Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Economy

A boast and a toast to Scotland’s coast

Oct 3

Posted by Jeff in Culture, Economy, Sport | 6 Comments

One of the areas in which Scotland punches well above its global weight is in terms of length of coastline it has at its disposal.

We enjoy 11,800km of sea-battered shoreline in Scotland. That’s 369% of England’s 3200km, 155% of Italy’s 7,600km, 161% of France’s 7,330km, 183% of Ireland’s 6,437km, approximately 66% of China’s £18,000km and infinitely bigger than Switzerland’s, Bolivia’s or Belgium’s 0km. Indeed our shores are so lovely in some places that a Carribbean country decided to use Scottish beaches in its tourist drive rather than its own sought-after sandy enclaves. On the 4.5 hour East Coast train stretch it is surely the sea-hugging 45 minutes down to Berwick that awards the best views.

In my sadly-not-so-recent travelling adventures there were several highlights, chief amongst them were swimming with dolphins, checking out the surfing at Bondi beach, eating some glorious fish and island hopping off the Vietnamese coast. Once in a lifetime some would say but, with a little bit of imagination and effort, all of the above could be permanent fixtures in any Scottish travelling itinerary thanks to our coast.

Whales, Dolphins and Sharks
I don’t know what it is about these creatures but there is a child-like delight in scanning the waves off the West coast (and parts of the East) knowing that there is a fair chance you may see one of them leap out from the watery depths.

Sadly hundreds of these animals, the dolphins in particular, are killed each year due to unsustainable fishing practises which are regrettably continuing, hopefully criminally so.

The healthier and livelier our seas and oceans are then the more likely that a gazing onlooker (tourist or otherwise) will enjoy that delightful experience of seeing that basking shark or pod of bottlenose dolphins.

That opportunity can be bottled, sold and banked for Scotland’s benefit, not to mention the personal benefits that living alongside a thriving nature brings.

Surfing
Scotland is sitting on a surfing goldmine and really is behind the curve in terms of utilising it to its full potential. One of my top highlights of my long period of living in Edinburgh was heading out to Dunbar to pick up a lesson on Belhaven Beach. 25 degree sunshine, 6 foot waves and regular drifts, it was perfect conditions and I was regrettably only one of two out there enjoying the free gift on that Saturday afternoon.

I see no reason why Dunbar, in time, can’t be an unmissable stopping off point for Lonely Planet-wielding backpackers travelling to the UK. A sweep of beachfront similar to that of Bondi Beach in Sydney, a headland perfectly ripe for a Surf School and restaurant/recreational village and only 15 minutes by train from Edinburgh City Centre. If I win the lottery I’ll be straight up there to get cracking on it.

This is of course to overlook Orkney, Thurso, Shetland etc; all world-class surfing locations that are a long way off realising their full potential and not yet luring enough bodacious, Quiksilver-clad thrill-seekers to their coastlines.

Fish
I was perhaps spoiled for seafood restaurants when I lived down at The Shore in Edinburgh with Kings Wark, Fishers, The Ship, Creelers, Teuchter’s Landing and Café Fish all less than three minutes away from my front door. That is to brazenly overlook the Michelin award winning Martin Wishart and Tom Kitchen which I was unable to save up enough pennies for.

It would be great if we saw an increase in line-caught fish and a decrease in mass-produced, processed seafood that relies on questionable catching techniques. We are blessed with bountiful waters and the efforts to protect them have been heartening. Why not really push our fishing heritage and pedigree further by including how to gut, fillet and cook a fish in the High School syllabus? Shouldn’t a country that boasts such a remarkable coastline ensure that it has those rudimentary seafood skills? It would certainly beat the Bran Cakes and Lentil Soup that I remember making as a jaded pupil in Home Economics class, a subject I got an F in despite my now being a keen cook.

Islands
Scotland has 790 islands. A quite remarkable tally and once again a thumping defeat over Switzerland, Belgium and Bolivia. I am loathe to say they are underused, two couples I know of honeymooned on two of them this very year, but their value, although largely qualitative, is something that should be considered and even quantified where possible.

Could we run more ambitious, more tourist-friendly island cruise boats? Old junk boats snaking through Harrs, Rum and Eigg at a leisurely pace with well chosen activities and areas of historic interest along the way? Maybe such events already exist but if all we are relying on to get around off the West coast is the reliable, no-nonsense CalMac, then I think there’s more that could be achieved.

It’s difficult to put into words the frustration that living away from a coastline brings with my now being based in London. The Thames, you won’t be surprised to hear, just doesn’t cut it somehow. Scotland’s coastline needs to be treasured, cultivated, leveraged, protected and enjoyed as much as possible and while this is generally the case already, there is so much more that can be realised from it.

So pick up that surf board, that fishing rod, those boardies or that CalMac explorer pass, cast off the bowlines and enjoy.

(Note – Yes, those photos really were taken in Scotland)

Smoke and mirrors on the cuts

Oct 2

Posted by James in Economy, Westminster | 13 Comments

You have to admire the way George Osborne and Nick Clegg are handling the public spending debate. They’re playing a blinder, and they’ve got some excellent allies. Later this month they’ll cut the UK Government’s budget by 25%. Or is it 40%? The Navy will be forced to put to sea in contraptions made of hemp and ice, the handful of doctors and nurses that remain will be forced simply to kiss it better, and no new schools will ever be built again. It’s a disaster, an exercise in ideological cruelty, with cuts so savage they’ll make Geoffrey Howe’s 1981 austerity budget look like the Milky Bar Kid just showed up.

It’s Labour’s fault, all Labour’s fault, and even Labour agrees. Never mind that each time Labour bent over backwards to facilitate the markets, the Tories urged them to bend further. No deregulation was ever opposed by them, or by the Lib Dems, or indeed by the SNP.

The left have fallen for it entirely, and could not be helping more directly if the Treasury was writing their content for them. On the media side, Polly Toynbee says today “Conservatives know their captain and his mate are storm-chasers, deliberately steering straight into a force 10 hurricane with the spending review on 20 October.”  John Lanchester mocks up Osborne as Edward Scissorhands. Labour’s conference talked of nothing else (aside from some family matters), and left bloggers write about little else. You can’t cut a quarter of the entire UK Budget? Won’t someone think of the children?

Except it isn’t going to happen. On the 20th of October the Chancellor will set out his Comprehensive Spending Review, and, magically, nothing will be as bad as we thought. Lollipop ladies and gentlemen won’t be sold off to foreign parts, and children in dank Victorian dinnerhalls won’t have to eat broken-up old aircraft carriers at lunchtime.

Some detail in the latest statistics isn’t as bad as we’d expected, he’ll say. I’ve spoken to my friends in the City, and they’re comfortable letting spending decline much more gradually than planned. 40%? Nowhere near. 25%? Not even that. We can still tackle the deficit without the pain we’d all feared. There will be no capital flight, no increase in the government’s cost of borrowing, and our triple A+ with a gold star rating can be maintained. The nation will breathe a sigh of relief, and Labour’s attack lines will suddenly pop like a soap bubble. Nick Clegg’s people will again brief that it’s the moderating influence of the Lib Dems in office that saved us all, the particularly cynical media strategy this coalition has afforded both parties, and the polls will show a bounce for both the coalition parties.

The trouble is that there still will be savage cuts. Maybe around 15%, perhaps up to 18%. And that’s still eye-watering punishment for the poor, an end to countless programmes intended to moderate the effects of poverty, ill-health and poor education. The fact that it’s significantly below what we were threatened with is entirely irrelevant.

If I was a steely right-wing ideologue like Osborne or Clegg, with a desire to weaken the state and ram through a neo-liberal economic settlement more extreme than anything even Margaret Thatcher achieved, I’d warm everyone up with warnings of massive cuts. They started with 25% but then it looks like they realised that was too close to their actual plans, hence the absurd 40% figures subsequently floated. In their position, if I had any intention of cutting 25% from the budget I’d have started with threats of 35% first off.

This period of deft high-balling by the Coalition and feckless stupidity from the left will make their cuts very hard to oppose. The public have been softened up, and Labour will flounder. There was a point where they could have set out a strong narrative here, but it was before they left office. Alastair Darling could have explained basic Keynes to the nation, that cutting public budgets in a recession just deepens it. Labour could have apologised for building up the deficit during the boom times, but then passed some kind of budget responsibility legislation to guarantee that wouldn’t happen again.

They could have said “this is a time for a principled choice: the Tories will cut services to the poorest, but we will raise taxes on the richest, and on the banks who got the country into this situation”, cleverly glossing over their own role in that deregulation. Instead they sold the jerseys, with Darling promising some £78bn of cuts, a move which makes any argument they have with Osborne or Clegg mere quibbling about the details.

In fact, the spending review will be exactly what the left say it is, an ideological move to reduce the size of the state, to leave the rich free to make more money and the poor free to fantasise about being rich. But we’ve fallen into their trap about the specific scale, so who will be left to make a convincing argument against it?

Prize competition. I will send the one hundred trillion dollars pictured above to whoever posts a comment containing the most accurate figure for the overall cuts set out in this comprehensive spending review. To one decimal place, please. My money’s on 17.8%.

Oil be damned

Sep 30

Posted by Jeff in Economy | 18 Comments

The headline debate at First Minister’s Questions today was the tiresome discussion over whether an independent Scotland would be a debt-ridden new Ireland or an oil-soaked new Norway.

I can’t imagine anyone outside the Chamber held avid interest in the discussion. Indeed, I daresay many INSIDE the Chamber tuned out and started thinking about their tea.

However, a new indirect dimension to the debate, and one worthy of significant debate, is that put forward by the Scottish Greens as Patrick Harvie is pressing the First Minister to support European plans for a moratorium on deepwater drilling, following the recent spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Is the Green Party attempting to leverage a unique tragedy in order to push through its economy-sapping agenda or is there a safety-first, environmentally-crucial opportunity here to usher in the beginning of the end for dirty oil?

Presumably we can only ease ourselves off oil once a sustainable, reliable renewables industry is up and running. We are surely still behind the curve on that score, though sprinting ever closer, leading the world infact, towards the ultimate goal of wind and wave powering our nation. Consequently, I would expect drilling to continue until we can leave the remaining, no longer necessary, oil safely underground.

Furthermore, the BP disaster notwithstanding, there is no reason to expect a similar problem in the North Sea given the lack of evidence that oil companies are not complying with the very strict safety regulations that are in place across Europe.

However, Patrick Harvie’s argument may well be that drilling for oil is taking place to cover our energy needs after the point at which Scotland can look forward to being fully reliant on renewable power. At that point my argument falls down and a potential objection that jobs need to be safeguarded would make me sound as silly as those who say we need billion-pound nuclear weapons in order to keep a number of people in the West of Scotland employed. After all, the best Carbon Capture System is not drilling for oil in the first place, even if it would make Texas-of-the-North Aberdeen an economically chilly place to be.

And what of the SNP’s aim for Scotland to be powered entirely by renewable energy by 2025? Does this not contradict the claims that Scotland can be the new Norway, as Stephen has pointed out? Well, yes and no I would suggest. There’s no reason why Scotland can’t power itself with Renewables and sell its oil abroad, though I accept that that is a dubious approach to fighting Climate Change.

So I fear the Greens are opportunistically playing up the possibility of another disaster on the scale of the Gulf of Mexico but at the same time making perfectly valid points about how much oil Scotland really needs to pull out of its seabed. This is not to forget that there is no way one can play up too far the environmental risks that are at stake.

It’s Scotland’s Oil. Yes, it is, but at what point do we decide to just leave our oil safely underground?

UPDATE – Caledonian Mercury has a good piece on the matter and the full exchange between Patrick Harvie and Alex Salmond

Art for Art’s Sake

Sep 30

Posted by Guest Blog in Culture, Economy | 4 Comments

Today, Better Nation’s first guest blog, written by Mairi Sharratt. Mairi is a poet who blogs at www.alumpinthethroat.wordpress.com, and can be found on Twitter here.

I Value The Arts badgeTalks of cuts are the theme for the year, perhaps even the next few years, and everyone wants to know where the cuts are going to be made.

Notice how the political discussion has now completely moved away from the bankers’ responsibility and a Robin Hood Tax to how people will be paying.

So at the moment every organisation and charity is fighting to keep its funding, and it looks like, if predictions are correct, that we are going to see a widening of the already great chasm that is the gap between rich and poor. Not just in wealth but also in education and health outcomes too.

Out of all of the organisations that are fighting against cuts, movements to save arts funding is one of the ones I have most problems with. As a declaration of interests I am moderately successful as a poet, with a few publications and anthologies under my belt. I know many writers and creative people who have benefited from funding and if I was to be offered funding so I could write full time, I would take it.

However, my problem is not with the funding of the arts themselves, but the arguments put forward to defend them. For a long time any argument defending cuts in arts was based on the facts that arts “enrich” us. This is always a difficult argument, as how we consume culture and what culture we chose to consume is mixed up with our identity. Therefore if someone sees the arts as purely highbrow and views themselves as a low brow type of person they will not be persuaded by this argument – which could be seen as a failure of the arts to define themselves as all-encompassing.

Bring out recent research, however, that shows how much the arts add to the economy, and you have a much stronger way to persuade those who don’t believe in their inherent value. However, I am left worried by this new strand of defence. Mainly because I firstly see nothing wrong with the fact that not everyone likes or appreciates your work (did I mention I’m a poet?) and secondly, I believe that it could fundamentally weaken the arts in the long run.

We are told that it is proved that the arts now add to the economy, and that is one of the reasons why funding should continue. Where does this leave arts organisation that don’t add to the economy? There are a lot out there doing great work, such as ArtLink who work with people who experience disadvantage and disability, Art in Hospitals and other organisations who assist artists and writers to work with inmates in prisons. I imagine it is pretty hard to make an economic argument for these organisations, although you can definitely make a social and wellbeing one.

If the economic impact argument is accepted and there are further rounds of cuts, how will arts organisations who have no discernable economic impact defend themselves? They are essentially left weaker than their more profitable cousins. Another fact that backs up the economic arguments for the arts is that “eight out of ten of the top visitor attractions in the UK are museums”. That’s great, but are those eight museums all concentrated in one or two areas of the country? Are they all exhibiting work and buying it on an ongoing basis from contemporary British artists, photographers, sculptors, writers and others? I think the answer is probably no.

My fear is that in making a virtue of the economic impact of the arts we leave the part of the arts that cannot demonstrate direct economic benefits weakened and vulnerable, and that is likely to be the ones that have real social benefit for those who access them and for artists who are at important points in their development. Organisations such as Save the Arts are of course still arguing that the arts fundamentally enrich our lives, however I worry that if the discourse on the usefulness of the arts starts to focus on its economic value, and that this is accepted by the majority of people as the arts’ primary raison d’être, then we come one step closer to being a society that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Spending tomorrow’s money today

Sep 29

Posted by Jeff in Economy | 13 Comments

What is the difference between Private Finance Initiative, Scottish Futures Trust and and Tax Increment Financing?

At the time of writing, I don’t know, but whichever political party in Scotland can answer the above question the clearest and most persuasively may well end up reaping considerable rewards at the next Holyrood elections.

At a high level (or a helicopter view if you’ll forgive the business lingo), the differences are as follows:

Private Finance Initiative – A procurement method which secures private funding for public institutions in return for part-privatisation. PFI is also an operational framework which transfers responsibility, but not accountability, for the delivery of public services to private companies.

Scottish Futures Trust – Tricky one this, best to take it from the horse’s mouth. The Scottish Futures Trust is the independent company responsible for improving value for money in public infrastructure investment projects such as schools, transport, health and regeneration. The main functions of SFT are to improve the value for money of the billions of pounds spent each year by public sector bodies and finding new ways to raise affordable finance in today’s tight financial environment.

Tax Increment Financing – A new funding option for the UK, given the go-ahead by Nick Clegg and being used to fund Edinburgh’s Waterfront, including a cruise liner terminal. TIF is a method to use future gains in taxes to finance current improvements (which theoretically will create the conditions for those future gains). When a development or public project is carried out, there is often an increase in the value of surrounding real estate, and perhaps new investment.

So great news then; while thousands are losing their jobs, RBS continues to hang on a shoogly peg and the Capital’s finances are being brought to their knees by the troubled Tram project, Edinburgh can still afford a new bay for cruise liners by plucking new money out of thin air. Not too shabby hey?

So how does this work? Well, it’s simple really – Edinburgh is spending tomorrow’s money today. A finished, fully-functioning waterfront would create extra tax receipts so let’s take out a loan on those future cashflows in order to build the waterfront in the first place. I know what you’re thinking, it all sounds a little too circular, hollow and bit ‘sub-prime mortgage’, doesn’t it? In Dragon’s Den parlane it’s a bit like giving away the business in order to get a business.

Barry White, the SFT’s chief executive has said: “Tax Incremental Financing is an innovative way to fund growth from growth which supports jobs and aids economic recovery.” I’m sorry, is it just me or does the phrase ‘funding growth from (future) growth’ not send shivers down your spine? Funnily enough, this week marks the first week that banks have started reselling those subprime mortgages in the UK since the credit crunch. Investec is bundling up some ‘non standard mortgages’ and putting it out to the (still just about AAA) British market. Are we just reinflating the bubble again? Have we learned anything at all?

The approach by Edinburgh Council with TIF is also ‘non-standard’ and one can’t help but think that Council Leader Jenny Dawe is risking a mini credit crunch by trying to be a jammy dodger. Furthermore, it is surprising that a political party that swept to power on a wave of anti-PFI is now turning to a remarkably similar approach to financing as the next election draws nearer. John Swinney, according to the Telegraph article at least, appears to have given his backing.

I shouldn’t be too negative and sceptical, there may be a logical reason for this approach after all. The coalition in Westminster is cutting fast and deep, certainly faster and deeper than Labour, the Greens or the SNP would like it to. This leaves Scotland in a particularly difficult position as it cannot stimulate the economy in the way that the Scottish Government would like as it can only spend what George Osborne sends north via the Barnet Formula. With this clever Tax Increment Financing, Scottish local authorities (and even theoretically the Scottish Government itself) can circumvent Westminster’s largesse and raise money from the private sector itself in order to stimulate the economy directly, in contrast to the Con-Lib approach for the best way ahead.

It is risky but radical, keen but Keynsian, gallus and, most certainly, a gamble. After all, Homecoming Scotland could feasibly have been funded with TIF and, well, the future inflows never did materialise as forecast, did they?

And is it necessary? Scottish Futures Trust as a consultancy body for conventional funding methods is working. Slowly, admittedly, but it is working. We can’t push too hard too soon and build up liabilities for Scotland that may end up becoming black holes. We have too many such liabilities from the old PFI days.

At the end of the day, I always go for that old comparison with the family finances. And, well, if you are feeling the strain, if you are tightening the belt, if you are living hand to mouth, then it’s probably not a great idea to get the credit card out, effectively spending double in the short term, in the hope that vague, future income will ride to the rescue.

In spending tomorrow’s money today, Edinburgh is taking a massive gamble, too big a gamble for my money.

Trams, bridges and cruise liners = too much money being spent in too small an area at precisely the wrong time. It will end badly I’m afraid.