Hail Mary

Hail Mary

I've no idea if the "Hail Mary" play is still a thing in American Football, I only know it from my days playing a game on my ZX spectrum where you could call the plays for the team. The Hail Mary (or "Bomb" in the game) was the last desperate play of a game. You throw all caution to the wind, push all your players into the end zone and throw the ball as far as you can, praying (hence the name) one of your own team will catch it.

It's desperate and dramatic, but hey when you are down you might as well go out with a bang rather than a whimper.

I witnessed a Hail Mary on Wednesday on STV. Kevin Hague (a successful businessman, entrepreneur and unionist blogger) was debating with Gordon MacIntyre-Kemp (the CEO of a social media agency and "Business" for Scotland). You can watch the full clip here or the youtube version here.

Kemp versus Hague

I won't go into the debate itself, Kevin was measured and got the essential unionist point over - if we have to choose between the U.K. and EU markets surely we want to be on the side of the trade barrier that covers our biggest actual market?

Kemp on the other hand was all over the place. Initially arguing that Scotland's ills were all due to the strength of the Pound hurting our exports and that this was all down to the UK pandering to the financial services industry.

This in itself doesn't make a lot of sense:

1 Kemp passionately argued for a currency union at the independence referendum - here's a video of him (wrongly) saying why it would have happened. So why then did he want to hurt Scotland by tying the newly independent state to a currency that was too high? When did Kemp change his mind on this and why?

2 A significant proportion of Scotland's exports are services (and financial services at that). The financial services industry is the biggest onshore industry in Scotland. Why then did Kemp think it would be a good idea to attack it?

3 Kemp is effectively arguing that Scotland needs a new currency to develop its economy (clearly he's got the SNP memo on the policy shift) the trouble is he's just argued that the new currency needs to devalue against Sterling. That means inflation, interest rates and mortgage costs go up (no matter how they are denominated) and the cost of our sovereign debt payments to the continuing UK go up putting even more pressure on Scottish finances and its deficit.

All in all it's not exactly a tempting prospectus, but let's get back to the Hail Mary.

Spinning things you don't understand 
If you watch the last few moments of the exchange you can see the comical attempt to throw the Hail Mary by a beleaguered Kemp having swung back and forward about a hard and soft Brexit.  Rona Dougall was set to move on and Kemp obviously realizes that he's not remotely got any of his points over and throws in a hastily worded summary of his solution.

"I think that the EU will look at financial passporting which will hurt the the City of London and potentially create tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland."

So the future for Scotland was bright because financial firms would leave the City of London (after losing financial passporting) and relocate to a Scotland within the EU?

This shows that Kemp really doesn't understand finance which remains the soft underbelly of the nationalist movement. Indeed I've heard this line before on social media where it was clearly getting road tested by some nationalists. I'm just surprised that "Business" for Scotland thought it was a road worthy argument!


A Hail Mary into a wall

The trouble is that Kemp's point doesn't remotely make any sense. So let's unpack the assertion.

Firstly Kemp just attacked financial services in his opening statement, but by the end of the section it's the solution to all of Scotland's problems. Two contradictory statements within 5 minutes of one another is not a good start.

Secondly it's highly unlikely that the EU would kill off financial passporting as it would hinder EU member's access to one of the biggest capital markets in the globe. 

More importantly though if you are a financial services company in the City of London looking to secure access to the EU what would make you consider relocating to Scotland?

You've just been forced to relocate because the member state you were in has left the EU. You therefore need to move to a state that is committed to the EU, so why on earth would you pick Scotland?

Scotland will be at best a semi-detached member of the EU. It would be out of the Euro,(we've already been told all of these things by the SNP) and would be practically unable to join the Fiscal Pact. It would be out of Schengen and it would have a sizable chunk of the population in favour of leaving the EU.

Scotland would be facing a substantial deficit which would require difficult tax choices, it would have a new devaluing currency (according to Kemp) and would have an uncertain political outlook (after all who knows what Scottish politics would look like after independence).

Furthermore Scotland would also be likely experiencing significant capital flight (as we saw during the independence referendum) and an exodus of large parts of the existing financial services operations (head offices at least) as they are forced to relocate into their main (rUK) markets. This would not be a friendly or positive environment for financial services companies.

Why then would a financial services company relocate to Scotland? 

The truth is they wouldn't. For the purposes of EU access Paris or Dublin would offer everything that such an organization would looking for and indeed Dublin would come with the sweetener of exceptionally low corporation tax.

The state of us

What is remarkable is that this is the "Business" for Scotland Hail Mary play. It contradicts their own 'High Sterling' outlook and that of the nationalist Tory bashing agenda. It makes no sense to anyone with a remote level of knowledge of the financial services industry, but maybe that's all that Kemp was hoping for.

In the post truth world it's not about having a coherent argument, it's just about having something to say. No matter how ridiculous, as long as you can say something in the debate hopefully your core supporters will believe it.

Fair enough, but that's a core vote strategy and it's a reflection of the state of the nationalist movement at the moment. SNP Front groups like "Business" for Scotland don't help the nationalist "woo" agenda, they just help to keep the "useful idiots" on the boil.

The SNP need to do some serious reaching out and thinking if they want to develop an open, honest and coherent case for independence. 

Their growth commission was a great opportunity to do that, sadly the membership focused inward on the nationalist 'tribe' and not outwards to try to come up with a broader consensus on the economy of Scotland. It just goes to show the depressing state of Scottish politics at the moment. 

We can be so much better than this and so can the nationalist movement. It should start by looking at its team sheet because Kemp can't represent Scottish business, he clearly doesn't understand what he's talking when it comes to our most important onshore industry about and isn't helping the cause.

The fundamental pensions error at the heart of the Wee Blue Book

Stu Campbell has a problem. And it's a big one. It's all to do with one of his biggest assertions in the Wee Blue Book. His bible has been comprehensively shredded by Kevin Hague and indeed I helped out in a guest post on his blog covering all his errors on pensions. Additionally I also covered a more general point about pensions in detail in this blog here. 

Rather annoyingly, I didn't bring up Campbell's biggest issue on pensions, an assertion that is quite obvious from his actions that he knew to be wrong. Campbell was on twitter only yesterday - at the time of writing - (7th of January) crowing about how no one can ever find him having lied. When anyone dared to point out an error he just dismissed them then shortly afterwards, and rather bizarrely, unilaterally declared himself the winner. It's all a testament to the very messed up state of Scottish politics and the echo chamber of Twitter. 

The trouble for Campbell however is that he has no choice on this matter. He has to continually deflect on the issue of pensions because if he admits the truth then much of the substance of the Wee Blue Book collapses in on itself. Sadly Campbell has already admitted that he was wrong in the Wee Blue Book, he just doesn't seem to know it. 

The error
Campbell asserts that pensions are a legally enforceable right upon the UK government by residents of an independent Scotland. He's wrong. 

In this he offers no legal evidence other than a badly redacted set of quotations from Steve Webb the then pensions minister to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. He's wrong in this as well. 

Just to clarify I know Steve Webb. I've debated with Steve Webb. He now works in the mutual I used to work for. He's a careful and thoughtful debater and knows the pension world inside out. Campbell asserts that Webb stated that the UK conveyed a legally enforceable right to a pension to anyone that contributes to the UK National Insurance system. 

Webb didn't say that, he knows that's not the case and it's why he clearly states in his evidence "My lawyers always tell me not to call them rights."

But it's Campbell's rather obvious and naive attempts to redact quotations and video evidence that is the most interesting, indeed I'd argue that from this you can see that he's actually covering his tracks and deliberately manipulating evidence rather making a genuine error. 

In this post I'm going to break down the relevant section of the Wee Blue Book in detail and show why it was wrong, why it looks like Campbell deliberately tried to manipulate the facts to cover up his error and where he has already admitted that he's wrong. 

The Wee Blue Book
Let's start with erroneous section of the Wee Blue Book. 



Here is the key section from the negotiations chapter of the book. This is the part where Campbell is attempting to convince the reader that Scotland will hold the upper hand in discussions with the continuing United Kingdom. 

Campbell asserts that whilst the Scottish Government has stated that it would take responsibility for pension payments that they could abandon that policy. So far so factually correct. 

To be clear there is nothing that says a future Scottish Government needs to pay pensions to anyone. 

But here's the problem, Campbell then asserts that the continuing UK would be forced to carry the can in this situation and would have to pay these pensions. 

We're not talking about a moral obligation. A moral obligation would not have no force in these circumstances. Campbell is asserting that the continuing UK has a legal duty to continue these payments. If there was any doubt we have this from him when the question was raised of the UK not paying Scottish pensions. 

 


It's just not true, it's a fundamental error at the heart of the Wee Blue Book and one Campbell has to continue with or else admit that his Wee Blue Book is nothing but a fantasy. 

The legal position on pensions
So does the UK have any legal obligation to pay a pension to anyone. Forget independence, let's just look at the legal position of state pensions. 

Campbell asserts that because a pensioner has paid into the system they "are entitled to be paid by it".

That's just not true and has been proven in UK case law and been upheld at the ECHR. 

"The Court did not consider that it sufficed for the applicants to have paid National Insurance contributions in the United Kingdom to place them in a relevantly similar position to all other pensioners, regardless of their country of residence. Claiming the contrary would be based on a misconception of the relationship between National Insurance contributions and the State pension. Unlike private pension schemes, National Insurance contributions had no exclusive link to retirement pensions. Instead, they formed a part of the revenue which paid for a whole range of social security benefits, including incapacity benefits, maternity allowances, widow’s benefits, bereavement benefits and the National Health Service. The complex and interlocking system of the benefits and taxation systems made it impossible to isolate the payment of National Insurance contributions as a sufficient ground for equating the position of pensioners who received up- rating and those, like the applicants, who did not. "

Indeed one need only look at the the WASPI campaign to show that pension entitlement can be changed by the UK state by Act of Parliament, irrespective of what benefits were being paid to existing pensioners at the time of contribution. 

Anyone trying to sue (at that point) a foreign government for a pension to which they have no legal entitlement would get no where. That's already been established in law, so how Campbell can claim "they would win" I have no idea other than he's asserting with no knowledge of the topic. 

To be honest I could rest on this point. 

We already have a fundamental error established in the Wee Blue Book. Campbell asserts that there is a legal entitlement to having a pension paid by the continuing UK based on contributions and we have already seen that legally there is not. 

But of course if I rest there then Campbell will throw up all sorts of other statements to try and assert that he is indeed telling the truth, despite the legal position being beyond doubt. 

His attempt to get out of jail on this one then all comes down to Steve Webb's appearance at the Scottish Affairs Select Committee on the 6th of May 2014. 

Steve Webb MP & The Scottish Affairs Select Committee
I covered Webb's appearance at the Scottish Affairs Select Committee in my own blog on pensions, and noted how certain people were desperately lifting his comments out of context to make their case. Indeed I specifically choose to use a screen grab of Wings Over Scotland's youtube channel in which it's claimed that independence will not affect your state pension. 

Campbell uses a specific transcript of the extract to make his point. 

"You don't have to be a UK citizen to get a UK pension. So we will obviously, for the people who have put National Insurance into our system, we would pay them a pension wherever they lived. So separation wouldn't affect that... You could retire to France and we'd just pay you a pension, so where you end up isn't material, because you've paid into the system."

and only yesterday he used it again. 



Here Campbell seems to assert that this passage clearly states that the UK would continue to pay pensions no matter what. The key line here is "separation wouldn't affect that". 

What is remarkable (and it is a reflection of just how shifty Campbell is in this matter) is the part that follows - the part that Campbell decided not to transcribe. In three dots Campbell airbrushes out of his transcription information that completely contradicts his own case. So I've painstakingly transcribed the whole thing myself. 

"Webb: ... so separation wouldn't affect that, but what happened post separation would be a matter for the Scottish Government. "

That itself puts quite a different slant on things to say the least. Ian Davidson, the Committee Chair, then jumps in to clarify the position. I can see exactly why he would have because had the quotation been taken out of context (as Campbell did) then it would sound strange, almost contradictory, but it could mean that the UK would be obliged to pay pensions in an independent Scotland so clarification was required and we get it. 

"Davidson: Yes Post separation, going forward, I can see yes that the Scottish Government would have to then devise a pension system. I understand that. If you are saying, as I think you are, which is something new, that if people have paid into the National Insurance system then they would in a sense inherit a payment from that National Insurance system. That would actually presumably mean that the liabilities and assets would stay with the United Kingdom Government..."

Webb: (interrupting) No

Davidson: ...rather than be divided. 

Webb: No, that would clearly have to be a matter for negotiation, because of course, to give a simple example someone has worked all their life in England retires into Scotland can you just assume that the continuing UK government will pay the whole cost of that pension. So there is a liability to pay a pension, or they have built up an entitlement. But the split of funding for that is a matter for negotiation.

Davidson: So the split of funding is only unclear in as much as who actually pays it.

Webb: Yep

Davidson: It's not unclear as to what people would get. 

Webb : Up to the period of separation, as I say because you could retire to France and we'd just pay you a pension, so where you end up isn't material, because you've paid into the system.

Davidson: Fine. Because I think it is important, because people in Scotland will be anxious about whether or not their pension are secure in the event of separation. I think that you are saying to us that their pensions will be secure because if they have paid in then they will get out. The question of whether or not that comes from a separate Scottish or the remaining UK will have to be yet devised a scheme as yet undetermined but the individual can be secure in the knowledge that they will get their money. 

Webb : [Clarifies talking about state pensions and not private or public service pensions then says] people have built up a right wherever they retire to for as long as they are paying into the UK National Insurance system." 

The information that Campbell redacts from his quotation is remarkable as it completely undermines his point in the Wee Blue Book, this redaction could not have been an accident. Here we see Webb clarifying that he is talking about the entitlement of the individual and specifically not talking about the funding for that pension, which is an entirely different matter. 

The reason for this is that the Committee are concentrating on the question of rights of the individual and not the funding of the pensions and the outcome of negotiations. That is largely because the witnesses would not be in a position to determine the outcome of those negotiations but there could be a meaningful dialogue on entitlements. 

Indeed Davidson was explicit about this in the Committee in the preface to the quote that Campbell uses, and it's another telling redaction:

"Davidson: Sorry if I maybe just come back on clarification on a couple of points. It seems to me that there are two areas of uncertainty. One is a question of once a pension is settled who pays for it and whether or not it comes out of Scotland's pot or comes out of the rest of the UK's pot  - but that's deeply boring and you've got people in your department who will specialise in these sorts of things. I'm not clear whether or not that has any direct impact upon individuals other than at one stage removed, in the sense of of how much money is then available. Unless I'm mistaken it doesn't. What I'm not entirely clear about is whether or not there would be any impact as a result of this uncertainty about the rules upon the amount that the individuals received. As distinct of who is paying for it."  

Again let me be clear. This section comes immediately before the extract that Campbell puts on YouTube. It clearly notes that they are talking about entitlements and not to who pays (that's deeply boring apparently!). It also clearly states that there is a second order risk ("one stage removed") to a pension in respect of their affordability or who is paying for it. Therefore the crucial context to the passage that Campbell quotes is that they are simply talking about individual entitlements and not who is paying for these pensions and the risks that can come about should those pensions not be paid by the responsible government authority (which it is clear could be the UK or Scotland). 

The fact that this incredibly important context has been airbrushed out by Campbell is quite deliberate because it fundamentally undermines his argument. 

Probably worst of all is that before all of this comes up at the Committee the very point Campbell makes is contradicted when Webb is specifically asked "who's pension will come from the Scottish Government and who's will come from the UK government". 

Webb clearly answers again that "would all have to be negotiated... it's all subject to the outcome of negotiations and we just don't know."

It's difficult to emphasise how shifty Campbell is being here, he is using Webb's evidence to make the point that the continuing United Kingdom is legally obligated to the point that the Scottish Government can refuse to pay pension to Scottish pensioners and the continuing United Kingdom would have to make those payments. 

But here in the very Committee and the very witness that Campbell is quoting we see that this is far from the case. Webb at this stage is simply saying that we just don't know what the position would be. 

Worse for Campbell. Webb later provides further written evidence to the committee (as he said he would during the Committee meeting) and helps to clarify the position on negotiations:

“I would think the Scottish people would expect their Government to take on full responsibility for paying pensions to people in Scotland including where liabilities had arisen before independence. Similarly people in the rest of the UK would not be expecting to guarantee or underwrite the pensions of those living in what would then have become a separate country. The security and sustainability of pensions being paid to people in Scotland would, therefore, depend on the ability of Scottish tax payers to fund them.”

What Webb said and what Campbell claimed
Taken together we now have a very simple position from Webb which is grounded in the legal position set out above.

People who pay into the UK system right now have an entitlement to a pension from the UK. Where you retire within that system makes no difference. However on separation things would be dependent on the position following negotiations but the UK government is clear that they would be expecting the Scottish Government to fully shoulder the burden of all Scottish pensioners, including those currently in payment. Were the Scottish Government not to make those payments then Scottish pensions would be under threat.

This clearly flies in the face of Campbell's assertion that the Scottish Government had an ace up its sleeve on pensions, indeed if they had a card at all it was a joker. 

I noted yesterday that Campbell did concede on the point that all of this would be subject to negotiations. But he then attempted to double down on his position that it's a "fact" that pensions are a continuing UK responsibility. The trouble is that at no point did Steve Webb agree or say that this was a legal UK responsibility, he consistently said the responsibility would be the subject to negotiations and dependent on payment and funding by the Scottish Government.  

What's worse is that Campbell clearly redacted the information from his own transcript and video extract to help support his point. The redactions are telling. Campbell clearly watched and studied the information then cut out the sections which showed this would depend on the outcome of negotiations and on the Scottish Government paying for Scottish pensioners. 

Knowing that position Campbell still went ahead with a claim which directly contradicts the position taken by Steve Webb. 

Indeed when confronted with the additional written evidence Campbell argued that Webb was trying to cover up for himself. 

Firstly it's a bit rich to ignore the legal position, redact someone's statement to get them to say what you want them to say and then to 'diss' your own witness when they actually say something which explicitly contradicts your fantasy. 

As I said above I know Steve Webb and anyone looking at the Scottish Affairs Committee would tell you that the questioning was not exactly pressing, in most cases Webb was educating the questioners. The guy is entirely on top of his brief when it comes to pensions he has nothing to cover for. 

Webb's evidence in spoken and written form was entirely consistent, it only looks contradictory when you deliberately cut his sentences in half in a desperate attempt to support your own errors, and that's what Campbell did.  

Campbell and pensions

The further problem for Campbell is that he has contradicted his own position already. His assertion is that anyone that has paid in to the UK system is legally entitled to receive a pension from the UK. 

However when asked, in the past (by an SNP supporter), what would the position be for someone who amassed half their entitlement in the UK and then the remaining entitlement in an independent Scotland, Campbell noted that this would be a matter for negotiation (correct) but in a strict literal sense (which from the tweets above we can take to mean legal) the obligation would fall on the Scottish Government (not correct there is no legal obligation on any state). 

Clearly in this context we are talking about people who have not retired. But if we are talking about people with a mythical legal right to a pension (as Campbell asserts) then their rights built up in the UK system would be legally enforceable no matter when they retired. His position makes no sense, either paying into the UK system gives you a legal entitlement to a pension from the UK system or it does not. 

As usual Campbell is all over the place when it comes to pensions. He doesn't understand the topic which is why he should never have based a crucial part of the Wee Blue Book on an assertion that clearly he knew to be incorrect when he made it. 

It's also why it's very funny to watch him try to debate the topic - he wont debate it with me because he rapidly blocked me when I last debated this very topic with him long ago. Since then (safely behind his block and to his echo chamber) he's just done the usual series of ad hominem attacks because he knows that a deeper debate will just unravel the mess at the heart of his Wee Blue Book.