Scot Trots

 When someone first encounters the Socialist Party of Great Britain, a common reaction is to consider us as just another left-wing organisation. But probe deeper and you will find that our political position is very different from that of the Scottish Socialist Party or Sheridan's Solidarity.We are not a part of this "Left".  The first difference is the kind of society we wish to see established. Our aim is quite clear and uncompromising - a society without wages, money, countries or governments.We are opposed to measures which tinker with and attempt to reform capitalism with palliatives. Because of this the Socialist Party is accused of "splitting the Left". It is a "Leftist" tactic to hypocritically ask workers to vote for a "workers'" party to get reforms which they know they cannot obtain, on the parliamentary road which they dont support, to aspire to a "socialism", which is not socialism. The Socialist Party is opposed to such trickery of workers and this cynical political opportunism. Simply, the "Left" are not socialists. Far from splitting the "Left", we oppose the "Left" for its political cowardice, (being unable or unwilling to describe socialism to workers and nail their true colours to the socialist mast), of opportunism, (interference in workers struggles and grass-roots movements to recruit and subvert them to their cause), and for its pretensions, (of assuming to know what socialism is, and presenting itself as a leadership towards it).

The Scottish "Socialist" Party despite its name, does not stand for socialism but is a left-wing nationalist - a Tartan Trotskyist - party. The SSP is lucky that there isn’t a political equivalent of the Trades Description Act or they could be prosecuted for fraudulently describing what they are trying to sell as “socialism”.

When miners were chattel slaves and not wage slaves

A system of servitude once existed in Scotland, sanctioned by the practice of two centuries, by virtue of which colliers and their families were fixed to the soil almost as effectually as if they had been bought in the slave-market of New Orleans or born in the hut of a negro on some Virginian plantation. It was not a relic of the social system of the Middle Ages, but was the result of express enactment by the Scottish Parliament.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, coal miners in Scotland, and their families, were bound to the colliery in which they worked and the service of its owner.  This bondage was set into law by an Act of Parliament in 1606, which ordained that "no person should fee, hire or conduce and salters, colliers or coal bearers without a written authority from the master whom they had last served". The cruel edict reduced the Scottish collier to the position of a serf or a slave. By that Act, workmen in mines, whether miners, pickmen, winding-men, firemen, or in any other service of the mine, were prohibited from leaving that service either in hope of greater gain or of greater ease, or for any other reason, without the consent of the coal-owner, or of the Sheriff of the County; and any one receiving a runaway into his service and refusing to return him within twenty-four hours was to be fined one hundred pounds Scots. A collier lacking such written authority could be "reclaimed" by his former master "within a year and a day".  If the new master did not surrender the collier, he could be fined and the collier who deserted was considered to be a thief and punished accordingly.  The Act also gave the coal owners and masters the powers to  to apprehend "vagabonds and sturdy beggars" and put them to work in the mines.  A further Act of 1641 extended those enslaved to include other workers in the mines and forced the colliers to work six days a week. The Habeas Corpus Act of Scotland, in 1701, which declared that "the imprisonment of persons without expressing the reasons thereof, and delaying to put them to trial is contrary to law"; and that "no person shall hereafter be imprisoned for custody in order to take his trial for any crime or offence without a warrant or writ expressing the particular cause for which he is imprisoned" specifically stated "that this present Act is in no way to be extended to colliers and salters."

In the early centuries of our country's history, while yet the forests were extensive and wood abundant, there was little need for coal. The early coal-workings were of a superficial character, being chiefly of the nature of quarries; indeed, the primary meaning of the word heugh - the name given in past times to a coal-pit - is a steep bank or glen. The labourers on the coal-producing estates, assisted by the members of their families, performed the work when it suited their convenience. Such was the state of the coal-mining population in the sixteenth century, when the country was awakening to a sense of its commercial capabilities. There was a rise of an extensive trade with foreign countries, leading to the wider development of existing coal-works, and the opening up of new fields to meet the demand. The owners of new coal-works, having no trained colliers on their own estates, sought them at established collieries, and induced them by means of gifts and promises of higher wages to leave their employment. This was naturally resented by their masters, who had difficulty in getting sufficient workers for their own pits. The aggrieved coal-owners made application to Parliament to put a stop to the practice. Primarily designed to prevent desertions, the Act authorized a coal-owner to retain his colliers as long as he had work for them. From the fact that many collieries were then in constant operation, and that some have worked continuously to the present day, it is apparent that the colliers attached to works of a permanent character were bound for life, and from generation to generation. And even in the case of collieries where work was not continuous, the worker found that he could not oblige his master to give him a testimonial on leaving, and that he was liable to be recalled as soon as work was resumed. Indeed, it appears to have been the rule for masters to withhold a testimonial, in order that they might the more freely reclaim when need arose. James Gray of Dalmarnock gave up a coal-work and allowed his colliers to go where they pleased, but took the precaution to reclaim them every year in order to preserve his right to them if he should set up his colliery again.  It was customary also for the parents of a child to receive a gift from the master at the birth or baptism of the bairn in token of the child's being bound along with the parents.

For the first hundred years after the passing of the Act of 1606, it seems to have been the general belief of both masters and men that if a deserting collier succeeded in evading pursuit, by going over to England, or keeping in hiding elsewhere, for a year and a day, he was then at liberty to work where he chose. This was deemed a grievance by the coal-owners, and they sought to have an Act passed in the year 1700 making their title effectual and not subject to lapse if they, within a year and a day of desertion, cited the fugitive at the market cross of the chief burgh of the shire in which he had his residence. The Act was not passed, for what reason does not clearly appear, but decisions of the Court of Session in 1708 and later had the effect of giving the masters what they desired in this particular. The Lords of Session found that colliers could not be hired without a testimonial from their former master, and that Sir Thomas, having now a going coal-work, might well reclaim them; and, although away several years from him.

The system could not survive the industrial revolution that the country underwent consequent on the development of the use of steam.The process of emancipation began with an Act of Parliament of 1775 which freed the colliers in age-groups - those under 21 and between 35 and 44 were to be freed in 7 years, those between 21 and 34 were to be freed in 10 years and those over 45 were to be freed in 3 years.  The liberation of the father freed the family.  However, gaining freedom required a formal legal application before a Sheriff and a great many colliers continued to be bound until 1799 when an Act was passed that all colliers in Scotland were "to be free from their servitude".

http://www.scottishmining.co.uk/8.html

Keeping up with the Jones and suicide

It turns out trying to keep up with the Joneses can lead to your own death.

The more money your neighbors make, the more likely you are to take your own life. These findings come from a new paper published at the San Francisco Federal Reserve titled “Relative Status and Well-Being: Evidence from U.S. Suicide Deaths.” According to the results, your risk of suicide increases by 4.5 percent if your own paycheck is less than 10 percent of your county’s average income.

When looking at income levels and increased risk of suicide, Fed researchers found that $34,000 is the tipping point for dramatic increases in rates of suicide. Those who earn less than $34,000 see an increased risk of suicide of about 43 to 50 percent. Meanwhile, those with incomes between $34,000 and $102,000 increase their risk of suicide by only 10 percent. It’s not surprising to hear that those who are unemployed or unable to work due to disability face higher rates of suicide. Those who are unemployed increase their risk of suicide by 72 percent.

When considering the nation as a whole, low-income individuals tend to have a higher risk of suicide. This would lead you to believe that low-income counties have a higher risk of suicide, yet the Fed study shows the opposite. Since high-income counties tend to have larger disparities in income, wealthier counties—not poorer—often see an increased risk of suicide when factoring income of victims relative to their peers. Another way to think of it may be the more you compare your wealth to your neighbors, the harder it is to feel content with what you have.

Marx long ago wrote that "A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain."

One World

 Salmond says that devolution has failed to solve the problems facing people in Scotland and that an independent Scotland is the only framework within which these problems can be solved. The SNP argues that the problems facing workers in Scotland are due to"Westminster rule". If only there was an independent Scotland, they say, separate from the rest of Britain, then there would be full employment, higher wages, job security, better state benefits, a healthy health service and all the other things politicians promise at election times.

 Of course, devolution has failed. But that's because people's problems in Scotland were never caused by a lack of devolution in the first place. They were, and still are, caused by capitalism as the system of class ownership and production for profit. This is why independence is no solution either. As capitalism would continue in an independent Scotland, so would the problems. These problems are not caused by the form of government, and any government of an independent Scotland would still be compelled by the economic laws of capitalism to put profits before people, just as UK governments have been. An independent Scottish government would still have to operate within the constraints of the world capitalist system. It would still have to ensure that goods produced in Scotland were competitive on world markets and that capitalists investing in Scotland were allowed to make the same level of profits as they could in other countries. In other words, it would still be subject to the same economic pressures as the existing London-based government to promote profits and restrict wages and benefits. As if Ireland,which broke away from the United Kingdom in 1922 been any different. Since it is this class-divided, profit-motivated society that is the cause of the problems workers face in Scotland, as in England and in the rest of the world, so these problems will continue, regardless of whether Scotland separates from or remains part of the United Kingdom.

Independence would be a purely political constitutional change which would leave the basic economic structure of society unchanged. There would still be a privileged class owning and controlling the means of production with the rest having to work for them for a living. Just as now. Independence for Scotland therefore is a myth put about by the Scottish National Party, which further confuses the Scottish section of the working class and blinds them from the real struggle - the class struggle .

Neither London nor Edinburgh, but World Socialism!
Workers of the World unite for Socialism!

Fact of the Day

The abominable statistic that one in eight people, or 12.5 per cent of the world’s population, is chronically undernourished today according to the latest State of Food Insecurity (SOFI) report is made all the more damning because mass hunger is a man-made phenomenon. Hunger and starvation have been caused not by shortfalls in food production but rather by distortions in commodity markets, deficiencies in distribution and political inaction.

They've been trumped, too

The story of Donald Trump's golf course development in Scotland was shown on BBC2 on Sunday - You've Been Trumped. He had "tremendous support from environmental groups," said Trump. Local planning was denied by the council on the grounds that it interfered with a Site of Special Scientific Interest and was opposed by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Scottish Natural Heritage, World Wildlife Fund and the RSPB. So much for Trump's truth.

Of America's 25 largest cities, New York is now the most unequal. The median income for the bottom 20% last year was less than $9,000, while the top one percent of New Yorkers has an average annual income of $2.2 million.  One in five residents of the Bronx is living in poverty, and the borough is New York City’s poorest. In a city where economic inequality rivals that of a third-world country New York City have just awarded Donald Trump -- yes, that Donald Trump of Aberdeen golf course fame -- the right to run a golf course in the Bronx which taxpayers are spending at least $97 million to build in what seems to amounts to a public subsidy for a luxury golf course. Trump has signed a 20 year deal to run and operate the Ferry Point Park Golf Course smack in the middle of New York City. It is a former garbage dump.

Trump's firm will not be held responsible to pay anything to the city for the first four years of operation. Upon the fifth year, Trump will only have to provide the city a minimum of $300,000 or revenue equivalent to 7 percent of gross receipts. And by year 16, he pays just 10 percent, or $420,000, to the city. The 20-year deal requires Trump to finance a $10 million proposed clubhouse for the Ferry Points golf course, while city tax dollars pay up $97 million. Last year, Trump's net worth was reported to be $7 billion. As for it being a "public" golf course, the deal allows Trump to use the course privately for a full day, as long as the parks department okays it. Fees are also expected to be as much as $125, almost three times the price required by nearby golf courses. Many low-income residents living in housing projects northeast of the site say golf is too expensive a sport for them to take up and that they would be better off with a larger community park. However, homeowners who invested in gated riverfront communities southeast of the site, in anticipation of property values skyrocketing, desperately want the course completed. One in five residents of the Bronx is living in poverty, and the borough is New York City’s poorest

A Bleak Picture

Some 24,000 families across Scotland are facing "severe disadvantage", according to research. Glasgow was the worst affected area, with one in ten families severely disadvantaged - three times the national average. Followed by South and North Lanarkshire (7% and 5% of families respectively) and Fife (5%) as having the highest proportions of severely disadvantaged families.

Louise Bazalgette, author of the report,  said it went beyond a "simplistic understanding of disadvantage" by recognising that hardship is about more than just low income. "It provides insight into the struggle thousands of families across Scotland go through on a daily basis coping with poverty, worklessness and poor health" 

 Paul Moore, chief executive of the Quarriers charity, said: "This research paints a truly bleak picture of what life is like for thousands of families across Scotland who experience multi-disadvantage every day"

No one is forgotten and nothing is forgotten

A few hundred yards from where missionary David Livingstone was born, stood five pits run by William Dixon Ltd. Together they produced hundreds of thousands of tons of coal and made wealthy men of the mine owners. In 1871, the first two pits were sunk in High Blantyre and by 1876 there were 8 pits in production in the area. The demand for an increased labour force was high, and there was reluctance among the local mill and farm workers to work in the new mines. This labour force was found principally in Irish emigrants who were refugees from the suffering and deprivation caused by the potato famine in Ireland (and later many Lithuanians both of whom the coalmasters exploited to full advantage, particularly in times of industrial unrest).  Blantyre was at this time; "a district of pits, engine houses, smoke and grime" and led to the nickname "Dirty Auld Blantyre". The miners and their families carried out back-breaking work for little more than a pittance and were housed in cramped tied cottages. The High Blantyre pits were known locally as "The Fiery Mine" because of the heavy presence of a gas called firedamp, which consisted chiefly of methane.

The Blantyre mining disaster, on  22 October 1877, in Blantyre, Scotland, was and remains Scotland’s worst mining accident. Pits No. 2 and No. 3 of William Dixon's Blantyre Colliery were the site of an explosion which killed 207 miners, the youngest being a boy of 11. The accident left 92 widows and 250 fatherless children.

Repeated complaints about the working conditions at High Blantyre had been ignored. In fact, a year before, Blantyre miners had been so fearful for their safety in the mines that, when Dixon's refused them a wage rise to compensate, they went on strike and were immediately sacked. They and their families were evicted from their homes, with police officers using clubs on hand if necessary. Just two months before in Dixon's number 2 pit,  Joe McInulty had died of severe burns after an explosion of "firedamp" which had also injured his two younger brothers Robert and Andrew, leaving them also badly burnt. Despite this tragic occurrence and the concerns of the miners themselves, Dixon's pits were not considered by the management to be particularly dangerous, all the pits in this area were subject to "firedamp" and it was accepted as being part of everyday mining life. The mine was known to be very gassy but complaints by miners a few days before the disaster were fobbed off by the foreman, Joseph Gilmour. He told the miners 'There'll not be a man fall in this pit, I'll guarantee that'.

Six months after the accident, Dixon's raised summonses against 34 widows whose husbands had been killed and who had not left the tied cottages which they and their husbands had rented from the mining company. The Sheriff stated that it was out of kindness that the company had allowed them to remain in their houses for so long. One widow claimed that they had a cruel way of showing their kindness. They were evicted two weeks later, on 28 May 1878. No-one knows what became of these unfortunate widows and their children. In all probability they had to seek accommodation in the Poor House. The ejection of the Blantyre widows was a disgraceful end to the tragic story of the Blantyre explosion.

On 5th March 1878 at Dixon's No. 3 pit six men were killed in a cage accident.

On 2 July 1879, there was a second explosion at Dixon's Pit No. 1, with the loss of 28 lives.

 THE BLANTYRE EXPLOSION

By Clyde's bonny banks where I sadly did wander
Among the pit heaps as evening drew nigh,
I spied a young woman all dressed in deep mourning,
A-weeping and wailing with many a sigh.

I stepped up beside her and thus I addressed her:
"Pray tell me the cause of your trouble and pain." Weeping and sighing, at last she made answer;
"Johnny Murphy, kind sir, was my true lover's name.

"Twenty-one years of age, full of youth and good looking, To work down the mines of High Blantyre he came,
The wedding was fixed, all the guests were invited
That calm summer evening young Johnny was slain.

The explosion was heard, all the women and children With pale anxious faces they haste to the mine.
When the truth was made known, the hills rang with their mourning,
Two-hundred-and-ten young miners were slain.

Now husbands and wives and sweethearts and brothers, That Blantyre explosion they'll never forget;
And all you young miners that hear my sad story,
Shed a tear for the victims who're laid to their rest. 



The list of victims

The “nonsense” of nationalism

"The nationality of the toilers is neither French nor English nor German; it is toil, free slavery, sale of the self. His government is neither French nor English nor German; it is Capital. His native air is neither French nor German nor English; it is the air of the factory. The land which belongs to him is neither French nor English nor German; it is a few feet under the ground."-- Karl Marx  Notes on Friedrich List

Nationalists love the soil which makes their graves. The working class has often been, for Marx, beguiled by nationalism, organised religion, and other distractions. These ideological devices help to keep people from realising that it is they who produce wealth. Socialism is a theory that stands for a stateless society. On the other hand, nationalism stands for a state or nation. Nationalism means the development of a particular nation. For nationalists, state or nation is the primary importance. However, for communist, the whole class around the whole world is a single entity. It is the community that prevails over others in communism whereas in nationalism, it is the national spirit that prevails over other thoughts. In nationalism, there is a belief that one nation is superior to other nations. Moreover, the citizens of a country are more valued than the citizens of other countries. This belief does not hold in communism. For the communists, community stands above all. Unlike the nationalists, the communists think globally. Workers' real interests and loyalties lie in supporting the efforts of workers worldwide in the class struggle; in supporting all workers' efforts to resist their exploiters and defeat their exploiters through the establishment of socialism. It means rejecting nationalism and the efforts of ruling-class nation-states to pit workers against each other in economic competition or set them at each others' throats in war. It means holding up international working-class solidarity in opposition to ruling-class nationalism.

Those who create wealth are the working class and in socialism workers will collectively manage society for the benefit of society as a whole on a planned basis for human need and not for profit. Without the profit motive and without the capitalist class, there is no need for wages, racism, sexism and war. There is more than enough to provide everyone with a decent life, to restore the environment which is currently being destroyed by capitalism and use all the modern means of production to reduce the burden of labouring for surplus labour value for the benefit of the ruling class. Nationalism is a fraud whereby would-be rulers ‘self-determine’ to impose their vision of nationhood on an entire community. Nationalism is an ideology of separation, of hatred for the ‘other.’ It is a creed of violence and war and oppression. And it has absolutely nothing to offer the world’s oppressed. What is necessary is to develop human solidarity and mutual aid. Nationalism is today one of the most dangerous hindrances to social liberation.

There are some on the Left who believe that whatever the nature of the SNP a vote for ‘independence’ will somehow weaken the British state. This misunderstands the nature of power and where it lies. There is no reason to believe that in an independent Scotland striving for a socialist society will be any easier or that will see a resurgence in the class struggle. Would an independent Scotland be any different for workers who would still be economically and socially powerless?

James Connolly before he subordinated working class independence to Irish independence asked what would be the difference in practice if the unemployed were rounded up for the "to the tune of 'St. Patrick's Day'" and the bailiffs wore wear "green uniforms and the Harp without the Crown, and the warrant turning you out on the road will be stamped with the arms of the Irish Republic...Whoop it up for liberty! "?  ("Socialism Made Easy,")

Starvation - side by side plenty

Rising food prices during 2010-11 may have pushed three million Bangladeshis into poverty, and kept eight million Indians from getting out of poverty bracket, finds a UN report. In Asia and Pacific region, food inflation pushed nearly four million people into poverty.

 Increasing cost of fertilizers, competition for arable land, water resource and high oil prices are all responsible for the spike. Commodity market speculation has also been a growing factor behind high and volatile commodity prices. 65% of the household income of poor across the world is spent on food.  In Bangladesh and India, more than 40% children are undernourished.

 The report claims that at national level, "hungry population live side-by-side with people who have easy access to food." It explains that the root cause of hunger across the sub-region is not lack of food rather the socio-economic and social distribution is responsible for this.

Protesting is just the start

Socialist Courier is cheered that our class is once again on the move, marching to protect its interests and talking about its future. But optimism sometimes needs to give way to gloomy realism.

The world is dominated by profit, and that a relatively small number of people, the owners and employers, benefit in terms of wealth and power. As this economic crisis deepens at home and aboard, its human toll becomes even more evident. Recovery will only come when the rate of profit is restored. Which employers are actively seeking to bring about by imposing wage freezes, even wage cuts, watering down pension schemes, and anything else they can think of to reduce their labour costs. Thousands are facing job losses or being offered an enforced shorter working week as this malignant disease spreads. Workers have been warned to brace themselves for even worse to come. All those on  benefits' will be affected, as the aim is to force people on out-of-work benefits into low paid jobs or doing  community work", previously only undertaken by people ordered so by courts for criminal convictions. Incapacity claimants face harrowing questioning and ever more frequent tests from someone other than their own GP. The government have dressed up the proposals as part of an austerity programme. We are talking about death by a thousand cuts.

The short-term well-being of workers is determined by the degree to which they submit and co-operate in the intensification of their own working conditions. Labour power is a marketable commodity that causes workers to globally compete for jobs; this carries the tacit acceptance that if greater profit can be made elsewhere then production will be switched to an alternative location. This inevitably sets worker against worker in a downward scramble to offer the most ‘attractive’ conditions conducive to investment and future profitability. In these circumstances the working class should not be surprised when they become the ‘collateral damage’, the unfortunate but necessary casualties of a ‘war’ in pursuit of profit. The sectional interests of the owners and shareholders must always take precedence over the interests of workers. We are facing the cold reality of the simple fact that our class enemies hold state power, and will use it, ruthlessly to protect their interests. Which is why the Socialist Party argues for the prime importance of taking state power out of their hands. For socialists the rule of government can never be democratic. Governments implement policies for which no one voted, or would vote for. No one voted to cut care services for the old and the disabled. No one voted to close hospital departments. People getting what they didn’t vote for shows that capitalism is incompatible with democracy as an expression of “the people’s will”. Governments work for a privileged section of society. They make the laws which protect the property rights of a minority who own and control natural resources, industry, manufacture and transport. These are the means of life on which we all depend but most of us have no say in how they are used.

 Workers should fight back. The unions today may appear weak yet they still remain an important social movement. The activities of trade unions are important to defend the interests of workers against the bosses but they should also be encouraging the spread of ideas that would end the capitalist economic system. If you accept the logic of capitalism, you play by its rules.  Ask yourself this: Why should we have to fight the same battles over and over again? The crisis has shifted the balance of forces in favour of employers. Even under the best of circumstances unions have to work hard to get wages to go up but with the recession unions can only try to put a brake on the downward slide and try to stop things getting worse. Is this the only future? Yes, within the context of the capitalist system, it is. But capitalism is not the only possible way of organising the production and distribution of the things we need. Without a decent anti-capitalist argument, and an idea of what we are fighting for, we¹ve lost before we’ve begun.

Socialists argue that our current economic system is fundamentally undemocratic because those that produce all of the wealth have no say in how it is put to use, and those that control most of the wealth had nothing to do with creating it. Workers have little control over their future and must decide whether life under capitalism is really the future they want. Workers can and should organise to end capitalism which forces them to work for wages to live. We need to get rid of the master, take the means of making a living under our collective ownership and control, and organise our own lives, democratically. We should organise a system based on producing the things we need simply because we need them and not to make a profit. Production for use, not production for profit. We need socialism, the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

Capitalism drives us mental

Scots are suffering more mental health problems because of the economic downturn, according to the largest ever study on the subject. Living in the most deprived areas of Scotland places people at a higher risk of poor mental health, researchers concluded.

A report published by NHS Health Scotland today examines more than 50 indicators which help make up a picture of the nation's mental health, covering factors such as working life and community, chronic physical health problems and misuse of alcohol or drugs. 42 indicated a direct link between greater socio-economic disadvantage and a poorer state of mental health. Only two were more prevalent in better-off areas than poor areas – drinking outside the recommended limits and overwork. Alcohol intake is excessive across the classes, but it causes more health problems in deprived areas.

Andrew Fraser, director of Public Health Science said problems were likely to worsen in a context of austerity. He added: "We can reliably expect these indicators to worsen if deprivation and inequality widen."

Oxfam warn about land grab

The global rush for international companies to grab lands for private sector investments in most Southeast Asian countries has put their poorest people at high risks of hunger in its latest report, Oxfam, warned. 

In developing countries in Asia, some 945 million are estimated to be living in absolute poverty.

The irony couldn’t be sharper and more painful in Asia where poor people who grow food for a living comprise the poorest segments of the economy and are scarcely able to eat.  In many countries, 80% of the population are farmers, as are 80% of the chronically hungry.

Norly Grace Mercado, Oxfam’s East Asia regional spokesperson said that “Global land grabs and, in particular, the upsurge of areas devoted to bio-fuel production have sent food prices in a tizzy, making it harder for poor people to buy affordable food,”

 227 million hectares of land, including coastal land, in developing countries have been sold or leased since 2001, mostly to international investors.

Nobel Prize winner professor Amartya Sen was instrumental in pointing out that food security was not just about producing more food, but ensuring the needy had access to it. There can be plenty of food in shops, as was true of the famines in Ireland in the 19th century and West Bengal in the 1940s, but if poor people cannot afford to buy that food, they will go hungry.

Quote of the Day

"There’s no place for nationalism in the world of capitalism. Money has no flag, no boundaries and no musical anthem."

Bangkok Post

The Chinese rich get richer

According to a recent report from China's Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, astronomical increases in salaries in several domestic industries, especially among high-level corporate executives, have widened the gap between the rich and the poor.

Ma Mingzhe, the general manager of Ping An Group, for example. In 2007, his annual income reached 66.16 million yuan ($10.58 million); 2,751 times higher than the average yearly salary of a white collar worker in China at that time and 4,553 times more than the average migrant worker.

In a poll 81% of Chinese agree with the statement the “rich just get richer while the poor get poorer,”

26 richest people of all time’:

1. Mansa Musa I, (Ruler of Malian Empire, 1280-1331) $400 billion
2. Rothschild Family (banking dynasty, 1740- ) $350 billion
3. John D Rockefeller (industrialist, 1839-1937) $340 billion
4. Andrew Carnegie (industrialist, 1835-1919) $310 billion
5. Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (last Emperor of Russia, 1868-1918) $300 billion
6. Osman Ali Khan, Asaf Jah VII (last ruler of Hyderabad, 1886-1967) $236 billion
7. William the Conqueror (King of England, 1028-1087) $229.5 billion
8. Muammar Gaddafi (former Libyan leader, 1942-2011) $200 billion
9. Henry Ford (Ford Motor Company founder, 1863-1947) $199 billion
10. Cornelius Vanderbilt (industrialist, 1794-1877) $185 billion
11. Alan Rufus (Fighting companion of William the Conqueror, 1040-1093) $178.65 billion
12. Bill Gates (Founder of Microsoft, 1955- ) $136 billion
13. William de Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey (Norman nobleman, ??-1088) $146.13 billion
14. John Jacob Astor (businessman, 1864-1912) $121 billion
15. Richard Fitzalan, 10th Earl of Arundel (English nobleman, 1306-1376) £118.6 billion
16. John of Gaunt (son of Edward III, 1330-1399) £110 billion
17. Stephen Girard (shipping and banking mogul, 1750-1831) $105 billion
18. Alexander Turney Stewart (entrepreneur, 1803-1876) $90 billion
19. Henry, 1st Duke of Lancaster (English noble, 1310-1361) $85.1 billion
20. Friedrich Weyerhaeuser (timber mogul, 1834-1914) $80 billion
21. Jay Gould (railroad tycoon, 1836-1892) $71 billion
22. Carlos Slim (business magnate, 1940- ) $68 billion
23. Stephen Van Rensselaer (land owner, 1764- 1839) $68 billion
24. Marshall Field (Marshall Field & Company founder, 1834-1906) $66 billion
25. Sam Walton (Walmart founder, 1918-1992) $65billion
26. Warren Buffett (investor, 1930- ) $64billion

Big Bad Pharma

Doctors generally want to do the best for their patients, but they can't know what that is if half of the data on clinical trials of drugs is missing and some of the rest is distorted.

New drugs are tested by the companies that make them, often in trials designed to make the drug look good, which are then written up and published in medical journals. Unless, that is, the company doesn't like the result of the trial (maybe it shows the drug not working or having severe side-effects), in which case this result might be hidden. The vital comparison may be made against a placebo or against unusually low or abnormally high doses of the drug – to ensure suitable conclusions as to efficacy and the severity of side-effects. It's no surprise that most published trials funded by drug companies show positive results.

 Companies pay doctors to extol the virtues of their drugs on the conference circuit (spelling out the sources of information they want doctors to use) and fund patient groups to lobby regulators to approve new drugs. Academic journals (I work for one, the BMJ) are sent research papers and comment pieces that may not always be written by the academics listed as the authors. If a journal does decide to publish a paper showing the benefits of a drug, it can be rewarded by the company which made it, who might buy up hundreds of thousands worth of reprints (glossy versions of the published paper) to distribute to doctors to encourage them to prescribe the drug.

Pharmaceutical companies are not charities. They exist to make and sell drugs and to make a profit for their shareholders.  Some companies spend much more on marketing than they do on research and development. In America 24.4% of the sales dollar is spent on promotion versus 13.4% on research and development. They inflate the cost of developing new drugs – Ben Goldacre cites companies claiming that it costs £550m to bring a new drug to the market but says others put it at a quarter of that cost.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/oct/17/bad-pharma-ben-goldacre-review

Another fact of the day

 72 million people around the world had been driven from their homes by conflict, natural disasters or big development projects at the end of last year. Nearly 16.4 million had fled abroad and were officially classified as refugees, while 41.4 million more were living in their own country as "internally displaced persons"

http://news.yahoo.com/72-million-living-refugees-around-globe-2011-red-110248401.html

Independence?

1700 lay-offs confirmed as Hall's of Broxburn is closed by the Dutch parent company, Vion.

Foreign investors in Scotland employ over 600,000 staff and have a turnover of over £145 billion.

 In 2010, within manufacturing, foreign-owned companies accounted for 40.9% of Gross Value Added and 30.5% of employees. Within services, foreign-owned companies accounted for 17.8% of GVA and 13.3% of employees,(agriculture, the financial sector and some of the public sector. are not included in the statistics) The remainder being UK (excluding Scotland) owners

Fact of the Day

A recent report by the humanitarian aid and research organisation DARA, found that 400,000 deaths each year today are attributable to climate change, with air pollution causing another 1.4 million fatalities annually