Monthly Archives: November 2013

Arts, Books, History, Scotland, Spain

Book Review: ‘Homage to Caledonia: Scotland and the Spanish Civil War’…

SCOTLAND: ANSWERING A CALL

SEVENTY FIVE years ago, in 1938, the International Brigades were disbanded. Never was there a better time to document and celebrate those Scots who fought, and often died, in the 20th century’s first international battle against fascism.

In many ways the term ‘Spanish Civil War’ is a misnomer. Most people knew it was no more than a rehearsal for an even bloodier conflict to come, and that the ideas being killed and died for – communism, revolution-ism, parliamentary democracy and fascism – would go on to shape the future of the entire world.

Some 549 men and women from Aberdeen, Dundee, Glasgow, Lothian farmlands and the Highlands are known to have left for what was then a distant and alien country. They went illegally, as the British Government had, shockingly, adopted a policy of non-intervention in the face of yet another European country falling to a Nazi ally.

The book, acknowledged in its foreword by Tony Benn as being ‘important and powerful’, is not only a culmination of extensive academic research but a personal gathering of information from relatives of those engaged in the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War.

The book, acknowledged in its foreword by Tony Benn as being ‘important and powerful’, is not only a culmination of extensive academic research but a personal gathering of information from relatives of those engaged in the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War.

Although the British, French, and American governments proclaimed support for the freely elected Spanish Republic, their every move in the war betrayed their preference for a victory by the rebel generals over a communist or, even worse, a revolutionary Spain. The Scottish volunteers crept over the border at Perpignan after an uncomfortable journey, many of them having covered long tracts of it on foot and with little to eat on the way. They fought together with Spaniards, Italians, Russians, Germans, Irish and many other nationalities at Albacete, Jarama, the Aragon Front and in the Battle for Madrid. More than 2000 British soldiers fought; over a quarter of those Scots that travelled never returned.

 

ALMOST a quarter of all British volunteers were from Scotland; more than most other countries by head of population. It was an extraordinary level of commitment, and defiance, for a small nation. People of all classes signed up for the fight against Franco’s version of ultra-conservative Catholicism, but the majority of those committed to the cause came from working-class areas such as Shettleston and Calton. Their stories, though, have never been adequately told. Daniel Gray has done them justice.

Mr Gray was perfectly placed in writing this book. A curator at the National Library of Scotland, he is in his element amongst archives and historical records, histories and memoirs. For Gray’s cleverly titled book, he has drawn on national and overseas sources, and has organised a very complex story into a well-constructed and compelling narrative. Daniel is a capable writer; his prose is unfussy, fluent and warm. Pointedly, he has squared the circle of producing accurate history while retaining a deep respect for those who archive and steward it. Homage to Caledonia is in no way hagiography – a chapter is dedicated on those Scots who supported Franco – but, Mr Gray’s admiration for those volunteers who risked their lives is subtle and elegant.

Daniel Gray has a remarkable intuitive sense in knowing when to let the soldiers, nurses and writers tell their own stories. Sydney Quinn’s testament, for instance, is expressed:

…Whenever I see the thousands of Spanish children streaming along the road away from the fascists, my thoughts revert back home, and I can see you and your brothers in the same circumstances if we don’t smash the fascist monsters here.

Mr Quinn wrote that paragraph to his family back in Glasgow on the eve of going into action against fascism.

Steve Fullarton wrote from the thick of battle:

… I found George Jackson lying stretched out. George came from Cowdenbeath … Charlie McLeod of Aberdeen was lying with his head on George Jackson’s chest. And Malcolm Smith was lying about a yard or so away. All were dead…

Gray studies the reasons for the Scots’ decision to volunteer. Over half were affiliated in one way or another to the Communist Party. Garry McCartney, a blacksmith from Dennistoun, commented:

…We weren’t fighting for communism; we just wanted to beat the fascists.

The personal letters of David Murray, a member of the Independent Labour Party, cast a fascinating light on Spanish anarchists and those who fought alongside them. The death of Larkhall’s Bob Smillie, for instance, whose death to this day still divides the Scottish left – did he die of natural causes or was he kicked to death by Spanish Communists? Ethel Macdonald, the so called ‘Scottish Scarlet Pimpernel’, who reported from within the anarchist camp in Barcelona, vehemently documents the belief in the latter. Mr Gray’s chapter on MacDonald is a revealing examination of the fault-lines on both the Scottish and Spanish left.

 

FOR the men and women who went to fight, or to help in whatever capacity they could, doctrinal differences were of little or no importance. Rather, a sense of solidarity – amongst the Scots themselves and the volunteers from countless countries – and a sense of fighting at an historic and honourable moment:

…One day we shall tell our children about the defence of Madrid; this epic story can never die in the pages of world history. I think of Jock Cunningham from Coatbridge out in Spain… leading his men fearlessly and unafraid, dancing with death.

Daniel Gray has written a deeply moving account of one part of human history that is thought-provoking and vividly emotional, not only of those 549 Scottish people, but of two nations – Scotland and Spain – battling with an evil that would soon darken the whole of Europe.

– ‘Homage to Caledonia: Scotland and the Spanish Civil War’ written by Daniel Gray is published by Luath Press for £16.99. 

Standard
Asia, China, Japan, Politics, Society, United States

The embroilment over the Senkaku Islands between Japan and China…

SENKAKU ISLANDS

Intro: Japan and China, and America’s delicate balancing act

The row between Japan and China over the Senkaku islands is escalating. It has implications for almost everyone.

The Senkaku (or to China the Diaoyu) is an obscure archipelago comprising a tiny chain of five uninhabited islets and three barren rocks, located hundreds of miles from land. To an outside observer this might seem an unlikely prize given the awkwardness of the island’s geographical position, but with everything from oil revenues to regional clout at stake, the dispute in Asia is cause for grave concern.

The history concerning ownership of the islands is important to understand. Whilst Beijing maintains that the islands were claimed by China in the 1300s, Tokyo insists they were classed as an international no man’s land until Japan seized control and took them over in 1895. The political dispute has been rumbling on since the 1970s, but the pressure has steadily increased in recent years as a newly rich and empowered China has sought to flex its regional muscles by attempting to extend its influence in the US-dominated Pacific.

Last year, Japan stoked tensions with the announcement by the Governor of Tokyo of plans to use public money to purchase the islands from their private owner. That hardly gave notice of Japan’s intention to defuse ongoing tensions. Now, though, it is China that has upped the ante. Last week, Beijing declared a new ‘air defence identification zone’ covering a swathe of the South China Sea, including the disputed islands. The order from China requires all aircraft entering the sector to submit flight plans or face ‘defensive emergency measures’. This was always going to be contentious, if not provocative for Tokyo, as the area overlaps with one of Japan’s own air defence zones.

Indeed, Tokyo’s response was swift and uncompromising. The Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, derided the plan as being ‘unenforceable’ and of having ‘no validity’. Two Japanese long-haul airlines which initially complied with Beijing’s demands were soon persuaded to withdraw their co-operation.

The reaction of the United States, however, has been imperative here. Because Washington has a post-war commitment to the defence of Japanese territory (which includes the Senkaku Islands), and given its recent foreign policy ‘pivot to Asia’, Beijing’s moves are increasingly being interpreted as a test of resolve for Barack Obama and of Mr Abe. America’s orientation towards Asia has stemmed from China’s rising power.

The U.S. has acted decisively. This week, it sent two unarmed B52s through the zone without notifying the Chinese authorities.

In an attempt to pacify tensions being inflamed still further, the Pentagon quickly claimed the flight was a long-planned training mission. For many analysts, though, the message is crystal clear – particularly given that it came days after the Defence Secretary, Chuck Hagel, denounced Beijing’s move as a ‘destabilising attempt to alter the status quo in the region’. Mr Hagel stated, too, that American military operations or its foreign policy on Asia would not change.

America’s intervention and move has been the right one, simply on the premise that China cannot be allowed to throw its weight around. If Beijing has a case then it must be sought through the correct legal channels, not implemented and administered unilaterally because of its desire to control.

Japan must also bear some responsibility in provoking tensions as flashpoints have become commonly frequent. In equal fashion it has shown itself too ready to indulge in rhetorical chest-beating with Mr Abe at times exhibiting disturbingly nationalist leanings. For the U.S., maintaining regional balance is paramount, and it should not been seen to be endorsing posturing from either side.

The diplomatic task facing the US in Asia is as difficult and perilous as any it is currently faced with. The Senkaku Islands may be just a few distant and remote rocks, but the chances are they could become the fulcrum upon which one of the greatest challenges of 21st century geopolitics lie. With both Beijing and Tokyo under growing domestic pressure for a show of strength abroad, and with the inevitable disruption that China’s economic rise will cause, America must be sure of its approach in maintaining regional balance.

At the heart of the dispute are eight uninhabited islands and rocks in the East China Sea. They have a total area of about 7 sq km and lie north-east of Taiwan, east of the Chinese mainland and south-west of Japan's southern-most prefecture, Okinawa. The islands are controlled by Japan.

At the heart of the dispute are eight uninhabited islands and rocks in the East China Sea. They have a total area of about 7 sq km and lie north-east of Taiwan, east of the Chinese mainland and south-west of Japan’s southern-most prefecture, Okinawa. The islands are controlled by Japan.

Related issue:

In response to an article published on The Economist, dated 20 October, 2012, entitled: ‘Rattling the supply chains’, MD wrote:

‘The simmering tensions between Beijing and Tokyo over the Senkaku islands has prompted questions over what the high-profile dispute could mean for proposed trade talks between Asia’s two largest economies and South Korea, as well as for regional trade overall.

An announcement in May of this year was made of plans to open formal trade negotiations between Seoul, Tokyo and Beijing. They agreed to begin the talks by the end of 2012 but this deadline has lately been called into question, with many analysts believing that two of the three parties might not even make it to the negotiating table.

The tensions between China and Japan stem from a territorial dispute over a series of tiny islands in the East China Sea, an area to which both countries have now laid claim. The islands – known as Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China – have symbolic significance, with their surrounding waters said to be rich in natural gas deposits.

The row, which has intensified rapidly in recent weeks, reached new heights in the past few days when Chinese finance officials pulled out of attending annual meetings with the IMF and World Bank that were being hosted by Tokyo. How the disagreement will be resolved remains unclear, as well as what the broader trade implications could be. The tri-lateral trade agreement with South Korea, for instance, might be under threat.

However, despite their disagreements, Chinese and Japanese officials have made clear that the proposed free trade agreement could have major benefits for both economies. Regardless of his insistence that his country will not cede sovereignty of the disputed territory, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has openly acknowledged the value of eliminating trade barriers with Asia’s most powerful country. In the last decade alone, trade between the two nations has tripled, reaching more than $340 billion. A continuing row is not only likely to damage what has been a healthy relationship over the past ten years but could prove troublesome for the wider Asia region. Regional trade could be affected; ties between many countries could radically change because, invariably, any major trade relationship will always involve Japan and China.

Some of the predicted effects are beginning to surface. Japanese car exports to China have suffered since the dispute began and according to the latest JPMorgan Chase projections, could decrease by as much as 70 per cent in the final quarter of this year.’

Standard
Banking, Britain, Business, Economic, Financial Markets, Government, Society

Banking practices of the Royal Bank of Scotland referred to City regulators…

DAMNING REPORTS

The latest accusations being levelled at the Royal Bank of Scotland are as incriminating as any in its recent chequered history.

Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) have long complained that they cannot get the loans they need, despite protestations by the banks to the contrary. A newly released report from Sir Andrew Large, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, on the bank’s small-business-lending, confirms that much of the criticism levied at the bank in recent times is justified and the taxpayer-rescued institution must explain why it has not been doing all it could to assist Britain’s economic recovery. In normal circumstances, such practices would be worrying enough for the newly installed chief executive of the bank, Ross McEwan.

But these are not normal circumstances; Mr McEwan is also faced with a more troubling contention. According to another published document from Lawrence Tomlinson – deemed a successful businessman and ‘entrepreneur in residence’ at the Department of Business – RBS may have sunk to even greater depths in its condescending and haughty treatment of Britain’s SMEs. Contemptuous, because not only has the bank been transferring perfectly legitimate and profitable companies into its high-risk Global Restructuring Group (GRG), but the West Register (the bank’s property division), has reportedly been acquiring their assets on the cheap after imposing deliberate and exorbitantly high fees on them. Many companies in this high-risk category, deemed perfectly viable, have been unable to pay these fees imposed and as such have found themselves having their assets taken over by the bank at heavily discounted prices.

Both these reports must be put into context. Prior to 2008, RBS had been reckless over a number of years in its dealings, over-extending loans to many small firms that did not justify such levels of confidence. As the bank now struggles to repair its balance sheet, bad debts are continually being written off and lending practices have been tightened.

The findings contained within these reports have left many feeling aghast, not least Mr Tomlinson himself. His inquiries and formal deliberations suggest something altogether more serious. Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, has acted quickly and sent the evidence to City regulators. For his part, Mr McEwan has called in the law firm Clifford Chance to conduct an internal review of the bank’s practices. Such deviant and acute methods would be inexcusable from any bank, but from one that is largely owned and controlled by the state makes matters even worse.

COMMENT & ANALYSIS

The claims made in Lawrence Tomlinson’s report into the way the Global Restructuring Group at the Royal Bank of Scotland has dealt with struggling enterprises are truly dire.

It rightly is a matter that needs to be examined by the regulators the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA).

Forcing struggling firms into insolvency when there may have been a chance of survival is bad enough. Ruthlessly seizing property and assets for its own gain is immoral and much worse.

Yet, should we be surprised? RBS had a hand in almost all the post-crisis scandals, including Libor fixing, interest rate swaps and the sale of payment protection insurance. The bank is also being sued by investors for failing fully to disclose the parlous state of its finances ahead of the £12bn rights issue to shareholders in 2008.

Tomlinson and the Department of Business also have some questions to answer. The in-situ ‘entrepreneur in residence’, for example, is a little mysterious. How was he chosen for this appointment, what is the scope of his role and how much did he tell civil servants and the Secretary of State, Vince Cable, about his own business affairs before he took on this rather curious role?

What also of the poor judgement by Tomlinson not to disclose that NatWest, RBS’s main operating offshoot, had granted him an overdraft and that in the last couple of years he was engaged in a major refinancing operation? Financial analysts will find it extraordinary that this was not considered a relevant factor either by Tomlinson or the Department for Business, and that it was not disclosed in the report. Making a strong case against the predatory behaviour of RBS is one thing, the dealings and judgments of Mr Tomlinson are clearly and significantly related.

The published accounts of Tomlinson’s business LNT Group are, even by the standards of many private empires, on the opaque side. They show a group that is indebted and making losses, with a host of intercompany relationships that are difficult to untangle.

The main product of Tomlinson’s dealings looks to be the design and building of new care homes, something the UK badly needs. But this is a notoriously difficult sector in which to operate – as was seen from the fate of Southern Cross – and management often has to choose between keeping costs under control and maintaining high standards of care.

Before giving Mr Tomlinson a government imprimatur one should trust that Vince Cable and his Department looked carefully at all his dealings before approving the appointment.

Standard