TV Political Debates; Conundrum or Not?

I’ve watched with interest as the SNP have been once again excluded from the General Election debates.

It’s actually been with a great deal of interest since they effectively won a case in 2010, that judicial review stated it was inappropriate to exclude them.

At the time, the arguments used were marginally credible.

The first statement was that they weren’t a ‘UK’ party, but a regional party. The argument then was that as they only contested seats in Scotland, then they’d no part in a UK wide debate.

The second argument actually held a bit more water, at least until this years’ debacle, sorry debate schedule was announced. Both those arguments are now relatively simple to defeat, but before that, we should examine another aspect of the debates.

No actually, I was correct in the first instance for now it is a debacle of democracy which is designed to perpetuate a two party system. The fact that it’s already been ‘pre-ordained’ that the leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties will share a head to head excluding all others, is surely a debacle; it makes a laughing stock of any pretence of democracy.

In a true democratic system, in an honourable one, all prospective candidates would be involved in the first debate in any election. The representation would then be whittled down until only the best two or three candidates remained. For these to be selected in advance by the media shows a system beyond corrupt. For it to be accepted largely without question shows a populace who for the most part is simply apathetic and doesn’t care. The referendum in September was a democratic awakening in Scotland, it shows we now care. And we care a whole lot.

As to rebalancing some of that media and Westminster engendered democratic deficit, especially following on from the judicial review in 2010, surely now with being the third largest party in the current UK, the SNP should have a seat at these debates?

The establishment will still fight to prevent it, because the establishment is about perpetuating the UK. With the SNP as the third largest party, the only argument for the establishment to now fall back upon, and it’d be a delaying tactic only, would be that the SNP aren’t a ‘national, UK wide party’. The ‘nation’ part falls to bits when we consider that Cameron, Miliband and Clegg all went on record last month to declare ‘Of course, Scotland is a nation’. That essentially and defensibly, from their perspective, only leaves the ‘Not a UK wide party’ argument.

The issue for the SNP is that it has a policy of not contesting seats in a GE which are not ‘in Scotland’.

Historically there’s a delicious irony here, for their own policy has gifted their opponents the whip with which to flay the party before the electoral masses.

How and ever, the solution could be achieved easily; and it would leave the opposition in a place somewhere between a quandary and a cleft stick.

Contest the seat held by Alan Beith; namely, the constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed. Legally, although adopted into the area of Northumberland by statute, the town of Berwick upon Tweed actually belongs to neither country, and we’ve just had that affirmation that we’re both countries.

Legally, the SNP can’t be prevented from doing this, which gives the Westminster cabal one of two options; they can retain their claim that the SNP aren’t actually a ‘UK Party’ and effectively concede that Berwick’s a Scottish town, or they can recognize that with seats being contested south of the current border, the SNP are a UK party, they just have the stated goal of dismantling the UK and returning true power to at least some of her people.

The SNP also have the justifiable stance here of claiming Berwick-upon-Tweed as historically a Scottish town, they can even put hands on hearts and smile with a tongue in cheek attitude as they point to the fact it’s actually internationally recognized as such, nodding in the direction of FIFA and reminding everyone that Berwick Rangers play in the Scottish League.

The fact that much of Northumberland is attached to that seat is rather irrelevant for this exercise; it’s about what the seat’s called.

Scotland’s nationalists don’t have to win the seat, but if handled properly there’s a good chance they could. No, all they have to do is wrong foot the establishment, and an announcement such as this would surely do that, especially as they could rightly point out, that unofficial polls have shown a majority of the townsfolk there would rather see the border moved anyway?

The Death of the NHS (Scotland)

It’s interesting how the Unionist Parties, all of them, say that the fate of the NHS in Scotland is ‘devolved’, that therefore it becomes wholly the choice of the Scottish Parliament to privatise, or not to privatise, all the while claiming that NHS spending in England is increasing, so our ‘Barnett Equivalent’ is increasing.

Perhaps some of us are stupid enough to believe that. Westminster certainly thinks we are right now, at least judging by its actions.

It’s a bit like me giving you my car, which you absolutely need but don’t have the money to run. I’ll tell you it’ll be fine, just give me your vote and everything will work out, I’ll even pay for the maintenance, I’ll pay for the roads too, the infrastructure, I just won’t tell you it’s actually your money I’m using.

I’m not going to tell you today, when I need that vote, that tomorrow, after you’ve given it to me, I’ll stop giving you the money to buy petrol,

even though I know you don’t have the ability to buy it yourself. I won’t ever actually ask for the car back, why should I? Effectively, I’ll just stop you using it so I don’t have to maintain it any longer; that means I can ignore the infrastructure too.

My car in your hands, the NHS as we know it in Westminster’s hands, both a bit useless after that vote has been used, both of little value once the currency of negotiation has been spent. Without the ability to fund its NHS being firmly in Scotland’s hands, it’s not Scotland’s NHS. It never will be, like anything else, if we can’t fund it, like a car with no petrol, it’s pointless.

There’re two things we all need to be aware of when it comes to funding.

Firstly, Barnett’s on the way out. No Westminster party has pledged to maintain it; mind you, after the student loans debacle, amongst others, those promises wouldn’t be worth much even if they were made.

Secondly, NHS spending in England has increased, but a significant part of that increase now funds shareholder profits, not patient care. It’s still ‘government spending’ they argue in London Town, so Scotland benefits. They’re right as well, but only for today.

After you spend that vote on Thursday, if you spend it foolishly, if you vote ‘No’, here’s what will happen to your NHS, amongst other cherished institutions.

The main English parties have all said they are committed to Austerity. In actual fact, they’ve no choice; they spend so much on servicing a debt created by their economic mismanagement that it’s possibly their only true option.

UK Debt payments, just for interest, already equal four times the cost of Scotland’s NHS, by 2020 they’re going to be close to outstripping the cost of the entire UK’s health care system. That money has to be ‘found’ from somewhere, and they can’t indenture Scottish Oil or sell off the Royal Mail again.

The money will be found from the same place it’s always found, our taxes. In this case, stealth taxes once more. Just like the pensions raids, except now it’ll be an NHS raid.

The NHS in England is largely privately run these days; we just pay the bills and the profits on top. It’s ripe for shifting from the public books.

As that shifting process initiates, expect co-pays to be introduced in England, the think tanks and committees are already sounding them out, the responses they’re getting are positive.

The next stage will be a supplemental ‘tax’ or extra NI contribution, after that employer funded insurance will become de-rigueur. Each small step not that big of a deal alone, each small step so singularly significant moving that £100 billion plus from the government books to our own. Each small step contributing to City profits, even as the square mile contributes to the party coffers.

Expect, over the course of several years, the NHS to go from ‘universal entitlement’ to a ‘needs based benefit’.

As this all happens, even at just a twenty pound co-pay per visit, and three visits a year, that’s 3.6 billion shaved from the public budget in England. That’s about 1/3 of Scotland’s NHS costs, and that proportionate allocation won’t come north anymore, even in the unlikely event Barnett survives. That twenty pound co-pay is only half what Labour’s proposing mind you, Red-Ed is on record at £120 per person a year, with other’s in Westminster’s circles suggesting a tenner a month a head ‘access fee’ per user, so that’d be over seven billion, it’ll cover a bit more mismanagement then?

Typically it can be expected that any tests and procedures will also come with their individual co-pays, and all this will happen, because folk are only too willing to ‘pay a co-pay to save their NHS’, not realizing that even although the staff in front of them might be wearing NHS insignias, they actually aren’t NHS employees. The public doesn’t realize that what ‘they’re paying to save’ is already effectively dead, in England.

Once these conditions become the norm, its reasonable, based upon past trends, to expect those still using the NHS to become vilified as are the public health recipients in America by the US right wing media, they’ll be just another round of ‘benefits scroungers’.

When it’s all done, just remember, you cast that vote, and with an opportunity to truly change the way folk get treated in these Islands, throughout the entirety of these islands, if you cast it with poor judgement, you’ll have used up all your currency, and Westminster certainly isn’t going to call for free critical care or life support for a cause which it views as simply creating wasteful constitutional crises. If Westminster can stop it, there’ll be no more ‘wasteful’ constitutional amendments, otherwise known as devolution.

Remember too, on some future day, when you personally need that life support, from the birth of a child to major surgery, or even simply your elderly care in the years to come, as it is in England already, you’d better be prepared to pay.

There you have it, it’s quite simple really, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Alistair Darling, Ed Miliband or the man who helped start the sell-off of the NHS, and raided your pensions, Gordon Brown. Would you buy a used car from them under any conditions, not just these conditions? How about a soon to be very underfunded NHS Perhaps the promise of a scandal free Westminster works for you?

If you wouldn’t do any of these, why would you buy a Union?

Guest Writer: TV, Radio and Media Personality Jay Crawford With His Perspective On The Independence Debate.

My name is Jay Crawford, I worked in radio, TV and press for almost 40 years in Scotland. With less than three weeks to go in this Independence for Scotland debate I've seen both sides of the argument forcefully put. However I've been disappointed by the lack of balance in the media. 

Jay Crawford Says YES.

For me it has been an easy decision to vote YES. I was brought up to remember that my ancestors fought for Scotland going back to the original wars of independence. William Wallaces' mother was a Crawford and my family have been patriots for almost 1000 years.

However, during this debate I have been made to feel like a stranger in my own country. I have been ridiculed for my belief that Scotland is a nation not just a region of the United Kingdom. I have been told that being a patriot is wrong and nationalism is akin to Germany in the 1930's.

I feel as if I am considered to be somehow deluded or living in some kind of romantic Walter Scott novel. I put up a Saltire flag on my house recently and have been laughed at and made to defend it to neighbours who at the same time are trying to sell me Better Together ties to wear. Imagine being derided for putting up your countries flag in your own country! I live in East Lothian about five miles from Athelstaneford where the flag of Scotland was invented. Did you know that the Saltire is the oldest national flag in the world from 830 AD?

Both my parents fought in WW2 my grandfathers fought in WW1 and after each of those conflicts they were told that Scotland would get devolved powers. I myself campaigned for devolution in 1979 and again we were conned by Westminster.

We know now that the Labour Government in the 1970's lied to us about North Sea oil. For all the money that has been taken from that we've seen little investment in our own country, yet we're labelled "subsidy junkies" by many south of the border. Yet a litre of petrol is about £1.30 and a litre of Highland Spring water is £2.70!

Alistair Darling is a lawyer. He argues for the UK. However all Scottish lawyers practice Scots Law, this is kept separate from English Law. If we're Better Together why does Mr Darling not suggest scrapping Scots Law for UK law? Ask any lawyer in Scotland who is voting NO if they'd be prepared to give up Scots Law and allow English Lawyers to practice in Scotland and watch them choke.

This referendum is about taking power back to the people of Scotland.

This referendum is about Scotland being governed by people in Scotland and not the English elite with the old school ties and Oxford and Cambridge, Old Etonians et al. Scottish education used to be first class but we've fallen behind the rest of the world unless you can afford £15,000 a year for each of your children.

If we vote YES we will have the chance to re-shape our political landscape in Scotland.

We can make a fair and just society.

We can send a message to the elite political class of Britain that says, your power and position in our society is only possible by the good will of the people and take that for granted if you dare.

You want to help the UK? As they say on an aeroplane put your own oxygen mask on first then help others. We can help our English cousins best by example, free ourselves and perhaps they'll free themselves from a corrupt and unjust Britain ruled by fear and prejudice.

After the 18th of September we'll all have to look in the mirror and face the reality of what we've done or what we've lost.

With Thanks to Jay. Original Article is Here

The shame of NO

I was asked recently what my reaction would be to a ‘No Vote’.

The reality, no matter how I look at the various responses, there’s only one that will fit.

I’d be ashamed of my country; I’d be ashamed of my people.

The reasoning is simple; with a majority voice my country will proclaim to the world at large that it is No nation of ‘proud Scots’, but has been bred into becoming a nation of wee, cowering, timourous beasties.

It will proclaim from every polling station in our land that it has No self belief, No self worth and No aspiration.

I’ll feel that way, and I’ll believe it, because of one thing above all; it’s what the ‘NO Campaign’ have told us. It doesn’t matter what you call them, those paid and indentured lackeys who are trying to spread fear amongst us. ‘Better Together’, ‘Vote No Borders’, ‘No Thanks’, they’re all the same, backed by London or City interests, funded by Tory donors and peers.

I’ll feel ashamed because the ‘NO’ campaign has continually demanded certainties from those who’d choose a better direction - and let’s face it any direction we choose is better than one forced or foisted upon us from afar. I’ll feel ashamed because these people have the power, right now, to provide the certainties they demand of the positive message.

I’m already ashamed, not of my nation, not of the Scots, but of what David Cameron, chief of the nay-sayers has done with what he declares is ‘his country’. He alone, as de-facto leader of the negative message, has the power to inject certainty. He alone can direct that the questions be asked that remove the doubt. He alone can demand that when the time comes that England and an independent Scotland assume their rightful places within the EU, within NATO and continue being party to any other treaties to which we’re currently obligated; unless, of course, we choose differently.

He and he alone is responsible for driving much of the lack of information, the lack of credibility, the direction of the media reporting that has been so convoluted and biased as to leave many Scots bewildered.

Yet, he is not entirely responsible for their bewilderment. For in the end, although they might be confused by his threats, innuendoes, predictions of cataclysm and doom, they and they alone will bear the responsibility for the true disaster that will transpire afterwards – because they did not take on the responsibility of discovering the truth behind all the misinformation. The Truth is out there. They should have taken the time and sought out the answers for themselves.

They will be responsible, because on September 18th, for the first time in their lives, each and every Scot will wake up with the responsibility for our own future, and it will be up to each and every Scot to decide what to do with that responsibility.

For those that vote NO because of vested interest; for the Lords, Ladies, CBE’s and OBE’s, or those that need the British State for a meal-ticket, those chiefest amongst the current nay-sayers, in a way I can respect their NO vote, they are after all working diligently to preserve their entitlements. For that which the British State can bestow can also remove. They’re nothing other than the paid lackey’s of a London establishment that daren’t even engage publically in our debate, a debate which wouldn’t even exist without London controlled media. They may not acknowledge their position as such, they may be genuinely confused, but I doubt it.

I will be ashamed because, should there be a NO vote, so many of my country’s people will have bought into such a negative message, such a song devoid of hope and aspiration that I can only imagine they’ve forgotten what it means to be Scots. In a dependent Scotland a dirge will be top of the pops.

I’ll still defend your right to your views, to that NO vote, should you choose to cast it, should you select to abdicate your sovereignty on the day it is given to you, even as I’m ashamed you saw the need to mark that particular box.

You see, the reason for my feelings won’t be immediately apparent on the 18th, but on the days, weeks, months and years afterwards.

It’s during that subsequent time that Scotland will display the results of having its soft proud underbelly eviscerated. Those who have driven this movement, this retention of new-found rights that will come on the 18th, if they watch them evaporate that night, you should believe that the hopes and aspirations they carry for their country will pour from their souls as well.

When you do that to the collective spirit of a nation, there’s only one result, and it’s not a good one.

I can guarantee, that there’ll be a dearth of folks to proudly proclaim they voted NO in the years to come, they’ll not sit with their children and grandchildren, they’ll not tell them how hard they worked to secure their futures, how the cross on the box was only the last small step in centuries long struggle, a struggle that for many of them lasted an entire lifetime.

Actually, as I think on it, you don’t need me to be ashamed for you, because the next time an English government, for with over 80% of the seats in the Commons, that’s what it is, an English government; the next time one of them foists something on you or yours that you despise, I know you’ll look back ruefully, and you’ll wish you’d acted differently on that day. I know that then though, you’ll not proclaim what you did on that day; that you were either a wee timourous, cowering beastie, or bribed.

Ultimately, the 18th is a day for us to decide our future and that afterwards we will be in the enviable position of being able to make our own choices ad infinitum. That ability to access your representatives, to have your rights protected, to decide a constitution, to choose who to treat and ally with, it’s called freedom. To have it filtered by another parliament in another country where you have naught but the tiniest of voices, it’s called servitude.

Servitude; willing servitude is a cause for shame.

An Open Letter To An Unapproachable Prime Minister.

Dear Mr. Cameron, 

I hope that you will take the time to read this, that it finds its way into your hands. You see, I’d like just three questions answered, and if you can answer them to my satisfaction, I’ll really might consider a ‘No’ vote.

My first question concerns the currency bit. You see, the media, much of whom I believe you effectively control (well, your lot in Westminster did ‘reserve’ broadcasting after all) are pounding on about this currency thing. Now, allowing broadcasting is reserved to you, they are delivering your message, which makes me curious. 

My question specifically about the currency bit is, well, why should I care?

Now, let me tell you why I'm asking that. You see, for me to care about something, it has to have some sort of value and since about 1930, under Westminster’s stewardship, the pound has steadily devalued to the point where it’s not really worth much at all, not any more. It was $5 to the pound back in 1930. Mind you, the dollar’s devalued too, but the pound’s gone downhill at twice that rate, which isn’t very good testimony to Westminster’s handling of the currency in my pocket. 

With the best predictor of future behaviour being the proven record of the past, you might have to work hard to convince me you won’t keep up that stealth tax called Inflation. We all know inflation is just a way of hiding mismanaged economies. So, to be clear, do you, or do you not want me to vote for ongoing economic mismanagement?

In view of the last three centuries, I’d love to hear your plans for fixing things as we go forward. Don’t worry, I know I can’t hold you to any promise, but I’d like to hear anyway?

That brings me to my second question; it’s about management too. Most specifically, of your responsibilities to those who elect you. Let’s look at the NHS in England for a minute. 

In 2012 you passed a law effectively repealing the 1947 act which Bevin brought forward, guaranteeing universal medical care, free at the point of service. There wasn't a referendum, there was no vote, it wasn't in a manifesto, but your coalition just did it anyway. 

To all intents and purposes, my family and friends in England don’t have the right to be seen by a physician. I know you say they do, but the legal right to receive care has been removed with much of the privatisation that’s going on down there.

I'm fairly certain you know that most folk aren't aware of the changes, mostly because of your stealth privatisation we are now at the point where global companies currently run much of what was England’s NHS. I say “what was”, because although they still look like the NHS staff to the patients, with NHS badges and all, we really know who they work for, and it’s not the NHS. So, this question is a ‘two-parter’ on health care.

The first part is, why did you remove the government’s statutory requirement to provide care?

The second part of the question is, in the event of a "No" vote will Scotland still be in a position to keep her NHS in its current format or will your austerity program force changes there too and allow private health-care companies take over our hospitals and GP surgeries?

Oops! There’s me crossing back to my first question; managing, or mismanaging the money. Thinking about the NHS, perhaps if you had cared (really cared) about Sterling, maybe the money would have been available to maintain England’s public health-care system? But you promised in your manifesto the "NHS Was Safe In Conservative Hands"! Seems we should have tried to force you to keep your word.

Keeping your word, sort of leads into my third question. You see, I know you can lie; your Coalition can even sign pledges to get votes and then blame it on the ‘bad boy’s down at the swings’ while you go off and do the exact opposite, e.g. Student Loans.

Personally, I think that’s because we don't have a written constitution and this is an area where we are virtually alone amongst developed nations. There is nothing guaranteeing anyone any rights, except Parliamentarians, and it seems to me like they’re pretty much always ‘all right’.

Now, you've said we don’t need a constitution down London way. Really? While you quietly privatise, demonise, demoralise and devalue much of what "The British" way of life was. 

Nevertheless, I have to disagree and ask you for a constitution. 

I fully understand I'm getting the offer to have my say in the referendum. Now, if my rights are enshrined and then protected for the future generations then "my say" won’t stop after the referendum. I don't know if you noticed, but we have been promised a written constitution following a "Yes" vote. That means we can (if we wish) petition to have public healthcare as a right or to have our own mail service or even recall bad governments and outlaw lobbying. 
I don't expect we'd get all of our desires, but the American’s (whom you apparently greatly admire) have a fabulous saying you may have heard; "no taxation without representation". They get to vote on almost everything. I would like that, but I know I can’t ever get it under the present Westminster system. Tell me why you won’t enshrine our rights. Unless the reality is that we truly haven’t got any; just what London deigns to allow on any given day. 

Will you promise to clarify and then enshrine our rights?

So, there you go, my three questions. Sadly, I'm expecting if you do read this, you’ll just say ‘No Thanks’ to answering any of them, since nobody can force you, even though you’re officially employed by each and every one of us. In fact, you and your fellow parliamentarians seem to prefer to keep a system where you’re better together; it’s one where London meddling seems to know no borders either. 

I'm just about finished but simply out of devilment, I’ll sneak in a last question. Why is it that when everybody agreed this referendum was for the Scots alone to decide, is one side funded almost entirely by donations appearing from Tory millionaires living outwith Scotland. Oh, sorry about that - sort of slipped my mind a bit; nobody has the power to enforce you to keep your word - or answer our questions, do they?

Now, please, convince me why I should vote for you, because, after all, that’s what a "No" vote is, isn’t it? It’s nothing less than a vote for the current unrepresentative system and the current leader; and that’d be yourself Mr. Cameron - and your likes.

Yours Sincerely,

Hazel Lewry.

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?