But what if it's a myth? What if the extraordinary rate of progress our civilisation has sustained over the 19th and 20th centuries is a temporary blip, one about to slow and possibly stall as the 21st unfurls? Progress requires funding, and it should not have escaped your notice that governments are running into problems with money.
There are many self-inflicted reasons for our economic difficulties – fraud, corruption and incompetence in the financial sector being central. But lurking behind our economic problems are our planet's lowering reserves of fossil fuel. Oil is the one must-have super-resource of the modern world. Without it, nothing works. More to the point, without it at an affordable price, nothing works. The hyper-complex, warehouse-on-wheels, just-in-time economy we've built up over the preceding decades was developed on the back of cheap oil, during a period of time when the global oil supply was in constant growth. With it, the ready supply of money in the form of cheap loans was also in constant growth, and consequently the economy and the people benefiting from it prospered. Progress and innovation followed easily as there was excess money to invest in it.
With the peak in conventional (easy and cheap ) oil production now in the rear-view mirror, growing the oil supply means going after unconventional (hard and expensive) sources. That is why we are now seeing deep-water oil extraction (remember the ill-fated DeepwaterHorizon?), the race for the arctic, and the craze for fracking everything in sight. We're moving into a period of history where the average oil price will remain consistently high, and our global economy, reared on the dummy-teat of cheap oil, is developing a considerable case of indigestion. In years to come, as price spikes climb higher and averages follow, more of the complex world around us will run into difficulty. As our established infrastructure ages, we'll have to pour more money into maintaining what's there already and less into new ventures, and all the while from a shrinking resource base. Hence progress slows and stagnates.
A look around at the news of the past few years should be enough to signal that something is going wrong. The global economy has been in the doldrums now for some time - businesses are closing, unemployment is rising, and government cuts to welfare programs and services bite ever deeper. The gap between the rich and poor in the UK has risen to levels not seen since the second world war as the coalition's austerity program clamps down harder. Meanwhile, some the few growth industries of note are defence contractors and suppliers to the military; illegal wars and occupations in the middle east are the other hallmark of recent times, a region of the planet noted, unsurprisingly, for its abundance of black gold. There can be no doubt that the West's interference with and occupations in these areas are to ensure it never misses its fix while denying its competitors theirs.
All of this can only exacerbate in the years to come. The 21st century will be nothing like what we experienced in the 20th in terms of increasing affluence and standards of living. On the contrary, our economic difficulties can only intensify, and must be responded to with an entirely new way of thinking. For that, we need an entirely new leadership and system of government. Obsessed with maintaining business as usual at all costs, systemically venal and beholden to corporate interests, Westminster is already a relic of a past world. It is, simply, unfit for purpose in the 21st century. Its failures can only mount until it finally collapses or sinks into irrelevancy as the people of the UK learn to fend for themselves. To aid them, local governments may have to learn to step up to the plate and take on more responsibility.
We are fortunate in Scotland then that we already have an alternative government – one that is currently asking for more responsibility. I believe it may have it sooner or later, irrespective of the referendum result. Nevertheless, I'd much rather it had it sooner while we still have some time to prepare for an unexpected future; while there is a chance - however slim that may be - of electing the right people for the job of steering into it.
There is nothing to say that the Scottish government might not suffer the same fate as Westminster in time, if it is allowed to be captured by the same forces of greed. But I believe that it will fare better, imbued as it is with the energy of youth and hopefully soon to be unleashed with the full powers of independence. Not to mention its modern structure, unburdened by the stifling weight of farcical, outmoded tradition and the unreformable antiques display otherwise known as the house of lords.
The Scottish government deserves a chance to show what it can achieve with full independence. It should have that chance now, while the global economy is functioning more or less as we have known it. Time is not on our side – another nosedive, similar to or worse than 2008, could be imminent. The fraud and illegality in the world's financial system was not fixed after the last crash – if anything it has only been encouraged, setting us up for something far worse. Who knows what conditions we'll face on the other side of the next slide down.
RMS Westminster, steaming at flank speed in iceberg infested waters, is doing nothing and will do nothing to avert another economic plunge. A No vote could see Scotland sink to the depths with it. A Yes vote does not guarantee a better fate, but if we are vigilant and follow with a careful selection of the right government with the right policies, we can give ourselves a fighting chance of navigating the treacherous waters ahead.
As a small nation, an independent Scotland will be best placed to steer through the years ahead. The next post will look at why in a de-globalising future small is best, and too big will fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment