On Monday 29 October, the Domestic Politics Society welcomed Lord Christopher Monckton, Deputy Leader of the UK Independence Party and political advisor to Margaret Thatcher, to advise the society and guests on “How to make Scotland the richest nation on Earth.”

Monckton claimed the current economic and political situation in Scotland is worrying, as “debt is growing,” and “it will get worse if Scotland does not receive subsidies from Britain.”

It was for this reason he advised Scotland rejected complete independence and remained part of Britain, but opted out of the European Union and acquired greater independence to spend money according to its own interests.

Monckton proposed “abandoning the socialist model altogether,” instead “introducing a more rational… balance between the public and private sector.”

To do this, he advocated temporarily lowering taxes for the rich and increasing them for the poor, before eventually introducing a low flat-rate taxation rate for all, and decreasing the role of the public sector to encourage the introduction of private corporations and thus greater employment.

He also suggested that Scotland model its economy on Hong Kong, with little to no governmental intervention in the economy.

A small turnout on the night allowed for a heated debate following Monckton’s controversial points. When Lord Monckton opened up for questions, it was clear that a number of audience members did not agree with his statements, and by the end of the night there were still questions left unanswered.

Some criticisms pointed out by audience members were that the welfare system was one of the biggest achievements of Scottish politics, and abandoning the public sector would put the most vulnerable at risk.

Another argued that even if the major corporations Lord Monckton envisions did move to Scotland, it is not guaranteed that they would employ Scottish people, thus would have no impact on the economy. Additionally, the recent reports of corporations not paying taxes were mentioned.

A Domestic Politics Society member said: “Lord Monckton has been a regular at debates and I thought he would be an interesting speaker to have which he certainly was,” adding that the DPS would be introducing another controversial speaker – George Galloway – on November 13th.

6 COMMENTS

  1. As an audience member, I was too angered on the night by Lord Mockton’s incredibly right-wing fiscal and social views – which read like the worst extremists of the US Republican tea party – to challenge his equally laughable assertion that Scotland is ‘massively subsised’ by the rest of Britain.

    With Scotland contributing 9.6% of UK revenue and receiving only 9.3% of spending back, a lower per capita deficit and generally being in a better position economically than the UK as a whole, the suggestion that Scotland is bankrolled by the rest of the UK is factually basless and the idea that independence would require extreme budget cuts is ridiculous,seeing as we already pay for all of Scotland’s public services and more.

    Given Lord Monckton’s patronising rhetoric and tone, his emphatic assertion that Labour and the SNP are ‘Communist’ parties, his denial of global warming, and his apparently genuine belief that Barack Obama has forged his birth certificate and was in fact born in Kenya, it is thankfully plainly clear that his factually incorrect painting of the Scottish people as subsidy junkies should be afforded the same level of credibility as all of his other preposterous views.

  2. @Angus:
    I don’t think you understand the Tea Party at all…
    And I think you show a complete lack of respect for an incredibly well known public figure who has done far more in his day then you probably ever will. You don’t have to agree with him, but rather than be ‘angered’ why not just be appreciative he came to propose an opposing argument, to an area where he was bound to get nigh-on zero support? Or should all debates be one sided?

    • “who has done far more in his day then you probably ever will.” – fair enough mate us lowlifes better keep quiet then.

  3. @Jock:
    I do understand the Tea Party, and I understand UKIP. I know the arguments behind their ideology and I am not naive enough to think that they ‘hate’ poor people. But I do not see how the propositions put forward by such figures on the extreme right can help society or are workable without a massive upheaval of the system which would cause extreme pain and discomfort to those who would be disadvantaged by it. Even if in the long term more wealth was to be created, it would be concentrated in the hands of the few and increase the already massive inequality we have today.

    I was angered, frustrated and deeply disappointed by Lord Mockton’s speech not simply because I do not agree wth him, but because he paints both Scotland and Britain as nations of subsidy junkies, scrounging off the rich and the state, going as far to suggest that misery and loneliness are ‘amost exclusively’ caused by the welfare system. He, and those who share his ideological position, believe that the basic minimum to provide food and a roof is enough for people to live with. In an advanced economy, with some possessing unbelievable wealth, ‘survival’ should not be an acceptable standard for people in our country. What I say is not ‘Communism’, but centrist common sense.

    As for my willingness for debate, I do appreciate Lord Monckton’s address, without a doubt. He put my political sentiments in perspective for me. I may disagree strongly with the Tories, but at least their views provide opposition in Government and balance in Parliament to the Scottish collectivist consensus. At least their views are more or less compatible with a society that functions for all citizens. However as long as UKIP, Tory backbenchers and their cousins in the Tea Party continue to pull political debate to the far right – as Lord Monckton demonstrated in his pride at influencing the highly damaging welfare reforms of Iain Duncan Smith – I for one am glad that I live in a country which works to care for all of its people and that Scots have the opportunity to vote for independence and protect the advantages that devolution has allowed us to extend to all people.

    • You appear to believe the Tea Party is a solely right-wing movement. In fact, it comprises many aspects; one of the bases of its founding is actually a strong Libertarian belief and it is also sometimes considered a Populist movement, So it is not just a right wing movement. So, you basically don’t understand it…

      What’s worse is that you somehow link UKIP, Tea Party and the Conservative together?! The Tea Party; an anti-establishment movement. Linked to…the Conservatives. I think these groups would be greatly displeased at being at all associated.

      I fail to see how Tory Backbenchers also cannot affiliate with society, when they are after all, voted in by society. So they’re clearly airing points that many agree with…

      I do at least agree that the UK is a country which cares for all its citizens, and this is something to be proud of. It even cares for those that choose to vote UKIP.

      • Jock, within the context of UK politics, the brand of libertarianism and populism advocated by some in the Tea Party movement are considered right-wing, not least because of their very close association with the Republicans. Their great disdain of government and the state is but more an extreme version of the policies advocated by the Tories and it is for this reason that I group them together.

        As for the Tory backbenchers, they are directly comparable to the Tea Party in that they advocate increasingly conservative views and increasingly challenge the leadership of the party. Those elected representatives in the US who affiliate with the Tea Party are virtually exclusively Republican, challenging the leadership. Are the Republicans then not an ‘establishment’ party in the States?

        Of course Tory backbenchers are airing points that many agree with, and it is in the interests of those who vote for them, and not society as a whole, that they primarily make decisions. My point is that the farther-right elements of the Tory party do not believe in the overwhelming social dividend that a more collectivist system can bring – Margaret Thatcher said so herself when she proclaimed ‘there is no such thing as society’. I’ll assume that UKIP agrees seeing as Lord Monckton so closely advised her while in office and the policies he promotes seem built on the worst excesses of Thatcherism.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.