Time to give up?

Over at The Last Ditch, Tom Paine is in a despairing mood:

the British public frankly deserves servitude because it does not value freedom. I am now bitterly convinced that nothing but the crushing misery of totalitarianism will wake them. Provided that their freedoms continue to be removed slowly, slice by salami slice, they will probably claim even then that the state is their friend.

Schadenfreude is not my bag, but I would find it hard not to smile at the thought of them in some future gulag, were I not likely to be sharing their cell. They are a sad shaming remnant of a once great nation.

When I started this blog from Russia, I was angry with British politicians and felt sorry for the British people, thinking them ill-served. Now that I live amongst them again, my views have reversed. The British masses are a shiftless, ignorant, nastily-envious bunch who believe above all in the arboricultural nature of money, the desirability of the free lunch and the infallibility of the state. I now feel sorry for those few politicians who would like to do right, but are restrained by their electorate's vile inclinations.

Though I haven't yet accumulated Tom's wealth of experience, what he says here rings true.

Even so, I'm not quite ready to give up.

I'm conscious that I don't meet a representative sample of the British population in my daily life, nor do I see the British public accurately reflected by the media. The views of vocal minorities are given undue prominence, and the 'ordinary people' selected for display by the BBC are anything but.

Our electoral system was always vulnerable to what we have seen - a gradual slide to the left, with a small number of voters in marginal seats deciding the course of each election.

But there is some hope. Norman Tebbit often writes about the millions of voters who have gone missing. Unimpressed by the options on offer, they simply stay at home.

We need politicians who will unapologetically set out a radically different alternative, as Thatcher once did. Sometimes people need to be led. Speak plainly and honestly, and the public may yet awake from their social democratic slumber.

Today I think UKIP are our best hope. We'll see in 2014 and 2015. Losing Scotland would probably help too, though I doubt they'll have the courage to go it alone.

Scottish drink-drive limit to be lowered

The Scottish War on Alcohol continues:

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said plans to lower the limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg will be brought forward later this year. He said it was intended the change would take effect as soon as possible.

In a fit of sanity last year, Philip Hammond rejected that same reduction for England and Wales, pointing out that the number of drink-driving deaths had fallen by more than 75% since 1979, and that while there remains a "small minority of drivers who flagrantly ignore the limit", their "behaviour is entrenched" ...

... and after careful consideration we have concluded that improving enforcement is likely to have more impact on these dangerous people than lowering the limit.

Eminently sensible.

In how many alcohol-related accidents is alcohol actually the key factor? And in how many of those cases is the driver over the current limit? People who aren't concerned about being over 80mg won't worry about being over 50mg. A quick google turned up 80mg.org.uk, which considers the issues in more detail.

Of course, there was no danger of Scottish politicians approaching the problem rationally. The sooner we're rid of these puritans, the better.

NHS vetoes alcohol licence

Another excellent post from Christopher Snowdon: 

The news from Scotland is, as usual, not good...

Alcohol licences rejected after warning from NHS over health concerns 

A supermarket and two independent retailers have had their alcohol licence application rejected after objections from the local health board.

WHAT?!?

Sainsbury’s wanted to open a new store in the Cowgate, Edinburgh as part of the development of a site which was destroyed by a fire in 2002. NHS Lothian warned the Edinburgh Licensing Board that granting the licence went against the protection of public health.

Are you kidding me? What kind of moron would give bureaucrats from the NHS the power to reject planning applications?

The Scottish Government have recently given health boards the chance to object to new licences.

Oh, sweet devolution. This is local option for the twenty-first century—the preferred halfway house for would-be prohibitionists since time immemorial.

As usual, I recommend the whole article.

I was reminded of another news item, this one from the zealots at the BBC:

Are beer firms to blame for Native American drink woe?

For generations, the dream of a sober society has eluded one of the largest Native American tribes in the US.

Members of the Oglala Sioux tribe, living in South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, have long tried to shut down the beer stores just across the state line in White Clay, Nebraska.

It's always the fault of those evil profit-makers on the supply side.  Restrict supply, and everything will be fine.

Possessing and drinking alcohol has been totally banned in Pine Ridge reservation for more than 100 years, except for a short period in the 1970s. Nevertheless, bootlegging on the reservation is said to be rampant.

Never mind that some people have pretty miserable lives, from which alcohol and drugs are the only escape.  We can't trust the plebs to make decisions for themselves.

Nanny knows best.

Propaganda 2012

Most people assume that propaganda is purely a wartime device - something that was inflicted on generations past. But it continues to this day, and nowhere more obviously than in the field of 'public health'.

It works like this:

1. An anti-tobacco fanatic publishes an absurd report, with claims that aren't supported even by their cherry-picked and carefully-massaged data
   
2. The findings are promoted by the BBC News website under the headlines 'Smoke ban: Premature births down' and 'Fewer premature births after smoking ban in Scotland'
3. BBC Breakfast reports "from a maternity ward in Scotland, where the smoking ban has had an effect on the size and delivery dates of babies"
4. Ordinary decent people take the BBC report at face value
5. Any articles questioning the prohibitionist claims reach a much smaller audience. When forwarded to ordinary decent people, the debunking articles often confuse rather than convince. Conflicting claims! Who to trust? Best to err on the side of caution.
6. The public has been softened up for the next draconian measure:

According to the British Heart Foundation, there are more than nine million smokers in the UK, and smoking remains the UK's biggest cause of avoidable early death.

It says the focus should now shift to the effect of smoking in the home and confined spaces, such as cars, especially where children are present.

A Scottish Government spokesman said: "We are continuing to build upon the achievements made to protect future generations from the devastating effects of smoking such as bans on cigarette vending machines and the displays in shops.

"We are committed to ensuring a new comprehensive robust tobacco control strategy for Scotland is developed this year. This strategy will focus on prevention and cessation and include ambitious targets for reducing smoking across Scotland."

Do read the whole BBC News article, but especially read Christopher Snowdon's excellent blog post on the subject.

On the "drop in the number of babies born prematurely or with low birthweight", the BBC article notes, in passing, that

The investigators believe both are linked to the smoking ban, even though these rates started to go down some months before the ban was introduced and smoking incidence started to creep up again shortly after the ban.

and

while their work suggests a link, it is not proof that one thing necessarily causes another. As with all retrospective studies like this, it is impossible to rule out entirely all other factors that might have influenced the finding.

This is balance, BBC style. The intended message has already been conveyed forcefully in the headline and first eight paragraphs, and it is hammered home again in the concluding paragraphs (quoted above). Even their qualifications stress that "the investigators believe both are linked to the smoking ban" and that "their work suggests a link".

Here, from Christopher Snowdon's article, are the relevant graphs:

And here's the data from the report itself:

Are the BBC headlines justified?

Smoke ban: Premature births down

Fewer premature births after smoking ban in Scotland

Make up your own mind.

What currency for an independent Scotland?

On tonight's Question Time it was suggested that an independent Scotland could somehow be denied the use of GBP as currency.

I'd be interested to know how this could be achieved.

I don't see why they couldn't legislate any currency they like as legal tender: GBP, EUR, USD, XAU. Or they could legislate none at all, leaving it to the people to decide which currency (or currencies) they prefer.

Cheap education abroad

BBC Breakfast just ran a segment about British students going to Amsterdam for university. We're told it's the low fees rather than the drugs that are attracting them.

Curiously, there was no mention of the situation in Scotland, which was explained in a Guardian article from January of this year:

Scottish ministers claim that thousands of European students are exploiting Scotland's free university system to avoid paying escalating fees in their home countries.

The latest admissions figures show the number of students from other EU countries taking up places at Scottish universities has nearly doubled in a decade to almost 16,000 last year, at a cost of nearly £75m.
...
Because university education is free for residents of Scotland, under EU law students from all other EU member states are entitled to the same free places. Students in some countries such as France face annual fees and other costs running to thousands of euros a year.

But under a quirk of European law and the UK's system of devolved government, English students are not able to attend for free because they are regarded as citizens of the same member state as Scotland – the UK.

So the English subsidise the EU, and we subsidise Scotland, but we don't enjoy the same benefits. How much longer will we put up with it?

Tram trouble

Another day, another government project late and over budget:

Councillors in Edinburgh have decided to carry on with the city's troubled trams project - but will have to find another £200m to fund it.
...
A majority backed a Liberal Democrat motion to fund the line as far as St Andrew Square at a cost of £770m.

The original estimated cost of the line from Edinburgh Airport to Newhaven was put at £545m.
...
An alternative to scrap the project completely was considered but this would have cost up to £750m.

It would seem that they are stepped in so far that should they wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o’er.

Daniel Hannan on the West Lothian Question

Daniel Hannan's blog post today led me to an old article of his, which is well worth reading:

I have found it: the philosopher's stone of politics, the elixir of life. There really is an answer to the West Lothian Question. Twenty nine years have passed since Tam Dalyell, the stony Old Etonian who then sat for West Lothian, set the conundrum before Parliament. Scottish devolution, he observed, would lead to a constitutional anomaly, as Westminster MPs with Scottish seats would be able to vote on matters affecting English constituencies, but would have no say over such matters in their own constituencies.

Today, the problem is no longer academic. On two occasions -- over foundation hospitals and again over tuition fees -- the votes of Scottish MPs secured the passage of contentious legislation that did not apply north of the border. And the signs are that the English are becoming miffed. An opinion poll in The Daily Telegraph showed that nearly half of English voters object to the idea of a Scottish Prime Minister -- a finding that would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

What, then, is the answer? The only two solutions so far hazarded - a separate English parliament or a wholly independent Scotland - have understandably failed to win widespread support. But there is a third option: localism.

There is no power exercised by the Holyrood legislature under the 1998 Scotland Act that could not, in England, be devolved to a lower level -- either to counties and cities or, better still, to individual citizens.

I recommend the whole article.

As I wrote over at Tim Worstall's blog,

I think the main objection to localism is that councils tend to be even more incompetent than the jokers in Westminster.

I imagine there are two answers to this:

1) As much power as possible would be pushed *below* the level of the county/city councils, ideally to individuals

2) The transfer of power from Westminster to the cities/councils would cause us to choose our representatives in local government more carefully.

Tebbit on Scotland

Norman Tebbit writes:

I am concerned that so many of my fellow English citizens are ready to give up on Scotland. That would delight our friends on the mainland of Europe. It was an objective of French foreign policy for many years. A weaker United Kingdom would be a stronger government in Brussels. The Scots are not natural socialists. They are a sturdy self-reliant lot outside the welfare colonies in Glasgow. What Scotland needs is a Right of centre Scottish Unionist Party, and for my party to pack up north of the border.

As one who is ready to give up on Scotland, but who fears the advantage this would give to the EU, I think the "Scottish Unionist Party" idea has merit — with the Conservative brand so toxic in Scotland, this new party could be a good way for "sturdy self-reliant" Scots to express their contempt for Labour and the SNP. If Tebbit is right, the opportunity for this new party may arise sooner rather than later.

All my previous concerns about transfer payments and the West Lothian Question still stand, of course, and I'm still inclined towards a federal structure.

A federal United Kingdom?

It seems I'm not the only one incensed by the Scottish problem.

Tom Paine has written a superb rant over at The Last Ditch, in response to some very ill-tempered remarks by Kevin McKenna in the Guardian.

As I commented, though, a similar problem exists with the Labour-dominated North of England.

DK is among those who think further devolution would help:

What I would like to propose is simply this: that the entire United Kingdom be broken up into almost completely autonomous federal regions, with the Westminster Parliament handling only defence and a few other "federal" competencies (as the national government in the US was supposed to).

The motivation is primarily economic, of course, but there are vaguely libertarian reasons too. The former is, at first glance, easy to see: the entirety of the United Kingdom is propped up by the tax revenues from the only profitable region—the South East.

But there are other advantages to doing this. Whilst the first, and most obvious, is that the rest of the country would cease to be a drain on the South East, there should be benefits to the rest of the country too. It is to no one's advantage that, in some regions, government spending amounts to more than 70% of the economy: the "free" state services crowd out profitable businesses and thus causes a lack of profitability.

Those "poor" areas of the country which—instead of adapting as heavy industry died, took the option of suckling on the state teat—would find that there was no more state money. They would have to build a viable economy or die—in their thousands. Humans are incredibly ingenious creatures and, of course, extremely industrious when their livelihood is threatened—the people of these areas would have to progress or find themselves in ever dire straits.

It's certainly an attractive idea. We would want to take care to avoid the pitfalls of the American federal system. It sounds like Switzerland might provide a better model, though I don't know nearly enough about it.

More of the same? Yes please, say Scots

The UK has suffered terribly under 13 years of Labour, and the English, especially in the south, have roundly rejected Gordon Brown, with 87 Labour MPs sent packing.

In contrast, the Scots seems quite happy with the status quo.


Not a single seat has changed hands. Of 59 seats, only one is held by the Conservatives. The rest are firmly socialist. Such a state could not survive on its own.


Centuries on, the cross-border raids continue. Using wealth transferred from the south, Holyrood has chosen to abolish university tuition fees and prescription charges, while Scottish MPs in Westminster have voted down such pork barrel policies in England.

With media attention focused on electoral reform, the exploitation of England by Scotland has received little attention, but the West Lothian Question is well overdue for resolution.