Rolled-up Trousers

Note to BBC: David Cameron is cutting spending, not the deficit

They are not interchangeably the same thing - BBC news link

See also the important change that is needed in our national discussion on the economy - BBC News - Geithner tells Europe to focus on growth

Scottish-English rivalry is normal

Gerry Hassan’s written a piece about the 'Anyone But England' phenomenon for this World Cup.

Personally, I’ve been giving good free advice to see that our nearest neighbours make the most of their potential at this tournament.

The fact is that neighbouring countries around the world have banter, and hope against the triumph of those sharing their border. It happens with Spain and Portugal, Brazil and Argentina, Peru and Chile, Turkey and Greece, Holland and Germany, Poland and Germany, Switzerland and Germany, Germany and indeed just about all their neighbours.

It’s not just football. Canadians like to beat the US in whatever it is that they play in North America. In cricket, there is no more hot a rivalry than Pakistan and India. Pakistan also like to do well against England and see them beaten. So do Australia. It’s a colonial thing - England have a wider sphere of rivalry than Germany.

Sometimes geopolitics and historic wars are involved, sometimes they are not. Some are banter, some are pathological (in Scotland it is by far the former, and it shouldn’t be more). Some countries do support their neighbours more than others, but there isn’t any correlation between that and their success or otherwise as nations outwith the sport.

Rinus Michels said after Holland lifted the European Championship trophy with Van Basten et al in 1988 that their real win was against Germany in the semis:

"We won the tournament, but we all know that the semi-final was the real final".

I can’t imagine that if Scotland won an international tournament (go with me on this), their main win would be considered beating England along the way (give imagination a well-earned rest now). Neither would we find the unusual language of Portugal manager Luis Filipe Scolari before their 'do-or-die' match against Spain in Euro 2004:

“This is war, and I have to kill and not be killed.”

Maybe the main reason we don’t hear of “Anyone but [Spain/Germany/Argentina]” tshirts elsewhere in the world, is because their main rivals actually made it to the World Cup and have something positive to support.

And for those that still think that the Scottish psyche is unhealthy, consider the following point by Hassan:

“Many Scottish football fans have a clear sense of why all of this is happening and list a litany of supposed sins to justify the above. They include the English going on about 1966, supposed English arrogance, the assumption in the English media that England might win the World Cup, the constant confusion of ‘England’ and ‘Britain’, and even, the passionate and partisan nature of English commentators getting behind their team (as if Scottish commentators don’t do the same).”

True, media and commentators around the world are partisan for their respective countries. English commentary is no different in this. What is different, and gives the ABE phenomenon more of an edge than would otherwise be the case, is that people in other nations do not have to sit and consume the news coverage and sports punditry of their nearest and dearest rivals. If they did, and had to pay for the privilege, it would get their backs up.

The cuts won't work, they'll just make it worse

This year’s general election showed up a serious ideological difference between the SNP and the other major parties. We were the only ones who went into it opposing the agenda of swingeing cuts in public spending.

Sure, it was hidden behind the grammatically controversial “More Nats, less cuts” slogan. But there was so much more to it than a policy of Scottish exceptionalism. This was apparent in any of the hustings I took part in, which surprised even me at how much to the left we were of Labour, Lib Dem and Tory orthodoxy.

True, there is a significant budget deficit and this should be brought down. For this, it should be recognised what brought it about. It was not a surge in public spending, it was a reduction in the tax take the recession entailed. Economic growth therefore should be the driver to reducing the deficit.

Labour's plan for dealing with the deficit though was proportionally 50% spending cuts, 25% tax increases, and just 25% resting on growth. The Tories since taking office have said their plan rests 80% on spending cuts and 20% on tax rises (no mention of growth from them at all). Both proportions are plucked out of thin air, and both show great lack of confidence in their ability to grow the economy.

With the private sector having stagnated, the major economies rightly employed fiscal stimulus to replace it. The state has a vital role to play, and balancing its books is not the same as tightening the household finances – a childish analogy senior politicians routinely make.

This crisis is the biggest since the crash of 1929, which turned into the Great Depression precisely because of the instinct to cut at the sight of increasing deficits. As we know, it was policies like FDR’s New Deal in the US which hiked spending on essential national infrastructure projects but which boosted the economy, created jobs, helped businesses, and got the tax take up. Cutting may reduce spending on one hand, but also reduces tax revenues and increases spending through higher unemployment payments.

There is plenty that we need built in this country. There is a green energy revolution to unleash.The creaking public transport infrastructure we have that needs an overhaul, is one other obvious example.

Deficit hawks will say that the markets will not put up with this. That is the same credit rating agencies which gave gold star ratings to the rotten produce that created this crisis in the first place. What they will certainly not like is the double-dip recession that current thinking will produce. If they are looking for a credible plan to reduce the deficit, then politicians should put one forward.They should be setting the tone for the markets, not the other way round. All they ever talk about though in the context of deficit reduction is cuts, and never give anywhere near as intricate plans for maximising growth.

This is Labour’s problem in posing now as opposing Tory cuts. They were set to do exactly the same, save for this particular financial year. Alistair Darling said as chancellor that their cuts would be “deeper and tougher” than Thatcher’s. They accepted the market-driven narrative that supposedly necessitated savage cuts, when they needed to show strength and drive a different path.

They could even after it was all done have kept the Tories out with a progressive coalition, but weren’t interested. We now seem to be headed for years of gloom, depression and unrest. The SNP’s election campaign this year will appear more and more important as time goes on.

BP oil could reach the shores of Scotland. Will we now wake up?

I’m astounded at the coverage in this country of the BP oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

Too much exception has been taken to President Obama’s use of “British Petroleum”, and very scant realisation has set in on the scale of the environmental catastrophe that has taken place and is taking place. There has also been concern for the financial portfolios of British pensioners. If there are people, especially old folk, who have put all their eggs in the basket of high risk, volatile, single company oil stocks, I would hope they went into such an arrangement with their eyes wide open or with appropriate amounts. Concern for current pensioners is though cover for funds which should level off eventually. If there are some funds that are overexposed, they should explain their strategy.

It’s another symptom of how the financial bottom line and profit is being put above health and wellbeing of people and planet. There are tens of thousands of barrels of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico every day. No one here seems to be speculating on what this means, and how the well will be stopped. What if it can't be blocked? What if it keeps flowing for months, years or even decades till the oil runs out?

Oil is said to be drifting into the Atlantic Ocean and entering the Gulf Stream. That hits Europe including the west coast of Scotland. BP oil could be reaching us in time to come, having a major impact which may not just be in terms of pollution. Could the oil also fundamentally alter the nature of the ocean current itself, having an effect on our climate given the warmer temperatures it brings?

No one seems to be asking the questions or giving assurances. We cannot trust BP to tell us what the scenarios are. There have been deceitful PR operations on this from day one, when BP went down to the source after the explosion and said there was no leak. They then didn’t release HD footage of the oil gushing out for over a month, meaning that the true extent of the oil coming out was not known till very recently.

I hope someone, somewhere is looking into this while our government instead worry about BP’s share price. Since the Deepwater Horizon explosion, the UK government has approved deepwater drilling off the coast of Shetland. The drilling there is not in as deep water as the drilling at the Macondo Prospect (5,000 ft vs 1,430 ft to the sea floor and 18,000ft vs 7,654ft below the sea floor).

Depth may not be an issue at all, and there may have been peculiarities in the Gulf of Mexico. The point is that at this stage we don’t know the causes, and it may be prudent to take the action the Norwegians and the US have in suspending all deepwater drilling. Chris Huhne, energy minister, has said that the regulation of oil drilling in the North Sea is handled better than in the US, but this supposes that he somehow knows what the cause of the tragedy was there before an investigation has even concluded.

It’s all very well to blame BP, but the US government allowed them to drill. The UK is doing likewise. And just as with the banks, there is all the appearance of government not knowing what the heck they’re allowing big business to get up to.

Fabio has to drop Heskey

I'm sidestepping the usual questions of whether I'm supporting England this world cup or ABE, by offering these sincere thoughts.

Fabio Capello needs to drop Emile Heskey, not just because he doesn't score ay goals. He is not a positive creative presence either. It's sometimes said that the other players enjoy playing with him, but Wayne Rooney stated in a BBC interview with Alan Shearer before the tournament started that he prefers to play by himself up front. That is after all what he does well for Manchester United.

Steven Gerrard similarly is a massive presence at club level - playing behind the front man, not out on the left wing.

There seems to be two ways to play football at the top level. On one hand, when Barcelona won the Champions League in 2009, we hoped it would usher in an era of slick passing and possession.

The top teams now pack their midfields, with one player (and sometimes no players) up front. Rooney is the obvious striker, so why the obsession of successive England mangers with Emile Heskey? It seems that England managers do not trust their teams to hold the ball, and therefore need an 'outlet' in the form of a big musclebound centreforward. Capello seems to favour this more than dropping Heskey and employing one of his better ball-playing midfielders in the shape of Joe Cole.

But this year Barcelona lost their crown and Jose Maurinho showed with Internazionale that you don't need to have the ball to win. A very well-drilled and structured team, willing to pressure and harangue can triumph.

In either case, one striker is played, and the midfields packed. None of the teams considered in contention for winning the World Cup is playing with two up front, not even the Brazilians. England are probably more suited to the Inter than the Barca way, but right now they are utilising an antiquated structure on the field which achieves neither.

'I'll maybe have to put a wee word out for her'

Frank McAveety's much publicised ogling certainly amounted to more than a "wee" word being put out. 

It's said amongst some that McAvennie McAveety has been hard done by, and it's only the SNP that criticised him. McAveety is often happy to be rent-a-quote on a variety of matters so can hardly complain too vociferously.

The comments were made in private, and though may be common amongst men (and indeed women) about the opposite sex, you don't find people saying this sort of thing in very public contexts. The shooting from the gob, and the free airing of very base instincts, led rightly to his resignation as convener of the public petitions committee.

Even so, this is largely a private matter between him and his wife. One remaining matter of interest to us should be what was meant by the sinister sounding "putting out a wee word"? Would parliamentary staff be sent to arrange liaisons for the MSP? Maybe Mr McAveety can explain.