Breach of Promise or Breach of Contract

Let’s consider a question I was asked recently, and to be honest, it sounded like it was a bit pointless at first blush.

The question was simple, and I’m reminding you I’m not a lawyer, but I was intrigued. The individual simply asked if Mssrs. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and possibly Brown and/or their parties could be sued for breach of promise over ‘The Vow’ as it was published in the Daily Record in the dying days of the Referendum Campaign.

There was a second aspect to this – if it is possible to do it, did I think it could be crowd-funded?

Honestly, I’ve no idea, was my immediate and rather doubtful response, but it was worth investigating anyway. You see, my recollection of that ‘Vow’ at the time was that it could be read in multiple ways, have a dozen interpretations, and there were really no ‘cast iron guarantees’ built into it. It was, essentially, designed to take the switherer and give them a justification for not doing what they were then believing; that it might be right to vote ‘Yes’.

Interestingly, in spite of what others may say, do or argue every indication I’m discovering is that whatever impact the ‘Vow’ had on the referendum is irrelevant now. Many believe it was the deciding factor. I agree it had a major impact, so I was surprised, none of that is actually relevant. The Union parties seem to think it is though, that caused me to keep digging – what’re they trying to hide?

The starting point is simple; what was actually promised, or less solidly, what would be reasonable to construe was promised. The fact that their names were signed to it, and they de-facto didn’t deny or refute any of it and in actuality did publicly (as the legal’s state) ‘aver and affirm’ if not specifically using those words, implies a promise or contract, in which they could now potentially be in breach.

If they did enter into such a contract, then it’d have been one with the people of Scotland, or even more specifically, those amongst us that altered our vote from ‘Yes’ to ‘No’ based upon that ‘Vow’ ‘Contract’ or ‘Promise’, but it’s most likely that a suit brought by specific individuals lodged and worded something as the ‘people of Scotland’ might suffice.

The second aspect was ‘were they protected by parliamentary privilege’, essentially meaning they can’t be sued. Categorically, the answer here is no. The announcement, undertaking or feel-good fuzzy, call it what you want to, was made by means of a daily tabloid “news”-paper.

So – was there anything specific enough to constitute a contract or promise?

In looking through the Record’s page on the day in question, reading it carefully, helped by someone who used to help actually make laws in the United States (so note the qualifier – it’s not Scot’s advice, but I’m told that although Contract and Promissory law has nuances, it’s overall pretty consistent) what I heard fell out as follows:

1. It stated the three main party leaders had all signed up to the incorporated statements – they’re therefore all on the hook for anything that followed, as long as the specifics could be defined. No specifics, no hook. No ‘No’ vote – it’s all moot anyway.

2. They promised to transfer more powers to Holyrood. That’d have to be in addition to anything that went before. If they give Holyrood the rights over its janitorial budget, and it hadn’t had them before then the promise is fulfilled. It still might be open to argument on ‘reasonable expectation’ grounds, but a near certain win has dropped into rather dubious ‘coin flip’ territory.

3. ‘No one, other than the Scottish Parliament can cut vital public services such as the NHS’ – This is where it might get interesting, because they (Westminster) hold the purse strings, and there was no guarantee they’d not cut funding thereby forcing the Scottish Government to cut services. On the surface it’s a loss here, especially as they already told us we’d be getting more budget cuts, a loss except for the fact that it could be argued it builds on the first point as to right of expectation.

4. The powers were then guaranteed to be ‘extensive’. Still, they could give you the right to pick your nose in addition to those ‘janitorial services’, then they’d argue that was ‘extensive’ – it’s coin flip territory once more, except it again builds upon the umbrella impression of realistic expectation.

5. They agreed that the Scottish Parliament is ‘Permanent’, unless they try to abolish it, there’s no breach of promise there. Even failure to enshrine it constitutionally doesn’t breach that promise – effectively it’s been so declared. Once more it builds on that expectation thing.

6. They promised to improve government in the UK in the years ahead. This might be a ‘gotcha’ with the Alistair Carmichael thing. Arguably, not requiring or requesting resignation shows intent to abandon this pledge. It’s still too early to make a definitive point though. Getting rid of corrupt members could be claimed as showing good intent, avoiding the subject, not so much. Might be a solid argument in a decade, not today. Again it builds on the ‘right of expectation’ thing.

In short, with one exception, this was effectively a media publicity stunt, and that very important exception is the right of expectation.

It was explained to me like this, that if I buy a car, and I’m promised it will be red, three years old, with less than thirty thousand miles and in excellent condition both bodily and mechanically, with the reasonable anticipation of many thousands of happy motoring miles in front of me, then that’s what I should get.

If that car is delivered as described above, but I subsequently discover it’s had a governor fitted, or been ‘wheel clamped’ then the letter of the contract has absolutely been adhered to, however the right of expectation has been thoroughly trashed. The goods are not fit for purpose as one had been led to believe.

This falls under the fact that in law, and Scot’s law too, it isn’t actually necessary to define every detail, but broad expectations are enough. The folk simply need to be competent. Working through the result of the referendum to the landslide in May for the SNP, it’s almost an inescapable argument that many amongst Scotland’s electorate believed one thing, acted in one way (No Vote) and now believe they’ve been sold what would be commonly referred to as ‘a Lemon’, oddly enough, there’s laws against that too!

It would appear that in drafting this vow Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown had fairly good contractual advice, however it would appear they used English legal advice. However the offer was made through the medium of a Scottish Red-Top to the Scots electorate in such a way it could only be accepted in Scotland. Therefore Scots Law and NOT English Law would seem to apply and be the potential initiator of many problems for the “gentlemen” involved.

Effectively, using that massive vote swing as confirmation, it can be argued that a contract was offered, accepted and viewed as breached. In addition, that there was a poll showing a 51/49 vote split in favour of the ‘Yes’ vote with the ‘Yes’ vote steadily gaining momentum until that point at which the ‘Vow’ was made resulting a net six percent reduction in the ‘Yes’ ballot and a final 45/55 poll in favour of ‘No’ also speaks to the efficacy of the offer.

All aspects of this particular case say that, effectively, Scotland’s electorate was sold a wheel-clamped car.

On that, there is without doubt a case.

All that would remain to be answered would be if an unbiased judge heard the case, and on which side of the coin the result would finally land. Only the court itself could determine if it was a winning case.

As to other promises made during this time-frame, they could be viewed as ‘adjunct offers’ especially if not refuted in word or deed by the parties concerned before the vote took place.

One thing is certain, even if the case didn’t make it to court, even a moderately successful attempt at fundraising towards getting it there would prove intensely embarrassing to all the potential respondents.

Should the suit prove successful, and if properly worded, it could force anything from a re-run of the poll itself to utter upheaval in the constitution of the United Kingdom, for in an extreme case it’s entirely possible that a judge could (not would, could) order the establishment of a federalized governmental system.

Where it would go from there would be…..interesting.

They Gied Us Lemons.

FFA, Fiscal Autonomy, Federalism, call it what you will.

It started out that we Scot’s would be about a couple of billion a year in the hole. Westminster suddenly realized that was less than what we had to pay as a part of UK debt, heck, we’re getting up there on being charged our share of London’s Olympics, Cross-rail (they didn’t offer a hand out on Edinburgh’s tram’s, did they?), being charged a pro-rata for London’s new sewer system, and god alone knows what we’ll have to pay if the World Cup comes back to England?

It’s fine, I hear, we got the Commonwealth Games, look at the subsidies there? As in what subsidies?

Then of course, there are the massive energy penalties that all Scots pay.

The amount Scotland would need subsidised began to escalate.

Five billion, seven, in the Sunday Express, it was ten billion – any advances?

Twaddle!

You see, the Unionists quite literally scared many elderly into a no vote, they convinced others through biased propaganda, and finally there was the “VOW”. Well, not so much a VOW, but more ‘THE CON’; however although that’s largely now irrelevant, what isn’t, is that Scots voted to stay. Scots voted to be part of this Union.

What the Unionists aren’t revealing is that FFA might in the worst case be hell in a hand-basket for Scotland, but being in the Union, Westminster would still be responsible for it.

The interesting thing is that these ‘new massive deficits’ aren’t what they seem. They’re all predicated on the status quo.

So, effectively, London and her media bubble are saying ‘you can’t have it, because you can’t handle it’ while saying simultaneously ‘that debt, by the way, you’ve already got it, and we’re already covering it’

You see, the biggest part of that referendum business last year, was the ‘better together’ and ‘pooled resources’ bit.

When you look at it deeply, you quickly come to understand that what it’s all about is Westminster’s awareness that they’ve truly screwed things up; that and their unwillingness to be seen to have done so.

Let’s look at the scenarios.

Scenario one is FFA for Scots. We decide to do things differently, it’s successful, and egg gets thrown all over faces in the Palace in London.

Scenario two is we blow it with knobs on. Scenario two will not happen overnight, economies just don’t change that fast, but if we did, Westminster steps in, removes FFA and slaps Scots for being idiots, perhaps by 2% more on income tax until we pay for ‘our folly’ – they could even propose that going in – it’s a bet I’d take.

Regardless, that extra levy couldn’t really be assessed, because Scot’s are only 10% of the UK, and the UK umbrella debt wouldn’t change by much. Even if we awarded all our underprivileged double benefits, and doubled the size of the NHS, it might only add 5% more to the UK debt burden. For me, that 5% isn’t a reason to say ‘NO’ FFA.

Imagine what Westminster would gain if FFA was achieved unfettered and implemented, without requiring the Governor General’s approval. Now imagine it failing, and that little penalty being imposed for a handful of years.

Effectively you’d do what George Robertson in fact claimed of Devolution, you’d kill the demands for ‘more’ stone dead, at least you’d do so in enough Scot’s eyes to stop the Nationalists movement in its tracks.

What will happen if FFA is an unmitigated success? You will end up with a thriving economy just humming along; an economy that benefits everyone, Scots and the Union alike.

If it’s just little different, then it’ll not cost either party more, if it doesn’t actually save money. Government is returned closer to the people, never a bad thing, and responsibility returns to a more local level.

Effectively, the only reason then for Westminster not following FFA is because they believe it will succeed. And they’re scared of that, because in that success they’ll see a demand for more powers and a lessening of their own prestige and influence.

Why should they believe that? They’ve every reason in the world. Just look at Holyrood, the ‘wee pretendy parliament’, which was just called an executive but is now in the eyes of the world an actual ‘Parliament’, with a respected ‘First Minister’.

We demonstrated with Holyrood that although they ‘gied us lemons, we made lemonade’. Westminster and her backers are truly terrified to see what we might achieve with FFA.

The Real Reason Why Labour Lost The GE.

I sat quietly, observing for most of the General Election campaign, partly because I was fairly confident that in Scotland there would be an SNP Tidal Wave and in England, a Labour Win.

As we well know, only one actually materialized. I innately knew immediately why the other didn’t, in fact, from about May 1st, I became certain it wouldn’t, but the polls said otherwise – right up until the exit poll.

Since then, I’ve watched the unfolding events in vague shock and awe.

In that vein I’m going to use some parallels and analogies, they might be unpalatable to some, but they’re accurate so deserve inclusion and use.

The Shock; that England could vote for and elect a party on a mandate which was arguably more right-wing than that which facilitated the election of Hitler’s Nazi’s in 1932/33, although they interestingly were elected on almost identical platforms of anti-foreign (Cameron’s ‘Scots’ and EU policies to Hitler’s internalized Nationalism [there really isn’t much difference between those two, the only kind of Nationalism that can be acceptable is the inclusive embracing type which seeks to look outwards in non-dictatorial friendship]). Both coupled this with restricting the rights of parts of their citizenship, in Hitler’s case, he attacked the Jewish community, academics, opponents and disabled; in Cameron’s case he’s attacking the vulnerable, the poor and the Scots, arguably also where much of academia of British Isles originated.

Amongst Hitler’s first acts was issuance of the ‘Fire Decree’, suspending Civil Liberties, essentially dispensing with a need to worry about Human Rights. David Cameron has literally issued his own vow – he wants the UK removed from the protection of the European Human Rights Act. He’s promised a ‘British Bill of Rights’, but who’s to say what’ll be in it? Or even who or what will be protected, or even if some will be “more protected” than others. Which I feel is a fair statement when you check on how unfair British society has become.

Incidentally, both Cameron and Hitler were elected with marginally 37% of the popular vote.

Hitler formed a secret police, the Gestapo. The UK didn’t actually need to do that; we’ve already got the Official Secrets Act (remember how the McCrone Report was buried?) coupled to MIs 5 & 6, our own secret courts and utterly compliant media – which were all Third Reich fortes. Now, our little cherry on the icing of our cake is the “Snooper’s Charter”. This permits those government organisations to go intelligence gathering on a level which couldn’t be conceived of in Himmler’s (head of the Gestapo’s) wildest dreams. He had to rely on neighbours reporting neighbours just as like Stalin did. Indeed, 21st century intelligence gatherers just use computer technology to collate their data.

Million’s died to defend us from this – those million’s sacrificed to build a socially inclusive state after their victory. It was a hard toil, yet they did it.

The Awe; Cameron was campaigning on this platform, campaigning to get rid of these securities that so many gave the ultimate sacrifice for, and Labour had an open goal. The ball was never kicked. The striker simply fell flat on his face, and then looked around stupidly hoping for a referee’s whistle.

Cameron refused to say where his cuts would fall and Labour failed to offer a single ‘most likely’ scenario with which they could have hammered the Tories.

Cameron and his compliant media demonised the Scots. He effectively promised to make them ‘second class citizens’ through hobbling all three legs of the stool; firstly - our ‘avowed’ and exceptionally diluted new devolution settlement by handing primarily useless powers north (Smith); secondly, reducing the effect our MPs will have in Westminster (EVEL); and thirdly by neutering our Parliament by introducing a veto wielded by the Governor General in the Scottish Office; an office that makes no bones about undermining and discrediting the running of Holyrood.

The tools for Miliband were there to be utelised.

The Snoopers Charter was an easy one for Labour to tackle. All they had to do was remember those who died for those rights and ask if those millions of deaths were to be in vain; especially in these years of the glorification of WW1.

The removal of the Human Rights legislation should have been right up there. Labour should have been screaming “foul” at the tops of their collective lungs. But a pin could be heard dropping in the hallowed halls.

The EU Referendum – I’m all in favour of referendums and I’m reasonably in favour of Europe too. I know it’ll never be perfect, but I also know it’s a hell of a lot better than being tied to Westminster. Labour could easily have pulled that from Cameron too, they just had to support the referendum idea on the basis of democracy, but tell everybody ahead of time, they’d be campaigning to stay in while negotiating the best deal possible for the UK.

Essentially, the opportunities for a soft tap in to win the game and lead the next government were almost without limit as the election race drew down.

Any one goal could possibly have seen the Labour Party home free.

Combined, I really doubt if they’d have needed any sort of coalition to hold power. Having said that, I didn’t want anyone in sole charge; I believed a coalition – whether formal or otherwise - benefits everyone.

Essentially then, the Tories, Cameron’s folk, didn’t win the 2015 GE, Labour simply decided to walk from the field.
The only question that needs to be asked after that realisation is why? That’s got an obvious answer, but judging from what I see of their current leadership contenders, none of them are capable of uncovering it or remediating it.

Cameron’s Conservatives, any extreme right wing party, has no defense against that type of argument.

Labour needs a leader who recognizes this and will contest the field, and they could’ve used any or all of these arguments to do it – because if they do or if they had, they’ll win.

The issue that I can see, they’ve largely the same paymasters, so even if they do manage to uncover a principled and socially minded leader, that person will be hobbled before they’re even allowed to leave the dugout.

Effectively England now needs a new center left party.

Labour UK – R.I.P. – May 2010

Yes, 2010, because Ed Miliband wasn’t why Labour lost. Labour lost because they lost their soul in forming ‘New Labour’. But it took until then for the public to come to this understanding.

I don’t know where souls go when things die – I do know they don’t return to the old body, or body politic.

Problems and Solutions

Well, I didn’t do much writing during the GE, nevertheless I can express my limited delight at the result. I say “limited” for two reasons. Firstly, because we didn’t win all the seats north of Tweed and Solway, however this is a very minor issue. Secondly, because the Tories still managed to secure a majority through English constituency wins; and for me, that’s a biggie.

The problem is that it’s pretty much always been that way. In this Union, Scotland is irrelevant. That’s a major issue. We are politically irrelevant anyway. The S.E. of England still needs our resources, human and environmental, and these are the real reasons they fought against our Independence campaign so hard, that and maintaining their perceived prestige.

What we did do in GE 2015, was put the wind royally up London’s establishment; arguably our 45 created more panic there than Charlie did with his effort in ’45, especially as our 45% accumulated a few more voters to give Westminster not just 55 this time (percent) but 56 (MPs). Moreover we all know but for Union Media lies, half truth and innuendo it would have been 59.

Scotland’s problem is that 59 still wouldn’t have mattered.

By the time of the GE, not much we could have done would have mattered, mostly because the SNP has a policy of not fighting ‘non-Scottish’ seats.

Subsequently, as long as Scotland is stuck with 59 MPs and EVEL looks to be on the cards, it would appear we’re going to be on the wrong end of the stick, unless we get exceptionally fortunate and the English Electorate chooses to gift us the balance of power, nothing is going to happen to change anything. Nothing will change especially because the English Electorate have clearly just stated, they’d rather suffer a bad dose of Tory medicine, they’d even be happy to give up their human rights, rather than see Scots hold power at Westminster.

We might be able, under current SNP candidacy policies, to legitimately contest Berwick upon Tweed and environs, giving us a potential of 60 MPs speaking in support of Scotland’s interests.

However, that will still not be much of a concern the Establishment.

No, what is required is a long term solution, and it needs to embrace an English component. No matter how you address the issue, the SNP or any progressive force in these Islands needs English MPs. They just don’t need them in the party. However, if they were closely tied to the SNP as a voting bloc on key policies – wouldn’t that be interesting.

For instance, what if the SNP offered to assist ‘Independent’ candidates in England? What if they appealed to potential candidates willing to subject themselves to the SNP vetting process and promise to support an independent voting bloc within Westminster? That scenario holds almost limitless potential. The offer for the next GE could be made immediately after a motion and approval at the next SNP conference. This would be a motion where the party would pledge to support English folks standing as independent candidates, still with their particular region’s interests and requirements foremost, but who are willing to put themselves forwards to become part of a ‘progressive alliance’ at Westminster’s next Election.

They’d start the process now; perhaps only going so far south as Scotch Corner. Additionally the Welsh Nationalist’s could do the same, targeting perhaps an alliance with the fifty closest constituencies to Wales. The promise made, the overriding policy, not to do much at first (after all, Labour, Tory and Lib’s have made such a mess these last fifty years) until a good look is had at the books, well, there’s nothing that anyone can really guarantee. That’s an easy sell. Implementing 5 years of progressive social justice, usually sells well also. Dump WMD and increase the regular forces, probably a winner. Open government, get points there too.

Just imagine the consternation within the establishment. It’d start immediately too. They absolutely don’t want the apple-cart upset any more than it has been. Especially if those English prospective members promise constitutional upheaval, like voting for abolishing the lords in favour of a proportionally representative senate. Oh my?

Imagine the political power that would suddenly and in the short term come the way of the SNP and Plaid.

We’d just have created one exceptionally big stick, and we’d be using it to poke a really large hornet’s nest that’s just about settling down to the fact it’s got 56 cans of blue and white bug repellent inside its belly. The problem is, those 56 can only give the hive a mild indigestion, make the insects scurry a bit more. We have to find a nuclear option to blow the two party system out of the water in order to bring power back to the peripheries. Our folk said ‘No’ on September 18th, but in view of how many wanted to say ‘Yes’ to Nicola and the SNP on May 7th and right across the UK as well, I’d bet we could manage it.

So – keep the Union for 2020 (unless other events bypass that), and extend the hand of Friendship to English Independents. Create a progressive alliance – or three, one for the North East, one for the North West, one for the Midland’s. We might not hold a majority, but we’ll potentially ensure that nobody else does either, and nothing scares the establishment more than that, for without a majority party, they’ll probably have to listen to us.

In the name of friendship, and true neighborliness, isn’t it beyond time that we helped our friends across the border, especially if we could help ourselves by doing that?

‘You Lost – Now get over it’

The truth will out, the old saying goes. And by jings, I think we’re seeing the evidence of that now.

My-oh-my. How little they understand, it’s just that in this case, the truth will take time to permeate, to insinuate itself into the consciousness of almost every ‘NO’ voter. If the NO side or the NO voter believes there was a loser in this referendum, they are absolutely correct. The identity of the loser is very easy for them to uncover, they just require a mirror.

The cry of “You Lost - Get over it” is one I’ve seen times almost without number in the two weeks since the referendum result was announced. The truth of the matter is, although I would have been delighted with a ‘Yes’ vote, and campaigned and worked to try to gain one, I suppose deep down, I never really expected it. What I did get has exceeded almost every expectation I had. It’s a pity that those who voted ‘NO’ from either a false sense of allegiance, or I suspect more often from simple fear, will have to wait until anywhere from a day to a decade to realize it. Of course by then many who did vote ‘NO’ will no longer be among the living, but before they leave us, they’ll have been privileged to see ‘Austerity’ really bite. I just wonder if they’ll be able to admit their voting error before their personal final curtain drops.

You see, those relying on state pensions voted to perpetuate a virtually bankrupt state, as opposed to a vibrant, energised and resurrected one, one which needn’t have hamstrung their retirement, one which needn’t have continued to pay about the lowest proportional pensions in Northern Europe.

But what about those cries of ‘You Lost!’. Obviously those elderly who voted to ‘protect their pensions’ lost, because with both governments guaranteeing them, how could they not have won?

For the rest of us, here’s where those gloating, troublemaking Unionistas essentially have it backwards.

They themselves are the ones who ‘Lost’; they lost the opportunity to increase the personal value of their vote ten-fold.

They lost the opportunity for a sovereign parliament, answerable only to us, the Scots, and I include every Scot who holds nationhood dear to heart, resident, ex-pat, it’s irrelevant.

These individuals, on the face of it, have lost the opportunity for a constitution to enshrine their rights; their own personally-tailored Bill of Rights. That those self serving careerists in Westminster might be discussing a UK version is immaterial because, let’s face it, they’re even afraid of and desperate to duck the obligations of the European Human Rights court. However, I’m willing to bet their “bill” will protect both their and their bankers’ rights.

Therefore, let me examine exactly what their NO vote guarantees.

Their NO vote will guarantee more broken promises, more London centric policies.

Their NO vote will see politics as usual, Scotland and its referendum is already a footnote to Westminster’s perspective.

Their NO vote will not guarantee any significant extra powers, on the contrary, it can’t. To change things more significantly, they need an English Parliament, if they get that, the UK is over, or it becomes fully federalised with each nation demanding and having an equal say. However, when one nation controls over eighty percent of the population, they’re not going to accept that. To be in the position of having to agree with representatives of the other nations will be intolerable for them. If you doubt it, just research why ‘The West Lothian Question’ has never been resolved.

Their NO vote will guarantee increased taxes and reduced benefits as the extra income is required to pay for England’s debt. When these No voters are poorer and have seen inflation run rampant again, that’s when they will really understand what the NO vote will have won.

Their NO vote has guaranteed as part of a unitary state, the NHS in Scotland has no protection. While NHS England opens the door to privatisation, the same will come to Scotland. We simply don’t have adequate funding to protect it, unless London decides we should.

Their NO vote guaranteed you the right to have Weapons of Mass Destruction parked on your doorstep.

Their NO vote has already put your children in harms’ way again, as we walk the path back to a war in the Middle East. This time it’s the Islamic State. Last time, Iraq, before that, Aden, Palestine, Egypt; where will the next conflict drain the blood of our children into those hot unforgiving desert sands?

A NO vote lost you the immediate right to control those oil revenues, which within few days of the vote you were told had been ‘vastly underestimated’ just the week before. The only real difference, the referendum was over. Those who cared to look had known this for months or years. If that was false, you’d have seen the pound rise, not fall that week.

These are just some of the things those who voted NO have lost.

For myself, I think we won. No, we didn’t get the big prize, as a whole, nor did we bite the apple, but what else did we expect? Believe it; Westminster controls the media, that’s the one power it’ll never willingly give up (Media Bias During The Referendum). It might privatise the NHS, Education, the Mail, Water, Railways, Utilities, but it’ll never give up its propaganda machine. Think about it, the broadcast media are all beholden to Westminster for their licenses – at the minimum. Literally every paper in Scotland is either Union controlled or foreign owned. Glasgow/Sunday Herald/Evening Times Owners (Any thinking individual or Scotland's vaunted media - including the BBC - could easily have explained to the Scottish electorate that Westminster could no more keep the promises published in the Daily Record's "Vow" page than it could have produced rocking horse shit from thin air. Simply another example of how our media failed us.)

We won because we exposed that propaganda machine.

We won because we took that vote, which had been hovering sometimes in the 20’s, to over 50. It failed on the day, but it failed through lies and gullibility, not our efforts which will be re-doubled next time.

We won, because the politicians in England were forced to make promises that will destroy the status quo, the Union or both. It’s that or be proven liars. That they will keep those promises is unthinkable, that we would vote NO a second time is unimaginable.

We won because already, after just a few weeks, many ‘Noes’ would change their vote. While I have no sympathy, you can do so in perpetuity, a majority of independence MP’s elected to Westminster or Holyrood, with that proclaimed goal, can easily still deliver the result.

We won because the notion of a free, resurrected and resurgent Scotland is viable, it’s normalised, and it’s desired.

We won, most of all, because we realise that we’re in a world class boxing match, and against us we’ve a world class opponent, at least when it comes to the mechanics of holding others in thrall as it pursues its fading dreams of imperial glory. On the morning of September 19th, the announcement was clear, that in round one, Scotland had failed to deliver the knockout blow, but we know our enemy, for such is the only description of one that would take the food from your mouth and force you to rely on charity. 

Round two is just starting, it’ll end with the Westminster elections; if we hold the balance of power there by returning pro-independence supporting MPs we can proclaim independence. Round three, if needed, will see us at the next Holyrood Elections, again where the stated intent of the MSPs returned will and must be independence.

We must grab the thistle, we must grab it firmly, and we must protect both ourselves and those who come after from this incredible act of what is now self-harm that we call ‘The Union’.

Quite simply, we owe it to the unborn.

Perspectives – Something that is Lacking in Labour.

At the end of the day life is about perspectives. The interesting thing about perspectives is that they’re personal. It’s why we don’t always [or often] all agree, and it’s why on those rare occasions that most of us do agree it’s called a common perspective. 

The common Scots political perspective is social democracy, we don’t all agree with that all the time, but it’s reasonably accurate for most of us, most of the time. It’s emphasised by our voting tendencies.

To any individual capable of thought and wishing to secure an elected position in our nation it means any policies pursued should fit into the realm of being social or democratic. Those who can tick both boxes you might just be approaching a sure thing, deliver and watch the trust build. Fail to deliver, as the Liberal-Democrats discovered, and there will be a price for the betrayal.

Johann Lamont, Labour’s latest leadership incumbent north of the border went out of her way the other night to ensure she didn’t check either box. In fact she went so far as to take a rubber and remove the options of either social or democratic from the paper itself.

This was her effective promise to us.

It didn’t matter that she didn’t actually wield a piece of paper with strikethroughs over these two words, Social and Democracy.

Collectively that’s what we perceived she did. Twitter and Facebook lit up with it, a great many column inches were dedicated to it. People in the streets, including the average committed and dedicated Labour voter are left sadly shaking their heads. Shaking their heads and for the first time for many of them, though they may not yet realise it, they are now considering a “Yes” vote.

Ms. Lamont’s Newsnight announcement of future Labour policy was announced in dictatorial fashion, like a manifesto it has been embedded in our collective consciousness. There was no consultation of Labour members we heard of, no party conference discussion, no apparently collective decision making.

It was a decidedly Stalinesque media announcement by the red party that certainly wasn’t socialist and it assuredly wasn’t democratic.

Our perspectives are now in the process of being shifted again, but this time they’re not being nudged just by a fraction, this time our perspectives are taking the full brunt of a 10’ long 2x4 beam across the forehead. And it’s not being wielded gently.

New Labour, Scotland’s traditional party will be removing social equality from our land.

Cut away the fluff, strip the dressing, and dump the salad and desert, that’s the basic statement from Labour in Scotland. The meat in the oratory was “Just like England” and “Death to social equality, death to opportunity”.

That’s as blunt as it gets, like the individual hit by the 2x4 the average Unionist Scot has to absorb the blow, overcome the pain and shock, they have to comprehend what’s happened and they have to rationalise it as part of their healing process.

That rationalisation falls into three roughly even categories, “they didn't mean it” will account for a small amount of voters, those who refuse the evidence of YouTube, the media or their own often neglected research. Fundamentally these are the deniers in any society.

Then there are the justifiers, those who will look for any reason to accept the actions just perpetrated on them, and they’ll come up with everything from “it’s really not needed” to “we just can’t afford it anyway” through “It’s really my fault, you know”.

Over the coming months as the impact is processed we can expect the deny-ers and justifiers to make up the smallest portion of these previously “secure” Union votes.

Lastly we’ll have the realists, the ones who look into what’s on offer, and they’ll see that where Scotland’s Labour Party would have them walk is down the path of social inequality, of unbridled capitalism and of relative deprivation for most individuals.

For the majority this vision will not sit well with their perception of a fair, free and socially democratic land.

These are the ones who will realise that the raft of services proposed for elimination will not only remove some fundamental and unique aspects of our culture, but they will hurt us all universally.

Consider the average taxpayer, if we have no children our taxes still go for schools, we accept that, it’s a cultural and social necessity. That’s just one example.

We all pay in to support the common good of society, those who don’t pay their fair share are criminals or sociopaths; there really are no other words for them. These individuals reap our hard bought benefits and don’t contribute. That’s abhorrent.

Now consider Johann Lamont’s proposals, they’d lead to the re-introduction of means testing on an across society basis, that would be hugely expensive, demeaning and just as abhorrent.

Ms. Lamont proposes that those who can’t afford to pay, whose means tests prove they’re poor, deprived, or otherwise “worthy” of state aid will still have free access to services.

Ms. Lamont’s just alienated the poor, just as effectively as ATOS alienates the disabled. She has erected barriers in our society.

Ms. Lamont’s also put Labour in a place of alienating the rich. She’s telling them that their extra taxes they pay on their extra income will now be used to help the poor, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but she’s also telling them they’ll be taxed again, because the benefits they’re paying their extra taxes for will not be available to them or their children. They’ll have to pay again if they want those benefits.

Not only will the rich pay more, they’ll pay twice and then some. There’s no world in which that’s a fair shake. It’s a shakedown.

Ms. Lamont’s also alienated the middle classes, because she’s introducing uncertainty. Where will elderly care go? Where will the levels be set to qualify? Will my band D home suddenly have to pay for rubbish collection while the band C is exempted? Why should I pay £10,000 more for my daughter’s education than the McDonald’s next door when I only make £2,000 a year more?

As soon as we create a society of “I get but you don’t”, we create societal fractures. In Ms. Lamont’s world the poor could get free university without encumbrances, the middle class can scrimp and save and endure decades of debt so that their children have “equal” opportunity. This policy is proving a disaster in England, why bring it here unless you've simply been ordered to?

Mundane to extreme examples perhaps, but these are perceptions that are being created.

A fair tax system is where taxes are paid universally, with an increasing but not undue or inappropriate burden on the wealthy, and all share equally in the benefits of the taxes. VAT can’t be removed from children’s shoes only if you make less than twice the average wage.

Society has arguable obligation to provide food and shelter to all, at a basic level, with some limitations that society allocates. There’s no question these should be income based provisions.

Everything else in society should be provided as it is paid for, to every citizen. That is a fair society.

An unfair society will expect the folk in the band D house to pay more tax, to support charity, to invest in their children’s future as they also have to save for that education while being taxed for another child’s school.

Members of a fair society should simply expect severely unfair treatment to cause these supporting individuals to move. It’s like any relationship, if we perceive we are being treated inappropriately, we first tend to try to work out the issues, but if irreconcilable differences are there then we’ll tend to leave the relationship.

Scottish Labour just gave every appearance of reaching the “irreconcilable differences” point with many of their supporters; it will spill over into the referendum vote and future elections.

Labour achieved “irreconcilable differences” through proposing severely unfair treatment across Scotland’s franchise. The visit to the “decree absolute” stage may take time for many, but it is road they will travel. Even Tory London didn’t dare go so far so quickly.

Even Tory London would be aware that if just 1/3 of Scotland’s defence under-spend was used in Scotland then all these programs could not just be maintained, but increased, and we’re not even touching the savings through scrapping Trident.

Even Tory London would be aware that not only could these programs be expanded by doing this but that we’d be able to increase our military substantially, reversing London’s cuts.

Tory London also knows that even after all that was achieved there’d be money remaining to invest in either infrastructure or begin a sovereign wealth fund. Just from the defence under-spend.

Tory London appears to know something that formerly Labour Scotland doesn't  and that’s why Labour in Scotland is working so hard to alienate all social levels of Scots society. Then again perhaps they have also been left wondering where that 2x4 came from, because it certainly doesn’t seem to have helped the “Better Together” cause at all.

“Better Together” is now severely compromised, because no matter the future damage control, no matter the policy or leadership changes in the next two years, the memory of the words uttered by Johann Lamont will remain fixed in the perception of many an average Scot.

The average non-politically inclined Scot now knows fully what’s on offer from the Union, and judging from the media and street reaction, they don’t like what they perceive at all.

What about the children?

At times it is worth a visit to the twilight zone, a look into an alternative reality whereby our politicians only did what is right, what is in the best interests of our society, what is good for the children. Not what is often simply in their own self serving interest.

It is surprising, very surprising that no one in any political movement has examined this issue, more precisely “is it good for the children?”

A simple suggestion indeed, but what if it became our guiding legislative principle, we are, after all only caretakers for the next generation, and caretakers can be good or bad. Westminster is a stark example of bad caretaking with rising, soaring child poverty.

Take for example NHS privatisation, service cuts and PPI/PFI. As these issues continue to impoverish and dismantle our social contract by an exponentially soaring debt burden that has transferred to the unborn, can we honestly argue that this is good for the children?

Consider also that the UK is at the forefront of the world’s list of most unequal nations, and consider if that can possibly be good for the children.

Imagine an updated proposed or implemented Scottish constitution, one that is yet to be written, but one that the current Holyrood government guarantees will include nothing that negatively impacts our children. Holyrood could pass such legislation in this or next year’s sessions.

Holyrood could guarantee to set up an independent body of perhaps a dozen randomly selected citizens from a pool of volunteers to examine each and every article of legislation passed or enforced in Scotland. If it is viewed as good for the children, neutral or wouldn’t affect them it continues the legislative process. Alternatively Holyrood could simply propose an act whereby legislation perceived as not good for the children could be challenged and struck.

This is the only principle that Holyrood need propose for inclusion into a future restored Scottish state, the only big bazooka as the financial gurus would call it that is likely to grab a nation’s attention.

Enshrine the sovereignty of the individual by protecting tomorrow’s citizens.

It will do so because such a proposal is almost unique, certainly in our modern western civilizations.

It will do so because virtually everyone will agree that if it isn’t good for the children, and we can demonstrate that it isn’t good for the children, then we shouldn’t be doing it, proposing it, or allowing it.

It will do so because it will shift the independence debate away from the SNP; from the same old, same old arguments, from the bickering, from the internecine party warfare to where the debate should be, what kind of Scotland we want for tomorrow, what kind of Scotland we want for our children.

Imagine the effect if this is put before Holyrood, as an overriding aspect of future Scots law.

The Union parties would have to vote for it, or against it. Expect their backers to want it to be killed. Big chemical, big pharmaceutical, big oil will all see drawbacks to a law protecting children. The City certainly would not support it because the fees and charges our pension pots currently suffer under as we stagger through crisis after financial crisis would need to be capped or moderated if proposed for future amendment. Parents requiring support from their children through usurious finance charges, is not good for the children.

The principle is simple; the objectors will be many, for today’s adults cannot be asset stripped unless it is deemed “good for the children”.

Imagine the cleft stick that Holyrood could place the Union supporters in. London will be unable to insist on legislation that could be deemed detrimental to the children. If it insisted it is not impossible that Westminster governments might fall.

The Union parties would have to oppose the proposal; they are likely to be ordered to do so. However, if the Union parties do oppose the proposal, it would strip their veneer, it would lay them bare to every citizen of these islands, and they would be perpetually seen as the parties who don’t care about children.

The effect would ripple right through Scots society, it would galvanise Scots as they realise this referendum isn’t about the SNP, it isn’t about Labour, or their more minor partners, the Tories. It would help people forget the irrelevance that is the Liberal Democrats.

It would, more than anything else conceivable, bring the focus sharply back onto the real purpose of this referendum.

That it is about nothing more or less than Scotland’s future, and the ability of Scots to shape it directly without any disastrous dilution of their democracy.

It will remind folk, or shock them into acknowledgement for the first time, that a vote which is diluted by over 90% is a worthless vote when it comes to writing your own story, to choosing the path that you need to choose.

It will do all these things and more simply because it is in the best interests of the children, and who among us except the predatory, the depraved and the simply evil wouldn’t put the good of the children first.

Can a Nation suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

The Question is this:

Are the Scottish proponents of continued Union with England purely mercenary or simply suffering from a Stockholm’s type delusion – is there another possibility?

Before investigating the concept of a large section of our populace suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome, it is necessary to examine the background of the nation or nations involved.

Can it be so simple to apply Stockholm’s to our nation that it doesn’t even need, as in my case, either a psychology degree or convoluted logic to demonstrate how simply the facts fit the case.

Our present Union construct of four quasi-devolved nations, evolving since the legal construction of the UK in 1926 is simply an ongoing dialogue that’s principally between the Scots and English, Holyrood and Westminster. Key to this is in understanding that for a captive to exist there has to be a captor. If the traditionally disseminated Union story of voluntary assimilation by both nations into one government, of a benign rescue by London of a debt burdened near bankrupt Edinburgh is factual there can be no case for Stockholm’s.

The background

A look at the history behind the creation of this “Gee-Bee” perception and the psychology that maintains it proves fascinating.

Prior to our present quasi-devolved state construct of four nations there is the older Union by Treaty of two sovereign nations, that of England and Scotland from 1707.

That the Scots never wanted that treaty is self evident to any student of history. Anyone doubting this fact needs only to examine the facts. In Scotland it was signed in secret, with the supporters fearing for their lives. Daniel Defoe, King William’s paymaster and agent of subterfuge within Scotland in the lead up to the Treaty of Union also recorded in his journals that more than 9 in 10 Scots were against the Acts.

It is well documented that Darien was a failure, leaving many nobles near bankruptcy. Not so well acclaimed is the historical fact that it was English and Spanish collusion that were substantial drivers in the failure. Darien’s demise was engineered in London.

With the demise of Darien many Scots in opposition to Union perished, others of the ruling class were near destitute, and although the nation itself remained debt free and relatively wealthy, it was this ruling class which sold their votes to avoid penury.

Effectively we have a captive / captured situation.

There have been many attempts by the Scots to dissolve the Union that prove this, from rioting at inception to a parliamentary act some five years after, two open rebellions and other home rule acts, petitions and finally devolution.

On the oppressive side there have been “the clearances”, “the banning of name and dress” proscription of weapon, and educational acts prohibiting use of our native language. In all it leads to a picture of what can only be accurately described as cultural genocide.

There are examples in living memory, from the simple act of repression created by ignoring the 1952 National Covenant to overturning the 1979 referendum by invention and insertion of a “one time” constitutional hurdle. In the devolution settlement of the 1990’s Scots voted for a “Parliament”, Westminster then “granted” an “executive”.

Having set the background stage it is opportune to see if the current proponents of Union with England, claiming Scotland’s best interests as dear to the heart, still act simply from personal self interest as their forebears did, or are principally victims of the Stockholm syndrome.

On the surface at least it is apparent that those projecting vacuous or unsubstantiated reasons for Scotland remaining in this present union “stronger together” “Britishness is a state of mind” have no apparently hard credible arguments, but almost without exception these individuals or organisations have benefitted substantially from espousing that view. Arguably for them the captor has been kind; they have been elevated above their peers.

Stockholm or personal profit is for the reader to decide – for without a credible third argument appearing, it would appear to be an either/or situation.

No other viable explanation appears to exist, as Annabelle Goldie, ex leader of the Conservative party in Scotland publically confirmed to the UK Prime Minister David Cameron on the weekend of October 1st 2011, “Scotland is not subsidized, the UK would be poorer without Scotland”. The Union proponents have still failed to give Scots a hard and fast third option, they still, after three centuries and counting, have not given the average Scot a solid Union benefit.

Ms. Goldie herself here clearly states “Scotland would be richer” outside the Union, simple interpretation of her statement must mean that Scotland is poorer within the Union. Ms. Goldie therefore supports poverty to a greater degree than is required for her nation, asking why she and those like her take this position is certainly legitimate.

What is Stockholm’s Syndrome?

An accepted definition of the Stockholm syndrome: An extraordinary phenomenon in which a hostage begins to identify with and grow sympathetic to their captor.

Named for an episode that occurred in Stockholm in August, 1973 when an armed Swedish robber took some bank workers captive, held them for six days and stole their hearts. The Stockholm syndrome is not limited to Swedes.

Patty Hearst, heir to the publishing fortune, was kidnapped in 1974 by the Symbionese Liberation Army. She later joined the SLA and participated in a bank robbery with them.

More recently, Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped by a couple for 9 months. Elizabeth repeatedly had the chance to run away or ask for help but did not. It is now generally believed that she had the Stockholm syndrome, in which she formed emotional bonds with her captors.

Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, essentially mistaking a lack or perceived lowering of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.

The FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome. It also appears more prevalent among women. This therefore begs the question, “is this why Scots women consistently lag behind Scots men in polling for a Yes vote?”.

While there is still disagreement as to what factors precisely characterize incidents that contribute to the development of Stockholm syndrome, research suggests that hostages may exhibit the condition in situations where the following four factors are present:

· They feature captors who do not overtly physically abuse the victim.

· There is a long duration before resolution.

· There is continued contact between the perpetrator and hostage.

· There is a high level of emotion involved.

How it can apply in the case of Scots supporting Union.

Firstly hostages who develop Stockholm syndrome often view the perpetrator as giving life by simply not taking it. In this sense, the captor becomes the person in control of the captive’s basic needs for survival and the victim’s life itself.

It is relatively simple to place this into context, with Westminster controlling all taxes, welfare, pensions and much of criminal and social justice systems.

Secondly the hostage endures isolation from other people and has only the captor’s perspective available. Perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world’s response to their actions from captives to keep them totally dependent.

Following three centuries of death, deprivation, clearances, execution, proscription and exile, dating from a time well prior to the signature of the Treaty Of Union through the present Scots now live in a reasonably just society, arguably more so than in England.

One should consider however that in the 20th century alone there was more than one occasion when censorship was rife and directed by London. This included the reported issuance of provisional orders for English armour to take to the streets in 1919 and in the 1960’s [Glasgow] through the ’74 gagging of McCrone. There were innumerable instances of atrocity that went unreported during the fall of empire to maintain the appearance of “benevolence” to the dispossession of the Diego Garcia inhabitants.

The condition of censorship continues in the present decade as we escape illegal wars and in the last week alone the attempts at suppressing the antics of “Prince Harry” are just a recent example. Corruption is endemic in the state, it’s rarely reported as such, and it’s only a miniscule percentage of offenders that is ever held to account. Even the state needs examples on occasion.

For three centuries and more, the people of Scotland have now largely obtained their information through Anglo centered, London based media, where censorship is rife, often simply by omission, and through the 20th century has been controlled, in disproportionate fashion by the BBC, with the greater portion of funds provided by the nation of Scotland directed towards production facilities in and around the English Capitol.

This was forcibly underlined during the recent Scotland Act, 1998, whereby the Media and broadcasting was specifically noted as a power reserved to the Westminster Parliament. At the Olympics we just witnessed the obliteration of anything with the potential to demonstrate to the world, during Westminster’s showcase, that there might actually be a nation called Scotland.

The message delivered through these media over decades, often subliminally, is that the Scots are now a race of “Subsidy Junkies”. Scots are also informed that they could not survive as an independent nation (while the UK attempts to simultaneously convince nations larger and smaller, from the BVI to India that they CAN survive), and that the voice of Scotland would be mediocre on the international stage. It omits to point out that within the Union presentation on the world stage the voice of Scotland does not exist.

Scots are also informed that as a member of the Union the international community views them with respect and dignity, which is obviously incorrect as demonstrated by such internal stories printed by the often perceived Scots sycophantic press. Everything is filtered through Westminster.

The Scots world view has therefore spent almost the entire time of Union being shaped by London. Scots see the world largely through London’s selective lens; even the weather maps on BBC television contain subtle minimizing psychology.

Thirdly, the hostage taker threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception of having the capability to do so. The captive judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor than to resist and face murder.

Clearly the attempt, almost successfully, was made to destroy an independent national identity and erase that culture from amongst the Brotherhood of Nations. Through encouragement of divisions along ethnic/religious divides, clearances, and two unsuccessful risings, the realm of Scotland was to be relegated to simply “North Britain” throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth and much of the twentieth century’s.

It is in fact not uncommon to still see the phrase “North Britain” used in print, video and other media post 2010. That it was largely successful on the international stage is evidenced by the fact that to the world community at large, England and Britain are interchangeable phrases for the same identity. Scotland is not perceived as a nation in its own right by much of our world.

Our voice is not “stronger within”, it is decidedly gagged.

The dominant faction of the Union (England) began apparent moderation of these policies as the twentieth century wore on. It is arguable the moderation took place after Westminster perceived the case as “won beyond redemption”. When Scots returned a Tory majority vote in the 1950’s that opinion was likely catalyzed.

The centuries of abuse also arguably left the most solid underlying impression in the national identity of the common Scot that both the ability and the will were present on England’s part for an attempt at utter extinction of the national Scots identity should it become a necessity. Endurance and compliance could, in large part, prevent this. Even in today’s Olympics, when Scots athletes proudly display the Saltire it is, for the most part, simply edited out – like the attempt upon Scotland herself from history through Westminster’s control of broadcasting.

With a referendum approaching the overriding theme from the Union is negativity. Scots have heard all the doom cries, possibly more than could have been expected. Everything from expulsion from Europe to bombing our airports, Scots have been promised fiscal and literal death. Perhaps NATO would be a good idea to give us allies and forestall English aggression – the overtone is unmistakable.

Lastly, the captive sees the perpetrator as showing some degree of kindness. Kindness serves as the cornerstone of Stockholm syndrome; the condition will not develop unless the captor exhibits it in some form toward the hostage. However, captives often misinterpret a lack of abuse as kindness and may develop feelings of appreciation for this perceived benevolence. If the captor is purely evil and abusive, the hostage will respond with hatred. But, if perpetrators show some kindness, victims will submerge the anger they feel in response to the terror and concentrate on the captors’ “good side” to protect themselves.

The captive nation (Scotland), from the apparent perspective of a mass of individuals within the nation could be said in many/most cases to observe the union as “Kindly”.

This is because it ensures in the present day and age that a roof is still available, as is nourishment. What appears more difficult for these individuals to understand is that these same mechanisms would in almost all scenarios still exist without the union, perhaps in greater plenty and with greater security.

The Union and its proponents self edit the atrocities, the abuses and the practiced cultural genocide, highlighting instead warm and fuzzy “better together” images, without ever explaining exactly how we are better together.

It remains to be seen what the outcome of austerity will ultimately be with respect to the Union as Scots witness the dismantling of the socially beneficial aspects of the United Kingdom. It may alter the “kindly” perception enough to create a substantial difference.

These scenarios are apparently subconsciously discounted by media and politicians alike, with phrases such as “Scotland’s wishes to be considered” (a statement by Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg with regards to Scots being forced to change the date of their national elections by Westminster).

The incredible issue here is that these statements can be portrayed as acts of benevolent kindness rather than an inalienable right in a democratic society! Somehow rather than generate a universal national anger, these comments instead are apparently seen by many less astute Scots with a type of “we’re being cared for” perspective.

Conclusion.

When only 3% of Scots residents view themselves as “British” foremost, it seems appropriate to enquire how this Union survives. Furthermore, what, if any, are the driving factors for its survival outwith the probability of the almost universally unhealthily decried Stockholm Syndrome or England’s economic need.

Throughout the last three hundred years there have been a great many notable cases which reflect the fact many of us, past and present, arguably, very strongly arguably, suffer from the Stockholm syndrome. There are very few equally notable exceptions.

In cases where Stockholm syndrome has occurred, the captive is in a situation where they have been stripped of nearly all forms of independence as well as their basic needs for survival, and the captor has effectively gained control of the victim’s life.

Some experts say that the hostage regresses to, perhaps, a state of infancy; the captive must cry for food, or in our case natural sovereign powers, or remain silent, and exist in an extreme state of dependence.

In contrast, the perpetrator serves as a 'mother' figure protecting the 'child' from a threatening outside world, including law enforcement’s deadly weapons. The issue with Stockholm’s is that it is insidious; it is invisible to the sufferer.

We can only conclude that, as a nation, it is past time for Scotland to take her position of responsibility in the global community. It is time for individual contribution, for individual recognition. It is time to cease being Scots in failure and “Brits” when triumphant. It is time to stand proudly once again.

This is where we stand today, but with a referendum due in 2014, and those who would vote “No” appearing to opt for decades more privatisation, austerity, asset stripping and social policy decimation is there any other ready explanation than that posed above?

For those who would vote “No” in the referendum, knowing that by common consensus they will be poorer if they do, they should ask themselves why they would deny their own Sovereignty, why they would further impoverish themselves and their children.

The definition of foolhardiness has been said to be repeating the action and expecting a different outcome. As the Union has undeniably failed most Scots, it is amongst the most unequal nations on earth. Individuals who would vote “No” must surely question their choice.

Therapy anyone?