The Guillotine and the Noose.

The results are in, Tory Majority. Much of the UK will be asking itself how the polls got it so wrong.

Now that the election is over, we’ll be told that it’s just time to ‘heal the divisions’ and ‘suck it up’ because ‘democracy has spoken’. That’s if we’re told anything at all.

Consider; this was an election the outcome of which you couldn’t split with a guillotine. It was an election billed as the tightest of modern times. Polls hadn’t shifted in months. So what happened on the day?

Cameron’s noose – that object so beloved of hangmen, which strikes mortal fear into the condemned.

Human brains are funny things. We can be told all sorts of stuff, but we don’t believe it until presented with the news/act/fact that’ll bring it home. Two simple examples can be used to demonstrate this, the condemned and the smoker. The condemned usually manage not to think much about their future, or relative lack of it, until the final little while. Seeing the noose brings home everything, that last walk, the trepidation builds. For tobacco users, it will always happen to someone else, until it happens to them, then they usually wish they’d made different choices.

At this year’s GE, Middle England was presented with tales of an ‘Ajockalypse’, and in a comedic way it struck home, but wasn’t really taken seriously.

When many of Middle England’s swing voters walked into the booth however, they saw the horror of ‘Ajockalypse’ on that ballot paper – like the hangman’s noose, it was staring them in the face. For them though, there was an easy reprieve, just hold your nose and mark the paper somewhere else, praying that enough others would do the same that you’d be granted a permanent stay of execution.

It worked.

Middle England voted for the pain of five more years of ‘austerity’.

Middle England voted for ongoing demonization of the poor.

Middle England voted for disgraceful treatment of the underprivileged.

Middle England held its collective nose and voted for unfettered Toryism.

Middle England voted for Nuclear weapons; for bombs before bairns.

Middle England voted for ongoing creeping privatization of the NHS.

Middle England voted to go with the only significant party not promising constitutional reform.

Middle England voted to hurt itself.

Middle England did this because it was, quite simply, more afraid of ‘Ajockalypse’ than all of these issues combined.

Scotland must suffer it, because it’s what Middle England wanted. Faced with a perceived immediate disaster by ‘Ajockalypse’ and a more prolonged but incremental pain, Middle England chose unrestricted Toryism as the way to save itself from Scottish influence.

Middle England chose unidentified but certain and savage cuts. Cuts that have been guaranteed but not specified as to where they’ll fall, because it was convinced it was preferable to the certainty of ‘Ajockalypse’.

It really doesn’t matter how anyone examines the facts, at day’s end, both Labour and Tory campaigns were woeful, the polls told us this too. The only thing which really separated them was ‘Ajockalypse’.

On May 7th, 2015, Middle England decided it couldn’t suffer ‘Ajockalypse Now’, it didn’t realize that with that choice, it’s guaranteed it; it’ll just never acknowledge it as such.

David Cameron won an election – he squandered a state to do it.

History will teach, ‘Ajockalypse’ will be the word that finally condemned a union.

David Cameron will ultimately go down in history as the Prime Minister who won a referendum only to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It will only rate a footnote, if that, but the strategies Cameron pursued were designed by an American, Jim Messina, an American who has absolutely no concept of an already fractured Union, an American who doesn’t care for it. Jim Messina is an American who’s interest in his personal stock, in ‘chalking up another in the win column’. Anyone who doubts that only needs to look at his actions before and after the result.

Jim Messina won’t be the one to suffer though. He’ll just go home to America.

While David Cameron will rightly bear the blame, he employed the man after all, there’s a lesson in employing folk from outside the franchise to meddle within it.

David Cameron will try to heal the rifts, slap sticking plaster on the wounds. History will show he might as well have tried to put out the great fire of London using a teacup dipped in the Thames, for like that conflagration the firestorm of constitutional upheaval will now just have to burn itself out. As to Cameron, he might just find himself unaware he has already chained his legacy to the stake.

Rocking The Establishment - Just for Fun

I haven’t blogged for a while, but it seems now’s a good time.

Wasn't it an interesting leadership debate?

Wasn't it even more interesting watching the rabid hysteria projected by England’s media afterwards?

Am I the only one that noticed that many photographs of the debate in its immediate aftermath omitted Nicola?

Then, of course, we have the accepted media acclaim that the best the SNP can ever hope to be are king-makers, and that’ll be a distant hope at best. We also have Jim Murphy banging his hollow drum to an empty room (except perhaps the journo’s) about the fact that only the largest party can form a government. Pay Attention Jim

Come in Jim, we all know you’re full of it, because nowhere is that written.

Then we have a scenario, if things don’t shift much from where they now stand, that you’ll (just for the sake of argument) have the Tories with 295, Labour with 294, the SNP with 50 and ‘others’ making up the remainder.

Now, let’s say that both Tory and Labour refuse to compromise on Trident, then a ‘deal can’t be done’ can it, and we’re heading for another new election in a few months, so everyone would have us believe.

Actually, there’s another rather unlikely scenario.

The SNP, after Labour and Tory pass the baton, could decide to simply form a minority UK government as the third largest party. There’s nothing to legally prevent them. In actuality, either the Tory party or the Labour party could, but if both chose to actively prevent it, then they’d need to work as a coalition, even if a very temporary one that’s only focused on a single issue – stopping the democratic will of the Scots.

If that happens, any pretence of Union is going to stink worse than a badly rotting corpse, and no amount of media spin will get past the message being delivered by the reality of the actions of Westminster’s two biggest parties.

The only other present alternative is a Labour-Tory coalition, and why not, they already agree in broad fashion on all their policies, from Trident to NHS privatisation. They’d only be making formal what existed for years anyway. I mean, why have a ‘shadow cabinet’? “Shadow” is no different than ‘prince regent’; it implies an entitlement that will be rewarded in the fullness of time, and that’s not a democracy.

It really is an interesting election, especially for Nicola Sturgeon, where it’s almost a ‘heads’ I win, tails you lose’ type of scenario. Just imagine, her party forming that minority government, because it’d make history in these islands. For the first time you’d have a Scot’s party with that level of influence in the belly of the beast, but even more humorous, hilarious even, is that with Nicola being First Minister of Scotland, she’s unlikely to be willing to emulate Jamie Sext and relocate to old London town.

That’d mean it’d most likely be either Angus Robertson, PM, or Alex Salmond, PM.

Democracy in action, for however brief a period.

Aye Westminster, between fair means and foul, ye might have won a referendum, the question then will be, are ye still glad ye did?

The Paradigm Shift.

So, it’s finally started.

The movement that will lead to independence for our nation has truly begun, and I suspect it’ll not end for a few years, but history will show the referendum of 2014 as being the time when the death knell reverberated loudly over the Union corpse. It not only tolled, but vowed it’d continue.

Gazing retrospectively at what’s inspired this blog, it became apparent to me that even while working and sincerely hoping for a ‘Yes’ in the 2014 referendum, at a deeper level I never really expected one. The most obvious reason being, our media isn’t our media. The Daily Record, Sun and the rest are either London or foreign owned. Ultimately, I was as devastated as anyone when we’d come so close only to fall in the last few days, almost entirely as a result of that same media’s trumpeting of the now ‘Disavowed Vow’.

The paradigm shift ultimately comes down to that ‘Vow’, because that ‘Vow’ moved the goalposts; it changed the debate utterly in the last week where ‘Yes’ was building to possible/probable victory.

Suddenly, folk weren’t choosing between ‘Independence and Westminster’, they were choosing between ‘Independence and Devo-Max’. Not only that, they were choosing ‘Devo-Max’ with a defined and very tight timeline. Gordon Brown even declared it’d be as near as damn a Federal solution resulting in a new UK.

Now, excuse me being blunt here, but there’s really no other way to put this.

Let’s face it, if you’re a unionist politician and leader, and not actually a worthless piece of sh*t, you were free to disavow that full page printed vow, but only if you did it publically as soon as the damned thing hit print. That and you’d better be demanding a retraction on the day. Failing immediate corrective action before the vote, folk of honour and integrity have no choice but to keep that Vow afterwards. It doesn’t matter if they actually made it, by their silence they assented and adopted it.

That vow made many voters switch back to support for the Union and consequently, the failure of follow through plus the distancing from it that’s taken place since (and is set to continue) has shocked quite a few ‘No’ voters; there are many who’d change their vote today if they had the opportunity to do it all over again. It’s a safe bet with the revelations since, it’d be the same numbers in the referendum; it would simply flip to a yes result.

That’s what’s behind the building paradigm shift within ‘No’ voters. It is pointless to say “We Told You So” now. They heard what we were saying, but on the day the paradigm shift was just a step too far for them to make, especially when offered the ‘comfy’ alternative of ‘Devo-Max’.

Life in the Union may be not be brilliant, but for many of the ‘No Voters’ it is bearable. Put that up against project fear and the ‘spectre’ of independence that was painted by Union controlled media, the only way a ‘Yes’ vote was going to be secured was by a massive swing in the Unionist vote. It still almost happened; it’s still necessary, however, not quite so massively this time. Except, there doesn’t need to be a ‘next time’. Everything can be accomplished through the ballot box at elections.

I actually didn’t expect the swing to be as rapid as it currently appears, but the event that gets people to change a lifetime’s habits is by necessity something fairly significant. In this instance it is lies and betrayal. Even then, opinions don’t change overnight, but it’s almost guaranteed they’ll change eventually. It’s a realisation event followed by processing time, and we all need different amounts of it.

Consider our average Scots’ voter. Now narrow it to the average Scots Unionist. Die-hards among them might even change now, although that’s less likely. On the other hand, the average ‘No voter’ saw three English parties come together with the weight of the media and eventually see off the ‘nasty Nationalists’ with a “Vow”. However at least a third, perhaps as many as a half of that ‘No’ vote wanted those extra powers. That equates to somewhere around 25% of the total electorate that wanted the substantial constitutional change they were promised. Consequently, these people were comfortable, content and happy in their vote. However, they weren’t specifically voting for ‘Westminster’, they were now voting for a stronger, better, more representative and democratic Scots parliament. It’s how many justified that ‘No’.

Essentially that 25% voted for almost the same as the 45% who voted ‘Yes’. They just didn’t want to throw away the security blanket; not yet anyway, not when they’d been promised ‘the best of both worlds’.

Except, they've now literally been told “What Vow?”

And surprise, surprise, they’re not happy and dissent is now beginning to peep over the parapet. They had a set time frame placed before them, it’s already been missed. Many of them, perhaps as much as 10-15%, have already gone from disappointment through regret to acknowledgement of betrayal and are done processing. They’ll never vote for a Unionist party again. It’s also ‘safe’ to do that now, the referendum is over and they don’t have to feel guilty about making that personal vow against Unionist parties.

Unlike those Westminster politicians, I’d expect these folk to be serious in their intent and it’s already showing. SNP and other pro-independence party’s membership have grown exponentially since the referendum. The latest IPSOS/MORI poll shows a near wipe out for Unionist parties at the next UK General Election, while the current ‘You-Gov’ isn’t quite so radical in its results, but has a similar overall conclusion.

There you have it; 25% of an electoral franchise who’ll not vote for the Unionist parties again, ever.

That’s a lot of betrayed people to have on your hands.

This is what happens when the average person is so fundamentally lied to, and then comes to realise it.

It’s also what happens when the average person in Scotland comes to understand what many of us who supported independence have seen for years; the media in Scotland has shown itself to be largely useless when it comes to balanced investigative and unbiased reporting around Scottish Politics. It means the media was largely a single use tool, like a tube of glue, and now it’s mostly full of air, it doesn't work so well.

However, the media can’t be discounted, but it can be anticipated its future impact will be significantly reduced.

These folk have that have just pushed the SNP vote share to 52% in the polls have had a paradigm shift. For many of them it’s no longer possible to vote for a Unionist Party and they've altered their world view, deciding on a party supporting independence or to simply not vote again. For many of them it may not be a conscious thought yet, but it’s coming.

The SNP for its part needs to capitalise on this to form an ongoing, broad but loose alliance with Scotland’s other independence supporting parties. They need to stand on a manifesto for the next election which loudly proclaims that it supports the democratic will of the Scottish people as expressed during the referendum.

This also requires the SNP to have a paradigm shift to match that of the referendum result and capture the awakening ire of that 25%. They need it this year. They need to deliver the results of that adjustment as they stride purposefully into the 2015 elections. The message needs to be that the electorate can always trust them to be sufficiently flexible so as to respond to its express will.

The SNP can then declare to follow the peoples’ desires and bring to Scotland and her parliament the powers contained within “The Vows” which Westminster has now reneged. Furthermore, they can affirm that one principle they will hold to, should the people elect a majority of Scots MPs from their party, is that these MPs will put Scotland first. After the ballot, Holyrood will extend an invitation to its Scottish colleagues who would be then based in Westminster requesting them to attend a vote in Holyrood.

It’ll be an invitation not just to attend, but an Act will be passed to permit them a vote on a single issue. Holyrood will pass that Act, having been spelled out before hand as the accepted will of the people as expressed through the result of the referendum. This is almost an identical circumstance as that which led to the referendum itself; democracy in action.

Folk will vote for such a message because they’ll not see it as ending the Union, simply holding the political feet in London to the fire and forcing honesty, and that’s how the 2015/2016 campaigns need to be portrayed to capture that additional 25% i.e., democracy has spoken; vote for us to force honesty from the democratic process even as we deliver good government.

The question is; what the contents of that Act should be.

Quite simply, it should authorize Holyrood to renegotiate all articles of the Treaty of Union with four notable exceptions. It would restore the full rights and responsibilities of the Scots Parliament excluding the areas of Foreign Affairs, Monetary Policy, the Monarchy (excluding the need for Royal Assent) and Defence. Passing of these Acts can be expressed simply as a combination of forcing honesty from Westminster, of assisting the many Scots who voted “no” in getting what they were promised by way of a Devo-Max or Federal solution, and lastly helping those who voted yes to reconcile themselves with the outcome of the vote. This would then be portrayed as putting the entire nation in a position to grow with harmony and cooperation as we walk forward. Essentially it would be an exercise in re-unity and reintegration following the referendum.

Effectively this is campaigning on a platform of the democratic exploration of the concept of nation building while remaining within the over-arching framework of the Union, which 55% declared they desired in the referendum.

In all practicality, this is the best way for some 70% of the franchise to obtain what it desired – or at least very nearly so. It’s a political compromise – for now, of where the party promised to go and where the electorate told them it needed to be.

The ball will then be very firmly in Westminster’s court, and how they decide to return it will prove interesting indeed. They may even decide to scrap what remains themselves.

Regardless of Westminster’s desires, with a majority of SNP MPs and MSPs under these circumstances Holyrood can then pass Acts under the banner of the democratic will, repealing or rejecting Westminster’s primacy in everything - except the reserved issues we, the Scots allow.

Effectively, the only primacy Westminster would retain would be in the areas of defence, currency and foreign policy with a sort of shared obligation on the fourth, the Monarchy.

Moreover, it would be done as the will of the people, an exercise in democracy; a beautiful thing.

The SNP should therefore enter the 2015/2016 elections with a shift in stance, specifically limited to these campaigns, to not be a party seeking independence, but rather Home Rule. A sensible party might also promise a Constitution to protect the rights of our Parliament, our citizens and legal residents, while declaring that although David Cameron may have promised this, if we vote for the SNP they will actually provide it. A truly intuitive party might even put a time-frame to it.

With that type of mandate delivered in a Westminster election following on from the referendum, respecting the Union yet holding it to account, Scotland’s parliament at Holyrood can have a secure democratic justification for passing the legislation for enacting this in Scots Law.

By right and accepted broadcast precedent, the SNP could even dissolve the Union with a majority of either Scots MPs or absolute majority at Holyrood, so long as they inform the electorate that was their intent. However, to do so this closely after a referendum result which in effect demanded Devo-Max that may just be a bit disingenuous.

The nicest part is it is all about honesty, honour and integrity. That’s a simple campaign platform. It is also a campaign platform with which Westminster cannot compete.

Should this transpire, it promises to be an interesting development; one which hasn't happened in many centuries. 

an entire cadre of Scottish based Westminster MPs who’ll simply put Scotland's needs first. 

The only clear way under the present scenario to upset that dynamic in any moderately close election, would be an alliance between Labour and Conservatives. Any other alliances with smaller groups of MP’s e.g. UKIP, BNP or Liberal Democrats would only open more eyes in the North, with the certainty of greater issues in London. It’s either that or Westminster tries to pass an act preventing the expressed democratic wish of the Scottish people, and that will not sit well north or south of the border.

Either way, the endgame is now set and the outcome is relatively assured.

I only have to wonder if this wasn't Alex Salmond’s ‘Plan B’ all along. If it had been, then it was a master strategy of playing the long game. All it needed was just one close poll, and the reactions were all entirely predictable from that point on. Win today, or win tomorrow, either way, it’s a win for the nation he cherishes. If it’s a win tomorrow, in Nicola’s hands’, with her lengthy apprenticeship, it’ll be fine.

Guest Writer Steven McBrien on Ms Lamont's Resignation.

Writing something nice about Johann Lamont for me is akin to trying to present herpes in a positive light, but I will finally bite the bullet and admit that I admire her actions today, even if the almost Juvenalian irony of this woman stating that UK Labour treat Scottish Labour "like a branch office" is neither lost on me or anyone else. It's funny, but it seems like just yesterday that she was gloating over Salmond's resignation and looking forward to locking horns with his successor... now, Salmond has outlasted her. She stands down immediately; he doesn't stand down until November. By my calculations, that means he's now seen off four Labour leaders during his tenure as FM, and five since becoming leader of the SNP. Not a bad hit rate.


It also seems like just yesterday that Westminster politicians were swarming their way through the cities and towns of Scotland like termites, promising more engagement with the people here. Needless to say, apart from a ludicrous Lib Dem conference in a swanky hotel, we've seen neither hide nor hair of them since the referendum. A simple equation will tell you why: if one multiplies the sum of the principles these creatures have, and then divides the result by the amount of promises they've actually kept, the result will be equal to the number of fucks they give about us.

But what the hell, Johann, gaun yersel hen. Well done. You've shown people throughout Britain what we in YES already knew: Labour are utterly finished in Scotland. Behold Blair's works, ye mighty, and despair. His true legacy is right here for all to see: thousands of dead bodies, and a dead party. The bastard has more than blood on his hands, but karma's a bitch.

If these people have genuinely reached the stage where they imagine that anyone in Britain, never mind Scotland, wants to see a single sweat-soaked wrinkle on Gordon Brown's golem head, they are beyond insane. As for Jim Murphy, the very fact that he is being touted as leadership material shows just how irrelevant and out of touch these fossils really are. They are pathetic, and their century-long stranglehold on the city of Glasgow is about to end forever. Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen: this is going to be a very bumpy night.

Steven McBrien's Withering Wit Strikes Again With An Open Letter to Better Together

Dear Alistair Darling, Jim Murphy, Anas Sarwar, Johann Lamont, Tom Harris, Blair McDougall, Danny Alexander, Ruth Davidson, Willie Rennie and other esteemed champions of the Better Together Campaign,

I am writing to thank you all, each and every one of you, for being the truest patriots and martyrs for your country - for any country - in history. Your true agenda, that of aiding and assisting the cause of Scottish independence at every turn, seems to have been lost on many people throughout Scotland, yet I would be loathe to let your efforts, no matter how secret, go unrecognised. History will soon be telling us that if it hadn't been for your colossal contribution, our nation would never have won its independence, and it's only right that you should all be recognised and celebrated for that.

I used to be of the opinion that Alex Salmond was the savviest politician in the British Isles at the present time. I must say, now that I have realised what you were trying to do all along, I think I've totally overrated him. Let's face it, if I had the Better Together campaign telling everyone I couldn't write for toffee, I'd probably end up topping the New York Times' Best Seller list. With enemies like you, who needs friends?

Except that you are not enemies; it is clear to me now that you were friends all along, friends more loyal, steadfast and true than any sane person could ever hope to dream for. It is also apparent even to my jaded eyes that you are all among the most clever, intelligent and insidious supporters of any independence campaign in history. Had Fidel Castro had you onside, he wouldn't have had to spend years clad in fatigues and camping out in the Sierra Maestra. Had Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah only been able to avail themselves of your services, there would have been no riots and no violence in the Indian subcontinent at all. If you had only been around a hundred years ago, I'm perfectly convinced that the island of Ireland would be united and at peace at this very moment. Such has been your massive and irrefutable bestowal upon the YES campaign.

What vexes me however is just how many of our fellow Scots don't seem to get the joke, and how many high heid yins in Westminster are still labouring under the delusion that you were actually working for, and not against, them all along. How could anyone believe that people with credentials such as yours could have been so monolithically stupid/corrupt as to genuinely believe the ludicrous, manufactured and hilarity-inspiring grot that you have been spouting for years? Don't they get the irony? Can't they see that you are political comedy geniuses?

You took a lackluster pro-indy campaign in 2012, and you collectively galvanised and transformed it into one of the most unified and exciting grassroots movements in modern history. With your astonishing and profound grasp of the Scottish psyche, you realised instinctively that if there was one thing that would absolutely guarantee that the Scottish populace would vote YES to self-determination, it would be spending two years screeching at them that they "couldn't do it", that they would "be worse-off" and that they were "separatists" who would "pay a heavy price". You realised, like the political wunderkinds you are, that by constantly quoting laughable sources such as the Tory-founded and London-based Institute for Fiscal Studies, anyone with an IQ greater than that of a half-eaten Tunnock's teacake would know that you were lying about the figures you were quoting, and would, in turn, think that you were treating them with unbridled contempt, instead of cunningly egging them on to a YES vote. You have demonstrated, at every turn, a clinical understanding of the Scottish character, and what's more, you have taken advantage of this knowledge, like the chess grandmasters you are, to attain what I now realise was your ultimate goal all along: Scottish independence.

You understood immediately that by stating that the Scottish people weren't "genetically programmed" to make political decisions, that by defending the moral and financial outrage of nuclear weapons being essentially dumped up here, even as libraries and hospitals were closed down, that by making comically sour predictions about one of the biggest oil bonanzas on Earth (even while the Financial Times and Britain's leading economists and investors publicly contradicted you), that by ignoring Scotland's geographically perfect strategic position to become a renewable energy powerhouse, that by blatantly ignoring an exports industry that is set to become among the strongest in Europe, that by congratulating citizens of other small countries which fought for and won their freedom on their respective independence days while brazenly denying the right to self-determination of everyone in Scotland, that by defending a political system that seems to have been almost specifically designed to be one of the most venal, corrupt and unfair systems of government in modern Europe, that by allying yourselves with the most maligned and detested political party in Britain, that by telling the people of Scotland, against reason and common sense,

The Pound - and who uses it

that they somehow wouldn't be able to use the pound that Gibraltar, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are even at this moment using (and that Scots for over three centuries have fought and worked and died for, and which they have contributed to for generations), even while Forbes Magazine itself said that you were talking rubbish, that by screaming that the Tories were systematically destroying - as they are - the English NHS, even while you were openly uniting with the Tories to "save the Union" and jeopardise the Scottish NHS, that by claiming that independent Scots would have to pay for a biased broadcasting corporation that they are already paying for anyway, that by averring that Scots couldn't do what many countries half their size have been doing for centuries, that by ignoring how Iceland dealt with financial terrorists and corporate criminals to instead warn us that we "couldn't bail ourselves out" in the event of another economic collapse (like the one Mr Darling presided over and did nothing about in the first place, but which an iScotland wouldn't tolerate and wouldn't even pay for in the first place), that by defending "democracy" by denying and then attacking the right of a people to democratically decide what happens to their own country, that by employing scare tactics and lies at every opportunity, to the point where your own members actually dubbed themselves "Project Fear", that by taking a quick snap of Jim Murphy standing on a soapbox while surrounded by hundreds of nonplussed tourists at the Edinburgh Fringe and then attempting to claim that you had a "brilliant turnout" for a No rally, and other post-modernist gems too legion to mention here, you would secure our independence for us, regardless of the YES Campaign, irrespective of Salmond and the SNP.

You alone bore the cross. You alone got the joke. I just don't know how anyone can read all of the above and not understand that you have been covertly on our side all this time. Surely they can't believe that you were actually being serious? I mean, come on, that wouldn't even bear thinking about; there are Farrelly Brothers' plots I go could along with before that. Why can't they see that the whole thing was a joke, a wry, Scottish joke, that was consummately designed to totally alienate us and so procure us our independence?

I almost want to weep at the sacrifices you have made for your country. You have sacrificed your respect, your reputations, whatever political clout you may once have had, your good names, your public standing and, indeed, everything but your well-earned salaries and second homes to get your country independent, and you've had No Thanks for it at all. You have shown the world that Scots don't just speak irony, they are prepared to live it, if it gets them what they want. You've shown us as a nation that we are "Better" and "Stronger" when we don't get the joke. You truly represent the best of both worlds: you are postmodernist comedy geniuses and selfless political martyrs. I would salute you all, if only I wasn't fully engaged in blowing my nose.

Yours Betterandstrongerly,

McB

For More Of Steven's Gems of Wit and Wisdom

Steven McBrien's Tumblr

The choreographed debate – Union style.

I've watched and re-watched that first referendum debate, and the more I do, the more I understand. It wasn't really a debate at all. It was a set up; a set up by irrelevant participants (Mr. A. Darling and Better Together audience plants 1 2) designed to hamper rather than enhance knowledge.

I can say that because as it unfolded, I watched the focus slide unerringly to the fiscal aspect, not surprisingly as it’s what many of us need answers on, or so the Union’s organizers’ would have us believe.

In actuality, it was a debate designed from the outset to hammer Alex Salmond and ‘his pet project’. I'm not even certain Bernard Ponsonby was aware of the facts, though it’s hard to see how he’d be ignorant of them. Ponsonby did give Darling, which appeared well anticipated, a few hard shoves but failed to use the debate to move issues and educate. As such, Bernie very much ‘shot his bolt’.

I'm taking that position as it was clear while it unfolded the script like the wrestling results of the ‘70’s, had already been drafted for release by the UK’s media the following day; they just needed to insert quote A into line B.

To any half-witted idiot it became clear before half time that it would be a twofold prong, currency and how ‘Darling won the debate’ after studiously selling ‘their guy’ low. Alistair Darling came across to me more as a renegade guest from the Jerry Springer show, not as a serious debater, although he did raise a few valid questions. He’d obviously been ‘coached’ to interrupt, shout, talk over and negate in any way possible what his ‘opponent’ had been saying. If he wasn't coached into behaving as he did, then in my mind he’s got the decorum and manners of a pig. In civilised debate, both sides get to make their points in allocated time frames, and without interruption.

Now, about those points. My, oh my, about those points.

Firstly, the currency issue. There really wasn't any reason for either of those blokes to be there last night, you see, the white paper told us what ‘Plan A’ and ‘Plan B’ are, and they’re not changing. We’ll use the pound like Ireland and a host of other’s, and we’ll do it unofficially or by preference, officially by treaty. Now, that makes life throw up another few questions, because if we were so clearly laying plan A and plan B on the table, why the screaming heebies the next day, unless the maps had already been drawn and the course charted. Where Ponsonby lost and STV shot its credibility out the window was when they didn’t make this clear.

Now, there’s the 'retirement thing', which was a more minor string on the fiddle of the sonnet to be released the following day. Both sides have agreed that everybody alive today who’s already a UK citizen will continue to have that right to a UK pension. Oddly, Chemical Ali (because he must've used some serious alchemy to arrive at his viewpoint) made it clear that as pensions are supported by those currently working, there’d need to be an agreement, and this would be part of any ‘future negotiation’. In anybody’s book, that’s a nice little addendum to ‘project fear’.

The truth of the Pension’s issue is simple, if you paid in, you get out. Westminster just has to figure out how to keep paying what are close to Europe’s worst pensions to some of Europe’s most deserving and long suffering pensioners. Westminster has to do this because there’s no real way to not do it. Do they enact a law saying you have to live in the rump state, England/Wales/NI? Then what about freedom of movement and all those ex-pats living all over the world. They’ll be coming home, and they’ll be needing cared for. What’s left of the UK neither needs nor wants that burden. What about English in Scotland, do they get a pension? How about one Scot’s parent? How about a Scotswoman married to an Englishman and living in Spain?

The pension issue is smoke and mirrors, no question about it, because any government in Westminster which dumped its pensioners would likely be out on its ear in short order. Or it would if there was such a mechanism. Do I really want to live in country without such a mechanism? We could implement such a right to recall wayward governments and officials in iScotland's new constitution.

Either way, Ponsonby and ITV lost credibility, because at the day’s end, no matter how I've looked at these issues, and what nobody wrote into any of the pre-ordained press releases was this; it all boils down to just three things on both main planks of that debate.

Firstly, we’re being blackmailed in a most horrible, spiteful way, and it’s being done by a bunch of idiots at Westminster who don’t give an actual low flying turd about their own constituents. I have to ask myself, am I in favour of that? Do I support these Bullingdon Bullies.

Sorry guys, it’s your slogan, but it’s ideal here, I’ve got to say ‘no thanks’

Secondly, I'm (still) being told Scotland’s a basket case, an economic basket case that is just too small to manage itself properly. I’ll admit to my jaw almost hitting the coffee table when one audience participant said London had more folk than Scotland, so how could Scotland possibly survive ‘alone’. I smiled incredulously; this bloke get’s to vote? I don’t see Norway, Switzerland or Luxembourg asking Davie lad to let them snuggle under his wing because they’re ‘just too wee’, or Nicky Clegg tabling a motion to devolve all sovereignty to the US, Russia or China? If we’re such a basket case, why fight to keep us? If we can’t afford pensions, the NHS, a banking system that plays fast and loose (we really want that?) and various phallic substitutes, er, sorry, nukes. Something just doesn't ring true here.

Let’s just assume for a second that what’s being conveyed here is a fact, then the only possible conclusion is that for three centuries Scotland’s been so utterly mismanaged, exploited and under-invested by successive London governments, governments who know our vote really means nowt; that they’re happy to continue to pillage and strip rather than invest and encourage.

Sorry guys, again, got to say ‘no thanks’

The third possibility, the one I'm betting on is that we've just been lied to all along. You see, I’ve done my research, unlike ‘Mr. too small’, that being the case, again, I’ve got to say again, ‘no thanks’.

Bernie, and our so trustworthy media, could easily have pointed out that what we really had the other night was a choice. We have a choice to go our own way, or opt for the fearmongering, asset stripping liars.

We do have a choice. We have a choice to watch the next debate, to see where Chemical Ali is allowed to work his alchemical skills of wonder; which one or two areas will be the highlight of his interruptions and shouty, ill mannered focus, then we can watch the media reaction the next day, and smile.

After September 18th we can decide we’ll never have to watch the like again, because we know with absolute certainty that the ones from the Bullingdon Club in London, those mired in corruption and scandal, they’re the only ones until September 18th who are worth being in the debating chair, because they’re the only ones with the power to answer our questions, like the ones for the EU and NATO, and they’re the only ones who can clarify this debate.

Except, we already know they won’t do that. They won’t give me what I need, yet they still want me to endorse them, they want me to say ‘no thanks’.

Fine, then I will, on September 18th I’ll say ‘no thanks’; no thanks to the lies, the misinformation, the half truths, the innuendoes and scare tactics, and I’ll watch us walk away from this disreputable shambles called Westminster.

Yes, it might be to an uncertain future, but it’s a future filled with potential and possibility, and I dream of being a part of it. If we don’t grasp the thistle, we know we’ll get stung for more lies, more official secrets, more obfuscation, more stripped rights and we’ll lose more of our cherished values.

Yes. Give me that uncertainty, because it really can’t be worse that what London’s offering, and in less than a generation, if we decide, it can be so, so much more.

You know what? I trust my fellow Scots to make the right decisions, now, and as we walk forward. September 19th will tell us all if we’re a confident nation.

1: Craig Murray's Blog concerning the debate
2: STV Rigging Audiences?

A reply to the celebs letter from Steven McBrien of Glasgow.

This is so well written and says everything that any one of us would have wished to have said to these people, given the opportunity. So much so, in fact, that I just had to re-blog it. My thanks to Steven McBrien for this great piece of writing:

Dear William Dalrymple, Eddie Izzard, Sir Patrick Stewart, Sir Mick Jagger, Jenny Agutter, Sir Ben Ainslie, Kriss Akabusi, Roger Allam, Kirstie Allsop, Alexander Armstrong, Sir David Attenborough, Steve Backley, Baroness Joan Bakewell, Frances Barber, Andy Barrow, John Barrowman, Mike Batt, Glen Baxter, David Aaronovitch, Helena Bonham-Carter, Stanley Baxter, Martin Bayfield, Mary Beard, Sarah Beeny, Anthony Beevor, Angelica Bell,Dickie Bird, Cilla Black, Graeme Black, Roger Black, Malorie Blackman, Ranjit Bolt, Alain de Botton, William Boyd, Tracey Brabin, Lord Melvyn Bragg, Jo Brand, Gyles Brandreth, Rob Brydon, Louisa Buck, Simon Callow, Will Carling, Paul Cartledge, Guy Chambers, Nick Cohen, Michelle Collins, Colonel Tim Collins, Olivia Colman, Charlie Condou, Susannah Constantine, Steve Coogan, Dominic Cooper, Ronnie Corbett, Simon Cowell, Jason Cowley, Sara Cox, Amanda Craig, Steve Cram, Richard Curtis, Tom Daley, Richard Dawkins, Dame Judi Dench, Jeremy Deller, Lord Michael Dobbs, Jimmy Doherty, Michael Douglas, Simon Easterby, Gareth Edwards, Jonathan Edwards, Tracey Emin, Sebastian Faulks, Bryan Ferry, Ranulph Fiennes, Ben Fogle, Sir Bruce Forsyth, Amanda Foreman, Neil Fox, Emma Freud, Bernard Gallacher, Kirsty Gallacher, George Galloway, Sir John Eliot Gardiner, Bamber Gascoigne, David Gilmour, Harvey Goldsmith, David Goodhart, Lachlan Goudie, David Gower, AC Grayling, Will Greenwood, Tamsin Greig, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, Lord Charles Guthrie, Haydn Gwynne, Maggi Hambling, Mehdi Hasan, Sir Max Hastings, Peter Hennessy, James Holland, Tom Holland, Tom Hollander, Gloria Hunniford, Conn Iggledun, John Illsley, Brendan Ingle, Betty Jackson, Sir Mike Jackson, Howard Jacobson, Baroness PD James, Griff Rhys Jones, Terry Jones, Christopher Kane, Sir Anish Kapoor, Ross Kemp, Paul Kenny, Jemima Khan, India Knight, Martha Lane Fox, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Tory Lawrence, Kathy Lette, Rod Liddle, Louise Linton, John Lloyd (the journalist), John Lloyd ( the producer), Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber, Gabby Logan, Kenny Logan, Sarah Lucas, Dame Vera Lynn, James May, Margaret MacMillan, Stephen Mangan, Davina McCall, Sir Ian McGeechan, Heather McGregor, Andy McNab, John Michie, David Mitchell, Lord John Monks, Lewis Moody, Michael Morpurgo, Bill Morris, David Morrissey, Philip Mould, Al Murray, Neil Stuke, Sir Paul Nurse, Andy Nyman, Peter Oborne, Sir Michael Parkinson, Fiona Phillips, Andy Puddicombe, Lord David Puttnam, Anita Rani, Esther Rantzen, Sir Steve Redgrave, Derek Redmond, Pete Reed, Lord Martin Rees, Peter Reid, Baroness Ruth Rendell, Sir Cliff Richard, Hugo Rifkind, Sir Tony Robinson, David Rowntree, Ian Rush, Greg Rutherford, CJ Sansom, June Sarpong, Simon Schama, John Sessions, Sandie Shaw, Helen Skelton, Sir Tim Smit, Dan Snow, Peter Snow, Phil Spencer, David Starkey, Lord Jock Stirrup, Neil Stuke, Sting, Tallia Storm, David Suchet, Alan Sugar, Graeme Swann, Stella Tennant, Daley Thompson, Alan Titchmarsh, James Timpson, Kevin Toolis, Lynne Truss, Gavin Turk, Roger Uttley, David Walliams, Zoë Wanamaker, Robert Webb, Richard Wentworth, Sir Alan West, Dominic West and Kevin Whateley,

I would like to express my hearty and sincere thanks to you all for your stated concern that myself and my countrymen remain in the United Kingdom. I was just heading back from my job (the job where I earn under eight quid an hour for working with people with learning disabilities) and passing the local food bank when I heard the news, namely, that you were so concerned that we might leave the UK that you had all deigned to write your names on a piece of paper.

I was delighted to hear this news, so transported, in fact, that I temporarily forgot about the nuclear stockpile that's a mere 25 miles away from my front door, and so giddy with the receipt of this beneficence that I almost forgot that I could spend my remaining English tenners up here as no-one up here has any kind of problem with accepting English money. I write to inform you all that the fact that a bunch of millionaires and multi-millionaires who have, on the whole, exhibited total disinterest, and, in some cases (Mr Curtis, Mr Starkey) outright contempt for my country, its denizens and its history were so thoughtful as to sign a piece of paper has forced me to totally review my lifelong pro-independence stance.

I realise and understand completely that you all probably know more about the situation in Scotland than the people of Scotland do; after all, you're all really famous, and we're none too bright up here, you know, apart from inventing television, the refrigerator, canals, bicycles, chloroform, fingerprinting, animal cloning, fax machines, microwaves and magnetrons, adhesive postage stamps, tubular steel, pneumatic tyres, radar, propellers, ATM machines and PIN codes, the telephone, the condensing steam engine, tarmac, penning such unremarkable gewgaws as Peter Pan, Sherlock Holmes and Jekyll and Hyde, discovering penicillin, founding the US Navy, establishing Universal Standard Time, adumbrating the Rankine Thermodynamic Cycle, establishing the foundation of modern economics thanks to Adam Smith, abetting in the foundation of sociology as a modern science thanks to Adam Ferguson, discovering the nearest star to our sun, Proxima Centauri, discovering and linking the Noble Gases, establishing the Kelvin unit of temperature, inventing MRI machines, discovering the vaccine for typhoid, helping to establish general anaesthetic in medical procedure, inventing the electric clock in 1840 and the flush-toilet in 1775, devising the foundations of the Bank of England and the Bank of France, taking the world's first ever colour photograph, and various other trifles. We really do need to be reminded that these are mere dilettante efforts; governing ourselves is an entirely different matter. As the good folks at Better Together have told us on numerous occasions, we, alone among the nations of the planet Earth, and despite abundant-to-the-point-of-overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will not be capable of this.

On that note, I should like to take a few lines to address the Better Together campaign now, as you have all, through your signing of this hallowed document, tacitly aligned your good selves with the efforts of that noble organisation. Despite what you may have heard, Better Together have, throughout the last few years, been a shining example of truth-telling and reassurance. Those accusations, slung by those vicious people who state facts, that their campaign has been nothing more than a random farrago of shrill, terror-inducing and panic-peddling doomsday prophecies, saturated throughout with slander, half-truths, quarter-truths, outright lies and an irrelevant hate-obsession with one man, are, as I now see, totally exaggerated. They were right all along. The debate between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond (yes, that debate, the debate that was described by pundits as one of the most important debates in modern political history, but which you probably didn't even see, because it wasn't televised in England, thanks to the equally unbiased British media) showed us all that modern UK politics is in rude health, with three main parties who should be occupying totally different strata of the political spectrum uniting as one to remind us that Alex Salmond is nothing less than the devil in pudgy form and that we are inherently incapable of governing ourselves, before, in a coup de grace, offering to give us as a nation more powers if we as a nation refuse more powers. They are simply a beacon of logic and compassion. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the BBC, who unthinkingly took time out from their busy schedule of covering up the sundry paedophiles and abusers of vulnerable adults who were protected and celebrated by them to alternately ignore us completely/refuse to broadcast facts/remind us up here that we don't matter.

As for having some of the finest exports on Earth, we are fully cognisant that this will not help. And the oil? We'll just follow Westminster's lead and shut up about the oil, and the possibility of joining the rest of the world in actually setting up an oil fund if we got independence, as we don't want to annoy anyone. Besides it doesn't matter: we don't want independence anyway, because we can't do it.

We should also be reminded that a constitution that is increasingly alone among the nations of the civilised world in never having been drawn up or cohesively codified (with the result that if I were a practicing rather than a lapsed Catholic, I could not be Prime Minister, and if I were to go out walking to an archery contest in York clutching a bow and arrow, it would be perfectly legal to kill me) is the way to go in terms of governance, that Martin Luther King and the rest of them were just kidding about all women and men being equal and deserving an equal chance, when in fact, the Royal Family is inherently better than the rest of us because their ancestors chopped people up really effectively. That must be why so many of you have taken knighthoods, damehoods, lordships and peerages. Yes, that explains it. You are all such enlightened and selfless individuals, there is clearly nothing you wouldn't sacrifice to defend your Kingdom; to the extent that, in some cases, such as that of Sir Tony Robinson, you have even been willing to sacrifice your own principles to defend it.

The financial system of the United Kingdom that you defend so valiantly, you know, that one were the banks and corporations do whatever they want and pay their executives outrageous salaries only to be bailed out by the taxpayer when the inevitable bust comes along, the one that enriches the obscenely rich while enslaving the vast majority of the population, is the envy of the world. This, in turn, must account for the shocking appearance, in one or two cases, of signatories of this document who are not in fact millionaires, living in ivory towers and totally divorced from the reality that most people have to live. Once again, I commend you all for making me see sense.

I am certain that the Prime Minister (you know, the millionaire who went to Eton along with half of the previous cabinet; that man whom myself and my entire country didn't vote for, as we so ignorantly revile both his party and his policies) will salute you all for your efforts. You've certainly persuaded me. I'll vote for the UK, with its pro-Israel stance, and totally ignore the suffering of the people in Gaza, too. It's for the best, really. As for foreign affairs, well, it's demonstrably obvious that the best way to conduct them is with a horde of nukes at your back, and that the surest way to preserve world peace is with an array of weapons that could only ever be deployed militarily in some kind of nightmarish endgame scenario, but which nevertheless cost billions a year to maintain and store, even while public service budgets are ruthlessly slashed. Why didn't I see this before? I genuinely feel like the writer of Amazing Grace.

I'd like, finally, to take this opportunity to highlight, and indeed, laud, certain signatories of this document who I feel have made an undeniable contribution to twenty-first century art, science and high culture, namely Messrs Armstrong, Barrowman, Bragg, Brydon, Ms Cox, Messrs Cowell, Dawkins, Galloway, Izzard, Ms McCall, Messrs Mitchell, Richard, Robinson, Miss Sarpong, Messrs Starkey, Sting, Sugar, Titchmarsh, Walliams and Webb. You are all deeply talented and necessary individuals, and I thank you all from the bottom of my bowels for descending temporarily from on-high to appeal to scum like me to see sense and vote No.

Thank you all for affording me this opportunity to tell you all how wonderfully wonderful I think you are,

Yours obsequiously,

McB

The Westminster Cronies Al Qaeda ... You decide.

Something has been troubling me for some time; it did in 1979 before that referendum, it has again for more than a year. It crystalised not too long ago when the denizens of that inimical palace of Westminster labelled the tactics they would use in Scotland to secure a ‘No’ vote as ‘Project Fear’.

If we doubt Westminster and her allies are indeed inimical towards the Scots, we need only look to five quick definitions which can be uncovered with two minutes of browsing through almost any dictionary. 

Also, that Unionists are utelising a not-so-subtle form of terrorism against Scottish aspirations is becoming increasingly apparent as we begin coasting down the months towards the referendum in September 2014.

The only significant question to be asked is "why would we believe anything from such a source?". 

The online Cambridge dictionary was used for the definitions pasted below.

Project: a piece of planned work or an activity that is finished over a period of time and intended to achieve a particular aim.

Fear: an unpleasant emotion or thought that you have when you are frightened or worried by something dangerous, painful, or bad that is happening or might happen e.g., "Trembling with fear, she handed over the money to the gunman."

Terrorism: defined as ‘Threats of violent action for political purposes’

Terrorist: would be someone who uses violent action or threats of violent action for political purposes. 

Blackmail: the act of getting money from people or forcing them to do something by threatening to tell a secret of theirs or to harm them.

Accordingly, we have it clearly from the architects themselves. They describe their own work as ‘Project Fear’ and they’re proud of it, damned proud.

Consider the multitude of scare stories; from currency to oil; from the northern isles breaking away to ejection from the EU; from border controls to debt; the storming of Scotland’s airports by English forces to our inability to defend ourselves. Then consider and remember that each of the principle denizens of the belly of the beast, the main political leaders of Westminster and their puppets in Edinburgh, for surely they deserve no other title under these circumstances, have all stated that ‘of course, Scotland could be a successful independent country’.

These same political leaders have then gone on to bless "Project Fear". Perhaps not overtly or openly, but neither have they decried it, which at the least is tacit approval. And we all know the danger of mute inaction because as widely acknowledged; evil only wins when good folk don’t take a stand and speak out against it.

It’s also re-enforced by the fact that the threats and implied actions against the Scots aren't presently enacted against the Irish, who like us were also ‘engineered’ into this same union. It is not enacted, it would appear, simply because they've already left, though history tells us of  tactics utelised before they did.

It is said the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. We should have good cause to expect similar treatment to the Irish, though like the Irish, we might expect it to take three quarters of a century.

Project Fear is quite simply a piece of planned work that will be finished over a period of time and is intended to achieve a particular aim. In the eyes of its architects, it will secure a ‘No’ vote in the upcoming referendum. Remembering of course, a referendum is a political event. ‘Project Fear’ is therefore decidedly an attempt to influence a political process through intimidation.

This leads to the fact that Project Fear is clearly an attempt by those pictured above to convince Scots that something dangerous, painful, or bad might, most likely will happen should they dare to vote ‘Yes’

Project Fear is therefore clearly state terrorism under this accepted interpretation. For like many political or religious extremists, it is carrying both the implied and overt threat of violent action for political purposes. What else can describe the almost 'hell on earth' which would be engendered in Scotland if every one of the dire utterances from, or on behalf of the Union were to play out after a successful independence vote.

It would clearly follow that the leaders of project fear are at worst terrorists under the literal meaning. It means those pictured above who might participate in such negative propaganda lie anywhere in the scope of this blog from real actual terrorists in the true Al Qaeda vein, to simply not very pleasant people; if one equates good people with pleasant people. If it were otherwise they’d surely be speaking with one voice and condemning ‘Project Fear’.

As to the role of the head of the state in all this? Surely a benevolent monarch should be decrying such tactics in ‘her’ land? In respect to the Queen, what will change, except perhaps Scotland’s financial contribution?

Finally, we have blackmail, for surely ‘Project Fear’ is blackmail, because it’s got every appearance of trying to force a particular course of action in order to avoid the threat of, or actual personal harm.

Personally I believe Scots to be a bit better than to submit to blackmail, terrorism, or other such attempts at coercion. 

In addition, I believe we’re overall a worthy, competent and conscientious folk more than capable of building our own home and living peacefully in the village of nations. 

Meantime, consider those above; the actions, words and deeds emanating from the London Parliament and its supporters, and decide for yourself if a no vote is a vote in support of terrorism, blackmail and fear?

There is no grey area, if you decide that’s what’s happening, a NO vote is simply a vote to support state sponsored terrorism and blackmail.

Is there pact to destroy the NHS?

I've had the opportunity to live in both the UK and US. In a previous life I spent a career in healthcare. Consequently, I have always kept an eye on this subject as I'm interested in it, and have watched England’s steady march to Privatisation for a decade and more.
The first issue is; why privatise?

No, really, why bother?

The universal government line is that it is:

1) ‘Necessary’

2) ‘Reduces costs’

3) ‘Fosters competition’.

The first two are obviously hokum; the last is probably undesirable in a health care scenario, unless folk just get the opportunity to go elsewhere, which could be satisfied by simply electing to go to another health board. It would be easy to make a statute to cover a right to change health boards. The cost would be no more than some legislation.

Let’s look at the first two for a minute, the hokum claims.

Well, I would deal with ‘Necessary’ first, except I've come up against an immediate issue; nobody is telling me Why it’s necessary, unless it circles around points two or three, in which case it’s irrelevant fluff; and fluff we should also be able to agree is hokum.

So, if reason one for privatisation is self evident ‘padding’ of hokum, and reason three can be fixed by statute that leaves reason two.

Reason two says it ‘reduces costs’, which is smoke and mirrors. Let’s say the State, and we’ll make it the entire UK as well as use easy numbers, has a hundred billion for health care. We’ll make it simple by abbreviating scenarios and not adjusting for inflation.

In 1973 the nation had a hundred billion to spend on health care. We were taxed a hundred billion to support it, we spent a hundred billion on it. We got what we paid for, more or less directly returned.

Now, fast forward forty years. At this point about a third, twenty to fifty percent depending on how you work the numbers, of that service is effectively privatised, from PPI to PFI contracts to farming out of services and people.

So, now we've got a hundred billion of our money going in and about sixty five billion returned directly in ‘services’

What has happened to the other thirty five billion? Well, ‘The City’ and ‘Wall Street’ like to see profits of thirty to forty percent; we’ll call it a third on average. Executive salaries in the private sector are generally higher, hourly wages generally lower, but about ten percent of company revenue is usually kept to repay banks and shareholders as well.

Of that thirty five billion, we’ll be generous; about twenty billion might come back in services which have been included as part of PFI/PPI agreements, e.g. laundry, security, some aspects of direct care services, building maintenance etc.

So, in 2013, we still put in a hundred billion, but we lost fifteen of it to the ‘privateers’ padding their treasure chests. Now you know how a lot of those new yachts I see every day get paid for. Luxury lifestyles being financed while your children or your grandparents go on waiting lists. In fact, at the time of writing, our £19,000 floating home is next to a $7,000,000 yacht – financed by the insurance side of the US health care industry. And let’s be clear, it is an Industry.

So, what inspired this blog, and why now?

The NHS has just announced it expects a thirty billion funding gap by 2020.

To meet that, Lady Williams is advocating charging for visits to doctor’s surgeries. They’re also proposing having pensioners pay. So-called “wealthier” pensioners, just because they might have worked all their lives and saved like crazy and have a pension other than the State’s, now get to buy that executive or banker’s new yacht. Yet, had those elderly squandered their money instead of saving, they’d be off the hook for the time being - until the financial threshold is eliminated.

Of interest are the comments made by NHS England’s information director, Tim Kelsey.

Here is the gist of what Mr. Kelsey said:

"We are about to run out of cash in a very serious fashion."

Followed by a revealing statement:

‘... the UK and US governments were currently working on a common standard of certification for health companies to make it easier for them to access both markets”.

As the Guardian article pointed out, critics of the government's health reforms say they were conceived as a "necessary prelude" to a trade agreement with the US.

He further stated:

"one of the things that we agreed with the US government which will be hopefully signing at the G8 meeting in November is that we want to make it as easy as possible for small businesses to get access to both the US and the UK market places” .

“To do that we want to have some common standards. We will be working on a standard of certification so that you can be in the digital hospital marketplace or the apps marketplace and you only need to sign up to one certification scheme."

Based upon his statement and those of others, US healthcare companies, in return for their millions poured into US election campaigns, want a return on those millions. They need fresh markets and fresh profits. The government and those who manage the NHS appear to be on the brink of devising a system which would enable the simple, painless integration of NHS services into private US health care systems. This is a very accomplished system that charges ever-increasing amounts of money in the form of monthly insurance payments from its users i.e. Patients.

The fundamental interpretation here is that these US companies have lobbied their ‘bought’ representatives to make access to the UK market a prerequisite of any future trade deal. Very quietly, the US is telling Westminster, ‘Privatise Your Healthcare’, and Westminster, London, like the subservient poodle it is, is agreeing.

The only way they (health care companies based in North America) can get that access, and therefore additional opportunities for profit, is through increased privatisation of the NHS. If that privatisation doesn't happen, then they’re only fighting for a bit of that existing thirty percent. They will then undercut each other, services will suffer, bankruptcies will follow, and our people will get hurt by both poorer care and unpaid bills.

Remember just because Blue Cross UK goes belly-up and leaves a medical wasteland in its wake, it doesn't mean Blue Cross USA has to pay. That’s the “beauty” of independent subsidiary companies.

Therefore, feel free to vote “NO” in 2014. Just be aware there is every likelihood one of the many things you’ll be voting “NO” to is the NHS. You have to remember, reduced public spending in England will result in a claw-back of our meagre pocket money under the Barnett Formula. The outcome of which can only mean reduced spending in Scotland.

The current cost of a quality ‘family healthcare plan, i.e. the kind of health care we currently take for granted, in the USA is creeping towards a thousand pounds per month. Can you afford that?

Furthermore, from personal experience, I know that even “comprehensive” cover doesn't truly ensure care in every eventuality that may become a health imperative in your life. Like many in the US, we were forced to sell everything we owned - from our home to my guitars - to pay for brain-scans and tests following a serious industrial accident.

As the UK will be copying the US health care model over the next several years, with both Labour and Conservative members pledging to ‘continue these reforms’, what you’re looking at is a return to the nineteen thirties. If you have any doubts about this, just check the list of Registered Members Interest in both Houses and see how many are intertwined with private healthcare companies. We need only look as far as Ms. Cherie Blair to find one very well-known example.

Then again if you do vote no, perhaps next time I break down on the ocean, maybe one of these new multi-million pound yachts will stop and help me. If it does, I’ll thank you for that ‘No’ vote. In reality, I’d expect it to do what the last one did when emergency struck. I’d expect it to ignore us, to keep on sailing, and pretend it didn't see the distress flare’s being let off or it didn't hear our anxious calls on the emergency radio channels.



You see, like us, if you don’t have health insurance in several years time, you’ll be able to expect that hospital ship to just maintain its current course and keep sailing on by.

The Wrong Message

Creation of a sterling-zone as trumpeted by the SNP is decidedly the wrong message.

Scotland needs to dump the pound faster than a drowning diver needs to dump his weight belt.

The recent downgrading to Sterling brings only one question, posed by the French almost a year ago, and that is, why has it not happened long, long before now?

In the last week I saw the value of my income plummet. For argument’s sake let’s say I get £725 a month. That’s what it was last month anyway, or last time I drew it out. Today they handed me £688. This was, they said, due to the fact the £ plummeted against the $ after the downgrade.

My account said £725 had been deposited, the bank gave me £688, there’s a problem when my bills are £700. The ends no longer meet in the middle. I’m now worse than broke.

Anyone not relying on foreign exchange rates may see it as a minor thing, but with pretty much everything made overseas these days it simply means, in Scotland, when the current supplies on the shelves run out, the new ones are going to cost more. We are all two months away from losing that real money.

In about ninety days, and much less for many items, that £725 a month in every pocket will soon become £688. It will still say £725 on the statement, so we’ll fool ourselves. But at the end of the day if it doesn’t buy anyone what £725 did a month ago, how can you argue it’s still £725?

Let’s invent a little scenario. You’re selling your car, you want £5,000, but you drove it this morning and had a wee fender-bender and slightly bent the chassis – but it still looks not too bad. Hey, it’s still your £5,000 car. It has a couple of dents here and there that weren’t there yesterday, but you've still got the same sticker on the window, £5,000 it proudly declares. Think you’ll ever get that now?

That dented car of yours is Sterling. These are just the first view visible dents. The difference is it has been ready for the knackers yard for years, the rot was just hidden under the shiny exterior, but any decent mechanic would walk away from it asking if you’re insane. MOT; No chance mate, but there’s a bloke in the next village who, for fifty quid like….

We’re now at the point where even the bloke in the next village won’t touch it.

For the UK and Sterling, it means this time it won’t recover.

Expect the pound to continue to devalue. After all, it has for over eighty years. The ability to devalue the pound and thereby steal our savings is the primary reason that Westminster didn't join the Euro.

We've all heard and seen the unrest in Greece; in many instances the United Kingdom’s press have given the Greek people short shrift in terms of sympathy. The Irish have been the media’s financial whipping boy. The Spanish, Portuguese and Italians have all been slated and derided by the papers. Whereas, for most of the UK’s self vaunted media, the Italian’s have always been good for a joke; the Spanish and Portuguese seem to me largely ignored.

It may take once-mighty Britannia a decade more to be in such a condition that Greece looks like a safe haven. It may only take a few months. The United Kingdom’s per capita and national debt burden is fast outstripping that of Greece. Don’t doubt it, Greece’s debt load stands at less than 70% of the United Kingdom as a percentage of GDP.

What about Italy, Spain and Portugal? They are likewise positioned with debt about 75% of the UK’s. Only Ireland, another favourite punching bag of the UK media, is actually worse. However, we’re entering the home stretch and the nag in green white and gold isn’t the favourite in this race anymore. With the finishing posts ahead, the cuddy in red white and blue is set to come thundering down the home stretch. That poor old Irish nag seems like it hasn't got a hope of staying in front.

Except this is a race to poverty, to national penury and isn’t a race anyone really wants to win, is it?

The reality of the situation is that no matter who is elected to Westminster, the average individual is going to get screwed.

Westminster can barely service its debts right now. If interest rates climbed just a little, say to the historical norms of five percent, then Germany’s old Weimar Republic where wheelbarrows were needed to carry the cash to buy a loaf of bread might look like a wonderful place to have lived. Our debt burden is already worse than that of the Weimar Republic.

So, why has the crash not already happened?

It has begun, but most people want to play the ostrich. Maybe if we stick our heads in the sand long enough, we might fool the lion and he won’t actually bite us on the behind. Sadly, the lion has the luxury to decide when the ideal time will be to bite us. The only thing we know is that his jaws will snap shut someday soon, and when it does out collective behookie is going to hurt like hell.

Social upheaval, no jobs, riots, deprivation and hunger are possibly the nicer parts of what lies ahead, if we don’t get our act together. Mr. Osborne’s current attitude of “it’ll be alright” and Westminster’s continual “Nothing to see here folks, move along” are even bigger lies than Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time” declaration in 1938. Six years of “peace” broke out the following year in September. Chamberlain’s piece of paper had as much true worth as that printed by the Bank of England today.

Consider at the time of the collapse of the Weimar Republic, still in living memory for some, that one pound of sterling bought one pound of silver. At the time of writing the value of silver is £300 per pound. Where did the other £299 go?

It was neatly pochled by Westminster, through that cunning mechanism “inflation”.

Surely, we may think, the value of silver has just risen incredibly? No, it hasn't At that time five hundred pounds, sterling or silver, bought a modestly sized family home. Five hundred pounds of silver today will still buy that £150,000 home. And what about the £1 note from 1932? Well there is not a coin small enough in the treasury’s inventory that I could now trade it for. It is worth a fraction more than one old ha’penny. They have legally devalued that £1 to nothing viable in today’s currency; only in Westminster.

Remember, in the five centuries prior to World War One, inflation was by all comparisons, nonexistent.

The only way the United Kingdom is surviving today is by borrowing. Where do the banks get the money they lend to the government? Essentially, it’s invested savings. You put your extra cash (if you are one of the lucky folks to have any) in the bank to save. The bank loans it to the government at less than 2%, sometimes less than 1%. Inflation has swung from over 5% to less than 3% in the last seventeen months. That means your bank is loaning to your government at a guaranteed loss.

There have even been instances of late when some governments have been able to borrow money at negative interest rates. Although, not Westminster, they’re not “safe enough”. Effectively, the investment firms supplying that money have been willing to guarantee their investors i.e. you, an instant loss for the so-called safe keeping of your money. In other words, well managed economies are actually being paid to borrow your money.

The United Kingdom passed the point of no return about five years ago and has been hovering around there, barely surviving, making payments, but not cancelling debt.

The problem is those interest payments, those billions upon billions paid every year are our new hospitals, schools and our infrastructure. Our future.

Westminster is bankrupt, arguably it’s fiscally, morally, and intellectually bankrupt. Like the destitute old lord in the crumbling manor, it is time to sell the family silverware. Except, we are the only silverware Westminster has. Our savings, our pensions, our health service, our children’s education. Like any government in history, Westminster has only one option; its people and their pockets.

This fiscal tsunami will be released in the not too distant future.

Hopefully it won’t be released until after the 2014 referendum. If Scots vote YES, which appears to be the intelligent course of action, it could well be released with early. After all, the release of this tidal wave will only require a very modest 1.5% change in the interest rates, and we've all seen that happen on countless occasions in our adult lifetimes.

Any way you look at it, promoting a “Sterling Zone” is insanity incarnate.

The Scots Pound is already in circulation. We need to resurrect it as a world currency once more. As many economists have pointed out, it wouldn't be difficult. Let our money float, or tie it with other currencies, any currency - except Sterling.

Our choice is simple, since no nation in history has ever recovered from the UK’s debt load; we have to vote Yes to survive or we vote No for long term debt, poverty and bankruptcy.

Is The Treaty of Union Already Dead?

Due to the renewed interest in Scotland's status of existence or not, recently dragged up by Governor General Moore et al, it seems there has been a resurgence in interest in an article I had published in Newsnet Scotland in July of 2011. As I'd never previously included it in the blog, I've decided that perhaps now would be a good time to do just that.

The question I posed at the time was: Is the Treaty of Union Already Dead?

The Treaty of Union 1707, we live every day of our lives with its effects – but should we?

Could we, if we choose, simply denounce it, has that already been done, or have events simply transpired to void it entirely? Are we at liberty, under international law, to simply “walk away’.

For almost all of us it consumes much of our waking time, consciously or otherwise as we struggle to pay the taxes and debts imposed by its after effects. It has done so for generations of Scots.

Our forebears fought and died because of it, through it, in support of it or against it.

Yet under international law It certainly appears void, if not simply revoked. It just seems there’s a distinct lack of willingness to test this by any relevant party.

In view of the above this article specifically does not advocate or focus on a single course of action; although it certainly uncovers several intriguing and interesting potentialities available to us Scots, should we choose. Law is about interpretation, what follows is one very reasonable such interpretation.

Our land and our nation has often been derided, pilloried and a comic joke because of it [this Union], mainly from within.

Even in the halls of power, that corrupt underbelly that we call Westminster, proven so in the courts of our lands, that place which is supposed to uphold our nation and care for it in this Union there is little respect demonstrated for Scotland.

There is an interesting and entertaining aspect to international law, it’s called the Vienna Convention, and it exists in a stratosphere of law that governs international treaties.

This article of law was adopted on May 23rd, 1969. It didn't exist in 1707, but it does claim jurisprudence over almost all international treaty and law since its ratification. And it has very definite retroactive implications.

If it had existed in 1706/1707, there would have been no Union Treaty as we know it. That is irrefutable.

The signatory states to the Vienna Convention agreed that international law and treaty law as defined by it would have jurisdiction over their own national laws. Basically if the UK [and thereby its constituent nations] signed up to it, they agreed to be bound by it.

It can be regarded as entertaining because the signatories to it, including the United Kingdom which ratified it on June 25th 1971, and implemented it on January 27th 1980, on the surface did not appear to fully understand the entire scope of their actions.

The UK and its constitutional law brigade certainly thought it may have covered its bases, yet there is a section or two in the Vienna Convention that indicates it may not have. The language is not categorically unambiguous, but the intent certainly appears clear.

We really should test it. At the very least it would prove interesting. 

Where the Vienna Convention specifically does not remove itself from treaties of a historical nature are when their principles are overtaken by new or ratified principles of recognized international law, or when they have been voided prior to inception and would be regarded as so being by evolving international law (article 64).

This aspect of the Vienna Convention specifically itemizes the following areas as voiding treaty agreements.

Article 49

Fraud

If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 50

Corruption of a representative of a State

If the expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, the State may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.

Article 51

Coercion of a representative of a State

The expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.

Article 52

Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force

A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.

A quick examination into the founding aspects around the Union Treaty is worthwhile – did it significantly contravene articles 49 through 52 of the Vienna Convention. Investigations and perusal of records show there is a relatively simple case to be made for contravention, not just of one the above, but potentially all of the above.

Any single contravention of the above articles would be more than valid enough reason to negate the Treaty of Union since inception.

It would certainly leave us with an entertaining constitutional conundrum.

Interestingly even article 14 of the Treaty of Union itself can be used as verification of corruption. Article 14 stating; “the Equivalent, granted £398,085 and 10 s sterling to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt”. In essence as history records, it was detailed as being subsequently used as a means of compensation [bribery] for investors in the Darien Scheme, and Union supporters.

This sum noted above was only paid after signature. None of the above funds were recorded as being distributed to anyone who opposed the Treaty of Union, nor could they be given to “Scotland’s government” – it no longer existed. They are reported and acknowledged to have been distributed solely amongst those who worked for passage of the Union Treaty.

Direct bribery was also known to be a factor. £20,000 (£240,000 Scots) was dispatched to Scotland for distribution by the Earl of Glasgow. James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, the Queen's Commissioner in Parliament, received £12,325, himself.

Now under Article 45

Loss of a right to invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty

A State may no longer invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty under articles 46 to 50 or articles 60 and 62 if, after becoming aware of the facts:

(a) it shall have expressly agreed that the treaty is valid or remains in force or continues in operation, as the case may be; or

(b) it must by reason of its conduct be considered as having acquiesced in the validity of the treaty or in its maintenance in force or in operation, as the case may be.

It can be clearly seen these do not apply to Scotland – the civil unrest and popular (dis)Unity has been widespread since treaty inception, and, in its most basic form, absent an independent government it was unable to fall into the first category. Without an independent government, Scots could not expressly agree.

So much for the past, this is the present, and it’s within article 45[b] that past meets present. There was an interesting quirk in 1999 when Winnie Ewing made her famous statement.

Certainly Winnie was acting as a government representative – certainly she had full authority to make the address, just as certainly her words have never been officially disputed either by Westminster or Holyrood. Arguably just as certainly she served notice on Westminster that under 45b that Scotland did NOT acquiesce.

The actual words of Winnie Ewing have been widely acclaimed; "The Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on 25 March 1707, is hereby reconvened."

Basically and effectively Ms. Ewing served notice on the Westminster government that the treaty of Union was ended.

The Scottish government had re-convened. It went undisputed. Treaties can be terminated by universal, bi-lateral or unilateral acts. They can also be terminated by the fundamental reason d’être of the treaty no longer being valid.

In 1999 a fundamental change took place within the Treaty of Union – there were again two parliaments.

The primary reason for the Union Treaty was to remove the dual parliamentary system. The Scots through their representative declared that their parliament was “re-convened” the English under international law in its most basic interpretation have no right of interference in the internal politics of another country.

Arguably, on 12th of May 1999 Ms. Ewing told our nation “if you want a Union – now go negotiate one” – perhaps that is just what Alex Salmond should do – declare the treaty of Union dead as of a set date [12th May 1999] based upon the facts, and request of the Scottish people the authority to renegotiate a treaty that is fair and reasonable towards Scotland – if such can be achieved. The actual official date of termination, and the end of all obligations under that ancient agreement could be June 24th 2014.

We should therefore invite England to the negotiating table. That would require a separate English parliament however.

Let them decline if they choose. It would also solve that pesky “West Lothian question”.

If the English do come to the negotiating table, and agreements are reached, then let the Scots vote on the new treaty, allowing terms can be arranged that the Scots might accept.

Perhaps we should simply take that “Independence” word right of the table. It is certainly appearing an option. The question then becomes do we devolve our government to Westminster again, and if so, what aspects?

Last but not least, and worthy as a footnote is an interesting Westminster quirk – Westminster now sees itself categorically as England’s parliament and Scotland’s overlord.

It views itself as a UK government of dominion, not of partners. It has demonstrated it would retain dominion.

If Westminster / the UK parliament had any other pretexts these are effectively dismissed by the list of countries with whom it can “do business”, conclude treaties etc.

Scotland is on that list, England is not. Northern Ireland is also on this list, but as Wales was taken by right of conquest it doesn't have to be. Wales is absent. The only discernible reason England would not be on that list is because Westminster views itself as England’s Parliament.

Although the UK Government’s website does list Scotland as a nation with which it can enter and execute treaties, it has none listed for review against our nation. Not the treaty of 1328 (Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton) recognising our nationhood “for all time coming” or the treaty of 1707 where we entered the Union of Parliaments.

The treaties recognising our borders are also conveniently absent, as is the existence of a treaty where the latest 6,000 miles of seabed was “grabbed by England” in the last decade – meaning under UN rules that act can also be construed as basically illegal – void.