Getting to the heart of the matter

I expressed surprise in yesterday’s post that so little of the debate I have seen about Scottish Independence dealt with the viability and success (or otherwise) of “Small States” and referred to a couple of rare publications on that question – one a book from 1947 (!), the other a more recent paper. 

This very morning, by one of these typical serendipities, I came across a new book – co-authored by Michael Keating whom I knew in the 1980s in Glasgow and who, in the intervening 30 years, has occupied academic chairs on regionalism in such places as Canada and ?. His co-author has written one of the best posts I have seen so far -  

In just four months’ time, Scotland will decide whether to become an independent country or to remain as a component nation of the United Kingdom. The constitutional arrangement is the only outcome which will be decided by September’s referendum. However, the constitutional options are only one part of the story. For neither a Yes vote nor a No vote will be a panacea, an answer to any and all economic, social or political issues Scotland faces. 

There are, broadly speaking, two distinct model types which inform how states operate on a global stage, and each entails their own internal logic. The market liberal model accepts the reality of global markets-  keeping taxes low to attract inward investment and de-regulating strongly - with a result that social spending is limited and inequality tends to be high. The Baltics, after independence, moved towards this type of system.

The social investment model sees public spending as part of the productive economy, levying high levels of taxation to pay for investment in education, research and infrastructure. Combined with social democracy, universal services, high levels of social solidarity and low levels of social inequality tend to be the result – as evidenced by the Nordic states.

These are, of course, ideal-types, and no state fits snugly into either model. The Baltics provided some (albeit limited) welfare spending in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, while the Nordics (particularly Sweden) have scaled back the breadth of their spending. Ireland operated something of a hybrid model, though this ran into some difficulties for various reasons – even prior to the crash, this combination of models proved unstable. 

While the market liberal model has appeal for some, Scotland appears to be much more inclined towards the social investment model. The SNP, Labour and the Greens are all – to various degrees – promoting variations on social democratic themes, while the Jimmy Reid Foundation has designed the Common Weal programme to stimulate thinking about a fundamental shift in Scottish political thinking. 

However, the Scottish Government’s White Paper on independence lays out spending plans consistent with a social investment model – but without the taxation levels to support it. Indeed, plans are to reduce corporation tax and air passenger duty – encouragement for business investment, to be sure, but without asking for anything in return.

Herein, a lack of a bargaining system – which in the Nordics includes business, trade unions and the government – is apparent.
Bargaining helps build social cohesion and trust between those institutions, and between institutions and the public. This is one basis for public acceptance of higher tax levels – and without such a system it is difficult to see how the public might be persuaded of its benefits. Irrespective of the referendum outcome, the social investment model could be pursued.

If independence is the outcome, a lot of internal change would be required (particularly with regards to wage bargaining, as alluded to above) and hard policy choices would follow.
If (extended) devolution prevails, social investment could be achieved, dependent on the mechanisms made available to the Scottish Parliament.However, in either case, a social democratic social investment model is not cheap, and Scotland would have to pay the cost in order to recoup the benefits. Institutional as well as attitudinal change would be required – would Scotland be ready for such change? Time will tell.  

The Better Nation blog on which this appeared is, for my money, the best blog on the Scottish issue. I particularly liked its statement of intent -

even the most cursory glance around Scotland shows continued poverty, movement away from sustainability, a business sector hardly thriving, a nervous public sector, stretched voluntary organisations and shortcomings in our democracy.

Our MPs and MSPs all seek to improve Scotland in the way they each best see fit, no matter what colour of party flag they wave or particular leader they serve under. However, for a country of our size, that is a daunting task, so this blog will aim to be, at worst, constructive criticism of their exploits, and, at best, a show of support for our politicians from interested Scots. Most in politics do have a genuine desire to improve how their country runs, and we will try to give a fair wind to their intentions, even when we have to disagree profoundly with their methods

It has a good list of the blogs worth consulting but does not include several I would recommend -

- The Common Weal 

- Bella Caledonia 

- National Collective

- Wealthy Nation      

The painting is a Stanley Spencer (an "English" painter as the site tells us) - "plumbers" and I think its actually part of the Port Glasgow shipbuilding series he did in the war years    

The Breakdown of Nations

I appreciate that my (global) readers are not necessarily interested in Scotland …or Romania…or Bulgaria…or Germany – which have all been subjects of (separate) series of posts in the past year. That’s why I’m rationing such posts – choosing a mixture of representative and original contributions. 

My next contributor, Murray Pittock, was smart enough to use – way back in 2008 – the title “The Road to Independence? Scotland in the Balance” of one of the books I have been dipping into in the past month to help my understanding of the issues involved.

I have a revised and expanded version – produced last year. And a bonnie book it is!

Pittock was Professor of Scottish and Romantic Literature and Deputy Head of Arts at the University of Manchester, becoming the first ever professor of Scottish Literature at an English university – and is now Professor of Literature at my alma mater – Glasgow Univerity. 
He has also been a visiting fellow at universities worldwide including:  Charles University, Prague (2010); Trinity College, Dublin (2008); the University of Wales in Celtic studies (2002) and Yale (1998, 2000–01)

He grew up in Aberdeen and attended the University of Glasgow. His parents were both lecturers in English Literature at the University of Aberdeen).

He is total Celt – immersed in cultural studies – just as I have been immersed in governance issues for an even longer period of time

The article from which this is excerpted was written more than a year ago and explains why the author will be voting yes 

Those who talk about dissolving a 300-year-old partnership ignore the fact that the partnership itself has changed. In days gone by, British imperial markets offered huge opportunities to Scots. Scottish associations were formed worldwide to promote networks to get Scots into jobs,
 The Economist put it last week, “there are compelling reasons for paying attention … to small countries on the edge of Europe … they have reached the future first”. What does that future consist of ? Alternative energy, for one. The run-down in fossil fuels, even taking into account fracking and other controversial practices, can be seen to have begun with oil at well over $100 a barrel with the world economy still in rehab.

Scotland has been blessed with both huge fossil fuel opportunities and huge renewable opportunities in the last 50 years. Are we going to say No to them both? Some will say this is “selfish” or “parochial”. Well, suppose it were: what did Britain spend the oil revenues on, and was the UK as sensible as Norway, whose oil fund – which holds 1 per cent of the global stockmarket on behalf of a country of 4.5 million people – is the economic wonder and envy of the western world?

How can we say the UK spent North Sea revenues wisely in this age of austerity? Did they do better than other countries – than Scotland would have done? But, in fact, Scotland isn’t selfish or parochial, it’s just small. Small countries are adept at networking, and it’s a networking age. They are adept at finding new solutions in education (Finland, for example) or fish farming (Norway) and many other things.

The top five countries in the world for global competitiveness in 2012 are all small, as are four of the top five for innovation and four of the top five for prosperity.They are interested in themselves, but also the whole world: and that isn’t parochial, it’s just normal. Scotland isn’t a parish, it’s a country. And of course it’s interested in itself, but it is interested in the world too, just like any normal country.As it promotes itself, Scotland is finding rising markets for its exports across the world, and will find new markets for its culture too. A Yes vote is a necessary key step forward in that process.

 Independence is not separation: it is about talking to ourselves and the world without going through an intermediary. It itself will be a process: as Jim McColl put it last week “a united kingdom but with an independent parliament”.

Ireland stayed in a monetary union with sterling for 57 years. Every case is different, but the point is that what we will share with our neighbours on these islands will still be a partnership, just a new one. And we need a new one. 

Life is change, and change is gained by how we think, vote and act differently. No change is without risk, but “no change” is full of risk. It is indeed voting for nothing, and we will not be offered something for that nothing.I am voting Yes because I have spent years championing the literature and culture of Scotland at home and abroad. 

There are people throughout the world watching us and waiting for us to join them. It won’t be a free ride: but if we decide we are confident enough to have something to give in trade or niche industries or culture or creativity, we will get something back. 

Does Scotland have the self-confidence to realise what has changed, to realise the opportunities that there are, and to look to the future? There is much more to our quantifiable economic strengths, exports, education, energy and innovation than the power of positive thinking, but without it we will not develop as fast as we need to, or have the voice we ought to, in this rapidly changing world. And that is why I am voting Yes.

I said in a recent post that I would like to see more discussion of the “separation boost” – the possible impact (economic, social, political– if not psychological which separation from Britain would have. I have always had a soft spot for the “Small is Beautiful” argument – best represented in the Breakdown of Nations book produced in 1947 by the Austrian Leopold Kohr. I’m surprised (and disappointed) that no one seems to be mentioning him in the debate.

And one of the few systematic studies of the contribution of “small countries” is this one from the David Hume Institute 

Scotland - keeping an open mind

I had wanted today to write something about what might be called the “separation boost” – the social and economic advantage which is to flow from Scottish Independence once it is negotiated after what looks to be a successful referendum on September 18^th

But I got sidetracked – not least by the various websites and articles I’d collected over time on the issue of Scottish separation but not properly looked at…

And one of the things which disappoints me as I look at how the “great debate” is being conducted is - the absence of websites or blogs devoted to the issue (and there are so many!) which are keeping an open mind. There are some great “dedicated” sites….but few quality ones (it seems to me so far) which try to explore the issues dispassionately….

A rare one which does is the Church of Scotland – which ran 32 discussions in its churches in various parts of the country and produced earlier this year (I think) a useful snapshot called Imagining Scotland’s Future. I'll try to say something about the document soon 

And it is that same institution which produced a few days ago a proposal for a “reconciliation service” to help Scots on different sides of the barricades deal with one another after 18 September…

In that same spirit of reconciliation (which my (Scottish) father undertook in post-war Germany) future posts on this blog will try to "distill" from those sites (for the benefit of this blog's global readers) the essence of the debate. 
In the 24 years I've been out of the country, I'm used to being asked if I'm English. No, I have always replied, "I'm Scottish".  I have never had any doubt about my identity! 
But I am torn in this debate about independence. Last autumn I was in favour. Now I'm not so sure. And bear in mind that Ive spent my whole life thinking (and acting) about issues related to the question of government - four years of university study; followed by a combined career of lecturing about and practising local and regional development. A useful base, many would see, for the 20 years which followed - advising governments in "post-communist" countries on various issues relating to the reform of their machinery of government. With due modesty (I hope), I can reasonably claim to be well-read and experienced in issues of governance. As I don't have a vote in this referendum, I can therefore continue to be dispassionate in any advice and comment I offer.     

And let me start with the author of one of the books I received recently in Bucharest - Professor Jim Gallagher - Fellow in Politics at Nuffield College, Oxford and adviser to the Better Together Campaign. His book (with Ian Maclean) "Scotland’s Choices" is one in the small library I've been accumulating in recent months on the independence issue. This text is taken from the Polity Press website. 

I warn you – it is a long post – but its tone makes it worthy of being the first of this series - it will be duly balanced by the next post -

Modern British politics has never experienced anything like this campaign. Governments arguing on each side – indeed the whole resource of the devolved government apparently devoted to little else – producing a White Paper remarkable for its length, at least. Longer even than a US presidential election – in reality stretching back to 2011. High reported intention to vote – but so far a remarkably stolid public opinion. One very striking feature is the willingness of today’s UK to empower the Scottish people to decide on their future by voting for a separate Scottish state. Contrast this with Madrid’s deep unwillingness to agree that Catalonia should hold a referendum at all. One might have predicted a bit more sound and fury from the UK before so radical a course of action was agreed, but the logic that Scotland alone should make this democratic choice was followed without question. The threat of secession is being contemplated in a very civilised way, though that does not imply it is in any sense welcomed. 

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the debate in Scotland is so instrumental. Of course there are Scots for whom nationhood is a gut question with huge emotional resonance.
My taxi driver the other day who hankered after ‘the Bruce and the Wallace’ to run an independent country (honest) was perhaps an outlier, but committed nationalists are clear believers.
 Many, perhaps most, Scots however seem to view this as an instrumental question – what would work best, how in reality would things turn out, and how much would it affect Scotland’s prosperity? Voters’ demand is for ‘more information’, as if the referendum were a particularly important exam to study for. 

The contrast with Spain is striking. In the week in which it was reported that 1.6 million people held hands round Catalonia, 8000 hardy souls climbed the Calton Hill in Edinburgh to rally for separation. The former is a mass movement.This lack of separatist enthusiasm in the electorate might be a weakness for the independence campaign, but it also defines much of its nature, and the debate.esponses to a now notorious Scottish Social Attitudes Survey question suggest that 51% of Scots would support independence if it made them £500 a year better off, while 85% would reject it if they were £500 worse off. So debate has focused on issues that surface in retail politics – jobs, pensions, taxation and public spending – rather than principled questions of independence and statehood. Nowhere was this more striking than in the Scottish Government’s White Paper, Scotland’s Future, published last year. It is notable for length, weight – 650 pages long and 3 pounds heavy – and lightness. Its definition of independence is about as ‘light’ as could be and still merit the name.

lmost as much effort is devoted to explaining the things that would not change as to what would or might. So an independent Scotland would keep not just the Queen as Head of State, but the UK pound, the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulatory Authority, the UK Research Councils, the BBC, the National Lottery, common welfare administration…all the way down, or maybe up, to Strictly Come Dancing. 

The political logic is clear: independence is inherently a deeply uncertain and risky project. That is not a campaigning point, but a statement of fact. It cannot be predicted with certainty how different life would be in an independent Scotland– that depends on decisions that would be taken by Scotland, and in large part by others in reaction to it. For some voters, making things different may be the overriding priority. But for most, risk and uncertainty is to be avoided, not sought out. 

So the SNP’s political imperative is to de-risk independence in voters’ minds, and present it as simply a small, logical, step from devolution – rather than a disruptive separation. The consequent political tactic is to attack as negative or scaremongering any suggestion to the contrary, and to seek to delegitimise whoever makes it: thus the Labour Shadow Chancellor is an ally of the Tories, or Bob Dudley of BP not a business leader but a member of the elite. The suggestion that the interests of rest of the UK could diverge from an independent Scotland’s gets similar treatment. It is an iron law of political discourse that the amount of emotion and abuse used in defending an argument is in inverse proportion to the argument’s strength. Of course this no more than quotidian politicking, and perhaps that is to be expected in the first couple of years of a campaign of extraordinary length.

It began as soon as the SNP gained an overall majority in the Holyrood Parliament, and when the UK government made clear it would ensure the legal obstacles to a devolved referendum did not stand in its way.
A period of SNP prevarication about what sort of referendum they wanted (one question or two, and what options) ended in the only way it could – with the referendum promised in their manifesto. Beginning during this period, and subsequently, we have seen policy contributions from the United Kingdom government weighty in a different sense.

The Scotland Analysis program is a series of papers, avowedly intended to persuade voters of the benefits of the UK, but extremely heavy in detailed legal, economic and policy analysis of the potential consequences of independence. These papers are full of expert analysis of subjects as various as international law, the effects of borders on trade, and the currency options open to an independent Scotland.

Few, if any, policy questions have been subject to such intensive scrutiny. As we approach the final (couple of) hundred days, and then the (long) regulated period of the campaign, voters will focus on the significance of the choice which they are to make, and the importance of its consequences. They are sure to realise that a choice to create a separate Scottish state is not just another issue of retail politics but rather a profound, and irreversible, decision about where they belong, and how they are governed. 

The most significant event of the campaign so far, by some measure, has been the cross-party agreement by UK politicians that the SNP’s model of currency union post-separation is not sustainable, and would not be acceptable in the interests of the continuing UK, nor indeed in Scotland’s.

This is a hugely significant issue in itself – no economic decision is more important for any country than what currency to have, and the implications of the choices which are available for Scotland’s prosperity, for incomes, employment, interest rates and so on go to the core of the economic issues in the debate.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the reaction of Scottish Ministers has been one of emotive abuse. What is perhaps more important about this intervention, however, is that it is an explicit challenge to the SNP’s depiction of independence, implying that it is not really much of a change at all. As the campaign moves into its last 6 months, candour is to be welcomed. 

The intellectual foundation of the Better Together argument, however, does not lie in the incoherence of the independence proposition put forward by the SNP. Bolstered by the analytical work of the UK government, it is possible to see an intellectually coherent and compelling set of arguments for maintaining Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom, as it is today with its own democratic institutions, as well as the strength, stability and security of the wider nation state. 

The argument from economic union is, bizarrely, wholly accepted by the SNP. Everyone in the UK benefits from being part of a large domestic market, in which not just goods and services but workers and capital resources can move without hindrance to take advantage of economic opportunities. Independence, which most economists agree would create a ‘border effect’ of some magnitude, could only hinder that.
An integrated economy, together with an effective banking union and fiscal sharing, allows the UK to sustain a single currency, not just a symbol, but an effective sign of economic union. The UK is however more than an economic union. Economic union, and the fiscal sharing it allows, create the opportunity for social solidarity, so that individual parts of the UK gain security from being part of a larger economic whole, and can manage economic shocks and volatility in a way in which a small nation could not.
This is shown particularly in the UK’s single pension and welfare benefits system, in which the circumstances of individuals, rather than where they live or their nationality, determine their pension or support. Independence would certainly end that. Of course in voting to stay in the UK, Scots would also be voting for continuation of a form of political union which allows for very substantial, and increasing, decentralisation of power and responsibility to the Scottish Parliament, so that Scots can have greater control over their domestic affairs without abandoning the benefits of being part of a larger country. 

The portrait is of Henry Raeburn - one of Scotland's best painters - of the 19th century

Wha's Like Us? Part 12 of the Scottish commentary

It occurred to me this cold, windy morning in the Carpathian mountains that I hadn’t seen any articles subjecting the discussion on Scottish Independence to “discourse analysis” – cold and windy mornings in the mountains tend to bring on such thoughts! 

When I googled, I found three - but written, it seemed, by undergraduates with all the preliminary regurgitation this requires of obfuscating theory – this one’s exploration of the language of the main campaigns was vaguely interesting. Another paper’s analysis (in (2006) of ex-First Minister Jack McConnell’s speeches was simply inconsequential and outdated 

And this one’s application of “frame analysis” to 4 Scottish Leaders’ speeches was very disappointing – the discussion being limited to the four obvious constitutional scenarios rather than a typology of arguments which an earlier post of mine had indicated were overdue in the debate

One contribution (in the discussion thread which the Guardian had a few days ago on the issue) should figure in any such typology. It asked simply why we apparently think that the Scottish political class will be able to shake off the disease which has afflicted all other political classes in Europe in the post-war period – and to which I;ve referred frequently in this blog (in deed only yesterday)

I'm an Englishman living in Largs.  Funnily enough. I'll be voting 'no' in the referendum.I totally understand the desire of Scots (like many, if not most, non-southern English) to be shot of Westminster, but the premise that 'we' would be better off governing 'ourselves' is flawed on a number of levels, not least because it assumes that Scotland doesn't (or won't) have a political class which is emotionally and practically distinct from the rest of its population. This is arguable, of course; but one lesson of 1707 is surely that when it comes to realpolitik, Scotland's leaders are historically no less self-serving than anyone else's.T

his won't be popular, either (especially coming from an Englishman), but part of the problem an independent Scotland faces is that it is a fragmented country. I would be interested to know what most Highlanders nowadays think about national identity, but certainly prior to the Act of Union (and, arguably, for a very long time after that) most Scots did not consider highlanders to be Scottish at all. Surely, the actual political (and even cultural) differences (beyond a simplistic 'Yes' and 'No') between highland and lowland Scots, rural and urban Scots, or Scots from the industrial West and Lothian are far greater than any great unifying national identity. 

From a purely practical point of view, I really believe that devolution has allowed the Scottish Parliament the freedom to do the wonderful things that it has done (from no tuition fees, to freedom from prescription charges, to consistently higher per capita health spending) without having to face some of the hardest choices when it comes to the possible risks of independence.In the end, very little about the realities of an independent Scotland is certain, so it remains a largely emotional debate.
Despite how this post might read, I don't favour the status quo; but swapping one political class for another (just because they're 'our own') seems self-delusional to me.

Scottish Review is the only Scottish journal I know which gives space to critical voices which challenge the conventional wisdom (its tolerance knows no bounds – they have several times allowed the murderous George Robertson a voice). Significantly it’s totally independent and electronic .

And, without the scandalous tone found in newspapers, the Review documents the failings of the Scottish professional class which holds such power in Scotland .

One of the things which makes me keep an open mind during this debate is the over celebratory “Wha’s like us?” tone of the contributions. True that phrase seems self-deprecatory but in fact we can outdo the Romanians any day in the scale of our claims to what we’ve contributed to the world…….

And I find it interesting that when I googled the phrase I came across the thoughtful website of someone who had been Deputy-Leader of the Scottish National Party. Like a lot of others he has now parted with the Party – although he still favours independence.

My conclusion is that we are disputatious people (don't get me started on religion!) with a supine media and bloated professional class with a great sense of its self-importance – elements which we need to bear in mind as we contemplate future scenarios………….

I well understand that this will be construed as defeatist thought by those who hypothesise that Scotland will be given a great psychological boost by its partition – as discussed in the Volokh blog 

Defeatist or realist - it would be useful to see some rather clearer assessments of this "separation boost".........

PS also while googling I found this interesting Guide to the debate.

And also this great background article from Etudes Ecossaises (in English!)

Collapse of a Continent

I have mentioned Perry Anderson several times on this blog. Although his reputation is based on his work as an historian and political philosopher (“specialist in intellectual history” is how Wikipedia puts it), he has in the past 5 years or so focused his energies on penning detailed and gripping portraits of contemporary countries. I know of no other writer who has his encyclopedic grasp of cultural, political and historical aspects of a country (based on reading of original sources) combined with elegance of writing.

His detailed dissections of France, Germany, Italy, Turkey (and the EU) collected in the book The New Old World are simply the first thing anyone who wants to understand contemporary Europe should read.   

No less a writer than Chris Hitchens claimed in an article that Anderson was “the most profound essayist wielding a pen” - if "on the wrong side of history."

He is 75 years old – and an exceptional example of a generation which was genuinely multicultural (not in the current PC sense of the word). His grasp of several European languages, his interdisciplinary and prolific reading (he apparently devours books) means that he moves in an intellectual world now known to few people. And then he returns from that world to give us amazing insights.

The book review which is mentioned gives a quite exceptional overview and pays appropriate tribute to the man -

Ambitious interdisciplinary essay writing and  the ability to sustain a complex multidimensional argument beyond about ten pages, is dying, if not dead. Atypical in his career, footloose across continents, Anderson has never had to worry about his citation index or his impact factor. He is "old school" in the good sense: as reliable and perennially cool as a pair of old adidas.

This week’s London Review of Books offers another of his long essays which paints juicy portraits of the way the EU and Italy have dealt with the financial and political crisis overwhelming the continent. I have still not finished the article – but need to share the incisiveness of following excerpts    

Commonplace in a Union that presents itself as a moral tutor to the world, the pollution of power by money and fraud follows from the leaching of substance or involvement in democracy. Elites freed from either real division above, or significant accountability below, can afford to enrich themselves without distraction or retribution. Exposure ceases to matter very much, as impunity becomes the rule. Like bankers, leading politicians do not go to prison. Of the fauna above, only an elderly Greek has ever suffered that indignity. But corruption is not just a function of the decline of the political order. It is also, of course, a symptom of the economic regime that has taken hold of Europe since the 1980s. In a neoliberal universe, where markets are the gauge of value, money becomes, more straightforwardly than ever before, the measure of all things. If hospitals, schools and prisons can be privatised as enterprises for profit, why not political office too?.......................... 

By the summer 2011, emboldened by increasing flattery of himself in the media as the rock of the Republic, and with the encouragement of Berlin, Brussels and Frankfurt, the Italian President, Napolitano, had decided to dispose of Berlusconi. The key to removing him smoothly was finding a replacement to satisfy these decisive partners, and the business establishment in Italy. Happily, the ideal figure was to hand: Mario Monti, the former EU commissioner, member of the Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission, senior adviser to Goldman Sachs and now president of Bocconi University. Monti had for some time been looking forward to just the situation which now presented itself. ‘Italian governments can take tough decisions,’ he confided to the Economist in 2005, ‘only if two conditions are met: there must be both a visible emergency and strong pressure from outside.’ At the time, he lamented, ‘such a moment of truth is lacking.’ Now it had come. As early as June or July, in complete secrecy,

Napolitano readied Monti to take over the government. In the same period, he commissioned the head of Italy’s largest banking group, Corrado Passera, to produce a confidential economic plan for the country. Passera was a former aide to Berlusconi’s arch political enemy and business rival Carlo De Benedetti, owner of La Repubblica and L’Espresso, who was privy to Napolitano’s moves. In urgent italics, Passera’s 196-page document proposed shock therapy: €100 billion worth of privatisations, housing tax, capital levies, a hike in VAT. Napolitano, on the phone to Merkel and no doubt Draghi, now had the man and the plan to eject Berlusconi ready. Monti had never run for election, and though a seat in Parliament was not required for investiture as prime minister, it would help to have one.On 9 November, plucking him from Bocconi, Napolitano appointed Monti a senator for life, to the applause of the world’s financial press. Under threat of destruction by the bond markets should he resist, Berlusconi capitulated, and within a week Monti was sworn in as the country’s new ruler, at the head of an unelected cabinet of bankers, businessmen and technocrats.

 The operation that had installed him is an expressive illustration of what democratic procedures and the rule of law can mean in today’s Europe. It was entirely unconstitutional. The Italian president is supposed to be the impartial guardian of a parliamentary order, who does not interfere with its decisions save where they breach the constitution – as this one had signally failed to do. He is not empowered to conspire, behind the back of an elected premier, with individuals of his choice, not even in Parliament, to form a government to his liking.

The corruption of business, bureaucracy and politics in Italy was now compounded by corruption of the constitution. In 2011 the crisis gripping Italy and the Eurozone had been triggered by a massive wave of financial speculation and derivative manipulation on both sides of the Atlantic. No operator was more notorious for its part in these than the very company on whose payroll both Monti and Draghi had figured. Goldman Sachs, amply earning its sobriquet in America of the ‘vampire squid’, had seconded the falsification of Greek public accounts, and been charged with fraud by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, paying half a billion dollars to settle the case out of court. 

Giving Credit to the politicians with backbone

People moan about the declining standards of politicians - who do seem to have reached the bottom in the “reputation” league tables.

But do we understand why? What can we do about it? And do we properly recognize the minority of politicians who buck the trend and have in fact some moral fibre?

Labour politician Austin Mitchell was in the headlines last week with an attack on drug companies. He is a one of the very few Labour politicians I have had any time for …..He was an academic before being elected in the late 1970s for a fishing town after the tragic death of the sitting MP - Labour’s Foreign Secretary of the time Anthony Crosland. 
Anyone making the “Case for Labour” in a Penguin Special in 1983 (as Mitchell then proceeded to do) when the party was tearing itself apart had to be very special. The state it was then in was the major factor dissuading me from fighting the parliamentary seat in my home town when it was then offered to me (it didn’t stop Gordon Brown or Tony Blair, however, both of whom took their seats in the General Election of that year)

Mitchell went on serve Parliament and constituency well (at one stage actually changing his name to Fillett as part of a campaign to save the fishing industry) and to write several books. One of these – How to succeed in politics without being Really Trying - is reviewed here by one of the other “originals” left on the Labour benches - Paul Flynn

Mitchell was bright and articulate – and party bosses don’t like that – so he never saw Ministerial office. Last month Mitchell announced his intention to stand down from Parliament after 40 years’ of service. His maverick style led too many to dismiss him. But it is such originality, energy and commitment that Parliaments everywhere need!

People like Austin Mitchell threaten the bosses who groom candidates for office – on the basis either of their family or other connections.

I became and remained a successful candidate for office simply because I cultivated my constituents – the people who lived in my area……

And, in my lifetime, I have seen the power shift into the hands of the political bosses – particularly in Britain where the generally unassailable position of Prime Minister gives dangerous power of patronage.

But it is more than just the power of the political parties – generally with their state funding. The media are also responsible – for giving coverage only to the leaders of parties – as are their readers who encourage the triviality with which politics is dealt these days.

So forgive me for celebrating some of those who, in their day, gave us reason to proud to be democrats – and with persevering with the question of how we might retrieve the situation.

I wrote recently about John McIntosh who was my tutor in the early 60s – a time I was picked out to visit the home of Hugh Gaitskell, Leader of the Labour opposition until his tragically early death. In 1970 I was election agent for left-wing Norman Buchan – who was a real treasure – never really surrendering his quiet schoolmaster style.

Through Norman and my growing status in the Scottish Labour movement I met quite a few MPs in the 1970s…. including Willie Ross, Donald Dewar - both Leaders of the Scottish Labour Party at different times – as well as John Smith, Leader of the British Labour Party, until his tragically early death in the 1990s.

Donald Dewar – who was a great Labour Whip - also died when he had just attained the office of First Minister of the newly established Scottish Parliament. 

So many brilliant and committed people cut off in the prime of their lives (also John McIntosh and Robin Cook) – compared with such useless dross which survives into their dotage….

Jo Grimond – the Leader in the 1970s of the Liberal Party – was also a Scottish MP with whom I had close contact for a few years by virtue of his support for a community project with which I was associated. And then, of course, Tony Benn who died in January at the grand age of 88….

All were greats……People such as Tam Dalyell and Dennis Healey (in their 80s and 90s), Tony Wright, Chris Mullin (in their 60s) are all retired now.

These are the MPs I respected……. Healey, of course, was one of the greatest – the other 3 in that list had decided at an early stage that they did not “have what it took” to achieve major Ministerial office (that being, variously flattery; stupidity; ambition) and decided to concentrate on other (generally better) aspects of parliamentary life…

So amongst all the cynicism and whinging - let us pay proper tribute - and do more to ensure that these are the sort who get credit......

Remembering

It was remiss of me not to have mentioned the exhibition of Otto Dix graphics now in its last few weeks at the Bucharest National Gallery (the side entrance near the English bookshop).

Dix is not a favourite painter of mine – but his graphics about the First World War are quite stunning.

I’ve also included – by way of comparison – one of the many sketches of Ilya Petrov I bought earlier this year in Sofia….

I was reminded because of opening a new book about Anglo-German Relations called ‘Noble Endeavours, the Life of Two Countries, England and Germany, in Many Stories’ which starts with a profile of one, Herbert Sulzbach whose life is described by the author in the following terms -

Herbert Sulzbach fought for Germany in the First World War and for Britain in the Second. His most challenging war began later. On November 11 1945, this quietly charming and slightly-built man succeeded in persuading the 4,000 Nazi PoWs with whom he had spent the past 11 months to stand alongside him, on Armistice Day, and pledge themselves to return home as good Europeans, “to take part in the reconciliation of all people and the maintenance of peace.”

Subsequently, working among the high-ranking SS officers imprisoned at Featherstone Park in Northumbria, Sulzbach ensured that these more hardened candidates also returned home with a clear understanding of how a liberal democracy should work.Sulzbach’s persuasive method — he made a point of imposing no form of censorship — proved remarkably effective. The 3,000 ex-prisoners who later wrote to thank him for his endeavours had little to gain at that point from their gratitude. One reformed PoW, Willi Brundert, went on to become a celebrated mayor of Frankfurt. Twenty-five of Sulzbach’s Nazi pupils would freely form a European branch of Featherstone. It was still going strong when Sulzbach died in 1985……. In 1948, Herbert Sulzbach publicly described the PoWs returning home as the best of envoys for future peace and understanding between Germany and England. Nearly 40 years later, he warned that “first, the old distrust must disappear”.The time has surely come to pay heed to Sulzbach’s words. Writing my book, Noble Endeavours, I was greatly struck by the spirit of forgiveness I encountered among people who had come to England as Kindertransport children. Born in Germany and now profoundly attached to England, all of them echoed Sulzbach’s wish for an end to the old distrust.
On the eve of a year of remembering the horrors that began in 1914, I hope that recalling the past won’t allow us to undo, or to neglect, the task of reconciliation for which so much was done by two heroic Jews. 

I'm glad to do my little bit in remembering not so much the two World Wars - but the few good people who have tried to do something positive with their lives................

Entitlement

How dependent many of us have become on high-speed internet connections!! Yesterday was the day Vodafone graciously gave me my new month’s 4 GB capacity with which to hit the internet. How good I felt at the ease with which I could suddenly access sites. But I have to resist Youtube’s temptations – and rely on Yahoo mail and my google website for up-and down-loading text and a few pics……

And then I realized both how lucky and pathetic I am – living as I do in a village whose techniques and skills haven’t changed in more than 100 years…..

But, then, I am a pathetic “symbolic analyst” or scribbler to whom a power saw (let alone my wood-burning central heating system) is a major engineering test – which, needless to say, I abysmally fail. And don’t even ask me to milk the cow which gives me its milk from my neighbour’s and (in summer my own) field!

It sent me back to Michael Foley – whose Age of Absurdity (2010) graces the shelves of my various living quarters…..

Drawing on philosophy, religion, history, psychology and neuroscience, his exploration of the things that modern culture is either rejecting or driving us away from cuts to the essence and I should probably post it above my desk!!·      Responsibility – we are entitled to succeed and be happy, so someone/thing else must be to blame when we are not
·      Difficulty – we believe we deserve an easy life, and worship the effortless and anything that avoids struggle (as Foley points out, this extends even to eating oranges: sales are falling as peeling them is now seen as too demanding and just so, you know, yesterday …)
·      Detachment – we benefit from concentration, autonomy and privacy, but life demands immersion, distraction, collaboration and company; by confusing self-esteem (essentially external and concerned with our image to others) with self-respect (essentially internal and concerned with our self-image), we further fuel our sense of entitlement – and our depression, frustration and rage when we don’t get what we ‘deserve’
·      Experience – captivated by the heightened colour, speed, and drama of an edited on-screen life, our attention span is falling and ‘attention’ (at least in the West) is something we pay passively rather than actively and mindfully.

It was significant, Foley says, that when Americans and Japanese were asked to study an underwater environment for twenty seconds and then describe what they had seen, the Americans said things like ‘big blue fish’, and the Japanese ‘flowing water, rocks, plants and fish’. The Eastern reality was wider, fuller and richer.”