Category Archives: Politics

Politics: covering anything from current events to political structures in different countries

Overcoming our obsession with homeownership

9 September, 2018 Will Compernolle 10 Comments

The idea of homeownership is deeply embedded into the narrative of the modern middle class. Owning a home is almost synonymous with controlling one’s own destiny, financial security in retirement, and setting up roots in a community.

For more than a century, politicians have encouraged this mentality and pushed policies that shift people into homeownership over alternative means of residence and investment. In America specifically, this culture has led to imprudent investing, regressive wealth distribution, and a perpetuation of inequality. America needs to get over its cultural obsession with homeownership and the accompanying policies that ostensibly promote it.

Homeownership as an investment

In the wonderful story of homeownership, families that plunk down money into home equity over the course of a 30-year mortgage are promised a comfortable nest egg by the time they reach retirement. Encouraging Americans to save more is a worthy goal, but investing in a home often fails to deliver on the storied promise. Putting significant savings into home equity is the equivalent of putting all of one’s eggs into one basket and it’s a basket that cannot move its physical location. Stock prices go up and up over the long term with bumps along the way, so anyone who can ride out the ups and downs will do well over a time span like thirty years. Yet unlike an S&P ETF, a house cannot always wait until retirement to be sold. Families need to uproot themselves and move for a variety of reasons. When this situation arises, they may find themselves in the middle of a down housing market. And as we saw in 2008, housing prices are not guaranteed to go up over time.

Policies are regressive and destabilizing

Agencies, legislation, and fiscal policies have been set up in the name of promoting homeownership. Perhaps the most significant is the mortgage interest deduction (MID). By deducting the interest paid on a mortgage from their taxes, families are incentivized to take out more expensive mortgages than they’d otherwise without the deduction. Politicians sometimes defend the policy as helping the group of people just on the margin of being able to afford a home. This tax deduction, the thinking goes, will give them that extra boost that brings them into that exciting club of homeowners. Regardless of intentions, this has led to American housing policy emphasizing wealthy homeowners rather than those on the border of rental and ownership.

Graph depicting household income percentile — Source: Vox

Policies like the MID also serve to destabilize our financial system. As Brink Lindsey and Steven Teles argue in their recent book, The Captured Economy, current housing policies encourage an over-reliance on debt that makes for a massive house of cards in the financial system. All the while, homeownership rates have barely budged from their 1980 levels.

Homeownership rates in the USA from 1995 to 2018 — Source: US Census Bureau

Compared to a more targeted policy like down payment subsidies based on applicants’ income, the MID bloats purchases across the spectrum and means even slight moves in the economy can cause a wave of foreclosures. The MID is so embedded in middle class society that it’s a political non-starter when it comes to reform or abolishing a law that almost all economists believe is bad.

Aggravate NIMBYism

By tying families to homes that are immobile and a significant amount of their savings, homeownership pressures people to move heaven and earth to preserve the value of their homes. This perpetuates NIMBY – Not In My BackYard – policies that often serve a narrow group of residents over the common good.

When a city like San Francisco sees a massive increase in demand for housing due to an economic boom, construction of new housing is often choked off in part because the existing residents know an increased supply will lower their home values. The residents who would like to live in San Francisco but cannot afford it have no political clout compared to the current residents. Shutting people out of productive hubs like Silicon Valley perpetuates inequality by keeping lower-income people in low productivity areas and giving owners of capital more wealth.

As Mehrsa Baradaran has noted, NIMBYism can drive otherwise progressive people to go to extensive lengths to preserve their home values. Existing homeowners, because of the potential of the policies to lower home values, often vehemently oppose policies that encourage integration of neighborhoods and schools. Although the policies may have uncertain effects on housing values, the risk involved with changing the character of their neighborhood and education system is too great to endure when it comes to their retirement nest egg. The existing public education landscape in America, tying school funding and choice to property taxes and zip codes, is strongly kept in place by a desire to preserve property values.

Every area needs to put undesirable infrastructure like garbage dumps, sewage plants, or prisons somewhere. Because people are so closely tied to the value of their homes, political pressure is placed on politicians to place these structures far away from the highest-value homes rather than what make most sense for the community. Now whether one is a renter or an owner, no one wants to be next door to a toxic waste dump. But the motivation to make sure it’s not in Your Back Yard is much higher when you’re an owner compared to if you’re a renter with much more mobility. Simply put, the risks involved to your property value from any change in your neighborhood can be so daunting that the political equilibrium is just to maintain a stagnant status quo.

Racial Wealth Gap

The racial wealth gap in America today is staggering. The median white household has $171k in wealth compared to $17.6k for the median black household. Matt Rognlie, now at Northwestern University, separated the different kinds of wealth making up the prolific dataset in Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st Century that described the increasing inequality in wealth. For America, he found that housing alone could essentially explain this entire divergence of wealth. If we are going to be serious about narrowing the racial wealth gap, we need to reconsider housing policy in America and recognize that our current policy scheme that claims to encourage homeownership but instead perpetuates NIMBYism and bloats the housing market is a significant contributing factor.

Alternatives

Without an emphasis on homeownership, would Americans stumble into retirement without a nest egg and live in communities where ever-transient families shied away from setting up roots and investing in local social institutions? Germany and Switzerland, compared to the American rate of around 65%, have homeownership rates of around 40%. These countries have different policies and cultures that can substitute for positive effects of homeownership, but they certainly aren’t community-less dystopias or non-saving wastelands. A gradual transition to less ownership and more rentals in America is possible and would improve the finances and social cohesion of the country.

Business, Politics

The euro is doomed

14 October, 2016 Will Compernolle 1 Comment

The euro currency is inevitably doomed. The institutional arrangement is not set up to support a stable currency area and the cultural differences across the eurozone make it nearly impossible to move towards a regime that makes the currency integration beneficial. As countries experience more frustration and powerlessness from giving up significant political and economic autonomy, the arrangement will come apart and the currency will no longer exist in the same form as it does today.

Where’s the fiscal transfer mechanism?

Picture Arizona experiencing a bust in its housing market, a hurricane hitting Florida, or the mines going dry in West Virginia. In each case, the Federal government of the United States steps in to cushion the fall of these economies and their people. Banks might get bailed out, FEMA will dish out aid to rebuild destroyed communities, and medicaid will provide healthcare for those without incomes. The cost of such relief is often too hefty for one state to bear on its own. The Federal Government thus acts as an insurance mechanism so that different regions in the US can spread the risk from negative shocks. Political quibbles inevitably follow about the efficacy and bureaucratic process of these programs. But rarely will you hear accusations of Floridians displaced by a hurricane as “moochers” or recently unemployed rust-belters as “lazy.” Those left unaffected by such shocks living in Massachusetts or California see the people in these states as Americans and recognize that such Federal mechanisms are a part of the American system.

The Federal Government’s ability to take from a general fund of taxpayer dollars and redistribute across different states at different times is called a “fiscal transfer mechanism.” It not only serves as an insurance plan in the scenarios above, but can function to consistently redistribute income from richer states to poorer states. People in Connecticut and Maryland pay more into the Federal tax system than they take out, while states like West Virginia and Mississippi are net beneficiaries of the Federal government. Thus, independent of shocks like natural disasters or economic crises, some states get more from the Federal government and some get less. Political arguments over these transfers are constant, as politicians push for pork-barrel spending that disproportionately benefits their state. In equilibrium, however, this system exists.

Compare this to the eurozone, another consortium of polities with a supra-national power presiding over them. What happens if Italian banks fail or Greece overextends its fiscal accounts and is on the brink of default? Citizens of the countries that have sound banks and followed fiscal restraint don’t have the same instinctual support that Americans feel for their countrymen three time zones over. Germans think Greece’s fiscal insolvency is a self-inflicted problem that involves painful lessons to be learned. People in Ireland look at Portugal’s fiscal woes and wonder why the Portuguese can’t tighten their belts like the Irish did. The eurozone, by design in the Maastricht Treaty that brought them all together, forbids bailouts of national governments. In other words, the fiscal transfer mechanism cannot legally exist. As a result, more often than happens to states in the US, countries in the eurozone are forced to absorb the costs of these shocks entirely on their own, and these costs can be insurmountable.

How different currencies would cushion the blow

Yanis and Schauble — Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany’s Federal Minister of Finance, and Yanis Varoufakis, former Minister of Finance of Greece. Source

European countries survived on their own before they were in the eurozone, so what makes this arrangement different? The currency union itself is preventing smoother adjustment. When a country like Peru experiences a shock like a natural disaster, banking crisis, or garden variety recession, the weaker economy naturally weakens its Sol currency. This in turn causes Peruvian exports to become more competitive and the economy is on the road to recovery. Peru’s central bank can lower interest rates, too. This encourages more investment and gets the engines of the economy pumping again. However when Italy reaches high levels of unemployment, its currency doesn’t weaken in step with Italy’s economy. The exchange rate of the euro is tied to the eurozone as a whole, of which Italy is only about 10%, and Italy can’t lower interest rates to ramp up investment. The short-term interest rate is set by the European Central Bank which is set by bureaucrats all across the zone. So an Italian recession is accompanied by a stronger-than-should-be currency and interest rates that are higher than they would like.

Economic integration will help…in theory

Labor mobility is another way an economic area moves towards equilibrium when certain areas are hit harder than others. Here, the legal framework for the eurozone works in its favor. The Schengen Agreement allows for Schengen Zone citizens to work anywhere in the Zone, no matter their passport. This means that if Spain has a high number of unemployed workers, some of them can go over to Austria where the labor market is a little healthier. The shock is absorbed by Austria and things reach a happier equilibrium. When midwestern states in America experienced decline from fewer jobs in manufacturing, people headed to sun belt states like Arizona or Texas that have more opportunities. So why isn’t this happening in the eurozone?

Moving from Ohio to New Mexico is much easier than moving from Spain to Austria. Crucially, English is the dominant language in any American state. The cultures of different areas in America may be distinct, but they’re peanuts compared to the differences of countries in Europe with thousands of years of history that form their identities. What if a Greek with little formal education wants to move to Austria… What are the odds they’ll know German? The stigma against workers from lower-income countries like Poland or Bulgaria often make it difficult to find work in France or Belgium. Xenophobia within the eurozone discourages labor mobility that would other equilibrate labor markets more smoothly.

If labor mobility were perfect in the United States, people in West Virginia would be moving to places like Massachusetts, Texas, Silicon Valley, or North Dakota. Moving is tough. People set up roots, form communities, buy mortgages, and get used to local norms. It’s not as easy as packing up one day and leaving the next. Throw in cultural and linguistic barriers to this and the eurozone labor market is not nearly as integrated as it is in legal terms.

Europe is not the United States

The United States doesn’t have perfect harmony across the country, of course. Historically, national harmony was incredibly difficult. Since the founding of the country, there has been a constant push and pull between states’ rights and giving more power to the Federal government. The campaign towards states’ rights is founded on the idea that states have different beliefs and should be able to operate with a high level of autonomy. Heck, there was even a war fought over a critical disagreement that took the lives of over six hundred thousand Americans. And, in many ways, those two sides still remain divided via other ideologies one hundred fifty years later. Simply put, the United States got to be where it is today after more than two centuries of friction and it wasn’t easy. Even with all that, it benefitted from having tremendously more linguistic homogeneity than Europe has and it didn’t have millennia of regional identity baked in to individual identity. Furthermore, Project Euro has attempted to expedite this tough process of integration and identity in a mere 17 years. Having eurozone citizens suddenly consider themselves “European” before considering themselves “German” or even “Bavarian” isn’t going to happen anytime soon.

The unstable equilibrium

The only solution to the eurozone’s problems is More Europe. That means a more-powerful European government that can provide a fiscal transfer mechanism and a move away from national identity and towards a European one. The first part can be done politically, the second is left up to the people. If the eurozone moves in a direction of nationalism and isolation, its problems will persist and only get worse. Right now, the zone is a house of cards ready to collapse into Less Europe unless it can search deep down for the political capital to give it the strength it needs to stay together.

The result of the Brexit referendum in June, while not technically involving the eurozone, reflects the tension of the struggling European identity. Brits felt they were giving too much to the European Project and decided to go down a path that emphasizes national identity more than integration. The unfulfilled promises of a more-integrated Europe were disappointing enough to have Britons call it quits. As Germans and Greeks increasingly resent each other’s norms, convincing either side that the solution to their problems is more integration is near impossible.

The reforms needed to keep the eurozone intact are dramatic and especially difficult to pass in a stagnant economy that’s dealing with millions of refugees knocking at the door. While the eurozone may make the necessary changes, time is running out. The political climate is shifting strongly towards Less Europe, and once the direction gains momentum, it will be difficult to ever turn back.

Business, Politics

Don’t Blame Dilma Rousseff for Brazil’s Woes

19 July, 2016 Will Compernolle 2 Comments

Brazil’s economy in the last 15 years is a prime example for how we tend to unfairly ascribe massive political events to individual leaders. On the 12^th of May 2016, Brazil’s Congress temporarily suspended sitting President Dilma Rousseff while they bring charges against her related to alleged manipulation of the public budget.

While Rousseff may be guilty of fudging treasury accounting, her crimes are minor compared to most others in Brazil’s Federal government: half of said Congress is under investigation for involvement in the so-called “Car Wash” scandal, where politicians traded government contracts for massive bribes. The interim President, Michel Temer, stinks of corruption to the point of being disqualified for re-election in 2018. A leader of the charge against Rousseff, Eduardo Cunha, resigned from his position as House Speaker earlier this week under allegations of corruption.

Opinion polls showed strong public support to remove Rousseff from office. Why? Brazilians are suffering in an economy that has shrunk more than 7% in the last two years. They want a scapegoat. Although any honest appraisal of the political situation in Brazil would show Rousseff relatively innocent compared to her colleagues, the citizens are looking for someone to blame.

On the surface, Rousseff was an inept politician that drove her country into financial turmoil through mismanagement and unwillingness to get spending under control. But in reality, the country’s nosedive is the result of forces outside of her control.

Brazil: 2002-2016

Dilma Rousseff and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, better known as “Lula,” ruled as President of Brazil from 2002 until 2011. Lula left office with sky-high approval ratings and was praised by President Obama as “the most popular politician on earth.” Lula came from incredibly modest roots in the poor northeast of Brazil and successfully led his Workers Party (PT) in efforts to dramatically redistribute wealth in Brazil. A global commodity supercycle timed favorably with Lula’s rise to power: commodity prices tend to be cyclical and they happened to be high during Lula’s reign. When the stuff Brazil was selling to the world—iron ore, oil, soybeans, corn—became a lot more expensive, Brazilians became richer. This also meant Brazil’s government had more money to spend on things like healthcare, education, and pensions. The music eventually stopped and the Brazilian government couldn’t afford to hand out as many goodies. The promises made by the generous social welfare system put into place during the commodity boom remained after Lula left office.

Enter Dilma Rousseff

Dilma took power in 2011 with Lula’s economic boom lingering. A growing Brazil looked poised to join the ranks of other emerging market economies like China and India that were on the verge of competing with the West. Brazil locked in the World Cup in 2014 and the Olympics in 2016. But in the middle of 2014, when commodity prices started to crash, Brazil’s economy stalled and began a downward trajectory it has yet to recover from two years later. Today, Brazil is set to shrink for a second consecutive year, faces nearly double-digit percentage increases in consumer prices, and has public finances on an unsustainable trajectory.

From the perspective of the casual onlooker, the respective legacies of Lula and Rousseff are simple: Lula led Brazil to roaring growth and took millions out of poverty; Rousseff was an inept politician that sparked Brazil’s downward spiral.

But look closer at the causes of Brazil’s economic performance during the two’s rule: Lula held office at a time when commodity prices were soaring. Nearly half of Brazil’s exports are commodities. The world economy was stronger in the 00s than it is now, meaning other countries had more money to buy the stuff Brazil was digging out of the ground. Rousseff survived one term with decent commodity prices but was in power when the price of iron ore and oil fell 67%, corn lost a quarter of its value and soybeans cheapened by nearly half. These underlying conditions had nothing to do with either Rousseff or Lula.

Brazil’s Problem #1: Struggling Public Finances

The most urgent issue facing Brazil is its public finances. Unfortunately, a legacy of yesteryear in Brazil is that around 90% of government spending is ring-fenced from Congressional discretion. It takes constitutional amendments to change the formulae that determine spending on pensions, healthcare, and education. This means that when Brazil’s economy has shrunk by nearly 7% in two years, the government has its hands tied when it comes to any necessary belt-tightening. If you think it’s hard to take away people’s entitlements in good times, what do you think the political popularity of pension reform is when everyone is already 7% poorer?

Graph of Brazil's Public Sector Balance — Brazil’s Public Sector Balance, Billions of $R (Yellow line: 12 month moving average)

The annual deficit as a percentage of GDP has gone from 3% to over 10%. As the situation has deteriorated, creditors feel like lending to Brazil’s government is riskier. So interest rates go up and borrowing becomes more expensive… the vicious cycle deepens.

By having direct stakes in commodity-producing companies like Eletrobras and Petrobras, Brazil’s government loses financially when these companies struggle. Not only do those companies’ struggles mean less tax revenue—standard in a recessionary economy—but the losses on the books of those companies translate into losses of the government. In other words, Brazil’s government is forced to subsidize failing companies.

Brazil’s Problem #2: Price and Wage Indexation

The government policies that made Brazil’s adjustment to lower commodity prices as painful as it has been were set in place long before Rousseff took office. A huge chunk of wages and prices in Brazil are indexed to inflation from the previous year, meaning typical remedies to simmer price levels like higher interests rates or lower aggregate demand are virtually ineffective. Sky-high interest rates (14.25% in Brazil whereas higher income countries have had interest rates near or even below zero in the time since the financial crisis) aren’t expected to get consumer prices down to their targeted level for at least another year and a half. The stubborn persistence of inflation in Brazil is around regardless of any strong will or intelligence from the one who resides in Palácio do Planalto.

Palácio do Planalto: official workplace of the President of Brazil

The collapse in commodity prices hit Brazil’s currency that set off the bout of inflation. As demand for its exports tanked, the demand for its currency fell, too. The falling value in the Brazilian real resulted in a 50% depreciation against the American dollar in the last couple years. When the country’s currency can buy less abroad, its imports get more expensive. This set off the spike in inflation seen in the last two years.

Inflation is bad in any economy because it causes “noise” in the price system and discourages long-time planning that is strongly tied to economic growth. But it is exceptionally painful for Brazil because their minimum wage is derived from a formula based on last year’s consumer price index and GDP growth from two years ago. In turn, pensions—which make up a little less than half of Brazil’s public budget—are indexed to the minimum wage. Inflation from last year begets inflation this year in a vicious spiral.

The problems that leave Brazil struggling to recover from its latest bust are derived mostly from policies and events completely out of the control of Dilma Rousseff. Similarly, solutions to speeding up a recovery are not within the power of interim President Michel Temer.

Beyond Brazil

Beyond Brazil, political leaders are given blame or credit for their countries’ performance that far exceeds their true influence. In order to assess the true impact of a leader, one must tease out the vast array of events that happen outside of a leader’s control. A paper from William Easterly and Steven Pennings found the relationship between leadership and economic growth to be very weak, after controlling for variables across time and space. So-called ‘benevolent dictators,’ like Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, get credit for their countries’ economic performance, but how much of it really had to do with leadership?

The tendency for observers to attribute events to a single leader or small group comes from the appeal to simplify our enormously complex world. If the world’s ills are the result of billions of people behaving in a decentralized manner without conscious intentions of bad results, changing the system seems frustratingly difficult, if not impossible. But if the world is governed by a few small elites, changing the world’s problems seems within our power. Brazilians are much more likely to be drawn to an explanation/solution of their problems that relies on regime change than one that is frankly out of their control. They don’t have the power to vote commodity prices higher and the institutional changes that are needed are, by design, difficult to implement.

The point is not that policy and politics don’t matter. Brazil’s woes after the commodity price crash two years ago have been exacerbated by policies that institutionalized inflation and made necessary fiscal adjustment nearly impossible. The inefficiencies from corruption certainly don’t help either. Instead, rather than ascribe economic performance to omnipotent individuals, we need to recognize that the world’s complexities mean our problems and solutions do not always come from the top-down.

Politics

Brexit: what now?

29 June, 2016 Gaurav Ganguly 2 Comments

As dawn broke on 10 Downing Street on Friday, David Cameron was presumably ruing the day in 2013 when he promised a referendum on British membership in the EU. What felt like a good idea at the time to unite the Conservative Party and thwart the threat of a rising UK Independence Party soon became an irreversible path towards self-determination, mired in combative rhetoric and misleading claims. At heart was the issue of migration and at risk were the economy and the spirit of European integration.

Net migration into the UK was more than 300,000 in 2015, much of it from the EU, and far over the 100,000 figure that Cameron pledged to bring it down to. The Leave campaign offered frustrated Britons the chance to supposedly take back their borders and break free from the regulated shackles of Europe. They suggested that an “independent” Britain could negotiate a new trade deal with Europe on more favourable terms. What they forgot to mention is that Britain is far more dependent on Europe as a market than Europe is on Britain, with almost half of British exports ending up in the EU.

It is crucial for Britain to retain access to the EU’s single market, and Leave campaigners point to countries like Norway and Iceland that have access to the single market despite not being in the EU. However, these countries have to abide by all of the EU’s regulations, make payments into the EU budget and accept free movement of labor, the very commitments that Britain is trying to get out of. It is also unlikely that a frustrated EU will be generous to Britain, given how the Brexit referendum has pushed it closer toward an existential crisis. I liked an analogy once made in an Economist article:

…imagine a divorce demanded unilaterally by one partner, the terms of which are fixed unilaterally by the other

Not happening. Foreign direct investment into the UK will likely fall in the face of uncertainty. For a country that relies on such flows to plug the gap in its current account (5.2% of GDP, or £92.5 billion, in 2015), this is not good news. Given the obvious benefits of staying in the EU and the uncertain (but scary) thought of what might happen were Britain to leave, most economists, international organisations, banks and nation states came out in support of Britain to remain in the union. Even the Bank of England, which officially took no position in the referendum, warned of grave repercussions if Britain voted to leave.

The majority Leave vote

What once seemed inconceivable is now a reality: Britain has voted to leave the European Union. Markets, which had increasingly priced in a vote to remain, reacted violently as a risk-off episode ensued. The sterling got pounded (sorry…), falling to its lowest level against the dollar in 31 years.

Graph of pound sterling depreciation — British Pound: Cross-Rate against US Dollar. Source: Bank of England

It depreciated by 8.2% to close at $1.37. This was the biggest one-day move since George Soros “broke” the Bank of England back in 1992, when the pound depreciated by 4.1% against the dollar. The yen, traditionally seen as a safe haven currency, appreciated against every major currency in the world. Equities tumbled across the globe as volatility spiked. The Dow Jones industrial average closed down 610 points. It fell 504 points the day Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. Treasuries, bunds, gilts and other sovereign bonds surged, pushing yields down to historic lows as investors rushed to safety. In some cases, yields went further into negative territory as investors effectively paid governments to keep their money (warped, I know). Gold, also considered a safe haven asset, surged past $1,300 as other commodity prices slumped (shout-out to gold-hoarders in India who got just a little bit wealthier). Overall, Bloomberg estimates $3 trillion were wiped from global stock market values. Yikes.

Look beyond the short-term and this vote represents something more ominous. It is symptomatic of the surge of far-right populism that we are seeing across the world right now. It has driven the rise of controversial leaders like Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Marine Le Pen in France, brought the Law and Justice party to power in Poland, and pushed centre-right and left parties on the defensive across much of Europe.

Austria narrowly avoided electing Europe’s first far-right head of state since World War II when Norbert Hofer lost the popular vote by a mere 31,000 in May. It has brought Donald Trump from being a mild irritant (like people who take up two parking spots) to becoming the face of the Republican Party. They are taking advantage of economic insecurity, a mutual distrust of immigrants, anger at the establishment and a sense of fear. And it is this sense of fear that allows populism to thrive. Even though the global financial crisis ended seven years ago, the world is still recovering. In the midst of anaemic growth and wage stagnation, people are growing restless. While both the US and the UK have experienced much stronger economic growth than mainland Europe, wage growth has been sluggish. The resulting inequality has instilled a fear of being left behind. The vast majority of millennials are dumbfounded by the rise of Donald Trump. But he is (sadly) successfully tapping into these insecurities by “telling it as it is” and promising a change in the status quo. Such personalities nurture xenophobic tendencies that challenge the West’s liberal order, which relies on globalisation, free trade, multiculturalism and tolerance.

What now?

Brexit is a step in the wrong direction. It has divided the country right down the middle: London and Scotland against England, young against old, white-collar against blue-collar, urban against rural, and so forth. Britain has let down its youth. It is important for both Britain and Europe to stay strong in reacting to what is ahead. The Brexit vote has already stirred populists across the rest of Europe to demand their own referendums. They might have a more justifiable reason to leave the union than Britain did. Scotland, which voted overwhelmingly to remain, might seek a second referendum for independence from the UK. Northern Ireland may need to install border checks as the only part of the UK to share a land border with another EU country, the Republic of Ireland.

Let’s also be clear, none of this is good for growth. The EU’s single market is arguably one of its best accomplishments. Despite the case against it, free trade is the way forward. While there is some merit to when people say it destroys some jobs, overall the society gains much more. Likewise, in an increasingly globalised world, easy movement of labor is important. Immigrants tend to bring a lot to an ageing society. In the UK, they are net contributors to the Treasury (meaning they pay more in taxes than they take out in form of benefits). The world needs fewer (but well secured) borders, not more. In the mean time, Britons’ vote to leave must be respected. Hope they’re feeling brave.

Politics

UK General Election: The Battle Against Proportional Renunciation

5 May, 2015 William S Grant Leave a comment

It’s a strange time we live in: the General Election to determine the direction of the United Kingdom’s fortunes will take over the next 5 years gets arguably less hype than a boxing match on the other side of the Atlantic between two half-pint heavyweights—although perhaps, in the case of the boxing, it’s much easier to pick your favourite.

The way I interpret my generation—the Gen Y, the Millennials—is that they seem so turned off from politics that the concept of travelling to a polling station and ticking a box is viewed as a considerable inconvenience. It’s difficult to find anyone in the same age bracket who is truly politically aware, and not just spouting media platitudes and ignorance. But who can blame us? Over the last 6 months especially, we have become incredibly frustrated watching the endless stream of spin, counter-spin, petty, “he-said-she-said” political one-upmanship in full force. Whether you were for or against, the Scottish Independence debate was undoubtably a powerful demonstration of democracy. It supercharged a nation into discussion, but the UK has gone backwards with Westminster relegating the real point of politics to the second tier of issues.

This has to be addressed, urgently. Whilst the next leaders will be decided by the system of first-past-the-post, we are in danger of undermining the very fabric of the UK with a system of proportional renunciation, where people choose to throw away one of the most important democratic rights given to a citizen. To tackle this we look at the first logical question: why could you possibly choose not to vote come the 7th of May?

Vote Veto

“Politics” is derived from the Greek “of, for, or relating to the polis” (where “polis” refers to “city,” i.e. the collective will of inhabitants). You would think, then, that focus would be given to issues that affect the everyday man and woman. If this UK election campaign is anything to go by, you’d be wrong.

The UK airs Leaders’ Debates, Leaders Interviews, “An Audience with [insert leader here],” photo opportunities and personal attacks. I tune into these intently (even if just to fulfil my masochistic tendencies) and have an interesting reflection on the content: someone can absorb all that is said, turn their television off and feel more confused than before they started.

Politicians are a funny species: at once trying to sound not-too-intellectual to appeal to the working class, whilst also trying to sound semi-intellectual to appeal to the upper class. What therefore manifests itself is a strange combination of talking entirely in circles, clichés, and rehearsed sound bites, coming across as out-of-touch at best (and creepy at worst).

British politics has become heavily Americanised, with great focus being placed on the personal merits of the figureheads of the political parties. The great electoral “spin” machine is therefore in full flow, with every gaffe and mistake magnified to epic proportions. I am a fan of the genius of Armando Iannucci, but his show “The Thick of It,” following a group of hapless MPs and their struggles with “spin,” is probably (and worryingly) spot on. The pressure on these leaders is intense, and the nature of disagreements between them often highly personal. Whilst a strong leader can be important, surely we must focus more on promises and pledges? That being said, this bunch of leaders is one special group.

The Candidates

Cameron
Conservative

Current Prime Minister of the UK, friend of bankers, and bread-maker. He is staunchly defending his record as PM, some would say in a whirlwind of arrogance.

Miliband
Labour

The great pretender, beacon for the working classes. He uses an Oxford education and a nice-guy nature to try and convince everyone he’s hard enough whilst seemingly being incapable of talking without pinching mid-air.

Clegg
Lib Dem

Former golden boy, now gallantly trying to regain all credibility lost over the course of an abusive marriage with the Tories.

Sturgeon
SNP

The Glesga Bauchle, holding her own with the support of an entire country, but with the ominous double-edge of wanting to tear down the institution for which she is campaigning.

Bennett
Green

The alternative-alternative choice, fighting against the big parties’ oppression.

Wood
Plaid Cymru

Standing her ground for The Valleys, but with less muscle than the other nationalists.

(And then, of course, the Pantomime Villain)

Farage
UKIP

Polariser of opinions, pint-on-head-man-at-pub layman, frantically trying to politicise prejudice.

It’s no surprise that some of the electorate, myself included, struggle to relate to any of the above. Listening to them one-up each other through debates sees real issues being side tracked (hence the state of confusion and irritation after viewing). That the election has become all about personality is a poor reflection on the intelligence of the British people, but it seems to be the outcome the media has wanted all along.

Glancing over the ability to relate to the figureheads on a personal level, some of us struggle to identify with the values of any party anymore. Labour was established as the party of the working man, but was since managed to blur the line between themselves and the traditionalist Tories. The Tories—big on business, banking, and the bourgeois—have little to link them to working class families or students. The nationalists benefit from fervent passion from their own countries but, by definition, should not succeed at a UK level. The Lib Dems, previously a genuine alternative to the Big Two—especially for students—have done exactly what was expected and traded principles for power, losing the trust of the majority of their support. UKIP, often misrepresented by the media, still harbour a dangerous right-wing angle and threaten to cut us off into splendid isolation once more. The Greens promise the world in their manifesto, safe in the knowledge they are unlikely to have to deliver on any of it. It’s safe to say that the ‘undecideds’ have a hard choice, with a veto vote looking ever more appealing.

Our political system is still (somewhat controversially) first-past-the-post (FPTP). To break the traditional duopoly of the Big Two—Labour and Conservative—some call for proportional representation (PR). The PR system is far more egalitarian, especially in our current system where more than two parties will have an influence. At the moment, the FPTP system has precipitated a Games Of Thrones-esque jostling for position amongst all political parties, with deals being offered, denied, and countered before the election has even begun, with the SNP even offering to prop up a minority government. A commonly held view of FPTP is that your vote does not matter if your candidate does not win your local ‘seat.’ Therefore, for example, the majority of young, liberal left wing constituents in Tory-Heartland areas in the South could be likely to spend election day somewhere else than in a polling station.

This snapshot could be a reason why a large majority of the population does not vote. Disengaging leaders, ambiguity in values and an unfit-for-purpose political system has lead to increasing levels of voluntary disenfranchisement in each election since 1945 (we have, at least, seen an increased number in the last two elections). Given the history of the Lib Dems in particular, if our chosen party does win some influence, there is no guarantee that they will be able, or willing, to keep their promises. If we feel it won’t make a difference, why bother?

Brand new world, why should we vote?

Russell Brand has morphed himself from abstract comedian to a modern day political Che Guevara, the prominent voice encouraging society to turn their backs on the democratic system pandering to the “lies, treachery and deceit of the political class” and forego their right to a vote. Although an admirer of Brand’s easily-placed wit, lexicon and passion for his cause, this author believes we must not be convinced that this is the way to go.

To forego one’s right to vote is a complete insult to the history of enfranchisement. It is an insult to the countless working people who presented Parliament with petitions to tackle the voting monopoly of the landowners; to the African-American Civil Rights campaigners in the 19th and 20th centuries; to Emily Wilding Davison who gave her life in the cause of Women’s Suffrage alongside the Suffragettes; to the victims of World Wars who contributed to freedom from Fascism, and countless more. Whilst we take our votes for granted and often see the whole election coverage as an annoyance, we forget the plight which our ancestors have gone through to get us here. We forget that there are countries in the world today where the citizens are crying out for the same freedoms: Saudi Arabia, Central African Republic and North Korea to name but a few. Yes, it is ironically also our democratic right not to use our vote, but it seems such an inconsiderate waste given all the sacrifices that have gone before.

The decreasing feeling of community in Britain today could be another reason for a low turnout. Culturally, we see ourselves far more disconnected from our neighbours and countrymen than ever before, whether due to technology, immigration, fear, or other. With individualistic outlook comes a lack of perspective as part of a collective, leading to the view “well, my one little vote won’t matter.” What if thought that? Democracy would collapse. Imagine the opposite: everyone in the country turns up to vote. Every vote is a demonstration of opinion and when banded together, political movements take shape. The Scottish referendum debate broke records for turnout, with nearly 85% of eligible people casting their votes, which was precipitated by the flagrant support for the SNP at the polls, confirming their mandate for Independence. The result was therefore highly credible. Whatever you think about the political system and political parties, the only way to change it is to use your vote for the group who will represent your opinions and values on your behalf.

Go out and vote

Getting yourself to the polling station is only half the battle. It’s sometimes even literally a battle, with desperate campaigners at the gates forming a human barricade of leaflets and flags. Is anyone actually so impressionable to actually have their minds changed at the door to the ballot box?

The term “protest vote” is banded about almost daily these days. The alternative parties have gathered support, with a lack of belief in the Conservative-Labour dynasties, but a commonly held view is that a vote for any of these is simply a wasted vote in terms of keeping the lesser of two evils out of Downing Street. How can it be that votes are cast pessimistically as this? “I’ll vote against what I don’t want, rather than what I do;” the concept of the “protest vote” needs to be removed. Having been given the freedom to elect, we now have the responsibility to research as much relevant information as possible, consider what meets our values, and vote accordingly, both at a local and national level. Even comedian Al Murray is running with his FUKP party, although some of his “policies” are rather suspicious—but hey, whatever floats your political boat.

Some commentators have even argued for “none of the above” to be included in the ballot box, an interesting option given the reservations I have previously laid out over the current choices. The reason for this is highlighted strongly in our current election campaign, with antipathy for the Big Two meeting lack of genuine alternatives for a large proportion of the electorate. Whilst some would say that picking this option is a wasted vote, if millions of people around the country did the same, this could not be ignored by the ruling parties. The ignominy of an MP trudging to Parliament as second-placed in his constituency to a “none of the above” winner could also inspire powerful action on that representative’s part to justify their position ahead of the next election.

In general, the mindset for the average voter is interesting. We have to, at once, consider ourselves independent individuals casting a vote for who we want to see, but also know that we are part of a collective and our vote only really counts when banded with the others across the country. I’m sure a psychologist would have a field day with that one. The crucial principle is that, for whatever reason, we do actually go out and cast our vote, even if it’s just to get out of the house at midday on a Thursday.

Golden Engagement

Although I have discussed the limitations of TV debates, where arguments are lost amongst back talking and guffawing, it is at least an attempt to bring politics back to the masses. They’ve even started using social media, with each main party having their own Twitter account, probably contributing to the increase in turnout over the previous two elections. Politics is still often seen as a boring topic, rivalling “oh, this is my axe-wielding hand” and “I’m an accountant” for conversation stoppers at a social gathering. One of the greatest aspects of politics is that people can have such differing opinions on the same issues. Luckily, discussion amongst ourselves is one of the best way to become informed and clear in your own views. Whether the discussion takes place on social media, in the pub, or on a bus with a stranger, it has the potential to broaden our understanding of society and each other. After all, Brits love to complain, there is nothing worse than complaining about “the state this country is in” when you have not even taken your chance, every 4–5 years, to tell the government exactly what you think.

If all else fails, I say we just take a leaf out of the Mayweather-Pacquiao guidebook and put all the leaders in a ring with a set of boxing gloves each. Apparently, we’d never have to worry about hyping up the election then. In the fight against the widespread renunciation of the voting right, one must turn the tide for the sake of ourselves and our children. The next generation may even take a different form of political system or democracy to dissuade feelings of apathy and indifference. Regardless of the result, you will have exercised a freedom that forms the foundation of the civilised world; you will have made your contribution to the future of your country.

As for who to vote for, I’ll let you decide.

Culture, Politics

Suis-je libre? Freedom of speech, freedom of press

3 February, 2015 William S Grant Leave a comment

Charlie Hebdo. The name could refer to anyone—a neighbour, a co-worker, a family member, the local postman even—but the moniker has recently taken on an entirely greater significance as the quasi-personification of the right of free speech and the freedom of the press that is enshrined in Western liberal democracy. The banner ‘Je Suis Charlie’ (“I am Charlie”) has been adopted by campaigners as an empowering tag-line reinforcing solidarity amongst those who seek to defend our rights and condemn the actions of those who would seek to oppress it.

The shocking events in Paris in January, where at least 12 people lost their lives in a massacre at the offices of satirical magazine named Charlie Hebdo, were allegedly the latest in an all-too-long line of appalling acts by extremists, attempting to punish and intimidate. The attackers were said to have been shouting “the Prophet is avenged” in response to the magazine’s publication of cartoons involving both the Prophet Mohammed and the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, strongly suggesting the presence of vengeance as an over-riding motive. However, the horrific actions have also ignited a passion in the population regarding the freedom of speech we apparently enjoy in most Western democracies and a desire to unify to defend it.

But the question remains: how free is our freedom? How free should it be?

Legalities

The Human Rights Act 1998, the moral legislative code of the EU, includes Article 10: The right to freedom of expression. Article 10 states that “everyone has the right to freedom of expression,” a potentially simple and emancipating ruling. However, in the subsequent chapter, the right appears to be immediately qualified, “the exercise of these freedoms…may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society.” So immediately, our beacon of freedom of speech has been blunted in law.

The UK attempts to “prescribe by law” the aforementioned restrictions in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 by criminalising “threatening, abusive or insulting words of behaviour.” Without tackling the legal intricacies, the ruling contains a noticeable subjective element which, on one occasion, led to a conviction of a student for questioning the sexuality of a police officer’s horse… The government is said to have made efforts to repeal this controversial clause of Section 5, but some say that new extremist disruption orders will fill the anti-democratic void.

It seems clear, given the above, that our right to freedom of speech is, at present, qualified. Like telling someone they can run around a shop Supermarket Sweep style and grab anything they want to keep for free, as long as it’s valued at less than £50.

Hate Speech

The reasons for the restricting of this misleadingly universal freedom are important but thought-provoking. A lot of these focus on the prevalence of “hate speech,” the advocacy of hatred based on nationality, race or religion.

One could reasonably expect that allowing people, especially charismatic people addressing an impressionable audience, to espouse hatred against a particular group (or groups) would lead to negative and dangerous consequences. Exposure to highly-charged emotional speech is likely to lead to a similarly emotionally charged reaction from human beings on occasion, and, when adrenaline and passion run high, the result is tragically often violence. Therefore, in an effort to protect society, the authorities have acted to suppress the public vocalisation of opinions which would incite or cause the kind of behaviours causing a threat to public order and safety.

In a debate at the Hart House Debating Club in Canada, a participant offers up the notion that “hate is the ejection button of rationality,” thereby implying that someone who proclaims hate against another group does so because of passion, historical cultural triggers or one-off past experiences, with the absence of rational reasoning. With no way to reason with an individual who is this way inclined, it is argued that the only defence against the spread of hatred and potential tragic implications is to control the source, i.e. the criminalisation of public advocacy of hatred.

Obviously, this is a noble effort, and the UK benefits from a relatively peaceful society where views are offered and exchanged reasonably, on the whole. The primary issue is the inherent subjectivity in the current legislation, and the increase in this subjectivity with every subsequent law. There has to be someone who decides what constitutes an “insult” for legislative purposes, but offence is something that is taken, not given, thereby being unique to the individual. Individuals, including the couch potato’s encyclopaedia, Stephen Fry, have questioned the entire validity of the concepts of insult and offence, though Fry’s comments surely do not assume the extreme consequence of vitriolic hatred as a result of insult.

The late Christopher Hitchens intimated that freedom of speech is comprised of two parts: the right to speak, and the right to listen. He argued that setting controls on what can be spoken deprives the individual of their right to listen, to process, to consider, and to reply. He openly defended the notion of the absolute right of free speech—even for those who lack manners, judgment, and sanity.

With this in mind, we consider the flip side of the coin: freedom of speech is extended without limits.

A controversial debate is the potential for hate speech to lead to positive outcomes. When hate speech is experienced by a society, it allows the opportunity for those in opposition to analyse and critique the opinions proffered, thereby inducing an informed debate. This discourse can be used to bring groups closer together and promote engagement and the exchange of ideas in the process. Once we, as a society, become accustomed and adept at these conversations, there is potential to “build immunity to taking offence” as the comedian Rowan Atkinson infers in his impassioned defence of the Reform Section 5 campaign. Atkinson’s mantra for tackling hate speech is more speech, to tackle an “intolerance of intolerance” which he sees as a false remedy.

Though wholly well-intentioned, this feels like a naive way to view the current situation due to the “rationality ejection” mentioned above. There seems to be very little one can gain through attempts at discourse with aggrieved extremists of any background (illustrated recently in the intense but disturbing documentary, Angry, White and Proud), in the same way little can be gained by holding a white flag in the path of a runaway train.

Free speech is also seen as crucial to an individual’s ability to “self-actualise.” If a person sees the proclamation and proliferation of their views as necessary to achieve their self-actualisation—thus realising their personal potential—then any barriers encountered will naturally be met by frustration, resistance and anger. Whether the un-qualification of full freedom of speech would therefore lead to a happier society where the various goals of self-actualisation are mutually exclusive, though, is debatable. One could think of a sea of irresistible forces meeting a forest of immovable objects.

Utopia versus War of the Worlds

Consider a hypothetical world with no restriction on free speech of any sort. Two opposing extremes could reasonably be foreseen, using the UK as an example:

Scenario 1: War of the Worlds

The UK Home Secretary announces that the barriers to any kind of free speech have been removed, and all opinions, however offensive, disgusting and inflammatory, are passable in public.

Religious and political fundamentalists increase their visibility, holding rallies for their supporters and openly recruiting in the streets. Leaflets, pamphlets and social media denouncing non-believers litter the consciences of public.

In response, groups of nationalists seeking to defend the British way of life band together, holding rallies for their supporters and openly recruiting in the streets. They hold marches to show strength and solidarity, and denounce the religious groups seeking to force their beliefs on the UK.

Young, impressionable minds are drawn to various extreme ideologies, fuelled by the charisma of their leaders and utter-conviction of their principles. Distrust grows. Heated exchanges often lead to violence, with no group willing to give an inch. Rational voices are drowned out by extreme views in the media.

The country becomes divided. A broken society, with cracks becoming crevasses…

Scenario 2: Paradise Found

The UK Home Secretary announces that the barriers to any kind of free speech have been dropped, and all opinions, however offensive, disgusting and inflammatory, are passable in public.

Those who hold extreme views take to the podiums, altars and stages, inciting violence and discrimination.

Society, blessed with a highly educated and reasonable majority, resists the extremism. Inflammatory views are scrutinised, taken apart, traced to their origins, and questioned, both in public and private. Satire becomes a weapon of the masses, holding up poisonous ideologies to ridicule.

Discussions are held. Deep, probing, informed discussions, at work; at home; at school; at the gym and in bars. People with opposing viewpoints from all kinds of backgrounds, thrown together in the UK cultural melting pot, take it upon themselves to address differences and exchange views with each other through reasonable discourse. Community is built across ethnicities, religions and political leanings to build an acceptance of, but immunity from, intolerance. Conditioned from exposure, people become less offended by hate speech, instead their resolution is reinforced.

Gradually, hatred is replaced by rationality, a polite and compassionate acceptance of different beliefs and perspectives.

Which proposed scenario is more likely? Although there may exist pockets of each, realistically society would linger somewhere in the middle.

Freedom of speech

The most important response to the Charlie Hebdo attack then, has not been legislative or authoritarian. The most powerful outcome has been the collective solidarity that huge numbers of people have shown, towards the defence of the right to freedom of expression. But what version of freedom of expression are we defending—the qualified or the unqualified?

Personally, this author would love nothing more than to say the latter, giving any excuse to run down the street reciting Voltaire’s saying of “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” to my buddies as they make fun of my favourite sports team, question my political allegiances, or even take the mick out of my parentage (though, it should be noted, even the Pope doesn’t allow this).

But the truth is that this entire debate is not centred on the relatively moderate and secular views and beliefs of myself and countless others. Whatever it is about my upbringing and the development of my beliefs about the world, it is highly unlikely for me to resort to violence as a result of someone else’s words, however disagreeable. The danger, and the reason for control on freedom of speech, is down to those to whom being offended is the trigger for deadly action. Whilst the limit on freedom of speech does not impact most people on a day-to-day basis, it places a restriction in law on those who would encourage violence and retribution against others, or who would encourage persecution of specific groups. This author, for one, will not be dying for anyone’s right to action the aforementioned anytime soon.

The UK is not Saudi Arabia, where Raif Badawi, a pro-liberal blogger, was recently flogged after online criticism of his nation’s government—an act banned by law. We can (and some would say, should) slag off our government. We can publicly state our opposition to the Royal Family. We can even question the existence of a divine entity. All of the above, protected by law, should not be taken for granted. What we cannot do is incite hatred, and that is a restriction on our liberty we should be happy to live with.

This author, for one, longs for a day where the limitation on free speech will be removed. A day where, after years, perhaps decades, of education, integration, and discourse between disagreeing voices carry us through conflict to a social paradise where the UK is free of hatred, accepting of all cultures and beliefs but alive with healthy debate, discussion, and exchanges. The limits on free speech as it stands act in the same way as stabilisers on a bicycle, attempting to control the risk of danger and injury until we are able to ride on freely ourselves as a society, shouting “look, no hands!” as the streets are lined with proud onlookers—an Englishman, an Irishman, a Chinese-man, a Muslim, a Catholic, a Protestant, a homosexual, a trans-gendered person, a disabled person, and many more—all applauding the wonderful achievement to which each had contributed in some way.

With the show of strength, unity, and determination of the people who took to the streets in Paris and around the world to commemorate the deaths of 12 people and support freedom of the press, we can live and hope that this day is not as far away as it may seem. Any one of us could have been Charlie; Charlie would have been proud.

Politics

Handing the power back: Scottish Independence

10 September, 2014 Jeremy Miller 1 Comment

I didn’t watch the TV debates. I think that this type of debate between two or more candidates, in this case the leader of the No campaign, Alastair Darling, and the leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, rarely leaves the viewer any the wiser. Their main aim is not to inform but to present two different candidates with two different personalities. That is really the only thing you can take away from these debates; a judgment of character.

And here lies the problem: the debate on independence is not about one person, despite the best attempts of the mainstream media to present the whole idea as a fancy of Alex Salmond. The debate is about control, nothing more and nothing less. Who is best placed to represent the local population; in this case the people of Scotland.

Self-determination

Self-determination is one of the most often heard words in any conversation on the Scottish Independence Referendum. This is a very complex notion, as we must ask ourselves why people can only be self-determined in an independent Scotland and not within the UK.

Firstly, what is self-determination? A lot people using it probably couldn’t give an exact answer. Most would use it to describe the process of taking back control, wresting it away from a parliament five hundred miles away for one four hundred miles closer. Throughout most of history when politicians talk about handing back the power to the people it most often involves returning elements of power back to some local authority or other. In this regard, you could say that the debate on independence is just that; handing back power to the people. This is what many in the Yes camp argue independence will bring.

Ultimately, it resides in the, perhaps historic, feeling that London, capital of England and then the UK, by its very nature is concerned with its own issues with Scotland’s coming second, if not third. A not unfounded argument and one not restricted to the UK. In fact you will find similar feelings in other highly centralised countries where there is a deep sense of neglect out with the capital region. Indeed you need not even leave England to find similar ideas in the more northern of the country’s counties.

Consequences of a vote

It is slightly naïve to believe that simply moving the seat of all power closer to home will actually bring about real control for the people. It is very likely that post-independence those who hold power in Scotland will continue to be the same as those pre-independence. Of course if those in charge want to stay there then they will have to act according to the wishes of the electorate, whatever they may be. Equally important is that voters do not just sit back after independence otherwise the vote may as well not have taken place and very little will in fact change—change is what most in the Yes camp want.

What this change is depends entirely on the person. Whether Scotland lurches to the right or left, whether the political system is completely reviewed, will depend on the engagement of the electorate. The people are obviously not the only players either: businesses and public bodies will have their bit to say as well. For example, as the Yes vote protruded in the polls the pound fell against the dollar and a couple of companies openly stated they would relocate to England.

Those in the No camp believe that no change is needed, or indeed that any change should take place within the Union. I actually think very few people on the No side would argue with the fact that things do need to change in a number of areas; Scotland has many social ills that have been neglected by both Westminster and Holyrood, although the latter has made greater efforts in that area. Independence on its own will not cure those ills of course, but I have already said that independence is seen as just the first stepping stone.

Why do I think that change will not come about within the UK set-up? Well, as limited as devolution and independence can be, I believe that overly centralised governments are even more limiting in the sense that power is both geographically and socially distant from most of the population. Change is, of course, very hard to come by with a centralised government, primarily due to risks of many voices clamouring for different things. Smaller communities tend to sway in a similar direction.

In that regard, the UK is far too centralised. Even if it were to de-centralise on a massive scale with only defence and foreign policy remaining in the hands of Westminster, we would still face questions of who is contributing the most and who Westminster is really representing—questions that will continue to create friction between the different components of the UK. Allowing the “England is paying for everyone else,” the “Scotland gets less than it contributes” and the delusion that London pays for itself to continue; issues will really just get in the way of any form of collaboration.

A simple Yes or No on the 18^th September will not change anything. More has to be done in either case. Change has actually already started thanks to this debate; people are once again getting involved in politics. They are discussing options and opinions that may completely disagree with each other, but they are discussing them and that can only be a good thing, something I hope will continue no matter what the outcome on our “Date with Destiny.”

Culture, Politics

What do Burma, Jordan and Peru have in common?

7 September, 2014 Jonathon Deakin Leave a comment

Burma, Jordan and Peru are all quite different countries: they are in completely different parts of the world; are composed of a varying number of different ethnicities; and all have different population sizes. What they do have in common, amongst other things, is that they are all regions that have experienced conflict and violence.

The question was drawn to my attention in conjunction with the upcoming 30th anniversary of the UN’s International Day of Peace, occurring the 21st of September 2014, a day committed to “strengthening the ideals of peace, both within and among all nations and peoples.” Conflict Kitchen, a pop-up restaurant in London serving food from solely from regions who have experienced conflict and violence, has the goal of sparking dialogue revolving around the countries themselves, their histories and prospects of peace. Originating from the United States, it provides food whilst subtly encouraging conversation around these sometimes-sensitive topics. People are not always current with goings-on around the world and these opportunities can be used as an educational tool. After all, it is not unheard of of a conflict being resolved over a somewhat casual bite to eat…

War seems about to break out

Alexander Feklisov (AKA Aleksandr Fomin)

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, John Scali met Soviet infiltrator Alexander Feklisov (alias Aleksandr Fomin) for lunch. Their conversations revolved around weapons and the very real threat of an impending war. The topic of conversation ultimately leaned towards a diplomatic solution to end the crisis. This secret meeting is generally attributed to the start of the resolution of the crisis—a powerful allegory, albeit a little anecdotal for this article. Food can encourage dialogue between different cultures and in this situation peaceful dialogue resulted in agreement between conflicting sides.

Dialogue and conflict resolution

Set your sights on the resolve can be fruitless; aiming towards discussion rather than resolution can result in a deeper understanding of the other side. Padraig O’Malley, an Irish peacemaker, applied this idea when mediating Iraqi talks in 2008. His goal was not to bash out a resolution overnight, but rather to get all participants talking, introducing a human proximity and comprehension of why the conflict exists.

Intercultural dialogue [is] crucial in preventing and ending conflicts

Ban Ki-moon

Dialogue and discussion are by no means fix-all tricks, but the role of dialogue can be pivotal in conflict resolution. Out with the political epicentres of conflict, discussion can at least help raise awareness. Why are there conflicts in Burma, Jordan and Peru? When did they start? Discuss.

Politics

Ships Which Part in the Night: Scottish Independence Referendum

26 August, 2014 William S Grant 1 Comment

Should Scotland be an independent country? Yes? No?

The 8 most important words any Scot will be considering over the next month before the most crucial moment in over 300 years of proud history. However, is the question broad enough to capture the true mood of the nation at this monumental Caledonian cross roads? More importantly, are the answers?

Rarely can the prospect of a nation’s emancipation after centuries be digested into black and white. What of the areas of grey (grey symbolising both the skies for which our land is famous, and the ambiguity surrounding the future whatever the outcome on the 18th September)? For it seems that, if we were to sieve out the “Mc-stremeists” on either side whose opinions are proclaimed as fact, a large majority of proud Scots would presumably be engulfed by the grey. This author is one of them.

Proud Scotland

Upon being put the killer question of Scottish Independence, quick-fire style, the instinctual response is to think “no”. Scotland, a small country of 5 million-odd proud people, would suffer from the lack of economies of scale that being part of something larger would offer—our voice internationally would be drowned out by the big boys and their bureaucracy. Our relative insignificance would leave us vulnerable in terms of Defence, Immigration, and Economy. We would be marginalised to being a backing dancer in the theatre of world politics. We only have to look at River City, and countless other STV projects, or the infamous Tram system in Edinburgh to see what happens when Scotland is given free rein to manage its own affairs.

However, upon careful consideration, are these assertions accurate? Scotland, in the not so distant past, has contributed significantly (and in some ways crucially) to the shaping of the modern world. We proudly proclaim to have invented world-renowned products such as the TV, penicillin, tarmac, and John Barrowman. Our language and poetry is known the world over, the musical climax to every year in the Western calendar, whilst the founding father of modern economics, Adam Smith, drew his inspiration from Kelvinside. Our cuisine sparks the interest of the world, and drops of 40% alcoholic heaven spread from the Glens into bars across the globe. In the Arts, we can boast a living James Bond, a Dr Who, and a stereotype-shattering singer known simply as SuBo. Even in athletics, our tiny country has produced some the greatest football managers of all time, a champion tennis player, an all-conquering women’s curling team, and even previous rulers of the Elephant Polo world title.

All from a tiny, mountainous country with a population half the size of London.

I think it’s therefore safe to say that Scotland could be an independent country. However, in many ways it already is. Nearly two-thirds of Scots worldwide see themselves as Scottish before British, whilst still holding a British passport. Our culture benefits from a uniqueness and charm largely absent from those of our fellow island cousins. Our accents, fondness for a swally and colourful currency already mark us out from non-Scots. What it is to be Scottish is in no way diluted by our commitment to the Treaty of the Union. We benefit in the UK from being greater than the sum of our parts.

The major downside, however, is the political misrepresentation of Scotland in Westminster, with a Tory-led coalition seemingly as welcome in Scotland at the polls as a fart in a spacesuit, to use a classic phrase from one of our legendary comics. It could also be argued the other way, with Scottish MPs currently using voting rights on English matters.

With all the bluster and conjecture inherent in the debate, it is easy for one to become confused—or worse still, disinterested in one of the most important moments in the country’s history. The situation is exacerbated, there appears to be alarmingly few material facts about Scotland’s future for either side to draw upon. Therefore, let’s simplify everything for a moment.

The High Seas and Scottish independence

Given our island position, and fine naval history, let’s use a shipping analogy. The UK is made up of 4 ships, sailing the ocean. Since 1707, they have been tethered together, each with their own Captain and crew. The Captain of the biggest ship has the majority of the say on the direction and affairs of the fleet as a whole, whilst the other Captains have primary responsibility for their own ships.

The Captain of the Scottish vessel runs a tight ship. His people are happy, healthy and proud and enjoy lots of benefits that the other ships’ crews are not provided. Some say the benefits are paid for by bullion from the larger ship, whilst the Captain staunchly defends his position, maintaining that he gives more pillaged loot to the main ship than is received. Whilst experiencing times of boom and bust together as a fleet, the Scots Captain and his crew often look out into the open water and dream of the wonders that lie in store if they were to break free of the tether.

A dense fog approaches. The Captain has his chance to ask his crew whether he should cut the guide ropes and sail off on his own path. The Captain is adamant in his assertion that his ship is in rude health, and will sail even faster and longer than before on its own.

The Captain of the main ship senses the threat of separation, warning the Scots crew that there will be unforeseen holes in the ship’s hull, the sails are old and withered and the rudder unreliable. He also speaks of the virtues of staying in the fleet, adding that he will give more free rope to the Scots ship if they decide to remain tethered. At that, he leaves the decision to the ship’s resident crew.

The crews of the others ships murmur their opinions, ranging from apathy to irritation at a lack of say in the future of the fleet. The ex-crew members, deposited on various islands around the world to spread the word of the mighty Scots ship and search for bullion to bring back, are similarly unimpressed upon hearing the news that they will not have their voice heard in the future of their ship.

The Scots Captain, overcome with bullish optimism, reiterates his claim that the ship is in fine fettle, denouncing the cynics as traitors and scaremongers. He implores his crew to ignore all others but him as he paints the picture of a fantastical future of wealth, influence and freedom for his crew. The crew is torn between the security of the fleet, and the dream of independence in the open ocean. They enter the fog, with no sign of light, not knowing what the situation will be when the clouds fade…

Yes/No

A “yes” vote is an optimistic vote, placing faith in Alex Salmond and his cronies to steer Scotland through the fog of transition and into clear open waters as an independent vessel. Seduced by promises of greater wealth and control of home affairs, the appeal is undeniable. But where are the facts? How do we know our ship will be in good health when all we have to go on is the word of our Captain—his self-interest in his own legacy an important influence on his opinion. A “yes” vote could also lead to us running aground, lost in the vastness of the sea or, worse still, taking on water through the cracks in the hull until we are overcome and have to call for rescue from the fleet.

There is also the small matter of what will happen to the rest of the fleet without the Scots ship. Will they have to change the flags that have flown on the mast for centuries? What of the collective fleet bullion and artefacts—will this be divided? Will crewmembers still be allowed to jump between ships without permission? The importance of the vote on the rest of the United Kingdom should not be forgotten.

The often forgotten aspect of the debate is of the implications of a “no” vote. A “no” vote is not an anti-Scottish gesture by any means, even if the SNP are keen to tar the naysayers with that particular brush. A “no” vote is also not a vote to maintain the status quo—the fact that the referendum is even on the agenda shows that it’s no longer acceptable to the Scots, even to the “no” voters. One thing we can be sure of is increased devolution, a slacking of the guide rope, to continue the analogy. An opportunity would then arise for the Scots ship to explore further on its own, set more of its own rules, and even gain more recognition from the other ships in the sea for its accomplishments. All whilst maintaining links with the UK fleet to allow all 4 ships to prosper together.

The problem is the uncertainty that surrounds everything in this debate, providing an almost insurmountable obstacle for anyone wanting to make a rational, informed decision. The problem shared by many is that the heart says Scotland could be a thriving country in its own right. The head argues that, with no real plan offered by the SNP other than “come on, we’ll be fine,” this is a massive risk. And are we really that disadvantaged by our relationship with the UK? The feeling certainly isn’t of oppression of any sort. The overriding presumption is that the SNP have not fully thought through their plan, seemingly starting the ball rolling on the independence campaign long before thinking through the implications. Therefore, one could conclude that independence is indeed a shining beacon to aim for, but we are not yet ready to take to the challenge on the foundations we have, and with the leadership we have.

Should Scotland be an independent country?

With “yes” and “no” not seemingly adequate answers for my opinion, I would offer the referendum the following answer:

“Scotland should be an independent country, but the decision needs to be based on a comprehensive plan to satisfy the Scottish peoples’ concerns, and not a wave of thoughtless optimism and national fervour.”

The most ironic aspect of all of this—due to my place as a Scot on the crew of the biggest ship in the fleet—the Captain hasn’t even given me an oar in the fight.

Original viewpoint articles covering current events, culture, philosophy and debates on morality. Its mission is to present well-written and well-researched reports and stories to inspire conversation and retort.