I seem to be popular with the media this morning. The Scottish Daily Record features an article by columnist Joan McAlpine MSP that says:
Next time someone tells you Scotland has a £15billion deficit, throw three words at them: Professor Richard Murphy.
The influential professor of practice in international political economy at City University of London made his name exposing the way big companies avoid paying tax — and the ineffectiveness of governments in collecting tax.
He is a chartered accountant who has succeeded in sexing up his subject with his book The Joy of Tax.
This month he turned his attention to Scotland and in particular claims that the country has a £15billion deficit and is too poor to be an independent country.
This was the dominant theme of this blog last week, of course. I did not intend it to achieve the publicity it did: to be candid the first post on the theme was meant to be simple observation on what seemed to me, as an accountant and political economist, to be an obvious truth and it just grew from there.
I was, to be candid, a little unaware of just how sensitive the issue is in Scotland before writing, although this would not have stopped me intervening. But that is my point this morning. I am well aware that as an SNP MSP Joan McAlpine is not an objective observer, but then, nor are any of us. We all come with the our own biases. Those are what colour debate, and the debate on this issue has been colourful. But what is notable is how little academic intervention there has been in it. The question to be asked is one Danny Blanchflower posed to academic economists in 2012, which is 'Where were you?' The public is funding academics. Why aren't they being seen and heard?
PS I have accepted three invitations to Scotland in the last couple of days.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It is an indicator of the problem faced in Scotland that a barrage of misinformation is given an outlet through mainstream tv news and newspapers, but anything that counters this narrative is excluded.
Indeed. There was a fair bit of academic comment during the 2014 referendum but you cannot have the debate we deserved when one side is reported as fact and the other, including some authoritative international academic opinion, is ignored. We are seeing this again with most news reports introduced with the usual unchallenged soundbites describing Scotland as an economic and fiscal basket case. The participation of Prof. Murphy with his media profile and campaigning background might help to break this barrier, especially since he is from the south. It is not a partisan case we need either, just an open, honest and authoritative debate, the absence of which in 2104 has damned the BBC forever.
“Sexing up”? High praise indeed.
That took some imagination
And it wasn’t mine
Indeed. I can’t think of a time that proper economic analysis has been more important. David Davis’s abysmal performance at the Brexit committee; particularly when asked about an economic assessment of a hard Brexit – he had no clue was frightening. The government seems to be under the total influence of the fanatical hard Brexit wing of the Tory party (bizarrely calling themselves the European Research Group) and will reject any reasonable deal from the EU. These “swivel eyed loons” want a low cost, low tax, low wage economy similar to the US and will sacrifice nearly anything to get it.
Such an end point, and I think it is more likely than not, will be disastrous for Northern Ireland and Scotland (and Wales and the North of England).
Support from scottish Independence comes from the strangest places
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/20/jim-dowson-back-scottish-independence-patriotic-news-agency-far-right?CMP=fb_gu
Maybe many academics are concerned that they will be intimidated and labelled as ‘ enemies of the people’ as were the judges. As you are aware, Truss did not make a robust defence of the judges in the Miller case and that does indeed threaten our democracy. Very dark days for our country at present.
Academics who go against the prevailing orthodoxy don’t usually get vilified, just ignored.
The academics I remember from university days (30 years ago) were so anti-everything (always from the left) that you’d think they’d boo Santa Claus if he walked in.
When you become anti-everything, it becomes a ‘boy who cries wolf’ situation. Credibility suffers.
I sense a less than objective comment
Richard
You have done the people of Scotland a service. Also, the future of Scotland itself.
You said it because it had to be said. You did the right thing. Questions have to asked and asnwered in detail otherwise the Scottish ‘BREXIT’ from the Union will be as half arsed as the UK’s departure from the EU. For goodness sake!
Too many so called politicians North and South of the border do not do the right thing these days. And that is when others needs to speak up.
Good luck in Scotland – I have no doubt that you are only trying to help.
No axe to grind, just trying to find an explanation (albeit from my own outdated and limited experience) for why they are not being seen nor heard.
I doubt there is a shortage of academics with an opinion and who want to be heard. But there is apparently an issue, which I put down to a credibility problem.
I disagree on that: UK academics are outstanding
The issue has to be something else
You are relatively new to academia, Richard, and enjoy a privileged position due to your public profile and the amount of research money you’ve been party to bringing into City in the short time you’ve worked there. Thus, your position bestows on you a fair degree of “protection”. Many academics do not enjoy that position, and many of us now work in universities that have incorporated clauses into out terms and conditions that mean we can be disciplined for “bringing our institutions into disrepute”. My university adopted this a few years ago. There are a good number of academics who’ve already experienced that sanction, though for obvious reasons universities tend to keep this quite (note: I have a friend and ex-colleague whose been paying the price for years for being sanctioned in such a way). From what I know, the definition of “disrepute” is pretty fluid and in any case when required is defined by management not academics. And in the cases I’m aware of it certainly overode any claim for academic freedom.
Add that to the point made by another commentator – and a subject you’re familiar with – concerning the difficulty in getting material published when it sits outside the mainstream in many disciplines, and you have a double wammy of reasons for many academics to self censor and contrain what they research, write about and comment on. I’ve certainly been much more cautious in what I comment on here and how often since I learnt that it doesn’t go unnoticed at work.
I accept that is a very real issue
Thanks
@Ivan. You are correct. @ George L. Academics are mainly ‘SILENT’ outside of their specialist areas but would like their views and knowledge to be heard. In the UK and elsewhere, academics are acutely focussed on reputation and potential loss of funding by straying outside of their assigned areas or take political positions. My own head of school admonished me when he found out I was an active Green, as significant [regional] funding comes by the blessing of another Party. Although my expertise can and has been applied to environmental issues.
Scary
I suspect that many academics who would like to debate matters of public importance are not invited. In the sense that they are not invited to air their conclusions by the main stream media, which is the most public forum for debate. From the MSM’s point of view, the problem is that academics have a nasty habit of using evidence to justify their conclusions. Which of course tends to ‘get in the way’ of editorial stance. But perhaps things will be different at The Evening Standard now?
I’m not questioning their competence. I am questioning credibility. Not the same thing.
Does the audience believe them?
And how often do we see an academic with expertise in X suddenly weighing in on topic Y, on which he or she has no greater expertise than anyone else? And yet they wave around the ‘Professor’ tag as if it counts for something on topic Y?
I have just turned down an interview for just that reason….
I’ve been in academia for many years (1977 was my first lowly job) to now being Emeritus Professor.
“And how often do we see an academic with expertise in X suddenly weighing in on topic Y, on which he or she has no greater expertise than anyone else? And yet they wave around the ‘Professor’ tag as if it counts for something on topic Y?”
I would say almost never; not in the physical sciences anyway. One bit of advice from Prof Brian McBreen one of my MSc supervisors was “never bluff, never pretend to know something you don’t”. Respected academics live by reputation and rigorous and unbiased interpretation of facts. (Not humanly possible but at least they do try).
I agree with that Sean
Completely
During the Brexit referendum I saw stuff from at least one Maths professor and one physics professor trying out economics. Quite happy to wave the ‘Prof’ flag, yet made some errors suggesting they hadn’t read Chapter 1 of A-level economics texts.
And some of AC Grayling’s contributions after the Brexit vote were outside his area, to be kind to him.
I think Grayling has been exceptional
I think that may be easier to maintain in your sector of academia than in the social sciences, Sean. For example, when I first became an academic I volunteered to be an election night pundit for the local radio station when they contacted my university for an “expert”. I arrived at the studio intent on being non party political in the way I dealt with the programme. However, a major part of the programme was a phone-in which turned out to be dominated by right wing participants. At first I tried to counter their points/statements/claims (none had an argument) in a measured way. But it wasn’t long before the people phoning in almost always started their blurb with ‘I heard what you said earlier and you’re obviously a Labour supporter.’ In short, they weren’t interested in hearing an alternative argument, even if it was based on solid evidence (as with Brexiteers now).
Another example from roughly the same time was when I was asked to speak at an event on transport policy (I’d worked in this area for a couple of years before becoming an academic). This was at a time when bus services were being privatised and there was much debate about the private/public ownership of railways. Again, I tried to be studiously impartial by debating the pros and cons of various ideas. But after I stated that most of the available evidence supported the view that public ownership of rail and other forms of transport services and infrastructure was the most effective and efficient at delivering a whole range of desired policy outcomes (which was factually correct and still is) I was accused of being a Labour supporter, and an ‘old fashioned socialist’ (amongst other things) and from that point on was certainly not accepted as any kind of expert by a good number of the people in the room. So, even when you are an expert and speaking on topics that you know a fair degree about, restricting yourself to an unbiased interpretation of the fact, if it’s a social science topic (and I include here organisation and management studies) it’s bloody hard not to get tarred with whatever brush the people who don’t agree with you want to tar you with.
I faced that problem this morning – being interviewed by Politics Home – out next week
I was accused of being an SNP supporter. I flatly denied I was party political, pointing to my recent interview with Liam Byrne and and request to attend an LD event, likely in April. I made clear I was using evidence. If that suggested Scotland could be a viable state, so be it
But I agree, I have an advantage here that may be unusual just by doing so much of this stuff
One of my Dean of Faculty at Northumbria used to say “Integrity is a bit like virginity, one cock up and you’re fucked for life”. Slightly crude but makes the point!
I like it
Although virginity may be overvalued at a certain age…
Hi Richard,
is it possible that this ‘blog’ of yours allows the wider public to be aware of you and your ideas,
I wouldn’t know the first thing about you or your viewpoint if it weren’t for this blog,
the same may be true for many in the media, politics, academia and the business community,
surely more academics should stick their necks out in public and blog too,
don’t they realise they can have full editorial control of their own mini online newspaper and publish daily at modest cost?
maybe if you showed your site traffic data to some other academics they might appreciate how effective blogging can be for reaching out to the wider public and stimulating debate,
in appreciation of your efforts,
Matt
Many know the data
My university does
But Ivan may be right – I may have created an unusual and exceptional position for myself
And I have also always been willing to walk away from anything if I do not like it – and oddly it’s never worked out adversely. In fact, usually it’s done the exact opposite
I believe that up until 30/40 years ago academia was where the government, the Civil Service and the media went for advice. Anyone read C.P.Snow? Now they all believe that only “business” has the right answers. Thus for example David Cameron appointing Phillip Green as an adviser!
What went wrong?
It seems that just as as the politicians have decided that government should be run as a business, many academics have bought the idea that even academia should be run as a business and retreated from their previous role as the intellect of the nation.
Academics can write blogs, papers and books, which is all well and good, but in today’s world presentation and entertainment value are everything however intellectually bankrupt the message. Think Nigel Farage.
Richard, you do come over well on the media, but we need dozens of you telling truths and being heard.
Looking at the way Prof John Robertson was treated for publishing his report on MSM bias may go someway to answering your question. http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/06/30/i-was-bullied-bbc-over-academic-report-indyref-bias-scottish-media-blackout-must
True
Joan McAlpine is indeed not an objective observer, and her view was bound to be challenged. Her article, and your credentials, have now been challenged in the same newspaper by a self-proclaimed expert in GERS – http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/oil-revenues-fall-looks-snp-10086267.
I doubt whether any previous challenger of your views has used words like “wild-eyed claims of one Professor Richard Murphy”. In this case, we know that the challenger has no relevant qualifications other than the ability to read numbers from a report into a spreadsheet and fill his blog with “conclusions” based on a most detailed analysis of the numbers within GERS.
He is clearly disturbed (wild-eyed?) that his entire raison d’etre in the debate on the economics of Scottish Independence has been questioned.
I like the fact that he implies being a chartered accountant does not help my case….
Oddly enough, one academic we hear a lot from in the media is Niall Ferguson.
The fact that his contributions tend to come exclusively in the right-wing media, lie outside of his academic field of expertise yet back the prevailing neo-lib economic orthodoxy is, I’m sure, just a coincidence…
I’m sure if more academics were willing to stick their necks out and be incontrovertibly wrong in a similar way, they’d get a lot more media attention.