No – really, they must be. Even they would realise it if they bothered to do joined up thinking, not just focusing on the next quarter or imminent election like their pals in London’s City have taught them to do.
Just as they did in the referendum, they’re only looking at the here and now, the immediate reward, like a bunch of toddlers chasing lollipops. The problem is, once that lollipop’s gone all that is left is the stick. And sticks are just good for beating things with, or perhaps burning.
The burning will be on the pyre of pretense this time.
The flame of outrage will spring to life because even the craziest of Scots, as in anyone not confined indefinitely at ‘her majesty’s pleasure’ due to being just a little more than moderately disturbed, will come to understand ‘it’s all bollocks’.
Those Scots who were convinced to vote ‘NO’ during the referendum did so in order to keep the Barrel of Westminster Apples. However, the contents are already rotted and are no good for anything other than cider vinegar. Nevertheless the label on the tub proudly proclaimed in shiny red, white and blue the contents to be of ‘finest vintage’ while the media ‘Heralded’ it as such and the average establishment ‘Scotsman’ peddled those wares hard.
That MSM portrayed a scenario of ‘saving’ something and like puppies or drowning kittens, we’ll usually try to save something we know. They bet on it. Even then, it was close, because it took the entire establishment surging north in the last days, vowing everything with fingers tightly crossed behind its collective three party back, all the while singing ‘a Gordon for me’ as it lined up behind its new front man. So what if it was its old front man? It worked, it reportedly changed the votes of less than a handful of a hundred of us, but it was enough.
Several months on and we’re heading for the GE. However, the Scots aren’t buying it any longer. While I did expect a post referendum reaction I’ll admit to being surprise at the strength of it.
This time the singing isn’t coming across as melodic, not to enough of us to count anyway. You see, we know that with fifty or so MP’s, even holding the balance of power, they’ll still be the ‘feeble fifty’.
We know it because we’re already being told so, and we’re being told what will happen afterwards by London’s tame media.
We’re being told that the Tories and Labour will unite at Westminster to pass any legislation that might need to get passed to suit their very personal agendas and Scotland, with her wishes, be-damned.
However this is problematical as a formal alliance or coalition will strip from the English Electorate any illusion of there being two real choices. No, they’ve got to do it on a case by case basis, for that illusion of democracy must be preserved.
The quandary is, with so many individual MP’s or prospective MP’s having wildly varying opinions, especially on things like Nuclear Armaments and energy, there’s absolutely no way they can chance a ‘free vote’; the USA’s military industrial complex and her quiet lobbyists just can’t allow that either, in the case of Trident at least.
It will be downplayed in the media, but there’ll be no avoiding it, there will need to be a formal alliance between the Labour and Tory parties to achieve their joint aims. It might be case by case to try to fool England’s populous, but happen it will, and the Scots at least will know.
Of course, they can avoid it, if they can form an intentionally ‘ineffective’ government with the SNP involved and then engineer a ‘crisis’ where the administration loses a vote of confidence. They’d do it when the polls were favourable, preferably right before a big vote where Labour-Tory cross party unification is needed, though they’ll probably try to pull in the Lib-Dems and present it as ‘national unity’.
The crisis will be engineered when the polls swing enough to make a single party majority a virtual certainty. The “calamity” will be instigated by creating a need for a vote on something the SNP just can’t support. The government, like Callaghan’s in 1979 will fall apart, just as he knew it would before he called his confidence vote. And the blame and sham cries of “Foul” will once again be heaped upon the SNP. Consequently, it can be almost guaranteed the Tories will be elected. After all, England’s media at least, doesn’t want us dastardly Scots anywhere near the corridors of power.
In the meantime, to preserve the pretense of democratic rule in England, it’s entirely possible some major concessions towards Scotland might just have to be voted through. They’d do it because it’d probably make the polls swing faster as well.
North of Hadrian’s wall, the world is viewed rather differently, as will be the outcome this potential future election. The Scots will have a constitutional lesson that can’t be swept under the carpet. ‘Like trying to pull us out of Europe’ we’ll be told in no uncertain manner that our voices don’t count.
The Europe bit? That’s smoke and mirrors. That almost certainly won’t happen.
Trashing the value of democracy in Scotland, it’s an ongoing thing in the Union – and the Union will run true to form.
So why vote SNP, why try and outdo the ‘Tactical Vote’?
Because in the several months they are down London way, those men and women might just achieve a lot, and even if they don’t manage that, they’ll still achieve a lot – for the elections in 2016.
You see, these 2015 elections aren’t about 2015, they’re about a better goal; they’re about an absolute majority at Holyrood 2016. A majority that will be deliver by a thoroughly aggrieved nation.
When the SNP achieves this majority it will then have the ‘changed circumstances’ required allowing a call for a snap referendum. Those who’d object to that would be objecting to democracy, as it would be undoubtedly the expressed will of the Scottish people.
And what happens if the Unionists see this plan? It’s irrelevant, because the only way to stop it is to allow full participatory democracy in London, there’ll be no ‘feeble fifty’; there will be a ‘mighty minority’.
So, go ahead, defeat that tactical voting proposal. You know you really want to.
Elect those SNP MP’s and poke that Westminster ant hill with a 400 mile long stick.
It’ll be a delightful watching the outcome.
Showing posts with label Union. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Union. Show all posts
Saturday, 11 April 2015
Saturday, 18 October 2014
TV Political Debates; Conundrum or Not?
I’ve watched with interest as the SNP have been once again excluded from the General Election debates.
It’s actually been with a great deal of interest since they effectively won a case in 2010, that judicial review stated it was inappropriate to exclude them.
At the time, the arguments used were marginally credible.
The first statement was that they weren’t a ‘UK’ party, but a regional party. The argument then was that as they only contested seats in Scotland, then they’d no part in a UK wide debate.
The second argument actually held a bit more water, at least until this years’ debacle, sorry debate schedule was announced. Both those arguments are now relatively simple to defeat, but before that, we should examine another aspect of the debates.
No actually, I was correct in the first instance for now it is a debacle of democracy which is designed to perpetuate a two party system. The fact that it’s already been ‘pre-ordained’ that the leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties will share a head to head excluding all others, is surely a debacle; it makes a laughing stock of any pretence of democracy.
In a true democratic system, in an honourable one, all prospective candidates would be involved in the first debate in any election. The representation would then be whittled down until only the best two or three candidates remained. For these to be selected in advance by the media shows a system beyond corrupt. For it to be accepted largely without question shows a populace who for the most part is simply apathetic and doesn’t care. The referendum in September was a democratic awakening in Scotland, it shows we now care. And we care a whole lot.
As to rebalancing some of that media and Westminster engendered democratic deficit, especially following on from the judicial review in 2010, surely now with being the third largest party in the current UK, the SNP should have a seat at these debates?
The establishment will still fight to prevent it, because the establishment is about perpetuating the UK. With the SNP as the third largest party, the only argument for the establishment to now fall back upon, and it’d be a delaying tactic only, would be that the SNP aren’t a ‘national, UK wide party’. The ‘nation’ part falls to bits when we consider that Cameron, Miliband and Clegg all went on record last month to declare ‘Of course, Scotland is a nation’. That essentially and defensibly, from their perspective, only leaves the ‘Not a UK wide party’ argument.
The issue for the SNP is that it has a policy of not contesting seats in a GE which are not ‘in Scotland’.
Historically there’s a delicious irony here, for their own policy has gifted their opponents the whip with which to flay the party before the electoral masses.
How and ever, the solution could be achieved easily; and it would leave the opposition in a place somewhere between a quandary and a cleft stick.
Contest the seat held by Alan Beith; namely, the constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed. Legally, although adopted into the area of Northumberland by statute, the town of Berwick upon Tweed actually belongs to neither country, and we’ve just had that affirmation that we’re both countries.
Legally, the SNP can’t be prevented from doing this, which gives the Westminster cabal one of two options; they can retain their claim that the SNP aren’t actually a ‘UK Party’ and effectively concede that Berwick’s a Scottish town, or they can recognize that with seats being contested south of the current border, the SNP are a UK party, they just have the stated goal of dismantling the UK and returning true power to at least some of her people.
The SNP also have the justifiable stance here of claiming Berwick-upon-Tweed as historically a Scottish town, they can even put hands on hearts and smile with a tongue in cheek attitude as they point to the fact it’s actually internationally recognized as such, nodding in the direction of FIFA and reminding everyone that Berwick Rangers play in the Scottish League.
The fact that much of Northumberland is attached to that seat is rather irrelevant for this exercise; it’s about what the seat’s called.
Scotland’s nationalists don’t have to win the seat, but if handled properly there’s a good chance they could. No, all they have to do is wrong foot the establishment, and an announcement such as this would surely do that, especially as they could rightly point out, that unofficial polls have shown a majority of the townsfolk there would rather see the border moved anyway?
It’s actually been with a great deal of interest since they effectively won a case in 2010, that judicial review stated it was inappropriate to exclude them.
At the time, the arguments used were marginally credible.
The first statement was that they weren’t a ‘UK’ party, but a regional party. The argument then was that as they only contested seats in Scotland, then they’d no part in a UK wide debate.
The second argument actually held a bit more water, at least until this years’ debacle, sorry debate schedule was announced. Both those arguments are now relatively simple to defeat, but before that, we should examine another aspect of the debates.
No actually, I was correct in the first instance for now it is a debacle of democracy which is designed to perpetuate a two party system. The fact that it’s already been ‘pre-ordained’ that the leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties will share a head to head excluding all others, is surely a debacle; it makes a laughing stock of any pretence of democracy.
In a true democratic system, in an honourable one, all prospective candidates would be involved in the first debate in any election. The representation would then be whittled down until only the best two or three candidates remained. For these to be selected in advance by the media shows a system beyond corrupt. For it to be accepted largely without question shows a populace who for the most part is simply apathetic and doesn’t care. The referendum in September was a democratic awakening in Scotland, it shows we now care. And we care a whole lot.
As to rebalancing some of that media and Westminster engendered democratic deficit, especially following on from the judicial review in 2010, surely now with being the third largest party in the current UK, the SNP should have a seat at these debates?
The establishment will still fight to prevent it, because the establishment is about perpetuating the UK. With the SNP as the third largest party, the only argument for the establishment to now fall back upon, and it’d be a delaying tactic only, would be that the SNP aren’t a ‘national, UK wide party’. The ‘nation’ part falls to bits when we consider that Cameron, Miliband and Clegg all went on record last month to declare ‘Of course, Scotland is a nation’. That essentially and defensibly, from their perspective, only leaves the ‘Not a UK wide party’ argument.
The issue for the SNP is that it has a policy of not contesting seats in a GE which are not ‘in Scotland’.
Historically there’s a delicious irony here, for their own policy has gifted their opponents the whip with which to flay the party before the electoral masses.
How and ever, the solution could be achieved easily; and it would leave the opposition in a place somewhere between a quandary and a cleft stick.
Contest the seat held by Alan Beith; namely, the constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed. Legally, although adopted into the area of Northumberland by statute, the town of Berwick upon Tweed actually belongs to neither country, and we’ve just had that affirmation that we’re both countries.
Legally, the SNP can’t be prevented from doing this, which gives the Westminster cabal one of two options; they can retain their claim that the SNP aren’t actually a ‘UK Party’ and effectively concede that Berwick’s a Scottish town, or they can recognize that with seats being contested south of the current border, the SNP are a UK party, they just have the stated goal of dismantling the UK and returning true power to at least some of her people.
The SNP also have the justifiable stance here of claiming Berwick-upon-Tweed as historically a Scottish town, they can even put hands on hearts and smile with a tongue in cheek attitude as they point to the fact it’s actually internationally recognized as such, nodding in the direction of FIFA and reminding everyone that Berwick Rangers play in the Scottish League.
The fact that much of Northumberland is attached to that seat is rather irrelevant for this exercise; it’s about what the seat’s called.
Scotland’s nationalists don’t have to win the seat, but if handled properly there’s a good chance they could. No, all they have to do is wrong foot the establishment, and an announcement such as this would surely do that, especially as they could rightly point out, that unofficial polls have shown a majority of the townsfolk there would rather see the border moved anyway?
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
Mr. C. Thanks For The Prompt Reply.
Honestly, I didn’t expect an answer My Questions quite so quickly, but then, the truth will out, because the truth does have a nasty habit of bobbing to the surface.
My-oh-my, it was a surprise though, to see it answered so honestly.
I asked David Cameron a question the other day; I’ve now had my reply, even if indirectly delivered through the UK media. At least in a "here’s your answer, now you go figure it all out you silly wee wummin" type of format, at any rate that’s how it was presented in the press today.
Actually, I'm not so crazy as to think it was just my reply and it was only a partial answer, but he might have just as well shouted it from the rooftops. It was the response to the NHS question and it states very, very clearly, we’re about to lose our own Scottish NHS.
I'm talking about the English backlash in all the papers today, the one where there is a demand that we get our spending cut to a UK average, or even less, if that’s what Westminster decides. They’re saying £1,400 a head. This equals around £7.2 billion – allow me to write that out in full; £7,200,000,000. That’s cuts like you've never seen before. Oh, they’ll be staged allowing time for progressive charging to creep in, health insurance to slowly become a requirement and acceptable. You know how Westminster works; the death of a thousand little cuts. Except this time there’ll be over 7 billion little cuts.
Now, let’s remember where broadcasting is reserved to, especially after seeing ‘Better Together’ ads on the BBC (as a child, I really did believe it was supposed to be neutral and impartial, a great institution. That’s just another of those young beliefs shattered I suppose, consigned to the same afterlife as the tooth fairy). Anyway, remembering that broadcasting is reserved, we know who they’re supporting, and it isn’t ordinary folks.
This ‘newly revealed’ backlash is not particularly new; in fact it’s actually been (sometimes not so) subtly covered for a number of years now. England has forever been awash with images of the drunken Scot, belligerently whingeing for a handout. Meanwhile, they studiously ignore the fact that we put in far more than they do, more than we ever see back, which absolutely can’t be said for England.
Accordingly, akin to the Indy Ref, when you give folks half-truths, half the information and facts such as ‘they get more than you, is that fair’, of course the answer’s ‘NO’. It’s the same logic they’re using to try to get a ‘NO’ vote in Scotland, and sadly, some of my fellow Scots, reliant on a diet of Westminster propaganda, will vote that way, simply because like the English population demanding our budget be cut, they simply don’t know any better. Wonderfully subtle state propaganda, isn’t it?
Now, had these same English residents been given the full facts instead of Westminster propaganda i.e., the Scots actually pay far more into the system - much more. In reality, 2010/2011 tax receipts were £10,700 per person for Scotland, as opposed to an average of £9000 per person for the rUK. Had these same residents been made aware that these excess taxes are possibly paying a percentage towards England’s PFI contracts on hospitals and schools; wouldn't they be more amenable to the idea that it is only fair the Scots receive slightly more back than residents in rUK? Would there still be this hue and cry in England?
I suspect that not. The vast majority of English are reasonable folks, they’d be reasonably happy with that arrangement, if not downright tickled pink.
Sadly though, supplying the information at this juncture won’t work, because south of the border Scotland has been demonised in both popular culture and the popular press for far too long. The BBC is largely responsible, and the BBC is a reserved arm of Westminster. I can say that, because it’s been done at all levels, from the portrayal of Scots in newsprint to even one of my favourite old Beeb comedy shows like Black Adder; cringe worthy depictions of red-headed, tartan-bobble-hatted, be-kilted savage Scot, my people. Perhaps that’s why many suffer a Scottish cringe?
Anyway, it’s largely irrelevant now. What is relevant though is that the poll on attitudes showed upwards of a three to one majority of ‘realigning’ spending, as in cutting our budget. In reality, people who have done their research know this poll is based on half truths, innuendoes and lies. However, just like the ‘NO Voter’ in the upcoming referendum, it is what they truly believe; because they base their opinion upon the information they've been spoon fed. That makes it very real.
Furthermore, this also makes it very real to the politicians in Westminster; real and actionable. They do, after all, look upon us as ‘one country’, not four countries voluntarily making up one state. So when three of four who voice an opinion tell them to act, and it’s an action they want to take anyway, they pretty much now have to be seen to be doing something. We can bet the English press will report one set of promises, their Scottish editions will report it another way.
That means if the hoodwink holds enough of our people until September 19th, then within a very short time we can expect to see an ‘adjustment in our allowance’ of some 7 billion quid. It’s not going to be an upwards adjustment either.
If the hoodwink holds, that seven billion, and by government figures would mean one of two things if applied to us; it’d mean shutting down every hospital in Scotland, with every GP Practice or making you pay for them by forcing you to buy private insurance. It means that, or finding the money some-place else.
The problem being, there isn’t any some-place else. Since any extra Holyrood extracts from us will be deducted from what Westminster gives them.
I have recently spoken with a nurse taking a position in England. I asked if her contract was with the NHS, a health board, or a private company. You’d think that’s an easy enough question. Not in England, not today. She’ll be in an NHS uniform though, for now.
So, Mr. Cameron thanks for my answer, although I know you didn’t just decide to give it to me directly. I know your methods, and how you use the media. First they ‘uncover a story’ and engender disbelief, that disbelief turns to outrage, and as with our poor, our disabled, our sick and our immigrants, outrage begets anger and demonisation, which in turn gives support for the actions you intended anyway. It’s a bit like Putin invading his neighbours.
You want me to keep a system of healthcare, the future of which is to be modelled on the US, where a simple Caesarian Section can cost up to $25,000. You’re seriously asking me to vote for that?
Well, having had your response Mr. Cameron, I’ll give you mine. I’ll just say ‘No Thanks’ on the 18th, but I’ll say ‘YES’ to trusting my neighbours and country. You see, what you've threatened if we vote yes, while worrisome, isn’t really very scary. Not when it’s put beside what you're promising to do if I say ‘No Thanks’. The consequences of No means you’ll really have the power to make it happen, and me? Well, I’ll no longer have a finger to point, will I?
My-oh-my, it was a surprise though, to see it answered so honestly.
I asked David Cameron a question the other day; I’ve now had my reply, even if indirectly delivered through the UK media. At least in a "here’s your answer, now you go figure it all out you silly wee wummin" type of format, at any rate that’s how it was presented in the press today.
Actually, I'm not so crazy as to think it was just my reply and it was only a partial answer, but he might have just as well shouted it from the rooftops. It was the response to the NHS question and it states very, very clearly, we’re about to lose our own Scottish NHS.
I'm talking about the English backlash in all the papers today, the one where there is a demand that we get our spending cut to a UK average, or even less, if that’s what Westminster decides. They’re saying £1,400 a head. This equals around £7.2 billion – allow me to write that out in full; £7,200,000,000. That’s cuts like you've never seen before. Oh, they’ll be staged allowing time for progressive charging to creep in, health insurance to slowly become a requirement and acceptable. You know how Westminster works; the death of a thousand little cuts. Except this time there’ll be over 7 billion little cuts.
Now, let’s remember where broadcasting is reserved to, especially after seeing ‘Better Together’ ads on the BBC (as a child, I really did believe it was supposed to be neutral and impartial, a great institution. That’s just another of those young beliefs shattered I suppose, consigned to the same afterlife as the tooth fairy). Anyway, remembering that broadcasting is reserved, we know who they’re supporting, and it isn’t ordinary folks.
This ‘newly revealed’ backlash is not particularly new; in fact it’s actually been (sometimes not so) subtly covered for a number of years now. England has forever been awash with images of the drunken Scot, belligerently whingeing for a handout. Meanwhile, they studiously ignore the fact that we put in far more than they do, more than we ever see back, which absolutely can’t be said for England.
Accordingly, akin to the Indy Ref, when you give folks half-truths, half the information and facts such as ‘they get more than you, is that fair’, of course the answer’s ‘NO’. It’s the same logic they’re using to try to get a ‘NO’ vote in Scotland, and sadly, some of my fellow Scots, reliant on a diet of Westminster propaganda, will vote that way, simply because like the English population demanding our budget be cut, they simply don’t know any better. Wonderfully subtle state propaganda, isn’t it?
Now, had these same English residents been given the full facts instead of Westminster propaganda i.e., the Scots actually pay far more into the system - much more. In reality, 2010/2011 tax receipts were £10,700 per person for Scotland, as opposed to an average of £9000 per person for the rUK. Had these same residents been made aware that these excess taxes are possibly paying a percentage towards England’s PFI contracts on hospitals and schools; wouldn't they be more amenable to the idea that it is only fair the Scots receive slightly more back than residents in rUK? Would there still be this hue and cry in England?
I suspect that not. The vast majority of English are reasonable folks, they’d be reasonably happy with that arrangement, if not downright tickled pink.
Sadly though, supplying the information at this juncture won’t work, because south of the border Scotland has been demonised in both popular culture and the popular press for far too long. The BBC is largely responsible, and the BBC is a reserved arm of Westminster. I can say that, because it’s been done at all levels, from the portrayal of Scots in newsprint to even one of my favourite old Beeb comedy shows like Black Adder; cringe worthy depictions of red-headed, tartan-bobble-hatted, be-kilted savage Scot, my people. Perhaps that’s why many suffer a Scottish cringe?
Anyway, it’s largely irrelevant now. What is relevant though is that the poll on attitudes showed upwards of a three to one majority of ‘realigning’ spending, as in cutting our budget. In reality, people who have done their research know this poll is based on half truths, innuendoes and lies. However, just like the ‘NO Voter’ in the upcoming referendum, it is what they truly believe; because they base their opinion upon the information they've been spoon fed. That makes it very real.
Furthermore, this also makes it very real to the politicians in Westminster; real and actionable. They do, after all, look upon us as ‘one country’, not four countries voluntarily making up one state. So when three of four who voice an opinion tell them to act, and it’s an action they want to take anyway, they pretty much now have to be seen to be doing something. We can bet the English press will report one set of promises, their Scottish editions will report it another way.
That means if the hoodwink holds enough of our people until September 19th, then within a very short time we can expect to see an ‘adjustment in our allowance’ of some 7 billion quid. It’s not going to be an upwards adjustment either.
If the hoodwink holds, that seven billion, and by government figures would mean one of two things if applied to us; it’d mean shutting down every hospital in Scotland, with every GP Practice or making you pay for them by forcing you to buy private insurance. It means that, or finding the money some-place else.
The problem being, there isn’t any some-place else. Since any extra Holyrood extracts from us will be deducted from what Westminster gives them.
I have recently spoken with a nurse taking a position in England. I asked if her contract was with the NHS, a health board, or a private company. You’d think that’s an easy enough question. Not in England, not today. She’ll be in an NHS uniform though, for now.
So, Mr. Cameron thanks for my answer, although I know you didn’t just decide to give it to me directly. I know your methods, and how you use the media. First they ‘uncover a story’ and engender disbelief, that disbelief turns to outrage, and as with our poor, our disabled, our sick and our immigrants, outrage begets anger and demonisation, which in turn gives support for the actions you intended anyway. It’s a bit like Putin invading his neighbours.
You want me to keep a system of healthcare, the future of which is to be modelled on the US, where a simple Caesarian Section can cost up to $25,000. You’re seriously asking me to vote for that?
Well, having had your response Mr. Cameron, I’ll give you mine. I’ll just say ‘No Thanks’ on the 18th, but I’ll say ‘YES’ to trusting my neighbours and country. You see, what you've threatened if we vote yes, while worrisome, isn’t really very scary. Not when it’s put beside what you're promising to do if I say ‘No Thanks’. The consequences of No means you’ll really have the power to make it happen, and me? Well, I’ll no longer have a finger to point, will I?
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.
Sunday, 16 September 2012
What about the children?
At times it is worth a visit to the twilight zone, a look into an alternative reality whereby our politicians only did what is right, what is in the best interests of our society, what is good for the children. Not what is often simply in their own self serving interest.
It is surprising, very surprising that no one in any political movement has examined this issue, more precisely “is it good for the children?”
A simple suggestion indeed, but what if it became our guiding legislative principle, we are, after all only caretakers for the next generation, and caretakers can be good or bad. Westminster is a stark example of bad caretaking with rising, soaring child poverty.
Take for example NHS privatisation, service cuts and PPI/PFI. As these issues continue to impoverish and dismantle our social contract by an exponentially soaring debt burden that has transferred to the unborn, can we honestly argue that this is good for the children?
Consider also that the UK is at the forefront of the world’s list of most unequal nations, and consider if that can possibly be good for the children.
Imagine an updated proposed or implemented Scottish constitution, one that is yet to be written, but one that the current Holyrood government guarantees will include nothing that negatively impacts our children. Holyrood could pass such legislation in this or next year’s sessions.
Holyrood could guarantee to set up an independent body of perhaps a dozen randomly selected citizens from a pool of volunteers to examine each and every article of legislation passed or enforced in Scotland. If it is viewed as good for the children, neutral or wouldn’t affect them it continues the legislative process. Alternatively Holyrood could simply propose an act whereby legislation perceived as not good for the children could be challenged and struck.
This is the only principle that Holyrood need propose for inclusion into a future restored Scottish state, the only big bazooka as the financial gurus would call it that is likely to grab a nation’s attention.
Enshrine the sovereignty of the individual by protecting tomorrow’s citizens.
It will do so because such a proposal is almost unique, certainly in our modern western civilizations.
It will do so because virtually everyone will agree that if it isn’t good for the children, and we can demonstrate that it isn’t good for the children, then we shouldn’t be doing it, proposing it, or allowing it.
It will do so because it will shift the independence debate away from the SNP; from the same old, same old arguments, from the bickering, from the internecine party warfare to where the debate should be, what kind of Scotland we want for tomorrow, what kind of Scotland we want for our children.
Imagine the effect if this is put before Holyrood, as an overriding aspect of future Scots law.
The Union parties would have to vote for it, or against it. Expect their backers to want it to be killed. Big chemical, big pharmaceutical, big oil will all see drawbacks to a law protecting children. The City certainly would not support it because the fees and charges our pension pots currently suffer under as we stagger through crisis after financial crisis would need to be capped or moderated if proposed for future amendment. Parents requiring support from their children through usurious finance charges, is not good for the children.
The principle is simple; the objectors will be many, for today’s adults cannot be asset stripped unless it is deemed “good for the children”.
Imagine the cleft stick that Holyrood could place the Union supporters in. London will be unable to insist on legislation that could be deemed detrimental to the children. If it insisted it is not impossible that Westminster governments might fall.
The Union parties would have to oppose the proposal; they are likely to be ordered to do so. However, if the Union parties do oppose the proposal, it would strip their veneer, it would lay them bare to every citizen of these islands, and they would be perpetually seen as the parties who don’t care about children.
The effect would ripple right through Scots society, it would galvanise Scots as they realise this referendum isn’t about the SNP, it isn’t about Labour, or their more minor partners, the Tories. It would help people forget the irrelevance that is the Liberal Democrats.
It would, more than anything else conceivable, bring the focus sharply back onto the real purpose of this referendum.
That it is about nothing more or less than Scotland’s future, and the ability of Scots to shape it directly without any disastrous dilution of their democracy.
It will remind folk, or shock them into acknowledgement for the first time, that a vote which is diluted by over 90% is a worthless vote when it comes to writing your own story, to choosing the path that you need to choose.
It will do all these things and more simply because it is in the best interests of the children, and who among us except the predatory, the depraved and the simply evil wouldn’t put the good of the children first.
It is surprising, very surprising that no one in any political movement has examined this issue, more precisely “is it good for the children?”
A simple suggestion indeed, but what if it became our guiding legislative principle, we are, after all only caretakers for the next generation, and caretakers can be good or bad. Westminster is a stark example of bad caretaking with rising, soaring child poverty.
Take for example NHS privatisation, service cuts and PPI/PFI. As these issues continue to impoverish and dismantle our social contract by an exponentially soaring debt burden that has transferred to the unborn, can we honestly argue that this is good for the children?
Consider also that the UK is at the forefront of the world’s list of most unequal nations, and consider if that can possibly be good for the children.
Imagine an updated proposed or implemented Scottish constitution, one that is yet to be written, but one that the current Holyrood government guarantees will include nothing that negatively impacts our children. Holyrood could pass such legislation in this or next year’s sessions.
Holyrood could guarantee to set up an independent body of perhaps a dozen randomly selected citizens from a pool of volunteers to examine each and every article of legislation passed or enforced in Scotland. If it is viewed as good for the children, neutral or wouldn’t affect them it continues the legislative process. Alternatively Holyrood could simply propose an act whereby legislation perceived as not good for the children could be challenged and struck.
This is the only principle that Holyrood need propose for inclusion into a future restored Scottish state, the only big bazooka as the financial gurus would call it that is likely to grab a nation’s attention.
Enshrine the sovereignty of the individual by protecting tomorrow’s citizens.
It will do so because such a proposal is almost unique, certainly in our modern western civilizations.
It will do so because virtually everyone will agree that if it isn’t good for the children, and we can demonstrate that it isn’t good for the children, then we shouldn’t be doing it, proposing it, or allowing it.
It will do so because it will shift the independence debate away from the SNP; from the same old, same old arguments, from the bickering, from the internecine party warfare to where the debate should be, what kind of Scotland we want for tomorrow, what kind of Scotland we want for our children.
Imagine the effect if this is put before Holyrood, as an overriding aspect of future Scots law.
The Union parties would have to vote for it, or against it. Expect their backers to want it to be killed. Big chemical, big pharmaceutical, big oil will all see drawbacks to a law protecting children. The City certainly would not support it because the fees and charges our pension pots currently suffer under as we stagger through crisis after financial crisis would need to be capped or moderated if proposed for future amendment. Parents requiring support from their children through usurious finance charges, is not good for the children.
The principle is simple; the objectors will be many, for today’s adults cannot be asset stripped unless it is deemed “good for the children”.
Imagine the cleft stick that Holyrood could place the Union supporters in. London will be unable to insist on legislation that could be deemed detrimental to the children. If it insisted it is not impossible that Westminster governments might fall.
The Union parties would have to oppose the proposal; they are likely to be ordered to do so. However, if the Union parties do oppose the proposal, it would strip their veneer, it would lay them bare to every citizen of these islands, and they would be perpetually seen as the parties who don’t care about children.
The effect would ripple right through Scots society, it would galvanise Scots as they realise this referendum isn’t about the SNP, it isn’t about Labour, or their more minor partners, the Tories. It would help people forget the irrelevance that is the Liberal Democrats.
It would, more than anything else conceivable, bring the focus sharply back onto the real purpose of this referendum.
That it is about nothing more or less than Scotland’s future, and the ability of Scots to shape it directly without any disastrous dilution of their democracy.
It will remind folk, or shock them into acknowledgement for the first time, that a vote which is diluted by over 90% is a worthless vote when it comes to writing your own story, to choosing the path that you need to choose.
It will do all these things and more simply because it is in the best interests of the children, and who among us except the predatory, the depraved and the simply evil wouldn’t put the good of the children first.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)