Sunk

Iran was the main "argument" deployed by those wishing to keep Trident.

And Trident is a main argument advanced by proponents of Scottish independence.

The first is no more.

Away with the second.

Maoism Flourishes In India

Rahul Pandita writes:

The late 1960s were heady times. In China, the Cultural Revolution was in progress. And in Calcutta, in eastern India, restless and angry youths were hurling crude bombs at police vans.

It was not far from there that a Maoist rebellion broke out in 1967, which China termed as “a peal of spring thunder”. India had gained independence 20 years ago. But nothing had changed for its poor. Many young men and women rose to the call of revolution, drawing inspiration from Maoist ideology. Many of them came from middle-class families.

One such young man returned to India from London, without completing a course in accountancy. He returned wearing an overcoat that had 24 secret pockets, all stuffed with Maoist literature. Kobad Ghandy came from a wealthy family in Bombay – his father was the finance director of Glaxo pharmaceuticals.

Kobad had been radicalised in the UK and would become the leading light of the Maoist movement in India, only arrested by the police in 2009. Towards the end of 1969 a young British teacher, Mary Tyler, also came to India along with her Indian husband Amalendu Sen. They joined a Maoist group active on the Bengal-Bihar border in eastern India. But shortly afterwards, they were arrested by the police.

Mary spent five years in an Indian jail. Defending the actions of her rebel husband she writes: “Amalendu’s crime … is the crime of all those who cannot remain unmoved and inactive in an India … where justice is the exception and injustice the rule.”

The Maoism of Comrade Bala had been a historical footnote until now. But it is that sense of injustice that is still attracting thousands of people – mostly tribal people known as the Adivasis – to the Maoist movement. The Maoists are active in central and eastern India areas left ungoverned for decades. It is this void that the Maoists have filled.

But revolution remains a utopia. The Adivasis are now caught in a vicious war between the Maoists and the state. They continue to suffer.

The World Is A Safer Place

Rod Liddle writes:

Much though I like and respect Douglas Murray [bloody hell, why?], I reckon he and other Ayatollohaphobes are wrong about the deal struck with Iran.

If Iran’s willingness to negotiate was evidence that sanctions were working, rather than a sudden flowering of the ‘let us all now be frenz’ spirit in Tehran – then the sanctions have surely done their job. That was the point of them.

This seems to me so straightforward as to be almost tautological. There are risks with any deal, risks that the mullahs may indeed renege. But it is hard to argue on a basis of fact, rather than prejudice, even if you are living in Tel Aviv, that the world is not a slightly safer place right now as a consequence of the deal. Even if the hapless Cathy Ashton was a party to it.

On a side issue, but of relevance: there is not a country in the world – with the possible exception of Egypt – which has more cause to be mistrustful of the UK and USA than does Iran. Our involvement, especially, in that country has been unspeakably malign; greedy, vicious, tyrannical.

Regardless or not of whether the Iranians are ‘genuine’ in their apparent wish for a peaceful settlement, we should count our blessings that it is possible to achieve some sort of accord.

Could Have Been Avoided

Peter Oborne writes:

In essence, there are two components to the deal struck between Iran and America in the early hours of Sunday morning in Geneva.

On the one hand the US has tacitly acknowledged the Iranian right to enrich uranium. In return the Iranians have allowed the IAEA virtually unlimited access, thus ensuring that no nuclear material can be diverted for military purposes.

It is a development that should be welcomed by all sensible people.

But let’s not forget that the deal that was agreed yesterday is in fundamentals identical to the one offered by the Iranians during the last set of negotiations in 2005.

President Rouhani was then the chief Iranian negotiator and John Sawers (now head of MI6) was the chief British negotiator. At a meeting on 23rd March 2005 at the Quai d’Orsay in Paris, Mohammed Zarif, now Iranian foreign minister, offered to put limits on Iranian enrichment, renounce nuclear weapons and allow round-the-clock IAEA inspection at its enrichment plants in return for Iranian development of centrifuge enrichment technology.

It was an incredibly generous offer. But when Sawers took it back to London it was blocked by Tony Blair, acting on the orders of George W Bush. At that time, the US wouldn’t tolerate the operation of even one centrifuge in Iran. Now, when around 19,000 centrifuges have been installed, the US has bowed to the inevitable.

In other words, all the pain and agony of the last eight years could have been avoided if only the Iranian offer had not been blocked by Britain and the United States.

A Huge Leap In The Dark

Alistair Darling writes:

Nothing has changed as a result of today’s White Paper. There is nothing that we found out today that we didn’t already know. Yesterday Alex Salmond’s case for breaking up the UK was based on assertions. Today it is still based on assertions.

The simple fact is that the nationalists have ducked the opportunity to answer any of the big questions about our country’s future. They promised us facts. What they have given us is a wish list with no prices attached.

If this White Paper was going to be credible, it had to address the fundamental issues that people are concerned about. They didn’t.

We still don’t know what currency we use if we vote to go it alone. We don’t know who would set our mortgage rates. We don’t know by how much taxes would have to go up. We don’t know how secure our pensions and benefits would be in an independent Scotland.

What we heard today were endless assertions from Alex Salmond that if we vote for independence then he would get us everything we want from every negotiation he entered into. Every country, every organisation and every institution would simply roll over and accede to Salmond’s demands. It is nonsense.

They told us today that childcare was at the heart of their plans. However, they do not need independence to change childcare in Scotland. When pressed on this policy at their launch, the Deputy First Minister said something utterly astonishing.

She said that the Scottish Government did not want to improve childcare now, that they didn’t want women to be able to go back to work now, because it would mean that the tax they would then pay would go to the UK Treasury.

This beggars belief. The Treasury is our treasury. It is not a body in some foreign country. The money that it raises is spent right across the entire United Kingdom. Public spending in Scotland is over £1200 per year higher than it is in the rest of the UK.

With so much uncertainty and unanswered questions about the cost of independence, leaving the UK would be a huge leap in the dark – especially when we know that devolution works for Scotland.

We can have the best of both worlds – a strong Scottish Parliament with the strength and opportunity of being part of a bigger United Kingdom.

The Future, Not The Past

As someone once said.

Kevin Maguire writes:

The nuclear deal with Iran is a victory for peace over war.

We can celebrate diplomacy trouncing militarism, agreement reached around a table in Geneva instead of down a missile silo. Defusing a potential apocalypse is a golden opportunity to recast ­relations in the Middle East.

The wings of hawks, including ­Israel’s nuclear-armed leader Benjamin Netanyahu, are clipped. His threats of armed strikes – opposed by Israeli intelligence chiefs – ring hollow when the US, Iran’s Great Satan, is a signatory. The Arab Spring swiftly turned to winter but it would be irresponsible to squander the possibilities opened by the Persian Pact.

First we must acknowledge the hard lessons of recent history. The Iran deal is another nail in the coffin of the invasion of Iraq, fresh evidence there is an alternative to bloody and illegal wars. It’s a reminder of the futility of occupying Afghanistan, 27 Commons motions required to list all 446 dead British soldiers. And it vindicates public and political opposition in the summer to attacking Syria.

Foreign Secretary William Hague deserves credit for his role in securing Iran’s promise not to pursue a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Prime Minister David Cameron will claim a chunk of the credit, success having many parents. Yet there would’ve been no deal had Cameron and Hague won August’s vote to attack President Assad’s regime in Syria. Britain would’ve been sucked into a sectarian civil war, serving as al-Qaeda’s air force.

Iran along with Russia, another player in yesterday’s deal, would be fighting Britain, America and France in Syria instead of negotiating. The unlikely hero of the deal is Labour leader Ed Miliband. Rebellious MPs and the prospect of a minibus full of shadow front bench resignations strengthened his resolve. But the opposition leader played an indirect, though crucial, role on Iran by stopping US President Barack Obama pressing the button to bomb Syria. This is history as an unintended consequence.

And while we’re handing out bouquets, Euro Brit Catherine Ashton enjoys the last laugh over her ­chauvinist detractors. The EU’s top diplomat is another who should take a bow, Iran the perfect riposte from a “Lady Qui?” who will let the Iran breakthrough do her talking.

What’s happening in Iran improves the prospects of a settlement in Syria ahead of talks. Perhaps too the previously intractable Israel-Palestine conflict. In a few months or years we will look back on another false dawn if the nuke deal explodes.

Iran, it is worth remembering, denied intending to develop a bomb and Glasgow-educated President Hassan Rouhani isn’t instinctively hostile to Britain and other western powers. He’s more interested in lifting crippling economic sanctions than joining Israel, Britain and others in the nuclear club.

So for now we can hope the Iran deal signals peace is the future, and war is past.

Alex Salmond's Fantasy Economics

Graeme Cook and Guy Lodge writes:

The Scottish government’s long awaited white paper is a piece of fantasy economics. More spending and lower taxes: everybody wins. Alex Salmond’s argument today is that Scottish voters can have it all. All gain and no pain.

Nowhere is this truer than on welfare where there is a long list of commitments to repeal unpopular policies and offer new goodies. Other than a (contentious) assertion that the tax base north of the border is stronger than in the rest of the UK, it is unclear how any of this can be paid for.

On pensions, the SNP want to make the state pension more generous, increase it faster and delay the rise in the age at which people can claim it. This is for a Scottish population that is ageing more quickly than the rest of the UK.

It is as if Scotland is immune from the affordability pressure on pension provision across the developed world. And that’s before the administration question is considered. The proposal today is for two quite distinct state pension systems across the UK to be run through one system. Is anyone clear whether this is feasible?

On working age welfare, the SNP are calling for a halt to reform. Plans to implement Universal Credit and replace Disability Living Allowance would be abandoned under an independent Scotland.

There are problems with both these measures, but it is more than a little worrying that the Scottish government is so vague about what would come in their place. These are major benefits affecting hundreds of thousands of Scots, many of whom depend on these payments for their day to day living.

One of the headline grabbing aspects of today’s announcement is on childcare, where the Scottish government rightly advances an argument for following a Nordic path of extending provision for parents with young children.

The first obvious point to note in response is that childcare is already a devolved issue, so there is no need for independence for such important progress to be made. The trickier problem for the SNP is, again, how the extra provision would be paid for.

There would be fiscal gains if the maternal employment rate increased, which an independent Scotland could recoup, but in every country where a similar shift has taken place, a sizable upfront investment has been needed to get things going.

What the white paper fails to mention is that Scotland stands a much better chance of meeting the future costs of welfare if it remains part of the UK social union. By coming together the nations of the UK are able to pool financial resources and share risks across a large and resilient political community.

This matters because economic shocks tend to be asymmetric, affecting individuals and places in different ways and at different times. Equally different parts of the country vary demographically, with some parts like Scotland today ageing more quickly than others, creating different pressures over time for public services.

The social union therefore ensures that if one part of the UK endures a period of economic or social hardship, it can be supported both by itself and by the other parts.

This can be seen operating in both directions, in Scotland’s history. Scotland today benefits from relatively high levels of welfare spending from the UK pool to allow it to meet the pressures it faces (today Scots benefit from financial transfers and additional spending per-head on welfare overall – £3,255 per head in 2011/12, nearly 2% higher per head than the UK average of £3,200).

But, similarly, oil revenues from what would be Scottish waters contributed very substantially to that UK pool during the 1980s.

A commitment to the UK social union is not anathema to further devolution. There is a strong case for strengthening the powers of the Scottish parliament in respect of welfare (an issue IPPR will cover in its devomore programme).

Housing benefit could, for instance, be devolved to allow Holyrood to respond to the housing supply shortage by switching spending from benefits to bricks. And, once devolved, there would be nothing to stop the Scottish government ridding itself of the bedroom tax.

Independence, however, would permanently break the UK’s social union weakening the ability of Scotland to cope with the fiscal and demographic pressures welfare states the world over face.