So the great debate on the break-up of the United Kingdom has begun. But much of the heat has so far been generated by the process of the referendum – two questions or three, this year or in two years time – rather than matters of substance.

My concern is that the debate is being led by politicians rather than ordinary voters. As a result, people will tend to line up according to their party political inclinations, rather than assess the proposals on their merits. And this plays into the hands of the slippery Mr Salmond, who is by far the most popular (and wily) politician north of the border. Many of those who voted SNP last year did so because they wanted Salmond as first minister – not because they wanted an independent Scotland.

My experiences of working for the “No” campaign (against joining the Euro) and the campaign for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty provide helpful lessons. The key one is that there needs to be a unified, non-party-political campaign against independence, which means that whoever heads the campaign – Mr Unionist – should not be a politician. Ideally, he or she should be a succeassful businessman or respected academic.

There is no reason why the political parties can’t be seen to support the Unionist cause but English-sounding voices from south of the border should be banned if possible. Salmond would like nothing better than to portray the referendum as a chance to free Scotland from the colonial English yoke, so the arguments in favour of the union must be made by Scotsmen and women.

And we urgently need someone to produce some positive arguments in this respect. So far, the Unionist arguments have been (a) independence would be a disaster for Scotland, (b) if not a disaster then very difficult (c) Scotland would have to accept its share of the national debt and the RBS toxic assets and (d) the Scots’ standard of living would suffer if they left the UK. These may well be true but they are so negative. I want people to vote for staying in the union because they recognise it as a good thing.

People should certainly be told what the consequences of leaving the union would be, but that is no more than half the story. They need to know WHY Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom. And I don’t think phrases such as “we’re stronger together” are the answer. The Unionist campaign must explain why we are stronger together.

The problem is that, after 300 years, the benefits of union are taken for granted and are so much of our daily routine that we need to be reminded what exactly they are. If this campaign succeeds in making all of more aware of just how beneficial the union has been – and still is – then the whole exercise will not have been wasted.

Britain’s media is in danger of becoming overly focused on the eurozone crisis. There are a number of valid reasons for this: EU countries acount for half the UK’s trade in manufactured goods, it’s relatively cheap to cover compared with other parts of the world, most people can find it on the map and watching other Europeans (particularly the French and Italians) struggling to escape from the mire is very entertaining.

Nevertheless, it is probably not the most serious threat to our economy. That dubious honour must, in my opinion, go to Iran. Until last weekend, there had been very little coverage – and even less analysis – of what is going on in that part of the Middle East.

While we all know that Iran has a very serious nuclear programme which no-one belives is for purely peaceful purposes, many are unaware that there is actually a low-level war already going on between Iran and Israel. On the one hand, Iran has been supplying Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza with increasingly sophisticated rockets and, on the other, Israeli intelligence is widely believed to be behind the assassination of four Iranian nuclear scientists (the latest one today), explosions at a number of military sites and the development of the Stuxnet computer virus, which has slowed down Iranian nuclear progress.

Currently US forces are in Israel “on exercise” and US warships are in the eastern Mediterranean. Iran has been test-firing missiles and is talking about closing the Straits of Hormuz if she is attacked. Given that about a third of the world’s oil supplies are shipped through the Straits of Hormuz, it is easy to see how their closure could disrupt the global economy. In fact there has already been a sharp hike in the oil price on the back of these fears.

The reality is that Iran is almost certain to become a nuclear power sometime this year. Even if Israel launches a pre-emptive strike against a reactor, it is unlikely to be able to destroy the country’s whole nuclear infrastructure. So at the very least, we can expect more disruptive behaviour from Tehran and, quite possibly, the situation could spiral into military conflict. That will do infinitely more damage to the global economy than Greece’s likely exit from the euro.

Not a very happy note with which to open my blog for 2012. But forewarned is…

Here we go again. The euroenthusiasts are in full scare-mongering mode, with warnings of dire consequences because David Cameron dared to offend the EU elite by fighting Britain’s corner. Clegg and Cable are probably the worst offenders, with unhelpful comments about “pygmy” Britain and the danger of job losses.

It’s all rubbish, of course. Like most scares, there’s very little likelihood that any of it will happen. Significantly, those leading the attack on Cameron’s veto are the same ones who were predicting economic armageddon ten years ago when they were urging us to adopt the euro. As Digby Jones helpfully pointed out yesterday, it didn’t happen then and it almost certainly won’t happen now.

Ed Miliband says that the veto was pointless because the fiscal union between eurozone countries has been agreed anyway. But the Government was never opposed to fiscal union, the veto was intended to block a new EU treaty, which included fiscal union and did not provide safeguards for Britain’s key interests. And, like it or not, the City is one of our core interests, accounting for between 10% and 20% of GDP.

However, in the real world, outside the rarified atmosphere of Brussels, the eurozone crisis remains unresolved. Fiscal union is undoubtedly an important tool but it is probably too late to end the current crisis. So I still expect Greece and possibly Portugal to default, adding to the stresses on the remaining eurozone countries. This turmoil will inevitably have a negative impact on the UK and, unfortunately, the consequent fall-out will undoubtedly be blamed by some (and reported by the BBC) as the result of Britain’s “isolation”. My advice is: keep a large pinch of salt handy whenever you hear the prophets of doom sounding off.

Since when did the EU become Europe? In today’s papers, we read that German politicians are telling Britain that we must play our part to save “Europe”. This, surely, is an opportunity for David Cameron to remind the Germans (and French, too, for that matter) that Britain has already saved Europe once in living memory and the EU is simply an organisation representing 27 European nations.
The present woes affecting the EU are the direct consequence of the organisation’s ill-conceived determination to lock 17 of these states into an illogical and unworkable monetary union. Any financial contribution by the UK to a Eurozone bail-out would simply involve throwing good money after bad.
Now, having got that off my chest, let’s look at what’s happening in the Eurozone. Last week, Angela Merkel said she was determined to pursue closer European political union “step-by-step”. We’ve witnessed step one: the ruthless regime changes imposed on Greece and Italy, where democratically-elected leaders were replaced with unelected technocrats loyal to the EU. So what’s step two?
My guess is that the EU will fairly soon propose a treaty change that demands fiscal union within the Eurozone. This will radically affect the national sovereignty of the member countries. Without the power to determine their own tax rates or spending programmes, Eurozone governments will become – in Norman Tebbitt’s words – no more than rate-capped local councils. And guess where the tax and spend policies will originate? Berlin, of course. After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune.
The British Government is worried that our exclusion from this integrated inner-core will weaken our influence in the EU. While one might fairly ask what influence? we actually have a fairly strong hand, if we play it wisely.
For a start, we are the second largest contributor to the EU coffers (after Germany), so can demand attention (he who pays the piper etc); secondly, we are a net importer of European goods. So, being beastly to the Brits is not a good way to promote trade; and, thirdly, British armed forces provide a major component of the putative European army. In short, the EU needs us. So let’s leverage that to our advantage. Over to you Dave.

More than enough has probably been written about Rupert Murdoch and his empire. But, since most of it has been unbalanced vitriol, I’m going to add my two ha-pence worth anyway.  I am proud to have worked for Murdoch in Sydney for a while as a senior sub-editor on his flagship national daily, The Australian.  This paper was - and still is – a quality publication by any yardstick and is, arguably, the best newspaper in Australia. Its quality is undoubtedly due to the succession of first class editors it has had as well as the journalists it employs, but credit has to go to Rupert Murdoch who launched it back in the 1960s and has supported financially ever since, even though I don’t think it has ever made a penny profit.

Which brings me to his track record in the UK.  As other commentators – notably James Delingpole and William Shawcross in The Spectator – have already observed, Murdoch has had a hugely beneficial impact on the British media: He saved The Sun, broke the stranglehold of the print unions, has subsidised The Times and patiently invested millions of pounds in BSkyB before it started making profits.

So why is he so loathed by the BBC, the Guardianistas and other holier-than-thou liberals? I think the answer must be because he and his publications oppose virtually everything they hold dear: the EU, regulation, immigration, multiculturalism, big government et al.  That doesn’t make Murdoch right but his titles have been highly effective at articulating an alternative view to that of what Delingpole calls the “smug, metropolitan bien-pensants who run the BBC”.  And I think smug is exactly the right word – particularly with regard The Guardian.   While it has been throwing up its hands in horror at the illegal hacking of voicemails, how does it think it got hold of the Wikileaks material? Quite simply the paper was handling stolen goods.  And then it put people’s lives at risk by publishing the information. 

I am not trying to exonerate the News of the World journalists who indulged in hacking.  They broke the law and deserve to be punished.  But I think it is fair to ask why everyone has decided to make a fuss about it now.  Certain journalists have been obtaining information illegally for decades and probably much longer.  And it’s been common knowledge.  We all knew that the Squidgy tapes were obtained illicitly and that private detectives were paid to rummage through people’s dustbins in search of information.  But I don’t recall MPs demanding an inquiry then.   So what’s changed – apart from Rupert Murdoch deciding to ditch Gordon Brown and support Cameron?

There is a powerful stench of hypocrisy pervading this whole witch hunt.  It is completely beside the point to argue that Murdoch was too powerful and needed to be brought to heel or that his tabloids were/are trash.  It was Blair, Mandelson and Alistair Campbell who fed the illusion of News International being the Westminster power broker, by courting Murdoch and his editors.  But the truth is that newspapers do not influence significantly the results of elections – Murdoch’s skill has been to identify the way the wind is blowing and then support the winning side.  Thus in 2010, the Sun supported Cameron in London but in Scotland it supported Labour.

Rupert Murdoch has never claimed to be a nice man (although many of those who have worked closely with him like him enormously and his PA has been with him for 50 years), but he is running a business empire not standing for parliament. 
The recent behaviour by some MPs in their aggressive cross-examination of James Murdoch has been repugnant. Tom Watson, in particular, was totally out of order in calling Murdoch junior a Mafia leader. I’m afraid the publicity generated by this business has gone to their heads. Perhaps we could stop televising select committee hearings. That might discourage some of the more puerile grandstanding.

I am increasingly coming round to the view that regulation is probably the biggest obstacle to business growth. In this regard, I want to congratulate Bernard Ginns for his perceptive and thoughtful comments in Tuesday’s Yorkshire Post. He makes the point that if you want people to behave like adults, you have to treat them as such and quotes Sir Nigel Knowles of DLA Piper as saying that “regulation is what you must do, Best practice is what you should do. You can’t regulate trust into existence and you can’t legislate to make people trustworthy.”
The problem is that rules are often no more than an invitation to find a way round them. The more complex the rules, the more work there is for clever consultants. The classic example is tax: The higher the tax rate, the lower the tax yield. It is not a coincidence that the fastest-growing economies are those with the least amount of regulation – including employment legislation.
Obviously, no-one in their right mind wants the world of trade and industry to degenerate into some anarchic free-for-all where the winners are those who are most ruthless. Nor should we revert to a Dickensian system where employees are callously exploited.
I fear it is probably too late, but it would be wonderful if we could recreate an environment where peer pressure was sufficient to ensure that business was conducted fairly and honestly. National organisations such as the CBI and Institute of Directors and local ones such as chambers of commerce or the Cutlers Company should perhaps be looking for ways to develop a culture of integrity. Just think of the millions of pounds that could be saved by scrapping all the regulatory bodies.

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first send mad. So predicted some ancient Roman sage, who obviously understood the mentality of the rulers of the Roman Emprire and its successor, the European Union.

I’m sorry to bang on about the Eurozone, but the extraordinary efforts of the member countries to bail out Greece in order to protect their precious project beggar belief. Full marks to those Slovak politicians who last night dared to point to the emperor’s lack of clothes, but it still seems likely that their victory will be overturned by the end of the week in a new vote.

Let’s just look at the facts: Greece is bust and the team from the IMF and European Central Bank auditing Athens’ progress in implementing the conditions of the last bail-out deal agree that not enough has been done. So what happens? the powers that be decide to let them have a few more million euros anyway.

In the real world, you don’t solve your debts problem by borrowing more money. So why should we think that this works for governments? We now have a totally bonkers situation where the rich northern European countries are pouring umpteen billions of taxpayers’ euros into a bottomless pit to maintain the illusion that the Eurozone works.

All these shenanigans might be quite entertaining if their ramifications were not so serious. The costs of sticking bandaids over the gaping fizzures in the grandiose European edifice are likely to tip the whole continent back into recession. Money spent bailing out banks or bankrupt economies cannot be spent on financing businesses. And recession in the EU, which is the UK’s biggest market, will inevitably adversely affect British companies.

So I’m afraid it’s going to be a while longer before we see what Norman Lamont used to call the green shoots of recovery.

Oh dear! it looks as though the siren voices of quantative easing are being listened to again. Aparently official new figures show that QE boosted GDP last time round by between 1.5% and 2% so the argument goes that we should repeat the medecine. However, the same figures show that QE also boosted inflation by 1.5%. My only surprise is that this figure isn’t higher.

Given that the target cap on inflation is meant to be 2% and CPI is already rising by 4.5% a year, a repeat dose of QE could take inflation to at least 6%, which would be disastrous for those on fixed incomes and would probably trigger a wave of unaffordable wage claims.

QE has been regarded in some quarters as a silver bullet, whereas it is actually more of a poison pill. Please Bank of England ignore the voices of the Sirens.

Beware of middle-class nimbys. Led by such respected institutions as the National Trust, the battle drums are increasing their tempo as opposition mounts to the Government’s proposed new planning guidelines. Listening to their arguments, you could be fooled into believing that our much-loved British countryside is going to be irrevocably destroyed. But that’s not the case.

The Government wants to simplify the planning rules by reducing them from 1,000 pages to just 50. And about time to. Anyone who has ever dealt with local planning authorities will testify to how time-consuming, expensive and – in the case of commercial developments – uncertain the process is. Now the Government is calling for the default response to any application to be approval – unless there are very sound reasons for refusal. It believes that the present system is stifling growth by making the planning process a lottery.

Recently I have been involved in advising a gas exploration company which wants to build a gas processing facility outside Thornton le Dale. Inevitably the roar of protest has been deafening (although not unanimous). The situation is that the company, having been awarded an exploration licence, has found a fairly large reserve of gas in the North York Moors National Park. Naturally, it believes it is entitled to exploit this reserve and wants to pump it into the National Grid’s National Transmission System (NTS), which runs underground just outside Thornton le Dale. The proposed treatment facility is located alonside the NTS.

I don’t propose to argue the merits of the company’s case – although I believe they are compelling – as the matter will now be decided by the Secretary of State following a public inquiry which is due to start on October 25. However, this company’s experience is typical of what many developers have to go through. It applied for planning permission in April 2010, but by June this year had still not received any indication from North Yorkshire County Council as to the likely date when the application would be discussed. In the meantime, it had held two public exhibitions, provided shed loads of information and paid for ecological, archeological and environmental surveys. Inevitably, the estimated cost has soared from £50m in March 2010.

Fed up with this bureaucratic procrastination, the company appealed to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination. As a result, the public inquiry is to be held, involving both the company and the cash-strapped council in further unwelcome expense. However, the move has at last forced NYCC into discussing (and, unsurprisingly, rejecting) the application.

Most companies cannot afford the time and money involved in submitting contentious planning applications. As a result, there is now a desperate shortage of affordable housing in the country. Years ago, the then chief executive of the Halifax explained that house prices were unstainable when they reached 4.5 times average earnings. The multiple is now six, which is why we need more homes to be built, which is why the planning rules have to be revised. QED

Does anyone else share my annoyance at the way television reporters (and the BBC ones in particular) are increasingly saying “anytime soon”, as in “this situation is not going to change anytime soon”?

The BBC used to be a bastion of correct English usage. Can’t we insist that its staff stop using lazy cliches.