The Scottish government yesterday broadly adopted the deeply depressing, profoundly conventional and neoliberal suggestions of the commission that it appointed to advise on recovery from coronavirus that reported in June. A good analysis, aptly describing this as a blueprint for the recovery of Scottish capitalism, is available here.
That Commission was headed by Benny Higgins.To put him in context, he is the former boss of Tesco Bank and current chair of Buccleuch Estates, Scotland biggest feudal landowner. To suggest that he might have a particular view of what is in the best interests of Scotland is, in that case, to only be fair.
But, in an interview with the Times he has has made it very clear that although he claims that his report was “unequivocally politically independent” this is anything but true. He is noted as saying:
You have got the ideological zealots who would throw economic growth and jobs under a bus to achieve a much narrower set of objectives around their own focus.
I'm referring to people like Friends of the Earth and certain parts of the green movement.
I think the recovery for Scotland has to be green, it has to be fair and it needs to be inclusive, but it needs to have economic growth.
A wellbeing economy needs growth to pay for itself.
And his evidence is:
A market economy is well capable of responding to environmental change and delivering wellbeing.
BP has demonstrated there is a way forward where you can focus on environmental change and wellbeing.
It takes some chutzpah (a word of which I am sure Higgins would approve) to be so crass and think you can get away with it.
First, BP is still producing oil that will burn our planet to extinction, and is relying on so far unproven technology to make the claim that it might become carbon neutral. In other words, it's continuing to threaten life on Earth without having a clue how to reconcile its own existence with our wellbeing. If Higgins is not aware of that then he should not be making the claims he does.
Second, to claim that we are dependent on growth as he defines it is simply wrong. The financially engineered, fossil fuel driven growth of modern capitalism is what is driving us to extinction and there is not a shred of evidence that it can continue into the future and be reconciled with continuing human life on earth.
Third, if he wants to talk growth then it is growth of the state sector that he should have been promoting, but did not. We do need more care, education, social housing, sustainable transport infrastructure and so on. But we do not need more long haul holidays, heavy weight cars, monoculture farming, junk fashion and much else, all designed to fuel the inexorable demand for an interest return to banking.
And fourth, talking green and about growth in the way he does is simply impossible: carbon and temperature targets (let alone those required to secure biodiversity) cannot be reconciled with the sort of GDP growth his report envisioned. We can do more for each other, without a doubt, but only in a radically transformed society and it's the height of in difference to the fate of humanity to pretend otherwise.
So, the obvious questions have to be asked, the first of which is why is this person advising Nicola Sturgeon?
And since he is, what does that say about her priorities?
And, what hope can anyone with the slightest concern for the planet have of the SNP in that case?
I know that there are many with strong green convictions, and sound left of centre principles, who support the SNP. But for how long can that continue when its leadership aligns itself with the interest of the Scottish landed gentry and the old forces of traditional Edinburgh financial capitalism in this way? The sentiments Higgins, no doubt honestly, proposes are alien to most Scots, I suspect.
No wonder so many think that at the very time independence looks to be possible the SNP is in crisis. Based on this evidence, its current policy positions are, liertally, unsustainable.
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:
The SNP seem to me confused about economics. On one side they seem to ‘get it’ and look to economists like Mariana Mazzucatto, yet nevertheless seem over-reliant on unsophisticated neo-liberal bankers (rather prosaic system artisans) for advice on monetary economics. Perhaps betraying a Pauline desire to be all things to all men on economics. I am not sure what difference the relatively recent appointment of Kate Forbes MSP, an economist, as Minister for Finance will make. Dr Rideout may be able to provide some real insight on this matter.
On BP, while I take your general point (it is the easiest of of all targets), it is also nevertheless a crucially important asset, because it is very significant to the whole British stock market, and pension industry in the UK; it has huge resources and cannot disappear overnight. I actually do think it could have a big effect on new technology in the huge potential in Scotland for alternative energy development; it has both a close understanding in the major Aberdeen offshore technology network, and the capacity to invest intelligently in major new technology onshore and offshore, large-scale engineering projects; like tidal in the Pentland Firth, or carbon capture; or whatever. It can do this with a great deal more confidence about what it is doing than Government can do it directly, because this is what BP is set up to do (its skill-set), if you look beyond the obvious. Of course they may not do so; nevertheless BP, unlike everyone except the failed banks on the Footsie, is in many ways still a government influenced corporation.
I have no idea why Higgins was selected. He is an extraordinarily inappropriate choice. It should be noted that the SNP is very, very uncomfortable tackling certain difficult issues it has kicked down the road for over a decade, like land reform; it has failed completely at policy level over local government financing and the Council Tax. The SNP relies far too heavily on a very old-fashioned, even fossilised approach to ‘safe hands’ managerialism that has worked well in the past (long gone), and is now finding it more and more difficult to make the move beyond managerialism.
Feels like another nail in Earth’s coffin. I wonder if, to get another view on the table, as Farage did with Brexit, standing hundreds of MPs at the next general election on a MMT, green new deal platform, crowd-funded using prominent campaigners as visible focal points, not necessarily to win the election but to get the information and arguments about MMT + GND as an alternative vision out there. Thatcher changed the narrative and Labour duly followed and with Labour under Corbyn the Tories began to steal their clothes, so narratives have impact if they’re heard. I’m not willing to actively support either main party, as they’re economically illiterate, but this I would actively support. I imagine there are many organisations and individuals who would consider the opportunity to spread the message worth the effort and cost.
It’s a fascinating idea….
The Greens might claim they were doing it
The Greens would be for a GND, but are they at all conversant with MMT? It seems to me that their past manifesto policy positions have always been costed under the assumption that tax funds govt spending.
True, right now
Sorry David your idea presupposes that most of the electorate are capable of understanding the complexity of argument underlying MMT and planetary sustainability and, of course, how the the two inter-relate. I no longer think there’s that broad based capacity after nearly ten years of inept Conservative governments being voted into into office.
That reminds me of my own journey from believing the prevailing wisdom to understanding MMT. My eco-concerns began in the early 80s, first with the nuclear sword of Damocles, and then discovering the global rate of deforestation. My economic understanding shifted when I started to become aware of neoliberalism, and saw the absurd cruelty of deliberate mass unemployment in Greece and Spain in the name of austerity, govt deliberately and knowingly destroying millions of people’s lives. I think you may be right, the myth of the govt being just like a household may be too ingrained and too “intuitively” plausible to be changed. I have found that with an understanding of MMT, how the media and govt describe the economy sounds plain bizarre, as when David Gaulke said that cuts and tax rises would be needed to pay for Covid-19. Because his focus is money rather than work done, he doesn’t know that what he’s saying is that the only way to pay for all the work we’ve done in the past is to do less work now, and take away from people some of the benefits of the work they’re doing now. It is crazy. I was feeling hopeful.
I ask out of innocence so please pardon me for naivety; Why is it necessary for the SNP to publish a report on how to run an independent Scotland when they have not (so far at least), been elected to govern an independent Scotland? Should it not be for the people of Scotland to decide at the ballot box how Scotland is run (economically and otherwise), after independence is attained?
This report influences the somewhat limited opportunities they have as the gov’t of Scotland now
Benny Higgins doesn’t appear to be an individual much up for learning lessons or having the mental flexibility to explore lessons that don’t fit with his world view. The economist David Colander takes Higgins’s approach apart in his recommendations to the American Congress after the 2008 GFC how the United States can best avoid crises through encouraging heterodox views and using individuals trained to logically take apart models, policies, views, whatever you care to call them, of all individuals promoting them:-
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ502/tesfatsion/Colander.StateOfMacro.CongressionalTestimony.July2010.pdf
Thanks
Colander nevertheless describes Hayek and Samuleson as great “economic statesmen” (wise men of “well-tuned educated common sense”); and those like Abba Lerner, who were not. I find that a surprising conclusion; I have always thought of Hayek (who was a great intellectual historian), but who could write a book like ‘The Road to Serfdom’, or Samuelson for that matter, as essentially quasi-populist (that is, targeting facile, populist, slightly anti-intellectual politicians who wanted slick, easily digested, ‘sound-bite’ answers to the big problems), and therefore essentially successful political propagandists.
I don’t think it wise to take everything Colander says as gospel. For example, he believes that Keynes didn’t properly understand the role government could play in creating money from thin air:-
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4724546_Was_Keynes_a_Keynesian_or_a_Lernerian/link/577babdd08ae213761caac4d/download
Yet in an open letter to president Roosevelt published at the end of 1933 in the New York Times Keynes said the following:-
“Broadly speaking …. an increase of output cannot occur unless by the operation of one or other of three factors. Individuals must be induced to spend more out of their existing incomes; or the business world must be induced, either by increased confidence in the prospects or by a lower rate of interest, to create additional current incomes in the hands of their employees; or public authority must be called in aid to create additional current incomes through the expenditure of borrowed or printed money. In bad times the first factor cannot be expected to work on a sufficient scale. The second factor will come in as the second wave of attack on the slump after the tide has been turned by the expenditures of public authority. It is, therefore, only from the third factor that we can expect the initial major impulse.”
(Note Keynes makes no mention of the role manipulation of taxes could play he added that at a later date.)
https://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/11/keynes-open-let.html
Thanks
Now in a blog post
Nicola Sturgeon has NEVER made a decision in her LIFE. She surrounds herself with people who do that for her. This is just another one in a long list.
I think you are wrong on that
There is no doubt that Nicola Sturgeon is very able
I am pointing out a worrying error
“There is no doubt that Nicola Sturgeon is very able”
Of course you’d say that as for the umpteenth time your trying to get paid by a political party. Tour diplomacy lasts until the inevitable rejection then let the mud be thrown!
If I was trying to get a job would I have written that blog?
It takes some staggering lack of understanding to think so
Everyone seems to either overlook or gloss over the role of Peter Murrell in the creation of Nicola Sturgeon – superstar.
Much fuss has been made in both print and social media about the role(s) of Dominic Cummings.
Am I being unfair in seeing similar ‘behind the scenes’ manoeuvrings within the SNP.
Apart from a very sketchy and, I have to say, bare Wikipedia entry little is known about this man.
For someone to hold such power and influence, not to mention the brutal treatment of anyone he deems embarrassing his wife and yet appears to be lacking in the necessary skills, experience etc required to hold such a dominant and controlling position.
Wheels within wheels
Well, evidence seems to suggest that Nicola Sturgeon is, in fact, a raving neoliberal, but is very good at hiding it under a cloak of the ‘caring’ persona. I may be cynical, but if this is the case, I think our only way to change who she listens to is for all of us to gasp with horror at her choice of advisor and the advice – can’t have that cloak being lifted. Who wants an image of Scotland’s seat of power to be a mini-Westminster? Not me, that’s for sure. If rumours are correct, and the SNP is micromanaged by the powers that be, and no dissent is allowed, public opinion may be the only recourse – but I doubt there will be enough understanding in the general population for outrage to be expressed. It’s not looking good, but…
Interestingly, in the SNP you have a wide range of opinion, here is Alex Neil calling for tax reform and stuff (but, shhhhh, don’t mention (independence shhh)):
https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,comment-how-to-stop-an-economic-armageddon
This is an interesting piece to give some context of the two camps in the SNP, Campbell Martin was the chap that did the excellent investigative reporting on the PPI scandal in south Ayrshire,,, north? Oh, I’ve forgotten, anyway:
Campbell Martin guest post (interesting new blog site?): SNP ‘gradualists’ and ‘fundamentalists’ some historical info:
https://yoursforscotlandcom.wordpress.com/2020/08/02/battle-for-the-snp-and-scotland/
Thanks
Dieter Helm and John Kaye are also on this commission – serious economists.
Helm has always seemed a bit soft on fossil fuel companies, although haven’t followed him recently. Surely BP has to transition to a renewable energy company and leave oil and gas in the ground. Carbon Capture and Storage has been promised for decades…unfeasible.
I have never rated John Kaye
At least Benny Higgins understands the critical/central role that GROWTH has in a modern capitalist economy.
Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to understand that it’s position is unsustainable.
I would argue that all our economic woes of the last 10 years or more are due to a slowdown in growth.
Even prior to the GFC of 2008, growth was driven by massive amounts of unsustainable bank lending/debt. It had to come crashing down at some point!
How we transform from a growth based economy to a “sustainable” (whatever that means) one, is the great challenge of our time.
Too many people on both the left and right of politics don’t seem to understand this.
It’s not just about swapping diesel cars for electric or coal for solar/wind. Growth is still seen as the pathway out of our present predicament.
It will be women that eventually bring capitalism to its knees.
Global population is predicted to peak by 2060 and the fall. The populations of Japan, Spain, Italy (among others) are expected to halve by the turn of the century!!!!!!
As women globally are getting educated and access to contraception, they are having fewer babies.
On average, each woman needs to have 2.1 children to maintain the present population (never mind increase it). In the UK it’s around 1.8. It is immigration that is keeping our population rising.
The irony of Nigel Farage’s crusade against immigration, is that he is promoting the collapse of capitalism.
Without an ever expanding population to consume ever more stuff, growth can not happen. For example, if Japan does halve it’s population by 2100, the construction industry will collapse. (The demolition industry will have a brief boom!) There will be a glut of housing. Prices will collapse.
(In the UK 80% of bank loans are for property. That’s 80% of bank created new money into the economy)
Unless we go all Handmaid’s Tale of course, and take the choice away from women, of how many children they decide to have!!!!! (Not something I am advocating, by the way!!!!)
Richard.
A blog just on a growth/post growth economy would be an interesting one.
Be interesting to hear your readers opinions on the shape of the economy post growth.
What do readers understand the word “sustainable” to mean regarding the economy?
I think Higgins sounds plain stupid, not knowing what he does not know – or refuses to know. He is the Scottish version of (Lord!) Digby Jones.
🙂
In the delivery room far an independent Scotland, better mid wives are needed than this clearly biased individual who is obviously used to being paid well to talk absolute nonsense it seems.
What have I been saying about the need to have high-calibre people involved in the the Scottish independence project?
‘Ideological zealots’ !!!?
From what I’ve read, this dolt is one himself.
Be vigilant is all I can say.
Richard,
When you were producing your MMT video on Scotland and Debt a week or so ago, I wrote a short article on the subject, titled ‘The Number One issue in independence? Currency’, and submitted it to the Bella Caledonia editor for his consideration. I have been rather busy one way ot another, and promptly forgot to follow it up. It was published in Bella Caledonia on 5th, August. I didn’t realise until today. The reason I explain this at length is that I reproduced your video as a link, and better still, your video screenshot and link to the video is ‘front and centre’ in the article. I thought you may wish to know.
The link is here: https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2020/08/05/the-number-one-issue-in-independence-currency/#comment-502587
Now a blog here John
I liked it…
Thanks
R
A market economy is well capable of responding to environmental change and delivering wellbeing.
BP has demonstrated there is a way forward where you can focus on environmental change and wellbeing.
“Markets” & the marketisation of everything (e.g. carbon emissions and carbon trading) is part of the problem. Problems & their causes do not deliver solutions.
BP – “demonstrated there is a way forward”? Ah that would be the same BP that slashed its dividend and is now playing catch-up in the area of renewables – after decades of foot dragging. Given his erm… “pronouncements” Benny Higgins shows himself to be part of the problem and indeed a fantasist to boot. Also recall that Tesco is, in no small part, respoinsible for the current wave of obesity in the UK – & indeed knowing that what it sold was a big/major factor in this. With respect to climate change – BP knowlingly pushed fossil fuels – all the time – since late 1989 knowling the damage caused. Takes one to know one – & thus Benny & BP go really well together.
Green economic regeneration needs government involvement and control of two key companies; Scottish Power and Scottish & Southern Electricity. The former is owned by Iberdrola, the latter quoted on the LSE. At least with respect to power networks, both have positioned themselves as barriers to the expansion of renewables. Both will cry this is unfair – both are far from telling the whole truth when they do so – & would do well to keep in mind that I have chapter & verse on them as barriers to renewable expansion.
Scotland has a range of resources, such as wind, which will never run out. How to exploit that resource is the question to answer. On current reckoning the ideas (if indeed they could be called that) of the Scottish gov – fall into the category of wholly inadequate & unworthy of the people of Scotland. Using the Benny’s of this world to get answers to the question of how to build a green economy is akin to asking Lukashenko about running fair elections.