Kenneth Roy
A cliffhanger of an end
to a classic Scottish
detective story
The Cafe
A reply to David Torrance
David Hill
Revealing
Scotland’s dirty
little secret
Islay McLeod
The football supporter
Barbara Millar
Two deeply moving
theatrical experiences.
And The Killing too
John Cameron
John Wayne stunts
Andrew Hook
A Robin Hood tax
would be immensely
popular. Let them pay up
The Cafe 2
Myths about Dalgety Bay
R D Kernohan
We should take seriously
the rise of assorted
cultures of protest
Bruce Gardner
Am I a real doctor?
24.11.11
No. 484
The Cafe 2
It seems SEPA is now threatening to close off the beach at Dalgety Bay in its empire-building campaign to ramp up false fears about radioactivity.
SEPA first claimed to have made studies of the radioactive materials and chemically proven them to be made of paint. Repeated FoI searches have proven that no such finding of paint particles has ever been made.
SEPA then claimed to have found ‘radium and its daughter elements’ in the beach rock. In fact the ‘daughter element’ that radium breaks down into is radon – a gas, not a rock.
FoI inquiries have brought to light the fact that its consultants did, years ago, tell SEPA that ‘the highest reading recorded at Dalgety Bay was still less than two-thirds that found in a typical Aberdeen street’.
Everywhere has natural radiation. A square mile of earth at Dalgety Bay will contain three tonnes of uranium and six tonnes of thorium and one gram of natural radium because that is what every average square mile on the planet contains. By comparison, the possible presence of less than a gram of water-soluble paint, only a small fraction of which was actually radium, from the figures on the dials of a few aircraft 66 years ago is immeasurably small. Indeed SEPA has, despite its claims, been wholly unable to find any trace of it.
Beyond that there is no evidence whatsoever that radiation, up to well beyond the higher rates found in Aberdeenshire, causes any harm whatsoever; indeed the balance of scientific evidence strongly supports the view that such levels are beneficial to health.
It is disgraceful that the local people are being frightened and may be permanently deprived of their beach to promote what anybody scientifically literate in SEPA must know to be a false, though newsworthy, scare.
Neil Craig
A Robin Hook tax
would be immensely
popular. Let them pay up
Andrew Hook
Why on earth is our coalition government so opposed to the introduction of a Tobin or ‘Robin Hood’ tax on transactions made in the world of high finance? Not of course that Cameron, Osborne and Cable are honest enough to admit that they are. Oh no, they say, we’re all in favour of such a tax at a global level. But anything less than global – across Europe, say? No, no, no – quite out of the question. So we are invited to believe that they are in favour of the tax – as long as no serious attempt is made to introduce it.
Why do I find such a position so surprising? Not because of its typical disingenuousness, but rather because if ever there was a tax that seems fair, reasonable, and in accord with natural justice, this is it. What would the imposition of a Tobin tax actually mean? It would mean that a tax amounting to 0.01% of their value would be paid on financial dealings within the City – the buying and selling of stocks, bonds, securities, derivatives, etc, and all the activities of investment banks and hedge funds
Every time a high-flying dealer or trader pressed that button on his computer in Canary Wharf, and sent however many pounds flashing around the world, the taxpayer would get 0.01% of the total involved.
The financial market, that is, would at last be seen to be contributing something to alleviate the damage it caused by its reckless and irresponsible behaviour in the years leading up to the crisis of 2008.
Why on earth shouldn’t the City pay up? Without government intervention – meaning the use of vast amounts of taxpayers’ money – Canary Wharf would have fallen into the Thames. But what in fact has happened since 2008? Politicians of every persuasion have talked endlessly about how steps are being taken to ensure that casino banking and the kind of financial free-for-all that accompanied it are things of the past. Yet as time passes, nothing seems to change. Bankers still walk away with their extraordinary bonuses. CEOs and other top executives in major companies are awarded ever more stratospheric salaries. The rich get richer while the other 99% of us get poorer.
Given this scenario, who can doubt that the introduction of some form of this ‘Robin Hood’ tax would be immensely popular? In a situation where we seem to be teetering on the brink of a return to recession – if not to a 1930s-style depression – some degree of financial reparation from those largely responsible for the crisis we are in is not a lot to ask for. (Not that I’m suggesting that this tax should necessarily be used for deficit reduction alone.) So I repeat my question: what have our leaders got against Robin Hood?
Well, George Osborne tells us – presumably with a straight face – that a 0.01% tax on financial transactions would be a ‘bullet aimed at the heart of London’. His backer, ex-prime minister John Major, uploads the weapon image by suggesting that the tax would be akin to directing a ‘heat-seeking missile at the City of London’. What fatuous hyperbole. They want us to believe that the fact the tax would raise more money in London than in any other European city proves it is unfair. More nonsense. As people like Osborne and Major are constantly boasting, London is one of the financial capitals of the world. More transactions inevitably mean more tax revenue.
The real reasons for the Cameron/Osborne rejection of the tax surely lie elsewhere. One of them undoubtedly relates to the composition of today’s Tory Party in the House of Commons. Eurosceptics rule – and Mr Cameron knows it. In his recent Mansion House speech he had to make it clear whose side he was on – so he chose to identify himself with the sceptical majority. The introduction of a Tobin tax in the eurozone is now strongly backed by both Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy. So the issue has become a European one. For most Tories now there could be no better reason for saying no. And their leader will not dare to disagree.
Finally there is a still more powerful reason why our leaders will remain on the side of the sheriff of Nottingham rather than supporting Robin Hood. The audience listening to the Mansion House speech was full of sheriffs. They accept no responsibility for past mistakes, falling living standards, growing unemployment, the widening gap between rich and poor, or any of the other ills our country is experiencing. A tax on the City? No chance.
The Tory Party supporters with the deepest pockets expect to get value for their money – not a new tax. If the chancellor of the exchequer talks about tax in his forthcoming autumn statement it will not be about Robin Hood. Rather the chances are it will be about a promise to abolish as soon as possible the 50% income tax level the sheriffs currently are paying. Why? Because the City rules, okay?
Andrew Hook is a former professor of English literature at
Glasgow University
theatrical experiences.
And The Killing too
John Cameron
John Wayne stunts
Andrew Hook
A Robin Hood tax
would be immensely
popular. Let them pay up
The Cafe 2
Myths about Dalgety Bay
R D Kernohan
We should take seriously
the rise of assorted
cultures of protest
Bruce Gardner
Am I a real doctor?
24.11.11
No. 484
24.11.11No. 484
The Cafe 2
It seems SEPA is now threatening to close off the beach at Dalgety Bay in its empire-building campaign to ramp up false fears about radioactivity.
SEPA first claimed to have made studies of the radioactive materials and chemically proven them to be made of paint. Repeated FoI searches have proven that no such finding of paint particles has ever been made.
SEPA then claimed to have found ‘radium and its daughter elements’ in the beach rock. In fact the ‘daughter element’ that radium breaks down into is radon – a gas, not a rock.
FoI inquiries have brought to light the fact that its consultants did, years ago, tell SEPA that ‘the highest reading recorded at Dalgety Bay was still less than two-thirds that found in a typical Aberdeen street’.
Everywhere has natural radiation. A square mile of earth at Dalgety Bay will contain three tonnes of uranium and six tonnes of thorium and one gram of natural radium because that is what every average square mile on the planet contains. By comparison, the possible presence of less than a gram of water-soluble paint, only a small fraction of which was actually radium, from the figures on the dials of a few aircraft 66 years ago is immeasurably small. Indeed SEPA has, despite its claims, been wholly unable to find any trace of it.
Beyond that there is no evidence whatsoever that radiation, up to well beyond the higher rates found in Aberdeenshire, causes any harm whatsoever; indeed the balance of scientific evidence strongly supports the view that such levels are beneficial to health.
It is disgraceful that the local people are being frightened and may be permanently deprived of their beach to promote what anybody scientifically literate in SEPA must know to be a false, though newsworthy, scare.
Neil Craig
A Robin Hook tax
would be immensely
popular. Let them pay up
Andrew Hook
Why on earth is our coalition government so opposed to the introduction of a Tobin or ‘Robin Hood’ tax on transactions made in the world of high finance? Not of course that Cameron, Osborne and Cable are honest enough to admit that they are. Oh no, they say, we’re all in favour of such a tax at a global level. But anything less than global – across Europe, say? No, no, no – quite out of the question. So we are invited to believe that they are in favour of the tax – as long as no serious attempt is made to introduce it.
Why do I find such a position so surprising? Not because of its typical disingenuousness, but rather because if ever there was a tax that seems fair, reasonable, and in accord with natural justice, this is it. What would the imposition of a Tobin tax actually mean? It would mean that a tax amounting to 0.01% of their value would be paid on financial dealings within the City – the buying and selling of stocks, bonds, securities, derivatives, etc, and all the activities of investment banks and hedge funds
Every time a high-flying dealer or trader pressed that button on his computer in Canary Wharf, and sent however many pounds flashing around the world, the taxpayer would get 0.01% of the total involved.
The financial market, that is, would at last be seen to be contributing something to alleviate the damage it caused by its reckless and irresponsible behaviour in the years leading up to the crisis of 2008.
Why on earth shouldn’t the City pay up? Without government intervention – meaning the use of vast amounts of taxpayers’ money – Canary Wharf would have fallen into the Thames. But what in fact has happened since 2008? Politicians of every persuasion have talked endlessly about how steps are being taken to ensure that casino banking and the kind of financial free-for-all that accompanied it are things of the past. Yet as time passes, nothing seems to change. Bankers still walk away with their extraordinary bonuses. CEOs and other top executives in major companies are awarded ever more stratospheric salaries. The rich get richer while the other 99% of us get poorer.
Given this scenario, who can doubt that the introduction of some form of this ‘Robin Hood’ tax would be immensely popular? In a situation where we seem to be teetering on the brink of a return to recession – if not to a 1930s-style depression – some degree of financial reparation from those largely responsible for the crisis we are in is not a lot to ask for. (Not that I’m suggesting that this tax should necessarily be used for deficit reduction alone.) So I repeat my question: what have our leaders got against Robin Hood?
Well, George Osborne tells us – presumably with a straight face – that a 0.01% tax on financial transactions would be a ‘bullet aimed at the heart of London’. His backer, ex-prime minister John Major, uploads the weapon image by suggesting that the tax would be akin to directing a ‘heat-seeking missile at the City of London’. What fatuous hyperbole. They want us to believe that the fact the tax would raise more money in London than in any other European city proves it is unfair. More nonsense. As people like Osborne and Major are constantly boasting, London is one of the financial capitals of the world. More transactions inevitably mean more tax revenue.
The real reasons for the Cameron/Osborne rejection of the tax surely lie elsewhere. One of them undoubtedly relates to the composition of today’s Tory Party in the House of Commons. Eurosceptics rule – and Mr Cameron knows it. In his recent Mansion House speech he had to make it clear whose side he was on – so he chose to identify himself with the sceptical majority. The introduction of a Tobin tax in the eurozone is now strongly backed by both Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy. So the issue has become a European one. For most Tories now there could be no better reason for saying no. And their leader will not dare to disagree.
Finally there is a still more powerful reason why our leaders will remain on the side of the sheriff of Nottingham rather than supporting Robin Hood. The audience listening to the Mansion House speech was full of sheriffs. They accept no responsibility for past mistakes, falling living standards, growing unemployment, the widening gap between rich and poor, or any of the other ills our country is experiencing. A tax on the City? No chance.
The Tory Party supporters with the deepest pockets expect to get value for their money – not a new tax. If the chancellor of the exchequer talks about tax in his forthcoming autumn statement it will not be about Robin Hood. Rather the chances are it will be about a promise to abolish as soon as possible the 50% income tax level the sheriffs currently are paying. Why? Because the City rules, okay?
Andrew Hook is a former professor of English literature at
Glasgow University
