If you share a country with others, you sign up to sharing burdens and risks. It also means you sign up to sharing successes and riches.

In Europe today some of the separatist movements are from parts of countries that are richer than the rest. They get fed up with sharing their success with others. Thus many in Catalonia in Spain, Padania in Northern Italy and Flanders in Belgium think they would better off without the poorer parts of their countries which they have to help finance.

The case of Scotland is a bit different. Scotland is not the pre-eminent richest part of the UK. London is. However, Scotland feels rich thanks to the presence of oil reserves. Much of the debate about Scottish independence entailed the two sides throwing around different calculations of tax revenues, income per head and general prosperity depending on how much of the oil was regarded as Scotland’s, and how bullish you were about future levels of extraction and future oil prices.

The case of Greece is similar. Germany and other richer parts of the Euro Union do not  want to accept full burden and risk sharing with Greece in the way West Germany does with East Germany or Northern Italy does with southern Italy. Germany says  No to propping up Greek banks, to sending  Greece more money to pay benefit bills or for local authority programmes.

The Scottish case has served as a great reminder of why risk sharing and burden sharing can help. Scotland now has to accept that volumes of oil extracted will be well down on peak levels, and at least for the time being prices well down on Nationalist expectations last autumn. If Scotland were on her own that would mean big spending cuts. Inside the UK the loss of revenue is manageable, and it will be covered from elsewhere.

It reminds us that to be a successful union most in the union have to accept the idea that success is shared and risks are underwritten throughout the whole union. Because many parts of the Euro area are not ready top accept that, the area will remain crisis ridden and unhappy.

One of the ironies of the Greek predicament is that thanks to the previous Greek government the state deficit there reached low levels, beneath the EU ceiling and considerably better than some of the countries judging the Greek response. Unfortunately for Greece the election of a higher spending government coincides with the need to repay debts and to recognise that a low deficit was reached only after the most massive build up of debt which is now difficult to afford.

In the Eurozone France, Portugal and Spain are unable to get their state deficits down to the 3% maximum permitted, though they are more  hawkish over what to do about Greece. Germany has eliminated her deficit, just as many wish she would spend and borrow more to reduce her surplus and provide some stimulus to other parts of the zone.

The so called negotiations are bizarre. Greece says she does not want any more debt and wishes to make her own decisions about social and economic policy. The troika, renamed the “institutions”, remind Greece that she is borrowing more and needs  permission to do that under the Euro scheme. The price of more borrowing, to repay old debts and pay local bills, must be that Greece accepts the reform agenda of the Eurozone. Greece responds that she will not follow Euro austerity policies, labour market reforms and the rest which Syriza sees as damaging to the Greek chances of growing again.

The European Central Bank wishes to stop Greek commercial banks buying Greek government bonds and demanding financing from the ECB to help them do so and to pay for the deposits that are being withdrawn. The institutions want the ECB to go on  financing Greece – or allowing Greece to finance herself by selling more Treasury bills – whilst they see if they can broker an agreement.

The troika briefs that they can live with Greece leaving the Euro if she will not  accept the old medicine of the zone and the loan agreements. Few believe them. The Greek government briefs that they do not need new loans and are planning to do only what they want to do, which is mainly to spend more. Few believe them.

The truth is the two sides are locked in an acrimonious marriage where neither seem to believe in divorce. Both think they need each other, whilst disliking each other and telling the outside world they are just fine leading their own lives and having separate bedrooms.

How much longer can this go on? How much more damage will this scheme do? All the time the two sides bicker, half of all Greek young people remain out of work. None of it is a great advert for people to take a holiday in Athens this summer.

In 1932  total UK public spending was £1 397 million. If you adjust for inflation that is £82 887 million.

So as the UK government this year is spending £737 100 million, what is all this nonsense about returns to the 1930s?

The government has recently published more figures showing the real changes in public spending in recent years. These reveal that real spending has gone up in several large programmes, including health, social security and general public services. It has also risen in international services including overseas aid, EU contributions, science and technology and environmental protection. There have been real cuts in defence, public order, recreation and culture, and enterprise and economic development. Overall general government consumption went up by 1.5% in 2014, and is going up by another 0.8% this year,  in real terms ,  according to the Budget Red Book. General government investment rose by 7.3% last year and by another 2.3% this year in real terms. Real household disposable income rose by 1.4% last year and is forecast to rise by 3.7% this year.

One of the difficult areas to research is what has happened to local authority grants and spending. Many Councils argue they have faced large cuts. The figures are difficult to deduce because in 2013-14 the government reclassified large sums, with the localisation of business rates and of Council tax benefit. In a recent  government publication it shows the pattern of so called Local Government Resource AME as £284 m in 2009-10, rising to £11,123 million in 2013-14, whereas Resource DEL fell from £26.805 billion in 2009-10 to £16.281 billion in 2013-14. If we add the two together the sums rose from £27.089 bn in 2009-10 to £27.5bn in 2013-14, a modest rise which also needs to be adjusted for any changes in responsibilities. There was also at the same time some redistribution of grants undertaken to give a bit more relatively to Councils that received very little central grant.

The 2015 Budget Red Book has a figure for locally financed current expenditure. This rose from £33 bn in 2013-14, to £35.8bn in 2-14-15, and is forecast to rise to £37.6bn in 2015-16. These are cash figures and are not adjusted for any change in responsibilities. Locally financed capital spending is constant at £7bn a year for the three years. The good news is public satisfaction with Council services has not fallen during this period, despite many Councils stating they have faced cuts in their grants and budgets.

Some green policies   really do destroy jobs, plunge people into fuel poverty and make our lives difficult. A recent report says that the UK should make its carbon dioxide targets even more taxing, to allow for all the CO2 emitted in places like China when making items to export to us.

So let’s get this straight. The UK has lost a lot of industrial capacity, in no small measure because Green energy policies have driven up our price of energy and helped make us uncompetitive with lower energy cost countries. This at least allowed us to hit CO2 targets a bit more easily, as we no longer use all that energy to make things. Under international rules each country accounts for the CO2 it generates. If a country decides to gain industrial market share, it has to do more to cut CO2 emissions elsewhere in its society if it is going to be part of the international agreements on these matters. If a country decides on deindustrialisation as one way to hit CO2 targets, that works under current accounting rules.

Some of us have gone hoarse warning that pushing up UK and EU energy prices will simply shift CO2 generating activities from us to parts of the world who do not share this concern. Now that has come to pass, it is amazing that we are being told it is our fault and we need to penalise ourselves further. If we do so, then we will lose even more industry, and doubtless be told that we need to tighten further to allow for more imports.

When interviewed on the radio, a proponent of this  approach said he wanted people to change their behaviours. He gave two examples. People should not expect to own their own car, but should use public transport or hire and share cars when needed. He also thought that  we should run household appliances like fridges for many more years than we currently do, with more repairs. He seemed to think this would save a lot of energy, reducing the amount expended on making new machines. It would also mean running older less fuel efficient equipment for longer, whilst  destroying the jobs of appliance and car makers. More reliance on public transport can raise the amount of CO2 and other emissions , depending on bus and train utilisation  rates, age of the trains and buses, and on the way they are driven.

We also hear the good news that there are no US tornadoes in March, a most unusual outcome. The climate change forecasters who have told us to expect more extreme weather, have now amended this forecast to less frequent extreme weather but more extreme extreme weather. Maybe that covers the good news this March. It just goes to show how difficult forecasting is.

Personally I want the UK to have a stronger industrial base, not a smaller one, and want people to afford enough energy to have decent lives. The idea that we need more wind energy, which in turn means we will need more back up energy for when the wind is not  blowing does  not sound to me to be very green  let alone cost efficient.

My budget intervention and speech are available as text in the “Debates” section of this site. Videos of each are available below:

My intervention: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaMHh8PYalc

My speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAvGP_vdy0s

So the Chancellor shot a few of Labour’s foxes.

First to go was the idea that the Conservatives will take the UK back to 1930s levels of spending. This is Labour’s favourite lie, based on confusing spending as a percentage of the economy with real levels of spending, which are currently nine times the 1930s! As explaining all that is difficult, the Chancellor has raised planned spending for 2019-20 so the percentage of the economy will be 36%, the same level as Mr Brown and Mr Blair chose in 2000. No return to the 1930s guaranteed.

Second to go was the idea that a further raid on the pension funds of the better off, and an increase in taxes on banks would pay for Labour’s programme. The Chancellor has done both those things, and the money is absorbed into the budget figures to help pay for the tax cuts the government offered.

Third to go was the idea that living standards had fallen this Parliament. The Chancellor gave us numbers to show they have gone up modestly, and are now rising at a better rate. GDP per capita is 5% higher, and real household income per capita is also up over the Parliament.

Fourth to go was the idea that the new jobs are all part time, zero hours or low skilled. The Chancellor assured us 80% are full time, and most are skilled.

So what is the underlying strategy? Mr Osborne has set out five years spending and taxing plans, so all know what they will get from a Conservative government. Other parties in the election will have to work from those figures and explain how they will pay for extra spending or how much extra they will borrow.

His plans are to get the budget into balance by 2018-19. Debt as a percentage of GDP will be falling from next year, 2015-16. Public spending is forecast to go up by £60 bn in cash terms in 2019-20 compared to 2014-15, with the largest increase in the final year. In 2016-17 there is a planned small cut in cash public spending.

Savers will benefit from £1000 tax free savings income on standard rate tax, and from more flexible ISAs.

There are some who seem to think we are back in a new cold war. They highlight aggressive actions by Russia. They respond with aggressive words, and with some sanctions. They see NATO as able to limit Russia’s aggression.

They should remember how bad the Cold War was, and remember that in those days the West knew the limits to its power. NATO spent much more of its income on defence, had larger forces than today, but decided it could do nothing about Russian aggression in any part of Eastern Europe. We watched as Russia invaded and subjugated an unhappy Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The NATO defensive umbrella, backed by the formidable nuclear arsenal of the USA, ensured Russian expansion would stop at the East German border.

Today things are not as bad as in the Cold War days. The main countries that wished to leave Russian control have done so. There are many more free states and peoples in Eastern Europe. Russia herself has changed a bit, with more free enterprise. At times Russia wishes to be a more mature power in the world, but in other ways behaves badly towards neighbours. Russia understands the NATO pledge to support all its members, and has concentrated on gaining influence or control in non NATO members close to its borders.

The west rightly condemns aggression to take territory and control people who do not wish to be ruled under Russian influence. The West also rightly has not made the position of people in East Ukraine or Georgia worse by intervening in the local wars. The aim of Western policy should be by diplomacy and economic action to limit Russian expansion, without wanting to extend the EU and NATO in turn. I see no reason to extend a NATO guarantee wider than has already been granted, and no need to expand the EU ever eastwards.

All those who currently enjoy the NATO umbrella should also be expected to spend more of their money on maintaining good defences at home. The UK and US are the only two NATO countries to presently meet all the requirements on a NATO state. Those who want our protection should also spend 2% of national income on defence, and spend 20% of their defence budget on equipment.

As we await the final version of each party’s 2015 Manifesto, I thought it a good idea to re read the Conservative 2010 version.

That Manifesto placed most emphasis on the need for economic recovery. Most of the policy proposals for the economy were geared to helping generate many more jobs. Much of what was promised has been delivered, and much of that delivery has produced the desired results in terms of jobs.

The Manifesto promised keeping interest rates lower for longer, which has happened. It promised a reduction in youth unemployment which has occurred, and an improvement in UK competitiveness in world league tables, which has also been achieved. The pledge to cut Corporation tax has been met,the banks have been reformed and strengthened as proposed, the OBR was set up, and Ministers’ pay was cut. The new government did reduce the National Insurance bills it inherited, has ended the annuity rule for pensions and increased the focus on STEM subjects at school and university. The IHT promise has not been delivered, falling foul of coalition agreements. Council Tax was frozen for two years as promised and then kept down. We have discussed immigration before, where the target was not met.

On Europe the Manifesto said

“We believe Britain’s interests are best served by membership of an EU that is an association of its member states. We will never allow Britain to slide into a federal Europe. Labour’s ratification of the Lisbon treaty without the consent of the British people has been a betrayal of this country’s democratic traditions. In government we will put in place a number of measures to make sure this shameful episode cannot happen again”. The government did enact legislait5on requiring a referendum for a future transfer of power or if any government wished to join the Euro. Conservatives ruled out joining the Euro, then and now. As the Manifesto made clear there was no promise of a referendum on Treaties which had already been ratified, including Lisbon.

The IMF is busy lending to a European country in deep difficulties – and this time it is not Greece. It looks as if current IMF lending has just got more political, with the IMF acting as some banking arm of European Union expansionism and centralisation. It is lending to Ukraine.

The good news is that this lending, unlike the loans to Greece , is to a country with its own currency. It can devalue, and just has undergone a massive devaluation. The Hryvania has fallen from 23 to the £1 in November last, to 32 to £1 now.

The bad news is that the loans are to country which just like Greece has a government which wishes to write off or renegotiate its past debts. Lending to countries which say themselves they already have too much debt and need to cut them, if necessary without the agreement of creditors, is a very risky and arguably unhelpful thing to do.

On top of that bad news, just as Greece has experienced economic collapse with large falls in output thanks to the Euro scheme, so Ukraine has suffered a sharp fall in output owing to a civil war and to the loss of some of the industrial parts of the country’s economy.

In Ukraine national income and output fell 6.9% last year, and the IMF thinks it will fall another 5.5% this year. The Finance Minister is seeking $15 billion of debt relief, saying she intends to carry through a mixture of offering a lower interest rate on past debts, extending the date before the money is repaid, and simply cancelling some of the value of the debt owing.

Ukrainian debt currently trades at around 40 cents for each dollar owed. The country has very high inflation, weak banks, and a large shopping list for weapons.

All this bodes ill for the success of the debt programme. It also should raise questions in people’s minds about the kind of Europe which the EU is creating. The slaughter has been extreme, the country has failed to keep its people friendly to Russia onside, and it has been outwitted by Russia herself with the annexation of Crimea. I of course condemn any Russian military interference in Ukraine, and condemn the deaths of UKrainian citizens by the rebel forces. I also dislike some of the actions of the present Ukrainian government, which has not found a way to stabilise its country and protect its own citizens, and condemn violence by the Ukrainian state against its own people. The EU has had no answer to this. The Ukrainians that look to the EU for their future should ask why they are now so much worse off, and why their lives have been endangered by recent events.