Enter The Savior Of The UK

OK, I know – 4 years of living in the USA, my autocorrect does things in American, but my thought process and strategic insights still work the same way.

The conclusion I draw is that everything hinges on Nigel Farage. And this is why.

State Of Play:

The Conservatives.

Last year I wrote: “They are managerially incompetent, ill- disciplined, ideologically split without vision, fiscally illiterate, immoral and filled with ego-centric politicians, some of whom are emotionally damaged, politically incoherent, and deaf to all, other than the narrow sector of the Oxford debating society membership to which they still believe that they are part of.”

It seems I was being too kind. My suggestion was that they needed to recruit Michael Portillo or fracture beyond repair. They didn’t take my advice and are fractured beyond repair. The sight of Tory Prime Ministers slugging it out in front of a Supreme Court was unimaginable a decade ago.

Boris Johnson’s Conservatives are now a self-imposed minority Government, straddling the right and far-right and are Conservative in name only. The cynical strategy to capture hard Brexiteers in place forces erratic decisions and polarized positions on almost every issue.

Labour

As a former member for decades, I sincerely hope that The Labour Party is eviscerated at the next election. Racist, stupid, arrogant, immoral and incoherent. For Americans reading this, their Foreign Policy is all things anti-west. The Brexit policy is (for today at least) that they will negotiate a deal to leave…. then vote against it. This is a policy agenda inspired by both Monty Python and Karl Marx, implemented with the collegiate instincts of Stalin.

SNP

Scottish Nationalists, once seen as outsiders, have become a picture of moderation. Governing ineffectively but not controversially in Scotland. They only run in Scottish seats and should win most of them.

The Liberal Democrats

The traditional “third party” have faced a slow rebuilding having enabled the Conservative policy of austerity in coalition government. They have pivoted with a strong Remain in Europe policy, which is in direct conflict with the referendum result of 2016. They have slowly been syphoning off disaffected Labour and Tory MPs, but still hold under 20 Parliamentary seats.

The Democratic Unionists

Drive through the southern States of The USA and put on talk radio. That is The DUP.

Hail Farage!

Nigel Farage is a very British Trump. Cigarette and Beer in hand. Radio Talk show. Nigel has won multiple European Elections (run through proportionate voting rather than constituency based) with UKIP, and when that was taken over by a variety of crazies and racists, created The Brexit Party, which underneath Farage (who is a remarkably consistent and by all accounts, an adroit and generous person on an individual basis) has a simmering candidate base of crazies and racists, alongside a broad spectrum of anti-EU voters. His simple message attracts those from the conservative right and, like Trump, the working class left, many of whom have a decades old antipathy to the Conservatives and see Boris Johnson as an entitled fool and Corbyn and his mob as a bunch of self-righteous Trots.

A quick glance of the above offers an interesting dilemma on a national spectrum. The Conservatives have moved to the political Right. Labour to the radical Left. The Liberal Democrats distinctly establishment, albeit in an anti-democratic sense, ignoring the Brexit vote to leave the EU.

Without Farage, the landscape is a mess, with a likely slugfest between Boris and Corbyn to ensue in an election, with Boris and the Conservatives winning nationally, the Lib Dems picking up seats, but finishing second in a lot of places. The un representative evaluation talking to my peer group is better a hapless fool than a malevolent one. All this changes with Farage in the race.

He didn’t run in 2017.

2017-2019 Past Elections 

 

As we see, in 2017 the UK reverted to an effective 2 party election. The effect of the resulting stasis in Governing was seen in the 2019 European Election, when out of nowhere, a newly constituted Farage party topped the polls and disrupted the election.

I consider myself as a moderate center left Social Democrat, with a grounding in a sensible economic policy, rooted in reality, fairness, equality and meritocracy. A foreign policy that is ethical, but with a keen responsibility for need for liberal interventionism. I think that this is like most of the UK.

I am actively calling for Nigel Farage and his Brexit party to join the race in a national general election campaign. This may seem counter intuitive, but with the mainstream parties radicalized, the only way that they can be prevented from dominance is an even more radical voice chipping, and indeed, stripping away their support.

How It Works

 Jo Swinson issues a call to moderate Labour and Conservatives to leave their Parties and join a National Liberal Alliance, with Greens, sensible pragmatic voices, from Ken Clarke to Tom Watson, to John Major, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and a selection of disaffected Labour and Conservative MPs join the Alliance. They need to consider this, very seriously.  This movement away from the main parties disrupts their messaging and the Alliance becomes the de facto home for unity and allows the group to gain systemic support, not just in specific marginals.

The electoral picture will be 4 parties with c.25% of the national vote. With strategic positioning, this National Liberal Alliance, may push up to 40-50% in major remain constituencies. The Tories, Brexit and Labour thrashing it out in “leave constituencies”, thus allowing an Alliance vote coming through as the Brexit voice is split, and an Alliance party can win a majority.

But in order to see this win for the moderates, the country needs a Brexit Party to come in, even more radical that the incompetents and malevolents that we have driving the major parties.

If this doesn’t happen, there will be a Conservative landslide. Nigel, your country needs you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump 3:16 says, I Just Whipped Your Ass

If you get the headline, there is no introduction needed, if you don’t, let me explain.

Back in March, deep in Republican Primary season, I gave a message to all those that read my column; Donald Trump is following WWE Wrestler “Stone Cold” Steve Austin’s strategy.

https://oliverlovat.wordpress.com/2016/03/03/donald-trump-the-smackdown-strategy/

Quoting Wikipedia, Austin was “a disrespectful, beer-drinking antihero who routinely defied the establishment and his boss, company chairman Vince McMahon; this persona of Austin’s became the “poster boy” of the Attitude Era, a boom period in WWF business in the late 1990s and early 2000s and was one of the biggest factors in helping the WWF win the ratings war against their competition, World Championship Wrestling (WCW). Several prominent industry figures, including McMahon, have since declared Austin to be the biggest star in WWF/E history, while stressing that he surpassed the popularity of Hulk Hogan.”

He was neither a gifted wrestler or a great communicator, but he was one of the most supported personas in wrestling, despite being a heel, or “bad guy”. Confounding the management of the time, he would regularly get the crowd’s support against the face or “good guy” and the authority to which they represent.

So how does this lead to Trump?

It transpires that Trump was emulating Austin’s strategy two-fold.

1. Austin’s most vocal and passionate supporters were the WWE’s core fans in America’s heartlands; gain white, working class, typically non-college educated voters, and judging by the exit polls of last week he achieved this:

• 58% of white voted Trump
• 53% of over 45s voted Trump
• 51% of High School educated and 52% of some (but not college) education voted Trump
• 62% of Small city or rural Voted Trump
• 58% Protestant or other Christian
• 61% of Veterans

2. Austin was neither a heel or a face, but his “own guy”.

Donald Trump did not win the election as a Republican. He did not run in the Republican Primaries as a Republican, he ran as an Anti-Republican, and with the Republican brand, he ran as an anti-Establishment candidate. The voters are his, not the party’s.

“Like Steve Austin, he (Trump) has ridiculed his opponents in the crudest and most obvious ways to make them become irrelevant and small compared to him. With Cruz and Rubio, expect the same standard stereotyping as seen previously, and against Hillary Clinton a new wave of sexism and misogyny not seen in public debate for decades. 

And like Steve Austin, he has changed the Republican Party through insurgency; the traditional rules of politics do not apply. The voters are his and not the Party’s.

I can’t believe that nobody from the Democrats watched the WWE in the 1990s. There was a pattern that when “the Establishment” or the management objected to his behaviour, Austin’s support grew. When the WWE uncovered a talent, branded it the “next big thing” the fans resisted being told who to support.

The more Hilary was endorsed, especially by the shiny pop stars of the moment, the greater the antipathy towards her grew. This is a real insight into the voter psyche, the same as wrestling.

So well done, The Donald, you knocked out all the opponents and you have won the King of the Ring.

 What Happens Next?

The campaign was run like the build-up to a Wrestlemania, but now the main event is over and the belt passed, The Donald’s face said it all, he is now the President of the United States of America. The Commander in Chief of the world’s most powerful army. This is not a game anymore. This is Bigly (or Big League, as I am told is the full meaning).

Since I started this piece, there have been articles posted suggesting that Linda McMahon, the actual establishment figure that Austin rallied against is to join Trump’s Cabinet!

The one problem Steve Austin had was he found it difficult to appeal outside his core (but large) white USA audience, so while he was an undoubted megastar in WWE terms, he lacked the cultural crossover that a Hulk Hogan, Undertaker or The Rock managed to achieve. And this may be his ultimate problem.

Trump has successfully created this position where he challenges the establishment. Now he is the establishment, and it is a careful balance to maintain the level of managing anger against the other and making change.

There was chatter in the media this week of asking who could beat Donald Trump? Someone that is multi-ethnic, a good speaker, popular, handsome, thoughtful, politically engaged and articulate?

Who did the media suggest?  Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, the same guy who ended the reign of Steve Austin a decade ago. I kid you not.

Johnson said, “I wouldn’t rule it out. It would be a great opportunity to help people, so it’s possible. This past election shows that anything can happen.”

So, we conclude 2016 with the knowledge that, politics in the second decade of the 21st century is wrestling without the ring. There is a curious scent in the air.. who knows what’s cooking…

OL  NOV 16

The Jewish Trade Union: How the United Synagogue is Destroying Anglo-Jewry.

In Las Vegas, I have participated in more Jewish events and ceremonies in the past 18 months than I had in the past 18 years in the UK. Next month something remarkable, but yet unremarkable will happen. Like all the males (and none of the females) in my family, my daughter will be called up to read the Torah on her Bat Mitzvah. If we had not moved to the United States and joined the Conservative movement and stayed in the United Kingdom, this great event would not have happened, and there is one reason why; The United Synagogue is preventing modern Anglo-Jewry from embracing change that is going on throughout the Jewish world.

(Edit – To be clear, if I had been a member of a Reform or Conservative Synagogue in the UK or Israel, my daughter could have been called up to the Torah; it is just the Orthodox Communities that discriminate against women in matters of religious practice.)

I must add as a preamble, I mean no offence to the leadership or followers of the United Synagogue who may read this, both lay and spiritual. However, I feel that you are either misguided, or in taking the actions that you are, you doing are causing harm to wider Anglo-Jewry (and either don’t see it, or don’t care.)

 A very brief overview of Anglo-Jewry

For my non-Jewish friends reading this essay, there has been a documented Jewish presence in Britain since the 11^th Century, but the ‘recent’ phase of “Anglo-Jewry” began with Cromwell in 1656. Mass Jewish immigration to the UK was an outcome of persecution and economic migration from the turn of the 20^th Century to the Second World War. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of British history would appreciate the Jewish influence in British life; from fish and chips to Marks and Spencer, from Bud Flanagan to Alan Sugar, the Jewish influence in public life and culture has been unmatched by any other immigrant community. Britain has been good to the Jews, and the Jews have been good for Britain. The Jews of 1670 were different from 1870 and 1970 and there have been multiple types of Jews from merchants and traders who mingled with the highest of classes to destitute refugees, spending what they had to achieve passage to the shores of the UK.

The Institute for Jewish Policy Research (JPR) regularly reports on issues relating to the UK Jewish community and in 2010 they reported the composition of the UK Jewish community was as follows:

In a more recent study the JPR highlighted the following about Jews in Britain:

• 57% of respondents attend a Friday night meal most weeks;
• 49% frequently light candles at home on Friday night;
• Synagogue attendance is associated with type of affiliation, among other variables (such as gender, geography and so on). For example, over half (53%) of respondents who self-identify as ‘Orthodox’ attend synagogue, compared with a third (32%) of those who identify as ‘Traditional’ and just one in ten (11%) of those who are ‘Secular/Cultural’ Jews. Similarly, men are more likely to attend synagogue services weekly or more often than women.

What does it mean to be Jewish?

Most people see Judaism as a religion – it is. But Jewish identity is not religio-centric.

Today, there is an entire Jewish State where the Jews who go clubbing on a Friday night are as Jewish as those who study text from dawn to dusk. Everyone is entitled to live as Jewish and be as Jewish as they feel. There is no judgement placed in the Jewish State.

But this is different in the UK. The JPR undertook the study on Jewish identity today. Their findings are below, but it is worth noting their commentary:

“The most important beliefs are those associated with ethical and ethno-cultural themes. For example, the idea that ‘Strong moral and ethical behaviour’ is important to being Jewish is near universal (92%) and is the top item in this list.

And for me this is the contradiction. My Jewish values are strong. I consider myself ethical, moral and rational. I have a strong collective memory, I want the best for my society, my community and my family. All of the top 11 of the JPR’s list have core resonance, and this is why I am writing this piece. I am a proud Jew and a proud Zionist, the modern incarnation of the Jewish Nation.

 

Rabbi Mirvis (Chief Rabbi of The United Synagogue)

The United Synagogue – The Orthodox Jewish Trade Union

The United Synagogue (US) was founded in 1870 and is the home of mainstream Orthodox Jewry, perhaps what the Jewish community would once define as Traditional.

The US elects representatives, which in turn appoint the Chief Rabbi of the US, who is possibly the most visible Jewish religious figure in the UK.

To those outside, it is very much like a Trade Union. It serves its members, and seeks to find ways that those on the outside do not get the same rights as those who are inside.

Membership eligibility is based on genetics; those that are deemed to be halakhaly Jewish (by having a Jewish mother) are automatically eligible to be accepted as Jewish, or an expensive and time-consuming conversion process. This same policy in terms of admitting to the US’ schools has been determined racist by the UK Supreme court (R (E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009]) but still exists for membership of the United Synagogue as it is a religious organisation and doesn’t require state funding.

Like a Union, it has a hierarchy, some cliques and the leading members are motivated by a particular ideology and theology.

Theologically, the United Synagogue is a blend of traditional Orthodox Judaism, which is rejectionist of modern life, and Modern Orthodoxy, which seeks to synthesise modern scientific truths and traditional Jewish laws, and was advocated by the likes of Rabbi Hirsch and Rav Kook, the latter encompassing Zionism into the mix. The Orthodox Rabbinate has juggled with this for the past 30 years.

The US is a traditional, conservative movement. It is a broad church (from bearded scholars who speak with heavy accents to clean shaven people who visit synagogue once a year). It believes in unbending adherence to the interpretation of halakhah, which is where it differentiates with the Reform and Conservative movements.

In order not to mislead in any way, I quote:

The Word “halakhah” is usually translated as “Jewish Law,” although a more literal (and more appropriate) translation might be the “path that one walks.”

 Some non-Jews and non-observant Jews criticize the Legalistic aspect of Traditional Judaism, saying that it reduces the religion to a set of rituals devoid of spirituality. While there are certainly some Jews who observe halakhah in this way, that is not the intention of halakhah, and is not even the correct way to observe halakhah.

 Halakhah comes from three sources; from the Torah, from laws instituted by the Rabbis and from long standing customs. Halakhah from any of these sources can be referred to as a Mitzvah…..A mitzvah that arises from custom is referred to as a minhag. Mitzvot from all three of these sources are binding, thought there are differences in the way they are applied”

 What Orthodox Jews – and by extension, the United Synagogue – believe, is that halakhah is the set of laws in which you “should” live your life. If you do not obey these laws, you will not be fulfilling your legal responsibilities as a Jew.  One should keep Shabbat (that is no turning on lights, getting in a car, watching TV etc.), one should keep a kosher diet, so no McDonalds, KFC or ‘Treif’ of any kind and certainly no inappropriate contact (like sitting next to, touching, or even talking to) with those of the opposite sex, especially during the service of prayers.

As the most established and venerated religious organisation, the United Synagogue administers many of the political and social instruments of British Jewry that have evolved over time:

• The US runs the London Kashrut division of the Beth Din, which oversees restaurants and food manufacturing to ensure it meets the kosher standards that allows its members to be able to eat there based on the laws it advocates.
• It has a strong social and pastoral network that supports its members.

However, there are other rules:

• If you want your marriage to be recognised as a “Jewish” marriage in the UK, the couple must meet with a US representative and be married by a US affiliated Rabbi or representative. There is a fee for this.
• If you want to be buried in a Jewish cemetery (and for many people, near their deceased family) one needs to be a member of the US and pay their dues.
• If you are not born halakhaly Jewish the US will not recognise you or your children (if you are a female) unless you convert under a US framework or certain Orthodox conversions in other countries (but not all countries’ Orthodox conversions). This sees people accepted as Jewish in some countries and communities, such is Israel or in the USA, but non-Jewish in the eyes of the United Synagogue in the UK.
• Many traditional synagogues in the UK are United Synagogues. They follow a similar service led by a Rabbi or Cantor. The men and women are segregated and in many communities this is either by being on a different level or a physical separation barrier between the men and women, such as a net or sheet. Women cannot play any active role in a US service that men are active in, including reading from the Torah or taking the lead in prayer. In recent years the halakhah was challenged, and in fact some interpretations allow women to take on non-religious leadership roles within the community. (The halakhahic interpretations are still remarkably sexist in my view, e.g.: http://askrabbihassan.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/can-woman-be-president-of-synagogue.html)

So, You Don’t Want Their Rules, Then Don’t Join Their Club.

The correct and often heard response to my criticisms in the Jewish world is the statement above, one which I have some sympathy with. If one doesn’t like the rules, don’t join the club, but be aware, when you are out, non-members – including your children and in some cases your family, will be denied the rights that you have had.

However, despite this ultimatum, the evidence shows that much of the Jewish community has walked away from the club:

The graph above comes from the JPR. It highlights the changing affiliation of UK Jewry. 20 years ago I – like many of my peers would have come from a traditional background; the implicit meaning is that we belonged to the United Synagogue and did Jewish things. The JPR’s analysis is worth highlighting:

Examination of these data reveals a considerable amount of dynamism or ‘switching’. For example, whilst a quarter (26%) of the sample is currently Traditional, two out of five (40%) said they were raised that way, indicating considerable movement away from Traditional. The net loss amounts to over a third (34%) of the ‘Traditional by upbringing’ group. To some extent, this is the continuation of a pre-existing trend: JPR data from over a decade ago showed that while 37% of respondents were currently Traditional (in 2001/2002), over half (53%) said they had been brought up that way. In contrast to the Traditional group, the category which has gained the most ‘newcomers’ in the present survey is Secular/Cultural: the proportion that is currently Secular/Cultural (a quarter (24%) of the sample) represents an increase of well over half (63%) relative to the proportion with a Secular/Cultural upbringing. The loss of one in three formerly ‘Traditional’ adherents has broader significance .. In absolute terms, its loss is equivalent to 15% of the entire sample, but perhaps of greater significance, Traditional is the only category exhibiting any kind of upbringing-to-current decline. In other words, this switch away from Traditional is suggestive of a shakeout of the middle ground within the British Jewish community, since the category Traditional has customarily been seen as the placeholder for centrist or ‘middle-of-the-road’ Orthodox Judaism.

Let us analyse these numbers some more. Based on the 2011 Census which measured 263,346 Jews in the UK:

• 23,701 British Jews have become secular, despite having a non-secular upbringing.
• 36,868 no longer define themselves as traditional (as the JPR points out, United Synagogue affiliated)
• 6% of the United Synagogue “Members” have left the United Synagogue in their lifetime.

In other words – the United Synagogue has done a truly spectacular job of turning Traditional Jews and their members into Secular Jews, and on to other streams of Judaism.

Let me make this clear – I have no problems or issues with anyone belonging to any organisation they wish, expressing their faith, or praying to any God they wish to.

However, as a Jew with a passion for Judaism, I have personal objections to the way the United Synagogue operates and is damaging Jewish life and attitudes to Judaism – and it seems that 42% or 110,000 of British Jews may agree with me and share my concerns:

1. I do not wish to be a member of an organisation that denies my daughters the same rights that a son of mine could have.
2. The segregation of men and women for worship – for whatever reasons – is not acceptable.
3. Awarding participatory rights to people on the basis of maternal genetics is morally abhorrent, racist and illegal in every other walk of life.

Now these are personal issues I have and aware I am talking to a wall if trying to address these within the United Synagogue.

‘Modern’ concepts such as equality cannot be met by the US without a radical reinterpretation of the halakhah. The power structure and inequality is fundamental to the ideology of the US, which is neither brave nor visionary enough to seek to challenge these ‘orthodoxies’ without fracturing the organisation.

Even the United Synagogue’s own “man made” laws on burials and marriage, are tantamount to blackmail. You have to join the US, or they won’t give your children the right to communal infrastructure (which has evolved over generations, much of which was instituted by those who would be abhorred by the current US stance on many issues) or you the right to be buried near your parents. Yet, despite the punitive measures, tens of thousands of congregants have abandoned the US, such are their objections.

I deeply resented the policy positions of the US at the time of marriage 15 years ago and only acquiesced for the sake of family unity, however my position has hardened as I have aged.

“ But will your grandchildren be Jewish?”

“Will your grandchildren be Jewish?” the United Synagogue asks, with the implicit suggestion that the only way to guarantee this is to align with them.

Where the US was once the establishment that held Anglo-Jewry together by lack of alternative, today it seeks to preserve its position by a degree of incentive, but also blackmail, coercion and guilt.

By holding the legacy position as the beneficiary of said infrastructure, it forced Anglo-Jewry to be a community of livers, liars or leavers.

There are plenty of people who live by the principles of Orthodox Judaism – modern or traditional. That is their prerogative, but cannot do so as I cannot reconcile what I know and have evidenced and what I am told are key tenants of Judaism. I would ask them that if they would want “their” granddaughters to have the same rights as their grandsons?

In any society where a law is set, the society obeys the law or changes it. However, there is a problem here. Many (and probably most) Jews around the world do not accept the laws of halakhah as compatible with what we now know to be true, but in order to remain part of the ‘ United Synagogue community’, we either find laws to get around the laws we don’t like, or for those who do not want to live their life by Torah Judaism, must lie and break these laws.

In mainstream United Synagogue life, the overwhelming majority of the members just lie or break those laws, with the tacit acknowledgement of the institutions who turn a “blind eye”.

Across the land, Jews drive to synagogue, they go to football after the service, they watch TV. They lie. They lie to the Rabbi, to the community or their loved ones, yet, they choose to remain part of the United Synagogue or they lose their rights. From my experience, when we lie it causes guilt and doubt. I would not want my children to lie to me, or me to lie to my family, however to live in anyway secular or traditional and adhere to United Synagogue practices, we have become implicitly, mass liars. On a human level this makes me deeply uncomfortable that our “moral compass” is tacitly complicit in this.

Most Jews want to identify as Jewish. They just don’t want the lies, the bullying, the sexism and the racism of the United Synagogue. The US has failed Anglo-Jewry by behaving like a Trotskyite Trade Union, or the Labour Party’s Leadership office, waiting for the latest position from the Chief Rabbi, and condemning other voices as sell-outs, deviants, heretics and those wishing to perverse the true faith. But by condemning the outsiders – even if you yourself are not fulfilling the laws as set out – and remaining a member of the United Synagogue, you are absolved, as you are a “better Jew” than one that challenges the convention.

It may not be too cynical to even state that the US cares more about maintaining its powerbase and seeking ideological purity, rather than the community, society or indeed wider Jewish people – and with over £80m of assets, the US could have made a very big difference to the lives of many in the Jewish community.

Just like the Trade Unions, it isn’t working; membership of the US is haemorrhaging.

They have lost over 20% of Anglo-Jewry in a generation. The United Synagogue as a spiritual figurehead is bankrupt in legitimacy and longer sustainable for a 21^st Century Jewish Community. The US must accept and recognise its role in damaging Anglo-Jewry over the past generation.

The Way Forward.

We are members of a Conservative Synagogue in Las Vegas. Tonight, we are going to a Kollel event, which is an Orthodox community, held in Temple Sinai, a Reform Temple. This would not happen in the UK. Why is it that the United Synagogue cannot not accept the legitimacy of other streams of Judaism when in the USA there is open cooperation?

There is nobody here telling me I am less Jewish, or my expressions of Judaism are less valid than any other as I believe in gender equality as a truth.

In America there is a workable infrastructure for the Jewish Community (and the UK owes a debt of gratitude to the likes of Limmud and JW3 for trying to unite rather than divide) but If there is to be a viable future for Anglo-Jewry, it has to be like that of America; positive, engaging, open, honest and truthful. People WANT to join particular communities and not feel bound to, as the consequences are seen above, people will vote with their feet.

There we have it. The historic guardian of Anglo-Jewry is the United Synagogue, but behaves less like a trustee and more like a Trades Union. It is time for it to open up and let go.

OL November 2016

 

 

The Party’s Over. My Thoughts On The Death of The Labour Party.

Some background:

As a student 20 years ago at university we had a small, but vocal radical Islamist minority, separate from the Islamic Society and organised behind name of Hizb-ut Tahrir, a group which rallied at lunchtime outside the Students Union, waving flags, chanting slogans such as as “Death to Zionists and Gays”, while the Union generously paid for their participation in advancing student life!

As an activist, I spent time in the Union of Jewish Students office, researching and compiling a dossier about radical Islamist groups which we felt to be a danger to campus life and the community in general. The report was presented the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, calling for the outlawing of Hizbu-ut and a similar splinter group, Al-Muhajiroun. This was dismissed. In 1997, NUS passed a motion banning these groups from campus and the groups were eventually made illegal in 2005 after the 7/7 bombings in London. The groups may be gone, but the ideology hasn’t.

Also as a student I was elected to the NUS NEC where along with others, I co-convened the NUS anti-racism campaign. As a sabbatical officer in 1998, I worked with the UJS to research hard left groups and try and understand their thinking, their ideologies and their strategies.

---

Tony Cliff

---

I found the hard-left, as a whole, slightly charming on the surface, but deeper down quite threatening. It was a collection of cranks, social misfits and crusty relics living in a parallel universe, where conspiracy theories were reinforced by collective groupthink. Splinter groups were established on the basis of what some people thought Trotsky may have believed in the 1920s, verses those who believed Trotsky’s writings of the 1930s. If you challenged or dissented with the absolute certainty of the leadership you were an enemy and faced purging.

What was fascinating was a near swivel-eyed obsession with Israel and Palestine. Partly due to some of the dominant founders of the groups, such as Tony Cliff, (born Yigael Gluckstein) who was the founder and leader of the Socialist Workers Party, and Michael Kidron, Cliff’s brother in law, who were both active Zionists before rejecting that ideology. The Zionist occupation of Palestine was debated at every opportunity. Most argued that a Jewish State should not be allowed to exist at all, while others saw it as necessary response to Nazism and a limited state alongside a Palestine.

One of the main differences between the hard-left groups was how to achieve the revolution.

For some it was violent overthrow of the Government and the institutions of power, while others took the entryist approach through infiltration. Their endless and facile debates on class struggle and global realignment were totally pointless as their strength to achieve these goals was limited.

I have theories why the hard-left grew again in the UK, which include a confluence of tuition fees, the Iraq war, perceived inequality and of course the financial crisis; after every major global shock, there is a delayed social response. Across the globe there is the polarising of politics and the UK is no exception, but there were still so few Trots/Marxists/Leninists/Maoists to really forge that revolution, despite controlling several Trade Unions via the entryist route.

---

Dr Richard Stone OBE

---

Back in London in 2001, I worked at The Stone Ashdown Trust for Dr Richard Stone, a true gentleman with great morals and a brave social justice campaigner against racism. He was central to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry coining the concept of institutional racism and an advisor to London Mayor Ken Livingstone (For those that do not recall, Ken ran as an Independent to the office of Mayor against the Labour candidate). On occasion I would both accompany or replace Richard at meetings and committees with the likes of Ken and Diane Abbot. There is nobody in the UK who has done more to advance Jewish-Muslim relations than Richard Stone, and I am proud to have been part of his work.

I sat as co-chair of Alif-Aleph a Jewish Muslim dialogue group which we set up, holding dozens of events and meeting many people from the various Muslim communities. I served on the Executive of the Jewish Labour Movement and the Zionist Federation of the UK.

I think I hold pretty good credentials as an anti-racist, a Zionist and as a member of the Labour Party, and never found my views to be in conflict.

---

---

The Iraq War and Gaza conflicts were the catalyst to bring together the anti-west hard left, and the Muslim communities of the UK, finding common enemy in Israel, the establishment forces of Blair and Brown’s Labour Party and the Conservative Party that supported Israeli actions against Hamas. Although there is very little that unites these two disparate groups, in fact that with any normal scrutiny the two are ideologically poles apart, the issue of Israel/Palestine is only focal point – and such is the hatred of Israel and Zionism it blinds the hard left to other aspects of radical Islamism.

It is not unique for two diametrically opposed groups to align for electoral or political interest. In coalition Governments across the world, ideologically opposed minority parties work together, such as in Israel, where secular and religious parties sit around the same cabinet. On a grander level, let us not forget that Communist Stalin and Fascist Hitler had a pact in the 1930s prior to the war.

Having had many conversations with British Muslims about Israel, I can confidently state that there are not many that one would define as pro-Zionist. I understand this. There are many Zionists that view the Arab world as their enemy. Some are ambivalent to the cause, but most Muslims believe the conditions and situation of the Palestinians is the fault of the Zionists, while many Zionists also accept that the Palestinians’ plight is terrible, but is due to a failure of their own leadership and political expedience of other Arab countries to isolate Israel diplomatically.

Irrespective, finding a common enemy in Zionists, the hard left turned a blind eye to the overt racism of radical Islamism and even some of the more moderate voices (which by traditional definitions were outside the established conventions of acceptability) in order to form electoral partnerships. Initially seen in London by the likes of Respect led by George Galloway, Ken Livingstone in London and Lutfur Rahman in Tower Hamlets, but also in many of the Muslim dominated cities in the north. With evident electoral successes, the convergence between the Muslim communities and the hard left is growing.

---

---

As I have written previously, in my view Ed Miliband is the worst leader in Labour’s history. By appointing known members of Livingstone’s team to key Labour positions and changing the party rules to actively enable entryism, he reconstituted the Labour Party as a vehicle for the left, and then ran away. The clique of Marxists took their chance. It is a strategic masterclass and the opportunity that many on the hard left had been waiting for and hoping to engineer their whole careers.

One should also note that many institutions throughout the left, from Trades Unions to the Labour Party are now dominated by the small number of people that share this radical Marxist ideology both in membership and in leadership.

I need not dwell on the fact that much of the new membership of the party was once clearly anti-Labour, however it saw fit to elect Jeremy Corbyn as Leader. If Ken Livingstone had been an MP in 2015 it is undoubted that he would now be the Leader of the Labour Party, as would Fidel Castro, Yassir Arafat or Gamal Nasser. Labour’s most successful leaders, Attlee, Wilson and Blair would not get a hearing.

---

There are several statements that must be addressed in the context of last week’s events:

1. Zionism is the the right of self-determination for the Jewish people and a belief in the right of existence of the State of Israel.

2. Much of the hard left, for reasons outlined above do not accept this, so while as individuals they do not believe themselves to be anti-Semites, they singularly deny the Jewish people rights that other nations are afforded.

3. The critique of “criticising the policies Israeli Government” is a fallacy; the hard left denies  Israel’s right to exist.

4. Many of the new members to the Labour Party are anti-Zionist, some are clear anti-Semites.

5. While most British Muslims detest and fundamentally object to the platform as advocated by radical Islamists, there is still significant support and tolerance of these radical groups. Sometimes the anti-Semitic messages filter through.

6. The realpolitick of embracing many previously anti-Labour members into the Party, many with values that are in conflict with the traditional Party members, means that there is an ideological clash that cannot be ignored.

---

---

If Corbyn’s Labour Party cannot accept the statements above, they must, or they do not understand the problem.

Calls for “Party Unity” led by Corbyn, Abbot and the Trade Union entryists is as absurd and illegitimate as saying Hitler, the man behind the tens of millions of deaths, creating a pan-national infrastructure to gas and burn the largest number of people in the most efficient way possible, was a believer in Jewish self-determination in Israel, and justifying that position as the view of the Israeli Prime Minister. Who would be so pernicious and wildly illogical?

Reading blogs and tweets I am left in despair. The same moronic and malevolent conspiracy theories that were the preserve of the extremists on campus now appear to be mainstream discourse. The extremists have become the establishment.

I have no idea if members of the party are seeking to replace Jeremy Corbyn, but they should want to if they want the Labour Party of the last 100 years to survive as it was. However as it stands, there cannot be a coup within the Labour Party- that time has passed.

The Party is over. It is morally bankrupt, and if not for the support of the Trade Unions, would be financially bankrupt.

Today’s Labour Party is past the point of relevance, the brand alone is all that keeps it together. With the alliance of the hard left and the new extremist party membership talking to itself, all moderates can hope for is that it will become as irrelevant and as divided as the SWP and Marxists were a generation earlier. If it continues, the effect will be an expansion of extremism, conspiracy theories and anti-semitism as we have seen since Corbyn’s election last year.

No sensible person can want Labour to win power at the moment, yet moderates are powerless to make change. If anyone believes that the Labour Party is the best way to affect positive change in society, they are misguided.

It is time for anyone who cares about the future of Britain to let the Labour Party die – and hope that it does so, quickly.

 

Donald Trump: The Smackdown Strategy.

It has been fascinating watching the recent Presidential selection cycle in the USA.

On arrival, I started asking people who they were looking for as a Presidential candidate – and a surprising number of people I spoke to said, “anyone but Hillary” and Donald Trump was the person they would like to vote for. Several are serious, successful, thoughtful people whom I respect the opinions of – so it isn’t just the disenfranchised.

As a European coming to America, I was genuinely ambivalent about Trump. His candidature did not seem serious, despite the number of people who felt he was a legitimate political figure. Like many, I saw him as a celebrity critique insurgent, like Russell Brand in the last UK election; a man with support, who lacked credibility other than to inspire the disaffected and marginalised in society. His campaign made no sense. “I’m richer than these guys so I am right and they are wrong. These guys are hopeless, ugly and stupid. I will beat them to a pulp.” His policies were, “I am a tough guy and I will stop the bad guys who are foreigners, weak liberal elites, the establishment who are keeping “us” down.”

I didn’t get it.

Surely Presidential candidates are the peak of American society, experienced leaders with decades of public service serving as VP like Nixon (and Senator of California) and George H W Bush (who also headed the CIA). We want to elect the best among us, like Truman and Wilson, educated men with a firm moral compass needed  to make the hardest and most difficult decisions. Or we want the most congenial leaders, like Reagan, Roosevelt and Clinton who use charm and personality to bring people together. We want military heroes like Kennedy and Eisenhower, (among many) both of whom had demonstrated leadership in the battlefield. Even when we need the dirty stuff done, Presidents like LBJ have a firm grasp of the real world having been a teacher and public servant.

Donald Trump is none of these and unlike any other candidate.

As a student of the post-war American Presidency, I looked back at similar campaigns and the closest candidate is Barry Goldwater in the 1964 campaign. Goldwater was a southern businessman and politician, and perhaps the godfather of the southern conservative movement, of which Ted Cruz is now the flag bearer of. His policies are not so similar to Trump, but his positions were just as polarising. His bullying criticism of the Republican elites and hounding of Nelson Rockefeller, the grandest of grandees, has some similarities, but Trump is no Goldwater.

Goldwater, for all his opinions was a committed public servant, a thinker and had great rectitude. And, as we know, Goldwater lost the 1964 election by a landslide against LBJ.

And then it hit me today. Donald Trump is not following a traditional political strategy at all, he is NOT Goldwater, or anyone else. His campaign is a wrestling narrative and November the 8^th is Wrestlemania. He is playing the playbook of “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, a 1990s character from the WWE.

Wrestling as Life

Back in the 1980s and 90s I was a wrestling fan. Each “character” represented a segment of American life.

Hulk Hogan was the bronzed all American super-hero. Roddy Piper and Jim Duggan, the American everyman, Sgt Slaughter the turncoat, Andre the Giant, The Iron Sheikh, Nikoli Volkoff, the foreign bad guys (who became good guys depending on prevailing US Foreign Policy!).

However, something strange happened in the late 1990s. A wrestler, a bad guy, Steve Austin, after winning a match against former “hero” Jake “The Snake” Roberts (below) came up with a persona where he took on the good guys and denigrated their personas.

Because of his character’s “personality”, nobody owned him, he said what he wanted and drank beer after a fight against the rules. The ruder and more obnoxious he became, the more people loved him.

As his popularity grew, the WWE created more “establishment” figures to try and stop him, to the point where the WWE created a long running feud – as part of the storyline –  with the owner of the WWE Vince McMahon. The narrative was that the WWE as a company wanted to stop Austin, but buoyed by his grassroots support, Austin became more and more popular and won the day.

Steve Austin remains one the most iconic wrestlers in history. There were many better technical wrestlers, many more articulate and charismatic speakers, but few who managed to win as much popularity and adulation.

Austin not only earned top billing, but changed the medium of wrestling away from the black and white narrative of good guy-bad guy, but shifted the entire wrestling business to a new phase known as “Attitude.”

After injury, Steve Austin’s appearances became less frequent, but Donald Trump, a long term supporter of WWE started to appear as a guest and latterly as a character, involving himself into storylines, ultimately becoming one of Steve Austin’s victims in the Wrestling ring.

It is clear to me, that Trump has copied Steve Austin’s strategy.

Like Steve Austin, he has ridiculed his opponents in the crudest and most obvious ways to make them become irrelevant and small compared to him. With Cruz and Rubio, expect the same standard stereotyping as seen previously, and against Hillary Clinton a new wave of sexism and misogyny not seen in public debate for decades. 

And like Steve Austin, he has changed the Republican Party through insurgency; the traditional rules of politics do not apply. The voters are his and not the Party’s.

So stop talking about historical precedent or anything else that has gone before. The fight for the Republican Nomination – and indeed the Presidency – has roots in WWE and not historical political strategies.

Opponents better hit first, and hit hard, as taking from Steve Austin’s signature move, it only takes a second before they are hit by the Donald Trump Stunner – and there is no getting up when knocked down.

OL March 2016

 

 

 

Prime Minister Corbyn: A Strategic Masterclass.

At the moment we are in the middle of the most fantastic, the most brilliant strategic campaign we have ever seen. It is the takeover of a country by a small band of committed campaigners. 

One of the things I am supposed to do as a strategist is to try and see what has happened, analyse, interpret and identify what is coming next.

As many of you know, I was a member of the UK Labour Party for many years. A number of my friends who are not as political as I am (or was) have asked me to try and give a summary of what is going on in UK politics. Now living in the USA, I am not in touch with the people directly or have any particular insights, but can take a strategic overview knowing some of the people from the past and their characteristics.

Other than declaring everyone in the UK has gone mad, I have kept my political thoughts mainly to myself, since Corbyn’s election victory.

So, as an outsider, this is my analysis of what has gone– and will happen next.

Phase I

It started with Ed Miliband – elect an unelectable candidate, get an appropriate legacy. As well as being seen as incompetent in hindsight, (a charge leveled at the time) Ed played the role of‘ ‘useful idiot’ to his supporters and changed the rules of the Labour Party, allowing some self-serving trots, radicals and militants that had been outcast from grown up debate back into the Party under the banner of democracy. These people had zero affinity to the Labour Party and mainly contempt since their expulsion three decades ago.

During Miliband’s tenure, traditional members had either left the Party as they couldn’t justify supporting the unelectable and completely wrong-headed Miliband as leader, which was compounded by him resigning mere hours after defeat. Our Ed left a leadership election to be conducted by people who knew he was unelectable and completely wrong on a host of matters, but couldn’t say so as they had advocated those same positions only weeks previously!

From a strategic view the issue was brand failure: “Labour” was tarnished under Miliband, and the only candidate in the election who had an visible alternative to the failed brand was Corbyn. He was the ideological differentiator. He brought loyal customers and members to vote for him, through his decades of campaigning with the same bunch of trots, communists, radicals and militants that he had befriended over decades.

Phase II

“Corbynistas” are the“Paperback radicals” who thanks to the internet, now have a voice. These people are committed to radical societal change and have a sense of self-righteousness that others do not possess.

Not all have malice. Many are honest do-gooders who are bound by joining a campaign in good faith, such as Stop the War or the ANL before they were hijacked. These campaigners, guided by professional agitators and organisers, rallied together to elect Jeremy Corbyn – perhaps the most disloyal Labour MP in Parliament,  supporting ideological Stalinst/ Lenninist/ Trotskyist and anti-western groups wherever they rise – who has run nothing in his life and achieved nothing of note in 30+ years in Parliament.

The ability to use these supporters to act as product advocates is a tool of modern marketing – and this campaign used it very well. Like Donald Trump, they harnessed non-traditional media to influence circles of people to join and share in the movement, and once they have chosen a brand or ideal (and NOT a candidate) they are aligned to that.

Phase III

With comrade Jeremy elected at leader, he appoints

• A cadre of old political lefties, left over from Michael Foot’s 1983 campaign to his cabinet,
• The political infrastructure booted out of City Hall by the electorate along with Ken Livingstone,
• A bunch of former student radicals – that have either been “organisers” for leftist groups and who were generally unemployable in the real world.

Immediately post election, we see talk of “open conversation” and “new politics”, which state their brand to the general populace. To those who know these guys, this can only be described as Orwellian.

This clique has views completely at odds with the country, Parliament and the traditional Labour Party membership, and between them have done or achieved very little of meaningful value, yet they are united as they know that they have a mission and a common purpose. This was true for NASA landing a man on the moon, or Steve Jobs building Apple. This group have waited and plotted for the opportunity to capture the Labour party, this is their life mission and they have been handed the keys to the car.

Their brand message has to be inclusive and open to demonstrate validity and opportunity. In reality it is nothing like that.

Phase IV

As I write, I consider this to be the beginning of Phase IV, which may last 2-4 years. A period of definition and consolidation of brand, and control of message. Within weeks, after securing control of the Labour Party apparatus and message, they will start to proclaim and denounce.

After a short period, Corbyn will appoint a second group of loyalists from the left (maybe Ken himself) to key, visible, public and political positions and to organise within the campaign group, Momentum. This group will act like a support group throughout the UK, building membership and acting as a national campaign, outside the Labour Party, like the SWP, Stop The War or any other such campaigning group – but the single issue is keeping control of the Labour Party. They will demonstrate and agitate.

Next, this core group consolidates locally and selects Labour candidates – possibly deselecting MPs, with Momentum acting as the independent, anonymous attack dogs, restating ideological purity alongside the improvement of roads, streets and boycotting Israel, The USA and any country that does not fit into the global ideological view of the group.

Momentum on the outside and Corbyn’s cadre on inside change the rules of the organisation and forcibly exile the non-believers, not forgetting, those non-believers on the “Labour inside” are more dangerous than the enemy!

We can see this already – if people as talented, decent and wholeheartedly Labour as Mike Dugher, Pat McFadden and Yvette Cooper are seen as “disloyal and incompetent” and ostracised from the core. The Labour party will become an ugly, horrible, sectarian place to be, unfit to oppose, never mind govern.

Think Stalin’s purges, Mao’s Cultural Revolution and for those without the detailed history of Leftist dictatorships – Animal Farm – however in this analogy,  there is a case that Corbyn is “Snowball”; and the worse “Napoleon” is yet to come!

We have seen a successful brand shift –  From a tiny start, this small group of ideological extremists have taken over one of the great parties of UK politics. Some say that there is a small window left at time of writing for Labour parliamentarians to stop this coup, however, I do not think they can. As the core customer will have changed and the brand and identity of The Labour Party has been repositioned.

Phase V

“Shit Happens!” as they say over here in the USA.

Maybe a NO vote on the European referendum leading to Brexit, maybe a second Chinese financial crash or US driven economic shock that ripples to the UK. Maybe it is a financial or sex scandal in the Conservative party that brings the party crashing down. Perhaps maybe an ideological fracture of the Conservative Party itself over a new leader, but whatever this exogenous shock may be, under a certain set of conditions THIS Labour Party, led by Corbyn, or Ken Livingstone or another revolutionary leftist could become a Government, and with control of Parliament, can make radical change – which is their agenda!

Conclusion

We have seen a “Shock and Awe”, strategic masterclass from the Leninist school of revolutions; the once unthinkable takeover of the Labour Party by the “loonies” is complete.

A combination of the unseen geniuses sitting in the backrooms of Westminster, who have honed their skills in NUS, in hijacking campaigns for the SWP, Left Unity or Socialist Organiser /Action/whatever trade union, and the Jar-Jar Binks levels of incompetence and naiveté of Ed Miliband in have allowed this takeover of the Labour Party.

The Unions and campaigning groups that support and organise around Corbyn have built a diverse and well resourced campaigning body that can build a presence in every constituency – by using both positive and negative campaigning methods – as we have seen by the intimidation tactics schooled in the coal face.

It is brilliant. It is fascinating. It is terrifying. 

Gambling Badly: WTF is going on?

Las Vegas is a curious city. It is a town built for gambling by gamblers, and if gambling is part of the human condition, Las Vegas is the most distilled version. Gambling is about hope, about luck, about aspiration, however unlikely, to win that big prize.

Indeed, today all our political campaigns centre around the message of aspiration. However, this message of bettering your life has been at the heart of some of the most pernicious regimes over past decades. Aspiration for a more equal society, aspiration for a growing economy, aspiration for extreme wealth, aspiration for change. The aspiration candidate is one who offers to make lives better, and communists, fascists as well as social democrats have played that tune.

Where casinos succeed is in selling aspiration while having effective management in controlling risk and expectations, as not every customer can be a winner. The same cannot be said in politics. Currently in global politics there are several gambles in progress, some economic and financial, the others political. Our political leadership in past generations seemed to have balanced risk and reward and erred on the side of caution.

Today, this is not the case as our leaders seem to fail to grasp that risk has downside as well as upside.

 

Obama: Trusting the Gambler to Play Fair

I have written previously on game theory and the Iranian negotiations. It seems that the deal worked out by the US and Iranian Governments is not so much a fully comprehensive treaty, but the framework for a bet.

On one side we have the USA offering to ease sanctions on Iran and allow them to get on with building a nuclear capacity, trusting them not to build a weapon.

This is like giving a known card cheat free chips and a pack of cards and asking them to deal to themselves. Moreover, the casino will not monitor the security cameras routinely, but when they do, it will be the cheater’s family that will do so. If the cheater stays in the casino for a given time, they can walk away with their winnings.

The government‘s case is that the only alternative to the above scenario is that the card cheat would find a way to cheat anyway, so you might as well let them do it under your roof.

This logic is clearly flawed, however the response to the debate has been chilling; if you are opposed to the deal, you are acting against the best “interests” of America. You are shut down. An enemy voice. A dissenter. A warmonger.

Conflict with Iran is inevitable. It may be military, may be ideological or may be in trade, but the governing philosophies and ideologies of the USA and Iran are not aligned. It is not correct nor helpful to single out for criticism anyone who who states this obvious fact.

Wanting to find peace and a diplomatic solution to conflict is aspirational, but it it isn’t always possible.

 

Labour: Bringing Down The House

Much as been written and debates about the 2015 Labour defeat. I have watched and read as much as anyone and am not at all surprised by the rise of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour election process.

The British left has always fascinated me since I was a student, where I would develop strategies to counter the leftist radical groups, such as the Socialist Workers Party, Socialist Action and Socialist Organiser. As a campaigner for a fair, free, meritocratic and just society, I would look at some of their policy positions and obsessions (in particular on the Middle East) and would try and understand what parallel universe these people lived in. The groups were mired with conspiracy theories and were operated like cults.

The checks on the influence of these groups; who already run the Trade Union movement and have adopted key positions in the Labour party and public sector bodies in true entryist fashion, were the rules of the UK Labour Party, which included centralised power in the hands of the MPs and a dispersed electoral base.

Ed Miliband, who looks increasingly like the worst political leader in the history of UK politics, gambled and failed many times. Each bet was a losing one. He was a loser and when eventually betting and losing the house, he walked away.

His legacy is a Bennite Manifesto for political change in the Labour Party. History has a selection of unwitting ‘morons’ who had good intentions but bad decision making. Ed Miliband was ether incompetent beyond belief or an engaged subversive in allowing radical groups control and influence in the party. This is a huge gamble for the Labour Party, perhaps the most extreme political bet in the past 100 years.

Jeremy Corbyn is the aspirational candidate in the Labour election and will be the aspiration candidate if he makes the general election. He has already galvanised the Labour Party, bringing on a new wave of support which will change the direction of the Party for decades to come. But he cannot deliver his message without destroying Britain.

Corbyn may make it to Prime Minister, he may not, but at this juncture it seems likely an entryist radical may take control of a major political party for the first time in history. It may be that the radical left could build a coalition to win an election in the UK, stealing votes from the SNP, UKIP and Labour.

Now, some may say that I am being slightly overboard here and this may not be such a bad thing to have a leftist leader framing the debate or even winning an election, but when a society becomes ambivalent on the subject of anti-Semitism this is history’s alarm bell. That “I am not an anti-Semite, some of my friends might be” is Corbyn’s position.

Watch this space.

ISIS: Hoping their luck will run out.

Since the Nazis, there has been no greater evil in the world than ISIS today.

“How did we let this happen?” and “Never Again” are much quoted afterthoughts from the Holocaust. What made that genocide unique was that it was industrial in its conception and delivery. This is true today in Iraq and Syria in ISIS held areas.

The brutality and barbarity knows no bounds. We KNOW of the mass executions, the beheading, the drowning, the burning, the shooting, the random murder of non-believers, gays and those who do not accept the ISIS philosophy but how many thousands of deaths do we not know?

I weep for the Yazidi, the ancient sect that has been systematically destroyed, the children raped, murdered and traded as slaves, and although there has been global condemnation the lack of military response to this real time avoidable genocide is a moral crime against humanity.

But ISIS has supporters. Those who reject liberal society and embrace the truth of radical Islam. These people are no different than anyone else in that they aspire. Their aspiration is historical, religious and to a restate a modern Caliphate.

The global response to ISIS has been like the casinos view of a gambler; they them keep on playing and eventually the gambler’s luck will run out, their play will revert to the mean and they will begin to lose. Except that ISIS sometimes wins, sometimes loses, but throughout the larger campaign, the slaughter continues. Daily. Hourly.

I read an article in the Times that ISIS was bound to fail as they have pinned their economy to the gold standard! How can a terrorist group have an economic strategy? How can it possibly have come to this?

ISIS are coming to Europe. They are coming fast. They deserve all the opprobrium we can muster. Our response to evil is pathetic.

It looks like our leaders are gambling with our world and making bad bets. When there is no casino to regulate behaviour, the gaming floor can turn to anarchy quickly. I am fearful.

The End Of Part II – Reflections Of The Past 20 Years And Predictions For The Next 20.

End Of Part II

Next weekend marks the 20^th anniversary of when I packed up my bags and left Glasgow to take my gap year in Israel, a country that I had never been to before at that time. I wanted to mark this anniversary on my blog by reflecting on the past 20 years and some lessons I picked up along the way, as in many ways, this anniversary marks the end of Part II of what has been a life lived in remarkable times.

Back in 1994 the world was a simpler place. Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” was doing the rounds and it really felt that the world was looking up. The Cold War had ended and the warm embrace of Bill Clinton was reassuringly hugging the warring factions of the world, promising a new era of global peace and prosperity. In the UK, the 1992 recession was over; economic growth was 4.5%. The average salary was £17,000 and the average house price was £51,000, 3 times salary.

There was no Playstation, no MP3 player, the major public figure was Princess Diana and the world was intrigued by the white Ford Bronco driven by OJ Simpson, racing through the streets of Southern California.

Here is a refresher to 1994!

However the most striking difference between then and now was the way we communicate.

Mobile phone use was not widespread and the internet and email were limited to a very few academics and computer geeks who had both access and know-how to this technology. Life as a teenager in 1994 was defined by how you made decisions without the information and insights that are available today, and this inherited knowledge was the determinant of success or failure.

Twenty years on, the world is unrecognisable from that point, yet as a generation we have witnessed and adapted to the phenomenal changes in the world around us. We have seen technological advances that would have been perceived as science fiction in 1994, such as Skype (for FREE), the use of email, the internet, cell phones, laptops, Wikipedia, digital cameras, digital video, Flat screen TV, the way we buy and consume, and the entire way we interact.

We have lived through the most turbulent economic times in a century, where financial ruin was no respecter of reputation, class, education or status. Average incomes have risen to £26,500, but the average home has risen to £186,500 – over 7 times salary – and a whole lot more if you are in the capital! The gulf between rich and average (note, not poor) has been dramatic and Thomas Piketty’s analysis of inequality and wealth is the bedtime reading of the enlightened class.

So when the participants of my gap year reunite for the first time in 20 years, we will be the same people in a very different world. I doubt any generation in history has witnessed so many changes in such a short period of time, and looking at the world today it is easy to declare that the world is not a better or safer place than it was 20 years ago. And the next 20 years may yet be more perilous and difficult than what we have lived through to date. In 20 years time, some of us 1994 year-coursers will be grandparents. It is likely that some of us will have passed on. However, for those who are interested in the views of a social scientist, turned information scientist, turned investment strategist, turned academic, here we go on what I think some of the biggest issues and trends of the next 20 years will be.

Decline Of Corporates, Rise Of Families In Business.

I have been saying this for a while. I was never turned on by a career at IBM or a pension fund, where you do a job, get paid and process. It is very unlikely that the traditional corporations of the past 50 years will repeat their successes in the next twenty. This is why. Corporates are big, slow and in many cases conservative. Their successes have not been been in powering innovation, but buying competitive advantage through capturing market share and destroying opposition based on the Porters’ 5 Forces business strategies. This is no longer the case.

Three of the top five US companies by market cap are Microsoft, Google and Apple (the others are ExxonMobil and Berkshire Hathaway). Three of these still have their founders involved (and as we all know Steve Jobs would still be at Apple, save for his early passing.) 20 years ago these were GE, Shell, Coke, Nippon and Exxon.

That fact that the upstart companies have been driven by both tech and individual vision tell only half the story as many large companies are in fact unlisted – including many of the tech companies that have yet to list. Moreover the next round of innovation is funded by the families and the family offices that have profited by the growth in tech and asset prices (as our friend Thomas Piketty alludes to). In fast moving times, individuals –and by extension family offices have proved more than adept in responding to the new environment.

X Wealth Billionaire Projections

X Wealth believes that in the next 5 years the numbers of billionaires will double. How is this possible in a world when economic growth is unlikely to see double digits in any western economy? The answer is a combination of international capital movement and value enhancement and in my opinion, the way that corporates cannot compete in this type of environment. Moreover, working for families can be more engaging, particularly for Gen Y and millennials, who repeatedly display non-financial motives in making career decisions, as in many cases, philanthropy is at the core of private capital in a way that corporates must satisfy their shareholders.

China

Four years ago I went to mainland China for the first time. I challenge any human to go to Shanghai and Beijing and not be amazed by the size, scale and scope of modern China. This is the major economic power of the next century – and maybe beyond. One cannot generalise about a country of 1 billion people, but I am going to be lazy and do just that! The Chinese are industrious, daring, focused and smart, and the centrally controlled Chinese economic model of industrialisation leading to initial exporting, before reverting to increasing domestic consumption has to date, worked.

Granted, Chinese growth will slow down (a low growth global environment cannot sustain growth in consumption) but with a huge domestic market emerging out of poverty, China should manage (although there are fears within the unregulated shadow banking system) and indeed begin to look at international markets for investment in brands, patents and for (historically) less volatile strategic investments.

For the sources of capital or access to the markets of the future, as Horace Greeley might (not) have said, “Go East, Young Man!”  

Failure of Western Political Systems

The role of the politician has changed. With information for decision making so widely available, the role of the politician in being the collator and distributor of information to their electorate is no longer viable. With easy polling and voting online, there really is no need to delegate voting powers in the historic manner. Also with technology, individuals can express their views clearly and to a mass audience – which has seen some very effective campaigns in recent years. Therefore if not a representative or a delegate, what is the role of the directly elected politician?

I suppose the political arena is a tool to exercise power across legislative and fiscal matters, and allows access to the apparatus of the state to affect social change. In this case modern politicians should be strategic managers, yet management is not the typical background of the modern politician, which tends to be a shift at a think-tank, working in policy or public affairs after a couple of years studying PPE or the Classics at Oxbridge. (I believe 14 of 22 of the current cabinet and 9 of 27 Labour’s frontbench were at Oxford or Cambridge – that’s almost half of the country’s most prominent legislators having similar educational backgrounds at similar times!!)

However, as business and powerful individuals have greater ability to influence the political decision makers (and by the way, I have no problem with this if fair and transparent) it makes the overall electorate feel disenfranchised, especially as one of the defining feature of the past two decades is the centricity of the individual in his/her own decision-making. I have no idea how to resolve this, however it is likely that greater devolution of power is the answer.

As I write this, the Scottish independence campaign is in full swing, but Scotland is probably the easiest and most prominent region that would benefit (and has benefitted) from local governance. Having lived in Glasgow, Manchester and London, I can only observe that each of these cities have very different economies and identities. Unless the democratic processes address these deficits and decision makers –at a local or national level – can represent the electorates, the current political system will lose all legitimacy.

Rise of Radical Islam in the UK

My gap year in Israel in 1994 coincided with the first wave of suicide bombs on busses. The “west” excused the Hamas bombers as “desperate Palestinians”, but with a small insight to radical Palestinian groups, I knew that this was not the case and Hamas were not (and still are not) representative of Palestinians. On arrival to university, I was greeted by radical Islamists in the form of Hizb Ut-Tahrir, who were on campus. I was generally worried having never encountered such virulent anti-Semitism, and quite perturbed as the campus authorities declared how important freedom of expression was on campus (i.e. defending racists before protecting Jews).

With an awareness and sensitivity to history, I concluded that there is a very fine line between calling on Muslims to the glory of martyrdom and inciting the type of mass murder I had witnessed in Israel when the bus in front of mine had been blown up in Ramat Gan some 4 months earlier.

This is from 1997.

8 years later 52 people were killed and over 700 were injured by 4 home grown British Islamists. The leader, Mohammed Sidiqui Khan, was radicalised whilst at Leeds Metropolitan University in 1999.

I dedicated over a decade to building bridges with non-radicalised elements within the Muslim community whilst raising the alert about the Islamist threat. One of my insights was also the general unwillingness of the UK Muslim communities to condemn and expose the extremism within. Since the 1990s, scores of people have died at the hands of BRITISH Islamists, whether in London, Israel or in Iraq/Syria. Even today the Government have not fully understood the real dangers of this threat and I live in daily fear of (the inevitable) Mumbai style attack in the UK.

I don’t want to be too much of a scaremonger, but over the next 20 years, I predict this will become a real issue for the UK and in 20 years others will reflect why we didn’t take more stringent action when we could between 1994-2014.

Expectation Inflation

People expect more than they did 20 years ago.

They expect more from their friends, their service providers and their brands.

The friend thing is easy to relate to. I talk to maybe a dozen people regularly. I communicate with maybe 50 people on a monthly basis through Linkedin or Facebook and maybe 200 over the course of the year.

I consider myself sociable and value friendships. I just don’t have the energy for nonsense.

The same is with brands and service providers. There are some I use and some I don’t, as they are either of no interest to me or are incompetent timewasters (Tesco, BT, National Express – you know who are). This is a by-product of increased consumer engagement and obviously the overwhelming immersion in brands and multiple points of engagement.

The entire discipline of marketing has been transformed from Levitt’s thinking, which stood true from the 1960s to  the mid-1990s and now the way that science and technology is infused with the creative element sees data as a vital part throughout any strategy. Modern marketing is about connectivity, engagement and almost tribal alignment – and not about selling.

This poses particular issues for businesses and service providers as there are key strategic questions about customer engagement, customer interaction and indeed customer retention. Will brands and businesses actively seek NOT to engage customers that are not profitable, or not represent the type of customer that they want? I think so. But where does this leave the large companies that struggle with segmentation and offer a generic product? I think I know, but you will have to engage with me for the answer.

  Conclusion: From Disruptive Innovation to Disruptive Influencers

The past 20 years on a micro level have been marvellous and I am blessed to be so lucky to have lived through the past two decades, but on a macro level, it has been tough.

For this first time in history the promise of progress has been broken; this generation is undeniably poorer than our parents’ generation. There will be undoubtedly strong economic progress over the next 20 years as the post recession recovery takes place as growth is stimulated by cheap credit.

Established businesses will be challenged by companies nobody has heard of, as Google and Apple disrupted the behemoths a generation earlier. Technology and freedom of thought will become a greater part of our existence, but the social fabric that has stayed constant over the past generations will be ripped up by angry influencers not content with their state of being. They may have their grievances, but in my view, the next 20 years are not going to be pretty.

Coke, Israel and Intellectual Honesty.

In London last night it was warm and I went out for dinner, but before ordering my food, I asked our server for a Diet Coke in advance of my meal. There is nothing unusual or radical about this. Coke themselves state that they deliver over 1.9 billion servings per day; just under 1/3 of the world population have a Coke on a daily basis. As I drank my Diet Coke, (before my second drink of water arrived) I thought for a moment why I ordered the drink. Sure it tastes great, and being cold it was certainly refreshing, but was it any more refreshing than water, or any other drink?

A couple of years ago I was invited to a seminar for MBA students run by Coca Cola. It explained their strategy about loving Coke and evolution of the brand, after all Coke is all about brand.

The presenter reflected on one of their legacy strategies, which was that when people are thirsty, the immediate answer to their refreshment should be “an ice cold Coke” and that Coke should only ever be “an arm’s length away”.

Let’s intellectualise this for a moment.  Is the natural human condition of thirst best satisfied by a blend of sugar, caffeine, carbonated water and some phosphoric acid?

Thirst has been quenched effectively for centuries in far-off locations and a multitude of cultures before Coke told us that the best way to quench thirst is to buy into their brand, but yet 1.9 billion of us turn to “The Real Thing” on a daily basis.

In the News

The other events of the past week that concerned me in how this conflict is reported was an interview Greg Philo, who is apparently a communications academic taking about the current conflict in the Middle East.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04982j9

(2hours and 40 mins in on the link)

Mr Philo makes the point that one can only view the current conflict in the light of the Palestinian narrative and that the reporting of any news from Israel and Gaza must be seen in this context.

Likewise, Jon Snow from Channel 4 news gave a rather aggressive interview, practically accusing the Israeli spokesman of murdering children, invoking a dystopian view of the Israeli state.

Israel vs. Palestine

I recently recalled various spats including school days, (use of swastikas painted in tippex on Jewish boy’s school bags) to ideological sparring and desk punching in University seminar rooms as an undergraduate, which have evolved the current posting and counter-posting on social media forums such as Facebook and Twitter from my friends who are Jewish and Muslim.

There are two conflicting teams, each with their own message and their agenda. The Israelis say X, Palestinians say Y and the two push their points.

I am under no illusions here. Israel is far from perfect in its conduct over the past 60 years and the Palestinians are certainly no angels either. Both sides have powerful narratives, which have moral, physical and legal validity.

However, there is undeniably a global fixation with Israel as a Jewish State. At one point Jerusalem was only second to Washington DC in the numbers of foreign correspondents and the dedication given to the conflict between Israel, the Palestinians and Hamas far outweighs the more complex, dangerous and bloody situations in Syria, Iraq, Iran and across the region.

I am concerned with the way that Israel is singled out for criticism and the misuse and misunderstanding of Zionism can only be some form of subliminal (or in some cases pronounced) Judeophobia, where preconceived stereotype opinions of Jews (or in the modern more socially acceptable form, Zionists) are used to frame the argument. This is not isolated by a single incident, but a slow drip of images, opinion and historical stereotypes which are pervasive throughout society. Whether we like it or not, these subliminal factors are evident in our thought processes.

These are evident in the words of Mr Philo and Mr Snow, where they are not reporting in an impartial way, but rather interpreting the situation as a result of their perception. Mr Philo’s views on Gaza are clear – he is calling for the end of the State of Israel.

I saw a piece on the BBC website where a photo of Iraq had been “hash-tagged” #FreeGaza. When the poster had been challenged, the response was that the image was illustrative of the conflict. It is very true much of the propaganda materials (and their reproductions) are disseminated by those who know that they are being fooled, but yet are happy being lied to (and repeating the lies) as it fits their wider agenda.

What I am proposing is that for all of us, can we try and adopt a scholarly approach to absorbing the information coming out of the region and try and really see what is going on.

Intellectual Honesty

I spent some time reading the paper below by Louis Guenin of Harvard University on the subject of Intellectual Honesty. There are lessons that we can apply in commentating, interpreting and understanding the messages in the conflict.

http://guenin.med.harvard.edu/Documents/Intellectual%20Honesty.pdf

When watching the news, there are three questions to ask: 

1. Are The Individual Beliefs Of The Commentator Seeking To Influence The Truth?

This I suppose is at crux of all independent media (and a problem with the BBC).

In the case of the BBC we just don’t know if they are independent or not as their own internal report into this – The Balen Report – was suppressed at a cost of £350,000 of UK taxpayers money!

Suffice to say, both the Zionist and Palestinian lobbies believe that their side are being misrepresented but until this report is made freely available the BBC cannot be seen as a truly honest source in reporting the conflict.

The likes of Honest Reporting illustrate how frequently major media outlets (who claim not to have agendas) mis-report events based on bad journalism (or subliminal Judeophobia), whilst the Arab and leftist press is openly anti-Zionist and on occasion anti-Semitic. (I am aware that some see Honest Reporting as a Zionist tool, but it is pretty fair in picking up the inaccuracies which illustrate my point).

http://honestreporting.com/

2. Are Facts Deliberately Omitted?

Dr. Guenin writes that truth does not always mean honesty. What he is saying is that you can be truthful in reporting of an event, but it is not strictly honest.

It is truthful to say that Israel broke their ceasefire this week in bombing Hamas targets, but it is not fully honest, as Hamas did not observe the truce at all!

This is particularly apparent when discussing the context in entirety, and we thank a new generation of Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris and Avi Schlaim for identifying this in researching the narratives.

 3. Are Right Facts Being Presented In An Unbiased Manner?

This is a particular issue for me. This is not a symmetrical conflict, in terms of military, strategy or morality, therefore collecting facts on the conflict may have more meaning than are immediately apparent.

Frequent facts offered are the number of rockets fired and the number of people killed.  The reporters know that this is asymmetric and I hypothesise that the reason that this “fact” is given is to show the power of the oppressor, versus the ramshackle, home-made efforts of the poor, underdog Palestinians. (Note Hamas is well funded, with investments, offices and funds held across the Middle East. Its rockets/missiles are Syrian and Iranian sourced, and are not home-made – it is not the 1980’s intifada.)

There is a clear intent to use “facts” to generate emotions and in my mind there is an agenda every time this fact comes out. The presentation of this metric as a defining one is as insidious as it is fatuous.

The Coke Question

The nature of fast moving events leads us to rush to judgement on everything we see, based on the assumed knowledge that we have of an environment and a conflict.

As natural as it is to get a Coke on a hot day, there is a reason why we have been conditioned to want one. Let us be honest in appreciating that, but moreover, let us be honest when appraising what is going on the Middle East.

Try and set aside your preconceived narratives and ask honestly,

1. Are the individual beliefs of the commentator seeking to influence the truth or deliver an agenda?

2. Are facts deliberately omitted, even those that disprove the narrative?

3. Are the right facts being presented in an unbiased manner?

I know it is not easy to try and change your beliefs. Coke still tastes good, but in truth, it is no better than iced water in quenching thirst. For each us, try and step back and look at the bigger picture of what is being said, by whom and why. Challenge not just the truth, but the honesty of the truth and I hope that the conflict will become clearer.

The Tartan Messiah

I get asked a lot about Scottish independence and think I will be asked a whole lot more as September approaches.

I don’t mean to be political on the blog– I am not involved in any campaign at all and am sure plenty of friends will disagree with me, but here we go – no personal offence intended.

It is evident when I talk that my accent has more than a twinge having lived the first 18 years of my life in Glasgow. Although I have now been away longer than I actually lived in Scotland, in many ways I still consider it to be home. As such, I really can’t help being Scottish, but in recent years I haven’t really felt all that “Scottish”.

Before Scotland Became Scottish

Before I left in 1994, I was schooled on a diet of the Herald midweek and a Sunday Mail picked up on the way home on a Saturday night. Reading the Glaswegian press one would think that Glasgow really was the centre of the universe as one by one the stars of the world would be linked with a forthcoming concert at the SECC, how Sheena Easton was a global superstar rocking America or how Deacon Blue were dominating the indie rock scene.

Central Station, Irn Bru, Wellington’s Cone, George Square, the chap shouting “EEEVNIN-DYMEZ” outside Marks and Spencer on Argyll Street were part of the culture. I would go to Celtic, take the clockwork orange to the West End, go to Byres Road and Ashton Lane, watching out for the alkies and nutters on the way home, always remembering that there was a “boundary charge” for those of us going back to the more affluent suburbs by taxi. Bank holidays were days spent at Largs, Troon or rolling balls up/down the Electric Brae near Culzean.

This was my Scottish identity. You may note that every reference is to Glasgow and the west coast. Even in football. Those of us who followed the national football team were from the west coast; those from Edinburgh were rugby fans. We had Hampden- they had Murrayfield.

Building Brand Scottish Part I

Bastos and Levy write about traditional branding.

“At the root of all branding activity is the human desire to be someone of consequence, to create a personal and social identity, to present oneself as both like other people (e.g. to belong) and unlike other people (e.g. to stand out), and to have a good reputation. Sign and symbol are essential ingredients of this branding phenomenon. As a form of marking, branding is richly ramified by application to oneself, to other people, and to property; it takes both material and metaphorical forms; and is perceived either positively or negatively.”

Back in the late 1980s, as far as my own personal recollections go, the only thing that united Scotland as a nation was the near universal agreement that it was entirely wrong to have the Poll Tax imposed in Scotland, whilst the rest of the UK paid rates – how can we have two different tax regimes in one country?

Either we are one country, or we aren’t – and for me we were part of the UK, but for others this was the moment to set the narrative. This moment of Thatcherite stupidity, caused the first spike in SNP support and created the first case of us and them, where in political terms, “them” were the Westminster Tories with little political mandate, but there was no real Scottish brand movement at this point- a vote for the SNP was a protest vote against Westminster in general and the Tories in particular.

In 1990, Alex Salmond became leader of the SNP and he moved away from the pragmatism of Gordon Wilson, bringing a high impact leadership to the party opposed to Thatcher. The initial SNP branding of Scottishness was very much an “us and them” developed as a contrast to the arrogance of the Westminster Government, which really didn’t have a mandate to govern Scotland (with a handful of MPs) and had lost legitimacy over the previous decade.

Nobody was rushing out to create a “distinct Scottish social identity” at this stage as all the signs and symbols that formed individual brands were local, or at best regional. Flower of Scotland was sung at a sporting event for the first time in 1990 as a pre-game warm up against the English at Rugby.

The mere suggestion that The Corries’ late 60s, slightly naff, folk-nostalgic balled would be the national anthem two decades later was as preposterous as claiming that Wales would adopt Tom Jones’ Green, Green Grass of Home as their national signature – after all Sir Tom’s balled was written in the same year and Sir Tom had significantly more credibility than The Corries!

(you don’t need to watch the video- it’s all a little Wicker Man!)

So when I waved goodbye and headed on the M74 south in 1994 it was in the final year before it all changed.

Building Brand Scottish Part II

I never had this hatred of the English. Partly with an Irish grandmother and English grandfather, the concept of defining my own identity as being not something else was all a bit shallow to me- you are who you are, not what you are not!

I always understood the importance of devolving political decisions to local government (it has been one of the most enduring legacies of the 1997 Government- see how the Scottish cities, the northern cities and London have benefitted from devolved decision making) but pragmatic decision-making is not the cause of identity building or winning ticket to hearts and minds.

And then, on a May night in 1995, Scotland became an enslaved nation.

“And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willing to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take… OUR FREEDOM!”

Thanks to the work of a racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, wife-beating, ultra-conservative, homophobe, Scotland’s history was rewritten.

This was the moment that Brand Scottish was invented as a national liberation movement, using flags, songs, imagery, presenting a Scottish generation uniting along the lines of a nation seeking to right historic wrongs; It is the mission of this generation to fulfill our national destiny to take that “one chance” and return our country to independence and our FREEDOM, apparently!

SNP Vote in Westminster Elections

The evidence shows that the SNP vote (other than the 1974 spike) has actually diminished since the “Braveheart” peak, but what has changed is the narrative.

It has been nearly 25 years since Salmond took the reins of the SNP and in that time I have watched from the sidelines as the Scottish brand has evolved to the point that within six months Scotland could be an independent country.

Hail! The Tartan Messiah! 

I feel like an outsider in this debate. I have never felt enslaved by the English, or held back by being Scottish. I hold none of this burning desire to prove Scotland is better than England- I actually quite like England and the English. So much so, I married one! London is a great city, as is Manchester, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Berlin, Hamburg, Barcelona, Liverpool etc.

I am sure Scotland could probably do fine on its own, eventually. There are probably enough smart people there to make it work in some way. Those talking about cancelling the pound and that nonsense are being idiotic- who knows what settlement they will come to; it may end up like Gibraltar or most Latin countries where there are two currencies accepted (one being the dollar). English (and global) companies will divest, jobs will go and Salmond will fight back by cutting corporate taxation to encourage jobs, with mixed results. It will be tough for a decade, but it won’t be meltdown. There will be greater separation from the rest of the UK and I imagine the Scots will be relatively poorer in a financial sense to those in England and there will be less opportunities. Anyone that wants to achieve in capital markets will have to migrate, but that was always the case.

However, if my fellow countrymen were to vote yes to independence, quite frankly, they are stupid and deserve all that could come their way. I ask each of you:

Scots are great travellers and have always looked at the global picture, why would you as a generation choose to be so insular? You are 5.2 million people. As a country, you would be the 16^th largest city in China. You would be the 118^th largest country in the world (of 243). When the world is looking to build unions, why are you separating?

In this age of  enlightenment, of communication and the spread of ideas, why would you possibly want inspiration from a Hollywood reimagining of a 13^th century landowner with a grievance?

The only explanation to this madness is that the current generation of Scots identify with the post-Flower of Scotland era.

Ignoring (or not even being aware of) The Corries, they are seeking “the human desire of doing something of consequence”. This generation from 1995 onwards have bought into the brand, signed up for the narrative, bought the t-shirt and are about to drink the Kool-Aid.

For the proponents of this message such as Mr Salmond, those who identify with the brand now have to see it to the conclusion.

Haggis, tatties and neeps

You see, Salmond’s Brand Scottish, isn’t just about power – that was the net effect of being ostracised by the Conservatives in the late 1980s, rather Brand Scottish Part II has emotion at the core. It is about righting historic wrongs and Mel Gibson’s message of freedom for an oppressed people is the most powerful cause on earth. It is moral and it is righteous and by supporting it you are doing the only decent thing.

Except it isn’t the truth – it’s Hollywood, not Holyrood!

I am reminded of Dick Gaughan’s song “No Gods & Precious Few Heroes” which has couple of lines that have some resonance.

“So don’t talk to me of Scotland the Brave…

… While you wait for the Tartan Messiah?

He’ll lead us to the Promised Land with laughter in his eye

We’ll all live on the oil and the whisky by and by Free heavy beer! Pie suppers in the sky!

– Will we never have the sense to learn?”

Being Scottish

My “Scottishness” is based on my experiences; the anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian aspects of Glasgow run deep. I will always cheer on Gordon Strachan’s boys in the navy blue jerseys and whoever the rugby team are playing- I don’t really care who they are playing or how they are playing, (being a west coaster) but I will keep an eye out for the score and don’t want to see them lose. I will enjoy taking my kids home to see their grandparents, taking a tour of the People’s Palace and after on to the Queen’s Café for a double nugget in the rain.

A double nugget

I will always be Scottish and care about Scotland. Being Scottish is about being fair, being open-minded, being innovative with technology and industry, being brave about business, working hard and being aware that there is a big world out there that Scots have influenced in disproportionate ways for centuries.

I hope the good people of Scotland see the bigger picture and send the insular looking Tartan Messiah back to Hollywood without buying into this narrow incarnation of what it is to be Scottish.

This brand is cynical and it is false. Let’s hope it is not also destructive.