Hundreds of miles from the cocoa farms of South America and the tobacco plantations of Africa, British supermarkets, orderly and polished, open their doors to the public. Down their bright aisles walks the typical British shopper, alert for special deals on their favourite top quality brands. But whilst many shoppers believe in the benefits of buying ‘home-grown’, the label does not separate them from becoming part of a vicious cycle of labour exploitation. Included in the price of third world produce, is an issue which exists far closer to home than some consumers may like to think: Trafficking

Jagjit Singh was a gangmaster who provided agricultural labour to food suppliers of Tesco. His company operated under the name ‘Sapphire Trading’. In 2004, he was accused of systematic exploitation of his workers and was consequently stripped of his gangmaster license from the government regulated Gangmaster Licensing Authority (GLA). Singh reportedly forced his Polish employees to work in conditions which potentially placed them at injury or death. The migrants worked illegal hours and were paid below the minimum wage. Housed in accommodation deemed dangerous for human habitation, the workers claimed they were terrified to speak out against their relentless boss.

Three years later, forty Bulgarian workers were found labouring in a field. Packing vegetables eventually destined to be loaded onto the lorries of British supermarkets, they claimed they were forced to “live like pigs on scrap” when their gangmaster allegedly withheld their pay for 34 days.

Whilst we may be used to hearing similar stories of workers in developing countries being coerced into labouring under such appalling conditions, it may be a surprise to learn that the examples above in fact took place in the green fields of Britain. With many similar stories now beginning to surface, it is becoming increasingly obvious that severe exploitation is not just characterised by sweatshops.

With the demand for Christmas goods fast approaching, the problem will inevitably worsen with demand. Supermarkets reportedly buy 80% of all freshly grown produce in Britain. Many gangmasters are employed by farming companies, who in turn are sub-contracted to British supermarket chains. As a result of intense price competition between the supermarkets, farming companies are expected to provide fluctuating levels of produce, depending on projected customer demand. Gangmasters are subsequently put under pressure to offer flexible and cheap labour. As a result, naive migrant workers are often found buried at the bottom of the supply chain, facing brutal working and living conditions.

According to a 2003 UK Government Food and Rural Affairs Committee Report the volatile relationship between the supermarkets and their suppliers is a, “significant contributory factor in creating an environment in which illegal activity can take root.” Nevertheless, when confronted with the claim that their battle for profit is contributing to the underworld of migrant labour, British supermarkets conveniently pass the buck. They have been accused of hiding behind a subcontracting barrier. Repeatedly bosses of Asda and Tesco have claimed that whilst they are ‘shocked and appalled’ by stories of exploitation amongst gangmasters, and state they are not accountable, as workers are not directly employed by them. Mark Boleat, chairman of the Association of Labour Providers rightly claims that regardless of who is to blame, supermarkets should be checking their subcontracting chains far more thoroughly than they already do: “Malpractice is generally covered up with subcontracting; it’s known that’s how it is hidden. Retailers should be monitoring them”.

Regardless of who is at the epicentreof the supermarket blame game, new cases are emerging all the time. As recent as a few weeks ago, migrant workers were reportedly found picking spring onions in a Worcestershire field. They were children, aged from as young as 9. Inspectors found welly-boots in the field, estimated to fit the feet of a 5 year old, suggesting that children of an even younger age could have worked there. The GLA claim it was the first time that evidence of child exploitation in the food industry had been identified in Britain.

According to a recent report by the international child protection charity ECPAT, 215 children from 33 different countries were officially identified as having been trafficked into the UK between April 2009 and June 2010. Almost one hundred were brought in specifically under concerns of labour exploitation. In the past two years alone, the British equivalent NSPCC claim that they have experienced over 100 cases of people being trafficked into the UK for ‘slave-labour’. These fresh figures have naturally unearthed concerns surrounding the British governments somewhat indolent efforts to tackle human trafficking. Is Britain, a country so often characterized by its belief in fair play and progressive working conditions slowly slipping back to its 18th century slave trade traditions?

When reading about the experiences of Hsiao-Hung Pai one would certainly be driven to believe so. Pai is the author of the book ‘Chinese Whispers: The Story of Britain’s Hidden Army of Labour’. The book delivers a chilling first-hand account of how hundreds are exploited in the UK in ways unimaginable. Pai writes, “I talk about their struggle: their once in a lifetime decision to migrate for work; their journey in Britain; moved on from job to job to fill the need for temporary seasonal labour; the way they cope with daily exploitation and marginalisation in a country that needs them but doesn’t recognise their rights.” There are currently around 1 million people in the UK estimated to be living this slave-like experience. With 10,000 gangmasters currently operating in the UK, one can picture how the lives of Britain’s invisible migrants can easily slip into rogue hands. Looking to the future Pai asks, “What should Britain do in order to protect and uphold the rights of workers, regardless of their immigration status?”

Although this question is one that should be urgently addressed, the current government funding cuts are expected to halt any progress that is likely to be made. With the GLA facing a 29% cut on resources, investigations into Britain’s greedy gangmasters will be far from few in the coming years.

However, fresh campaigns are surfacing to tackle the exploitation faced by Britain’s silent slaves. Famous faces, such as the actress Juliet Stevenson, combined with charities such as Anti-Slavery International are petitioning against the government’s decision to ignore the EU directive. Currently, their petition has 13,000 signatures.

Despite the future offering limited optimism to Britain’s underworld of migrant labourers, it is hoped that growing pressure from the public raised by this campaign will encourage the government and the supermarket chains to act against this emerging illegal subculture. Well, it is true what Tesco placates, “every little helps”.

Sarah Smith

President Obama has used his first year in office to introduce historic healthcare legislation, provide a financial stimulus package of almost $800bn in order to rescue a collapsing economy, and broker a deal on climate change which unites both the US and China for the first time ever. And he has managed this despite the fact that, in January 2009, America’s future was looking bleaker than it had for many years.

George W. Bush’s legacy to his successor was America’s involvement in two difficult and expensive wars, a crumbling automotive industry and a financial system on the brink of total collapse.

Obama has had only one year to attempt to resolve problems which have been years in the making. If McCain had won the election, he would have met with the same challenges and probably faced much of the same criticism which has been levelled at Obama.

The recent opinion polls which show Obama’s approval rating to be hovering around 50%, having dropped from about 68%, suggests that the American public is disappointed with
their president. But if there was the belief that Obama would be able to revolutionise the country and save it from financial crisis within just one year, there was bound to be disappointment when that didn’t happen. Barack Obama cannot be blamed for failing to live up to unrealistic expectations.

Another reason for the low approval rating is that Obama has had to implement unpopular policies in order to help stabilise the economy. The banking bail-out faced heavy criticism and accusations that the President was trying to introduce socialism by stealth. This opposition came despite the fact that economy experts all over the world were advocating such policies as the only way to avoid entering another worldwide depression.

A 50% approval rating after one year is not unusual considering the economic climate — Ronald Reagan faced a similar popularity slide during his first year, but this improved as the country recovered financially. There is no reason to think that the same will not be true for Obama.

Obama was elected precisely because he offered a radical change from the previous administration but once the initial tide of enthusiasm died down, so did support for some of Obama’s more controversial campaign promises. The most prominent example of this is the debate over proposed healthcare reforms. It was months before agreements were reached and despite the fact that Congress has voted in favour, the differences between the House of Representatives’ reform bill and that passed by the Senate have still to be reconciled. If signed into law, Obama will be responsible for the most significant healthcare reform in the United States in decades. Surely this cannot be considered anything other than a success, considering the intense opposition to any kind of reform at all.

Obama has not managed to fulfil all of his campaign promises yet, but there are still three years left of his term — plenty of time to prove to his doubters that he can build upon the successes of this year and deliver what the American public voted him in for: meaningful, lasting change.

Failure to deliver

James Maxwell

Apart from those few awkward contrarians and obstinate racists, we all invested something, emotionally, in the presidency of Barack Obama. His election in November 2008 was the defining political event of the age, bringing a spark of light to the closing moments of a dark decade.

Obama pledged real change. He was going to deliver, like Roosevelt and Johnson had done, legislation that would permanently alter America’s social and ideological and economic landscape.

Principally, he promised a programme of health care that would extend coverage to all citizens regardless of their ability to pay, the immediate closure of Guantanamo, a market that served the people, not a people that served the market. He was given an unqualified mandate by the American people, disclosed in a huge Congressional majority and buffeted by a margin of eight million votes.

But twelve months on from his January inauguration, there is no question that Obama has failed to live up the expectations of his supporters, and his own, self-imposed, standards of governance.

In Massachusetts, the absurd former centre-fold model and unreconstructed conservative Scott Brown has just won Teddy Kennedy’s old Senate seat. Or rather, the Democrats have proved themselves incapable of holding onto a constituency that has for forty years consistently re-elected one of America’s most high profile liberal politicians, in one of the most progressive states in the Union.

Why? Because Obama buckled on healthcare reform. His original proposal — which he outlined during his first two or three months in office — would have required the state to provide health insurance for 30 million un-insured Americans — Americans too poor to provide for themselves. This was, predictably, denounced by his Republican opponents as the first step in a socialist usurpation of American liberty.

Over the following summer months, the Republican machine — still bitter and reeling from its loss — rumbled into action, engineering an aggressive anti-healthcare, anti-Obama campaign.

The President was, comically, branded both a Marxist and a Nazi, and in town hall meetings across the country Democratic Senators and Representatives were confronted by hordes of spoilt and over-fed GOP operatives, howling that Obama’s plans were un-constitutional.

How did Obama respond? Did he say, “Listen, I just won the presidential election by a landslide and with all the odds stacked against me. The American people want and need better and more comprehensive health coverage, and elected me to deliver it to them — and that’s what I’m going to do. So sit down and shut up”?

No. Obama conceded ground, allowing the Republicans in Congress to strip his bill, piranha-style, of all its vital features. And then he conceded some more ground. And then he conceded some more.

It is Obama’s obsessively conciliatory nature that’s to blame for the healthcare capitulation; his strange desire to be seen as a ‘healer of the nation’, a cross-party, bi-partisan, all-things-to-all-people kind of president.

He is now no longer free to act uncompromisingly on his other campaign promises. Guantanamo continues to function, with more than twenty inmates still languishing in its cages, waiting to be charged. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have posted multi-billion dollar profits in the last couple of weeks, and are subject to only a miniscule windfall charge.

The vast reservoirs of belief and enthusiasm that carried Obama to the presidency haven’t completely dissipated, despite his depressing poll ratings..They are, however, dwindling. He has to begin to stand his ground if he is to stop them disappearing all together.

Anthony Silkoff

It’s remarkable how differently you perceive the same football match, depending on which side of the stadium you sit. We see whatever fits best with our schema of the world. So when four of us visited Israel and Palestine, we had a choice — to see what we wanted, or to see the true state of play.

Let’s be clear: defining “what we wanted to see” is rather difficult, when your group comprises one Catholic Ayrshireman, a Protestant Northern-Irishman, a Muslim Palestinian-Glaswegian and a Jewish Londoner. We do share a common desire to see a just, peaceful end to the conflict, but it wouldn’t be helpful to spend eight days in a co-existence village.

OneVoice have never claimed that Israelis and Palestinians particularly like each other, or that the status-quo of occupation and violence is in anyway acceptable. Our work appeals to both sides’ nationalistic self-interest, and polling has shown that an average of 76% of both peoples would accept a negotiated two-state agreement.

The reality for Israelis and Palestinians is extremely brutal and, in eight days, we sought a small taste of this reality.
In Palestine’s West Bank, optimism is crushed daily by checkpoints, the monolithic separation wall and the continued growth of illegal settlements. In Israel, the evidence of violent and sustained conflict is ever-present in the form of sporadic attacks and in the country-wide hyper-security, like nowhere else we’d ever been. Israelis point to a list of hostile neighbours, each sworn to its destruction, to argue that their fears are real and pressing. Palestinians argue that security is used as a pretext for oppression. On arrival at Tel Aviv Airport the focus was on Hala, our brown-skinned companion, who was detained for questioning three times.

The next morning saw us on an early bus to the banks of the Dead Sea. The destination was Mitzpe Shalem; an Israeli settlement and home to Ahava. Ahava is a cosmetics company which, due to its illegal settlement location, is the focus of boycotts.

First impressions weren’t great. We asked one member of staff if she spoke English or perhaps Arabic and were told:
“No! This is Israel, my country, why would I speak Arabic? I speak only Hebrew.” Ironically, that response was in English. We were eventually pointed towards an office where we met Dr. Miriam Oron Mingelgrin, chief chemist.

In an interview, Miriam stated a clear view that the right-wingers, who occupy some of the settlements, are just as to blame as extremists on the other side. However, she said that the people of Mitzpe Shalem were largely moderate and secular, and with a two-state agreement, they would move for the sake of peace. She spoke out strongly against academic boycotts, suggesting that universities are an important forum for Arabs in Israel, which allows for a free flow of ideas. Miriam’s closing remark was to say that the real obstacle to peace was the leadership on both sides.

A few days later we found ourselves in Jerusalem. Walking from the Old City to Sheikh Jarra, we encountered: a micro-settlement, the Arabic verbal assault of Orthodox Jews (translated roughly: “I will fuck your sister”), and two Israeli soldiers asserting their authority by stealing pizza. The settlement was on the site of a Palestinian home that had been demolished by the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). A single Israeli home has now been erected in its place, complete with a mini security tower.

We’d been told previously to expect an amazing bunch of youth leaders from OneVoice in Nablus, and our hopes were not dashed. Make no mistake, they’re passionate nationalists. Their support for a two-state solution is founded on a desire for freedom, security and sovereignty for the Palestinian people, little of which exists now. We asked what they want from UK students — they don’t want sympathy, or screaming protesters, but real progress in the peace process. Their hope is that we can push our leaders to push theirs.

After another inspiring morning, this time with OneVoice Israel, the afternoon in Sderot would prove to be far more challenging. Thousands of rockets fired from Gaza have landed on Sderot, killing fifteen and wounding many more. Shalom, a representative of the town, stood before us in the municipal council’s bomb shelter and relayed his story. When presented with innocent human tragedy, like the two year-old and four year-old killed while playing together, one can only feel sympathy for those suffering. But it was difficult to warm to Shalom. His wild claims and myths undermined the grim reality, and suggested that he was more interested in political point-scoring than ending the conflict.

Frustrated, we headed to the other side of town to witness how OneVoice challenges such perspectives. OneVoice’s town hall meetings bring a community together to discuss the taboo issues at the core of the conflict. In Israel, this can mean confronting the falsehood that continued occupation brings security.

“All they [Arabs] do is terror … every time we give them something they attack,” said one resident of Sderot. Some of the others clearly agreed, but then came the challenges. Many from Sderot objected to the insinuations that Palestinians had been rewarded for violence: “I’m not giving them something new, I’m giving [land] back to them.” Sparking this intra-community debate in shell-shocked Sderot was no mean feat.

At a townhall meeting in Salfit, a Palestinian village in the West Bank, we heard from a desperate and frustrated room of farmers: “They [settlers] want to make our lives a nightmare.”

The topic was land-swap, that settlement blocks might be swapped for Israeli land in a final agreement. After many years of illegal settlement growth, the harsh reality on the ground necessitates compromise from both sides if there’s to be progress. Land-swap wasn’t popular in Salfit. But, after we left, the farmers reportedly remained for two hours, debating the issue.

There’s much that hasn’t been covered here, but eight days and 1000 words have their constraints. We didn’t go to Palestine and Israel looking for empty solutions.

You might think that OneVoice faces an arduous task, and you’d be right, but the same could have been said before the Good Friday agreement. Finding consensus between two polarised nations is an uphill struggle, but the OneVoice Youth Leaders aren’t giving up; their futures are at stake. No matter which side of the stadium you view this conflict from, they deserve your backing in their efforts.

Anthony Silkoff is Chair of OneVoice Glasgow. To find out how you can get involved in future trips and activities, or to add your name as a supporter, email OneVoiceGlasgow@gmail.com

Tom Bradley

What images first come to mind when one thinks of Copenhagen? Overpriced beer? Hans Christian Anderson? Peter Schmeichel and the Laudrup Brothers? By the end of this year it will be nothing so trivial. Come January 2010, the word Copenhagen will be synonymous with either a history-making international deal on climate change, or an epithet for failure.

The Copenhagen Climate Conference runs from December 7-18 and it represents the culmination of years of negotiations aimed at providing a legally-binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which ends in 2012. The Kyoto Protocol was the first international deal of its kind on climate change, which set binding reductions for industrialised nations, whereby they are required to reduce their emissions by 5% against 1990 levels. According to a roadmap laid out in Bali in December 2007, international negotiations to agree on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol are supposed to be concluded in Copenhagen in December 2009.

As we draw ever closer to the conference, however, the chances of achieving an ambitious international climate deal are looking increasingly slim. Yet delays are unaffordable. With each passing year that emissions continue to grow, our capacity to stabilise climate change at levels which would not be considered catastrophic to the planetary ecosystem decreases.

Climate change is already happening. Global temperatures have risen by 0.7°C since 1800 and, due to the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere, it is projected that we are already committed to a further global average increase of around 2°C. Though many dissenting voices can still be heard among politicians, the scientific debate has long been settled. All the evidence gathered thus far points to the fact that climate change is a tangible reality, and its causes are man-made. Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere haven’t been this high for at least 600,000 years. The situation is unprecedented in human history and marks a massive challenge for international co-operation.

Though climate change will have global consequences, its effects will not be the same everywhere. People in developing countries will be hit the hardest. Low-lying islands may be under water by the end of the century, and sub-Saharan Africa is likely to see its already scarce rain levels drop dramatically. By as early as 2020, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% in some African countries.

Responsibility for the sabotaging of our eco-system rests firmly with advanced, post-industrial countries like our own. It is this fact that has lead to the greatest divisions in climate change negotiations. In the lead up to Copenhagen, a familiar chasm over how blame should be apportioned has once again opened between the developed and developing countries. Nations such as China point to the fact that the developed world’s emissions were un-regulated for the past two centuries to fuel their economic growth. They argue a similar level of economic growth should thereby be granted to those countries aiming to make that transition today.

Climate change has been caused primarily by the USA and the EU and the responsibility therefore lies with them to limit it to acceptable levels. This is an argument the Kyoto Protocol recognises: industrialised nations are required to commit themselves to reductions while developing nations are encouraged to limit their emissions in a way that will not interfere with their social and developmental needs.

But this has not gone unopposed. The US Special Envoy for Climate Change, Jonathan Pershing, stated that industrialised nations alone can’t reduce emissions levels by enough to avert the worst impacts of climate change: “If the United States joined with other countries in the developed world without other major economies, we don’t solve the problem,” stated Pershing at the recent UN climate talks in Bangkok. To be fair, this statement is not without merit. If developing countries’ emissions continue to rise unchecked at their current rate, emissions levels will grow by 50% by 2050 instead of dropping by 50% as is required. It comes, however, from the worst possible source.

During the Bush presidency, the US was the only industrialised country not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, even though at the time it was the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases (it has recently been overtaken by China) and still remains by far the largest cumulative emitter. Former President Bush’s decision substantially dented international efforts to tackle climate change and weakened any negotiating position that industrialised countries have. Why should China or India make any efforts to control their emission levels, and risk slowing their economic growth, if the richest country on the planet continues to do nothing?

The election of Barack Obama last year led to renewed hope that the US would finally sign up to a new climate deal in Copenhagen. Although admittedly not a difficult feat, Obama’s stance on climate change to date has certainly been more progressive than that of his predecessor’s. In a speech to a special UN summit on climate change, Obama stated: “Each of us must do what we can to grow our economies without endangering our planet, and we must do it together. We must seize the opportunity to make Copenhagen a significant step forward in the global fight against climate change.”

Such sentiments have not, unfortunately, been observed by Obama’s colleagues in the US Senate. In recent months, international talks in the lead up to Copenhagen have been in a relative state of limbo as countries waited in anticipation to see if the Senate would sign up to a climate change bill. But the USA, once again, failed to come through. A climate change bill has been delayed until after the new year to give them time to consider the economic implications of its passing into legislation. It means that US negotiators in Copenhagen have very little power because any deal with legal implications will probably be rejected by the Senate.

This delay by the US has severely dampened expectations of a deal now being reached in Copenhagen. According to Yvo de Boer, the UN director of the talks, the lack of any definite emission targets and the question over who will ultimately foot the bill for aid that helps developing countries reduce their emissions still show no signs of being resolved in the lead up to the conference in December.

The last hopes rest on leaders of major powers backing up their rhetoric with action by using their influence to force a deal to be reached, or at the very least one which sets a timeframe for a legal deal to be reached next year. As President Mohamed Nasheen of the low-lying Republic of Maldives suggests, a resumption of business as usual is not enough. He has been to climate talks before where lofty verbal pledges have been given readily, but afterwards empathy for his country’s future is soon forgotten and there is a quick return to the status quo:

“If things go business-as-usual, we will not live, we will die,” he said. “Our country will not exist. We cannot come out from Copenhagen as failures. We cannot make Copenhagen a pact for suicide. We have to succeed and we have to make a deal in Copenhagen.” If this is not done, it will again be the poorest nations — those least responsible for climate change — who will suffer the worst consequences of our failure.

Tom Bonnick

When war was declared on the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in October 2001, I supported the invasion. America made a series of perfectly reasonable demands — like, stop sheltering the terrorists who killed 3,000 people a fortnight ago — which were then ignored.

Even though the war was a brutal one, it seemed like it had some sense of purpose — at least, until Bush lost sight of his original ambitions, decided that the colour scheme of the big “Mission Accomplished” banner he’d ordered wouldn’t “go” with Helmand Province, and swiftly reached the conclusion that Iraq would make a great venue for Round II of Operation Enduring Freedom.

And since being so horrifically sidetracked into engaging in war with Iraq, everyone seemed to sort of forget about Afghanistan for a while; a condition not helped by the perpetual conflation of the causes behind each conflict.

The awful, tragic reality is that if Bush and Rumsfeld had been a little less attention deficit-y and not moved on as soon as they got bored, there almost certainly would be more lasting signs of progress in the country.

The Taliban wouldn’t have had the same opportunities to re-group, move into Pakistan in such strong numbers (and forget Iran, that’s what we should really be worrying about: a nuclear-armed country sporadically dotted with completely lawless, terrorist-controlled border regions) and then re-assert power over large swathes of the Afghan population.

But that has happened, and so it’s time to accept that success will probably never look like how we imagined — not least because democracy of the kind we enjoy will never work in a country with no real notion of centralised government or a top-down power structure — and re-adjust expectations accordingly.

Inflated ideas of success are probably — after Iraq — the most significant contributing factor to the stalemate that has emerged. It’s worth bearing in mind that historically, Afghanistan has pretty much been the most difficult country in the world to conquer: Alexander the Great didn’t succeed, the Soviets didn’t succeed, and nor have NATO. Or, at least, not in the way they’d imagined.

No clear definition of “victory” and constantly fluctuating arguments for why British troops are still in Afghanistan has done little other than lead to prolonged and unnecessary casualties, and rather than continuing engagement in pointless skirmishes with localised Taliban forces, the allied troops ought to be limiting their direct involvement in maintaining security and handing over powers to national military and police powers.

What’s happening now is a perfect example of the law of diminishing returns: America and Britain continue pouring greater and greater numbers into the country, with ever less satisfactory results — and further huge troop increases would achieve nothing other than demonstrating even further quite how poorly-defined our goals are.

It only took nineteen men to change the course of global foreign policy: nineteen men and four planes. I don’t think that it’s possible for Britain or America to wage war enough to stop nineteen guys from trying to repeat the act, and the only way to achieve safety at home and stability in Afghanistan is not through this endless battle of attrition, but though less dramatic and less bloodthirsty means.

Troop increase

James Maxwell

What is at stake in Afghanistan? One might be forgiven for thinking that it is only the lives of British and American soldiers. In those NATO countries that maintain a substantial military presence in South-central Asia, public debate has been reduced to a single, sordid, consideration: what best serves our national interest? This is the standard refrain of the foreign policy realist; of the Kissingerian isolationist. It would be all too easy for Barack Obama to capitulate to the growing number of voices in his own country — and in ours — that express this sentiment. But the initial question deserves a proper answer.

Western forces have established a fragile barricade between the admittedly tentative, limited freedoms of Afghan citizens, and the Islamist predators that ruled the country prior to the NATO intervention in 2001. It would be a difficult thing to draw out the full horror of the Taliban government here, but we can gather some impression from a cursory review of how they conduct themselves as insurgents.

Primary and secondary schools are among their favourite targets. They particularly relish decapitating those teachers who dare to try to educate girls, and they have been known to mutilate with powder acid those girls who dare to try to get an education.

Let’s assume, though, that we’re all familiar with opposition policy on females (and homosexuals, Christians, Jews, atheists, liberals, socialists… add a category of your choice) and explore instead another consequence of troop withdrawal. Afghanistan sits on a geo-political fault-line with nuclear-armed Pakistan. The Pakistani state is currently struggling with its own guerrilla uprising against a movement not at all dissimilar from that of its neighbour.

Were Al-Qaeda and the Pakistan and Afghan Taliban allowed free range of the Hindu Kush, Pakistan’s shaky democracy would be on the brink; it would take perhaps only months for it to collapse. The world would then be faced with the prospect of an army of violent theocrats equipped with weapons powerful enough to reduce Europe to rubble several times over.

There is, of course, also the very real question of international justice. The hunt for the men who organised the 9/11 attacks did not end with the apprehension of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It was Osama bin Laden who sanctioned the atrocity — he has himself repeatedly laid claim to this particular dishonour — and he remains free, skulking somewhere on Afghanistan’s eastern rim. It would be a disgraceful abrogation of the American state’s moral duty to his victims if it failed to find, capture, or kill bin Laden. Ideally, he would stand trial in Manhattan, less than a mile away from the scene of the crime. Who would say it wasn’t worth the effort then?

It may be the case that increasing the intensity of the campaign against Islamist militants in Afghanistan will result in the deaths of more British and American servicemen and women. There is no question that this is tragic. But President Obama should grit his teeth and tell his people that these are necessary losses. He knows that there is a great deal more at stake.

Words by George Binning; pictures by Luke Winter

Beneath the bustling streets of Glasgow lies a largely forgotten network of disused train tunnels and underground chambers. This cavernous underworld, rich in its own history and folklore is quite irresistible to the urban explorer.

Investigating tunnels is nothing short of a thrilling experience, and one of the few activities today for which your essential tools are torches, boots and a treasure map procured from a wandering alchemist.

There is also plenty of research to be done on the internet: www.hiddenglasgow.com hosts some very informative forums supported by a core of tunnel enthusiasts. However, Glasgow City Council’s top pastime of digging holes and filling them in again means that information is often out of date, proving that nothing really beats reconnaissance in the field.

It is quite possible to gain access to some tunnels without causing criminal damage, though it often helps if some scallywag with a crowbar has already done the job for you.

According to our map, there are ten tunnels in the West End and six in the East End, although not all of them are accessible. Many an old seadog will claim he has been down the tunnel underneath the Botanic gardens; the once discussed site for another G1 drinking trough.

Unfortunately, the entrance to the tunnel in the Botanics is now fenced up to about ten feet high and topped with razor wire, and it would take more than just bolt cutters to get through the thick metal bars.

The other end is padlocked, hence off limits to law-abiding citizens. We can also confirm that the St John Street/Ladywell tunnel has either been covered or is very difficult to find, and there is no chance of getting into the Buchanan Street tunnel.

We had more success in a tunnel running for just over a kilometre underground from Kelvinbridge and joining a live line near Exhibition Center. The most unexpected thing about this eerie space was its complete abandonment: no rats, no rubbish (save some small piles of vintage-brand Tennents cans here and there), and hardly any graffiti.

“If this was Berlin these walls would be covered,” remarks Luke, and it is indeed surprising that such a canvas, unique in shape and situation, has aroused so little interest.

Many of the city’s Victorian underground systems were closed in the 1960s as part of the Government’s reshaping of British Railways, and then they were forgotten until dance music was invented.

In recent years, some of the tunnels found a new function as venues for the now legendary illegal tunnel raves. Deep into our tunnel we discover what would best be described as a general purpose rave kit consisting of a stage, fencing and a few sofas, again though we detect few signs of usage.

Glasgow’s subterranean network has a lot to discover, from underground train tunnels to freight shafts used by mills and factories as recently as the mid-eighties.
There are actually mine shafts beneath the University itself, although the Estates and Buildings department assured me that there were serious health and safety (not to mention insurance-related) issues with going down them.

Whilst scrabbling around elsewhere in low level Glasgow, searching for buried routes, you realise quite how much wasteland there is, walled-off and forgotten about right under our very noses.

There is acre upon acre of semi-swamp that no one explores — that hardly anyone is even aware of — often hidden in the middle of areas with which we thought we were familiar.

Upon emerging into the daylight, one cannot help but see Glasgow with fresh eyes, and quickly find oneself longing to explore further.

Jenny Langskog

It was a day that promised feelings of achievement and empowerment, and when thousands of men, women and children gathered on Edinburgh’s Bruntsfield Links, it certainly delivered on that promise. This celebration, and re-enactment of the march for women’s suffrage that took place in the city in 1909, was organised by the charity, Gude Cause, and saw people from all over Scotland take to the streets of the nation’s capital.
In homage to those who fought to achieve full political equality for women, participants dressed in the colours of the Suffragette Movement: purple, green and white. Elaborate banners and flags fluttered as animated chants and pounding drums made the day colourful, noisy and festive.
Gude Cause is an organisation which was created especially to plan and oversee the march, the name coming from a banner at the original event in 1909 which stated: “A Gude Cause Maks a Strong Arm”. The march was the culmination of a number of previous events, including banner-making classes, a panel discussion and a contribution at the Annual Scottish Women’s Aid Conference.
It was on October 9, 1909 that Scottish women first cut through Edinburgh’s narrow cobbled streets with the goal of heightening and intensifying the campaign for equal voting rights — a fight which was to last another nineteen years. Women over twenty-three were not given the vote in the UK until 1919, and women over twenty-one were not granted suffrage until 1923. It was only in 1928 that women were granted voting rights equal to those of men. Since then — through the second-wave feminism of the 1960s and ’70s — women’s activism has continued, with campaigns focusing on changing the law with regards to domestic violence, sexual assault and wage inequalities.
While the majority of those in attendance were women, people of all ages were present at the event, with elderly women revelling in the progress of social circumstances and small children marking the future of feminism. The range of issue groups, too, was broad. Young people campaigning for the voting age to be lowered to sixteen handed out leaflets, while political party members carried banners to show their support.
Despite the presence of many professional politicians, Peace and Justice Resource Centre member Janet Fenton insisted that it was “a day for politics but not party politics,” emphasising unity among women as a group and aiming to minimise any chance for divisions. If any divisions existed, they were not obvious on this day. It was particularly poignant that Falkirk and Labour MSP Cathy Peattie attended the rally not as an MSP but as a performer, singing “Bread and Roses” — a poem adapted by protesters of the Lawrence strike in Massachusetts.
Political optimism did seem to be an important feature of the day. Gwenneth Williamson, 77, main organiser of Queenferry’s Women’s group, described the Scottish Government as “very women-friendly,” but stressed the necessity of parliament to encourage an increase in female politicians.
Indeed, the Scottish Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop’s admission at the post-march rally on Calton Hill that the number of female MSPs has declined from 40% to 33% in the past ten years calls for serious contemplation. An increase in female political participation was stressed as an essential social change that must take place in order to continue the campaign for equality between the sexes.
The low voter turnout at the recent European elections — the lowest in its history — was a source of disappointment at the event. Kate Arnott, 62, of Glasgow Women’s Aid, described it as “highly upsetting for society,” and there is no doubt that such apathy harms the aims of the women’s movement in Europe.
The atmosphere of the day, however, was not to be dampened by political divides or the alarming prevalence of voter apathy. Choirs, a jazz band, several drums performances and uplifting speeches ensured the crowd of 3000-4000 people was kept energised and inspired. Great emphasis was placed on the struggles of our female ancestors. Speaking to those who risked their lives, Fiona Hyslop declared: “We honour your memory,” and hailed the “determination, courage and vision” displayed by both the Suffragists and Suffragettes.
Contemporary feminist activism was celebrated and encouraged, as well. Janet Fenton talked about “women’s ability to envision a better future” and advocated the “abolition of war as a means of resolving conflict.” Current issues such as wage battles and domestic violence were also discussed, as Fenton highlighted the fact that women are “still struggling to get paid for our work.”
Indeed, there still exists a wage gap of approximately 20% between men and women — something which speakers at the event urged everyone to campaign against. The progress of women’s rights in the one hundred celebrated years, however, has been extraordinary, and in practical and intellectual terms, “the world has become better” for women, Fenton said proudly.
The day also brought strong feelings of Scottish sentimentality and nationalism. Fiona Hyslop exclaimed: “What a day for Scotland, past, present and future,” to cheers from crowd participants; singing group Protest to Harmony sang: “The right to vote an’ all that” — a reference to Burns — signalling the emphasis on the achievements of Scottish Suffragettes and Suffragists.
This did not, however, diminish the strong sense of international solidarity for women all over the world: Fenton voiced her admiration for Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese politician and Nobel Peace Prize winner imprisoned for leading the struggle for democracy in her country.
This theme of universal female solidarity was felt by not only the speakers but by groups and individuals on the march as well. Oonagh O’Brien, 52 and Suzanne Fustukian, 56, representing Queen Margaret University, expressed compassion for women from less developed countries. They claimed: “Women from some countries struggle to get a decent education,” before highlighting the fact that international students can face serious “immigration problems.”
This harmonious atmosphere was accompanied by a great sense of hope for the future. Patsy Wood, 48, representing the Women’s Environmental Network, expressed her desire for a “much more broad response” for the forthcoming 2010 general election, in comparison to the somewhat disheartening turnout in the recent EU elections.
Despite the generally peaceable nature of the day, the strong rhetoric and powerful language created a fighting spirit. The event was one for remembering the achievements from the past while recognising the obstacles yet to come.
Cathy Peattie’s rendition of “Bread and Roses”, in particular, provoked an air of courage and determination. As she sang the words, “Our lives shall not be sweated from birth until life closes,” it became clear that the resolve once shown by the Suffragettes a century ago is not yet lost.

Jonathan Amgott

The British National Party (BNP) is frequently dismissed as an irrelevance in British electoral politics. Yet, for the asylum seekers the party opposes — and the public it purports to represent — the BNP’s far-right platform constitutes a substantial threat.
Charlie Baillie — BNP candidate for the upcoming by-election in the north-east of Glasgow — explained his party’s opposition to asylum seekers in a recent telephone interview with Guardian. He asserts that the UK asylum system is rife with “economic migrants who pose fraudulently” to obtain safe haven here, and insists that applicants are lying to obtain entry to the country.
Of course, many asylum seekers would object, citing the first-hand experiences of war, ethnic violence and political persecution that forced them to leave their home country for the UK. But Baillie dismisses their claims with the accusation that “sixty percent of all [asylum] applications are rejected.”
Strictly speaking, Baillie is correct. Home Office statistics show that nearly seventy percent of asylum-related applications were denied in 2008. This does not, however, qualify as a good reason to say that all — or even a majority — of those applications were “bogus”.
Asylum petitions are denied for numerous reasons, including insufficient material evidence, a heavy Home Office workload, or (somewhat more suspect), Whitehall’s refusal to characterise particular causes or certain national struggles as worthy of asylum.
Regardless of the flimsy evidence against asylum seekers, Baillie persists in trying to placate us with this red herring, but then goes on to expose the true intent of his party by announcing: “[the] British National Party would shut the door immediately to all immigration.” In other words, it doesn’t really matter to the BNP whether asylum applications are bogus or if they are authentic, because for Baillie and his associates on the far-right, all immigration requests are entirely illegitimate.
Furthermore, neither Baillie nor his party suggests that immigrants and asylum seekers are unwelcome because they might have a detrimental effect on the domestic economy or soak up subsidies from the British tax-payer (a common argument of the American Right). There might conceivably be an iota of respectability to such reasoning, if it were true. But clearly, the BNP’s bottom line is simply that newcomers are unwelcome. The real reason for their opposition to asylum seekers and immigrants is based on — and constructed around — a rigid doctrine of intolerance.
The BNP website warns that the “facts point inexorably to the overwhelming and extinguishing of Britain and British identity under a tsunami of immigration.” If a Briton were unfamiliar with the party and its far-right perspective, they might sceptically ask to see these “facts”, and wait pensively for a persuasive response. Inevitably, they would be left waiting a while.
Accept for a moment that the proliferation of Indian cuisine across Britain might represent a threat to British culinary identity. On inspection, one would quickly find that the evidence of a “foreign invasion” is sorely lacking. For example, Mr. Singh’s India, a Glasgow restaurant, specializes in Indian-Scottish fusion dishes. This establishment certainly serves traditional Indian recipes, but distinguishes itself from its dozens of competitors by offering dishes like haggis curry.
If anything, this innovation suggests the vitality of Scottish culture and illustrates its capacity to absorb and engage with other, supposedly alien, tastes and influences — rather than indicating its impending collapse. Furthermore, Indian food’s chance of establishing its cultural dominance here has been thwarted; it now benignly shares freezer-shelf space with the likes of fish and chips and frozen pizza. Curry is an integral part of British identity, not a threat to it.
Nevertheless, when asked what Mr. Singh’s haggis curry suggests about the fluidity of the concept of national identity, Baillie could only haplessly respond that it is an example of “multiculturalism”. He continued: “Each person’s identity and culture is … their right, [but] a multicultural society [is one] where each of us all lose our identity.”
This is puzzling. Wouldn’t it be quite sad if foreign food could destroy a person’s — or a nation’s — identity? And if an identity is that easy to lose it might not be worth keeping anyway. Disregarding these sorry realisations, Baillie offered no rationale for why or how a multicultural society necessitates the loss of an individual’s identity, nor is an explanation readily apparent — unless we think of the idea of “identity” as frivolously as Baillie does.
Food, and other material aspects of traditional British culture, are not part of the BNP’s definition of “British identity”. If only multiculturalism were the real issue!
The BNP mission statement instead explains that British identity was formed by the amalgamation of “Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norse and closely related kindred peoples” who arrived here centuries ago, as well as the “indigenous peoples” here since “the last great Ice Age”. It is this ethnic conception of national identity to which the BNP pins its shaky mast. It is even more absurd and dubious to argue that the identity encompassing the majority of Britain could be and needs to be represented by a single ethnic party.
However, when the protection of national identity becomes exclusive and confrontational, it’s tough to justify. American pride traced this course to its painful and tragic conclusion after September 11, when civic dialogue and national policy became aggressively anti-Muslim. In the UK, the July 7, 2005 attacks prompted a similar backlash against Muslims. Using the BNP’s weak and idiosyncratic logic, one attack by radical Islamists affirms the need for all immigration to be banned. According to a BBC News article on July 12, 2005, the party published campaign materials within a week of the attack claiming: “Maybe now it’s time to start listening to the BNP.”
This statement is just one in a long string of controversial statements which have earned the party a reputation for being racist.
For example, after his paper-thin rebuttal of multiculturalism, Baillie claimed that “the recent decade of mass immigration … damaged the identity and integrity of the British”. Obviously, from a party opposed to immigration, this statement isn’t surprising. Yet, before he said this, Baillie had dismissed the effects of prior immigration as being benign: “The British National Party believe that migrants who have been here for one or two generations are part of the nation.”
How can recent immigrants wreak such havoc on the delicate fabric of Britishness, while immigrants arriving before, say 2000, now have the uncontested distinction of being British themselves? This curious inconsistency in the BNP’s argument supposedly justifies a blanket, un-discriminating and arbitrary ban on all new immigration.
Preferential treatment for earlier generations can only be explained in a few possible ways. Perhaps prior immigrants might have had greater work ethic and thus made a more positive contribution to British society than do the “work-shy” newcomers. In contrast, according to the Unity Centre — a non-profit organisation dedicated to asylum casework — current asylum-seekers are more than willing to work, it’s just that the law won’t permit them to do so while their applications are being processed. Though immigrants come from different circumstances, it’s tough to believe that they wouldn’t work hard while other traumatised newcomers would.
And finally among the potential reasons why the BNP favours one generation of newcomers over another: racism.  In his discussion of detrimental asylum trends, Baillie commented about his and his party’s objection to “persons who come from Africa” and later, people “sailing across the Mediterranean” to Europe. He didn’t mention asylum seekers from anywhere else, and although many are from Africa, many travel equally far from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Baillie says the BNP would only accept asylum seekers from the countries next to Britain — Ireland or France — because only these fulfil the international refugee law stipulation that a refugee must seek asylum in the first safe country he or she reaches. He tellingly refrains from mentioning the refugees who are flown directly to Britain by humanitarian organizations such as the Red Cross, or the refugees who are duped into flights to Britain rather than somewhere closer to their own country.
Is it mere coincidence that Irish and French asylum seekers would be both welcome and share a similar ethnicity with the British? Would the BNP behave differently if it were an Italian National Party defending Italian shores against refugees coming directly from Libya to the nearest safe country?
Judging from the BNP’s comments about July 7; opposition to multiculturalism; and preferential treatment for earlier waves of immigrants, their thinly-veiled racism is undeniable and inexcusable.
At this point, some readers might be inclined to scoff, knowing all along that the BNP is racist but also agreeing with the aforementioned premise that the party is little more than an irrelevance. The first sentiment is true, as we have proven, but the second is false, and the mere fact that some would label the BNP no more than a thorn in their side lends the party power. In fact, the British National Party quietly thrives on public ignorance, like a silent cancer in a lifelong smoker. The BNP’s current manifestations are small, but its potential influence is deadly, if left untreated.
The most prominent indication of the Party’s influence is its recent victories in the European Parliament elections. Not only do BNP Chairman, Nick Griffin, and the new MEP, Andrew Brons, now have the opportunity to slowly sow their anti-immigration policies on an international platform, but their election more importantly signifies that this party offers something appealing to UK voters. If the BNP can win at a regional level, who’s to say that they won’t be sliding into office at home sometime soon, and with voter approval, no less?
Secondly — and more importantly — BNP sentiments are an extreme version of the same insensitivity that characterises much of the current immigration and asylum legislation. Labour Party policy in practice means that many asylum seekers have been deported because they did not follow the UK asylum procedures, which they did not know and had no opportunity to follow prior to arrival. According to an experienced staff member at the Unity Centre, asylum seekers stay in the UK illegally for one of several reasons. Those who have fled from persecution may fear the repercussions of resorting to the appointed legal channels to begin the asylum process.
The staff member, who wished to remain anonymous, reports that members of the Taliban sit in a cafe across from the British Embassy in Kabul, marking for death those who go in, and inevitably, must emerge. This begs the question of how many people know how to seek asylum correctly in the first place. People caught in the crosshairs of domestic unrest, civil war, or genocide cannot be expected to know that they are obligated to seek asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive. Thus they frequently arrive by illicit means, including human smuggling, and after crossing many safe European countries to seek UK asylum.
Consequently, another reason immigrant might remain here illegally is that they closely identify with British culture. Squatters in Calais camps, waiting to secretly scramble aboard a vessel to England, come from places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the British colonial legacy is primarily the English language. Why remain a stone’s throw from England when you cannot understand a lick of French? You probably wouldn’t either, especially if you had children to provide for.
And yet, the BNP categorically opposes not only economically-motivated immigrants but also powerless asylum seekers. Ironically, asylum seekers’ choice of Britain, of all the countries to which they might go (assuming that there is a choice), is an affirmation of — even a compliment to — the British identity, the very pillar of the BNP’s existence, rather than a weakening of it, as the Party alleges.
Thankfully, the BNP is not responsible for current asylum and immigration policies. Perversely, it is the Labour Government and Tory opposition, compliant MPs, and their predecessors that are culpable when the UK deports failed asylum seekers who arrive for both political and economic reasons.
At this rate, it will be a long time until the BNP is recognised as politically or socially acceptable in British society. If we continue to allow the BNP the distinction of sharing the sentiments underlying UK immigration policies, then Baillie’s description of racism will start to ring true.
“What I would define as racist is … a term of insult referring to those who have patriotic agendas … There is nothing racist about being patriotic. And the term racist is a meaningless word.”
Of course, what Baillie fails to understand is that the kind of patriotism he has in mind is often very hard to distinguish from the racism asylum seekers, immigrants and refugees are subjected to when they come to these shores in search of a safer existence.

On the 250th anniversary of Guinness, Lucy McIver recounts the history of Ireland’s biggest cultural export

It is 250 years since Arthur Guinness signed the lease for St. James’s Gate Brewery, Dublin. A quarter of a millennium later, his name is synonymous with stout, and it is the rallying cry of St Patrick’s Day. Indeed, given the avidity with which the it is consumed on the feast day of Ireland’s patron saint, Guinness hardly needs another date in the calendar. But this year, on its centennial silver anniversary, it is founding one. Arthur’s Day, following the Jack Daniels model, is the date of Arthur Guinness’s birthday, the 24th September.
St James’s Gate was producing significant, quantities of beer just four years after the lease was signed in 1759, yet it wasn’t until the 1770s that the Guinness we know today began to evolve. The increasing popularity of a new style of English beer – known as porter after the London porters who were its most enthusiastic consumers – caught Arthur Guinness’s attention.
Thirty years later the brewery had been given over entirely to the production of porter, replacing the ale and table beer that Arthur started out with. When Arthur’s son inherited St James’s Gate Brewery in 1803, he carried on with this specialty, which over the years and after many alterations in brewing, has become what we now know as stout. Arthur’s forty years in the brewing business were not uneventful. Thoroughly immersed in his trade, he was Warden and then Master of the Dublin Corporation of Brewers and fought for the survival of his own brewery and the Irish brewing industry. In 1775, St James’s Gate was threatened by an attempt to cut off the water-way that supplied the brewery. Arthur’s dispute with the city culminated in his brandishing a pick-axe at the party come to execute the filling in of the waterway. The water rights were eventually settled but Guinness faced further adversities.
In the 1770s the English Revenue Laws put Irish industry at a great disadvantage. A hefty tax on Irish Porter left it unable to compete with imports taxed at a much lower rate. The Dublin Corporation of Brewers lodged a petition, and a committee was set up to examine their claims. Arthur Guinness gave evidence of the decline in Dublin breweries over his years in the industry.
The Guinness dynasty has a substantial social legacy. Throughout the years they have supported and financed such causes as Catholic emancipation, the restoration of St Patrick’s Cathedral, and slum clearance. Following in this philanthropic tradition, as part of its anniversary celebrations Guinness will launch the Arthur Guinness Fund, to which Guinness & Co. will donate £5 million. The fund will support projects that aim to benefit communities.
The company has come far since the days when Arthur Guinness had to defend his water channel with a weapon. In a no-holds-barred approach to promotion, Guinness is looking forward to it’s own custom built submarine, or ‘deep sea bar’. Gesturing extravagantly in the other direction, it will send a lucky winner into space on Virgin Galactic’s first flight. Arthur’s Day is being celebrated with a star studded global toast, and an international array of 60 hours of live music, with artists such as Tom Jones, Calvin Harris, and The Black Eyed Peas performing in cities all over the world. The celebrations in Dublin are being broadcast to pubs taking part in Arthur’s Day.
The beginning of this global presence was the first export of Guinness to England in 1769. After the excise duty on beer was abolished the Irish brewing industry flourished and by 1840 Guinness was exporting half its output.
Because the industrial revolution all but passed Ireland by, the brewing industry continued to grow, making use of new technology and becoming the most important industry in the Irish Free State.
In 1886 Arthur Guinness & Co. went public and raised six million in capital from shares. The following century saw Guinness’s position as less than secure, as it struggled with low share prices and badly managed diversification. In the eighties the company faced scandal; a scheme was revealed to push up share prices. After this debacle Guinness turned away from its ambitious diversification plans to focus again on the alcoholic beverage. It is now a subsidiary of Diageo, created by the 1997 merger between Guinness and Grand Metropolitan (producers of Smirnoff and Baileys).
The popularity of Guinness has been less than stable in recent decades, but among the cans and bottles of lager that dominate the shelves of the beer section, this stout still stands. Using this anniversary to make the most of its longevity, Guinness once again turns its dazzling promotional smile on the beer drinking world. But Arthur’s anniversary extravaganza is a far remove from the cartoon toucan with the appealingly content grin under his Guinness.

At the end of summer 2008, the global economy found itself engulfed by a financial crisis that precipitated the most devastating recession in generations. The crisis was the culmination of more than twenty years of high-risk banking which created the appearance of phenomenal profits, but were in fact merely numbers manipulated on paper.
Major monetary institutions crashed overnight and, on their descent, brought with them countless others. The result was a domino effect on a historic scale in which tens of thousands of ordinary people were immediately confronted with the possibility of redundancy, homelessness and bankruptcy.
Perhaps the pivotal moment in the disintegration of the British banking system was the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, whose then chief executive, Sir Fred Goodwin, is the holder of an Honorary Degree of Glasgow University.
Previous to the crash, the Royal Bank of Scotland was the quintessential corporate success story. Described in 1992 as an ‘old and sleepy bank’, within a decade the stock price had risen by a thousand percent. By 2003, RBS had become the second leading bank in Europe and one of the largest in the world. The success of RBS resulted from two main factors: the lucrative nature of the credit market and the aggressive policies implemented by Sir Fred Goodwin.
The dominant ethos in banking for almost two decades was that of uncontrolled lending. Thus, loaning to previously unsuitable applicants became common practice and massive amounts were handed out for the purchase of private equity in firms. This credit issuing, however, was so profitable that it had to be supplemented and so the creditors became the credited; the debt packaged up and sold on. The string of debt became so complex that when people discovered they hadn’t the money to pay back loans, a chain reaction of unaccounted debt ripped through nearly every inch of the industry.
Fred Goodwin’s tenure as Chief Executive of RBS was characterised by the most uncompromising and aggressive lending and takeover policies in the bank’s history. In his first two years, he played a formative role in the hostile takeover of NatWest; a bank three times the size of RBS.
It was the beginning of a period of massive expansion through acquisition pioneered and spearheaded by Goodwin. Soon after, RBS had footholds across the world’s financial markets and its worldwide assets had quadrupled. By 2006, RBS operating income had reached 9.2 billion pounds after a sixteen percent increase on the previous year.
The increased profitability of RBS was due not only to the recently obtained assets, but the so-called ‘efficiency measures’ that earned Goodwin his pet name Fred the Shred. When asked why he was christened so he replied, “because Fred does not rhyme with charming and considerate”. In reality, however, it was due to his habit of buying rival banks and proceeding to strip them of staff and minor assets: 18,000 people were sacked at his command in the RBS-NatWest merger.
It was for this ruthlessly ‘pragmatic’ approach and his supposed ‘services to banking’ that Glasgow University awarded Goodwin an honorary degree of Doctor of the University in 2002. Honorary degrees are used as a means by which a university can reward a remarkable individual for their contribution to a particular field and to society at large: to express the University’s recognition of an individual’s achievements.
However, though possibly worthy of respect in 2002, Goodwin’s management style has proven to be profoundly detrimental to society. The 2008 UK Bank rescue package, which promised the RBS more than 20 billion pounds of public money — the largest given to any of the banks — will cost each household potentially tens of thousands of pounds. The rate of home repossessions has been increasing and the recession, provoked by the banking fiasco, will cast millions across Britain into a state of economic ruin.
The burden of the RBS collapse rests on Goodwin’s shoulders as much as any other influential figure. The mantra currently circulating Westminster — “No reward for failure” — is equally applicable to academic institutions. Glasgow University should not continue to celebrate the ultimate failure of Goodwin.
During the presentation of the degree, Glasgow’s incoming principal, Professor Anton Muscatelli explained: “Having seen for himself how banking can go spectacularly wrong, Fred Goodwin obviously decided to show the business world how to do it properly.” Such a statement is indicative of the short-sightedness prevalent within finance. Immediate gains are of paramount importance; the long-term potential consequences are not.
It is vital that the recent failings of the fiscal sector are recognised and understood by educational establishments and that criticism is levelled against the main proponents and their ideologies. Throughout history, universities have been the main contributors to the intellectual ethos of the day. To remain ‘in bed’ with Fred Goodwin is to align Glasgow University with a disastrous philosophy, and to expose this establishment to  public humiliation.
Goodwin’s subsequent actions to the bank bailout have also aroused much public anger. Through them, he has come to personify the corruption and decadence rampant within banking. His time at RBS was characterised by the gross flaunting of success; the £350m cost of creating headquarters near Edinburgh; his regular use of a private jet owned by an ancillary company; the suspected 200m pounds spent on celebrity backing.
What has fuelled public animosity more than anything else, however, is Goodwin’s self-righteous attitude towards his pension. On leaving RBS, he claimed entitlement to the whole £16m that lay in the pot — now composed of public money. Although, had Westminster refused to buy up the bad debt, RBS would have been bankrupted and Goodwin would have been entitled to a nominal compassionate fund of £27,000.
The eventual cut Goodwin accepted leaves his pension standing at more than £340,000 a year. For a man to walk away from such total failure with this as his reward is disgraceful. Glasgow University must ensure that we are not tarred with the same brush; that publicly, we are not seen as apologising for or condoning Goodwin’s actions.
In recent years, there has been an alteration in the fundamental principles of the education sector; a shift to a more pro-business mentality. Universities are now frequently viewed as little more than research establishments for profit-driven enterprises.
In the midst of recession it seems likely that funding to higher education institutions will fall. Equally, most departments and faculties should expect to find their budgets cut by a lack of private investment. These attacks are not separate to, but a direct consequence of, the two decades of irresponsible lending policies promoted and enforced by the likes of Goodwin and others. To leave a Glasgow University honorary degree in the hands of one of the main sources of the crisis is inexcusable.
Sir Fred Goodwin has consistently denied responsibility for his part in the banking collapse.  His pension still sits at millions of pounds.  Calls have been made in Westminster for his knighthood to be removed. And public opinion is more opposed than ever to the beneficiaries of disastrous commerce. It is now essential that Glasgow University publicly renounces its association with him and his catastrophic career by immediately rescinding his degree.