Now, we see evidence of growing confidence in the contractors and suppliers supporting the industry. A survey by Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, in association with the Fraser of Allander Institute and KPMG, reveals the following:
64% of contractors more confident
8% less confident
71% expect growth to continue
Exploration value expected to rise 21% this year
46% expecting rise in value of offshore production
You’ll see I had to go to the industry news agency, Oil and Gas People, to get this story. I can’t see it our mainstream media. They generally love anything from the Fraser of Allander Institute.
The return of affluence to Scotland’s oil and gas sector was not factored into the Growth Commission Report. I understand why but it makes no sense for this to be ignored altogether as we make the case for independence.
‘We don’t need no education We don’t need no thought control No dark sarcasm in the classroom Teachers leave them kids alone Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone All in all it’s just another brick in the wall All in all you’re just another brick in the wall.’
(Waters, 1979)
I can hear the groans. Friends of this blog have commented before on their unhappiness with its former title ‘Thought Control Scotland.’ More than one thought it undermined the credibility of my findings because, presumably, it was untrue. I changed the title some time ago to ‘Talking-up Scotland’ and many of the same friends welcomed it.
Changing the url, of course, would have broken the link to earlier work and so, I retained it. At some level, it made intellectual sense to do so because I hadn’t really abandoned the idea but had, only, become tired defending it.
Today, a reddit comment on yesterday’s post, ‘Getting on With the Day Job’, pressed a button, I metaphorise, in my mind:
‘Dat url though, way to crush the credibility of your content.’
So, back to the barricades, comrades? I haven’t given up on the idea nor have I given up on its main protagonist, Professor Noam Chomsky. I wrote my PhD on his Propaganda Model’s brutal and unforgiving analysis of media in Western, liberal-democratic and, crucially, corporate, media. Chomsky, a refugee from the Soviet Union, was more than happy to use the term ‘thought control’ in the context of the USA or Europe. He even titled one of his books:
‘Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies’
HA! I hear some say. It’s easily available at the low cost made possible by the corporations, he is allowed to keep his job at MIT and ‘professor’ Robertson was allowed to get a PhD based on his ideas. Where’s the thought control there, eh? Eh? You need a holiday in North Korea, pal!
That brings me neatly to the first defence of the idea. In the Soviet Union, in Nazi Germany and today in North Korea, the media were/are utterly united in publishing in propaganda telling lies about how good they were/are and how bad Western liberal-democracies were/are. That’s true but it didn’t/doesn’t work. In a totalitarian society, most know that they are being lied to all the time and so few actually believe it. They behave as if they did but that’s a different thing altogether. In a liberal democracy with corporate media, you can have critical voices such as, say, George Monbiot, John Pilger or even here, the much-missed Ian Bell, but because they are few in number, in small readership media or, in the case of Pilger, broadcast late at night, their effect is largely to persuade or to reassure us that at least we do have some diversity of opinion but It’s only what Marxists call ‘repressive tolerance’.
HA! I hear again, it’s a conspiracy theory. If the majority of journalists were all telling lies rather than, essentially, the truths that they actually believe in, you’d need a conspiracy to achieve that. Chomsky is regularly called a conspiracy theorist. I have been too but you don’t need a conspiracy to get the majority of editors and ‘top’ journalists telling the same story if they, mostly, believe it. Most, not all but that doesn’t matter, ‘top’ journalists and editors went to the same kind of schools (private), the same universities (Oxbridge) and were interns with the same neo-liberal institutes. The BBC Trust has actually demonstrated this to be the case. Their parents often worked in the same places, they live in the same communities and they enjoy cultural activities in the same places too. Finally, they recognise each other and employ each other. They are a class or, in Chosmky’s words, interlocking elites. Over these years of socialisation, they come to, mostly, share the same values and perspectives. So, when they make decisions to write in a certain way or to edit in and out, certain narratives, they do so in their own interests which are also the interests of their class, as a whole.
HA! Intellectual snobbery! You and Chomsky think we are all dim-witted dupes who can’t see what’s happening and don’t make our own decisions.
First, Chomsky is hated by intellectual elites in the USA and in the UK (not so much in Europe) because he insults them. Even George Monbiot had a go at him because Chomsky accuses all who work in the corporate media or in the universities led by corporation-friendly management and professors, of complicity, and they’d rather think of themselves as critical and ethical people. Chomsky says that even more than the lower socio-economic groups, favoured groups and elites are seduced by the rewards they get into becoming uncritical followers and defenders of the status quo. Less well-off groups, because they get fewer rewards and more punishments in the form of poor housing, dangerous neighbourhoods and less successful schools or hospitals, become less-trusting of mainstream media messages.
Second, Chomsky is hated because he is saying that most, if not all of us, have been so seduced by corporate capitalism’s delights that we sub-consciously make decisions which favour it. Because of our socialisation, from early childhood, we have internalised a worldview which is, below the surface of consciousness, sympathetic to corporate capitalism. We get cheap clothes, food and holidays. We can choose, every day, what to wear and what to read. We get highly sophisticated mobile phones, tablets and laptops. We are bombarded with exciting images and messages and can navigate through them with an easy click, noting headlines and feeling little pressure to really think.
Neuropsychologists have already shown that most of the decisions we think we are making with free will and based on reason, we have already made milliseconds before, at a sub-conscious level and that this is true, regardless of intellect. That means, of course, that I made the decision to write this before I told myself I had.
Footnote: I was no weel, when I changed the blog’s title, but I still don’t feel inclined to change it back – doctor?
‘The First Minister will officially open Scotland House and also meet Michel Barnier to raise fears about Brexit’s ‘damaging uncertainty’. Nicola Sturgeon is set to officially open the expanded Scotland House in Brussels – a hub for Scottish businesses in Europe’
The first Minister said:
‘People and businesses are desperate for clarity on Brexit, but with just months to go before the withdrawal agreement has to be signed, the UK Government still cannot agree a position. This damaging uncertainty could come to an immediate end if only the UK Government would put jobs and living standards first and agree to continuing single market and customs union membership – for Scotland and the whole of the UK. Whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, we are committed to continuing our collaboration, our friendship and our partnership with other European countries.’
This visit comes after it emerged that the Scottish government has completed around 200 engagements from early 2017, in Europe, and beyond, including the Baltic, the Arctic and the Scandinavian areas. See this:
‘More than 200 engagements between Scottish Government ministers and European governments, institutions and organisations have taken place since the start of 2017. The ‘strong desire’ to connect with Scotland and listen to our views signals that the EU continues to see Scotland as an important partner – according to External Affairs Secretary Fiona Hyslop. In just 16 months, Scottish Government ministers have initiated or accepted more than 200 meetings and visits with European partners, which on average means a European engagement has taken place at least three times per week.’
Some of the more notable engagements have included:
The opening of Scottish Government Hubs in Berlin and Dublin
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s visits to Dublin, Bonn and Utrecht
Engagements by the First Minister and Michael Russell in Brussels
High level meetings by Fiona Hyslop in Paris, The Hague and Berlin
Engagements by Europe Minister Alasdair Allan in Oslo, Riga and Bratislava
Hosting an Arctic Circle gathering in Edinburgh
Hosting visits by delegations from EU member states and institutions to Scotland
Co-hosting in Edinburgh the OECD Rural Development Conference
Briefing sessions with the Scotland-based Consular Corps
Meetings between Scottish Ministers and EU Ambassadors
‘New research suggests that more than 1 in 3 women in Scotland will be morbidly obese, that’s at least 100 pounds above their ideal weight, by 2035. The research presented today in Vienna at the European Congress on Obesity indicates that women who have been to university are likely to be more adversely affected than those who didn’t
Here are the figures from a report in Medical Express:
‘The new estimates indicate that rates of morbid obesity in adults will reach 5% in Scotland (compared to 4% in 2015), 8% in England (2.9% in 2016), and 11% in Wales (3% in 2015) by 2035.’
So, 1 in 20 Scots are expected to be morbidly obese by 2035. The full paper suggests 5% of women and 6% of men will morbidly obese by 2035. Perhaps Reporting Scotland have misread the prediction for overall obesity rates as being that for morbid obesity rates? See this:
‘By 2035, [not morbid] obesity rates will be highest, and see the greatest rise, in adults working in routine and manual positions. As a result, the difference in obesity levels between those in managerial roles (29% males, 31% females) and those in routine and manual roles (39% males, 40% females) is expected to widen in England and Wales (with the exception of English females where it is expected to reduce).’
There are three serious problems with this report.
First, we appear to have an error confusing obesity with morbid obesity, producing tabloid headlines with a consequent negative effect on many female viewers and thus failing to inform viewers in a manner promised in the BBC’s charter.
Second, we have the failure to report on the key finding that morbid obesity, in Scotland, is expected to plateau at 5% while soaring past that figure elsewhere in the UK.
Third, we have the failure to report on the explanation for the above trend. The researchers offered a clear, confident and simple explanation for the significantly slower growth in obesity in Scotland – Scottish Government policy initiatives and resource allocation. For example: ‘The government put a massive push on developing a route map for how we can actually combat this. They put together resources from the NHS that were proving to be effective. They did put a lot of work into it.’ Further evidence of the effectiveness of the above initiatives can be seen in this: ‘However, almost no 15-to-24-year-old males in Scotland are expected to fall within this category, compared to 6% of the same group in England, the data shows.’
I appreciate that this was a short item but that does not justify the error and the major omission of both the key trend in Scotland or the explanation of it.
Footnote: I’ll make a further complaint to BBC and let you know how it goes.
In the report on obesity, at 09:00, we heard nine, long, compound sentences yet no reference was made to key role played by Scottish Government policy initiatives and resource allocation as stated clearly by the university researchers. In the Independent newspaper report, for example, we were able to read that the researchers offered a clear, confident and simple explanation for the significantly slower growth in obesity in Scotland – Scottish Government policy initiatives and resource allocation. For example: ‘The government put a massive push on developing a route map for how we can actually combat this. They put together resources from the NHS that were proving to be effective. They did put a lot of work into it.’ Why was this omitted?
The GMS report is thus missing a key explanatory component and one which, when omitted, denied the SNP-led government due credit. I remind you of your responsibility to inform your audience.
Based on research led by Laura Webber of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, reported in the Independent today:
‘Under current trends it is predicted that 11 per cent of the population in Wales will be morbidly obese in 2035, roughly 340,000 adults, while Scotland is likely to plateau at about 5 per cent and England will rise to about 8 per cent.’
The researchers offer a surprisingly clear, confident and simple explanation for the significantly slower growth in Scotland – Scottish Government policy initiatives and resource allocation:
‘The government put a massive push on developing a route map for how we can actually combat this. They put together resources from the NHS that were proving to be effective. They did put a lot of work into it.’
Further evidence of the effectiveness of the above initiatives:
‘However, almost no 15-to-24-year-old males in Scotland are expected to fall within this category, compared to 6% of the same group in England, the data shows.’
Now having access to the above table, we can see enormous differences in the predicted morbid obesity figures for males in Scotland and England, right across the age categories, including my own – I feel inspired to eat less!
Radio Scotland’s Good Morning Scotland was careful to omit any reference to the part played by the Scottish Government.
BBC TV seem to have ignored the research in favour of:
YouTube stars ‘might encourage kids to eat more calories’
(Hmm, didn’t know she was a four-star general now)
For some time now, the Tories have been banging on about direct cuts to NHS Scotland being greater than the Tories’ own UK target of 4% and ignoring both the obvious explanation of the pooling of health and social care budgets and the consequent avoidance, here, of the ‘humanitarian crises’ we’ve seen in England over the last two winters.
Even BBC Scotland were able to spot the effectiveness of the SNP strategy to integrate health and social care, after the winter of 2016/2017:
‘Out of all the four nations, hospitals in Scotland seem [seem?] to have fared the best.
Much of the credit has been given to the way councils and the health services are working together [Who instructed and funded them so that they could do so?].
Budgets have been pooled [by the Scottish government], encouraging a close working relationship to help get frail patients out of hospital by providing extra rehabilitation services in the community.’
This week, a report from the Health Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (no supporter of Scottish independence), revealed the level of spending on social care in Scotland which has resulted from the pooling of budgets. First, the trend in overall spending on social care under the SNP administration:
‘Spending on social care has followed a different pattern. Across the UK as a whole, public spending on adult social care fell by nearly 10% between 2009–10 and 2016–17, despite significant real increases in spending in Scotland.’ (page iii)
Second, the percentage gap between the Scottish and English systems so clearly associated with the crisis in the latter:
‘In 2015–16, social care spending per adult was 31% lower in England than in Scotland.’ (page 1)
Third, variation in spending across the UK:
‘As a result, as shown in Figure 1.6, per-person public health spending varies across the different parts of the UK. In 2015–16, it was highest in Scotland at £2,387. This compares with spending of £2,302 in Northern Ireland, £2,249 in Wales and £2,226 in England.’ (page 7)
Securing the future: funding health and social care to the 2030s, The Health Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/R143.pdf
‘Almost 80% of Scots public sector contract awards go to SMEs’
I wondered, and you won’t be surprised to hear it, how this compared with the situation in UK/England. Scotland/UK comparisons are, of course, disapproved of as ‘whitabootery’ by some Unionists like Brian Monteith at the Scotsman, but popular when they suit, at BBC Scotland. Nearly always, my searches find that something is better here than there and it looks that way on this issue too.
I was only able to make a direct comparison on the spend as opposed to the number of firms getting the work.
From Insider today:
‘Nicola Sturgeon reveals eight out of ten public sector contracts go to SMEs as a result of Scottish Government legislation as she meets new Scots policy chair Andrew McRae at FSB’s spring reception. And she also told the gathering at the Fruitmarket Gallery how nearly eight out of ten public sector contracts in Scotland are now awarded to small and medium businesses as a result of Scottish Government legislation.’
The situation in England, according to this FSB, August 2017, report (page 5), is:
‘Each year the UK public sector spends over £200 billion on procuring goods and services from third parties, but far too little of this is with small firms. Over the last 12 months, it is estimated that SMEs won just 19 per cent of directly awarded public sector contracts by value.’
Why does it matter that SMEs should be prominent in public-sector work? From the same report (page 5):
‘When small firms aren’t used effectively by Government, it is the economy as a whole which suffers. This is because small businesses are overwhelmingly the route by which people enter work from unemployment and because, as is widely recognised, small businesses are the challengers to incumbents and critical agents in the ‘gale of creative destruction’. Small businesses also create greater competition for public contracts, leading to better value for money and efficiencies for contracting authorities.’
I’ll leave readers to reflect on, and to comment on, gales of creative destruction. I guess we are more familiar with gales up here?
Footnote: When I search for a graphic relating to ‘gales of creative destruction’, one of the first featured Margaret Thatcher. I though about it, then destroyed the thought, with little creativity required.
(I know 2010 and before the big West of Shetland finds)
I’ve already reported on the return to massive wealth generation in the Scottish oilfields and the consequent flow into the Treasury which will once more save the UK economy from complete disaster. See:
We already know that Scotland is the only part of the UK with a solid, reliable trade surplus, even without massive oil income, and that Whisky plays a big part in this. See this, today, from the Scotch Whisky Association:
‘[UK] Trade deficit ‘much worse without Scotch whisky exports’. Scotch Whisky Association figures show that in 2017 the value of exports of Scotch whisky increased by 8.9% to a record high of £4.37bn. Single malt exports also continue to grow, up 14% year-on-year to £1. The UK’s trade deficit would be almost 3% greater without Scotch whisky exports, according to new analysis.’
‘Scotland has Britain’s best compliance record with current data protection laws, with just 1.9 per cent of a total £4.2m in fines being issued north of the Border.’
That was just one out of 91 cases across the UK. As always, some wee downside can be found but that’s not my job here. Read the full thing, if you like, or move on the next good news story.
