The Brooks Newmark Sting - Journalistic Integrity?

  First things first, I'm glad that Brooks Newmark MP - Conservative Member of Parliament for Braintree - has resigned as Minister for Civil Society. Having stated that, as the minister responsible for charities, his plan was to 'keep... [them] out of the realms of politics' and that they 'should just stick to their knitting', there was absolutely no question that this man was unfit for office. 

  Bad enough that the Tories have already steered their charity censoring 'Gagging Bill' through Parliament, with the Bill - ostensibly aimed at lobbying organisations but in fact doing very little to contain the worst offenders - now an Act of Parliament (incidentally, there is another Bill before Parliament aimed at repealing this repulsive law - please consider writing to your MP to vote for it). Newmark's comments, in the wake of this outrage, merely drove home the contempt in which the Tory elite hold the populace, and the charitable organisations who are among the few groups with any power acting on their behalf. Yes, Newmark had to go.

  But not like this.

  The idiocy of the man in falling for the oldest trick in the book - random sexy stranger sends alluring photos and flirts; because THAT'S likely to happen to a 56-year-old Tory MP  - is without question. And, frankly, I quite enjoy the panic that losing an MP and a Minister on the same day must have inflicted on the Tory high command. But, in the end, isn't it his business? Why are we in a situation whereby the most appalling comments about the organisations with which it is part of a minister's job to liaise are not grounds for resignation, but a little ill-advised cyber-flirtation with another human being is? 

  It is, then, a matter of the public's own warped sense of morality - one which years of neoliberalism has stripped of most positive qualities, but which still holds on to good old-fashioned  social conservatism - which has allowed this curious and, honestly, disappointing dichotomy to arise. But more than that, it is a matter of journalistic integrity. Or rather, of the complete lack of journalistic integrity shown by one Alex Wickham.

  Wickham writes for Paul Staines' Guido Fawkes blog, as well as doing freelance work for other newspapers. His use of the photographs of two young women (which were, I might add, obtained and then widely published without consent) to ensnare Newmark in this way was reprehensible. Ignore the fact that this man was obviously unfit for ministerial office, because Wickham would not have cared either way either, and you are left with the destruction of a man's career over a few moments of indiscretion. 

  The following are clear: Newmark should have resigned weeks earlier, taking care of the problem; Wickham should not have stooped to these lengths just to secure a story; and the Sunday Mirror certainly should not have published this sensationalist nonsense (but then, it is the Sunday Mirror; we shouldn't expect miracles). None of these things happened, and thus the common public opinion - that politicians are without scruples and journalists are little better - is, sadly, once again borne out.

Here We Go Again

  MPs in the House of Commons yesterday voted by 524 to 43 in favour of UK airstrikes against IS targets in Iraq. Ladies and gentlemen, here we go again. Barack Obama last week became the fourth successive US President to declare on live television an American bombing campaign in the Iraq region; now, David Cameron joins him in declaring military action in the failing state just three years after the last British forces withdrew from the country.

  War in Iraq seems to have become something of a hobby for the Anglo-American military-industrial complex. This time, though, we are not fighting the iron-fisted tyrant that was Saddam Hussein - instead, the enemy is a group of ultra-radical fundamentalist Islamists; a group whose interpretation of the Qur'an combins the worst evils of the early campaigns of bloodshed emanating from seventh-century Medina and more modern Wa'habist ideologies of an ultra-strict religious conservatism and adherence to a twisted brand of Sharia law. A target, therefore, one might think worthy of Britain's aggression? Perhaps.

  The problem is, though, so much of the current problem is derived directly from the Iraq War of 2003 and the earlier Gulf War of 1990. Despite the protestations of senior government figures to the contrary, blowback from overseas theatres of war is a real and present problem, and the history of modern British and American involvement in the Middle East is scarred with it. From the Afghan campaigns of the 1980s, which kickstarted the rise of the Taliban, to the brutal murder of Drummer Lee Rigby last May - whose perpetrators explicitly stated their aim as revenge for slaughtered Muslims in Iraq - the US-UK alliance is dogged by bloody reprisals against their people for the governments' actions abroad.

The territory controlled by the IS as of 22/09/14

  The success of the Islamic State, formerly an al-Qaeda offshoot, is based to a not inconsiderable degree on the violent actions of Western powers in the Middle East over the last half-century or so. The Arab Spring may have destabilised the region enough for ISIS to emerge in Syria, but it has been the justified hatred of Western interventionism which has helped to fuel its transformation from one of many small rebel groups set against the Assad regime to a de facto independent country straddling the borders of two of the regions former powers, and it is the weakness and sectarianism of Iraq in the wake of the Alliance's disastrous earlier invasion which has allowed the armies of Islamist extremism to run roughshod across the lands once home to the greatest civilisations on Earth.

  So, here we go, back into Iraq. So far the UK - along with the other European powers participating in the action (Denmark and Belgium) - are loathe to expand operations into Syria, but now that the USA has taken that step, in defiance of Assad's protestations of illegality, it can only be a matter of time. This war will be one without borders, one which Cameron has said could take three years but which could easily last five times that. Another war in an unstable area, and what will we be left with at the end of it? Two shattered states, a Middle East infected with a stronger poison of religious extremism than ever before and greater and greater hatred for the 'Great Satan' of Western intervention.

  And that's assuming we even win.

It's All Over - Except It's Not

  Well, there we go. That's that, as they say. Scotland, land of haggis and whisky (of which I'm fond) and of bagpipes and tartan (of which I'm not so fond) has voted in what was probably the defining moment in recent British political history. The result, a 10-point win for the No campaign, on the back of a turnout of 84.6%, is not the vast thrashing of the Independence campaign which was predicted when the referendum was called, but it is a significant enough margin to settle the question for some time.

  But, I'm afraid, that's not quite the end of it. In fact, not by a long shot. It has been clear for some years, and most especially for the last fortnight or so, that the status quo simply will not be acceptable to Scotland for any longer. The fallout from the referendum will send shockwaves through Scottish politics, and it will profoundly affect the rest of the Union too. The Scots may have gone for No, but this emphatically doesn't mean No Change.


Scottish Devolution

  With the current Devolution plans under the Scotland Act 2012 lay out some powers which will be transferred to Scotland over the next two years. These include a replacement of UK Stamp Duty by a Scottish version, the ability for the Scottish Government to borrow from the capital markets and issue government bonds and - crucially - the cutting of the UK Income Tax in Scotland to 10%, with the Scottish Government responsible for setting a separate rate to make up the shortfall, which would allow Scotland to vary overall Income Tax rates from the UK standard of 20%. 

  Let's be clear, these powers are to go to the Scots, regardless of what happens over the next few months. However, there are now proposals on the table for new Scottish powers from each of the three main Westminster parties. These new powers will be needed to assuage the demand for greater autonomy which 1.6 million votes for independence demonstrates. There are differences between the parties on what these powers should be, however.

  Labour Proposals   [SOURCE: Scottish Labour Devolution Commission - Executive Summary]

• The Scottish Parliament to be made a permanent feature of the UK constitution
• The Scottish Parliament to have administrative authority over Scottish Parliament elections
• The Scottish Government to raise approx. 40% of its own tax revenues
• UK Income Tax rate in Scotland to be reduced to 5% rather than 10%
• The Scottish Government to be able to vary different Income Tax bands by different amounts
• Retention of the Barnett Formula for the Scottish block spending grant
• Housing Benefit to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament
• Greater powers for the Island Communities - Orkney, Shetland and Eilean Siar

  Conservative Proposals   [SOURCE: Commission on the Future Governance of Scotland]

• Income Tax entirely devolved to the Scottish Parliament
• Official Scottish Fiscal Commission to be established
• Possible devolution of Housing Benefit
• Possible ability for the Scottish Parliament to supplement UK social security payments
• Retention of the Barnett Formula for the Scottish block spending grant

  Liberal Democrat Proposals   [SOURCE: Federalism: the best future for Scotland]

• Power of Initiation, allowing the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments to request actions of one another
• Devolution of Income Tax to the Scottish Parliament
• Devolution of Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax
• The proceeds of Scottish corporation tax to be assigned to the Scottish Government
• Retention of the Barnett Formula for the Scottish block spending grant until a new formula is agreed

  The rhetoric generally is that Labour's proposals are the least extensive, but this is mainly focusing on the slightly weaker offer on Income Tax. In fact, overall it is clear that it is the traditionally Unionist Tories who have made what I would consider the least attractive offer. For a new devolution settlement to work, though, all three parties will have to agree a package of powers, which will then have to be agreed with the SNP. The man in charge of this process is the Lord Robert Smith, Baron of Kelvin, who also ran the Glasgow Commonwealth Games earlier this year. A White Paper is planned for January. Watch this space...

Winners and Losers

  The big loser of this referendum has been Alex Salmond. Despite cutting No's lead from 22 points two months ago to just 10 in the referendum, Salmond has announced his decision to step down both as SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland in November. This leaves the way open for his popular deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, long tipped as his sucessor to take the reins of power. With so long under Salmond, this could prove a real shake-up for the Scottish Nationals.

  The biggest sigh of relief was likely breathed by David Cameron, for whom a Yes vote could have meant a vote of no confidence in the commons and the loss of his premiership. Ed Miliband, too, was likely a little anxious in the run-up to this vote, as a failure for Better Together would likely have been seen as a failure of Labour to successfully challenge the SNP - and thus a damning indictment of his London-centric leadership. Both major party leaders were staring down the barrel of a gun pointed straight at their careers; the No vote has saved them. For now.

  The star of the show, though, has undoubtedly been Gordon Brown. Alistair Darling's leadership of Better Together has been criticised for his lack of charisma and failure to stand up to Salmond, but Brown's fiery eve-of-referendum speech appeared to more than make up for that. It is hard to say just how much his intervention contributed to the eventual success of the No campaign, but calls for the ex-Prime Minister to return to front-line politics after more than four years - perhaps as leader of Scottish Labour - demonstrate how much public opinion he has won by speaking out.

What About the English?

  Almost as soon as the No result was clear, prominent English politicians began their calls for English devolution to match the Scots. Both David Cameron and Ed Miliband mentioned the so-called West Lothian Question in speeches today - Why should Scottish MPs, with significant and growing powers over Scotland now in the hands of the Scottish Parliament, continue to vote on English matters at Westminster? - with Nigel Farage among the many others taking up the cry.

  The Conservative backbenches are pushing for 'English votes on English laws' within the current Westminster Parliament, a solution which would settle the question in the short term. However, Labour - who would find it difficult to get approval for their English agenda under such a system, given their partial reliance on Scotland and Wales for their Parliamentary majorities - are going to take some convincing. Meanwhile, the more interesting - and controversial - question of an English executive, complete with ministerial departments and a possible First Minister of England, has also been floated. Whatever happens, one thing is clear - England will not be satisfied with the status quo either.

  It is clear, then, that a No vote in Scotland does not mean that the leaders of the Westminster parties can rest on their laurels. Independence may have been rejected, but change is coming to the UK - and not before time, either. 


[NOTE: A previous version of this article stated Alex Salmond was unlikely to step down as SNP leader. He announced his intention to do so while I was finishing writing this piece. That'll teach me to make predictions]

Scotland's Choice; Everyone's Future

If Scotland chooses independence this Thursday, the outcome will affect us all

  

  I have been (for me) relatively quiet on the issue of Scottish independence. This is because I believe fundamentally that the decision rests with the people of Scotland itself, and that the interjections of non-Scots - particularly residents of southern England, like myself - are hardly helpful to the debate. 

  The fact is, though, that in two days a very large decision is about to be taken by a comparatively small number of people - just under 4.3 million people, or just 6.7% of the UK's population. The result of that decision could well be the splitting of a 307-year-old union between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland (sorry, Wales, Principality and all that); indeed, such a result is looking increasingly likely, with the average No lead over the most recent 10 polls at just 1.9% - well within the three-point margin of error for a standard 1,000-person poll - and the momentum of the debate having been clearly on the side of the Yes campaign for a good month now.

  If Scotland does vote Yes, things will change for everyone in the UK, not just those living in Scotland. Here is a quick, and by no means exhaustive, rundown of some of the biggest issues that will affect us all:

The Pound

  It may have been done to death over the course of this long, long campaign, but this is still one of the biggest unresolved issues of the whole independence question. Alex Salmond, Blair Jenkins  and the Yes campaign maintain that the Pound belongs to Scotland too, and they will keep it come what may, but that's not quite true. The Pound Sterling as a currency is the responsibility of the Treasury and the Bank of England, and if the new Scottish government want a currency union, they would have to negotiate one with the UK. 

  Of course, they could just use Sterling on an unofficial basis - Zimbabwe already does, along with numerous other currencies - but they would then have no say over its value and would have to match rUK interest rates or risk economic collapse. It is likely, then, that Scotland will push for a Sterling Zone - but this would mean maintaining Scotland's economic ties to the UK central government. It would also mean allowing Scottish input into decisions over rUK monetary policy, which could alter the value of the currency in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well.

The National Debt

  As of the end of June, the UK national debt stands at £1,304.6 bn (not including the cost of the  2008 financial sector bailouts). The total population of Scotland is 5.3 million as of the 2011 census, compared to the UK population of 64.1 million. This means that Scotland's 'share' of the debt comes out at 8.27%, or £107.9 bn. Trouble is, much like the pound, responsibility for the UK debt also rests with the Treasury - meaning Scotland doesn't legally have to take any of it.

  Alex Salmond will use this as a powerful bargaining chip in the post-referendum negotiations - most likely he will offer taking a share of the debt in return for his Sterling Zone. If those negotiations fall through, however, the rest of the UK will be left with a considerably greater per capita debt than before. This, under the current neoliberal consensus, means only one thing: more cuts.

The Border

  At the moment, of course, the border between England and Scotland is merely ceremonial - there's a sign, a bit of crumbling Roman masonry and not much else. Post-independence however, that could change. In order to meet projected levels of spending, particularly with regard to pensions, Scotland would need to attract an estimated 20,000 additional immigrants a year over the next 20 or so years. Contrast this with Westminster's increasingly anti-immigration rhetoric, and you can see the problems an open border would cause.

  Ed Miliband has already floated the idea of border guards along Hadrian's Wall, but this would have far-reaching consequences for people on both sides of the border. Travel would be inhibited, slowing down the process of moving goods and services across the newly concrete divide. Coupled with possible currency issues, and an almost inevitable discrepancy in taxation policy, this could make conducting business across the border - a simple fact of life for centuries for those living in the border regions of both Scotland and England - more and more difficult. A closed border will also affect the Scottish tourism industry - rUK tourism is worth £3.7 bn to Scotland every year, 2.8% of GDP. The economic damage to both countries could be significant, particularly for those close to the border.

National Institutions

  Many of the UK's most prominent institutions are run on an all-UK basis. These include things like the NHS, the BBC, the armed forces etc., and of course the British Civil Service itself. The breakup of the UK would lead also to the breakup of these institutions - Scotland would need its own army, health service and civil servants, whilst the future of the Scottish BBC might well be in jeopardy altogether. Though many institutions, particularly the NHS, are already decentralised to some degree, there is still a colossal amount of interconnection, and a wholesale restructuring of these organisations and many others would have to take place. The cost of this will be huge - estimates for setting up a new Scottish civil service alone range from £200 million to £2.7 billion - and it will be felt by both new states.

  Whatever decision the Scottish people take this Thursday, nothing in the UK will ever be the same again, but the effects of independence - should it be chosen - will be perhaps the most dramatic in living memory. This week may seem ordinary now, but in twenty, fifty, or two hundred years time it could well be one of the most studied in British history.