What is the point of living?

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

24 November 2014

“Life has no purpose, any more than a tree or a symphony has a purpose.”

Columnist Tim Lott pondering, in the London Guardian on 22 November 2014, how to respond to his eight-year-old daughter Louise, who had asked him what is the point of living.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

  1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)
  2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)
  3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)
  4. Capitalism in practice (4 July 2012)
  5. Ladder  (21 June 2012)
  6. A tale of two cities (1) (6 June 2012)
  7. A tale of two cities (2) (7 June 2012)
  8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Merchants of death

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

19 November 2014

“A fag is a tube of paper with a fire at one end and a fool at the other.”

                                                                                    Anonymous.

The Japanese-owned JTI Gallagher tobacco factory at Ballymena in County Antrim, Northern Ireland, will be closed down by 2017 resulting in the loss of nearly 900 jobs, according to a BBC report published today.

Workers were said to have been in tears when they first heard the news last month.

Cigarettes sold by JTI Gallagher include Benson & Hedges, Silk Cut, Winston, Camel and Mayfair. The company also sells roll-your-own tobacco and Hamlet cigars.

When the closure was announced, North Antrim MP Ian Paisley Jr described it as a “body blow” to the Northern Ireland economy.

In a joint statement, reported by the BBC, Northern Ireland’s First Minister Peter Robinson and Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness said the announcement was “terrible news for many loyal workers, many of whom have given years of service to this firm over generations”.

JTI (Japan Tobacco International) said it was restructuring its manufacturing facilities “as a result of significant and sustained changes impacting its global business”.

According to the BBC, the company said: “The challenging economic environment, excise tax pressure coupled with illegal trade has triggered industry volume contraction in a number of key European countries.”

According to JTI, these problems had been compounded by European Union (EU) cigarette packaging legislation designed to cut the number of smokers.

According to the BBC, the EU Tobacco Products Directive stipulates that health warning pictures must dominate the front and back of all packaging. In addition, flavoured cigarettes such as menthol will be banned and all packs must have at least 20 cigarettes to ensure room on the pack for health warnings. Member states have until 2016 to introduce the legislation.

Commenting on its planned closures in Northern Ireland and also in Belgium, JTI said production might move to Poland and Romania.

According to the BBC, Davy Thompson of the Unite trade union said the proposed closure of the plant at Ballymena was “just a cost-saving measure.”

Now Unite has come up with a plan to save 500 of the 876 jobs threatened.

According to the BBC report today, the trade union has proposed that the Ballymena factory should become a “centre of excellence” for pouch tobacco and cigar production even if cigarette manufacture has to be axed.

The union is now seeking worker endorsement and political support for its idea.

Founded in 1857, Gallaher is said to be the third largest of the three major British tobacco groups, the other two being British American Tobacco and Imperial Tobacco.

Based in Tokyo, Japan Tobacco, one of the world’s major tobacco companies, became the sole owner of the Gallagher Group in 2007 in the largest ever foreign acquisition in Japan’s corporate history. According to Wikipedia, Japan Tobacco also has interests in foods, pharmaceuticals, agribusinesses, engineering and real estate. With headquarters in Geneva, JTI is the international tobacco division of Japan Tobacco.

Antigone1984:

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

Workers stand to lose their jobs at a Northern Ireland firm that has been killing people for more than 150 years!

This is indeed terrible news.

And what is the reason for this catastrophe?

Well, one major cause is the fact that the European Union (EU) has taken limited action to try and reduce the number of deaths from smoking.

What an awful thing to do!

Fancy threatening the livelihoods of “loyal workers, many of whom have given years of service to this firm over generations”, simply because you want to save lives!

We are supposed to have a free market in the EU, aren’t we?

Well, what’s this bloated nanny superstate doing sticking its nose into model companies that are minding their own business – in this case, the production of addictive products that kill – and making a tidy profit out of it, too, thus putting bread into the mouths of hard-working employees?

If people want to kill themselves by smoking, then why shouldn’t they? It’s a free world, isn’t it?

Funny that we don’t hear the same argument put forward in respect of people who want to kill themselves by ingesting heroin or crack cocaine.

No, hard drugs are banned by law.

So why isn’t smoking?

If we allow giant transnational corporations to make money out of selling lethal cigarettes, why don’t we allow others to turn a fast buck by marketing opium or arsenic?

The Unite trade union has come up with a scheme to preserve some of the jobs under threat at Ballymena by turning the plant into a “centre of excellence” for pouch tobacco and cigars.

A “centre of excellence” for the manufacture of a product which is guaranteed to kill people? An oxymoron, if ever we heard one.

We have a question.

In the 157 years of the company’s existence, did no employee ever stop to think whether it was right to earn their living by producing a product that will rudely truncate the lives of fellow human beings?

Some people might regard such work as indisputably immoral.

Could the cigarette makers not have sought other work that actually enhanced people’s lives? Baking, teaching, the medical professions, social work, etc – the list of alternative non-toxic occupations is endless.

It is certainly a major blow when people lose the their jobs.

But one has also to take into account the sort of work they were doing.

At the end of the Second World War, did we shed tears at the loss of work for those whose job it was to prepare the canisters for the gas chambers?

There is, of course, a massive contradiction in the attitude of public authorities to the manufacture of toxic products such as tobacco.

If these products are lethal, why is their production not illegal?

Hard drugs are illegal. What is tobacco if not a hard drug?

For an explanation you need to consider the massive tax revenue that pours into government coffers from the purchasing habits of those addicted to smoking. You also need to consider the impact on government ministers of intense well-funded lobbying by wealthy tobacco companies and their allies in the trade unions.

None the less, if we were a hedge fund, we would not be contemplating betting the farm right now on an investment in tobacco production.

For Big Tobacco the writing is on the wall.

Ballymena is a straw in the wind.

Today tobacco is on the spot.

Tomorrow, hopefully, it will be the turn of the alcohol and arms industries.

G’night, folks.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

  1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)
  2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)
  3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)
  4. Capitalism in practice (4 July 2012)
  5. Ladder  (21 June 2012)
  6. A tale of two cities (1) (6 June 2012)
  7. A tale of two cities (2) (7 June 2012)
  8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

Posted in Economics, Europe, Health, Ireland, Japan, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lions led by donkeys

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

 

Remembrance Sunday, 9 November 2014

 

THE TOLLING BELL

 

Who bends not his ear to any bell which upon any occasion rings? But who can remove it from that bell which is passing a piece of himself out of this world? No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were. Any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Extract from Meditation XVII in “Devotions upon Emergent Occasions” (1624) by English poet and preacher John Donne (1572-1631).

 

Our initial reason for citing this excerpt was a touching personal anecdote which appeared in the London Guardian yesterday. In an interview, singer-songwriter Beverley Craven (born 1963 in Sri Lanka) said:

“My sister Kathy died this year from cancer at the age of 44. Losing her had a devastating effect on my family. What made it even worse was that it was caught early and she had a double mastectomy shortly after she was diagnosed in 2009. We then heard the news we had been dreading – the cancer had spread to her liver. I went into denial and became very angry.

“Kathy planned her own funeral. Opposite the woodland burial ground where she now lies is a cosy little pub where she wanted her wake to be held. When she was planning it, the pub barmaid asked her whose funeral it was for, to which Kathy replied: ’It’s for me’.”

 

Antigone1984:

CROCODILE TEARS

 

As an afterthought we decided to pass from the personal to the political and refer to today’s Remembrance Day ceremonies.

Queen Elizabeth II has led the nation (sic) – according to the lead story on the BBC website today – in commemorating military personnel killed in action with annual Remembrance Sunday services being held around the UK. A two-minute silence was observed at 11am and then the monarch laid a wreath at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, London, near the Prime Minister’s residence in Downing Street.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the start in 1914 of World War One (1914-1918).

Antigone1984 does not approve of these commemorations, which have acquired a strongly jingoistic flavour, the memory of past wars being pressed into service by the political and military establishment of the day to justify present aggression. In the ideology underlying remembrance ceremonies, all past wars waged by the holier-than-thou commemorating parties – as opposed to the irredeemably black-hearted enemy – were wholly justified and the deaths of those fighting was both necessary and worthwhile in order to preserve age-old freedoms.  The view that the soldiers and civilians who died had died in vain for nothing is not allowed to sully this jamboree of ostentatiously choreographied grief. Yet World War One has frequently been denounced by critics as a catastrophe born of diplomatic ineptitude that need never have taken place at all, the soldiers who died in their millions being famously lamented as “lions led by donkeys (their generals)”.

Alas, 100 years later the needless carnage goes on. We need only cite the disastrous Iraq (2003-2011) and Afghan (2001-2014) wars, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and the displacement of millions of others. The result: the rebels in both countries – al-Qaeda and its successor ISIS in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan – are still at large, with extensive swathes of territory under their control. Both countries now have fragile US-vetted puppet governments whose writ hardly runs even within their capital cities.  A civil war is raging in Iraq, while Afghanistan is on the brink of a Taliban resurgence. Rank hypocrisy was the word that came to mind, therefore, when one noted the presence at the Cenotaph of Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, who invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan at the behest of his American controllers.

The lesson of past wars is that no lesson has been learned. World War One, once dubbed optimistically “the war to end all wars”, turned out to be precisely the opposite. The ceremonies of remembrance continue – attended without a blush by the very politicians responsible for the bloodshed – and so does the slaughter.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

  1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)
  2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)
  3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)
  4. Capitalism in practice (4 July 2012)
  5. Ladder  (21 June 2012)
  6. A tale of two cities (1) (6 June 2012)
  7. A tale of two cities (2) (7 June 2012)
  8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Afghanistan, Iraq, Military, Politics, UK | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Towards a golden age of protectionism

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

2 November 2014

A FINANCIAL INCENDIARY BOMB

How long till the next financial crash?

A report in the London Guardian on 30 October 2014 cites a warning from Andy Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England, to the effect that the global monetary system has become so deeply interconnected that it poses an “incendiary threat to stability” unless a radical new international approach is taken.

Good to know.

But didn’t we know this already?

Has anybody out there heard of Lehman Brothers, the legendary US financial services firm with asset holdings of more than $600 billion which went belly-up on 15 September 2008 when it filed for bankruptcy, shaking to its foundations the world’s entire financial infrastructure and worsening dramatically the incipient global economic depression?

When the crisis occurred, many were the pledges from governments and public regulatory agencies promising root-and-branch reform of the world’s financial system so that never again could rogue banks and hedge funds run up dodgy unsustainable debts that would imperil the smooth functioning of global capitalism.

So how come, in his recent speech at Britain’s Birmingham University, Haldane saw fit to warn that the world is not equipped to deal with the “darkest consequences” of its current international monetary system, saying that a new set of multilateral rules will be needed to lessen the risks?

According to Haldane, “The international monetary and financial system has undergone a mini-revolution in the space of a generation as a result of financial globalisation…This has altered fundamentally the risk-return opportunity set facing international policy-makers: larger than ever opportunities, but also greater than ever threats.”

Antigone1984:

So what happened to the financial reform and regulation promised at the peak of the 2007-2009 financial and economic crisis?

As Haldane implicitly admits, they just never happened.

Oh yes, there were wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth while the crisis lasted, but when the green shoots of recovery began to show around the beginning of 2010 the promises of tough regulation of the global financial sector were quietly forgotten.

For the capitalist economy, led by the banking sector, is inherently adverse to regulation of any kind. That’s what the free market means – freedom to do whatever it wants without let or hindrance, least of all from governments that are, in any case, in office to do its bidding.

So let’s not get thinking that governments are going to agree any day now to introduce a tough international regulatory regime that will curb wildcat speculative risk-taking by global banksters.

It’s been the same throughout the five hundred or so years of capitalist development – bust invariably follows boom – and so it will continue to be. It wouldn’t be capitalism otherwise.

Moreover, this cycle is not limited to the financial sector.

In his speech in Birmingham, Haldane pointed out that cross-border stocks of capital are now almost certainly larger than at any time in human history, adding that “the same is probably true of cross-border flows of goods and services and is most certainly true of cross-border flows of information”.

What the world needs, in our view, is deglobalisation and the passage to a golden age of national protectionism where countries focus on achieving national security through economic and financial self-sufficiency, trading only where and when they need goods or services that cannot be supplied at home.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

  1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)
  2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)
  3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)
  4. Capitalism in practice (4 July 2012) 
  5. Ladder  (21 June 2012)
  6. A tale of two cities (1) (6 June 2012)
  7. A tale of two cities (2) (7 June 2012)
  8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

Posted in Economics, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bella, horrida bella, matribus detestata

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

21 September 2014

Not infrequently one gets the distinct impression that what concerns our masters, the ruling elite, wherever they may be in the world and whatever ideology they espouse, is light years away from what concerns the ordinary citizen whose interests they purport to represent.

Take the civil war that is ripping the Ukraine apart.

As we all know, very important geopolitical theology is at stake. The Western eagle is backing one side, the Russian bear the other. Both sides claim to have God, or at least right, on their side – according to the mutually identical propaganda that is bog standard in any war. Both sides claim to be waging a just war.

However, this is not always how it appears to Joe Public who, for some unfathomable reason, is not always one hundred per cent convinced that he should sacrifice his life and that of his family and friends on the altar of some ideological fire fight between well-paid apparatchiks safely ensconced in their offices in the White House and the Kremlin.

Wild enthusiasm for the conflict is not exactly what the civilian population caught up in the fray appears to be displaying right now.

Take the following snippet in a dispatch in the London Guardian on 2 September 2014 from Mariupol, a port city in southern Ukraine still loyal to Nato’s protégé regime in Kiev but increasingly beleaguered by heavily armed Russian-backed troops from Donetsk in dissident eastern Ukraine.

“After months of clashes, many locals are weary and suspicious of both sides and simply long for a normal life. ‘I don’t care if we are part of Russia, part of Ukraine or part of Mars,’ said Irina Filatova, as she took her daughters to school in Mariupol.”

Which, assuming that the third option won out,  might then perhaps be renamed “Marsiupol”.

However, given the fact that the Red Planet has now been dragged into the debate about Ukrainian sovereignty, one would hope that plans are afoot to ensure that our Martian friends have been consulted about whether they want to be embroiled in these tellurian shenanigans.

If I were a Martian, I’d give the Ukraine a wide berth.

Mind you, it has to be said that extra-terrestrial succour might not come amiss down in Mariupol, given the state of preparedness of the city’s defenders.

The Guardian report continues:

‘Do you think we can resist armed people from the Donetsk People’s Republic?’, asked Dmytro, a local police officer, showing he and his colleagues had no guns.”

In the absence of an account of how the Guardian replied to this no-brainer, we can answer for it:

‘Well, no, you darn well can’t. Unless Nato’s cavalry rides in to the rescue lickety-split, the best thing you can do, buddy, is beat it, pronto.’

 ——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

  1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)
  2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)
  3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)
  4. Capitalism in practice (4 July 2012)
  5. Ladder  (21 June 2012)
  6. A tale of two cities (1) (6 June 2012)
  7. A tale of two cities (2) (7 June 2012)
  8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

Posted in Military, Politics, Russia, UK, Ukraine, UN, USA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The seat of his pants

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

20 September 2014

WHAT IT MEANS TO BE REALLY POOR

There were times when my pants were so thin I could sit on a dime and tell if it was heads or tails.”

Spencer Tracy (1900-1967), Hollywood film star.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

  1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)
  2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)
  3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)
  4. Capitalism in practice (4 July 2012)
  5. Ladder  (21 June 2012)
  6. A tale of two cities (1) (6 June 2012)
  7. A tale of two cities (2) (7 June 2012)
  8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Economics, USA | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Saltire laid low

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

19 September 2014

 

“A THISTLE CAN DRAW BLOOD,

SO CAN A ROSE…..”

Carol Ann Duffy, UK poet laureate, born Glasgow (Scotland) in 1955

 

In the wee small hours of this morning, when the results of an historic referendum on independence for Scotland were announced, the country was seen to have tossed itself definitively into the rubbish bin of history.

A majority of Scottish voters opted to pass up the opportunity to secede from the United Kingdom – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – and thereby transform their nation into an independent sovereign state.

Just as they had done at Dunbar in 1296, at Falkirk in 1298, at Gencoe in 1692 and at Culloden in 1746, the Brits returned in triumph this morning to trample in the dust the high hopes of Scottish patriots, their long-cherished dream of independence fading as fast as the morning mist on the bleak rain-soaked slopes of Ben Nevis.

On this occasion the Scots caved in without a shot being fired.

The inhabitants of ancient Caledonia have long had a reputation for toughness, for speaking their mind, for their valour in battle, with the Black Watch of Perth the most feared regiment in the British Army.

Not any more.

Faced with an unprecedented opportunity to stand on their own two feet, to show two fingers to the “effing Tories” from Westminster, to escape from under the coat-tails of the nanny state from below the Cheviots, how was it that these sons and daughters of the thistle voted?

Like the patsies and wimps that they have now been shown to be, their macho boasting revealed as no more than hollow posturing, they caved in to their historic overlords, tugging their forelocks and tipping their tam-o’-shanters as they swore continued fealty to the master-race in Whitehall.

Scotland has been yoked to the United Kingdom since 1 May 1707 following the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707 passed, respectively, by the English Parliament and its stooges in the Scottish Parliament.

The Scots who voted in yesterday’s referendum were asked to answer “Yes” or “No” to this question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

The result out this morning showed that 55 % of those voting – two million voters – chickened out of the chance to make Scotland independent, while only 45 % – 1.6 million voters – opted for freedom.

Some 660 000 registered voters – over 15 % of the total – did not even bother to turn up at the polling stations.

After three centuries of subjugation to the English Crown, the cowed citizens of Scotland, their marrow sapped, their spirits dreich, had come to love their chains. Shunning the sunlit uplands of freedom, these Uncle Toms in kilts and sporrans preferred to stay fettered to the the leg-irons that bound them to the English tyrant.

Given a historic chance to forge their own destiny, these sons and daughters of the manse, like the flocks of sheep on their highland moorland, fell obediently into line behind the Sassenach bellwether.

Sir William “Braveheart” Wallace, the martyr of Falkirk, would be turning in his grave.

In his Dictionary of the English Language (1755), Dr Samuel Johnson, the Great Cham of English Literature, defined oats as “a grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people”. Faced with a unique opportunity to savour the sweet nectar of liberty, the Scots have chosen to remain bunged up with the lumpen porridge of servitude.

To be fair to the “Yes” camp, it ran a brilliant campaign, outshining the nay-sayers at every turn, apart from the currency question: the pro-independence movement wanted to retain the pound sterling, against the wishes of the UK Government, whereas they ought to have proposed either the creation of an independent Scottish currency with a Scottish central bank to act as a lender of last resort – the truly independent option – or the adoption of the euro.

However, the result goes to show that however brilliant your campaign you cannot persuade reactionary cowards whose minds are closed to change. You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

Whatever one thinks about the result it is hard not to feel a little sorry for the leader of the “Yes” campaign, Alex Salmond, who announced his resignation today as Scotland’s First Minister. Had the vote gone the other way, he would soon have become Scotland’s first Prime Minister. As it is, he will be relegated forthwith to a footnote in the history books. In the ruthless zero-sum game that is unproportional politics, the winner takes all.

The winning argument put about by the “No” side concerned the supposed risks – to jobs, to health and education, to mortgages and business loans, to the national debt – if Scotland went it alone. This was an appeal by number-crunching spinmeisters with slide rules and statistics not to the gut feelings and national pride of the man and woman on the Sauchiehall Street omnibus but to crude self-interest masquerading as common sense.

In any case, it is blindingly obvious that there is no course of action which does not involve risk. Retention of Scotland’s subsidiary role in the United Kingdom does not come without risks. The Scots have been belly-aching for decades about being short-changed by Westminster. Now, when they had a chance to do something about this and stand on their own two feet, they flunked it. They will not get the opportunity again in our life-time. The winners will see to that. It was only because, rightly as it turned out, they saw the pro-independence campaign as a no-hoper that they allowed the referendum to take place at all. Given that the odds shortened dramatically in the course of the campaign, Westminster won’t make that mistake again.

In the campaign the elites of the UK and Scottish political, media and business establishments lined up, as usual, to support the status quo, playing on fear of the unknown to persuade the Scots to refrain from challenging the received wisdom.

Only four of the 32 local authority areas covered by the referendum showed a majority for independence, although that included Scotland’s largest city, Glasgow. As expected, the Noes took Edinburgh, the country’s capital, which has been heavily colonized by English settlers,  the carpet-bagging “North Britons”, over the three centuries since Scotland went under the English yoke. Even Falkirk, cockpit in 1298 of of Scotland’s most glorious defeat, sold the pass.

It should not be forgotten that the Scottish elite have amassed rich pickings from the union by taking the high road to London and snagging top jobs in the British capital, in both public and private sectors, and very prominently in politics. Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister from 1997 to 2007, and his successor, Gordon Brown, UK Prime Minister from 2007 to 2010, are both Scots.

It is only to be expected that this social stratum did everything it could during the referendum campaign to ensure the continuity of the union. On the Isle of Skye, for instance, Hugh MacLeod, the head of Clan MacLeod, wrote a two-page letter to staff on his estate setting out his reasons for voting “No”. “Of course, how you intend to vote is entirely a matter for you but as your employer I feel I have a duty to share some of my personal thoughts and concerns with you,” he wrote.

Parts of Scotland have long been a hotbed of Calvinist Puritanism and it is likely, it seems to us, that, particularly in the more remote rural parts of the country, the reactionary social attitudes associated with such beliefs will not have favoured the radical change implied by independence.

However that may be, the die is now cast.

The UK political elite – the leading lights of the Westminster partitocracy – promised Scotland the earth during the last two weeks of the referendum campaign when it seemed, according to the polls, that the “Yes” camp might win after all. All sorts of devolutionary goodies where going to be showered on the heads of the Scottish people if only they refrained from opting for full independence. Will this now happen? Dream on. The Brits have had three hundred years to do the right thing by the Scots and the result has been sweet fanny adams.

Scotland will soon sink back into the role of provincial backwater earmarked for it by its English masters – just as soon as they have milked the country dry of the proceeds of its one remaining asset, North Sea oil.

The result of the Scottish referendum will be welcomed by the centralizing bureaucrats at the European Union’s headquarters in Brussels. The fragmentation of nation states into small self-governing entities is anathema to the EU as it encourages the formation of larger and larger cross-boundary institutions to meet the challenges of the homogenizing globalisation that it blindly champions.

By contrast, the referendum result in Scotland is likely to fall like a pail of cold water on the heads of pro-independence campaigners in restive regions of other European states such as Catalonia and the Basque Country in Spain.

The next flashpoint in this saga will come on 9 November 2014 when the Catalan regional government is to hold a referendum on independence for Catalonia against the wishes of the central Spanish government, which has called the referendum illegal on the grounds that it represents an attack on the unity of Spain.

Watch this space.

Antigone1984:

Antigone1984 has always supported the underdog, the little man, small states, local politics and local production. Small independent states have the flexibility and freedom to decide what is best for their citizens in full knowledge of the local terrain. Unlike big states they are not enmeshed in a distant stultifying centralized bureaucracy (such as the European Union). The progressive way forward is encapsulated in the slogan “Small is beautiful”. It is a no brainer, therefore, that for someone who wants a decent, just, honest and equitable society a sensible way to achieve this is to upset the establishment apple-cart and vote for regional independence and national self-determination.

Technical note:

The “saltire” is the Scottish national flag, which consists of a white X-shaped cross on a blue background. Destined now to pass into oblivion.

 

——

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

  1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)
  2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)
  3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)
  4. Capitalism in practice (4 July 2012) 
  5. Ladder  (21 June 2012)
  6. A tale of two cities (1) (6 June 2012)
  7. A tale of two cities (2) (7 June 2012)
  8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

Posted in Politics, Scotland, Spain, UK, USA, Wales | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Saltire flying high

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

18 September 2014

Today the 4.25 million registered voters of Scotland have the opportunity to vote in a referendum on whether they want to leave the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and transform Scotland into an independent sovereign state.

Those exercising their right to vote are being asked to answer “Yes” or “No” to this question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

Scotland has been yoked to the United Kingdom since 1 May 1707 following the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707 passed, respectively, by the English and Scottish Parliaments.

Rather than go into the details of the arguments for or against independence, which have been chewed over ad nausem over the past few months of campaigning, we propose to list some of the prominent figures who have come out strongly against an independent Scotland.

They include:

Tony Blair, former UK Prime Minister, invader of Iraq and currently adviser to third world dictators.

Gordon Brown, former UK Prime Minister, who continued the neoliberal marketisation of the UK economy begun by Blair.

David Cameron, current UK Prime Minister and toff, who is forging ahead with the wholesale dismantlement of the UK public sector. Cameron has a personal interest in seeing off the independence movement as he will lose his job pronto if he becomes the UK Prime Minister who loses Scotland.

Edward Miliband, neoliberal leader of the UK Labour Party, who nominally opposes Cameron but in reality supports nearly everything he does. Miliband also has a personal interest in securing a vote of “No” to independence. Of the 59 Scottish MPs in the UK House of Commons, no fewer than 40 belong to the Labour Party. Without these MPs (who would  cease to exist if Scotland became independent), Miliband would have immense difficulty securing a majority in the Commons and so his craving for the job of UK Prime Minister would almost certainly be thwarted.

Nick Clegg, leader of the UK Liberal Democrat Party (in coalition with Cameron), a market fundamentalist.

Most of the UK and Scottish Press, including the purportedly left-leaning Guardian in London and the leading North Britain newspaper “The Scotsman”.

Leading banks and businesses, including supermarket chains. Banks have threatened to pull their headquarters out of Scotland in the event of a “Yes” vote,  supermarkets have warned that prices will rise.

Pop stars such as the supposedly liberal Bob Geldof (a citizen of the Irish Republic and hence having no right to vote in Scotland).

The Canadian Mark Carney, a former Goldman Sachs banker, who is currently Governor of the Bank of England, has publicly expressed doubts about the financial risks of independence.

The Queen of England, who just happens to be in Scotland on the day of the vote, is quoted as saying: “I hope people will think very carefully about the future.” This has been generally interpreted as a nod to the “No” camp.

The rightwing Prime Minister of Spain, Mariano Rajoy, who is scared stiff that the restive Catalan and Basque regions of Spain will seek independence if the Scots get it. Rajoy is quoted in the London Guardian today: “Everyone in Europe thinks that these processes are tremendously negative because they generate economic recessions and more poverty for everyone. [Scottish secession from the UK would be] a torpedo to the vulnerabilities of the European Union, which was created to integrate states, not to fragment them. Strong states are what’s needed today.”

Russia and China do not have a role in the Scottish referendum, of course, but they have always opposed splittist tendencies in existing states (such as Russia and China).

And, of course, the Empire itself is never backward in wading into the internal affairs of other states (whether it be Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Egypt or, in this case, Scotland) with a view to controlling or, at least influencing, the outcome to suit the narrow self-regarding interests of the United States.

Thus, Bill Clinton, former US President, has not been slow in bestowing his blessing on the anti-independence camp.

Barack Obama, the current US President, has also intervened at the last minute in an appeal to Scottish voters to keep the UK “strong, robust and united”. This was doubtless partly done as a favour to his fellow war-mongering friend, David Cameron, Prime Minister of the most obedient of America’s satellite states.

We hardly need go on.

Basically, the elites of the world political, media and business establishment have lined up, as they invariably do, to support the status quo.

It is a no brainer, therefore, that for someone who wants a decent, just, honest and equitable society the best way to achieve this is to upset the establishment apple-cart and vote for independence.

Antigone1984:

Antigone1984 has always supported the underdog, the little man, small states, local politics and local production. Small independent states have the flexibility and freedom to decide what is best for their citizens in full knowledge of the local terrain. Unlike big states they are not enmeshed in a distant stultifying centralized bureaucracy (such as the European Union). The progressive way forward is encapsulated in the slogan “Small is beautiful”.

However, if we are asked to guess which way the vote will go, we tend towards the view that fear of the unknown, fanned by people such as those we have mentioned above, will prevail. We expect that a small majority of those voting today will opt for the devil they know and, too unconfident to venture out into the rocky waters of national sovereignty, will prefer to stay a subject nation sheltering under the coat-tails of mother England.

We hope we are wrong.

Technical note:

The “saltire” is the Scottish national flag, which consists of a white X-shaped cross on a blue background.

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

  1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)
  2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)
  3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)
  4. Capitalism in practice (4 July 2012)
  5. Ladder  (21 June 2012)
  6.  A tale of two cities (1) (6 June 2012)
  7. A tale of two cities (2) (7 June 2012)
  8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

Posted in Canada, China, Economics, Europe, Politics, Russia, Scotland, Spain, UK, USA | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When Adam delved and Eve span

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

6 September 2014

A COMMUNIST PRIEST IN MEDIEVAL ENGLAND

“When Adam delved, and Eve span, who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And thereforeI exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty.”

Extract from a Sermon delivered at Blackheath in 1381 by John Ball, a revolutionary English priest, who was hanged as a traitor that same year after the failure of a popular uprising against the landed gentry and the crown. The sermon is cited in The Chronicles of England (1580) by the chronicler John Stow (1525-1605).

A similar citation confirming John Ball’s rebel-rousing egalitarianism is found in an earlier French text , Book 2 (1388) of the Chroniques of the French historian Jean Froissart (1337-1404):

“Et, se venons tout d’un père et d’une mere, Adam et Eve, en quoi poent il dire ne monstrer que il sont mieux signeur que nous, fors parce que il nous font gaaignier et labourer ce que il despendent? Il sont vestu de velours et de camocas fourés de vair et de gris, et nous sommes vesti de povres draps. Il ont les vins, les espisses et les bons pains, et nous avons le soille, le retrait et le paille, et buvons l’aige. Ils ont le sejour et les biaux manoirs, et nous avons le paine et le travail, et le pleue et le vent as camps, et faut que de nous viengne et de nostre labeur ce dont il tiennent les estas.”

The following English version of that passage is from p. 212 of Geoffrey Brereton’s translation of Froissart’s Chronicles, published by Harmonsworth: Penguin in 1968:

“If we all spring from a single father and mother, Adam and Eve, how can they claim or prove that they are lords more than us, except by making us produce and grow the wealth which they spend? They are clad in velvet and camlet lined with squirrel and ermine, while we go dressed in coarse cloth. They have the wines, the spices and the good bread: we have the rye, the husks and the straw, and we drink water. They have shelter and ease in their fine manors, and we have hardship and toil, the wind and the rain in the fields. And from us must come, from our labour, the things which keep them in luxury.”

——–

 You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

  1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)
  2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)
  3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)
  4. Capitalism in practice (4 July 2012) 
  5. Ladder  (21 June 2012)
  6. A tale of two cities (1) (6 June 2012)
  7. A tale of two cities (2) (7 June 2012)
  8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Economics, France, Literature, Politics, Religion, UK | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jaw-jaw better than war-war

Editorial note: If you have not yet read our mission statement above, please do so in order that you can put our blogs in context. 

3 September 2014

JAW-JAW BETTER THAN WAR-WAR

Three letters from readers in today’s London Guardian represent a refreshingly non-orthodox take on the Ukraine imbroglio:

  1. A letter by Anthony Kearney from Lancaster:

In your editorial excoriating Vladimir Putin (‘Lies and Deceit’, 30 August) you neglect to mention one glaring fact. Namely that without the illegal coup in Kiev earlier this year, sponsored and funded by the US and applauded by the western media, there would have been no annexation of Crimea, no civil war in eastern Ukraine, no downing of planes, no incursions from Russia or anywhere else, no damaging sanctions, and no looming threat of a third world war. Putin may be a liar or not, but it’s hard to see how he’s responsible for any of this.”

  1. A letter by Ian Flintoff from Oxford:

To understand Russia we need to go a little further than speculation on internal politics (‘Inside Putinworld, where few risk speaking truth to power’, 30 August). We need to understand what to be Russian means to Russians and why so many are still angry and heartbroken by what they see as the shameful betrayal of their motherland by the westernising and degrading years of Yeltsin.

To understand these things better we might learn something of the language: its nuance, beauty of sound, complexity and vigour, only perhaps equalled by those of English in the hands of a Shakespeare. We should read, at least, Pushkin and Chekhov (in the originals if possible), Dostoevsky if we have the courage, and also consider the story of a people who moved from tsarist serfdom to the first man in space in just about half a century.

And if we think we can intimidate Russians with threats, sanctions and the rattling of arms we should repeat to ourselves, several times, Stalingrad, Stalingrad, Stalingrad.

Then, perhaps, we might claim to understand a little better what it is to be Russian.”

  1. A letter by Gillian Dalley from London:

As a strong and long-time supporter of the EU, I never thought I’d contemplate the idea of our leaving it. However, the more that those member countries which were formerly part of the Soviet Union exert their influence over our collective approach to relations with Russia (Europe’s balance of power finally shifts east’, 1 September), the more I am beginning to see it might become a moral necessity.

The EU and Nato have been encroaching into parts of Europe that historically have never been part of their sphere of influence or culture, and goading Russia for months, if not years, into a reaction – over Ukraine especially. They then turn on Russia as if surprised by its reaction. How can we preach democracy and self-determination when we have been bribing and enticing former Soviet countries into our fold, encouraging them to adopt overtly aggressive positions towards Russia ever since the end of the cold war? Instead of seizing the opportunity to build a new Europe of peace and cooperation, one which includes Russia, we are simply expanding and rebadging the old anti-Soviet bloc in order to oppose our traditional “enemy”. Perhaps the only honourable position is for the UK to have no part in this.”

The contrasting conventional Cold War Russophobic stance is put in a fourth letter from a reader writing from the command centre of the military-industrial complex of the European Union (EU) and Nato:

  1. A letter by Annika Hedberg from Brussels:

In September 2014, it is shameful and embarrassing to be European. Shameful because people who live in countries that are members of the European Union or closely associated with the EU live in fear. They fear that the Russian aggression continues and if it is directed in their way, they have no certainty that the EU will have the resolve to guarantee their safety.

Embarrassing because our leaders manage to play an overwhelmingly strong hand so poorly. The EU is big, Russia is small. The EU is rich, Russia is poor. The EU (together with its allies) possesses the most advanced military capability in the world, Russia does not. Russia’s economy is eight times smaller than that of the EU (and 16 times smaller than that of the EU and its allies). And still the EU leaders manage to position the EU as if it was responding from a position of weakness.

Less than a decade ago, EU leaders sold the treaty of Lisbon to EU citizens on the premise that it would allow the EU to defend its interests and to project its values more effectively. Following the weekend’s summit, now is the last chance for the EU to demonstrate that the leaders were not wilfully and cynically misleading the EU population. Only a principled and strong response will do.

Real and effective economic sanctions will hurt the EU as well. But the EU is in an immeasurably stronger position to deal with them than is a fundamentally fragile and weak Russian economy. And mobilising the necessary military capability to halt and reverse the unlawful Russian incursion to the sovereign territory of an EU partner does carry a cost.

But sometimes it is necessary to draw the line and be prepared to pay the cost of one’s convictions. Now is such a time.”

Antigone1984:

Antigone1984 sides emphatically with the sentiments expressed in the first three letters. As UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) said at a White House luncheon in 1954: “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”


——–

You might perhaps care to view some of our earlier posts.  For instance:

  1. Why? or How? That is the question (3 Jan 2012)
  2. Partitocracy v. Democracy (20 July 2012)
  3. The shoddiest possible goods at the highest possible prices (2 Feb 2012)
  4. Capitalism in practice (4 July 2012) 
  5. Ladder  (21 June 2012)
  6. A tale of two cities (1) (6 June 2012)
  7. A tale of two cities (2) (7 June 2012)
  8. Where’s the beef? Ontology and tinned meat (31 Jan 2012)

Every so often we shall change this sample of previously published posts.

——-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Europe, Media, Military, Politics, Russia, UK, Ukraine, USA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment