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.
Showing posts with label Johann Lamont. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Johann Lamont. Show all posts
Saturday, 25 October 2014
Thursday, 21 August 2014
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,
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
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 |
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
Monday, 1 October 2012
Either Holyrood or Westminster must go.
That’s the problem with devolution – it just doesn't work. It’s either got to be an all or nothing scenario for any state, or some type of federal set up where the nations run their own affairs but contribute to a joint “Uber-administration” in which each nation has an absolutely equal say, like the US senate.
Johann Lamont and her London bosses know this also, as do the Tories and Lib-Dem’s. If we understand that 2014 is ultimately, in Westminster’s eyes, an either / or referendum we can begin to understand the recent labour speech in Scotland, it was designed to bring our nation into line with England. If we vote no, the signal is strong, devolution is dead, there actually will be no need for devolution, and we’ll be just like England.
In the event of a “Yes” vote, Ms. Lamont’s speech of last Tuesday is irrelevant, we all know it.
If the insanity of a “No” vote comes to pass, we will simply be informed that we were very clearly told what to expect. Do not doubt it. It will come to pass.
This will happen because the UK and EU are not federal institutions; they don’t even pretend to be. It is therefore baffling why any small nation would sign up to either, effectively volunteering for a jackboot across the jugular.
Proportionate representation across nations just doesn’t work – folks don’t mind in the good times, but when the bad times bite the coin flips to a “who are they to dictate?” type scenario. Fractures erupt.
That either Holyrood or Westminster must go is self evident. As a glaring example, and there have been many from the Megrahi affair to planning permission, and not including Ms. Lamont’s apparently insane speech last week, please look at just one headline in the latest Sunday Herald concerning the amalgamation of Scotland’s police forces.
More important for the purpose of this article is the lead in sentence from the headline.
“SCOTLAND's single police force is facing "horrendous" cuts worth £300 million over the next three-and-a-half years, according to official figures leaked to the Sunday Herald”.
Wow, now that’s an attention grabber and no mistake, thousands of jobs must go to make that type of saving possible. The implication, wrongly, is that it’s Holyrood’s fault.
Frankly the cuts to the police force where services are duplicated can only be a good thing, it saves the taxpayer money. Accelerating the cuts is a very bad thing, John Swinney knows this, but he can’t avoid Westminster’s diktat.
In this amalgamation every reasoning Scot must surely applaud the Scottish government. A single police force for a nation of five million is eminently sensible.
The speed of the cuts and their human consequences is certainly not a good thing; that is a direct result of devolution.
With the austerity measures being forced upon us by decades of Westminster bungling, corruption and ineptitude, resulting in Holyrood budget cuts, John Swinney was put into an impossible position. His budget has been reduced; he has to make efficiencies and cuts.
The problem is that there’s a human side to these efficiencies and cuts, and it can and will have dramatic individual consequences. Take the USA for example, the recession/depression hit in 2008. They do counting tricks like Westminster, if you’re not actively looking for work, you’re not officially unemployed. If you give up, you don’t count.
This has allowed the US to keep its official unemployment figures from reaching outlandish levels; meantime for young adults suicide has just passed vehicular accidents as the leading cause of death for the first time ever.
There is always a human cost.
John Swinney has been put into a position where he has to pass the human cost onto Westminster, to hope that they take care of it, because he simply can’t. With devolution he doesn’t need to worry about social security, Westminster simply won’t allow him that luxury.
These thousands of newly unemployed, from the police merger alone that will hit the dole must still be cared for in the greater context of our societal obligations. Or not, but the “or not” is not John Swinney’s concern – it’s not his budget responsibility.
This is a glaring example of why devolution simply doesn’t work, why anything but a partnership of equals simply doesn’t work.
Conversely, this is why independence does and will work.
Under devolution we now have a situation where the governing Westminster party’s ineptitude and ignorance is forcing cuts. Swinney can impose cuts of this scale simply because it’s not his budget that has to underwrite them.
Really, really think about this for a minute, it’s devolution in action.
Westminster is incompetent.
Westminster forces Holyrood to enact savage cuts as a direct result of Westminster’s incompetence.
Holyrood, which has absolutely no choice, passes along these cuts. The police forces [in this case] are merged at a grossly accelerated rate and thousands are unemployed.
These thousands become unemployed so fast the private side can’t accommodate.
There’s a labour glut which gets worse, this helps drive salaries backwards in real terms.
Holyrood meets its budget as imposed upon it by Westminster.
This is a devolved settlement. This is Westminster control. Holyrood has no options.
However, what isn’t obvious is that the responsibility for these thousands doesn’t go away and as private industry can’t absorb that many that quickly, what exactly is their fate?
Under devolution the answer is simple, they go on Welfare, support, buroo, social, call it what you will. These multitudes have just become Westminster’s responsibility.
It’s why devolution doesn’t work and independence must happen. Westminster just forced Holyrood to meet its budget.
Except in forcing Holyrood to meet its budget, Westminster just ensured it can’t live within its own budget.
Westminster must now cut benefits or borrow more – either way it’s doing things a nation or the impacted individuals can’t afford. London’s kick-started a vicious cycle, the casualties will be many, but is acceptable in London because their voices are small.
What existed under devolution was hidden in the times of plenty, but when famine strikes the cracks yawn wide.
Westminster is well aware of the situation, so is Holyrood. One government or the other must go, there’s no option except mutual bankruptcy unless devolution consists solely of a puppet administration.
As there is no longer a puppet administration, neither Westminster nor Holyrood wishes to see bankruptcy. Both are banking on 2014. Both must secure Scotland for themselves. That is the truth of referendum 2014. Only with Holyrood is there an opportunity to ensure we will look after our own interests.
In an independent Scotland as with any prudent nation, budgets would be somewhat controlled; it is probable we will not be as heavily impacted by fortune’s variables. Irrespective we know one thing. If Holyrood had to make the choice between a slower more orderly and better managed draw down of surplus staff, or be faced with the welfare bill for those it had just made unemployed, we could expect any sane administration to opt for the more orderly draw down.
The current police amalgamation is providing a snapshot of the reality of devolution; it doesn’t work. The only point to suffering the ignominy of a devolved or supported administration is if that administration is but a step on the path to a rightful reassertion of statehood.
If the path leads anywhere else, it’s pointless.
Holyrood or Westminster – 2014 will be the year of decision, the choice is that simple.
Unless you are advocating the end of Holyrood as anything but a parish council, unless you want an end to Scotland’s parliament, there’s only one option.
Johann Lamont and her London bosses know this also, as do the Tories and Lib-Dem’s. If we understand that 2014 is ultimately, in Westminster’s eyes, an either / or referendum we can begin to understand the recent labour speech in Scotland, it was designed to bring our nation into line with England. If we vote no, the signal is strong, devolution is dead, there actually will be no need for devolution, and we’ll be just like England.
In the event of a “Yes” vote, Ms. Lamont’s speech of last Tuesday is irrelevant, we all know it.
If the insanity of a “No” vote comes to pass, we will simply be informed that we were very clearly told what to expect. Do not doubt it. It will come to pass.
This will happen because the UK and EU are not federal institutions; they don’t even pretend to be. It is therefore baffling why any small nation would sign up to either, effectively volunteering for a jackboot across the jugular.
Proportionate representation across nations just doesn’t work – folks don’t mind in the good times, but when the bad times bite the coin flips to a “who are they to dictate?” type scenario. Fractures erupt.
That either Holyrood or Westminster must go is self evident. As a glaring example, and there have been many from the Megrahi affair to planning permission, and not including Ms. Lamont’s apparently insane speech last week, please look at just one headline in the latest Sunday Herald concerning the amalgamation of Scotland’s police forces.
More important for the purpose of this article is the lead in sentence from the headline.
“SCOTLAND's single police force is facing "horrendous" cuts worth £300 million over the next three-and-a-half years, according to official figures leaked to the Sunday Herald”.
Wow, now that’s an attention grabber and no mistake, thousands of jobs must go to make that type of saving possible. The implication, wrongly, is that it’s Holyrood’s fault.
Frankly the cuts to the police force where services are duplicated can only be a good thing, it saves the taxpayer money. Accelerating the cuts is a very bad thing, John Swinney knows this, but he can’t avoid Westminster’s diktat.
In this amalgamation every reasoning Scot must surely applaud the Scottish government. A single police force for a nation of five million is eminently sensible.
The speed of the cuts and their human consequences is certainly not a good thing; that is a direct result of devolution.
With the austerity measures being forced upon us by decades of Westminster bungling, corruption and ineptitude, resulting in Holyrood budget cuts, John Swinney was put into an impossible position. His budget has been reduced; he has to make efficiencies and cuts.
The problem is that there’s a human side to these efficiencies and cuts, and it can and will have dramatic individual consequences. Take the USA for example, the recession/depression hit in 2008. They do counting tricks like Westminster, if you’re not actively looking for work, you’re not officially unemployed. If you give up, you don’t count.
This has allowed the US to keep its official unemployment figures from reaching outlandish levels; meantime for young adults suicide has just passed vehicular accidents as the leading cause of death for the first time ever.
There is always a human cost.
John Swinney has been put into a position where he has to pass the human cost onto Westminster, to hope that they take care of it, because he simply can’t. With devolution he doesn’t need to worry about social security, Westminster simply won’t allow him that luxury.
These thousands of newly unemployed, from the police merger alone that will hit the dole must still be cared for in the greater context of our societal obligations. Or not, but the “or not” is not John Swinney’s concern – it’s not his budget responsibility.
This is a glaring example of why devolution simply doesn’t work, why anything but a partnership of equals simply doesn’t work.
Conversely, this is why independence does and will work.
Under devolution we now have a situation where the governing Westminster party’s ineptitude and ignorance is forcing cuts. Swinney can impose cuts of this scale simply because it’s not his budget that has to underwrite them.
Really, really think about this for a minute, it’s devolution in action.
Westminster is incompetent.
Westminster forces Holyrood to enact savage cuts as a direct result of Westminster’s incompetence.
Holyrood, which has absolutely no choice, passes along these cuts. The police forces [in this case] are merged at a grossly accelerated rate and thousands are unemployed.
These thousands become unemployed so fast the private side can’t accommodate.
There’s a labour glut which gets worse, this helps drive salaries backwards in real terms.
Holyrood meets its budget as imposed upon it by Westminster.
This is a devolved settlement. This is Westminster control. Holyrood has no options.
However, what isn’t obvious is that the responsibility for these thousands doesn’t go away and as private industry can’t absorb that many that quickly, what exactly is their fate?
Under devolution the answer is simple, they go on Welfare, support, buroo, social, call it what you will. These multitudes have just become Westminster’s responsibility.
It’s why devolution doesn’t work and independence must happen. Westminster just forced Holyrood to meet its budget.
Except in forcing Holyrood to meet its budget, Westminster just ensured it can’t live within its own budget.
Westminster must now cut benefits or borrow more – either way it’s doing things a nation or the impacted individuals can’t afford. London’s kick-started a vicious cycle, the casualties will be many, but is acceptable in London because their voices are small.
What existed under devolution was hidden in the times of plenty, but when famine strikes the cracks yawn wide.
Westminster is well aware of the situation, so is Holyrood. One government or the other must go, there’s no option except mutual bankruptcy unless devolution consists solely of a puppet administration.
As there is no longer a puppet administration, neither Westminster nor Holyrood wishes to see bankruptcy. Both are banking on 2014. Both must secure Scotland for themselves. That is the truth of referendum 2014. Only with Holyrood is there an opportunity to ensure we will look after our own interests.
In an independent Scotland as with any prudent nation, budgets would be somewhat controlled; it is probable we will not be as heavily impacted by fortune’s variables. Irrespective we know one thing. If Holyrood had to make the choice between a slower more orderly and better managed draw down of surplus staff, or be faced with the welfare bill for those it had just made unemployed, we could expect any sane administration to opt for the more orderly draw down.
The current police amalgamation is providing a snapshot of the reality of devolution; it doesn’t work. The only point to suffering the ignominy of a devolved or supported administration is if that administration is but a step on the path to a rightful reassertion of statehood.
If the path leads anywhere else, it’s pointless.
Holyrood or Westminster – 2014 will be the year of decision, the choice is that simple.
Unless you are advocating the end of Holyrood as anything but a parish council, unless you want an end to Scotland’s parliament, there’s only one option.
Saturday, 29 September 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)