That’s really the only two words I can use to sum up either the Tory or Labour party manifestos.
If you’d rather, ‘In Yer Dreams Mate’ might work as well.
Look at what being offered, count the cost, and note the current account deficit.
There’s no money.
Where will the ability to pay for these pledges come from?
The poor can’t pay, the rich won’t pay (their lobbyists will see to that) and the middle class are about broke.
That leaves another round of demonization followed by sweeping benefit cuts, or cuts to basic services. Either way, it’ll do nothing to halt the swiftly rising tide of need for things like food banks.
This is not my kind of society.
Both parties could pre-identify savings; it’s really not that hard. There is a huge one in Trident for starters. There are two more in a couple of aircraft carriers that this island state, with its four constituent nations, can’t even afford the aircraft for. Sell those ships and put the cash in the coffers, and yes, we’ll take a loss, but then we did vote in the idiots that ordered them in their imperial pretentiousness. However, that loss will be a one-time loss, not an ongoing drain and we as a nation won’t be paying to support America’s military industrial complex rather than our own.
I thought the Greens might offer England’s voters a credible alternative to the big two or UKIP, sadly, policy credibility is conclusively hidden somewhere in ‘Fantasy Land’ for them. What the Greens propose would be economic suicide. It is not that it can’t be done, it just shouldn't be done.
The issue is that England needs a credible alternative home for its popular vote, because right now it really does not have any viable home at all.
Imagine a Green party, or a new English party like the SNP that stood on a simple platform ‘We’re not going to change much, not right away anyway, but we will abolish the House of Lords’. Imagine them communicating that message.
The message would be enhanced by a guarantee of a real constitution, with a constitutional lock that’d guarantee a balanced budget within a decade. Throw in more constitutional locks such as the new upper chamber could only review laws or perhaps block anything the commons passed, however it’d have to be non-aligned and have equal numbers of members from each constituent nation.
Now get back to policies, just keep it simple, and explain that you really can’t give Jo and Josie public any more than what they've already got, because you’ll have to deal with the mess the other idiots left behind, and you’re certainly not going to promise something then renege when you open the treasury doors and find a note saying ‘good luck, enjoy, sorry there’s no money left!’
If you want those fuzzy green policies stuffed in there, clean up inner city air pollution, explain that it’d lower the burden on the NHS due to pollution related health issues, and then propose a phased in assessment based upon how much a vehicle pollutes. If you've got a heavily polluting vehicle you’ll pay yet another tax that’ll support green policies, and that money will go directly to local councils for that reason. Give it a ten year phase in, there’ll not be much objection, most of us will simply plump for low polluting transportation as time passes and escape the penalty.
That’s just one example to demonstrate that things really aren't that difficult to change, given time, the desire to make a positive contribution and the proper approach.
I expect I’d vote for a party proposing that sort of progressive change, especially if it also allowed me to replace my MP mid-term if they weren't serving their constituents, or promised that any MP guilty of violating the law of the land would be subject to triple the normal sentencing guidelines. They should, after all, be held to a higher standard.
It is possible to spend your way out of a recession, but you can’t do it by fulfilling election promises that will increase the current account deficit – it only works if you use the money to put folk to work, generate more taxes, get more competitive and protect the home market in some way. Do that and you can work to a balanced budget and greater wealth for us all. Maybe one day we’ll see a UK wide party and not just a national one propose something along those lines?
Perhaps, but then again there’s a reason this blog’s titled ‘Fantasy Land’.
In the United Kingdom, for as long as it exists, I’d expect it will always be ‘politics as usual’, because a balanced budget won’t make money for the bankers and financial gamblers who sit at the heart of the City of London, and therefore UK government.
Showing posts with label Scottish Labour. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scottish Labour. Show all posts
Tuesday, 14 April 2015
Saturday, 4 April 2015
No to Democratic Rule.
What else can we think. Honestly, what other interpretation can be drawn from the reaction of England’s London based media to the attempted perversion of the democratic process in the attempt to sway votes or the electoral process with lies, supposition and innuendo.
Again we see what is simply a repeat of previous elections or polls, it was evidenced very clearly in the Referendum.
This time the story runs amok, starting in the Telegraph, about Nicola wanting to see Cameron continue in Downing Street.
Look at the timeline – Story appears.
Nicola Tweets a rebuttal.
The French support Nicola’s position.
The following day there’s an awful lot of column inches and headline space devoted to the now discredited story, but it’s done in such a way, though accurately reported in the body of the article, as to lead those simply skimming headlines (which as the editors are aware is the majority of us) that Nicola Sturgeon wants David Cameron to remain as prime minister. Essentially they reported the earlier article with largely the same story, and tagged in the rebuttals.
What we should have seen in any honest and truly democratic system was a full page apology by the Telegraph, a naming and shaming of the (alleged) civil servant involved, and headlines in all the journals, TV and social media which screamed at us “Civil Servant suspended while investigation launched into Sturgeon memo”, or some sort of variation. The in depth story should then have been carried about how the Telegraph itself had suspended or terminated the journalists in question for not fully investigating and simply producing an unsubstantiated gutter press article. Unless the Editor could also have shown good cause why it was published, he should be looking at his P45 as well.
Even the Labour Party from Ed Miliband to Jim Murphy weighed in with comments – duly reported of course.
It’s not what we’ll see though. We all know it too, at least many of us do.
We’ll not see it, because the article has served its purpose.
It has ‘smeared’ Nicola Sturgeon, it’s planted a seed (hopefully) amongst some would-be SNP voters.
One thing we do know, from the BBC to the now gutter press that’s owned and originates in London, they don’t want a Scots voice in that town, not a politically vibrant one anyway. They only want our wealth and resources to ‘reallocate’ as they see fit.
I could be proven wrong, I’ll be happy to be proven wrong. If I am, I’ll print that apology, hell; I’ll scream it from the rooftops.
It’s easy to prove me wrong too, Ed, Jim, Guardian, Telegraph, et al. Just print that apology, big, bold, front page headlines.
As to the heads of the Political parties, adopt a pledge to make it a criminal offence to try to sway the result of any plebiscite by any political party or registered company if done with unsubstantiated rumour or the reporting of such. The person originating it and the editor allowing it room; five years minimum should suffice.
After all, surely attempting to pervert the course of an election is as bad as attempting to pervert the course of justice. Those who create that justice, who write the laws, in a democracy, are the people we’re electing, and although we've strict and strongly enforced laws against perverting justice, we've apparently few to none when it comes to deciding what laws will actually be passed – which happens in the electoral system. It seems if we do have any, nobody bothers much about enforcing them.
There’s really only one reason for that, it suits those already in power.
Think about it.
If it didn’t, right now, we’d see Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, Farage et.al on the news tonight, all proclaiming this as a disgrace, promising a full investigation, after all, it could just as easily have happened to one of them, couldn't it?
Oh, wait a minute? Maybe not.
Again we see what is simply a repeat of previous elections or polls, it was evidenced very clearly in the Referendum.
This time the story runs amok, starting in the Telegraph, about Nicola wanting to see Cameron continue in Downing Street.
Look at the timeline – Story appears.
Nicola Tweets a rebuttal.
The French support Nicola’s position.
The following day there’s an awful lot of column inches and headline space devoted to the now discredited story, but it’s done in such a way, though accurately reported in the body of the article, as to lead those simply skimming headlines (which as the editors are aware is the majority of us) that Nicola Sturgeon wants David Cameron to remain as prime minister. Essentially they reported the earlier article with largely the same story, and tagged in the rebuttals.
What we should have seen in any honest and truly democratic system was a full page apology by the Telegraph, a naming and shaming of the (alleged) civil servant involved, and headlines in all the journals, TV and social media which screamed at us “Civil Servant suspended while investigation launched into Sturgeon memo”, or some sort of variation. The in depth story should then have been carried about how the Telegraph itself had suspended or terminated the journalists in question for not fully investigating and simply producing an unsubstantiated gutter press article. Unless the Editor could also have shown good cause why it was published, he should be looking at his P45 as well.
Even the Labour Party from Ed Miliband to Jim Murphy weighed in with comments – duly reported of course.
It’s not what we’ll see though. We all know it too, at least many of us do.
We’ll not see it, because the article has served its purpose.
It has ‘smeared’ Nicola Sturgeon, it’s planted a seed (hopefully) amongst some would-be SNP voters.
One thing we do know, from the BBC to the now gutter press that’s owned and originates in London, they don’t want a Scots voice in that town, not a politically vibrant one anyway. They only want our wealth and resources to ‘reallocate’ as they see fit.
I could be proven wrong, I’ll be happy to be proven wrong. If I am, I’ll print that apology, hell; I’ll scream it from the rooftops.
It’s easy to prove me wrong too, Ed, Jim, Guardian, Telegraph, et al. Just print that apology, big, bold, front page headlines.
As to the heads of the Political parties, adopt a pledge to make it a criminal offence to try to sway the result of any plebiscite by any political party or registered company if done with unsubstantiated rumour or the reporting of such. The person originating it and the editor allowing it room; five years minimum should suffice.
After all, surely attempting to pervert the course of an election is as bad as attempting to pervert the course of justice. Those who create that justice, who write the laws, in a democracy, are the people we’re electing, and although we've strict and strongly enforced laws against perverting justice, we've apparently few to none when it comes to deciding what laws will actually be passed – which happens in the electoral system. It seems if we do have any, nobody bothers much about enforcing them.
There’s really only one reason for that, it suits those already in power.
Think about it.
If it didn’t, right now, we’d see Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, Farage et.al on the news tonight, all proclaiming this as a disgrace, promising a full investigation, after all, it could just as easily have happened to one of them, couldn't it?
Oh, wait a minute? Maybe not.
Friday, 31 October 2014
The Paradigm Shift.
So, it’s finally started.
The movement that will lead to independence for our nation has truly begun, and I suspect it’ll not end for a few years, but history will show the referendum of 2014 as being the time when the death knell reverberated loudly over the Union corpse. It not only tolled, but vowed it’d continue.
Gazing retrospectively at what’s inspired this blog, it became apparent to me that even while working and sincerely hoping for a ‘Yes’ in the 2014 referendum, at a deeper level I never really expected one. The most obvious reason being, our media isn’t our media. The Daily Record, Sun and the rest are either London or foreign owned. Ultimately, I was as devastated as anyone when we’d come so close only to fall in the last few days, almost entirely as a result of that same media’s trumpeting of the now ‘Disavowed Vow’.
The paradigm shift ultimately comes down to that ‘Vow’, because that ‘Vow’ moved the goalposts; it changed the debate utterly in the last week where ‘Yes’ was building to possible/probable victory.
Suddenly, folk weren’t choosing between ‘Independence and Westminster’, they were choosing between ‘Independence and Devo-Max’. Not only that, they were choosing ‘Devo-Max’ with a defined and very tight timeline. Gordon Brown even declared it’d be as near as damn a Federal solution resulting in a new UK.
Now, excuse me being blunt here, but there’s really no other way to put this.
Let’s face it, if you’re a unionist politician and leader, and not actually a worthless piece of sh*t, you were free to disavow that full page printed vow, but only if you did it publically as soon as the damned thing hit print. That and you’d better be demanding a retraction on the day. Failing immediate corrective action before the vote, folk of honour and integrity have no choice but to keep that Vow afterwards. It doesn’t matter if they actually made it, by their silence they assented and adopted it.
That vow made many voters switch back to support for the Union and consequently, the failure of follow through plus the distancing from it that’s taken place since (and is set to continue) has shocked quite a few ‘No’ voters; there are many who’d change their vote today if they had the opportunity to do it all over again. It’s a safe bet with the revelations since, it’d be the same numbers in the referendum; it would simply flip to a yes result.
That’s what’s behind the building paradigm shift within ‘No’ voters. It is pointless to say “We Told You So” now. They heard what we were saying, but on the day the paradigm shift was just a step too far for them to make, especially when offered the ‘comfy’ alternative of ‘Devo-Max’.
Life in the Union may be not be brilliant, but for many of the ‘No Voters’ it is bearable. Put that up against project fear and the ‘spectre’ of independence that was painted by Union controlled media, the only way a ‘Yes’ vote was going to be secured was by a massive swing in the Unionist vote. It still almost happened; it’s still necessary, however, not quite so massively this time. Except, there doesn’t need to be a ‘next time’. Everything can be accomplished through the ballot box at elections.
I actually didn’t expect the swing to be as rapid as it currently appears, but the event that gets people to change a lifetime’s habits is by necessity something fairly significant. In this instance it is lies and betrayal. Even then, opinions don’t change overnight, but it’s almost guaranteed they’ll change eventually. It’s a realisation event followed by processing time, and we all need different amounts of it.
Consider our average Scots’ voter. Now narrow it to the average Scots Unionist. Die-hards among them might even change now, although that’s less likely. On the other hand, the average ‘No voter’ saw three English parties come together with the weight of the media and eventually see off the ‘nasty Nationalists’ with a “Vow”. However at least a third, perhaps as many as a half of that ‘No’ vote wanted those extra powers. That equates to somewhere around 25% of the total electorate that wanted the substantial constitutional change they were promised. Consequently, these people were comfortable, content and happy in their vote. However, they weren’t specifically voting for ‘Westminster’, they were now voting for a stronger, better, more representative and democratic Scots parliament. It’s how many justified that ‘No’.
Essentially that 25% voted for almost the same as the 45% who voted ‘Yes’. They just didn’t want to throw away the security blanket; not yet anyway, not when they’d been promised ‘the best of both worlds’.
Except, they've now literally been told “What Vow?”
And surprise, surprise, they’re not happy and dissent is now beginning to peep over the parapet. They had a set time frame placed before them, it’s already been missed. Many of them, perhaps as much as 10-15%, have already gone from disappointment through regret to acknowledgement of betrayal and are done processing. They’ll never vote for a Unionist party again. It’s also ‘safe’ to do that now, the referendum is over and they don’t have to feel guilty about making that personal vow against Unionist parties.
Unlike those Westminster politicians, I’d expect these folk to be serious in their intent and it’s already showing. SNP and other pro-independence party’s membership have grown exponentially since the referendum. The latest IPSOS/MORI poll shows a near wipe out for Unionist parties at the next UK General Election, while the current ‘You-Gov’ isn’t quite so radical in its results, but has a similar overall conclusion.
There you have it; 25% of an electoral franchise who’ll not vote for the Unionist parties again, ever.
That’s a lot of betrayed people to have on your hands.
This is what happens when the average person is so fundamentally lied to, and then comes to realise it.
It’s also what happens when the average person in Scotland comes to understand what many of us who supported independence have seen for years; the media in Scotland has shown itself to be largely useless when it comes to balanced investigative and unbiased reporting around Scottish Politics. It means the media was largely a single use tool, like a tube of glue, and now it’s mostly full of air, it doesn't work so well.
However, the media can’t be discounted, but it can be anticipated its future impact will be significantly reduced.
These folk have that have just pushed the SNP vote share to 52% in the polls have had a paradigm shift. For many of them it’s no longer possible to vote for a Unionist Party and they've altered their world view, deciding on a party supporting independence or to simply not vote again. For many of them it may not be a conscious thought yet, but it’s coming.
The SNP for its part needs to capitalise on this to form an ongoing, broad but loose alliance with Scotland’s other independence supporting parties. They need to stand on a manifesto for the next election which loudly proclaims that it supports the democratic will of the Scottish people as expressed during the referendum.
This also requires the SNP to have a paradigm shift to match that of the referendum result and capture the awakening ire of that 25%. They need it this year. They need to deliver the results of that adjustment as they stride purposefully into the 2015 elections. The message needs to be that the electorate can always trust them to be sufficiently flexible so as to respond to its express will.
The SNP can then declare to follow the peoples’ desires and bring to Scotland and her parliament the powers contained within “The Vows” which Westminster has now reneged. Furthermore, they can affirm that one principle they will hold to, should the people elect a majority of Scots MPs from their party, is that these MPs will put Scotland first. After the ballot, Holyrood will extend an invitation to its Scottish colleagues who would be then based in Westminster requesting them to attend a vote in Holyrood.
It’ll be an invitation not just to attend, but an Act will be passed to permit them a vote on a single issue. Holyrood will pass that Act, having been spelled out before hand as the accepted will of the people as expressed through the result of the referendum. This is almost an identical circumstance as that which led to the referendum itself; democracy in action.
Folk will vote for such a message because they’ll not see it as ending the Union, simply holding the political feet in London to the fire and forcing honesty, and that’s how the 2015/2016 campaigns need to be portrayed to capture that additional 25% i.e., democracy has spoken; vote for us to force honesty from the democratic process even as we deliver good government.
The question is; what the contents of that Act should be.
Quite simply, it should authorize Holyrood to renegotiate all articles of the Treaty of Union with four notable exceptions. It would restore the full rights and responsibilities of the Scots Parliament excluding the areas of Foreign Affairs, Monetary Policy, the Monarchy (excluding the need for Royal Assent) and Defence. Passing of these Acts can be expressed simply as a combination of forcing honesty from Westminster, of assisting the many Scots who voted “no” in getting what they were promised by way of a Devo-Max or Federal solution, and lastly helping those who voted yes to reconcile themselves with the outcome of the vote. This would then be portrayed as putting the entire nation in a position to grow with harmony and cooperation as we walk forward. Essentially it would be an exercise in re-unity and reintegration following the referendum.
Effectively this is campaigning on a platform of the democratic exploration of the concept of nation building while remaining within the over-arching framework of the Union, which 55% declared they desired in the referendum.
In all practicality, this is the best way for some 70% of the franchise to obtain what it desired – or at least very nearly so. It’s a political compromise – for now, of where the party promised to go and where the electorate told them it needed to be.
The ball will then be very firmly in Westminster’s court, and how they decide to return it will prove interesting indeed. They may even decide to scrap what remains themselves.
Regardless of Westminster’s desires, with a majority of SNP MPs and MSPs under these circumstances Holyrood can then pass Acts under the banner of the democratic will, repealing or rejecting Westminster’s primacy in everything - except the reserved issues we, the Scots allow.
Effectively, the only primacy Westminster would retain would be in the areas of defence, currency and foreign policy with a sort of shared obligation on the fourth, the Monarchy.
Moreover, it would be done as the will of the people, an exercise in democracy; a beautiful thing.
The SNP should therefore enter the 2015/2016 elections with a shift in stance, specifically limited to these campaigns, to not be a party seeking independence, but rather Home Rule. A sensible party might also promise a Constitution to protect the rights of our Parliament, our citizens and legal residents, while declaring that although David Cameron may have promised this, if we vote for the SNP they will actually provide it. A truly intuitive party might even put a time-frame to it.
With that type of mandate delivered in a Westminster election following on from the referendum, respecting the Union yet holding it to account, Scotland’s parliament at Holyrood can have a secure democratic justification for passing the legislation for enacting this in Scots Law.
By right and accepted broadcast precedent, the SNP could even dissolve the Union with a majority of either Scots MPs or absolute majority at Holyrood, so long as they inform the electorate that was their intent. However, to do so this closely after a referendum result which in effect demanded Devo-Max that may just be a bit disingenuous.
The nicest part is it is all about honesty, honour and integrity. That’s a simple campaign platform. It is also a campaign platform with which Westminster cannot compete.
Should this transpire, it promises to be an interesting development; one which hasn't happened in many centuries.
The movement that will lead to independence for our nation has truly begun, and I suspect it’ll not end for a few years, but history will show the referendum of 2014 as being the time when the death knell reverberated loudly over the Union corpse. It not only tolled, but vowed it’d continue.
Gazing retrospectively at what’s inspired this blog, it became apparent to me that even while working and sincerely hoping for a ‘Yes’ in the 2014 referendum, at a deeper level I never really expected one. The most obvious reason being, our media isn’t our media. The Daily Record, Sun and the rest are either London or foreign owned. Ultimately, I was as devastated as anyone when we’d come so close only to fall in the last few days, almost entirely as a result of that same media’s trumpeting of the now ‘Disavowed Vow’.
The paradigm shift ultimately comes down to that ‘Vow’, because that ‘Vow’ moved the goalposts; it changed the debate utterly in the last week where ‘Yes’ was building to possible/probable victory.
Suddenly, folk weren’t choosing between ‘Independence and Westminster’, they were choosing between ‘Independence and Devo-Max’. Not only that, they were choosing ‘Devo-Max’ with a defined and very tight timeline. Gordon Brown even declared it’d be as near as damn a Federal solution resulting in a new UK.
Now, excuse me being blunt here, but there’s really no other way to put this.
Let’s face it, if you’re a unionist politician and leader, and not actually a worthless piece of sh*t, you were free to disavow that full page printed vow, but only if you did it publically as soon as the damned thing hit print. That and you’d better be demanding a retraction on the day. Failing immediate corrective action before the vote, folk of honour and integrity have no choice but to keep that Vow afterwards. It doesn’t matter if they actually made it, by their silence they assented and adopted it.
That vow made many voters switch back to support for the Union and consequently, the failure of follow through plus the distancing from it that’s taken place since (and is set to continue) has shocked quite a few ‘No’ voters; there are many who’d change their vote today if they had the opportunity to do it all over again. It’s a safe bet with the revelations since, it’d be the same numbers in the referendum; it would simply flip to a yes result.
That’s what’s behind the building paradigm shift within ‘No’ voters. It is pointless to say “We Told You So” now. They heard what we were saying, but on the day the paradigm shift was just a step too far for them to make, especially when offered the ‘comfy’ alternative of ‘Devo-Max’.
Life in the Union may be not be brilliant, but for many of the ‘No Voters’ it is bearable. Put that up against project fear and the ‘spectre’ of independence that was painted by Union controlled media, the only way a ‘Yes’ vote was going to be secured was by a massive swing in the Unionist vote. It still almost happened; it’s still necessary, however, not quite so massively this time. Except, there doesn’t need to be a ‘next time’. Everything can be accomplished through the ballot box at elections.
I actually didn’t expect the swing to be as rapid as it currently appears, but the event that gets people to change a lifetime’s habits is by necessity something fairly significant. In this instance it is lies and betrayal. Even then, opinions don’t change overnight, but it’s almost guaranteed they’ll change eventually. It’s a realisation event followed by processing time, and we all need different amounts of it.
Consider our average Scots’ voter. Now narrow it to the average Scots Unionist. Die-hards among them might even change now, although that’s less likely. On the other hand, the average ‘No voter’ saw three English parties come together with the weight of the media and eventually see off the ‘nasty Nationalists’ with a “Vow”. However at least a third, perhaps as many as a half of that ‘No’ vote wanted those extra powers. That equates to somewhere around 25% of the total electorate that wanted the substantial constitutional change they were promised. Consequently, these people were comfortable, content and happy in their vote. However, they weren’t specifically voting for ‘Westminster’, they were now voting for a stronger, better, more representative and democratic Scots parliament. It’s how many justified that ‘No’.
Essentially that 25% voted for almost the same as the 45% who voted ‘Yes’. They just didn’t want to throw away the security blanket; not yet anyway, not when they’d been promised ‘the best of both worlds’.
Except, they've now literally been told “What Vow?”
And surprise, surprise, they’re not happy and dissent is now beginning to peep over the parapet. They had a set time frame placed before them, it’s already been missed. Many of them, perhaps as much as 10-15%, have already gone from disappointment through regret to acknowledgement of betrayal and are done processing. They’ll never vote for a Unionist party again. It’s also ‘safe’ to do that now, the referendum is over and they don’t have to feel guilty about making that personal vow against Unionist parties.
Unlike those Westminster politicians, I’d expect these folk to be serious in their intent and it’s already showing. SNP and other pro-independence party’s membership have grown exponentially since the referendum. The latest IPSOS/MORI poll shows a near wipe out for Unionist parties at the next UK General Election, while the current ‘You-Gov’ isn’t quite so radical in its results, but has a similar overall conclusion.
There you have it; 25% of an electoral franchise who’ll not vote for the Unionist parties again, ever.
That’s a lot of betrayed people to have on your hands.
This is what happens when the average person is so fundamentally lied to, and then comes to realise it.
It’s also what happens when the average person in Scotland comes to understand what many of us who supported independence have seen for years; the media in Scotland has shown itself to be largely useless when it comes to balanced investigative and unbiased reporting around Scottish Politics. It means the media was largely a single use tool, like a tube of glue, and now it’s mostly full of air, it doesn't work so well.
However, the media can’t be discounted, but it can be anticipated its future impact will be significantly reduced.
These folk have that have just pushed the SNP vote share to 52% in the polls have had a paradigm shift. For many of them it’s no longer possible to vote for a Unionist Party and they've altered their world view, deciding on a party supporting independence or to simply not vote again. For many of them it may not be a conscious thought yet, but it’s coming.
The SNP for its part needs to capitalise on this to form an ongoing, broad but loose alliance with Scotland’s other independence supporting parties. They need to stand on a manifesto for the next election which loudly proclaims that it supports the democratic will of the Scottish people as expressed during the referendum.
This also requires the SNP to have a paradigm shift to match that of the referendum result and capture the awakening ire of that 25%. They need it this year. They need to deliver the results of that adjustment as they stride purposefully into the 2015 elections. The message needs to be that the electorate can always trust them to be sufficiently flexible so as to respond to its express will.
The SNP can then declare to follow the peoples’ desires and bring to Scotland and her parliament the powers contained within “The Vows” which Westminster has now reneged. Furthermore, they can affirm that one principle they will hold to, should the people elect a majority of Scots MPs from their party, is that these MPs will put Scotland first. After the ballot, Holyrood will extend an invitation to its Scottish colleagues who would be then based in Westminster requesting them to attend a vote in Holyrood.
It’ll be an invitation not just to attend, but an Act will be passed to permit them a vote on a single issue. Holyrood will pass that Act, having been spelled out before hand as the accepted will of the people as expressed through the result of the referendum. This is almost an identical circumstance as that which led to the referendum itself; democracy in action.
Folk will vote for such a message because they’ll not see it as ending the Union, simply holding the political feet in London to the fire and forcing honesty, and that’s how the 2015/2016 campaigns need to be portrayed to capture that additional 25% i.e., democracy has spoken; vote for us to force honesty from the democratic process even as we deliver good government.
The question is; what the contents of that Act should be.
Quite simply, it should authorize Holyrood to renegotiate all articles of the Treaty of Union with four notable exceptions. It would restore the full rights and responsibilities of the Scots Parliament excluding the areas of Foreign Affairs, Monetary Policy, the Monarchy (excluding the need for Royal Assent) and Defence. Passing of these Acts can be expressed simply as a combination of forcing honesty from Westminster, of assisting the many Scots who voted “no” in getting what they were promised by way of a Devo-Max or Federal solution, and lastly helping those who voted yes to reconcile themselves with the outcome of the vote. This would then be portrayed as putting the entire nation in a position to grow with harmony and cooperation as we walk forward. Essentially it would be an exercise in re-unity and reintegration following the referendum.
Effectively this is campaigning on a platform of the democratic exploration of the concept of nation building while remaining within the over-arching framework of the Union, which 55% declared they desired in the referendum.
In all practicality, this is the best way for some 70% of the franchise to obtain what it desired – or at least very nearly so. It’s a political compromise – for now, of where the party promised to go and where the electorate told them it needed to be.
The ball will then be very firmly in Westminster’s court, and how they decide to return it will prove interesting indeed. They may even decide to scrap what remains themselves.
Regardless of Westminster’s desires, with a majority of SNP MPs and MSPs under these circumstances Holyrood can then pass Acts under the banner of the democratic will, repealing or rejecting Westminster’s primacy in everything - except the reserved issues we, the Scots allow.
Effectively, the only primacy Westminster would retain would be in the areas of defence, currency and foreign policy with a sort of shared obligation on the fourth, the Monarchy.
Moreover, it would be done as the will of the people, an exercise in democracy; a beautiful thing.
The SNP should therefore enter the 2015/2016 elections with a shift in stance, specifically limited to these campaigns, to not be a party seeking independence, but rather Home Rule. A sensible party might also promise a Constitution to protect the rights of our Parliament, our citizens and legal residents, while declaring that although David Cameron may have promised this, if we vote for the SNP they will actually provide it. A truly intuitive party might even put a time-frame to it.
With that type of mandate delivered in a Westminster election following on from the referendum, respecting the Union yet holding it to account, Scotland’s parliament at Holyrood can have a secure democratic justification for passing the legislation for enacting this in Scots Law.
By right and accepted broadcast precedent, the SNP could even dissolve the Union with a majority of either Scots MPs or absolute majority at Holyrood, so long as they inform the electorate that was their intent. However, to do so this closely after a referendum result which in effect demanded Devo-Max that may just be a bit disingenuous.
The nicest part is it is all about honesty, honour and integrity. That’s a simple campaign platform. It is also a campaign platform with which Westminster cannot compete.
Should this transpire, it promises to be an interesting development; one which hasn't happened in many centuries.
an entire cadre of Scottish based Westminster MPs who’ll simply put Scotland's needs first.
The only clear way under the present scenario to upset that dynamic in any moderately close election, would be an alliance between Labour and Conservatives. Any other alliances with smaller groups of MP’s e.g. UKIP, BNP or Liberal Democrats would only open more eyes in the North, with the certainty of
greater issues in London. It’s either that or Westminster tries to pass an act preventing the expressed democratic wish of the Scottish people, and that will not sit well north or south of the border.
Either way, the endgame is now set and the outcome is relatively assured.
I only have to wonder if this wasn't Alex Salmond’s ‘Plan B’ all along. If it had been, then it was a master strategy of playing the long game. All it needed was just one close poll, and the reactions were all entirely predictable from that point on. Win today, or win tomorrow, either way, it’s a win for the nation he cherishes. If it’s a win tomorrow, in Nicola’s hands’, with her lengthy apprenticeship, it’ll be fine.
Either way, the endgame is now set and the outcome is relatively assured.
I only have to wonder if this wasn't Alex Salmond’s ‘Plan B’ all along. If it had been, then it was a master strategy of playing the long game. All it needed was just one close poll, and the reactions were all entirely predictable from that point on. Win today, or win tomorrow, either way, it’s a win for the nation he cherishes. If it’s a win tomorrow, in Nicola’s hands’, with her lengthy apprenticeship, it’ll be fine.
Saturday, 9 August 2014
A reply to the celebs letter from Steven McBrien of Glasgow.
This is so well written and says everything that any one of us would have wished to have said to these people, given the opportunity. So much so, in fact, that I just had to re-blog it. My thanks to Steven McBrien for this great piece of writing:
Dear William Dalrymple, Eddie Izzard, Sir Patrick Stewart, Sir Mick Jagger, Jenny Agutter, Sir Ben Ainslie, Kriss Akabusi, Roger Allam, Kirstie Allsop, Alexander Armstrong, Sir David Attenborough, Steve Backley, Baroness Joan Bakewell, Frances Barber, Andy Barrow, John Barrowman, Mike Batt, Glen Baxter, David Aaronovitch, Helena Bonham-Carter, Stanley Baxter, Martin Bayfield, Mary Beard, Sarah Beeny, Anthony Beevor, Angelica Bell,Dickie Bird, Cilla Black, Graeme Black, Roger Black, Malorie Blackman, Ranjit Bolt, Alain de Botton, William Boyd, Tracey Brabin, Lord Melvyn Bragg, Jo Brand, Gyles Brandreth, Rob Brydon, Louisa Buck, Simon Callow, Will Carling, Paul Cartledge, Guy Chambers, Nick Cohen, Michelle Collins, Colonel Tim Collins, Olivia Colman, Charlie Condou, Susannah Constantine, Steve Coogan, Dominic Cooper, Ronnie Corbett, Simon Cowell, Jason Cowley, Sara Cox, Amanda Craig, Steve Cram, Richard Curtis, Tom Daley, Richard Dawkins, Dame Judi Dench, Jeremy Deller, Lord Michael Dobbs, Jimmy Doherty, Michael Douglas, Simon Easterby, Gareth Edwards, Jonathan Edwards, Tracey Emin, Sebastian Faulks, Bryan Ferry, Ranulph Fiennes, Ben Fogle, Sir Bruce Forsyth, Amanda Foreman, Neil Fox, Emma Freud, Bernard Gallacher, Kirsty Gallacher, George Galloway, Sir John Eliot Gardiner, Bamber Gascoigne, David Gilmour, Harvey Goldsmith, David Goodhart, Lachlan Goudie, David Gower, AC Grayling, Will Greenwood, Tamsin Greig, Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, Lord Charles Guthrie, Haydn Gwynne, Maggi Hambling, Mehdi Hasan, Sir Max Hastings, Peter Hennessy, James Holland, Tom Holland, Tom Hollander, Gloria Hunniford, Conn Iggledun, John Illsley, Brendan Ingle, Betty Jackson, Sir Mike Jackson, Howard Jacobson, Baroness PD James, Griff Rhys Jones, Terry Jones, Christopher Kane, Sir Anish Kapoor, Ross Kemp, Paul Kenny, Jemima Khan, India Knight, Martha Lane Fox, Baroness Doreen Lawrence, Tory Lawrence, Kathy Lette, Rod Liddle, Louise Linton, John Lloyd (the journalist), John Lloyd ( the producer), Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber, Gabby Logan, Kenny Logan, Sarah Lucas, Dame Vera Lynn, James May, Margaret MacMillan, Stephen Mangan, Davina McCall, Sir Ian McGeechan, Heather McGregor, Andy McNab, John Michie, David Mitchell, Lord John Monks, Lewis Moody, Michael Morpurgo, Bill Morris, David Morrissey, Philip Mould, Al Murray, Neil Stuke, Sir Paul Nurse, Andy Nyman, Peter Oborne, Sir Michael Parkinson, Fiona Phillips, Andy Puddicombe, Lord David Puttnam, Anita Rani, Esther Rantzen, Sir Steve Redgrave, Derek Redmond, Pete Reed, Lord Martin Rees, Peter Reid, Baroness Ruth Rendell, Sir Cliff Richard, Hugo Rifkind, Sir Tony Robinson, David Rowntree, Ian Rush, Greg Rutherford, CJ Sansom, June Sarpong, Simon Schama, John Sessions, Sandie Shaw, Helen Skelton, Sir Tim Smit, Dan Snow, Peter Snow, Phil Spencer, David Starkey, Lord Jock Stirrup, Neil Stuke, Sting, Tallia Storm, David Suchet, Alan Sugar, Graeme Swann, Stella Tennant, Daley Thompson, Alan Titchmarsh, James Timpson, Kevin Toolis, Lynne Truss, Gavin Turk, Roger Uttley, David Walliams, Zoë Wanamaker, Robert Webb, Richard Wentworth, Sir Alan West, Dominic West and Kevin Whateley,
I would like to express my hearty and sincere thanks to you all for your stated concern that myself and my countrymen remain in the United Kingdom. I was just heading back from my job (the job where I earn under eight quid an hour for working with people with learning disabilities) and passing the local food bank when I heard the news, namely, that you were so concerned that we might leave the UK that you had all deigned to write your names on a piece of paper.
I was delighted to hear this news, so transported, in fact, that I temporarily forgot about the nuclear stockpile that's a mere 25 miles away from my front door, and so giddy with the receipt of this beneficence that I almost forgot that I could spend my remaining English tenners up here as no-one up here has any kind of problem with accepting English money. I write to inform you all that the fact that a bunch of millionaires and multi-millionaires who have, on the whole, exhibited total disinterest, and, in some cases (Mr Curtis, Mr Starkey) outright contempt for my country, its denizens and its history were so thoughtful as to sign a piece of paper has forced me to totally review my lifelong pro-independence stance.
I realise and understand completely that you all probably know more about the situation in Scotland than the people of Scotland do; after all, you're all really famous, and we're none too bright up here, you know, apart from inventing television, the refrigerator, canals, bicycles, chloroform, fingerprinting, animal cloning, fax machines, microwaves and magnetrons, adhesive postage stamps, tubular steel, pneumatic tyres, radar, propellers, ATM machines and PIN codes, the telephone, the condensing steam engine, tarmac, penning such unremarkable gewgaws as Peter Pan, Sherlock Holmes and Jekyll and Hyde, discovering penicillin, founding the US Navy, establishing Universal Standard Time, adumbrating the Rankine Thermodynamic Cycle, establishing the foundation of modern economics thanks to Adam Smith, abetting in the foundation of sociology as a modern science thanks to Adam Ferguson, discovering the nearest star to our sun, Proxima Centauri, discovering and linking the Noble Gases, establishing the Kelvin unit of temperature, inventing MRI machines, discovering the vaccine for typhoid, helping to establish general anaesthetic in medical procedure, inventing the electric clock in 1840 and the flush-toilet in 1775, devising the foundations of the Bank of England and the Bank of France, taking the world's first ever colour photograph, and various other trifles. We really do need to be reminded that these are mere dilettante efforts; governing ourselves is an entirely different matter. As the good folks at Better Together have told us on numerous occasions, we, alone among the nations of the planet Earth, and despite abundant-to-the-point-of-overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will not be capable of this.
On that note, I should like to take a few lines to address the Better Together campaign now, as you have all, through your signing of this hallowed document, tacitly aligned your good selves with the efforts of that noble organisation. Despite what you may have heard, Better Together have, throughout the last few years, been a shining example of truth-telling and reassurance. Those accusations, slung by those vicious people who state facts, that their campaign has been nothing more than a random farrago of shrill, terror-inducing and panic-peddling doomsday prophecies, saturated throughout with slander, half-truths, quarter-truths, outright lies and an irrelevant hate-obsession with one man, are, as I now see, totally exaggerated. They were right all along. The debate between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond (yes, that debate, the debate that was described by pundits as one of the most important debates in modern political history, but which you probably didn't even see, because it wasn't televised in England, thanks to the equally unbiased British media) showed us all that modern UK politics is in rude health, with three main parties who should be occupying totally different strata of the political spectrum uniting as one to remind us that Alex Salmond is nothing less than the devil in pudgy form and that we are inherently incapable of governing ourselves, before, in a coup de grace, offering to give us as a nation more powers if we as a nation refuse more powers. They are simply a beacon of logic and compassion. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the BBC, who unthinkingly took time out from their busy schedule of covering up the sundry paedophiles and abusers of vulnerable adults who were protected and celebrated by them to alternately ignore us completely/refuse to broadcast facts/remind us up here that we don't matter.
As for having some of the finest exports on Earth, we are fully cognisant that this will not help. And the oil? We'll just follow Westminster's lead and shut up about the oil, and the possibility of joining the rest of the world in actually setting up an oil fund if we got independence, as we don't want to annoy anyone. Besides it doesn't matter: we don't want independence anyway, because we can't do it.
We should also be reminded that a constitution that is increasingly alone among the nations of the civilised world in never having been drawn up or cohesively codified (with the result that if I were a practicing rather than a lapsed Catholic, I could not be Prime Minister, and if I were to go out walking to an archery contest in York clutching a bow and arrow, it would be perfectly legal to kill me) is the way to go in terms of governance, that Martin Luther King and the rest of them were just kidding about all women and men being equal and deserving an equal chance, when in fact, the Royal Family is inherently better than the rest of us because their ancestors chopped people up really effectively. That must be why so many of you have taken knighthoods, damehoods, lordships and peerages. Yes, that explains it. You are all such enlightened and selfless individuals, there is clearly nothing you wouldn't sacrifice to defend your Kingdom; to the extent that, in some cases, such as that of Sir Tony Robinson, you have even been willing to sacrifice your own principles to defend it.
The financial system of the United Kingdom that you defend so valiantly, you know, that one were the banks and corporations do whatever they want and pay their executives outrageous salaries only to be bailed out by the taxpayer when the inevitable bust comes along, the one that enriches the obscenely rich while enslaving the vast majority of the population, is the envy of the world. This, in turn, must account for the shocking appearance, in one or two cases, of signatories of this document who are not in fact millionaires, living in ivory towers and totally divorced from the reality that most people have to live. Once again, I commend you all for making me see sense.
I am certain that the Prime Minister (you know, the millionaire who went to Eton along with half of the previous cabinet; that man whom myself and my entire country didn't vote for, as we so ignorantly revile both his party and his policies) will salute you all for your efforts. You've certainly persuaded me. I'll vote for the UK, with its pro-Israel stance, and totally ignore the suffering of the people in Gaza, too. It's for the best, really. As for foreign affairs, well, it's demonstrably obvious that the best way to conduct them is with a horde of nukes at your back, and that the surest way to preserve world peace is with an array of weapons that could only ever be deployed militarily in some kind of nightmarish endgame scenario, but which nevertheless cost billions a year to maintain and store, even while public service budgets are ruthlessly slashed. Why didn't I see this before? I genuinely feel like the writer of Amazing Grace.
I'd like, finally, to take this opportunity to highlight, and indeed, laud, certain signatories of this document who I feel have made an undeniable contribution to twenty-first century art, science and high culture, namely Messrs Armstrong, Barrowman, Bragg, Brydon, Ms Cox, Messrs Cowell, Dawkins, Galloway, Izzard, Ms McCall, Messrs Mitchell, Richard, Robinson, Miss Sarpong, Messrs Starkey, Sting, Sugar, Titchmarsh, Walliams and Webb. You are all deeply talented and necessary individuals, and I thank you all from the bottom of my bowels for descending temporarily from on-high to appeal to scum like me to see sense and vote No.
Thank you all for affording me this opportunity to tell you all how wonderfully wonderful I think you are,
Yours obsequiously,
McB
I would like to express my hearty and sincere thanks to you all for your stated concern that myself and my countrymen remain in the United Kingdom. I was just heading back from my job (the job where I earn under eight quid an hour for working with people with learning disabilities) and passing the local food bank when I heard the news, namely, that you were so concerned that we might leave the UK that you had all deigned to write your names on a piece of paper.
I was delighted to hear this news, so transported, in fact, that I temporarily forgot about the nuclear stockpile that's a mere 25 miles away from my front door, and so giddy with the receipt of this beneficence that I almost forgot that I could spend my remaining English tenners up here as no-one up here has any kind of problem with accepting English money. I write to inform you all that the fact that a bunch of millionaires and multi-millionaires who have, on the whole, exhibited total disinterest, and, in some cases (Mr Curtis, Mr Starkey) outright contempt for my country, its denizens and its history were so thoughtful as to sign a piece of paper has forced me to totally review my lifelong pro-independence stance.
I realise and understand completely that you all probably know more about the situation in Scotland than the people of Scotland do; after all, you're all really famous, and we're none too bright up here, you know, apart from inventing television, the refrigerator, canals, bicycles, chloroform, fingerprinting, animal cloning, fax machines, microwaves and magnetrons, adhesive postage stamps, tubular steel, pneumatic tyres, radar, propellers, ATM machines and PIN codes, the telephone, the condensing steam engine, tarmac, penning such unremarkable gewgaws as Peter Pan, Sherlock Holmes and Jekyll and Hyde, discovering penicillin, founding the US Navy, establishing Universal Standard Time, adumbrating the Rankine Thermodynamic Cycle, establishing the foundation of modern economics thanks to Adam Smith, abetting in the foundation of sociology as a modern science thanks to Adam Ferguson, discovering the nearest star to our sun, Proxima Centauri, discovering and linking the Noble Gases, establishing the Kelvin unit of temperature, inventing MRI machines, discovering the vaccine for typhoid, helping to establish general anaesthetic in medical procedure, inventing the electric clock in 1840 and the flush-toilet in 1775, devising the foundations of the Bank of England and the Bank of France, taking the world's first ever colour photograph, and various other trifles. We really do need to be reminded that these are mere dilettante efforts; governing ourselves is an entirely different matter. As the good folks at Better Together have told us on numerous occasions, we, alone among the nations of the planet Earth, and despite abundant-to-the-point-of-overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will not be capable of this.
On that note, I should like to take a few lines to address the Better Together campaign now, as you have all, through your signing of this hallowed document, tacitly aligned your good selves with the efforts of that noble organisation. Despite what you may have heard, Better Together have, throughout the last few years, been a shining example of truth-telling and reassurance. Those accusations, slung by those vicious people who state facts, that their campaign has been nothing more than a random farrago of shrill, terror-inducing and panic-peddling doomsday prophecies, saturated throughout with slander, half-truths, quarter-truths, outright lies and an irrelevant hate-obsession with one man, are, as I now see, totally exaggerated. They were right all along. The debate between Alistair Darling and Alex Salmond (yes, that debate, the debate that was described by pundits as one of the most important debates in modern political history, but which you probably didn't even see, because it wasn't televised in England, thanks to the equally unbiased British media) showed us all that modern UK politics is in rude health, with three main parties who should be occupying totally different strata of the political spectrum uniting as one to remind us that Alex Salmond is nothing less than the devil in pudgy form and that we are inherently incapable of governing ourselves, before, in a coup de grace, offering to give us as a nation more powers if we as a nation refuse more powers. They are simply a beacon of logic and compassion. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank the BBC, who unthinkingly took time out from their busy schedule of covering up the sundry paedophiles and abusers of vulnerable adults who were protected and celebrated by them to alternately ignore us completely/refuse to broadcast facts/remind us up here that we don't matter.
As for having some of the finest exports on Earth, we are fully cognisant that this will not help. And the oil? We'll just follow Westminster's lead and shut up about the oil, and the possibility of joining the rest of the world in actually setting up an oil fund if we got independence, as we don't want to annoy anyone. Besides it doesn't matter: we don't want independence anyway, because we can't do it.
We should also be reminded that a constitution that is increasingly alone among the nations of the civilised world in never having been drawn up or cohesively codified (with the result that if I were a practicing rather than a lapsed Catholic, I could not be Prime Minister, and if I were to go out walking to an archery contest in York clutching a bow and arrow, it would be perfectly legal to kill me) is the way to go in terms of governance, that Martin Luther King and the rest of them were just kidding about all women and men being equal and deserving an equal chance, when in fact, the Royal Family is inherently better than the rest of us because their ancestors chopped people up really effectively. That must be why so many of you have taken knighthoods, damehoods, lordships and peerages. Yes, that explains it. You are all such enlightened and selfless individuals, there is clearly nothing you wouldn't sacrifice to defend your Kingdom; to the extent that, in some cases, such as that of Sir Tony Robinson, you have even been willing to sacrifice your own principles to defend it.
The financial system of the United Kingdom that you defend so valiantly, you know, that one were the banks and corporations do whatever they want and pay their executives outrageous salaries only to be bailed out by the taxpayer when the inevitable bust comes along, the one that enriches the obscenely rich while enslaving the vast majority of the population, is the envy of the world. This, in turn, must account for the shocking appearance, in one or two cases, of signatories of this document who are not in fact millionaires, living in ivory towers and totally divorced from the reality that most people have to live. Once again, I commend you all for making me see sense.
I am certain that the Prime Minister (you know, the millionaire who went to Eton along with half of the previous cabinet; that man whom myself and my entire country didn't vote for, as we so ignorantly revile both his party and his policies) will salute you all for your efforts. You've certainly persuaded me. I'll vote for the UK, with its pro-Israel stance, and totally ignore the suffering of the people in Gaza, too. It's for the best, really. As for foreign affairs, well, it's demonstrably obvious that the best way to conduct them is with a horde of nukes at your back, and that the surest way to preserve world peace is with an array of weapons that could only ever be deployed militarily in some kind of nightmarish endgame scenario, but which nevertheless cost billions a year to maintain and store, even while public service budgets are ruthlessly slashed. Why didn't I see this before? I genuinely feel like the writer of Amazing Grace.
I'd like, finally, to take this opportunity to highlight, and indeed, laud, certain signatories of this document who I feel have made an undeniable contribution to twenty-first century art, science and high culture, namely Messrs Armstrong, Barrowman, Bragg, Brydon, Ms Cox, Messrs Cowell, Dawkins, Galloway, Izzard, Ms McCall, Messrs Mitchell, Richard, Robinson, Miss Sarpong, Messrs Starkey, Sting, Sugar, Titchmarsh, Walliams and Webb. You are all deeply talented and necessary individuals, and I thank you all from the bottom of my bowels for descending temporarily from on-high to appeal to scum like me to see sense and vote No.
Thank you all for affording me this opportunity to tell you all how wonderfully wonderful I think you are,
Yours obsequiously,
McB
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.
Friday, 31 August 2012
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)