ANDREW Bailey, head of the Bank of England (not the Bank of Great Britain), is reported as having asked: “When is the plague of locusts due?” His quip was made at the regular dinner of the Society of Professional Economists.
I find his comment distasteful. This attempt to lighten the evening’s proceedings went down like a “lead balloon” with me.
Given the Biblical nature of these problems that we all face – with the imminent ending of furlough, the removal of the £20 uplift of Universal Credit, HGV Driver shortages, the fuel shortages, the downstream food and commodity shortages, increasing inflation and issues with the ambulance and health services – it is an easy but unfortunate metaphor.
However, the Society of Professional Economists are undoubtedly in another class, as most if not all will shrug off these difficulties with ease. The increasing wealth gap means jokes like these fall like seeds on stony ground, to continue in the same metaphorical vein.
As a point of interest, locusts strip the vegetation from the food plants causing famine, rather like the current profiteering by major global corporations where it is exported to low/no-taxation centres, depriving these small local economies of the resilience to survive, and the cost lands on local communities and the voluntary sectors.
This may seem to others as simply jealousy on my part – not so, as I have a great deal of respect for anyone who puts in the hard hours to get to grips with their subject area and employment.
Where comments are made which appear crass when reported outside their audience, they do deserve all the “pelters” they receive. Winter is coming, and some people will be badly affected.
Will it be the first-born of the entitled classes that will be adversely affected? Not on your or my nelly.
Alistair Ballantyne
Birkhill, Angus
WITH COP26 on the immediate horizon, Mr A Johnson (PM) has acknowledged the need for others (humanity) to grow up and tackle the four areas of coal, cars, cash, and trees to curb further global warming – and is perhaps best paraphrased as “blah, blah, blah, and blah”.
Fossil fuels, manufactured goods, wealth, transport and land use would have been a better starting point for discussion. Fossil fuels – just say no, manufactured goods – make them last, wealth – distribute it better, transport – increase localism, land use – make sustainable.
The first is a list of items to be dealt with, the latter are contexts to be dealt with. To put it simply, fighting items is the political way of spitting in the eye of climate change for show, whereas resetting the contexts actually gives the Earth a chance to reset itself.
Resetting contexts for the Earth’s climate also means the contexts within which humanity lives also require to be reset. It’s complicated, and requires local, regional, national, supranational and international contexts to be initially formulated and then iteratively joined up.
By definition this is a tsunami of a mutant algorithm, requiring goodwill, integrity, commitment, energy and technical capability. Therefore whilst Scotland, as an independent nation state (national), could take on such a challenge, it will need to allow for a predictable UK Tory government (regional) failure and rely upon the EU (supranational) success to bridge the gap. The size/cost/time of the challenge is huge and if we look just at land use, it’s like requiring the whole of Scotland to become “organic”. The consequentials are huge and UBI is almost a certain requirement, with enormous changes to the way of life generally.
For city dwellers, the 20-minute city is an outcome sought to partially deal with reduced transport needs, so that’s a start already made. Such concepts set contexts which COP26 must address, and there will be so many geopolitical differences across the world to take into consideration.
Close to home, the financial and political devolution changes required for such approaches are huge and detailed, meaning the “bish, bash, bosh” approach of Her Majesty’s
UK Government is wholly inappropriate, and inadequate to the task, as it affects the citizens of Scotland and beyond.
Brexit is clearly the antithesis of any joined-up local (Glasgow), national (Scotland), regional (UK) and supranational (EU) climate reset context. Therefore Scotland needs to become an independent EU nation state at the earliest opportunity, and should state this as fact at COP26.
Stephen Tingle
Greater Glasgow
I MUST object to Maggie Chapman’s article of September 17 (Scotland’s links to the slave trade matter, obscure or not). She indicates that the Scottish education system is funded in part by the wealth derived from the slave trade. Obviously the slave trade was evil but you cannot blame a nation for the activities of individuals.
I was a baby in 1940 when the Germans bombed Clydebank, which was only a mile from our house. Any wealth Britain had was used to save the world from the Nazis. The debt due to the USA took 60 years to pay off.
When I went to school we had to use slates and lead sticks, as no paper was available. There were 60 pupils in our class. My father had to work a lot of overtime and the money due was held back and promised to be paid after the war. He and millions of others received not a penny. He would have had enough money to buy a small house.
Millions lived from hand to mouth in overcrowded tenements. Some with 10 kids in a single end (one room). I was 14 before rationing ended.
If Britain gained a fortune from the slave trade it was in the hands of a few aristocrats and magnates. You must also remember that a million Europeans were taken to Africa by the Berbers. As my mother used to say “there is good and bad everywhere” so let’s not blame all Scots for slavery.
Sandy Philip
via email
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel