore. If you care for Scotland, resign from your post as Scottish Secretary, ask Willie Rennie to stand down as leader of his tiny group, and lead your party in Holyrood. God knows, the Scottish LibDems need a leader, after Tavish Scott - and now Willie Rennie. They will welcome you with open arms. The spirit of Joe Grimond will be with you, instead of the ghost of Jeremy Thorpe. You can keep the plumed helmet …

Meanwhile, stop asking stupid questions – you can render that service at least to your adopted country.

Extremadura, localism and nationalism.

Given all the things I have said about the Labour Party and Labour politicians, it is unsurprising that I have few amicable dialogues with the party. I am also a Labour apostate, which compounds the problem. But I have always tried to make a sharp distinction between the Labour Party and its politicians and the people they have so comprehensively betrayed. This distinction is especially vital in the case of Labour supporters in England, who, unlike the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish, are faced with limited choices if they wish to shift their allegiance

It has been especially welcome for me therefore to have Twitter exchanges with a Labour supporter that I have unqualified respect for, including for the generous way he has responded to my regrettable tendency to shoot from the hip occasionally on Twitter – a kind of Ready, Fire, Aim approach.

Miljenko Williams tweets @eiohel and his online site is 21stcenturyfix.org

He recently was prompted to reflect on the nature of localism and nationalism, asking the question On sliding between localism and nationalism - when does one become the other?

After misunderstanding his initial tweet, and without following the link, I fired off in typical fashion, but then was politely directed back to source by Miljenko. I have his permission to repeat my comments on his fascinating article, but you really should read the original and what prompted it.

 

MORIDURA  COMMENT

Getting over my shock at the real Extremadura intruding on my consciousness, (I wrote a book set in Extremadura - 'The Ancient Order of Moridura' - without ever having visited the region) let me offer a few thoughts - 

   The concept of a nation clearly is a much more complex one than that of a region, one bound up with geography, language, culture and identity built over centuries. It is not just a grouping of localities, and cannot be seen as just a series of economic and technological initiatives. Interdependence is the key factor that leads to communities, then localities, then nations, but national independence does not exclude localism nor does it deny cooperation across national boundaries.
     But in organising itself to survive and achieve those eternal freedoms to to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, mankind has fallen repeatedly into the seductive trap of 'big is better', and the idea of economies of scale.
     This has undoubtedly delivered benefits for some, but usually at the expense of others, and significantly at the expense of our common humanity. It has led to brutal oppressive empires, world religions, global banking, global companies, and most sinisterly of all, to the military/industrial complex – Eisenhower’s nightmare scenario, now a fact.

    What we need now is democratic nationalism on a human scale, with maximum decentralisation of power to regions and localities, and free cooperation with other nations on economic, technological and scientific matters - and yes, on defence - but with the emphasis always being on serving the needs of the people, not the people serving the needs of a privileged and amoral minority.

    If our 21st century society has only given us the iPad, the iPhone and mp3 players, it has failed. In fact, it is failing, right now, globally. Sophisticated communications systems alone will not deliver happiness, or even economic and social benefit. There is prima facie evidence that they can be inimical to it, dependent on who controls the systems and the information flow.
    Spain is a nation, and short of trying to establish Iberia as a nation, it will always be a nation. Extremadura is a fascinating region, with a wonderful history and identity, one that must be preserved and celebrated, but it is not, and cannot be a nation.

   But I know that this raises other issues of regional identity in Spain, ones beyond my knowledge and competence to comment on.