THE headline on the front page of yesterday’s Sunday Times would have made a stone statue weep. “Super-rich hit by a slump in fortune”, it bemoaned.

The article told us that “Britain’s super-rich have suffered the worst hammering of their fortunes since the financial crash.” The theme continued in its magazine supplement: “They say the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Not this year.”

This was followed by news stories detailing the tragic plight of men like Len Blavatnik, who made his fortune from coal, aluminium and petrochemicals. The poor soul is now down to his last £11.6 billion. If this apocalypse continues they’ll be setting up food banks across Kensington and Knightsbridge.

But hang on a minute (as the Newsnight interviewers say). Read on carefully. And if you can fight back the tears long enough to get as far as the sixteenth paragraph, you’ll discover that, actually, Britain’s 120 billionaires are collectively six per cent richer than they were last year. How many workers got six per cent pay rises last year?

The super-rich’s wealth rose by £18bn between 2015 and 2016 and now stands at £344Bn, an £18bn rise since last year. Yes, you read that right. The wealth of the richest 120 people in the UK is now a third higher than the total annual spending on benefit: state pensions, disability allowances, child tax credits, housing benefit and unemployment benefits.

Most of that wealth is concentrated in the south-east of England. Of these 120 billionaires, no fewer than 77 live in London, which has now has more billionaires than any other city in the world. Its nearest rival, New York, has 61.

Some Labour unionists say the UK has to stick together so that all that wealth can be shared with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the north of England. They miss two important points.

First, that ultra-concentration of wealth in London is a direct consequence of the UK state, which for 300 years has sucked wealth from the north and west to the south-east. And second, Westminster governments, whether Labour, Tory or Coalition, have never lifted a finger to share that wealth across the UK.

In 1997, the year Labour came to power, the party’s chief spin doctor Peter Mandelson said: “I’m intensely relaxed about people becoming filthy rich.”

And become filthy rich they did under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. When they came to power, the 1000 richest individuals in Britain had a combined wealth of £99bn. By the time the Labour government was over, despite the great financial crash and the austerity that followed, the wealth of that top thousand had soared to £355bn.

Now, six years later, The Sunday Times is worried about the welfare of the rich because 120 individuals only have a combined wealth of £344bn.

What’s interesting is why The Sunday Times felt the need to spin the figures as a drastic slump in wealth of the filthy rich. Usually, the right-wing media celebrate the accumulation of wealth and condemn the supposed "envy" of anyone who criticises the greed and inequality of it all.

But they’re clearly picking up a change in the way the wind is blowing. Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain, the independence movement in Scotland, Corbynmania in England, Bernie Sanders in the USA – all of these and more signify an end to the era of adulation for the super-rich and futile desperation to join the club.

Instead of dreaming about becoming rich, more and more people are asking whether it’s right that they should pile up riches that they could never hope to spend in a hundred lifetimes, while millions struggle to pay the bills and feed their children.

So, put away your tissues, the wealthy elite are still filthy rich. They’re just a wee bit more embarrassed about it than they used to be and a wee bit scared that if they flaunt it too much in these rebellious times, they might provoke a backlash.

Respectful debate at hustings challenged my opinion of Labour

THINGS have been getting a bit tetchy amongst pro-independence parties in some places.

But last week I was reminded of how good it felt during the referendum, when people from all parties and none were able to engage in respectful discussion.

Women for Independence have been hosting some hustings. We held one in Birnam and Dunkeld last week with an all-women panel, cheerily chaired by Rosie Kane.

The only other hustings in the area had managed to supply five men, so we thought we’d even things up.

Women candidates from all the parties on the regional list were invited. Unfortunately, the Tories said they couldn’t make it, while Ukip confessed that they don’t have any female candidates on their regional list for Mid Scotland and Fife.

Had the Tories shown up they would’ve been treated with respect, as every other candidate was. The atmosphere and tone encouraged an open, honest and sincere discussion on issues that included public transport, the value placed on caring and bringing up children, the European referendum, and the best way to use your second vote.

Not everyone agreed, but no-one questioned the legitimacy of the different positions put forward. There were no accusations of treachery or control freakery, but an acceptance that people will come at this from different angles and that sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.

Everyone on the panel was impressive – and the biggest surprise probably, to most in the room, was how inspiring, wise and honest Mary Lockhart of the Labour Party was. Unfortunately, Mary, who backed a Yes vote in the referendum, is way down at number 12 on the Labour list for Mid Scotland and Fife.

I’ve decided I’m voting for Jenni Gunn of Rise on the list – but if Mary was top of her party’s list, she’d have me swithering.

And I’ve never voted Labour in my life.



Millionaires, sports stars, tycoons - the UK’s richest are unveiled