Trying to make sense

Lots of stuff in the newspapers this morning about the implications of the No decision and the promises of further devolution.  It seems to me that there are (at least) three strands in the swirling world of controversy.

First, the promised increase in powers for the Scottish Parliament.  Although the parties differ in the detail of what they have proposed, it should not be impossible to come to an acceptable compromise within the timetable set out by the Clunking Fist and endorsed (apparently) by the three Westminster party leaders.  But Cameron's cynical attempt to link developments on this front with those on English devolution in terms of the timetable throws the matter into considerable doubt.

Second, the West Lothian Question where Cameron seeks to deprive Scottish (and Welsh and Northern Ireland) MPs of the ability to vote in the Commons on English domestic matters.  There are all sorts of problems with this, notably for the Labour Party.  And although the Tories may not admit it, it is to nobody's benefit if an elected UK government were unable to legislate on domestic English matters.  Nevertheless, the concept of English votes for English affairs has a superficial attraction on the voter's doorstep; and UKIP is ready to jump in with simplistic solutions.  I cannot see the shape of an acceptable compromise in any foreseeable timescale.

Third, the issue of wider devolution to English regions/local authorities.  The Labour Party seems prepared to consider this in the context of a constitutional convention meeting over the next 12 or so months.  The Tories seem less keen.  But viewed from afar, there appears to be a groundswell of English opinion that something needs to be done, even if that opinion is divided among calls for regional assemblies and appeals for greater responsibility for local authorities (or something in between).  Again, there seems little prospect of agreeing a destination within the next few months.

Finally, all of these potential discussions will be overlaid with the imminent General Election next May.  Not the sort of time period for constructive debate among the Westminster parties.

Hey, we live in interesting times ...

   

Quote of the day

From The Independent (here):

When Cameron joined the other party leaders in making his “vows” to the Scottish voters, he did not add that they would only get their powers as part of a package for England.

Cameron has every right to raise the England question, but to incorporate his proposed solution into precisely the same timetable for Scotland is a very big addition to the original vow. For the Scots, it is the equivalent of buying a house only to discover the deal will go ahead when a blazing row over planning permission nearby is resolved at the same time.

   

So farewell Alex

Like him or loathe him, his place in history is secure.  And his decision to resign as SNP leader and First Minister can only enhance the lustre which will be associated with his career.  Against all the odds, he led his party to outright victory in a Scottish General Election, a task thought to be impossible.  And then he fought a glorious if unsuccessful campaign for independence, a campaign that panicked Westminster and aroused the Scottish community to unheard-of heights of political participation.

It is at times like these that we should remember that politicians are only human.  The daily struggles inflict a severe toll.  Mr Salmond deserves some time to himself.  A time to reflect, a time to enjoy life.

If all political careers end in failure, Mr Salmond may content himself with the thought that at least he had a damn good try at success.

   

Who is Lord Smith?

Baron Smith of Kelvin, Knight of the Order of the Thistle, is to oversee the implementation of the new devolution arrangements for Scotland.

Originally a banker (score one against him), Lord Smith has a number of irons currently in the fire.  He is the Chairman of Scottish and Southern Energy (score two) and of the British Green Investment Bank.  Also the Patron of Foundation Scotland.  And he used to be the Chair of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games organising company.

Now 70 years old, you might have thought he was pushing on a bit for his new role.  But, hey, the Great and the Good go on forever.

Oh, and he and his missus own the island of Inchmarnock in the Firth of Clyde.

 

Here we go again

Ah yes, the English Question.  It used to be known as the West Lothian Question.  Nobody ever found an answer.

If Scottish MPs are excluded from voting on English matters, it gives rise to the possibility that a government could command a Commons majority on UK affairs while being unable to put through domestic English legislation.  Result: instability.

In reality, there are only two real solutions.  One, go the whole hog and establish an English Partliament and an English government, separate from the UK Parliament and the UK Government. Two, stop asking the bloody question.

 

Quote of the day (2)

From Fraser Nelson of The Spectator (here):

 If it’s a ‘yes’ result tomorrow, then it will be the result of of first-class politics from the separatists and first-class incompetence from the unionists.

It is often said that Westminster has been captured by a professional political class. This Scottish campaign has shown how amateurish these professionals can be.

   

Quote of the day

The Guardian interviewing voters (here):

A man in a van said he was “nervous if it goes the wrong way. My wife says she’s back off down to England if it’s a no.” He paused. “I’m no’ sure if that’s a good or a bad thing. But I’ll miss her.” 

   

Still indecisive

Well I have done my duty and cast my ballot.  I hope that I have done the right thing.

Lunch yesterday with some old chums in a swanky French restaurant.  Not surprisingly, being of a certain age and utterly representative of the Edinburgh bourgeoisie, they were No voters to a man (there were no women).  What I did not expect was the vehemence with which they held their views: not a shadow of doubt, not a scintilla of hesitation.

Call me a wimp if you must, but I found it difficult to make a choice.  Far from sure that certainty is a good thing.  Whatever the result, we will have to live with each other.  (Except for me - I bugger off back to Spain next week.)

   

Yes or No?

Phil Ochs said it best:

Oh, the shadows of doubt are in many a mind
Lookin' for an answer they're never gonna find
But they'd better decide 'cause they're runnin' out of time
For these are the days of decision

Oh, the games of stalling you cannot afford
Dark is the danger that's knocking on the door
And the far reaching rockets say you can't wait anymore
For these are the days of decision

In the face of the people who know they're gonna win
There's a strength that's greater than the power of the wind
And you can't stand around when the ice is growing thin
For these are the days of decision

I've seen your heads hinding 'neath the blankets of fear
When the paths they are plain and the choices are clear
But with each passing day, boys, the cost is more dear
For these are the days of decision

  

Just the start

From The Telegraph blogs (here):

Cameron is not smart. He thinks he is smart. So, lazily, he went for an all out gamble, Yes or No – which he might well lose, as things stand. And he did that because he was arrogantly confident that he would win. Cameron is inept on a fundamental level. He is an old Etonian, born to govern, unhappily devoid of the basic skills of governance, and politics.

...And on to Ed Miliband. ... the truth is Miliband is a gormless muppet more suited to running a Montessori nursery than an ancient nation.

No doubt, there will be more criticism to follow on Friday, whatever the result.

   

Picture of the day

h/t Paul

Music of the week

Hard to believe that this was released 49 years ago.  Seems like Yesterday ...

Quote of the day

Rachel Sylvester in The Times (reproduced here):

Only in the past two weeks has Mr Cameron focused on Scotland after a poll showing the Yes camp ahead made him realise that he might be about to become the prime minister who presided over the break-up of the United Kingdom. Once he understood quite how high the stakes had become, he panicked, cancelling prime minister’s questions to rush north and talk about how heart-broken he would be by separation, while promising new powers if the Scots agreed to stay.

None of this had been properly thought through. Tory MPs predict a huge rebellion if legislation is introduced to give greater powers to Scotland without also devolving rights to England. “Even if there’s a ‘no’ vote, Cameron has ended up giving away the keys to the kingdom on the basis of one opinion poll,” says a senior backbencher. “That is just wrong. The whole attitude has been ‘let’s get through today and worry about the details later’.”

Twas ever thus ...  

 

Notes to Treasury

I don't understand this (from here in The Independent):

Britain’s banks have been quietly moving millions of banknotes north of the border to cope with any surge in demand by Scots to withdraw cash in the event of a Yes vote in Thursday's independence referendum, it has emerged.

Sources told The Independent the moves have been taking place over the past week or so in order to make sure ATMs do not run out on Friday in the event of a panic reaction to a “yes” vote. There have been some suggestions that people will want to move their money to English banks in the event of an independence vote.

The overwhelming majority of ATMs in Scotland spit out Scottish banknotes (if you ask them nicely).  If there is a Yes win, what would be the point in stocking up with such notes?

Hostage to fortune

The FT reports:

Mr Cameron, Labour leader Ed Miliband and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg signed a joint pledge in the Daily Record saying that the Scottish parliament was “permanent” and that the so-called Barnett formula – which gives Scotland higher per capita funding for public services than England – would continue.

I would be extremely surprised if the continuation of the Barnett formula (whereby percentage increases in English public spending automatically result in increases in Scottish comparable spending) is met with approval by the little Englanders.  It has long been a bone of contention that Scotland does excessively well out of the current public spending arrangements (whether justified or not).

There will be a backlash.  Then we will find out if Cameron has a spine.

   

Was Wayne Rooney not available?

So David Beckham is supporting the No campaign.  That will really go down well with the punters.

If I were Mr Darling (which thank the Lord I'm not, sir), I would be in despair at such stupidity ...

   

Is it all over?

An opinion poll in The Observer has the No campaign ahead by 53% to 47% (excluding don't knows).

If that proves to be the result, it may be significantly less than the Yes campaign would have wished for.  But the nationalists can console themselves with the thought that they had the UK authorities seriously worried for a while and that support for independence turned out to be far greater than many people thought when the referendum was first agreed.  They may also prepare themselves for another go at the question in a few years time when (with experience of dealing with devo plus) they will be better able to address the big questions of the currency and EU membership.

Meanwhile the UK parties have to implement their promises of devo-plus.  I would not describe it as devo-max because it is not entirely clear what they have signed up to, particularly but not exclusively in relation to English devolution.  Nevertheless, something will have to be done, not least because unfulfilled promises would lead to a refusal on the part of the electorate to ever believe them again and to a hastening of another independence referendum.  Some of their backbenchers, however, in all parties, may be less than happy about increasing the influence of non-Westminster institutions with the inevitable reduction of powers for the UK Parliament.

But I am skipping ahead of myself.  Let us see what Friday morning brings.

   

Quote of the day

George Monbiot puts the boot into my former boss, Brian Wilson:

“A UK without Scotland would be much less likely to elect any government of a progressive hue,” former Labour minister Brian Wilson claimed in the Guardian last week. We must combine against the “forces of privilege and reaction” (as he lines up with the Conservatives, Ukip, the Lib Dems, the banks, the corporations, almost all the rightwing columnists in Britain, and every UK newspaper except the Sunday Herald) – in the cause of “solidarity”

There’s another New Labour weasel word to add to its lexicon (other examples include reform, which now means privatisation; and partnership, which means selling out to big business). Once solidarity meant making common cause with the exploited, the underpaid, the excluded. Now, to these cyborgs in suits, it means keeping faith with the banks, the corporate press, cuts, a tollbooth economy and market fundamentalism.

Here, to Wilson and his fellow flinchers, is what solidarity meant while they were in office. It meant voting for the Iraq war, for Trident, for identity cards, for 3,500 new criminal offences, including the criminalisation of most forms of peaceful protest. It meant being drafted in as political mercenaries to impose on the English policies to which the Scots were not subject, such as university top-up fees and foundation hospitals. It meant supporting every destructive and unjust proposition advanced by their leaders: the brood parasites who hatched in the Labour nest then flicked its dearest principles over the edge. It’s no surprise that the more the Scots see of their former Labour ministers, the more inclined they are to vote for independence.

Brutal, but justified?

 

What is Theresa May thinking of?

Arrived back at Edinburgh airport to have my passport checked by the black-shirted stormtroopers of the Border Force.  Do they really have to dress up like the SS?

 

Home again

David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband are combining forces and heading to Scotland tomorrow to make the case for the UK.

Me too.  On the 07.15 plane.  Not to make the case for the UK.  But to see some old chums, to renew contact with the relations and to have a fish supper from the Alba d'Oro.  I've packed my winter woollies.

So no posts tomorrow morning.
   

A psychotherapist speaks

From The Guardian (here):

Perry says you can tell that Scotland and RUK are in the midst of a communication breakdown by looking at the behaviour of the prime minister. “The spouse who’s about to be left comes up with all sorts of, ‘I’ll be better ...’” she says. “That’s what David Cameron’s doing now.” (Scotland, no one will ever love you like we do.)

... if the yes vote wins, how should people either side of the border cope with the feeling of abandonment?

“Once it happens,” says Perry, “it’s not as bad as you thought.” (Scotland, we’ll get over it.)

Oh dear.

   

   

Getting over-excited

Shock!  Horror!  The Guardian reports:

Billions of pounds were wiped off the value of companies with Scottish links and the pound was pummelled as markets took fright at the increasing prospect of Scotland voting next week to break away from the United Kingdom.

Investors on Monday dumped companies with exposure to Scotland, including the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, which owns Bank of Scotland.

They also ditched sterling, which at one point fell to its lowest level against the dollar for 10 months.

"Be afraid, be very afraid," Deutsche Bank analysts warned its clients after the Sunday Times YouGov poll had showed a small lead for the yes campaign.

Actually, the RBS share price fell by 1.3% to 342.5 pence.  This is far from welcome, but it is not uncommon.  As may be seen from the following graph, there have been many days over the past 12 months when the RBS share price was lower than 342.5 pence, sometimes much lower.

Indeed, only a month ago, the price was below 340 pence.

Much the same could be said of Lloyds, whose share price yesterday fell by 2.43% to 72,2 pence.

The point is that share prices go up and down all the time.  And it is foolish to read too much into the movement on any single day, especially when that movement is within the normal bounds of variation.

Furthermore, there were plenty of non-Scottish FTSE-100 companies whose share prices yesterday fell by greater percentages than the two illustrated above.

So don't panic,  Yet.


Update

As at 08.27 (BST), the RBS share price has risen to 345 pence, while that of Lloyds has risen to 73.5 pence.

Conversation of the week

Her Maj entertains Cameron at Balmoral (here):

"You do know you will go down in history as the prime minister who lost the union," the Queen continued.

"Indeed. I am aware of that, ma'am."

"Well, what do you intend to do about it?"

"I'm not really sure there's much I can do."

"Then you'd better come up with something quickly. One will not be pleased if Scawtland goes feral."

"I suppose I could start by coming to the Braemar games with you, ma'am."

"I don't think that's a very good idea."

"How about a spot of fishing on the Dee?"

"I suggest you do rather more than that. The royal family has done its bit by instructing Kate to get pregnant again and I can promise you the Scawts will only ever get to see the baby in the pages of Hello! if they don't vote the right way. So just bugger awf back to Westminster. If you don't get this sorted in the next 10 days, you won't be coming back here next year."

"And neither, ma'am, will you."

Number of the day

From Red Box (here):

20

Centimetres: decline in the average annual rainfall of the new UK if Scotland becomes independent

   

As they say, it's an ill wind that blaws naebody any guid ...

London has woken up

I make it that this morning's Guardian has no fewer than nine articles on the subject of Scottish independence:

scottish-independence-westminster-no-campaign-last-stand
scottish-independence-ten-days-to-go-vote-uk
what-would-independence-mean-for-scotland-economy
scottish-independence-tactics-quebec
better-together-campaign-scottish-independence-vote
scottish-independence-devolution-england
martin-rowson-cartoon-scottish-independence-uk-david-cameron
scotland-decides-union-tories
guardian-view-on-scottish-independence-referendum

So, I reckon we now have their attention ...

 

Together

A bit late

As independence looks increasingly likely, the No campaign looks for a game-changer.  The Observer reports:

The people of Scotland are to be offered a historic opportunity to devise a federal future for their country before next year's general election, it emerged on Saturday night, as a shock new poll gave the campaign for independence a narrow lead for the first time.

Amid signs of panic and recrimination among unionist ranks about the prospects of a yes vote on 18 September, the Observer has learned that a devolution announcement designed to halt the nationalist bandwagon is due to be made within days by the anti-independence camp.

The plan, in the event of a no vote, is that people from all parts of Scottish society – rather than just politicians – would be invited to take part in a Scottish conference or convention that would decide on further large-scale transfers of power from London to Holyrood.

If they had thought to make such an offer a year ago - or even six months ago - it might have made a difference.  But, now, it merely reinforces the impression that Westminster will only make grudging concessions when its back is against the wall.

 

The airline business

h/t Paul

Common sense beginning to surface?

This would appear to be a sensible assessment.  What is surprising is that it has taken so long to get to this point.

But there's an interesting question about how the Bank of England and the big Scottish banks would react on 19 September if the result is "yes". Governor Mark Carney said a fortnight ago that there are contingency plans in place, but understandably declined to discuss them.

Step one, though, seems obvious: loud assurances to depositors that there is no reason whatsoever to withdraw money from Scottish banks, coupled with a reminder that Threadneedle Street remains responsible for financial stability across the whole of the UK right up until the moment of separation, which would be 2016 at the earliest.

As for Scottish banks themselves, their first response to a yes vote is equally clear.Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds would have to declare that they will move their registered offices from Edinburgh to London as soon as they can get approval from the courts.

The assets of the big two banks are 12 times as large as Scottish GDP, so there is no chance of an independent Scotland being able to act as a lender of last resort in a crisis.If there is doubt on the point, markets will jump on it and the banks' funding costs would soar.

Whether a move of a registered office is merely a shift of a brass-plate, or would herald an on-the-ground exodus from Edinburgh's financial centre, is a debate in itself.Either way though, RBS, Lloyds and TSB would have to say within hours of a yes vote that, legally, they can't be Scottish.

Sad to see the loss of the Scottish banks, but probably inevitable.  And it means that an independent Scottish government would not have to cope with such a major imbalance in its economy.

 


 

Alex the popstar

Music of the week

Anomie: In societies or individuals, a condition of instability resulting from a breakdown of standards and values or from a lack of purpose or ideals.

Panic stations?

We live in interesting times.  The Guardian reports:

David Cameron will face calls to take the unprecedented step in modern peacetime of postponing next year's UK general election by 12 months in the event of a vote for Scottish independence to avoid the prospect of a Labour government that would depend on Scottish MPs.

Amid warnings of a "constitutional meltdown" after a yes vote, which would place severe personal political pressure on the prime minister, a growing number of Tory MPs are saying they will call for legislation to be introduced to postpone the general election. It would be the first time since 1940, a year into the second world war, that a general election would have been postponed.

One member of the government said: "You would see very quickly after the referendum calls for a delay in the election. You simply could not have an election that would produce a Labour government supported by Scottish MPs if the Tories had a majority in the rest of the UK. So you would say: OK Alex Salmond wants to negotiate the break up by March 2016. So we will have a general election on the new Britain in May 2016."

Far from sure that the English people would be content to allow a discredited Prime Minister with a shaky majority to negotiate the terms of Scotland's departure from the Union.  Bearing in mind that an independence bill would need to be approved by both Commons and Lords, I would have thought that a delay to the general election would need to be accompanied by the establishment of a government of national unity (oh, the ironies!), comprising all three UK parties and led by someone relatively uncontroversial (William Hague perhaps).

Meanwhile, the City of London is waking up:

,,, amid the unresolved question of an independent Scotland's long-term currency arrangements, some economists say the Bank's first priority might be to ensure that Scottish banks do not suffer a rush of withdrawals.

Thinktank Capital Economics says: "We would not be surprised if the Bank of England's contingency preparations, which [governor] Mark Carney highlighted two weeks ago, included capital controls on the Scottish financial sector to prevent a run on Scottish banks immediately after the referendum result was announced."

Bankers themselves, however, wonder how such a policy could be implemented in practice: their systems are not designed to disallow transfers between Scottish and English branches.

To put it more bluntly, how to prevent English (and Welsh and Northern Irish) account-holders in  NatWest, Lloyds and Halifax from withdrawing money from their accounts?  Difficult, maybe even impossible?

An easier solution would be for RBS and Lloyds to move their HQs south of the border, thereby becoming English banks at a stroke.  (Though that also has implications ,,,)


 

Football

I see that the Germans are so worried about their match next Sunday against the mighty Scotland that they are this evening staging a warm-up match against Argentina.

Not sure that the Argentinians will provide a sufficient test for the Germans - it is unlikely to put Deutschland in the mood to face the lightning attackers and valiant defenders of Gordon Strachan's crack outfit.

Or have I got this wrong, somehow?

 

It fell off the back of a lorry

That used to be the common excuse when found in possession of something which had apparently been illegally acquired.  It was often used in association with contraband goods (booze, nylons, off-ration food) during and after the Second World War.

It was never a credible excuse.  Nor is it today, even in stories like this:

Authorities in Kazakhstan are on high alert after a container holding the radioactive substance caesium-137 disappeared in the west of the country, police said on Tuesday.

A police spokesman for the Mangistau region said the material – commonly used for military and medical purposes – appeared to have fallen off a vehicle that was transporting it.

Pull the other one, Ivan!

Quote of the day (2)

Alex Massie from The Spectator blogs (here):

You know it’s bad when Better Together insiders give up trying to deny the reality that the nationalists have enjoyed a polling bounce. Indeed, last night there was a palpable, dread-filled sense in Unionist circles that expressed itself in variations of a very simple verdict: Oh fuck. 

 

Uncharted waters

Red Box has some questions to be answered, in the event of a YES:

• Would Scottish MPs have any say in UK decisions in the months before the 2015 general election?
• Would there be any point in MPs standing for election in Scotland in 2015 knowing they would be illegitimate within months?
• Would the remainder of Britain have to hold a second general election in 2016 to take account of Scotland’s departure?
• Would David Cameron, having lost the Union, feel obliged to resign?
• Would Ed Miliband, if he had won narrowly in 2015 with Scottish help, feel obliged to call an election?

Yet answer came there none.

Myopia

The outcome of the latest polls, showing a diminishing gap between the yes and no sides, would suggest that the coalition government might be in the process of committing an egregious error.  The FT reports:

David Cameron’s official spokesman said on Monday that officials had no detailed plans on what would happen in the event of a surprise Yes vote.

“No such work (is being) undertaken,” the prime minister’s official spokesman told reporters when asked if the government had produced contingency plans for a Yes vote. “The government’s entire focus is on making the case for the UK staying together.”

So, just supposing that the yes campaign were to deliver the extra three percentage points required, the result in  Whitehall would be chaos:  a mad dash to pull together negotiating positions on the many issues requiring decision, with ongoing speculation about the future of the Prime Minister who lost the union.  It's not as if they can simply let the matter rest until after next May's general election.

 

Quote of the day

I see that, as usual, Mr Cameron is lurching forward on a wing and a prayer:

Cameron's toughest words were for Isis. Or rather, for any suspected Isis terrorists with UK passports. "This government does not believe in knee-jerk reactions," he began, before going on to say police were going to be given powers to confiscate passports from anyone they suspected of being a terrorist. He wasn't at all sure this was legal under international law and he was extremely hazy about the details when pressed by Ed Miliband, but he was still absolutely certain it was not a knee-jerk idea.

Will he ever learn?

   

Getting carried away

Paul Mason has been taking the Glasgow temperature:

The most coherent of the young people I spoke to understood the macro-economic risk. But they weighed it against two increasingly intolerable burdens: the inability of Scotland's relatively left-leaning electorate to influence Westminster; and the inability to budge Scottish Labour away from the free-market and pro-austerity policies associated with Brown and Darling.

What this means is, even if the yes vote fails on 18 September, scoring somewhere in the mid 40s, the pattern of all future Scottish independence debates is set.

Independence has become a narrative of the people against big government; about an energised Scottish street, bar and nightclub versus the sleazy elite of official politics.

And from whence did he form such a conclusion?

Having spent last week in Glasgow, I would say the biggest variable is going to be turnout. When political enthusiasm reaches the relatively apolitical world of the council estate, the pub, the nightclub and energises people, turnout can do weird things to poll predictions. Alex Salmondclaimed there would be 80% turnout. I think the chances are even higher – and if the polls actually cope with such volume, every percentage point above normal introduces volatility not captured by normal polling.

At the Sub Club, a world-famous nightspot in Glasgow, the debate was remarkably coherent, even at 2am among the intoxicated smokers huddled outside. If I could distil the vox pops among those under-30s to a single thought it would be: "We want to run our own country."

Heaven preserve us from commentators who spend a week in Glasgow, visiting nightclubs at 2 am, and who think that they can discern the Scottish mind.

    

Just a thought

So the government is to have a crackdown on those going off to fight in the Middle East:

Speaking at Downing Street after his return from a pre-referendum trip to Scotland, Cameron said: "It is becoming clear that there are some gaps in our armoury and we need to strengthen them. We need to do more to stop people travelling, to stop those who do go from returning and to deal decisively with those who are already here."

If Cameron had been Prime Minister in the 1930s, what would have been his attitude to those Brits (such as Orwell) who travelled to Spain to fight alongside communists and anarchists in the Spanish civil war?

 

Music of the week

What happened to the Glorious Revolution?

This business of the appointment of next Clerk to the House of Commons.  Here is a brief summary of the position from The Telegraph:

Mr Bercow [the Speaker] wants to appoint Carol Mills, an Australian, to be Clerk. A lot of MPs, of all parties, think that’s a mistake, suggesting she’s not qualified. This has led to an impasse. Technically, it’s up to the Speaker, as chair of the Commons Commission, to propose a new clerk. That candidate is then put forward by the Prime Minister to the Queen for approval.

I have no strong views as to the merits or suitability of Ms Mills.  What I find amazing is the involvement of the Queen.  I appreciate that it may now be a formality.  Nevertheless, why should the Queen be even marginally involved in the appointment of the most senior official in the House of Commons?  Is the House of Commons independent of the monarchy or not?  How can the Commons hold the Executive to account when the titular head of the latter has to approve appointments to the former?


 

I used to be indecisive ...

... but now I'm not so sure.

Yes, I will shortly be departing this sun-kissed paradise - albeit temporarily - to embrace once again the doubtful pleasures of Auld Reekie in September.  And, perhaps, to cast my vote in the forthcoming referendum.  For indeed I still have sufficient ties to the dear old place to qualify for a place on the electoral roll.

But which way to vote?  And, prior to that, have I a moral right to vote?  Although I pay UK income tax on my pension and council tax in respect of my humble Edinburgh abode, I cannot deny that I am spending more and more time in sunny Spain.  So should I be permitted to throw in my tuppenceworth to the momentous decision, when the effect on me and mine will be limited?  Me, ah dinnae ken.

As for the vote itself, if I do exercise my voting rights, which way should I jump?  Sure enough, it's a sair fecht.

Could I bear to see the land of my birth subjected to another five years of Westminster rule by the Tories?  Increasing pressure on welfare services, cuts to public services across the board and the probability of a UK exit from the EU.  And, even if the Tories lose the general election next May, would life under Miliband be significantly better?  Furthermore, I have little faith in the UK parties' promises of additional devolution.  (Been here before, have we not?)

On the other hand, can I trust Scotia's future to Salmond and his henchmen?  Has he really thought matters through, on the currency, the EU membership and on Trident?  Or is his version of independence little more than toytown politics where London remains calling the shots?  And, while the quality of the members of the Scottish Parliament may on the whole be marginally better than their Westminster counterparts, do I really think that they are fit to run the country?

All very difficult.

   

Choices, choices ...

On telly tonight.  Will I watch the football (Man City v Liverpool) or the Great Debate (Part II)?  Duty suggests the latter.  But, I could watch the football match live and then the debate on the i-player (assuming of course that it is indeed on the i-player).

Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if both events turned out to be goalless draws ...

 

Why football managers lack common sense

1.  Van Gaal of Man Utd bidding £60m for di Maria, an Argentinian winger

Obvious from last week's first match that Man Utd's desperate need is for a holding defensively-minded midfield player, not yet another attacker.

2.  Rodgers of Liverpool looking to sign Balotelli

How daft can you get?  Every centre-half in the Premier League will seek to wind him up.  And no doubt successfully ...

 
Update:  From The Observer (here):

Mourinho reckons his book of Balotelli anecdotes would stretch to 200 pages and the one he likes to tell the most is a belter. “We went to play Rubin Kazan in the Champions League. All my other strikers were injured. No Diego Milito, no Samuel Eto’o. I was really in trouble. Mario got a yellow card in the 42nd minute and when I got into the dressing room at half-time I spent 14 minutes of the 15 available speaking to Mario. I said to him: ‘Mario, I can’t change you, I have no strikers on the bench, don’t touch anybody and play only the ball. Mario, if someone provokes you, don’t react. If we lose the ball, no reaction. If the referee makes a mistake, no reaction.” A pause. “The 46th minute: red card.”

Poll tax on wheels

The Observer delves into the mysteries of rail privatisation:

The collapse of Railtrack in 2001 after the Hatfield disaster forced the creation of Network Rail, a not-for-dividend statutory corporation limited by guarantee, an elaborate organisational con to avoid the dread words "public company" and "nationalisation", even though it is 100% owned by the state. The de facto state backing has allowed it to run up borrowing of £30bn to finance rail investment, but at higher rates of interest than if it had been openly acknowledged that it was publicly owned. The cumulative extra servicing cost is more than £150m, but as the Office for National Statistics is now calling for the con to be ended and the debt reclassified as public debt, it's all for nothing. Brilliant.

Directly Operated Railways is the 100% publicly owned company that took over the east coast mainline when the incompetent private operator walked away from its obligations in 2009. Five years of public ownership and it is now the best run and most efficient operator, making a net surplus of £16m for the taxpayer. Its reward? To be sold back to a private operator next February that will redirect the surplus through a tax haven as dividends, game the Department for Transport for higher government support and walk away if the financial returns are not good enough. Thus the benefits of British-style private ownership in a public network. Meanwhile, the absurdities of privatisation continue. Two of the three companies that own the rolling stock leased to the train operating companies are owned in Jersey, the third is owned in Luxembourg. None shows any interest in supporting rolling stock manufacture in the country they so casually pillage. 

Crazy.

 

Watch it and weep

Quote of the day

From an Englishman in The Independent (here):

Next they’ll say that an independent Scotland can’t use British clouds, so all rain will become the property of the Meteorological Office, turning Scotland into a desert overrun by wolves in 2018. Nor will they be allowed to keep the British religion, so the Holy Ghost will stop at Carlisle and everyone in Scotland will be forced to worship Zeus.

Yesterday Margaret Curran MP announced that another reason to vote No was that “an independent Scotland would lose access to some BBC programmes.” Is this the level of the debate as a nation decides its destiny? When Gandhi was fighting for the liberation of India did he tell his supporters, “Not only will we become a free and self-governing people, proud at last to determine our own future, but we’ll still be able to watch Homes Under the Hammer?”

  

Research?

Hmmph!  So, allegedly, Kindle readers take in less than traditional book readers.  The Guardian reports:

The researchers suggest that "the haptic and tactile feedback of a Kindle does not provide the same support for mental reconstruction of a story as a print pocket book does".

"When you read on paper you can sense with your fingers a pile of pages on the left growing, and shrinking on the right," said Mangen. "You have the tactile sense of progress, in addition to the visual ... [The differences for Kindle readers] might have something to do with the fact that the fixity of a text on paper, and this very gradual unfolding of paper as you progress through a story, is some kind of sensory offload, supporting the visual sense of progress when you're reading. Perhaps this somehow aids the reader, providing more fixity and solidity to the reader's sense of unfolding and progress of the text, and hence the story."

Sounds a bit dodgy to me.  Where is the evidence?

The study, presented in Italy at a conference last month and set to be published as a paper, gave 50 readers the same short story by Elizabeth George to read. Half read the 28-page story on a Kindle, and half in a paperback, with readers then tested on aspects of the story including objects, characters and settings.

So the researchers are willing to draw conclusions on a single test based on a small sample of only 50 readers on one short story?  Not really serious, is it?

 

Music of the week

Whatever happened to Dire Straits?

Yo-yo monetary policies

One quarter, the signal is for higher interest rates; the next quarter, it's the opposite.  CityAM reports:

Sterling plunged to its lowest level in two months as governor Mark Carney spoke, with analysts suggesting that the Bank’s latest inflation report was backtracking from the governor’s more hawkish tones in June.

Societe Generale economists pushed back their forecast for the Bank’s first post-crisis interest rate hike, and now argued that the increase would not probably take place until early 2015. RBC Capital Markets added that market exp­ect­ations for the eventual tightening shifted three months to next April.

Carney’s comments at his Mansion House speech in June had the opposite effect – the governor indicated that rates could rise before markets expected.

Do you suppose that the Golden Boy knows what he is doing?

Quote of the day

The Chief Foreign Correspondent of The Telegraph takes a firm line:

We should be willing to bear the costs and risks of military action alongside America in the cause of protecting the minorities of Iraq from the risk of extermination. To do otherwise would be to place our own phobias – our visceral reluctance to return to Iraq, our abhorrence of risk, and our new reluctance to use force even against the most implacable foe – above the moral case for action.

If you start with the question "what is right", then unless you are an outright pacifist, I submit that the answer is clear: the moral course is to use force to protect a minority from possible extirpation. If you accept that argument, then everything else falls into place.

I can readily see the attractions of such a firm stance.  But what would we be getting into?  Is there any real prospect of defeating Islamic State by dropping bombs on them?  Or of bringing them to the conference table?  Would we be taking on an open-ended commitment to defend the Yazidis and the Kurds?  For how long?  At what cost?  What would be the exit strategy?

I don't pretend to know the answers.  There are no easy choices.  But if we are to go beyond humanitarian aid, we need to have a much clearer idea of the strategy involved.

 

Been here before

Aye, well.  The Zoo is crying wolf again:

Following a sustained frenzy of pregnancy speculation on a scale that perhaps only the Duchess of Cambridge can relate to, Scotland's celebrated female giant panda, Tian Tian, is likely to give birth at the end of this month, Edinburgh zoo has announced.

The 10-year-old panda underwent artificial insemination in April after she and her male counterpart loaned to the zoo from China, Yang Guang, stubbornly declined to proceed as nature intended.

I hope that it is not too ungallant to suggest that the Countess of Strathearn (to give her Scottish title) is rather more reliable when it comes to moherhood.

 

It's not fair

It's a tough old life, being an MP.  The Guardian reports:

Mark Simmonds, the Africa minister, said he would stand down from government immediately and would leave his Boston and Skegness seat at next year's general election.

He said that the rental allowance of £27,875 a year plus £2,500 for each of his three children would not be enough to maintain a family home in Westminster and that he would not be prepared to live outside central London.

Simmonds earns £89,435 a year as an MP and minister and employs his wife Lizbeth with up to £25,000 of public money.

His reasons for stepping down have been heavily criticised on Twitter and have exposed the differences in perception of many MPs – who believe that the expenses regime is penalising their ability to live normal family lives – and voters who still believe parliamentarians receive too much public money.

His resignation comes just days after Lady Warsi resigned from her Foreign Office post over the government's policy on the crisis in Gaza.

Simmonds said he was leaving primarily so he can spend time with his family because he cannot afford to house them in central London.

So, on top of his annual family income of £114,835, Mr Simmons would like the public purse to provide him with a family home in Central London.  Wouldn't we all ...?

 

If the cap fits ...

The Guardian reports:

A top banker at Standard Chartered, which was warned on Wednesday that it was facing its second fine in two years for breaches of US rules, has complained that bankers are being treated "like criminals" when money laundering rules are broken.

I wonder why ...

 

As others see us

From El Pais (here):

Fue un debate cuerpo a cuerpo del que aparentemente salió victorioso el no, aunque por los pelos. Alex Salmond, principal ministro de Escocia y defensor del sí a la independencia y Alistair Darling, la cara del noescogida por el Gobierno británico para defender la permanencia en el Reino Unido, se batieron en duelo abierto frente a las cámaras de televisión escocesas por primera vez desde que se convocó el referéndum hace ya dos años.

Pero al finalizar el debate era difícil decir quién lo había ganado. No obstante, la primera encuesta, realizada por ICM entre 512 personas, situaba a Darling como ganador con un 56% de los televidentes de su parte frente a un 44% que le dio la victoria a Salmond. Y eso mismo parecían decir los tuits lanzados durante y tras el debate que duró una hora y media y en el que la economía fue la pieza clave. De hecho, el Gobierno británico hizo coincidir con el día del cara a cara su anuncio de nuevos poderes para los escoceses para recaudar impuestos y controlar de forma independiente la Seguridad Social.

A Darling le restó puntos el haber sido responsable del Tesoro británico durante la crisis de 2008, algo que Salmond se ocupó de recordarle al público. “Usted no tiene credibilidad. Usted era el responsable de las regulaciones financieras cuando los bancos colapsaron”, espetó al poco de iniciar el debate.

   

.

Debate of the deaf?

For those of my readers unable to access the STV Player.  (Only the highlights)

The Great Debate

Not taking it seriously enough -

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/shortcuts/2014/aug/04/scottish-independence-referendum-debate-drinking-game

Aw diddums ...

It's a tough life being a banker.  Here is Douglas Flint, Chairman of HSBC, complaining about all the regulation bankers have to put up with:

The demands now being placed on the human capital of the firm and on our operational and systems capabilities are unprecedented. The cumulative workload arising from a regulatory reform programme that is unfortunately increasingly fragmented, often extra-territorial, still evolving and still adding definition is hugely consumptive of resources that would otherwise be customer facing. Add to this recent obligations to perform highly granular multiple stress tests which are inconsistent in definition and scenarios between major jurisdictions and so require considerable duplication of effort; recently announced significant wholesale market practice and competition reviews in the UK; re-organising the financial, operational and structural framework of the Group to respond to evolving thinking on cross-border resolution protocols; and, finally, planning what will be a multi-year project to separate and establish the ring-fenced bank in the UK, and the dimension of the execution risk is obvious.

To be clear, we are committed and resourced to deliver all of the above. But there is extremely limited spare capacity. Prioritisation, which is clearly critical, will require support and guidance from public policy and regulatory bodies, particularly in the UK, regarding the juxtaposition of the recently announced competition review and preparation for the creation of the ring-fenced bank. Equally important is delivery of the stated intention of the Financial Stability Board and the G20 to seek to draw a close on fresh regulatory initiatives by the end of this year.

Doncha feel sorry for the poor lambs?  Of course, it might have been less necessary to impose all that regulation, had it not been for all their past misdeeds - such as rigging LIBOR rates and mis-selling insurance policies, not to mention their role in the Great Crash.  And was it not HSBC that acted as a banker for a Mexican drug cartel?  And now, today, more evidence has come to light on how HSBC may have failed to observe the law in relation to consumer credit agreements.

 

Killjoy

Sour grapes from one writer in The Guardian:

Little-known sportspeople and those who cover them are fully entitled to enjoy the limelight. What quickly became tedious was the assertion that these Games offered an epic sporting event. They never do, regardless of the host.

This has generally been a party for the middle class. Which is fine, but people should know better than to supply an alternative, force-fed narrative.

Scotland has apparently become so impoverished as a sporting nation that the sight of any success at all is hailed beyond comprehension and context. At the time of writing, one able-bodied world record has been broken. Runners from Tonga and Gibraltar were lapped three times on the Hampden track. The men’s 1500m and marathon Commonwealth records have been in place since 1974; they aren’t isolated statistics.

This year’s medal table tells a story about the standard of the Games. There are more medals available than ever before, an important footnote to tales of national glory.

So the BBC went over the top - as per usual.  But by all accounts, the athletes enjoyed the Games and, certainly, the crowds did.  What's not to celebrate?

   

Rumble in the jungle

McKenna in The Observer runs his rule over the participants in The Great TV Debate later this week.

First up, the Darling of the Noes:

Darling's only hope of matching his opponent (he will never better him) during this exchange and the second one to follow lies in disrupting the flow of debate. The former chancellor is a thoroughly insipid public speaker who engenders no passion or belief in what he is saying. His answers seem learned by rote and his continual blinking as he's delivering them makes him look unconvincing, like an understudy who's just been acquainted with the script owing to the leading man being incapacitated.

Is he really that bad?

Then there is the bold Alex:

Salmond's main challenge during this debate will not come from any deft touch or rapier thrust from his opponent. Rather, the biggest obstacle he must overcome is his own self-confidence and sense of self-satisfaction. If he does begin to eviscerate Darling early in the proceedings, he must avoid any showboating or mock-exasperation or that smirking thing that he does like the swot who knows the answer but lets the class bampots make eejits of themselves trying to answer first.

It's not difficult to descend from intellectually robust to mere rodomontade and sometimes Salmond does it, especially when he dismisses sentiments he doesn't like as "bluff and bluster".

I look forward to the mere rodomontade, whatever that is*.

   

* Boastful talk or behaviour

Scottish weather forecast

Music of the week

"The boots just go back on
The socks that have stayed on"

Monkey business

The Guardian reports:

India's new government won an overwhelming mandate in the recent elections, and now it has taken on another parliamentary foe: marauding monkeys.

India's housing and urban development minister, Venkaiah Naidu, told MPs that 40 professional monkey impersonators would be deployed around government buildings to police the cheeky rhesus macaque monkeys who regularly trespass in the corridors of power, terrorising senior bureaucrats, stealing files and snatching food.

The human monkey scarers will disguise themselves as the macaque's natural nemesis, the larger, black-faced langur, Naidu said.

Insert your own joke about human monkey scarers at Westminster.