Duopolio: Sangriento Hotelling en Glasgow

Cuando en Glasgow ser vendedor de helados era una profesión de riesgo

Javier Sanz — Historias de la Historia



Si pidiéramos a la gente que elaborase un listado con las profesiones más peligrosas que se le ocurriesen, con casi toda seguridad estarían copadas por empleos del tipo artificiero, domador de leones o gestor de residuos nucleares. Todas estas y algunas más son labores que merecen respeto y reconocimiento por el riesgo que supone para aquellos que eligen desempeñarlas. Pero hubo un lapso de tiempo, hace ya algunos años, en los cuales la profesión más peligrosa que uno podía desarrollar en la ciudad escocesa de Glasgow era, por sorprendente que parezca, la de vendedor de helados.

A finales de la década de los 60 y los 70 se popularizaron los carritos de helados que perviven todavía hoy en día en el Reino Unido. Estos se diversificaron y con el tiempo dejaron de dedicarse en exclusiva a la venta de polos y granizados para distribuir otros productos como alimentos, papel higiénico e incluso medicamentos. Pero el afán de lucro unido a la falta de escrúpulos dieron lugar a un conflicto que se extendió por años y que ha pasado a la historia como “The Glasgow Ice Cream Wars” (La guerra de los carritos de helado de Glasgow), un hecho que parece el argumento de una película de serie B pero que marcó un antes y un después para el país británico en general y la ciudad escocesa en particular.



Ya en los 80, en esta urbe se había creado una especie de duopolio de los carritos que se repartían los Campbell y los hermanos Marchetti. Aunque se habían dividido el territorio, pronto comenzaron a surgir conflictos sobre los puntos de venta. Todo esto puede parecer excesivo si el objetivo es la venta de helados y accesoriamente otros productos, pero lo que no hemos dicho hasta ahora es que los mismos pasaron a ser negocios sumamente rentables a la par que peligrosos porque incluyeron la venta de drogas, especialmente heroína, así como armas y productos robados. La gran capacidad de carga de los camiones, el conocimiento de las calles de sus conductores y las nulas sospechas que en los primeros años pudieran levantar, los convirtieron en las herramientas perfectas para este lucrativo negocio. Entre ambas bandas, así como contra los vendedores independientes, comenzaron a actuar lo que se dio en llamar “frighteners”, mafiosos de baja categoría que utilizaban tácticas de intimidación que incluían lanzamiento de piedras, tiroteos y ataques con arma blanca. Y obviamente, con el tiempo esta violencia fue escalando hasta el punto de generar tensiones mucho mayores.

La muerte de “Fat Boy”

El punto álgido de este episodio se dio en 1984, cuando un distribuidor y propietario de un camión llamado Andrew Doyle, conocido por todos como “Fat Boy”, se negó desde un principio a participar en la venta de otra cosa que no fueran helados. Ni siquiera el tiroteo que sufrió mientras hacía su ruta de reparto logró amedrentarlo. Así que los gánsteres decidieron pasar a un plan mucho más agresivo: durante la madrugada del 16 de abril rociaron con gasolina la puerta de su casa y la incendiaron. El fuego acabó propagándose y matando al desafortunado e íntegro vendedor de helados y a toda su familia: 6 personas en total entre las que se encontraba un bebé de 18 meses. La desesperación echó a las gentes a las calles exigiendo que se tomasen medidas para acabar con la oleada de robos, tiroteos y ajustes de cuentas en las que se había visto inmerso Glasgow. Y comenzaron las presiones judiciales y sociales a la policía para encontrar a los culpables.


Entierro de la familia Doyle

La confesión de un delincuente de poca monta llamado William Love, apresado por el robo en y de vehículos, puso sobred la pista a la policía y consiguieron detener a los autores del incendio y asesinato: dos vendedores de helados llamados Thomas Campbell y Joe Steele, Aunque durante el proceso mantuvieron su inocencia, e incluso llegaron a protagonizar huelgas de hambre como protesta, fueron condenados. Años después, el testigo que había sido clave para la detención de ambos heladeros reconoció haberse inventado la declaración, aunque el caso no fue reabierto hasta el 2001. Fueron liberados en 2004. Nunca se encontró a los pirómanos.

Después de este grave incidente, la policía puso en jaque a los clanes mafiosos a cargo de ese negocio y la guerra de los carritos de helado se fue diluyendo. Aunque sería la liberalización del sector comercial y la apertura de centros de venta lo que la remataría. De esta forma, los ciudadanos de Glasgow pudieron comprar los productos que necesitaban fuera de estos circuitos.

Colaboración Antonio Capilla Vega


Nota del administrador: Es famoso el modelo de competencia espacial de Hotelling al cual este caso se asemeja muchísimo. Aunque no en lo sangriendto del final.

¿Por qué Escocia independiente puede ser un país extremadamente rico?

Why an independent Scotland could become the richest country on Earth
On a per capita basis, the nation has all the ingredients to be one of the world's most prosperous nations




An independent Scotland could become the richest country on earth. I’m not joking. It has all the necessary ingredients. Let me explain.
Each year the World Bank, the IMF and the CIA each independently publish a list of the richest countries in the world - as measured by GDP per capita at purchasing power parity.

The UK sits at a rather disappointing 21st, but topping those rankings you have the likes of Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Brunei, Norway and Switzerland.

Some of these nations have got there thanks to their oil. But oil isn’t everything – otherwise the likes of Saudi Arabia (28th), Russia (43rd) or Iran (78th) would feature.

Others have got there because they are financial or commercial centres. But the same regulatory options that have enabled them to be so are open to other countries - they have just not been adopted.

There is, however, one characteristic common to all the top ten ranking nations, bar one. It is that they are small. In the top five, Singapore and Norway both have around 5 million; Qatar 3 million; Luxembourg and Brunei around half a million.

The one exception is the US. It ranks 6th (IMF), 7th (World Bank) and 14th (CIA). In 1950, and indeed in 1970, it was top. Back then though, its states were semi-autonomous and, on a gold standard, its money was independent. As its state has grown and power become more centralized, its ranking has slid.

This is because there is a direct correlation between the size of the state and the wealth of the people - the bigger the former, the smaller the latter. The more power is concentrated, the less wealth is spread.

But in a small nation, forced to live from a smaller tax base, there is more of a limit to how big state institutions can grow. Monitoring becomes more efficient, it is harder to obfuscate, so there is more transparency and accountability, and less waste. Change is easier to implement, making a nation flexible, dynamic and competitive. With fewer people, there is less of a wealth gap between those at the top and the bottom.

The evidence of history is that the free-est countries with the widest dispersal of power have always been the most prosperous and innovative.

The city-states of pre- and early-Renaissance Italy are a good example. There was no single ruling body except for the Roman Catholic Church. If people, ideas or innovation were suppressed in one state, they could quickly move to another, so there was competition. Venice, in particular, showed great innovation in turning apparently useless marsh into a unique, thriving city. Renaissance Italy became breathtakingly prosperous and produced some of the greatest individuals that ever lived.

But it would be overtaken by Protestant northern Europe. The bible was translated into local vernacular, and Gutenberg’s printing press furthered the spread of knowledge – and thus the decentralization of power. The pace was set by Holland, also made up of many small states, then Britain led the pack. In spite of its union with Scotland and its later empire building, England would disperse centralized power by reducing the authorities of the monarch after the Civil War of 1642–51, and later by linking its currency to gold.

Since its unification in the late 19th century, Italy has been nothing like the force it once was, blighted by infighting, bureaucracy, organized crime, corruption, rent- seeking, inflation and division. Its state is bloated, its political system dysfunctional.

So back to Scotland.

It now has the opportunity to enact the same legislation, taxation and regulation that other top ten countries on that list employ, following, say, the blueprint of Singapore. It already has a rich tradition in trade, finance and banking.

It has the oil.

And, with just five million people, it is small.

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond presents the White Paper for Scottish independence Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond presents the White Paper for Scottish independence



It has all the ingredients to be the richest country on earth – on a per capita basis. It has ‘the triple’. I can think of no other nation in the world with such a wonderful opportunity.

The Scottish contribution to the world, whether in engineering, invention, industry or finance, has been astounding. Think Adam Smith, Alexander Fleming, John Logie Baird, James Watt. You cannot doubt Scottish talent - they are a formidable people. But they do not dominate the global stage as they once did. There will be a tough period of adjustment to get through, yes, but independent, living off their tax base, with dynamism and self-belief restored, they can do so once again.

But, first, they must make the right choices.

The Independent

Distribución: 432 familias poseen el 50% de la tierra escocesa

Imagine a feudal country where 432 families own half the land. Welcome to Scotland

The country's vast estates are under threat of being broken up and sold to small farmers. The laird's response? Get off our land

The Duke of Buccleuch is Europe's largest landowner with holdings valued at more than £1bn

Their lineages date back to before the time of the Stuart kings whilst their farms and sporting estates sprawl across vast swathes of some of the most beautiful - and lucrative - landscapes in the world.

Yet the Scottish Lairds have found themselves under attack after breaking their silence and fiercely opposing reforms which could see their historic lands broken up and offered for sale to small farmers and community groups.

Scotland currently has the most concentrated pattern of private ownership in the developed world with just 432 individuals accounting for half of all non-public land.

Submissions by the aristocracy and their representatives to the Land Reform Review Group, which was set up by the Scottish Government to consider the stalled question of redistribution, reveal deep-seated opposition to change, critics claimed.

Among those to challenge the proposals was an estate belonging to the 10th Duke of Buccleuch - a title created in 1663 for the illegitimate son of Charles II - who is now Europe's largest landowner with holdings valued at more than £1bn.

Mark Coombs, the manager of the Duke's 33,000 ha Queensberry Estate said there was no call for the ownership structure to change.

"There are also concerns if the purpose of changing the ownership is simply to allow another party … to carry-out the same activity as is currently being undertaken by the existing owner as this strikes at the essence of ownership rights and suggests a clear move towards a more collectivist political view which is not representative of the body-politic of Scotland," he said.

Also critical was the Duke of Roxburghe, whose land and property company includes his home Floors Castle. In its submission the 24,000 ha estate said it was "disappointed" at the emphasis placed on the expansion of community ownership.

Seafield and Strathspey Estates, a 35,000 ha enterprise which includes some of the finest salmon beats on the river Spey, is managed on behalf of the family of the Earl of Seafield. It said landowners were being blamed for the inefficiencies of local and central government.

"There is a myth presented by individuals sponsoring land reform in Scotland that 'too many acres are owned by too few individuals.' It may be true that 'many acres are owned by few individuals' but there is very little evidence presented to show that this is a bad thing," the estate said.

Land reform activists and author Andy Wightman said land ownership had become even more concentrated. "We need to work towards a true property owning democracy. We need many more people with a stake in the land," he said.

"It's the first time they have addressed head on the fact that so much land is held in so few hands. They are denying it's a problem but they are conceding it is one of the central issues which is very interesting because they cannot win in the long term," he added.

Three-quarters of 484 respondents to the review - which will report in April next year - said they were content with the current status quo. Half of all submissions came from estates, farm owners, landowners and their representatives.

Sarah-Jane Laing, director of policy and parliamentary affairs at Scottish Land and Estates, which represents Scottish landowners said its members did not oppose community buyouts.

"It is disappointing that after being encouraged to 'come out of the trenches' by politicians, our members who willingly engaged and provided evidence are now being individually attacked and ridiculed by a well-known anti-land reform activist via social media," she said.


The Independent