Author: Dr Craig Dalzell

Same Spin Everywhere

/ Dr Craig Dalzell / Leave a comment

“You’re radically collaborative, profoundly empathetic, and deeply communal. Everyone who tells you anything different is selling the fear that is the only thing that can break that nature.” – Hank Green

This blog post previously appeared in The National as part of Common Weal’s In Common newsletter.
If you’d like to support my work for Common Weal or support me and this blog directly, see my donation policy page here.

(The wind farm site discussed in this article will interpose between this ridge and the mountains in the background)

I was up in Skye this week to give one of my regular talks to activists and campaign groups around Scotland. It’s one of the aspects of my role at Common Weal that I enjoy the most and get the most out of even though it often means a lot of travelling. I’m very grateful to my hosts for not just organising the meeting but also putting me up for the night.

The evening was organised by the Breakish Windfarm Action Group who are currently concerned by plans to build a large windfarm development on a visually prominent part of the island. The estate owner, Lady Lucilla Noble, stands to profit massively from the site as will the Swedish developers Arise while tenant farmers are likely to see their livelihoods disrupted and restricted on what has been up till now land held as Common Grazings. They asked me to give a broader overview of how and why this is happening in Scotland and I duly prepared a presentation based around our proposals for how Scotland can publicly own our energy generation despite the Scottish Government’s excuse that “it’s reserved”. Shortest possible version: It’s only reserved if we want Government Ministers to own the energy. If we allow Local Authorities or communities to own it, it’s perfectly possible. It could even be funded in the same way. The only “downside” is that the Scottish Government wouldn’t get to control it. See Common Weal’s policy paper “How to own Scottish energy” for more details.

What I heard during the night though had both myself and my partner shaking our heads in disbelief. The story in Skye is that a landowner has contracted with a foreign company to extract vast profit from the resources of Scotland over the objections of the local community, without adequately compensating or benefiting said community, while obfuscating the planning process and making it is difficult as possible for the community to “properly” object as processes such as environmental studies and public inquiries cost tens to hundreds of thousands of pounds to complete – trivial amounts for the corporations but far beyond the reach of ordinary people to compete with. Everyone involved fully expects that even if the community is able to punch above its weight in terms of negotiating and bargaining power, Scottish Ministers will just override any objections because the Government’s primary goals are to make the Scottish GDP line go up by means of encouraging “inwards investment” – if doing that pushes climate goals too, then they suppose that’s fine too.

This is precisely the same story that is happening in my village at the moment where a French company is negotiating with a local land owner to build a massive solar farm and battery park. Just about the only thing that differs are the names of some of the people (and even then only some of them because it turns out that Ross Lambie, one of the local councillors for the ward I live in and who sits on our local Planning Committee is an absentee landlord bidding to use some land he owns in Skye to host a temporary housing for the construction workers being shipped in to install the turbines).

We’re not the only two communities facing this. Scotland is awash with largely foreign capital flooding places with applications for developments that even at their best won’t benefit communities nearly as much as they should (the £5,000 per Megawatt of community benefit funding that some of these developments offer is a shadow of the 30 to 100 times as much local revenue retained by full community ownership). Local planning offices report being completely overwhelmed trying to properly scrutinise applications and that goes double for areas with active community councils where volunteer councillors are expected to scrutinise highly technical documents without the resources to do so. Scottish Ministers are far too prone to allow projects to move up to the Energy Consents Unit to ensure that they can make the decisions – overriding local democracy as they do so – but this just concentrates the problem further. The ECU is similarly overwhelmed with more than 4,500 projects having been passed to them since December 2018. An average of almost two new applications per day. Ministers cannot not be expected to properly scrutinise these projects even if this was their only full time job.

And what happens if a dodgy developer does, by chance or fortune, get their application denied or made conditional to the point that they decide the profit margins aren’t high enough? Well, they just resubmit the application and try again or move on to the next community and hope they can’t pay as much attention. Communities need to be lucky every time. Corporations only need to get lucky once.
I’m not against renewable energy as a rule. We need more of it. What I’m asking for is for the Scottish Government to start abiding by its own party-approved policies. We need a Scottish Energy Development Agency (SEDA) to start producing a proper strategic map of Scotland. A map not just of where Scotland’s renewable resources are but where our actual demand is too. The overflow of development without coordination (compounded by frankly idiotic policies from Westminster such as blocking policies like Zonal Pricing) is leading to millions of pounds of consumer’s money being paid to energy generators in constraint payments. Wind turbines already generate profit almost for free once they’re built – the only way to make them more profitable for the multinationals and foreign public energy companies who own them is for them to make the profit without even generating the energy.

In addition to the SEDA we urgently need the Scottish Government to stop its opposition to public ownership of energy and to start allowing Scottish communities to be the owners of these developments.
Communities have been left alone to fight each application individually when it turns out that they are all facing the same spin everywhere. I am very happy to see that communities are increasingly banding together such as the 9CC group in Ayrshire or the recent conference of Community Councils in Inverness, but it’s clear that these groups themselves need support to start talking together, across Local Authority lines. Maybe that’s what it’ll take for Ministers to start paying proper attention. Maybe the next conference has to happen outside Holyrood itself.

The injustice of situations like where I live or in Skye or in hundreds of other communities is going to seriously harm public support for the renewable transition that we need. I’m not against renewable energy. I am against being screwed over by the people who own them. I’m against the injustice of communities not being given a stake in that transition and being told that their voice is irrelevant or a nuisance. But if my experience this week in Skye tells me anything, it’s that communities are ready to make that voice exactly as loud as it needs to be, especially as the elections approach. I hope Ministers will be listening. Or that their replacements might be.

So You’ve Won Capitalism: An Open Letter To The Billionaires

/ Dr Craig Dalzell / Leave a comment

“Democracy is supposed to be ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’. Capitalism is ‘of the capitalist, for the capitalist’. Period.” – Jerry Ash

This blog post previously appeared in The National.
If you’d like to support my work for Common Weal or support me and this blog directly, see my donation policy page here.

a bird's eye view of a beachfront home

Dear Billionaires,

I think we can all agree that you’ve won Capitalism. If the goal of Capitalism is to accumulate wealth via the canny deployment of capital (yours or someone else’s) for the purpose of spending that wealth on goods and services to improve your own lifestyle then you have been successful beyond measure. As a billionaire, you now possess more wealth than can be reasonably spent by any individual in a lifetime. In fact, you passed that measure a long, long time ago.

Continue reading →

You Have Options Too: An Open Letter to John Swinney

/ Dr Craig Dalzell / Leave a comment

“Squeezing the lives of people is now being proposed as the saviour of the planet. Through the green economy an attempt is being made to technologise, financialise, privatise and commodify all of the earth’s resources and living processes.” – Vandana Shiva

This blog post previously appeared in The National.
If you’d like to support my work for Common Weal or support me and this blog directly, see my donation policy page here.

wind turbines on snowy mountain under clear blue sky during daytime

DEAR First Minister John Swinney,

The UK is running away from the hard choices on energy. Its dismissal of ideas like zonal pricing – ­currently the only scheme yet presented that would allow the UK to maximise renewable energy generation, minimise infrastructure costs like ­pylons and to reduce fuel poverty while giving communities more incentive to take control of their own local energy generation – has been rightly criticised by you last week in a statement where you called out the UK for not doing enough on energy policy.

It was concerning to note, though, that your critique wasn’t backed up by much on what you want the UK to actually do instead. Even as you complained about the UK “ruling out all options to bring down ­energy bills” by abandoning zonal pricing, I’m not clear if you support it or would bring it in if you had the power to do so.

We all know that Scotland’s devolved powers in energy are limited and that, right now, you couldn’t do something like this, but also missing from your critique was what you plan to do with the powers you do have.

Scotland’s own devolved energy ­strategy has been woefully lacking in recent years – from the sell-off of ScotWind at ­bargain basement prices, through ­dropping ­climate targets that were designed to push ­action ever forwards, to flogging off (sorry, “­encouraging foreign direct investment in”) every piece of our renewable energy sector to multinational companies and ­foreign public energy companies to ensure that everyone in the world can profit from Scotland’s energy except us.

We can take another path, though. ­Scotland must ensure that we own our own renewable energy future and the way to do that is by bringing it into public ownership. Here are several ways that you could do it.

1) A National Energy Company

This is what most of us think of when we think about “Scottish public energy”, and it’s the model that the Welsh Government adopted under the name Ynni Cymru. This is a single national company, owned by the Scottish Government or by Scottish ministers (similar to Scottish Water), that would own, generate and sell energy to consumers.

There is a snag to this plan in that the Scotland Act currently prohibits the ­Scottish Government from “owning, ­generating, transmitting or storing” electricity, so if we want the National Energy Company to be based around supplying ­electricity, then the first thing that the Scottish ­Government could be doing is mounting a pressure campaign to amend the Act – it puts Scotland in the ridiculous position that it’s legal for the Welsh Government to own a wind turbine in Scotland but not the Scottish Government.

Until that campaign is successful, there is something you can do.

The Act quite specifically bans your Government from owning electricity ­generators. It does not ban other forms of energy. A National Heat Company based around deploying district heat networks could supply all but the most remote of Scottish households.

While this would be a large infrastructure project, it wouldn’t be larger than the one required to build the electricity pylons we need if we’re going to electrify heat instead and the pipes would have the advantage of being underground and out of sight while ultimately providing heat to homes in a cheap, more efficient and ultimately more future-proof way that the current setup of asking people to buy heat pumps and just hoping that the grid can cope with the demand.

2) Local Electricity Companies

So, First Minister, let’s say that you’re not a fan of campaigning for the devolution of more powers and really want Scotland to be generating electricity. You can’t create a National Electricity Company but you can encourage local authorities to set up their own Local Electricity Company.

Conceivably, the 32 councils could even jointly own one National Electricity Company – the Scotland Act merely bans the Scottish Government from owning the company.

In many ways, this would be an even better idea than the Scottish Government doing it. Government borrowing ­powers are far too limited and you’d need to ­campaign for more borrowing powers to get the scale of action required to build the infrastructure we need – but councils have a trick up their sleeves.

They are allowed to borrow basically as much money as they like so long as the ­investment the borrowing allows brings in enough of a return to pay back the loan. This is very likely how Shetland Council will finance its plan to connect the islands via tunnels – the construction would be paid for via tolls on traffic.

Energy, as we know, is very profitable indeed so there should be absolutely no issue with councils being able to pay back their loans and then to use the revenue from their energy generation to subsidise local households against fuel poverty and to support public services.

If we want to go even more local than this, then councils and perhaps the Scottish National Investment Bank could support communities to own their own energy.

We’ve seen multiple times that community ownership generates many times as much local wealth building – as well as skills and jobs – than the current model of private ownership plus paltry “community benefit funds”.

3) A National Mutual Energy Company

This is another national-scale energy company that the Scottish Government could launch but in this case wouldn’t own or control. Instead, the “National Mutual” would be owned by the people of Scotland.

In this model, every adult resident of ­Scotland would be issued one share in the company. They wouldn’t be able to sell it and they’d have to surrender it if they ever stop living in Scotland, but ­other than this, it would be much like owning a share in companies like Co-op.

The company would be run as any other commercial company and would be beholden not to the Government but to its shareholders – us. We’d jointly ­decide ­future energy strategy and even potentially have a say in how much of the company’s operating surpluses are invested in future developments or distributed to shareholders (again, us) as a dividend.

This model would be particularly suited to very large energy developments that cut across local authority or even national borders or to help develop offshore assets. Imagine ScotWind had been owned by the people of Scotland, instead of being flogged off to multinational companies in an auction that had a maximum bidding price attached.

Conclusion

First Minister, I applaud you for keeping up some sense of pressure on the UK Government on energy.

As we make the necessary ­transitions ­required of us under our obligations to end the climate emergency, this is one of the sectors of Scotland that will change the most. It’s vital that we get this ­transition right, or not only will ­Scotland see yet another generation of energy ­potential squandered in the same way that the coal and oil eras were, we’ll see Scottish ­households bear the weight of others ­profiting from that transition while we still experience crushing levels of poverty and economic vulnerability.

The UK Government may be ruling out all of their options on energy but that doesn’t mean that you need to do the same. We don’t need to wait until independence – as vital as it is – or to wait until Westminster gets its act together – which may or may not happen. We – you – have options too. It’s time to take them.

Yours, expectantly …

How to Launch a Scottish Wealth Tax

/ Dr Craig Dalzell / Leave a comment

“I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence.” – Eugene V. Debs

This blog post previously appeared in The National.
If you’d like to support my work for Common Weal or support me and this blog directly, see my donation policy page here.

person holding fan of us dollar bill

(Image Source: Unsplash)

“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”. This used to be the core credo of parties of the Left – particularly the Labour Party in Britain – but it appears to have been eroded to the point of meaninglessness. Wealth inequality is increasing at an unimaginable rate and is currently substantially higher than income inequality. The rich are taking from all of us far more than they need and are giving back far less than what they are able to. This is a self-reinforcing problem such as where people who were able to buy houses when they were cheap (perhaps during Thatcher’s Right to Buy demolition of the social housing sector) became able to rent them out at ever increasing rates to people who can’t now afford to save the deposit to buy a house because house prices are rising faster than they can save due to the amount they have to spend on rent. Even the Office of Budget Responsibility is now warning (as I did several years ago in my book All of Our Futures) of the fiscal risks looming due to the number of people still privately renting when they retire and who will simultaneously be unable to afford to keep paying those rents and won’t have any capital saved in their house to subsidise their inadequate state pensions.

It’s not for no reason that the British public are increasingly demanding that the UK Government brings in a wealth tax to rebalance our increasingly unstable economy. I will say that there are good reasons for the UK to not bring in “a wealth tax” – by which I mean a single annual payment calculated as a certain percentage of the value of all of the assets and possessions that you own. Prof. Richard Murphy has articulated many of them well. It’s hard to value those possessions. Easy to hide them. And there are other taxes that the UK could use – such as reforms to taxes on stocks, shares, pensions and capital gains – that would achieve much of the same result. Not that the UK Government is going to do any of that either unless the pressure escalates to the point that the impossible becomes inevitable.

Let’s say, however, that the Scottish Government wants to take the first step. Could we do it here instead of waiting for the UK?

The patterns of wealth ownership in Scotland are substantially different than in the UK (particularly in London and the South East). We don’t have quite as many financial billionaires floating about the place. We don’t have as much wealth in stocks and shares – mostly because we don’t have a stock exchange in Scotland any more. Our generally lower rates of pay mean comparatively lower rates of wealth stored in pensions. There are, however, two sectors in Scotland where wealth is substantially stored and which could be taxed using devolved tax powers – Land and buildings.

Scotland already has its Land and Buildings Transaction Tax but despite the Scottish Greens seeking to apply what they called a “mansion tax” to it this would remain merely a surcharge on the transfer of assets, not a wealth tax applied to the holding of them. If you never bought another mansion, you’d never pay the mansion tax.

Council Tax is the most outdated and badly broken tax Scotland still insists on inflicting on the poor. The Scottish Government has stated that they’re not even going to think about reforming it until the end of this decade. This is completely unacceptable, especially as the solution is obvious. We need to scrap Council Tax and replace it with a tax based on a percentage of the present market value of the property. Common Weal argued that a rate of 0.63% would have been revenue neutral compared to Council Tax at the time we published the paper. That number could be recalculated now but we estimated then that a “revenue neutral” rate would actually mean a tax cut for eight out of 10 households as the burden of paying the tax would be placed more fairly on those who lived in the most expensive houses. We calculated that the “break even” point then would have been a house worth something like £400,000. This is based one a flat rate of tax too. We would argue that Councils should have the power to add progressive rates on extremely valuable properties like £1mn+ mansions or, as is the case with the current Council Tax, additional multipliers for multiple home ownership.

This would immediately act as a wealth tax both on the most expensive properties but also on multiple property ownership. Unlike Council Tax that is paid by occupants, our Property Tax would be paid by property owners and they could only pass on to their tenants the basic rate of tax. Landlords would have to pay any multiple ownership surcharges themselves.

The second wealth store in Scotland – land – is probably the greatest store of almost untaxed wealth in the country. Many countries tax the ownership of land as a distinct tax from properties built on it (sometimes because of local democracy, for example you might pay the land tax to your municipal government and your property tax to your regional government) but in Scotland there may be good reason to not do that but to simply extend the Property Tax to cover not just the land under and around your mansion but also the broader estate you own with it. Given that the two are often sold together, this will be much easier to put a price on than trying to calculate a separate Land Value Tax. We’ve estimated that doing this at the same flat rate as the Property Tax would bring in around £450 million a year in revenue – though this could be adjusted down to account for subsidies for small farms or up to better tax the 422 people who own half of Scotland.

One of the major advantages of both of these taxes – one that negates objections from both the UK and Scottish Government whenever taxes on the wealth have been suggested – is that it completely bypasses the idea that the rich will simply leave the country. Recent studies have shown that the idea of “millionaire flight” basically isn’t a thing (it’s not just a huge logistical hassle for comparatively little financial gain to pack everything up to go and live in a tax haven, even millionaires have friends and family as do their kids and tearing up those social bonds to save a bit of money just isn’t worth it) but this hasn’t stopped the media pushing that line anyway. Even if it was true, the wealth they have locked up in Scottish land and housing can’t move with them. The tax still needs to be paid by whomever owns them regardless of where they live (and many of the largest landowners in Scotland already don’t live here so the point is particularly moot there).

One of the biggest sources of instability in our current society and economy is wealth inequality. It urgently needs to be reigned in and reversed. If the UK Government persists in refusing to do it then there is at least something that the Scottish Government can do without having to wait for them. And if the current Scottish Government doesn’t want to do it either well, there are elections next year. Maybe politicians could suggest who we should vote for who will?

Four Ideas For Housing Scotland

/ Dr Craig Dalzell / Leave a comment

“The profits were staggering. In 1966, a Chicago landlord told a court that on a single property he had made $42,500 in rent but paid only $2,400 in maintenance. When accused of making excessive profits, the landlord simply replied, “That’s why I bought the building.”” – Matthew Desmond, Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City

This blog post previously appeared in The National as part of Common Weal’s In Common newsletter.
If you’d like to support my work for Common Weal or support me and this blog directly, see my donation policy page here.

Màiri McAllan has returned to the Scottish Government after a well deserved period of patient parental leave though has left her former post as Cabinet Secretary for Energy and has been tasked with fixing Scotland’s housing crisis. As a writer of policies on both topics I don’t exactly envy the position but I can at least lay out some of the options I and my colleagues in Common Weal have published over the years on the topic. Housing is about more than homes – as anyone can attest if they have ever objected to a planning application for a new suburban sprawl on the basis that it would add extra pressure to services such as GPs, schools and other public services without adding to provision – but about building a sense of place, of community and about meeting a fundamental human need for shelter. The task is far larger than I can do justice in these few lines of text but I shall offer Màiri four ideas to help fix housing in Scotland.

Actual Land Reform

You cannot build a home without having the land to build on it. This is a particularly acute problem in rural Scotland where despite having the space to build we often cannot access the land due to it being held by mega-estates and is simply not for sale or when it is, the price to buy is being speculated beyond control. We need a land tax and other mechanisms like Mercedes Vilalba’s proposal to cap maximum land ownership. One of the most powerful ideas though would be to allow Councils to buy land at “existing use value”. That is the value of land as it currently is, not an inflated value based on its “potential” for housing or other uses.

Build “Enough” Social Housing

The central reason why Britain’s housing “market” is broken is because we run housing as a market. Thatcher broke the previous system by selling off social housing and making it impossible for Councils to replace them. Social housing should never be the last option before homelessness but the first choice for housing for many. My paper Good Houses for All shows how the borrowing powers of Councils and the Scottish National Investment Bank could build essentially unlimited homes for social rent (Councils aren’t limited in borrowing powers like Holyrood is, so long as the rents are sufficient to pay back the loan). They could be built to the highest possible energy standards to outbid the private sector in both price and quality. And they shouldn’t be built to an arbitrary target of “more houses than the previous government” but based on actual need. Councils should have a waiting list of people who want one of these homes and be resourced to deliver them by a certain date. If we do this, the private sector will be forced to cut rents and increase quality…or their landlords will decide that they can no longer exploit people for a profit and will have to sell.

Fill Vacant Housing

“But what happens to the houses if the landlords sell?” Scotland already has more vacant homes than we have homeless households. Many of those homes are not being sold, but are still being clung on to as a speculative investment because prices are rising higher than costs. We also have even more vacant housing than appears in those statistics because many High Street shops in Scotland have housing units above them that are vacant but are classified as “commercial use” rather than residential. Look above the ground floor in many places in the centre of Glasgow and you’ll start to see them.

Policies like increasing Council Tax multipliers on empty homes and Màiri’s announcement this week of extra vacant housing officers will go a long way towards fixing this. Councils should also be resourced to allow them to use their Compulsory Purchase powers more aggressively – particularly to support them to purchase vacant homes not at “market rate” but at a fair rate that will include consideration of the costs to repair and retrofit the housing up to the standards expected of newbuilds – this will often be far cheaper than building new and therefore will contribute to the solution to the crisis in a much more resource efficient way.

Increase rental building standards

For the housing that remains in private rental hands, we need to continue the work already being done around tenants’ rights, rent controls and quality standards. As hinted above, many private rented houses in Scotland fall far short of energy efficiency and other environmental standards and urgently need retrofitted. France is rolling out a scheme whereby it will be illegal to rent properties that fall below a certain EPC rating and the minimum rating will keep rising every few years. Scotland should do the same. Before those retrofits happen, many of these properties also need to be repaired first (there’s little point in installing solar panels on a leaking roof). The aggressive recapture of housing for social rent mentioned above could also be done with private rented homes that still have sitting tenants if the landlord wishes to sell or is deemed no longer adequately responsible in their management of housing, converting them to social rents and offering a rent-controlled lifetime tenancy to the tenant along with an improving their homes.

Conclusion

The housing emergency in Scotland is perhaps second only to the climate emergency that Màiri was familiar with in her previous brief. The two are, in fact, interrelated and can’t be solved separately. What won’t solve it is shovelling more money into the maws of private developers under the guise of “affordable housing” that is barely either. It’s not going to solved by a single tweak anywhere or even if we only do everything on this list but every step we take will lead to more people living more affordably and more securely in a country that can more than afford to provide that but for too long hasn’t by design.

Continue reading →

What Scottish Independence Could Deliver For The Welfare State

/ Dr Craig Dalzell / 1 Comment

“How much time he gains who does not look to see what his neighbour says or does or thinks, but only at what he does himself, to make it just and holy.” – Marcus Aurelius

This blog post previously appeared in The National as part of Common Weal’s In Common newsletter.
If you’d like to support my work for Common Weal or support me and this blog directly, see my donation policy page here.

Back in the early days of Common Weal, while we were still finding our feet and building our reputation, we had an informal rule when it came to policy-making. We had to be able to show the policy working somewhere else.

This was because we felt that Scotland simply wasn’t ready for some of the radical ideas that we wanted to implement so being able to show it already working was a good way of building confidence in a nation too often told “we cannae dae it” (by which our opponents often mean “we shouldnae dae it” which is a different thing entirely).

We’ve since dispensed with that rule and we sometimes broke it even then (one of Common Weal’s very first policy papers, “In Place Of Anxiety”, was an advocacy for Universal Basic Income (UBI) long before it became one of the “cool” policies) but this isn’t to say that we can’t learn lessons from elsewhere.

Just this week, I was asked by a researcher which of our neighbour nations I’d like Scotland to copy if I could. My answer was that we shouldn’t copy any one but that I take a lot of inspiration from Germany on local democracy, from Denmark on energy strategy and from Norway for public ownership. Somewhere else we could do with taking inspiration from our neighbours is on social security.

The scenes this week from the UK’s attempts to hammer the poor and disabled and only backing down after shambolic chaos in the Parliament should be a lesson not just in humanity but in policy-making as well. Never fight a battle you haven’t won in advance. Never assume a large on-paper majority means certain absolute power.

With many of our neighbours basing their politics on proportional representation and coalition politics, this kind of legislation would have undergone a lot of negotiation and compromise long before arriving at the voting chamber.

The way that many of our neighbours deal with the issue of social security is markedly different from the UK in several ways. The first is that the systems are a lot more generous in general. Norway, Denmark and Sweden rank in the top three OECD nations for spending on disability protections at above 3% of GDP while the UK is well below the OECD average at less than 2%.

Many more social securities like unemployment protections follow a different model from the UK when they are calculated. In particular, instead of the flat rate paid under the UK’s Universal Credit, many countries follow a model where the protection you receive is based on a percentage of your previous income.

There are consequences to each of these models. A flat rate tends to be more redistributive if it is generous enough (which Universal Credit isn’t) whereas a proportional rate tends to be less disruptive to an individual who is already going through the shock of losing their job while still having bills to pay.

We’ve seen these impacts in the UK too. During the pandemic, the Covid furlough scheme was paid at a proportional rate to people who were employed but was often paid at a flat Universal Credit rate to self-employed people. This exposed a lot of people who were previously on the side of denigrating poor and vulnerable people as lazy slackers to just how meagre and cruel the UK “benefits” system is.

We had an opportunity then to get some serious change off the back of that and maybe we still see echoes of it in this week’s chaos but largely the Powers That Be wanted to make us forget that moment of reflection as quickly as possible.

On the other side and as tempting as it might be to copy a European-style unemployment insurance based on previous income, and as beneficial that would be to people in well-paid but otherwise insecure jobs, we have to remember that many people are not in well-paid jobs and that wage suppression has been rife in the UK for decades. Receiving 60% of your previous income when you were being paid poverty wages won’t protect you from poverty in unemployment.

So maybe rather than Scotland – particularly an independent Scotland – copying existing social security policies from our neighbours, we need to look to them for inspiration in another way and look back at that paper I mentioned at the start of this column.

Last year, the EU think tank the Coppieters Foundation published a paper called “A European Universal Basic Income” which found that a UBI sufficient to eradicate poverty across the entire union could be entirely paid for by relatively modest changes to income tax and the savings found from the reduction of poverty itself.

Its model called for a UBI of €6,857 per year for adults and half that for children under 14. This is the equivalent of £113 per week for adults and £57 per week for children. The paper claimed that the increase in income taxes to pay for this level of UBI would themselves be relatively modest and the “breakeven” point for people who’d pay more income tax than they’d receive in UBI would be at around the 80th percentile.

In other words, eight out of 10 people would be directly better off with the UBI. And, to repeat, while this is still a relatively small sum per person if you have no other income, it would be enough to eradicate poverty across the entire EU and would be cheaper overall – after the health, crime and social inequality costs of poverty are factored in – than the current systems.

When this paper came out I argued that this meant a UBI was now a moral imperative because it was cheaper than the cost of poverty, but there’s clearly a financial imperative too. Whether we’re discussing an independent Scotland seeking to create a better country for all of us or even just a cynical UK trying to save money in the face of a humiliating attempt to crush the poor, here is a solution we should all support. Eradicate poverty, save money, implement a Universal Basic Income.

If You Want Jobs; Don’t Prepare For War

/ Dr Craig Dalzell / Leave a comment

“Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieved by understanding.” — Albert Einstein

This blog post previously appeared in The National as part of Common Weal’s In Common newsletter.
If you’d like to support my work for Common Weal or support me and this blog directly, see my donation policy page here.

a group of men sitting next to each other in a trench

Source: British Library

There are many reasons to oppose the UK Government’s push towards increased militarism in an already unstable and increasingly violent world. Adding more bombs – especially nuclear bombs – to the mix is not going to improve matters. The only thing that ever has has been years and decades longs work by diplomats to de-escalate tensions and to build peace. As Master Yoda once said on being accused of being a “great warrior”, “wars not make one great”.

By far the worst reason to support the extra spending is the usual “enemy-at-the-gates” emotional fearmongering that proponents usually cast about when they want more money for more bombs but the second worst is the claim that such spending will “support jobs and the economy”. I’m going to make the case that spending the same amount of money on just about anything else would do more good for the UK and Scottish economies.

The scale of the UK’s proposed militaristic expansion is vast. We don’t yet know how much extra they plan to spend but an increase from the current 2.3% of GDP to 3% (the minimum required to finance the proposed fleet of new submarines and nuclear-armed fighter jets) would cost around £20 billion more than is currently being spent every year. Increasing spending to match Donald Trump’s demand that the UK spends 5% of GDP would cost £80 billion a year. Bear in mind that this is on top of the UK’s already proportionately massive spending on military matters – it’s instructive to note that the UK spends more per capita on nuclear weapons alone than any nuclear-armed nation other than the USA and Israel at around £90 per person per year (that’s more than I spend on my mobile phone SIM contract!).

Trump isn’t likely to get his wish of Britain spending 5% of GDP – that’s about as much as was being spent during the Falklands War when Britain’s GDP was less than half the size is currently is – and it’s not a commitment that the UK have made quite yet so we should only talk about that £20 billion increase for now. What do we actually get for that?

In economic terms, the material assets are useless. The nuclear submarines and nuclear armed jets don’t themselves produce anything or add value to the economy in the way that a factory might. If they’re ever used, they have a negative economic value but Britain rarely counts the cost of its wars as applied to the people we’re bombing or supporting others to bomb. Even if they’re not used, they are likely to have a negative economic impact on Scotland. Military spending is exempt from the Barnett Consequentials that decide the Block Grants given to devolved governments so if the spending comes not from increased taxes (ruled out by Rachel Reeves) or from increased borrowing (ruled out by Rachel Reeves) but from cuts to Barnett spending like education, social security or something similar then that will mean cuts to Holyrood which is far less able to compensate via borrowing or increased taxes. This will have a devastating impact on public services unlikely to be compensated for even by the few jobs that will be “created or sustained” in Scotland (a number that will likely go up and down in its estimate in line with pro-independence polling, as such promises of UK-backed jobs so often do).

How many jobs are we talking? The Government estimates that the £20 billion will buy 31,000 jobs. How many in Scotland? Unknown, but 20,000 of those jobs have been announced for the submarine programme to be based in Barrow-on-Furnace, 9,000 will be dedicated to building new nuclear warheads – most of which will be based in Aldermaston and the remaining 2,000 will be split across “6 munition factories” of which an unknown number may or may not be based in Scotland.

£20 billion for 31,000 jobs is £645,161 per job, per year. That £20 billion per year would support far more jobs if it was directed to civilian research and engineering as it would go on to boost the economy further through “economic multipliers” and the inventions and technology that would come out of that research. It’s estimated that every £1 of public spending on civilian healthcare research, for instance, returns at least £2 to the economy whereas defence spending usually breaks about even – less so if the spending comes at the cost of public spending elsewhere. Given that the weapons are economically useless if they’re not used and economically negative if they are used, then if the goal is supporting jobs it’d be more effective to pay each of those engineers £645,161 every year to stand by the side of the road and wave at traffic – at least they’d go on to spend that money supporting jobs in the wider economy instead of it sitting there in a bomb waiting to blow up someone else’s economy, house and family. Less flippantly, we could give every single person in the UK a £300 end-of-year bonus for the same price – not quite a sustainable Universal Basic Income but that would become a very valuable economic stimulus package on the scale of the similar dividend that residents of Alaska receive every year.

There may be legitimate reasons to invest in military spending but stop trying to either frighten us or bribe us into accepting the illegitimate ones instead. Simply put, if your goal is “jobs” then don’t invest in “defence”. Invest in just about anything else. Maybe even invest in peace. Then you won’t need the bombs at all.

What I’d Sacrifice For Wellbeing

/ Dr Craig Dalzell / 1 Comment

“Equality is not a concept. It’s not something we should be striving for. It’s a necessity.” – Joss Whedon

This is a transcript – edited for text medium – of the speech I gave at the Independence Forum Scotland Conference in Perth on the 14th of June 2025

If you’d like to support this blog, you can throw me a tip at my Ko-Fi.

Image Source: Independence Live

The previous speaker posed us the question of what would it look like to bridge the gap between defining a Wellbeing Economy and achieving one. I’m going to try to look at that problem through the lens of sacrifice.

Those opposing economic change often frame the transition away from the status quo as causing us sacrifice.

Whether it’s sacrificing something abstract like the idea that “GDP Growth will make you rich”, even though it hasn’t.

Whether it’s “The climate transition will force you to give up your conveniences”, as if the only way to live sustainably is by moving into the forest, gathering berries and being robed in hemp homespun like some kind of hedge witch (actually…that sounds good…)

It’s sometimes even the outright conspiracy theory level of “15 Minute Neighbourhoods will take away your freedom to drive for 45 minutes to find a post box, if you can get past the military checkpoints at the end of your street”.

But what if a Wellbeing Economy wasn’t about sacrificing anything we’d miss? What if it actually was about fixing the things that are wrong with the way we live today?

In the next session you’re all going to be asked the question “What does a wellbeing economy look like?”. I’d like to throw in a few ideas here about what it means to me but looking through the eyes of what I might have to sacrifice to get there.

First – the daily commute. I’ve already sacrificed that. I’ve worked from home since the pandemic. I know. I get the privilege. I have a job that can be worked from home and, more importantly, I have a home that can be worked from. Not everyone who has the former has the latter. I’m a homeowner so I could modify my house to retrofit in an office. Renters in Scotland often can’t. Renters in Germany have the right to make reasonable modifications to their home though. So maybe we need to sacrifice the kind of landlord lobby that holds Scotland back and builds a housing sector for their profit rather than our wellbeing.

On the commute itself, the Scottish Government recently ditched its target of reducing car miles after being told they weren’t doing anything to meet it. The extra pollution this failure will result in will sacrifice people. That’s not a wellbeing economy.

Second, still on houses, I’d like to sacrifice my heating bill. Our housing sector is built for developer profits too, so we get cheap, crap, cold, damp houses that are hard to repair and retrofit. And we have a retrofitting strategy built around dumping the responsibility to fix things on you, rather than treating this as a massive public works infrastructure job for the public good.

I’d like to sacrifice buying things. The biggest mindset shift we as a society went through in the last twenty years was from “I need a thing, I’ll walk down the High Street and buy one” to “I need a thing, I’ll drive to the out-of-town outlet to buy one” to “I need a thing, I’ll buy it from Amazon Prime and have someone with a crap job deliver it to me tomorrow”. The next mindset shift needs to be “I need a thing, I’ll walk down the High Street and borrow one from the library”. The Scottish Government made a promise to the 2021 Climate Assembly to deliver 75 new Tool Libraries by the end of 2024. They only delivered 9. And the Minister at the time told me that they knew that 75 wasn’t enough to create that mindset shift but that they “hoped that the private sector would fill the gap”. Guess what. It didn’t.

While I’m down the High Street, I’d like to sacrifice the Thatcherist mindset that “there’s no such thing as society”. That mindset has actively pushed society out of our lives in favour of consumerism. Think about your community. How many of you can think of a space that you can go to, where you have a reasonable chance of accidentally meeting someone that you know. And it’s a place where you can exist for as long as you like without the expectation of buying something?

The protests over the removal of the steps in Buchanan St in Glasgow are emblematic of this. Let’s face it. Those steps aren’t particularly nice. It’s not a green urban nature reserve – it’s bare stone. They’re not comfy to sit on. It’s in the middle of a walking route. But they are a place to be in the middle of the city where you can gather and not buy and consume. They are a focal point for protest and organisation more generally – if that’s not “society”, what is? Glasgow Council keeps wanting to turn them into shops. I wonder if that plan is about suppressing protest more than it’s about encouraging consumerism.

It’s about sacrificing need and poverty. I want to see a Job Guarantee so that everyone who wants to work can work. But I also want a Universal Basic Income so that no-one needs to work, even if they want to. That need is what really keeps us poor. Keeps us powerless because it keeps us working for crap wages and bad conditions because if we don’t, we’re told that someone more desperate than us can replace us. The rich above us weaponise the poor below us to enrich themselves. It doesn’t even matter where “we” are in that ladder, because there’s always someone richer weaponising someone poorer.

And that’s the final thing I’d like to sacrifice to create a wellbeing economy. The idea that we’re not all in this together. The idea that there are people in this world who are better than you. Whether it’s by dint of Magic Blood, or by the power of their Magic Hat that can make you a Commander of the British Empire. Or whether it’s an overtanned manbaby who wanted to play with real life toy soldiers on his birthday. Or whether it’s any number of warlords who think that history will remember them kindly for their warcrimes or their desire to murder civilians by the score.

That’s what a wellbeing economy means to me. No Kings. Not real ones, not fake ones. Just a society that puts All of Us First.

This Article Has Been [Redacted]

/ Dr Craig Dalzell / 1 Comment

“Truth never damages a cause that is just.” – Mahatma Gandhi

This blog post previously appeared in Common Weal’s weekly newsletter. Sign up for the newsletter here.

If you’d like to support my work for Common Weal or support me and this blog directly, see my donation policy page here.

Source: Unsplash

The Scottish Government continues to show bad faith when it comes to Freedom of Information, spending more time and effort to conceal information than it would take to simply comply with the spirit of the legislation.

Continue reading →

Burning Down The House of Cards

/ Dr Craig Dalzell / Leave a comment

“What are the odds that people will make smart decisions about money if they don’t need to make smart decisions—if they can get rich making dumb decisions?” – Michael Lewis, The Big Short

This blog post previously appeared in Common Weal’s weekly newsletter. Sign up for the newsletter here.

If you’d like to support my work for Common Weal or support me and this blog directly, see my donation policy page here.

Image Credit: Dominic Alves

Rachel Reeves has signalled that she is “open minded” about the banks lobbying her to repeal regulations that came in after the 2008 Financial Crash. If she does, she will be accepting responsibility for the next one the banks inevitably cause.

One of the most important films dealing with the financial sector since the 2008 Financial Crash was 2015’s The Big Short. Comedic, irreverent and outright scathing of those involved, yet it remains one of the most incisive explanations of the 2008 Financial Crash and it managed to make the intentionally obscure world of financial alchemy accessible to the lay person. I’d go as far to say that it did for the idea of ‘sustainable investment banking’ as the films Threads and The Day After did for the idea of a “survivable nuclear war”.

If you haven’t seen it, please do so and pay particular attention to the scene explaining the concept of “synthetic CDOs” – where investors could effectively gamble on the possibility of you defaulting on your mortgage, and other investors could gamble on whether or not those investors will win their bet, and more investors could gamble on the outcome of those bets…all without knowing anything at all about your finances and the state of your mortgage.

One of the things that made these ‘financial instruments’ so destructive was that the ‘investment’ side of the banking sector – the bit that involves people effectively gambling amongst themselves with money that maybe was theirs and maybe wasn’t – was entirely leveraged on the ‘retail’ side of the banking sector – that’s the bit where you put money in your savings account and ask the bank for a mortgage to buy a house – but was completely divorced from it to the point that one side didn’t understand what the other side was doing.

When the housing boom of the early 2000s came to an end in late 2007 and people started defaulting on mortgages, this would have normally been tragic for those losing their homes and a sign of a substantial economic recession but would have ultimately resulted in a bounce back. But all of those ‘investment firms’ sitting on top of the sector were gambling with money that they ‘knew’ was ‘safe’ (because ‘safe as houses’) despite the houses not being nearly as safe as people assumed.

Not just assumed. The way the CDOs were structured made it functionally impossible for anyone to actually assess the risk of their failure. Because it was impossible to work how and if they might fail, the credit agencies declared them to be safe (yes, really) which encouraged banks to pile money into them.

It got so bad that the investment sector was gambling with something like $20 for every $1 actually involved in the mortgages. The investment gambling sector was many times larger than the value of thing they were gambling on. The liabilities on the banks ‘if’ their sure bet failed reached the point of being larger than the GDP of the countries they were based in.

It would only take a small increase in the percentage of mortgage defaults to utterly bankrupt the banks. An increase that might be caused by investment bankers encouraging retails bankers to take on ever riskier mortgages (with ever higher profit margins), paying exorbitant bonuses to bankers who could sell larger and larger mortgages to people who couldn’t afford to pay them.

Which is what happened. And the backlash threatened to pull down other sectors of the economy because the bankers weren’t just gambling on mortgages but on everything just about up to and including whether or not the sky was blue and the fact that the investment wings were entwined with their retails wings meant that if their investment bank failed, the ATMs on the high streets could be shut down too (runs on banks like Northern Rock showed the visceral reality of people faced with losing their savings because of someone else’s mistakes).

Continue reading →