North Sea Oil is Running Out?

Everyone that I know who works in the North Sea, and being from Aberdeen those are quite a few people indeed, tells me that North Sea oil is running dry. It's days are numbered. Why then do I read that a new oil refinery is planned for Teeside in the North East of England? Sonhoe, a London-based company that specialises in the development of hydro-carbon processing and infrastructure facilities, is planning to build a new £2 bn facility "designed to process 200,000 barrels a day of heavy crude oil into high quality, low sulphur diesel, petrochemical feedstock naphtha and kerosene for use in the UK or for export."

I can't argue with the site of the facility, Teeside is an excellent location, not only for access to a deep water port, but also in terms of proximity to the oil fields which it would service. I would surmise that it is for the latter reason more than the former, that the project is even being considered at all.

I would contend that this is part of a larger Westminster strategy, to isolate the idea of Scottish independence, which is deepening in it's support and momentum, with the natural possession of Scotttish oil. By ensuring that Grangemouth is no longer the lynchpin between the North Sea oil fields and the United Kingdom supply chain, they can cut Scotland out entirely. Indeed as such, there are other commercial reasons to promote such a strategy. The Ineos strike at Grangemouth in 2007 provided a harsh lesson when it forced the vital BP oil pipeline to close, shutting down operation across almost the entire UK sector of the North Sea at an estimated cost to the industry of £50m per day.

Indeed this may be a theory, with little basis in fact, but it does ride roughshod over the notion that the oil is running out. North sea production may be in decline, but there is still more than enough to satisfy a return on investment of a £2bn on oil refinery. Sonhoe clearly think that the oil will keep pumping for the next few decades at least.

It is somewhat famous in Nationalist circles that the Westminster Government have consistently lied to the Scottish people about the scope of Scottish oil. As such it has either not been viable, or actually running out since the first barrel was extracted on November 3rd, 1975.

In re-call reading in 2005 an article published in the Independent entitled How black gold was hijacked: North sea oil and the betrayal of Scotland. The article highlighted a report written by an economist, Gavin McCrone, and for the Cabinet Office in April 1975, but released in 2005 under the Freedom of Information Act.

"At the time of Professor McCrone's report to the cabinet office, the SNP claimed that North Sea Oil would yield £800 million a year for the government by 1980. Professor McCrone's main criticism of their analysis was that their forecasts were "far too low". He put the sum at about £3 billion."

Meanwhile Westminster has siphoned around £200bn of North Sea oil revenue since 1975, the majority of that since the oil price boom and subsequent windfall tax. The idea that the rest of the UK subsides Scotland is ridiculous to say the least. Without the taxation and licensing of Scotland's oil, Darling's budget would be shorter than the list for potential Labour donors.

The Independent article also went on to say that by "the mid 1970s, international convention had already agreed that the North Sea north of the 55th parallel was under Scottish jurisdiction. That meant around 90 per cent of the UK's oil and gas reserves fell within Scottish waters."

If the Scottish people voted "aye" in a referendum on Scottish Independence the United Kingdom government would therefore be duty bound under International law, to accept the free will and volition of the Scottish people to posit themselves on the international stage as a sovereign nation would they not? Indeed along with such a partition they would also have to follow this international convention that all waters North of the 55th parallel are Scottish waters, including the oil and gas which is reserved underneath them. But what if the Westminster government did not follow this convention and attempted to maintain their jursidiction over Scottish water, at the same time as offering independence? Giving with one hand, while taking away with the other.

The first task of a fledgling Scottish Government therefore, in such a situation, would be to appeal to the international community for support, particularly in Europe. After all, if Westminster would so readily ignore it's international obligations with regards to an independent Scotland, then why should it be expected to follow them with it's other neighbours? Appropriation without consent is tantamount to theft under Scots law, would we stand idly by?

The UK Supreme Court and the Act of Union

As the Law Lords leave the House of Lords and move into Middlesex Guildhall, the site of the new UK Supreme Court. We can look upon this as the first step on the long road of reform necessary to bring the House of Lords into the 21st Century. To do so however, would fail to take into account the inherent injustice within it's scope.

Whilst reform of the House of Lords is already something which I have spoken about, see here, the separation of powers and furtherance of democracy are not the only issues here. The sovereignty of Scots law is also at stake.

Only two out of the twelve judges appointed to the Supreme Court are Scottish lawyers, Baron Hope of Craighead and Baron Rodger of Earlsferry. Since Scottish cases require at least five judges to hear a case, the best that can be hoped for when the Supreme Court hears a Scottish appeal is for two out of the five judges to have been trained within the legal jurisdiction that they are expected to pronounce upon. Are the English trained Judges likely to adopt an Scots law perspective, which hearing cases? I think not, and indeed that is not entirely unreasonable given that the knowledge and experience which saw them appointed is based entirely upon another jurisdiction. It becomes clear therefore, that Scots law will not be upheld on appeal.

With it's own entirely separate legal sytem, Scotland should have it's own Supreme Court. Would one think it acceptable for the the United States Supreme Court to hear Canadian appeal cases? Clearly not, and indeed it is further apparent that the House of Lords should never have held any jurisdiction over Scotland in the first place. See the Act of Union 1707, Art 19 "[N]o Causes in Scotland be cognoscible by the Courts of Chancery, Queens-Bench, Common-Pleas, or any other Court in Westminster-hall" Westminster-hall obviously being the key term.

The highest criminal court in Scotland is the High Court of Justiciary, and indeed the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction over Scottish criminal cases; likewise the Court of Session should be the highest civil court in Scotland. Anything else rules roughshod over the Treaty of Union and the maintainence of a seperate Scottish legal jurisdiction. Something most Scots feel very strongly about, and as any who have purchased property in England will testify to, see gazumping.

Perhaps it is ironic that, before Parliament trampled all over the Act of Union by establishing the House of Lords as the highest civil appeal court in Scots law, when the Court of Session as the highest Court of the land, its operation was entirely separate from Parliament. Scotland would in fact never have needed these democratic reforms if the Act of Union hadn't been gazumped in the first place.

To Regulate or Not to Regulate?

I have heard it said that governmental regulation is neither appropriate or desirable. That the state has no right to butcher the freedoms of the market under any circumstances, presenting it to the world as some kind of sacred cow. (Perhaps bull would be a more appropriate anthropomorphicism?) On the other side of the coin, many on the left of the spectrum argue for more regulation, particularly within the financial markets. I don't consider myself to the left by any stretch, nevertheless in my opinion, regulation is a necessary evil since without it there could not exist a free market.

Allow me to explain; the free market cannot survive in isolation and whilst I don't believe that the state should be involved in setting prices or any long-term subsidy of business, as such policies only encourage inefficiency, regulation is necessary to maintain competition. If we may look to the fundamentals of the cornerstone of market economics, the Wealth of Nations, it becomes clear that Smith was not against governmental regulation. Quite the contrary.

Adam Smith argued that through the division of labour and specialisation, an industry could realise an enormous increase in productivity, and realise significant economic growth through an absolute advantage. However, the natural conclusion of an absolute advantage is a monopoly. Because a monopoly interferes with the ability of the invisible hand to find an equilibrium of prices, "the price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got." Without the invisible hand, the free market could not exist and without government intervention, through anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies, the market would exist, but it would not be free.

Thus when we speak of government intervention in the markets, let us not speak of it as if it is some kind of taboo against nature, but judge each and every regulation on it's own merits as to whether it's purpose is justified.

Great Scot

The Daily Record and STV are seeking nominations for the greatest Scot, to be announced on STV on St. Andrews Day. Whilst the panel have included Edinburgh Festival director Jonathan Mills and Record editor Bruce Waddell, two people I've never heard of, they've chosen to leave out Mary Queen of Scots. However, regardless as to whether some of the people who are on the list actually belong there, for me the question of who was the greatest Scot does not require too much of an inquiry.

Adam Smith, who thankfully has been nominated onto the list, and as the founding father of capitalist economics is the Scot who has had the greatest effect in world history. Smith's promotion of the division of labour, an idea which was exported around the world, drove the industrial revolution. For without the division of labour, the industrial revolution could never have happened, and the raising of standards of living to the levels they are today, along with it.

It is Smith's an Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which espoused the division of labour to maximise efficiency and criticised the corrupt system of govenment sanctioned monopolies within the mercantile system of the day, and not James Watt's steam engine that was the greatest driver of industrial growth. To Smith, an individual acting in their own interest and selling and buying freely, would lead to the most efficient economic system. Prices would reach an equilibrium, being led by the invisible hand of the market, through supply and demand, and competition between enterprises.

However Smith was not overly right wing, he saw Government regulation as necessary to prevent monopolies and conspiracies which would stifle competition. Furthermore he was, unlike many of his class of the day, concerned with the problems of poverty. Smith argued that it "is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." An idea which most modern readers will subscribe to, but which, at the time, made his ideas, considering his target demographic, revolutionary to say the least.

Smith also espoused universal education as a bulwark against what Marx would later call alienation through the process of the division of labour, and it's soul destroying monotony. At the time of writing Scotland was unique in the world, in that every Church parish, under the reforms of John Knox, employed a teacher to educate boys of all classes, and the four Scottish universities of the time took educated young men of any class, with scholarships and charitable foundations to assist with the cost. Smith was uniquely placed therefore, to see the advantages to society of universal education first hand.

In short he is the Scot who has the greatest effect on world history, for there is not a corner of the world untouched by his ideas, and he deserves a good deal more credit than to be the first Scot to grace the back of an English banknote.

Al-Megrahi, Oil and the SNP

Jack Straw's admission that the Westminster government had opened a prisoner transfer agreement (PTA) with Libya to bring an oil deal on stream has lead to the SNP Government in Holyrood being tarred with the same brush. The inference that Kenny MacAskill's decision was based upon an oil deal with Libya is not only not based upon fact as the files will evidence, it is completely devoid of common sense.

Whilst Brown and Co. would apparently have happily handed over Abdelbasset Al-Megrahi for black gold, this was upset by circumstances in Holyrood, namely the election of the SNP administration in June 2007. The SNP have re-iterated that they would not agree to the PTA, and have continually stressed that they are happy for the files to be released detailing the decision making process. A Labour administration in contrast, would have been expected to tow the party line in honouring the PTA.

Instead Kenny MacAskill considered realeasing terminally ill Al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds, something which is enshrined in Scots law. This decision left him with nothing to gain politically, and was clearly a very difficult decision to make. Advice was sought from a number of officials including the Chief Inspector of Strathclyde Police, before coming to the decision.

Whilst personally I think that Al-Megrahi's conviction and the evidence used to secure it was highly suspect, and I question his guilt in the first place, see USS Vincennes. I don't think that this did play a part in the decision making process. The corrospondence is there for all to see. Neither do I think that it should have. Guilt or innocence are a matter for appeal. The likelihood that Libya would have given him a hero's welcome on his return to Tripoli should not have been a matter for consideration either. Assurances were made and these were not kept. MacAskill cannot be held responsible for that.

The idea that MacAskill was insensitive and inconsiderate in granting compassionate release does not take into account how strongly the sensitivity, of what is a very difficult issue, was considered. Advice was sought from the UK Government regarding agreements that were made with the US on where Al-Megrahi was to serve his prison sentence. Westminster regrettably decided not to issue this advice. In further support of the SNP administration's sensitive approach to the issue, Alex Salmond wrote a letter to Gordon Brown dated 25th October 2008, where he highlighted the sensitivity of inviting Colonel Gadaffi to an oil sumit 2 days before the 20th Anniversary of the disaster. If anyone is guilty of insensitivity therefore, it is the Labour government.

The inference that the SNP were involved in a shady energy deal is put simply proposterous. An SNP government, which would seek independence for what is an energy rich Scotland, would have little to gain out of a foreign oil deal, unlike London. Especially when you consider that a newly independent Scotland would find it most prudent to sell oil and gas to it's energy hungry neighbour south of the border.

The Right Stuff

An opinion poll in Sweden has predicted that the parties in the centre-right Alliance for Sweden are pipped to receive the largest share of the vote for the first time since 1914. This would be a huge victory for Freidrik Reinfeldt, the Moderate party, and the ruling coalition and would likely result in calls for the embattled Mona Sahlin to stand down as leader of the Social Democrats, and the opposition Red-Green coalition. For Frederik Reinfeldt the victory would lend considerable momentum to the party as Sweden takes over presidency of the European Council from Jan Fischer and the Czech Republic on the 1st July.

Sweden's presidency is likely to concentrate on the environment, through renewable energy and efficiency targets. Sweden is one of the few countries in the world that has succeeded in increasing economic growth whilst reducing CO2 emissions. This has led to Sweden being considered world leaders in climate change strategy and Sweden will represent the EU at the climate change summit in Copenhagen in December. Reinfeldt recently congratulated Barack Obama on what was a complete sea-change in environmental policy after he assumed office. Such a victory, in providing added confidence and impetus to Friedrik Reinfeldt therefore, may prove to not only be good for Sweden, but good for the world too.

The far left Vänsterpartiet, and eurosceptic Junilistan, are also set to lose their vote share reducing the seats that they hold from two to one. Neither parties would garner much sympathy from me, one was formerly called themeselves communists, and both are endemically eurosceptic and isolationist, both of which I consider foolish, particularly in today's economic climate.

However the biggest gains of the election may be the, until recently unheard of, Pirate Party who are set to capture a respectable share of the vote, having become the fourth largest party in Sweden almost over-night. The popularity of the party soared after the four founders of the Pirate Bay were sentenced to a year in prison on April 17th for running the world's largest file-sharing website. Perhaps most worrying about this trend is the fact that the party has very little in the way of policy on anything other than civil liberties, copyright law and the internet. Do Swedish citizens really want e-privateers, who have no clear policy on trade issues, or the environment, representing their interests in Brussels? I for one would not. One cannot have representatives who stand for nothing. I say let us not foolishly raise the Jolly Roger in Brussels.

The Myths of the Griffin

With just a few days left until the European elections, I think it is of paramount importance that we step up the campaign against the fascist BNP. You may have seen their recent party political broadcasts with Nick Griffin using the themes of the Battle of Britain, Winston Churchill and "traditional Christian values" to try and legitimise his racist views. This comes a week after Nick Griffin called black and Asian Britons, "racial foreigners" who should be "repatriated back to their own countries."

Unfortunately many people may be nievely taken in by this shallow attempt at associating all things British with the racist BNP, and with the recession affecting people's livelihoods, many people are looking for somebody to blame. Some are laying the blame firmly at the foot of the politicians by not voting at all. Some are going as far as to blame immigrants for all the problems in this country. Whilst I shouldn't need to go into the reasons why the latter is completely unreasonable and unjust, a protest of no vote because you believe that politicians are corrupt, plays into the hands of the BNP. The motto of "use your vote, or someone else will" rings true. Make no mistake, the election of a BNP MEP would be far worse than an MEP of any other political party. Full stop.

Therefore we all must make sure and use our vote on June 4th to deny the BNP a seat. If they were to win even one seat, the increase in funding they would receive will allow them to step up their advertising campaign, put a glossy leaflet through every door in Britain, and legitimise themselves still further. That is why they must be stopped now before their diseased hatred and lies is allowed to spread. We have already seen a so called "freedom march" in Luton on the 24th May, which BNP activists were involved in, and where many showed their true colours with Nazi salutes. We don't want to find ourselves in the same situation as Austria or France where openly neo-fascist and racist parties, whom incedentally have links with the BNP, are considered legitimate, receive state funding, and consequently a worrying share of the vote.

Interesting Times

A recent poll published in the Times on voting intentions in Scotland on June 4th made for interesting reading. Whilst it showed an increase in support for fringe parties, these gains are unlikely to translate into a seat. The article focused on Labour's fears of an election catastrophe, and whilst the election may turn out to be just that elsewhere, I for one don't think that Labour will find themselves unseated in Scotland.

The poll quotes a senior Labour spokesperson as saying that there "is a lot of concern for us. We think we might manage to keep the second seat but it's going to be very close." Now by taking the projected vote as published, with the SNP on 37%, Labour on 25%, the Tories on 17% and the Lib Dems on 12%, and working that into an expected low turnout, the results couldn't be further from the truth. The turnout in 2004 was 30.9% mustering 1,176,817 voters, but in 1999 it was only 988,310 with a shoddy 24.7% showing up at the polls.

It is generally accepted that low turnout is to be expected, due in no small part to the expenses scandal. If we transpose the poll onto the 1999 turnout therefore, we see 435,422 votes to the SNP, 294,204 to Labour, 200,058 to the Conservatives and 141,218 to the Liberal Democrats. Under the d'Hondt method this would deliver the 1st seat to the SNP, the 2nd seat to Labour, the 3rd seat to the SNP, the 4th seat to the Tories, the 5th seat to Labour and the 6th seat to SNP.

The poll was correct on it's assertion, and on the basis of their projections, that the SNP could capture enough votes for 3 MEPs. However in order for Labour to lose Catherine Stihler MEP, either Labour would have to hemorrhage a significant number of voters to the Lib Dems, there would need to be an enormous swing to the SNP, or a much larger than expected turnout. All of the above are somewhat unlikely, if you want my very humble opinion, it's George Lyon and the Liberal Democrats who should be considering a plan B.

I think that the allocation of seats in Northern Ireland will be all the more interesting. Sinn Fein essentially unseated the SDLP in 2004, as they had been anticipated to do, to take what is seen as the Nationalist seat at Brussels. They may see their political fortunes in Northern Ireland revived further. The Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), who have been the strongest Unionist party in Ulster for over a decade, may see their fortunes decline somewhat due in no small part to Jim Allister MEP, the man whom they selected as a candidate to replace Ian Paisley in the European Parliament. He left the party and formed Traditional Unionist Voice in 2007, over his anger at power-sharing agreements agreed to by the DUP and Sinn Fein, “No power sharing with terrorists” is his motto. Once loyal DUP voters could vote for a man whom they have seen work hard for them in Brussels, thus splitting the vote. To add salt to the wound, the Ulster Unionist Party, tired of seeing their fortunes wane, have forged an alliance with the Conservative party and David Cameron, giving them a stronger voice, and making them more electable.

Whilst this may give the DUP cause for concern, as the Irish Times shows, neither Jim Allister or the UUP are likely to garner more votes than the DUP's candidate, Diane Dodds. However Northern Ireland politics are a partisan affair, and there are only so many unionist votes, just as there are only so many nationalist votes. The effect of this, and my prediction, will be to split the unionist vote, which could result in Sinn Fein winning the first seat, the DUP the second, and the SDLP the third. After all they lost out to the UUP for third place by only 4,000 votes in 2004. This would be the first time in Northern Ireland that nationalists have topped the polls, and profess a total sea-change in Northern Irish demographics.

Electors Count

The expenses scandal has dominated the news over the past week. Tory MP Anthony Steen's schizophrenic diatribe, in which he claimed that the public had no right to interfere in his private life, after he had claiming questionable expenses from the public purse, has perhaps been the most astonishing. He went on to criticise the Government for introducing the Freedom of Information Act, which he blamed for catching him out in the first place. I guess accountability and transparency are not the sort of the things that he values in a democratic society. At least not the kind of transparency that leads to him being held accountable.

One benefit which has come of this entire scandal, is that the debate on our constitution and parliamentary system has been revived. We are starting to question things which have remained unchanged for centuries, yet are completely inappropriate within a 21st Century democracy.

The idea that an ombudsman could hold a degree of power over parliament in the administration of expenses claims would have been impossible a few decades ago, because it seems to go against the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Yet the policy has been rushed through parliament, to restore the public trust, without so much as a whimper of dissent.

The expenses scandal is of course just the tip of the iceberg. The idea that we need a codified constitution is not new, but I believe that it is important. One of the reasons why this expenses scandal has occured, apart from the obvious flaws within human nature, is because the rules around parliament are contained in abstract concepts of convention and the Royal prerogative. Is it not time that these rights and responsibilities were enshrined in the law?

Is it not time that the House of Lords, an arm of the legislature which is entirely made up of un-elected hereditary and life peers, were elected by the people? I have heard it said that the House of Lords is an important check on the power of Government, because it is not dominated by any political party. The natural conclusion therefore, is that it should be elected by proportional representation through a list system. This would make it both democratic, accountable and allow for no significant political majority. More importantly, in light of the effect that the expenses scandal may have on the far right vote, it is entirely possible to ensure that no extremists are given a mandate by the setting of a quota. Sweden operates a 4% quota, yet is considered by Transparency International to be one of the least corrupt countries in the world. We may never reach such heady heights, but such a reform is a step in the right direction.

Vote Blue, Get Homaphobic, Climate Change Denying Right Wingers

This Times article suggests that although David Cameron may be wooing voters with his green credentials and centrist platform, but his candidates may have other ideas. A survey by Conservative Home has advised that significant percentages of prospective Tory MPs are not supportive of gay adoption, are not concerned with climate change and would like to see an alteration to the funding formula for the devolved nations. This would cause problems for Cameron if he is follow his stated policy of reducing the tax burdern on families with environmental taxes and raise spending on health.

Furthermore he may find his relationship with Alex Salmond strained if the Barnett formula is abolished or significantly reduced, which can only strengthen the voice for independence, upsetting the unionists in the party. Indeed the only thing Cameron can rely upon in his candidates is his own ill-thought out Euroscepticism. The mood of the moment on the political landscape appears to be that the Tories are assured the next election. That's as well as may be, but what about damage limitation? What bills a Conservative government can pass does of course depend upon their overall majority, and the less seats they hold, the less likely that abhorrent views on gay adoption and damaging policies on the environment, and Europe, are promulgated.

Political Funding

I found this Hansard debate in the Commons from the 4th March 2009 very interesting. According to Patrick McFadden MP, Unite the Union has one of the largest percentages of members who are not contributing to the political fund, and therefore for one reason or another, are not financing the Labour party. For many of their members it may because they feel that Labour are not socialist enough, and indeed this could be the case with a significant proportion of Communication Workers Union members, who have a long history of industrial action, and whose support of the Labour party has evaporated in recent months in protest against plans to privatise the pension fund of Royal Mail.

In contrast Connect are a professional union, representing mostly managerial and "white-collar" staff. People who are statistically more likely to support the Liberal Democrats or the Conservative party. That is not even to consider those members in Scotland or Wales, who support the cause of independence.For whatever reason, I find it interesting to see so many of my fellow trade union members who don't feel obligated to pay into the coffers of the Labour party. How many do not realise that they have the choice?

Literary Wisdom

I have purchased yet more Kerouac for my ever growing collection of beat generation literature. However, I have arranged for it to be mailed directly to Stockholm, thus I do not have to consider how I can get it to Sweden in July. I have enough things to move as it is, and Ryanair is not particularly suited to such a practice, when one considers that you only receive a 15kg weight allowance. I feel more secure to know that I will have a beat library to read over there.

Fishy Business

An article in the Economist regarding European fisheries legislation points out that "88% of the EU's stocks are overfished". Most of the fleets don't turn a profit, although some countries are more competitive than others, yet many receive state aid, some directly, but all in the form of tax-free fuel.

The article then goes on to explain that the solution lies in a common market of tradeable fishing rights. This does not chart the depths of the problem. Certainly a market of fisheries rights would open up the market to competetion and ensure that those ships which are the most efficient and well run succeed, through purchasing the fishing rights of those fleets which are less efficient. This would of course have the effect of ensuring European consumers get the best deal at the market.

Unfortunately the article then goes on to say that, "Trawlermen all over Europe chuck dead fish awat to free up holds for more profitable specimens." This is not actually correct. It is illegal in Norway to dump a catch. Thus a quota of fish, more accurately represents those fish that are actually caught, and then landed. The idea of a fishing quota in the first place, it to conserve fishing stocks, yet if you only count the fish when they are landed, this encourages fishermen to dump those fish which are not up to scratch and fish some more. Thus landing a better catch, and a higher paypacket for themeselves. That is of course human nature, but it does not provide a solution therefore, to the problems of overfishing.

The EU therefore could of course establish an open market of fishing rights, of course, this would make for a better deal for consumers and is something I am always in favour of. To ensure that we still have fishing stocks well into the future however it needs to be illegal to throw dead fish away. If this were the case the industry would be more self regulating, with boats using larger nets to ensure they do not catch small fry. What little enforcement is required could be achieved by a small number of vessels in each individual member states coastguard or navy. After all Norway possesses an enormous coastline and manages to achieve this with a proportionately small fleet. Whether anyone can agree on the common fisheries policy would be a much greater question.

Three Dimensional Politics

The Political Compass is somewhat simplistic but nonetheless still a thought provoking item for political debate. It's main issue is that the left/right political spectrum by being two-dimensional, does not take into account both politics and economics. Thus someone can be right wing economically, yet left wing politically. My result here.

Beat Street

I've purchased a vintage 1940s original wool plaid shirt from the United States. When it arrives in the post, along with my vintage wool coat, it won't just be my library that is beat. I've been listening to Kerouac today on this site Kerouac Speaks, which include excerpts from the excellent documentary, What Happened to Kerouac? All I need now is a vintage typewriter.

The Curtain Falls

It is 20 years to the day since the first cracks began to appear in the Iron Curtain. Hungary dismantled 240km of barbed wire fencing along the border with Austria which for the first time allowed many East Germans to emigrate through Austria to West Germany. The writing was on the wall.

European Elections

A profile tool for the European elections. By answering 30 questions on social and economic policy it places you on a political compass and gives you an idea of the party or parties with the ideas closest to yours. Apparently my beliefs fit in closest with the ideology of either the SNP or the Liberal Democrats, and more widely, the centre-right Moderaterna Partiet in Sweden. This is pretty accurate as I'd probably vote for all three depending on my place of residence.

State Solution

There seems to be at present a belief that the political consensus after the economic crisis, is universally anti-capitalist.

It is not a consensus. Socialism and a planned economy for 'need not profit' do not work, and have been shown not to work throughout history. Growth in all planned economies has stagnated because need is indeterminable to any efficient or accurate standard. Waste of resources and wholesale corruption are the predictable results.

Sweden has recently voted to end the state monopoly on pharmacies, Apotoket AB, taking them outwith an exclusive club, the only other members of which are Cuba and North Korea. It is currently impossible to purchase paracetamol in the supermarket, and subsequently the cost of pharmaceutical products is prohibitive due to a lack of competition.

Inefficient industries are not sustainable, and so should not be propped up by the state, and via a higher burden of taxation; at least not in the long term. Competition is an important element of price control, and it follows therefore that monopolies should be prevented whether they are state controlled or private corporations.

Tariffs and subsidies of industry and agriculture, should also be abolished. The principal effect of these trade barriers is to keep the third world under developed, and no matter how much aid we give to developing countries, we will not solve their problems of hunger and disease. These are things they must do themeselves. Indeed those projects which have provided the most assistance within the developing world have actually been capitalist in nature, be they conditional cash transfer schemes or microfinance initiatives.

I also believe that the European Union could, by removing barriers to trade with the third world, systematically improve the lives of those who live there through the boom in trade that would result. I fundamentally believe the maxim of Adam Smith, that "trade is always advantageous, though not always equally so, to both parties."