Mr Nice Guy

Everyone says Jeremy Corbyn is a nice genuine guy. 

I have never met him so I do not have a view.  Though a man who separates from his wife because of an ideological difference, where she doesn’t want to send their son to the failing local school, does leave you taking a deep breath. 

And Mr Corbyn, who believes Ed Miliband was not left wing enough to convince voters to back Labour, surely one of the oddest analyses of why Labour lost the election, also admitted that he could not be friends with anyone who was not left wing.  “At the end of the day, it's the question of your values - they get in the way,” he told the Guardian.

But there is much to admire him for.  The patron saint of unpopular causes.  The Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six whose convictions were found to be unsound.  Afghanistan and Iraq, Mordechai Vanunu who was imprisoned in Israel for giving away its nuclear secrets.  Palestine.   

The thing about Corbyn is that he is nearly always proved right – after the event.  Remember him embracing Gerry Adams and Sinn Féin decades ago?  Now they are brought in from the cold and in government in Northern Ireland.  Many people thought he was mad.  And we’ve not even started on apartheid …

But he is a man of wide views which I would not fall out with him on.  “I’ve just had an interesting discussion on the TTIP.”, he tells a journalist.  The what? “Ah, sorry – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.” This is a negotiation between the US and European Union to develop a way to develop a way in which investment would be protected, and a way in which governments must not make life difficult for investors. The fear is that it’s a race to the bottom, with the lowest common denominator on both sides of the Atlantic becoming the norm.  I’m with Jeremy on this.   

Then there is Trident.  I’d rather spend all that money on weapons and “boots the ground” that we actually controlled rather than ones that have a key the USA must turn on before we use them.  I’m not sure he would spend the money on more conventional systems.  But on the Trident weapons system, I’m with him on that.

And there is Europe.  Why are we allowing a super state to evolve before your eyes that will surely end in tears.  In discord.  And war.  So I’m with him on that.

So a lot of good things.  But as Boris said of Jeremy “What I think they saw in Jeremy Corbyn was this kind of originality and authenticity and willingness to say exactly what he thought, and that has proved very seductive.   The trouble is that his manifesto, his plans for the country, are diametrically the opposite of what the country needs.  It is possible to have a charming air of authenticity and yet to be totally wrong about what you’re trying to do.”

Asked by the Guardian about how he would he feel if he actually won he replied “Interested”.  He calmly added, “And hopeful that we could bring about some changes in Britain.”  Would it scare him?  He closed his eyes, as if imagining himself as Labour leader for the first time. “Scare me?” He smiles. “It would be a challenge.” 

But the real challenge is over his shoulder.  The new deputy leader Tom Watson.  Labour leader by next year at this time?

That challenge for Mr Corbyn starts today.

What is a parliament for?

Why do we have elections and send people to parliament?   Is it simply to go as a mouth piece for the majority view in their constituencies?  (What about the views of the minority, don’t they count?) Or do we send them there to listen to debates than take informed decisions?

I ask the question because today we had a vote in the UK parliament on what is known as assisted suicide.  Others call it assisted dying.  You can see immediately there are passionate views held on both sides even in the way the process is described.

The debate was a powerful and dignified one.  Some muse that parliament is at its best on such occasions.  For example, an emotional Dr Philippa Whitford, the SNP's health spokeswoman and a breast cancer surgeon, argued that with good palliative care, the "journey can lead to a beautiful death".  "We should support letting people live every day of their lives till the end," she said, and she urged MPs to vote for "life and dignity, not death".

But here’s the thing.  74% of MPs voted against this bill compared with 72% back in 1997. So the message from politicians has been an overwhelming rejection of the right to an assisted suicide.  And opinion is not shifting.  The emphatic nature of the result would suggest politicians are unlikely to discuss this again soon.

Campaigners will no doubt regroup and point to their own polls showing 82% of the public back assisted dying and calls for change may yet intensify with an ageing population.

So, the question is, do we send people to parliament simply to do the will of the majority at any given time?  Or do we send them there to debate all the angles and come to a rational decision on our behalf having listened and sifted the evidence in a proper debate.

Sarah Wootton, the chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said it was an "outrage" that MPs had gone against the views of the majority of the public who supported the bill.  And it is here I think we see people like her are missing the point.  We don’t send people to parliament to simply do what the majority of people apparently want. 

We send people to parliament to listen, debate and make good law.  If that is not why we send our MPs to Westminster then the point of a parliament has gone.  We might as well just do opinion polls whenever we want to take a decision.

Not too bad a record for the nasty Conservatives.

It really was rather pathetic.  Nicola and Yvette offering their spare rooms to the refugees from Syria.  Somewhat unedifying political posturing. 

They knew full well that David Cameron could not come back with a similar offer.  So one can only assume they made the statements to try to add embarrassment to the Prime Minister. It’s funny, virtually all the people I know who are wealthy and generous would never dream of talking openly about their support to a charity or some cause.  To do so would be repulsive to them.

Pity Nicola and Yvette don’t seem to operate the same way.  Pity it is these wealthy people who donate truck loads without fanfare to charities that they are continually sniping at.

I hope when Nicola next stands up in the Scottish parliament she will acknowledge the quite substantial effort that the UKs Conservative government has been channeling in to try and stop the crisis happening in the first place.  I am sure she will note that Britain is already providing sanctuary to around 5,000 refugees.  She will praise the UK as the second-largest bilateral donor to the crisis and has already provided over £900 million in aid to help those affected in Syria and the region.  And the PM has just announced a lot more.

The UK have funded shelter, food, water, vital medical supplies for millions of desperate refugees fleeing the conflict and is helping them survive in the countries around Syria, like Jordan and Lebanon.  I think that’s a pretty good record given the five wealthiest Gulf Nations have so far refused to take a single Syrian refugee.  Britain's contribution is more than Saudi Arabia's £387 million , UAE's £359 million and Qatar's £157 million combined.  

“Well done the UK” I expect Nicola to say.

Hee haw, hee haw

Two stories about the police in the last week.

Police cars with no sirens risk response times, federation says.

And the second one.  Emergency police cars given to civilian staff.
 

Read them both.  Then ask yourself the question, was their loud protests about cars without sirens just another example of the Police Federation crying wolf?  All sounds very political to me.

Refugees or economic migrants?

Here is a question for you.  When does a refugee become an economic migrant?   

It really is a difficult one.  Take the poor little boy, Aylan Kurdi, who drowned while trying to reach the Greek island of Kos from Bodrum in Turkey. 

Were his parents refugees or economic migrants?  They clearly were refugees at one point in their journey.  And they had reached a safe land, Turkey.  Indeed, Bodrum is a popular holiday resort.  But they wanted to keep moving to a more prosperous land.  And then it happened……

Loose talk helps no one.

They say a photograph is worth a thousand words.  I am sure like me you recall pictures that have transformed your understanding of a situation.  The man in front of a column of tanks in Tiananmen Square.  The napalmed girl in Vietnam.  And now we have the picture of a little boy being cradled in the arms of a policeman. That picture in time too may come to define our understanding of the current refugee crisis.  

But as in all such situations there is often the spectacle of people throwing figures around.  Blame being attached.  This one is no different.

One report today claimed that Britain has accepted a mere 216 Syrian refugees.  The tweet by George Eaton, the political editor of the New Statesman magazine, has gone has gone viral on social media.  Like so many things floating around the internet it’s taken as being true. No one bothers to check the facts.

So for clarity, here they are.

 

Official government figures show that the UK had 1,688 asylum applications from Syrians in 2014, and a further 2,204 in 2015. The grant rate of 87% suggests some 3,400 Syrian refugees have come to Britain in the last two years, with around another 2,000  being accepted in 2011 and 2012. 

So today we had a number of politicians jumping on the bandwagon.  I found the First Minister of Scotland’s intervention somewhat disingenuous.  You would think we in the UK were doing nothing.  It was political point scoring at its nastiest. In a more reflective moment I hope she will realise it was a rash thing to say.

The offerings from Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham were not much better.  Hardly of the quality you would expect from a potential future prime minister.

Love him or loathe him, George Osbourne actually got it right.  And Ms Sturgeon doesn't have a monopoly on tears.

Let's forget the rule of law

We live in a democratic society that has the rule of law at its core.  So if someone does something wrong the police will arrest the individual, put together a case, take it to fiscal in Scotland or CPS in England, and that organisation will then prosecute the said individual.

Imagine someone has murdered.  The police come along.  They shoot the alleged perpetrator of the crime, then dispose of the body in the Clyde estuary.  Rightly there would be outrage, not least from the family of the victim of the murder who would have wanted the person to be put on trial to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person in the dock was indeed the killer.

So why is there an outrage at the comment by Jeremy Corbyn that it was a "tragedy" that Osama Bin Laden was killed rather than being put on trial.  "There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him and put him on trial, to go through that process," he said.

And the people doing the criticism are not the ones I would expect to be doing so.   Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said Mr Corbyn was "utterly wrong" for what he had said.   Kevan Jones, Labour's defence spokesman, said: "This just shows you how out of touch he is with what most people's views are."   

Are these two people not the ones who are out of touch?  I think most people in the world would rather the rule of law took its course.  Not to allow it to do so just takes us to the level of those who perpetrate the crimes of those who would seek to destroy us.  In other words, the terrorist has won because we have stooped to their standards of lawlessness.

Osama Bin Laden should have been put in front of a court of law, tried, and if found guilty, be imprisoned.  That should be the way we do things in a democratic society.

Twisting the facts

We all love animals, well most of us do.

But some charities seem to want to go a bit further than loving them.  Take IFAW.  I received an email from them (I can’t remember when I gave them permission to use my email for marketing, must follow them up on that). The disingenuous nature was breathtaking.  We all know the SNP were opportunist in their opposition in the House of Commons to bringing England into line with Scotland on hunting laws. 

With my help apparently, IFAW “managed to postpone the threat to the Hunting Act in England and Wales.”  Postpone the threat?  Generously they go on:  “When the UK Government recently tried to wreck the Hunting Act for England and Wales, we heard a lot about how this would bring the law in line with the ban across the border in Scotland.”  So, an admission there that it was an alignment that would happen.

But there is more IFAW want.  "We need your help now to strengthen animal protection laws in Scotland."  Which they argue will have an added bonus as this would also scupper the UK Government's claim that by amending the laws south of the border they are simply trying to bring their provisions in line with those in Scotland.

 

I’ve heard of twisted logic before but that takes the proverbial biscuit.

Come on IFAW, you have a good case for animal welfare.  But don’t twist the facts to suit your political agenda.  When you do, people will do what I’m about to do, de-list myself from your mailing list.

Spending our money for us

According to todays Herald “T in the Park is at the centre of a cronyism row after it emerged a former SNP adviser working for the festival helped it secure a £150,000 grant from the Scottish Government.”

Apparently Jennifer Dempsie, a project manager for promoters DF Concerts Ltd, brokered the initial meeting between the company boss Geoff Ellis and Culture Secretary Fiona Hyslop to discuss the extra funding.  The discussion on May 28 ultimately led to Ms Hyslop signing off an an “ad hoc state aid” package for the festival on July 2 eight days before it began.  With your money. Sort of reminds you of the Kids Company approach to taxpayers support.

 

Then take a look at Creative Scotland, the national arts funding agency.  It appeared to have had no qualms about retaining the now defunct Arches in Glasgow among its 'foundation’ clients, the elite in receipt of long-term subsidy. The taxpayer, that is you and me, continued to bankroll the venue’s so called cultural programme to the tune of around £7,000 a week – every week.

Whatever the merits of the cultural programme at the Arches, as Kenneth Roy in his excellent Scottish Review pointed out, “one fact is inescapable: the Scottish Government is indirectly bankrolling an enterprise (Arches) which is only viable if it throws alcohol down the throats of young people, some of whom are also consuming class-A drugs on the premises.”

There is rather a lot of your money and mine, our hard earned taxpayers money, being used to fund other peoples entertainment.  Spent on things that really, governments should not be indulging in on our behalf.  

Inform, educate, entertain.

Tax credit plan 'could hit thousands of young Britons'

So said the headline on BBC News this morning.  Michael Buchanan Social Affairs Correspondent, BBC News went on to helpfully explain that “Thousands of young British people could miss out on tax credits and housing benefits under new government plans.”

But what exactly is this article saying?  The upfront message is very simple, easy to digest.  Cuts. 

But what it is also saying is more subliminal.  It is also saying “What we have at the moment is to be the expected level of benefits that everyone will get”.  We have moved to this intellectually vacuous point of laziness where we just say a reduction in anything is “cuts” and accepting it as wrong.    But why todays date for that?  Why 11^th August 2015?  Why not 11^th August 1955?   Or 11^th August 1915?  Why set that as the date by which you declare "cuts" from.  There is this rather erroneous assumption that what is today is our right for tomorrow.  If that is the case we are stuck in a time warp that will bankrupt the nation. 

It is right that as a society we will decided that, on occasion, it is right to support people in need.  That is a fair and just thing to do.  It is a sign of humanity.  But as right as that is it is equally as wrong to think that because we do something today we should do it tomorrow. And if we do not do it tomorrow, it should not be seen as a cut as the base line is always zero. To me every bit of expenditure of our taxes that the government engages in should have a sunset clause where it has to be assumed the default position is zero expenditure.  Every sunset the case will have to be made again for why the government wants to use taxpayers money in a particular way.  Yes, that includes military as well as social expenditure.

So we will never read the headline about people “missing out” on tax credits as if they are some God given right.  They are not.  

As Social Affairs Correspondent, Michael Buchanan should be doing a bit more rigorous analysis of the real social attitudes that have brought about this assumption that anytime a government changes things it is to be trumpeted as a cut.   

And he should be mindful that the BBC, of all media organisations, should be mindful of Reith when he summarised the BBC's purpose in three words: inform, educate, entertain; this remains part of the organisation's mission statement to this day.

Odd interview

I listened to one of the oddest interviews I have heard for a long while on BBC Radio 2 at lunch time today.  It was with the former CEO of Kids Company, Camila Batmanghelidjh. 

Fawning, inoffensive questions from the interviewer to my mind.  Was very strange indeed.   

The interviewer did not ask the simple but most important and pertinent question: “You were the chief executive, why did you spend more money than you had coming in?”.

What's in a name?

Until the other week I never realised that Glasgow had a new university.  We have Glasgow, Strathclyde and Caledonian within the city boundaries.  But out of the blue a new one has arisen. 

How do I know this when as yet there is not a single brick in place as far as I am aware? 

Because what was once the new South Glasgow University Hospital became the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital when it was opened by Mrs Windsor last month.   Where is Queen Elizabeth University it is linked to?  

Inevitably, questions are being asked. 

Why were public were not consulted on renaming Scotland's largest hospital after the queen?   Chairman of the health board, Andrew Robertson, has outlined his reasons for deciding not to seek wider feedback on the royal re-brand for the first time as it emerged the name change and the royal opening ceremony will cost more than £100,000.  He said it was because some people would have been disappointed.  Er, what?  So, let’s not bother having elections as some people will be disappointed with the result?

Some clearly are disappointed, like Dr Keith McKillop, who works as a specialist in the £842m building.  Last week he said could not bring himself to utter the new name and wrote in The Herald: "Queen Elizabeth is the most potent symbol of the glaring inequalities in our society, a vivid representation of the growing gulf between rich and poor." 

And the young and impressive Ross Greer, Scottish Green candidate for East Dunbartonshire in the recent election said: "It's not hard to think of a few dozen ways to better spend £100,000 of NHS funds. Serious questions need to be asked as to how far in advance it was known that the hospital may be renamed and re-branded and whether this ridiculous waste could have been avoided. I don't think anyone could seriously argue that £51,000 on new plaques was an unavoidable and necessary spend.  Aside from the cost itself it really does beggar belief that such an amazing new facility could not have been named after one of the many notable figures Scotland has contributed to the field of medicine."  Good point that last one Ross.

It is quite remarkable that a more appropriate name could not have been selected from the world class University of Glasgow alumni.  We should be proud of our world class medical scientists such as Joseph Lister (antisepsis), George Beatson (breast cancer), John Macintyre (X-rays and radiology), William Hunter (anatomy and obstetrics), Dame Anne Louise McIlroy (gynaecologist and obstetrician) and Ian Donald (ultrasound).  Surely one of these fine people should have been honoured.  

Mind you, I have a different take on this.  I think it is just getting the royal name on buildings before the inevitable.  Cementing the concept of monarchy in peoples minds.  But still, I would like to know the answer to a few questions. Were the hospital board asked to name it Queen Elizabeth by someone? And if so, by whom?  Who discussed it in Glasgow?  Let’s see the minutes for this momentous decision. 
  

You can join the debate by joining the 12,775 people who have signed an on line petition calling for the new name to be scrapped before they waste any more of our taxpayers money in the re-branding.

And the future?  "Take me to the Southern" will suffice for all the taxi drivers in town.

The case against giving taxpayers money to charity.

Maybe I was sleeping but I don't recall in any manifesto a commitment to give my tax to charities.  If I want to give to charity I can do so myself.

Which brings me to a question, when is a charity not a charity?  That is a question that is very much to the fore today as the Kids Company apparently is spiralling to its demise.  It may have ceased trading by the time you read this.  Why?  Because it is insolvent.  That means it does not have enough resources to pay its liabilities.   To trade in such a position could render the Board and Executive of the charity liable to charges under the appropriate pieces of Company legislation brought in by parliament.   A fine, or a prison stretch in more extreme cases, could await the unwise director.

There is a reason for legislation.  It is to stop people behaving recklessly.  Now, I have no idea if the people at Kids Company have behaved recklessly. That is for others to look at and decide. 

But let us get back to charities, what are they?  Are they bodies that you and I decide to support because they do good things and rely totally on public support for the work they do?   Many are and do some amazing things.  But many charities now earn rather a lot of money from delivering government contracts.  Some earn more than they get in voluntary gifts from people like you and me. Which does make you wonder why they have the status of charity when in fact they are a trading entity just like any other business. 

Esther Keller, director of Kids Company services in Bristol, perhaps doesn't get the difference.  She told BBC Radio 4's World at One, rather sourly and foolishly I thought given you should be looking at this stage in the proceedings not to upset the people you need on your side, that the charity had been "audited to death" over its government funding.  Welcome to the real world Esther where people have to justify what they spend taxpayers hard earned money on.  If you don't like the rules that go with getting taxpayers money, don't ask for it.  And as someone who has been involved in his fair share of reviewing charities on these shores and beyond, I have found it is usually the ones where you wonder what is really going on that you decide to audit to death. There is usually a reason. 

Ms Batmanghelidjh, the Kids Company founder, said she had "vigorously" pursued the government for funding, because "we'd run out of every company and every charitable trust that we could potentially get money from".  Bit of a clue to her problems there I would have thought.  People didn't want to support her. So just why does she think the taxpayers should pick up the tab if she has over exposed the organisation and promise what it cannot deliver?

It is hardly surprising that you will run out of money if you give it away. Previously published claims include suggestions that Kids Company hands out money to children – something which Batmanghelidjh compared to pocket money on BBC news on Friday.

Perhaps the time has come to strip organisations of their charitable status if they deliver contracts for government.  Let them become cooperatives, partnerships or some other business model.  But let us stop this ridiculous thinking that they are charities.  That way we will stop mollycoddling them as special cases.

All this reminded me of an excellent article in the Guardian a few years back. It is time for action.

The problem of a dominant city

Well, in the end, it took just four years for Munich Airport to secure the green light for a third runway, compared with decades of anguished debate over the same issue at London Heathrow.

Germany’s second-largest airport has now received federal court approval for the project  which had been challenged by an environmental group.

And while in the UK and the basket case of a commission says yes to runway three at Heathrow, only the most flamboyant of gamblers would place money on it being built any time soon, like in the next 20 years.  It is just not politically feasible.

There are two interesting contrasts between Munich and Heathrow.  First, Germany has much stricter planning and environmental laws than the UK.  And second, the German economy doesn’t ride on the back of a single city.

But there is a third reason which need you only to glance at maps of the two airports to see why development has proceeded so differently: Munich’s purpose-built hub sits in green fields outside city limits, whereas Heathrow – built in the 1920s as an aerodrome for testing – is walled in by the housing estates and motorways of greater London. 

The sight of an almost crippled Airbus with its engine doors waving in the wind flying in over the west end of London last year should make anyone think twice about expanding an already dodgy site.

London calling

It looks an interesting story on the BBC web site this morning.  The new London Route Master, that iconic bus of London streets, is having battery problems.  A litany of issues are thrown at the reader.  A number of drivers apparently have raised the issue with Christian Wolmar, an independant transport journalist who is quoted in the BBC article.  He must be well known to the bus drivers if they have picked him out to vent their concerns on.

Then it comes, the sub head line. “A Boris failure”.

"The drivers say almost nine out of 10 do not have the electric motors working. This bus is a ridiculous throw back. It has been a total waste of money. It's a Boris failure."

So who is this transport journalist that the BBC are so heavily relying on?   Christian Wolmar is not just any old journalist.  He is also seeking the Labour nomination for mayor of London.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t blame Mr Wolmar for this BBC website article.  He actually writes a very interesting and informative blog that politicians of all colours should spend more time reading.  I particularly like his Tractor v HS2 offering.

So where has the imbalance in the article come from?  Tom Edwards Transport correspondent, London.  Come on BBC, you can do better than publish a piece that appears to be little more than Unite propaganda.

Shot from a police helicopter

Michael McIntyre is in the news having been photographed from a police helicopter in London.  The picture was then tweeted by a police officer.

.

The ground operations director for the National Police Air Support Unit, Superintendent Richard Watson, said: "We are aware of the tweet and, as far as we are aware, it does not breach any data protection legislation. We feel however it was inappropriate and it has since been removed.  We will be speaking to the person who posted the tweet."

Well, that is good to know.  If I am ever stopped by the police for breaking the law I will tell them, “as far as I am aware, I’ve not breached any laws”. 

Sadly this is appears to be just yet another case of police making the rules up as they go along.  Everyone who deals with images in the police will have been well taught what is within data protection laws and what is not.  If something as basic as the handling of data and evidential material is so flawed, what chance of a really serious case being thrown out of court because of an officer’s illegal behaviour.  I think I know what I am talking about here having Chaired one of the UKs geographically largest CCTV operations for many years.  Data security and complying with legislation was our number one priority.  As you would expect.

What is wrong with these people?  Do none of them ask the very basic question, “what will this look like on the front of tabloid papers tomorrow morning?”  That some police officer even thought it was appropriate in the first place calls into question his or her judgement.

We know what is wrong.  The culture.  Whether it is unlawful use of images or more serious issues like the killing of Mr Tomlinson, it is a culture that is permissive of wrongdoing that pervades. And in every organisation where does the culture come from?  The Leader.  Everyone mimics the behaviour of the Leader.  So you know what kind of Leader you have by the way the  people who work for them behave.  Oh, and not a word of apology about a gross intrusion into Mr McIntyres life.

Mind you, just be thankful you don't live in Los Angeles where shooting by the police takes a rather more dangerous form.

Unlikely bed fellows

I find the European Parliament one of the strangest, even bizarre, of “parliaments”.  Grand buildings entertaining grand egos of people who support the European project.  They dismiss anyone who disagrees with their grand agenda as slightly eccentric, but certainly wrong.

So they must have wondered what was going on today when two very unlikely bedfellows turned up.  In one corner, Nigel Farage.  In the other, the Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras.  Like or loathe Farage, (he attracts sentiments both in equal measure), he is unfortunately the only person who talked sense.  Slightly flaky in style perhaps, but on the nail with his analysis.  It’s just sad that we have to rely on Farage to say what needs to be said.

I bet Mr Tsipras never in his wildest dreams thought he would be praised to the heavens by Mr Farage. Funny old world.

Who are these gangsters?

I really never thought I would see the day when I would be agreeing with Romano Prodi, former chief of the European Commission. He is of course also a former premier of Italy. So what has the great man had to say?  Noting that it is the EU's own survival that is now a stake as the botched handling of the Greek crisis escalates into a catastrophe he continued, "If the EU cannot resolve a small problem the size of Greece, what is the point of Europe?"

"I would like to know how Merkel, Juncker, or Lagarde can possibly take it upon themselves to throw Greece out of the euro. It is true that irrational behaviour always recurs in history. The First World War broke out over a minor incident. Let us hope this is not our Sarajevo," he said.

On a separate front it has emerged that European members on the board of the International Monetary Fund tried to suppress the publication of a report by the IMF showing that Greece's debt is "unsustainable" and that the country is in grave need of debt relief.

This of course turns out to validate the claim by Syriza that a deal without debt restructuring fails to go to the root of the problem, and merely ensures another crisis later. Angry staff members at the IMF leaked parts of the paper to the German press, forcing full publication.

Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament has also called for the elected Syriza government to be replaced by "technocrat" rule until stability is restored.

You do really being to wonder who these people who control the EU think they are.  Their behaviour is moving from bully to gangster in one quick step.

Plus ça change! Or if you prefer Greek, τόσο περισσότερο αλλάζει.

Albrecht Ritschl. Never heard of him I hear you say.  Perhaps not, but in an interview given to Der Spiegel he does have some interesting things to say that are very relevant to the current predicament facing Greece.

A bit of background here to give us some context, Ritschl, 51, is a professor of economic history at the London School of Economics.  But he was born in Munich and previously taught as a professor at the University Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona, the University of Zürich and Berlin's Humboldt University. All very notable places of learning.

So what’s this German professor on about?

Germany, he explains, was the biggest debt transgressor of the 20th century.  That being the case it has no right to lecture the Greeks, or its leaders should at least show some humility and be prepared to compromise when they criticise Greece.

“Germany is king when it comes to debt. Calculated based on the amount of losses compared to economic performance, Germany was the biggest debt transgressor of the 20th century.”

The collapse of the Weimar debt pyramid had terrible consequences, but after the Second World War America spent a lot of money ensuring that there was not a repeat while victors such as Britain were crippled by the costs of war.

Ritschl says: “After the first default during the 1930s, the US gave Germany a “haircut” in 1953, reducing its debt problem to practically nothing. Germany has been in a very good position ever since, even as other Europeans were forced to endure the burdens of World War II and the consequences of the German occupation. Germany even had a period of non-payment in 1990.”

The anti-Greek sentiment in German media outlets is highly dangerous, says Ritschl.

“We are sitting in a glass house: Germany’s resurgence has only been possible through waiving extensive debt payments and stopping reparations to its World War II victims.”

The Der Spiegel interview concludes with a question: “Looking at history, what would be the best solution for Greece -- and for Germany?”

Ritschl replies: “The German bankruptcies in the last century show that the sensible thing to do now would be to have a real reduction of the debt.  Anyone who has lent money to Greece would then have to give up a considerable part of what they were owed.  Some banks would not be able to cope with that, so there would have to be new aid programs.  For Germany, this could be expensive, but we will have to pay either way.  At least Greece would then have the chance to start over.”

Now, here is the interesting thing.  This interview was not conducted last week.  Oh no, it was on June 21, 2011.  Plus ça change!

Who inherits your house?

The Scottish SNP government has announced that it is moving forward on its proposals that will enable the appropriation of land that is not being used in an economically productive way.  Paul Wheelhouse, the environment and climate change minister, said the legislation that will be put to Holyrood before the current parliament ends in 2016 and could be voted on as early as next year will be a "significant step forward" in ensuring land is used "in the public interest and to the benefit of the people of Scotland".   That is a most interesting turn of phrase that should make you stop and think.  

But perhaps the secret is in what he said next: “My vision, and that of my colleagues, for Scotland is for a fairer, wider and more equitable, distribution of land across our nation, where communities and individuals have access to land and the Land Reform Bill will enable much of this to happen."

Land reform minister Aileen McLeod echoed this: “We want to ensure that future generations have access to land required to promote business and economic growth and to provide access to good quality affordable food, energy and housing.  The introduction of the bill is a significant step forward in ensuring our land is used in the public interest and to the benefit of the people of Scotland."

These are very seductive words.  Fairness.  We all want that.  Equitable distribution.  Now there we are changing the rules.  This is pure and straight socialism.  The state will control.  This misguided idea that the state knows best is nonsense. Similarly on the notion that equality equals equal distribution.  It doesn’t.

I always find announcements by politicians like Ms McLeod who have absolutely no experience in the real world of actually running a business and taking the risks of running a business confusing and frightening.  They just have no concept of having to pay all your staff and suppliers before you pay yourself a penny.   They have lived the a life of simply taxing people and then spending their money.

But if I may can is suggest there is a wider more worrying underlying principle the SNP are trying to introduce here.

What we have is a government assuming it knows what is best for the people to the extent it will take legally acquired assets away from their owner.  Let’s not get into the argument of who took what from whom hundreds of years ago. That's a different conversation and it is a wrong that still has to be righted, the sooner the better.  Much of the land the government is referring to has been legally purchased.

So using this assumption that the government knows best, what area of our lives will they stray into next?

If you have a lot of spare cash lying around in your bank.  Or a holiday home that you visit four times a year with your family.  Or any number of things that you own but really don’t use a lot, will the government now feel emboldened to, by creep, assume it can also start to pick off these assets with the fairness argument because they are not being used “in the public interest and to the benefit of the people of Scotland?”  What piece of literature does this remind you of?

A similar theme is developed by Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser.  A lawyer by trade he suggested the legislation could effectively overrule a person’s will.  In effect it would end the current succession law, which allows people to name in their will who they want to leave their house – immovable property – without any legal challenge.  And it’s not that big a step to move down the ladder to take away any rights of succession with everything reverting to the state when you die.   

You don’t think it could happen here?  Well, just look back at the things the people didn’t think could happen that have since the SNP came to power in Scotland.