Iain Duncan Smith and Michelle Mone;
Now, there’s a combination to send shivers up the spine. Putting the two of them together under a Tory banner to encourage a surge of entrepreneurship amongst the unemployed and disadvantaged, to produce a resurgence in this island’s ‘nation of shopkeepers’ is a bit like grabbing a beautiful but totally mis-sized article of Michelle’s design. You’ll end up with eye candy to admire, but something which utterly lacks any form of real support.
Before this project even starts it’s a busted flush, and whoever even thought about it when the answers are already self evident really needs to be taken behind closed doors for a damned good spanking.
It’s because the answers are so self evident, that corporal, or even capital punishment needs used here.
Now consider the announcement; effectively they want to ‘take us back to being a nation of shopkeepers’.
All you need to do instead of traipsing around the country on what is effectively a publicity exercise, each time being twanged back to Westminster faster than an overstretched knicker elastic could possibly manage, is look back to see why that situation doesn’t exist any more, and what might be needed to be done by government to recreate the conditions under which it flourished, rather than what’s being done here, which is a bit like Michelle embroidering a flower on a bra cup and waiting for it to bloom.
I can answer this, because from Germany to the Dominican Republic, I can speak of a uniformity of what makes this possible. These places do exist, but they’re as easily killed off as day long comfort when you buy Michelle’s products only for their visual impact.
These places have very few chain super-stores; in fact it’s often legislatively punitive for them to enter these markets. These countries often put different tax rates simply based on floor space. Huge stores can pay double per meter what small ones do. Such systems, or their alternatives, are quite effective in encouraging individual entrepreneurship.
Otherwise, no matter what anyone tries, you’re not going to compete. The buying power of the big franchises means they get the volume discounts – your small startup company doesn’t. If they can’t buy you out, they’ll drive you under with ‘loss leaders’ before they jack the prices back up again; you only need look to the spread of Wal-Mart throughout US cities and the demise of the “Mon n Pop” shops. If you come up with something truly innovative, you just might make it, but it’s not guaranteed. This is because the financing is all pretty much tied up in big corporate or the City, and as just another unemployed wannabe, it’s not impossible to succeed in this system, but it’s a real struggle. You could compare it to old Lord Sewell trying to properly fill out one of Michelle’s bras. He’s proven willing, but no matter how hard he tries his favourite coloured one just never seems to fit right. And so it goes with finance packages that might be offered to any would-be entrepreneur coming from the ranks of the unemployed. (NB. Westminster’s a bit kinder than calling our unfortunate masses the great unwashed these days, no matter that their actions demonstrate it is how we’re still considered).
Firstly, legislation needs to be enacted that will level the playing field between the big girls and the little girls on the block. However with vested interests, corruption and lobbying at Westminster, there’s about as much chance of that happening as a prayer to God by Ms Mone asking for all girls to be made the same size, and suddenly half the population would have identical boobs thus streamlining her manufacturing costs. Essentially then if you can’t change the fundamentals, you’re stuck with what you’ve got. What you’ve got is the system which permitted or even encouraged the demise of the entrepreneur – like different sized boobs; it’s a fact of life.
The other thing which isn’t being acknowledged because evidently this UK government is incapable of seeing it, is that while every life is special, valued and cherished, we’re not all created equally. Some will only ever be capable, or even comfortable in more basic capacities, while others will thrive in challenge. As a generality those in the second group tend not to be on the unemployment line for extended periods while the former certainly wouldn’t be there either if they could find a way out. The former tend to need the latter to help them along, the latter need the former to help them truly succeed. In other words, a society that truly integrates people of all abilities to ensure everyone benefits. The UK is like a shop window today, where only Michelle’s best selling lines are out for display, while the bargain-bin items that really didn’t fly off the shelves are like the disadvantaged in our society; they’re quietly sacrificed on a bonfire of the vanities out the back. Let's be honest, blaming the disadvantaged for their situation without allowing or creating ways for them to change it, is vain indeed.
For us Scots and especially those who voted ‘No’ last year, we can only look back and wonder why we did not grasp the thistle. We know the result was mostly founded on Project Fear, yet like one of Michelle’s broken knicker elastics, it might have be unpleasant for a bit or cause a little temporary difficulty, but resourceful people do get past problems, and we know for sure – Scots are resourceful people. We’re resourceful enough to understand that with Holyrood, we might have accountability, with Westminster, we never will.
Ask a ‘No’ voter under those circumstances, why they cast their vote that way. For by understanding ‘No’ is the only way ‘Yes’ will prevail.
Next time we need to say yes, even if it’s only to avoid the picture in our media of Lord Sewell again modeling what Michelle works to produce. For surely not one of us can point to that image and say – “Uh huh – that’s my Country, that’s my Union – I’m so glad I voted for that!”
Finally, on a serious note, ‘No’ voters should also be aware that every time there’s a suicide, a terminal patient forced back into work, either of which seem to happen numerous times on a daily basis through Westminster’s uncaring and unaccountable policies, that they too are responsible for that, and when the day comes that it’s one of their family? Well don’t moan, because it too was your choice.
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corruption. Show all posts
Tuesday, 11 August 2015
Saturday, 20 June 2015
Breach of Promise or Breach of Contract
Let’s consider a question I was asked recently, and to be honest, it sounded like it was a bit pointless at first blush.
The question was simple, and I’m reminding you I’m not a lawyer, but I was intrigued. The individual simply asked if Mssrs. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and possibly Brown and/or their parties could be sued for breach of promise over ‘The Vow’ as it was published in the Daily Record in the dying days of the Referendum Campaign.
There was a second aspect to this – if it is possible to do it, did I think it could be crowd-funded?
Honestly, I’ve no idea, was my immediate and rather doubtful response, but it was worth investigating anyway. You see, my recollection of that ‘Vow’ at the time was that it could be read in multiple ways, have a dozen interpretations, and there were really no ‘cast iron guarantees’ built into it. It was, essentially, designed to take the switherer and give them a justification for not doing what they were then believing; that it might be right to vote ‘Yes’.
Interestingly, in spite of what others may say, do or argue every indication I’m discovering is that whatever impact the ‘Vow’ had on the referendum is irrelevant now. Many believe it was the deciding factor. I agree it had a major impact, so I was surprised, none of that is actually relevant. The Union parties seem to think it is though, that caused me to keep digging – what’re they trying to hide?
The starting point is simple; what was actually promised, or less solidly, what would be reasonable to construe was promised. The fact that their names were signed to it, and they de-facto didn’t deny or refute any of it and in actuality did publicly (as the legal’s state) ‘aver and affirm’ if not specifically using those words, implies a promise or contract, in which they could now potentially be in breach.
If they did enter into such a contract, then it’d have been one with the people of Scotland, or even more specifically, those amongst us that altered our vote from ‘Yes’ to ‘No’ based upon that ‘Vow’ ‘Contract’ or ‘Promise’, but it’s most likely that a suit brought by specific individuals lodged and worded something as the ‘people of Scotland’ might suffice.
The second aspect was ‘were they protected by parliamentary privilege’, essentially meaning they can’t be sued. Categorically, the answer here is no. The announcement, undertaking or feel-good fuzzy, call it what you want to, was made by means of a daily tabloid “news”-paper.
So – was there anything specific enough to constitute a contract or promise?
In looking through the Record’s page on the day in question, reading it carefully, helped by someone who used to help actually make laws in the United States (so note the qualifier – it’s not Scot’s advice, but I’m told that although Contract and Promissory law has nuances, it’s overall pretty consistent) what I heard fell out as follows:
1. It stated the three main party leaders had all signed up to the incorporated statements – they’re therefore all on the hook for anything that followed, as long as the specifics could be defined. No specifics, no hook. No ‘No’ vote – it’s all moot anyway.
2. They promised to transfer more powers to Holyrood. That’d have to be in addition to anything that went before. If they give Holyrood the rights over its janitorial budget, and it hadn’t had them before then the promise is fulfilled. It still might be open to argument on ‘reasonable expectation’ grounds, but a near certain win has dropped into rather dubious ‘coin flip’ territory.
3. ‘No one, other than the Scottish Parliament can cut vital public services such as the NHS’ – This is where it might get interesting, because they (Westminster) hold the purse strings, and there was no guarantee they’d not cut funding thereby forcing the Scottish Government to cut services. On the surface it’s a loss here, especially as they already told us we’d be getting more budget cuts, a loss except for the fact that it could be argued it builds on the first point as to right of expectation.
4. The powers were then guaranteed to be ‘extensive’. Still, they could give you the right to pick your nose in addition to those ‘janitorial services’, then they’d argue that was ‘extensive’ – it’s coin flip territory once more, except it again builds upon the umbrella impression of realistic expectation.
5. They agreed that the Scottish Parliament is ‘Permanent’, unless they try to abolish it, there’s no breach of promise there. Even failure to enshrine it constitutionally doesn’t breach that promise – effectively it’s been so declared. Once more it builds on that expectation thing.
6. They promised to improve government in the UK in the years ahead. This might be a ‘gotcha’ with the Alistair Carmichael thing. Arguably, not requiring or requesting resignation shows intent to abandon this pledge. It’s still too early to make a definitive point though. Getting rid of corrupt members could be claimed as showing good intent, avoiding the subject, not so much. Might be a solid argument in a decade, not today. Again it builds on the ‘right of expectation’ thing.
In short, with one exception, this was effectively a media publicity stunt, and that very important exception is the right of expectation.
It was explained to me like this, that if I buy a car, and I’m promised it will be red, three years old, with less than thirty thousand miles and in excellent condition both bodily and mechanically, with the reasonable anticipation of many thousands of happy motoring miles in front of me, then that’s what I should get.
If that car is delivered as described above, but I subsequently discover it’s had a governor fitted, or been ‘wheel clamped’ then the letter of the contract has absolutely been adhered to, however the right of expectation has been thoroughly trashed. The goods are not fit for purpose as one had been led to believe.
This falls under the fact that in law, and Scot’s law too, it isn’t actually necessary to define every detail, but broad expectations are enough. The folk simply need to be competent. Working through the result of the referendum to the landslide in May for the SNP, it’s almost an inescapable argument that many amongst Scotland’s electorate believed one thing, acted in one way (No Vote) and now believe they’ve been sold what would be commonly referred to as ‘a Lemon’, oddly enough, there’s laws against that too!
It would appear that in drafting this vow Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown had fairly good contractual advice, however it would appear they used English legal advice. However the offer was made through the medium of a Scottish Red-Top to the Scots electorate in such a way it could only be accepted in Scotland. Therefore Scots Law and NOT English Law would seem to apply and be the potential initiator of many problems for the “gentlemen” involved.
Effectively, using that massive vote swing as confirmation, it can be argued that a contract was offered, accepted and viewed as breached. In addition, that there was a poll showing a 51/49 vote split in favour of the ‘Yes’ vote with the ‘Yes’ vote steadily gaining momentum until that point at which the ‘Vow’ was made resulting a net six percent reduction in the ‘Yes’ ballot and a final 45/55 poll in favour of ‘No’ also speaks to the efficacy of the offer.
All aspects of this particular case say that, effectively, Scotland’s electorate was sold a wheel-clamped car.
On that, there is without doubt a case.
All that would remain to be answered would be if an unbiased judge heard the case, and on which side of the coin the result would finally land. Only the court itself could determine if it was a winning case.
As to other promises made during this time-frame, they could be viewed as ‘adjunct offers’ especially if not refuted in word or deed by the parties concerned before the vote took place.
One thing is certain, even if the case didn’t make it to court, even a moderately successful attempt at fundraising towards getting it there would prove intensely embarrassing to all the potential respondents.
Should the suit prove successful, and if properly worded, it could force anything from a re-run of the poll itself to utter upheaval in the constitution of the United Kingdom, for in an extreme case it’s entirely possible that a judge could (not would, could) order the establishment of a federalized governmental system.
Where it would go from there would be…..interesting.
The question was simple, and I’m reminding you I’m not a lawyer, but I was intrigued. The individual simply asked if Mssrs. Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and possibly Brown and/or their parties could be sued for breach of promise over ‘The Vow’ as it was published in the Daily Record in the dying days of the Referendum Campaign.
There was a second aspect to this – if it is possible to do it, did I think it could be crowd-funded?
Honestly, I’ve no idea, was my immediate and rather doubtful response, but it was worth investigating anyway. You see, my recollection of that ‘Vow’ at the time was that it could be read in multiple ways, have a dozen interpretations, and there were really no ‘cast iron guarantees’ built into it. It was, essentially, designed to take the switherer and give them a justification for not doing what they were then believing; that it might be right to vote ‘Yes’.
Interestingly, in spite of what others may say, do or argue every indication I’m discovering is that whatever impact the ‘Vow’ had on the referendum is irrelevant now. Many believe it was the deciding factor. I agree it had a major impact, so I was surprised, none of that is actually relevant. The Union parties seem to think it is though, that caused me to keep digging – what’re they trying to hide?
The starting point is simple; what was actually promised, or less solidly, what would be reasonable to construe was promised. The fact that their names were signed to it, and they de-facto didn’t deny or refute any of it and in actuality did publicly (as the legal’s state) ‘aver and affirm’ if not specifically using those words, implies a promise or contract, in which they could now potentially be in breach.
If they did enter into such a contract, then it’d have been one with the people of Scotland, or even more specifically, those amongst us that altered our vote from ‘Yes’ to ‘No’ based upon that ‘Vow’ ‘Contract’ or ‘Promise’, but it’s most likely that a suit brought by specific individuals lodged and worded something as the ‘people of Scotland’ might suffice.
The second aspect was ‘were they protected by parliamentary privilege’, essentially meaning they can’t be sued. Categorically, the answer here is no. The announcement, undertaking or feel-good fuzzy, call it what you want to, was made by means of a daily tabloid “news”-paper.
So – was there anything specific enough to constitute a contract or promise?
In looking through the Record’s page on the day in question, reading it carefully, helped by someone who used to help actually make laws in the United States (so note the qualifier – it’s not Scot’s advice, but I’m told that although Contract and Promissory law has nuances, it’s overall pretty consistent) what I heard fell out as follows:
1. It stated the three main party leaders had all signed up to the incorporated statements – they’re therefore all on the hook for anything that followed, as long as the specifics could be defined. No specifics, no hook. No ‘No’ vote – it’s all moot anyway.
2. They promised to transfer more powers to Holyrood. That’d have to be in addition to anything that went before. If they give Holyrood the rights over its janitorial budget, and it hadn’t had them before then the promise is fulfilled. It still might be open to argument on ‘reasonable expectation’ grounds, but a near certain win has dropped into rather dubious ‘coin flip’ territory.
3. ‘No one, other than the Scottish Parliament can cut vital public services such as the NHS’ – This is where it might get interesting, because they (Westminster) hold the purse strings, and there was no guarantee they’d not cut funding thereby forcing the Scottish Government to cut services. On the surface it’s a loss here, especially as they already told us we’d be getting more budget cuts, a loss except for the fact that it could be argued it builds on the first point as to right of expectation.
4. The powers were then guaranteed to be ‘extensive’. Still, they could give you the right to pick your nose in addition to those ‘janitorial services’, then they’d argue that was ‘extensive’ – it’s coin flip territory once more, except it again builds upon the umbrella impression of realistic expectation.
5. They agreed that the Scottish Parliament is ‘Permanent’, unless they try to abolish it, there’s no breach of promise there. Even failure to enshrine it constitutionally doesn’t breach that promise – effectively it’s been so declared. Once more it builds on that expectation thing.
6. They promised to improve government in the UK in the years ahead. This might be a ‘gotcha’ with the Alistair Carmichael thing. Arguably, not requiring or requesting resignation shows intent to abandon this pledge. It’s still too early to make a definitive point though. Getting rid of corrupt members could be claimed as showing good intent, avoiding the subject, not so much. Might be a solid argument in a decade, not today. Again it builds on the ‘right of expectation’ thing.
In short, with one exception, this was effectively a media publicity stunt, and that very important exception is the right of expectation.
It was explained to me like this, that if I buy a car, and I’m promised it will be red, three years old, with less than thirty thousand miles and in excellent condition both bodily and mechanically, with the reasonable anticipation of many thousands of happy motoring miles in front of me, then that’s what I should get.
If that car is delivered as described above, but I subsequently discover it’s had a governor fitted, or been ‘wheel clamped’ then the letter of the contract has absolutely been adhered to, however the right of expectation has been thoroughly trashed. The goods are not fit for purpose as one had been led to believe.
This falls under the fact that in law, and Scot’s law too, it isn’t actually necessary to define every detail, but broad expectations are enough. The folk simply need to be competent. Working through the result of the referendum to the landslide in May for the SNP, it’s almost an inescapable argument that many amongst Scotland’s electorate believed one thing, acted in one way (No Vote) and now believe they’ve been sold what would be commonly referred to as ‘a Lemon’, oddly enough, there’s laws against that too!
It would appear that in drafting this vow Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown had fairly good contractual advice, however it would appear they used English legal advice. However the offer was made through the medium of a Scottish Red-Top to the Scots electorate in such a way it could only be accepted in Scotland. Therefore Scots Law and NOT English Law would seem to apply and be the potential initiator of many problems for the “gentlemen” involved.
Effectively, using that massive vote swing as confirmation, it can be argued that a contract was offered, accepted and viewed as breached. In addition, that there was a poll showing a 51/49 vote split in favour of the ‘Yes’ vote with the ‘Yes’ vote steadily gaining momentum until that point at which the ‘Vow’ was made resulting a net six percent reduction in the ‘Yes’ ballot and a final 45/55 poll in favour of ‘No’ also speaks to the efficacy of the offer.
All aspects of this particular case say that, effectively, Scotland’s electorate was sold a wheel-clamped car.
On that, there is without doubt a case.
All that would remain to be answered would be if an unbiased judge heard the case, and on which side of the coin the result would finally land. Only the court itself could determine if it was a winning case.
As to other promises made during this time-frame, they could be viewed as ‘adjunct offers’ especially if not refuted in word or deed by the parties concerned before the vote took place.
One thing is certain, even if the case didn’t make it to court, even a moderately successful attempt at fundraising towards getting it there would prove intensely embarrassing to all the potential respondents.
Should the suit prove successful, and if properly worded, it could force anything from a re-run of the poll itself to utter upheaval in the constitution of the United Kingdom, for in an extreme case it’s entirely possible that a judge could (not would, could) order the establishment of a federalized governmental system.
Where it would go from there would be…..interesting.
Wednesday, 17 June 2015
David Cameron - The man with no Honour.
Even Maggie couldn’t truly be accused of being that shallow, but the current leader of the United Kingdom has this week categorically proven himself a snake oil salesman of the worst degree, a cad and a bounder in the Oxbridge parlance and utterly dishonourable.
David Cameron has taken the already low opinion of politicians that’s almost universally shared throughout the electorate of Britain, and flushed what little remained down Westminster’s porcelain bowl.
I had a look to see if any of this was libelous, so Cad is defined as a man (I think he might fit that description) who behaves dishonourably, especially towards a woman. In this UK Scotland is often portrayed the ‘wife’, Nicola Sturgeon was essentially promised the ‘VOW’ would be kept (look upon the Vow as a re-dedication of that marriage). So, by voting down the permanence of Holyrood, something enshrined in convention, and where supporting a vote would have been of no consequence or cost, especially after what was printed against his name on the Daily Record front page and which he affirmed through not denying or distancing then and has promised to keep since, Cad is entirely appropriate.
Dishonourable; per Google, has these synonyms; disgraceful, shameful, shameless, shaming, disreputable, discreditable, degrading, debasing, ignominious, ignoble, blameworthy, contemptible, despicable, reprehensible, shabby, shoddy, sordid, sorry, base, low, improper, unseemly, and unworthy. Consider the refusal of the Scotland office to release full details of the ‘Carmichael Memo’, ultimately the Scotland office reports to him, the minister in charge does anyway. Cameron was notable by his voice being absent for those calling for Alistair Carmichael to resign. This can only lead to speculation as to whether he himself was in that loop which authorized the release of the (at best) inaccurate details or (at worst) a fabricated smear. We weren’t told he was, but just like Mundell, we certainly weren’t told he wasn’t. The leader always carries the responsibility to act. He did or he didn’t, either way, it was without Honour.
A bounder; that popped up as ‘dishonourable, nothing but a fortune seeking man’, doesn’t really need elaborated on, does it?
The snake oil salesman bit? As his own back benchers are discovering over the EU thing, the man really can’t be trusted. He certainly is proving that he peddled ‘snake oil’ with that Vow.
The best that could probably be said for him, he’s taken these very despicable traits of human nature and absolutely exploited them to gain his best personal advantage – he is PM after all?
Jim Murphy made a statement recently; essentially he said that David Cameron is such an idiot that he’ll sleep-walk Scotland into another referendum – the implication being that now he’s quite categorically proved himself all of the above, then he’ll not win it this time. If that wasn’t the implication, why bother with the statement?
I found it quite sad that Jim left what is perhaps his one comment which was worthy of preserving for posterity until after the time when things he says are more irrelevant than ever. He too, it appears, might no longer be Cameron’s political opponent, but he’s arguably supporting these words.
Sadly, we certainly suspected this before the referendum, before the May election. The evidence was clear though not fully unqualified.
In the end, in a very small way, I suppose my hat’s tipped to Nick Clegg for just one thing; it is becoming clear you did try to keep Cameron honest, though for whatever reason you had not publicly displayed the intelligence to articulate that properly, or the moral fortitude to walk away from an apparent shyster in 2010, 2011 or 2012, by which time you could have no doubt of the character with which you were dealing. You could have walked away with honour and respect back then.
As for Labour? Well, in or out of power, they’re irrelevant, and by this week’s abstentions and voting patterns alone (there are many more examples to select as well, like their refusal to condemn the ‘bedroom tax’ and support of the bankers, stripping of national assets, etc, etc …) they’ve condemned themselves to perhaps an eternity in the wilderness.
Labour could recover; they could act with honour and principle, with integrity and solidarity. That’s the way forward for them, they know it works too – just look at what happened in GE2015 when they ran up against such in Scotland. And no, the SNP isn’t perfect, far from it, but all the media spin, lies and dissemination still couldn’t fool the majority of the voters.
David Cameron is a product of his party, his society and of the London elite. It looks like the next Labour leader will be too. Everything emerging during the current Westminster and EU debates is indicating that David Cameron probably isn’t fit to lick Alistair Carmichael’s boots, and that’s some achievement by any measure. Perhaps it’s not one to be so proud of though?
In Scotland however, we can analyse these self-serving party and individual personalities, where we find them, we need to root them out from positions of responsibility or authority, because gods forbid we’d ever emulate, admire or elect them again!
Holyrood needs to pass just one law. It’d be a good, fair and just law, and I’d love to see any Westminster dominated party argue against it.
Simply, what you as a party or individual promise to win a vote, must be delivered or face being recalled.
End of.
David Cameron has taken the already low opinion of politicians that’s almost universally shared throughout the electorate of Britain, and flushed what little remained down Westminster’s porcelain bowl.
I had a look to see if any of this was libelous, so Cad is defined as a man (I think he might fit that description) who behaves dishonourably, especially towards a woman. In this UK Scotland is often portrayed the ‘wife’, Nicola Sturgeon was essentially promised the ‘VOW’ would be kept (look upon the Vow as a re-dedication of that marriage). So, by voting down the permanence of Holyrood, something enshrined in convention, and where supporting a vote would have been of no consequence or cost, especially after what was printed against his name on the Daily Record front page and which he affirmed through not denying or distancing then and has promised to keep since, Cad is entirely appropriate.
Dishonourable; per Google, has these synonyms; disgraceful, shameful, shameless, shaming, disreputable, discreditable, degrading, debasing, ignominious, ignoble, blameworthy, contemptible, despicable, reprehensible, shabby, shoddy, sordid, sorry, base, low, improper, unseemly, and unworthy. Consider the refusal of the Scotland office to release full details of the ‘Carmichael Memo’, ultimately the Scotland office reports to him, the minister in charge does anyway. Cameron was notable by his voice being absent for those calling for Alistair Carmichael to resign. This can only lead to speculation as to whether he himself was in that loop which authorized the release of the (at best) inaccurate details or (at worst) a fabricated smear. We weren’t told he was, but just like Mundell, we certainly weren’t told he wasn’t. The leader always carries the responsibility to act. He did or he didn’t, either way, it was without Honour.
A bounder; that popped up as ‘dishonourable, nothing but a fortune seeking man’, doesn’t really need elaborated on, does it?
The snake oil salesman bit? As his own back benchers are discovering over the EU thing, the man really can’t be trusted. He certainly is proving that he peddled ‘snake oil’ with that Vow.
The best that could probably be said for him, he’s taken these very despicable traits of human nature and absolutely exploited them to gain his best personal advantage – he is PM after all?
Jim Murphy made a statement recently; essentially he said that David Cameron is such an idiot that he’ll sleep-walk Scotland into another referendum – the implication being that now he’s quite categorically proved himself all of the above, then he’ll not win it this time. If that wasn’t the implication, why bother with the statement?
I found it quite sad that Jim left what is perhaps his one comment which was worthy of preserving for posterity until after the time when things he says are more irrelevant than ever. He too, it appears, might no longer be Cameron’s political opponent, but he’s arguably supporting these words.
Sadly, we certainly suspected this before the referendum, before the May election. The evidence was clear though not fully unqualified.
In the end, in a very small way, I suppose my hat’s tipped to Nick Clegg for just one thing; it is becoming clear you did try to keep Cameron honest, though for whatever reason you had not publicly displayed the intelligence to articulate that properly, or the moral fortitude to walk away from an apparent shyster in 2010, 2011 or 2012, by which time you could have no doubt of the character with which you were dealing. You could have walked away with honour and respect back then.
As for Labour? Well, in or out of power, they’re irrelevant, and by this week’s abstentions and voting patterns alone (there are many more examples to select as well, like their refusal to condemn the ‘bedroom tax’ and support of the bankers, stripping of national assets, etc, etc …) they’ve condemned themselves to perhaps an eternity in the wilderness.
Labour could recover; they could act with honour and principle, with integrity and solidarity. That’s the way forward for them, they know it works too – just look at what happened in GE2015 when they ran up against such in Scotland. And no, the SNP isn’t perfect, far from it, but all the media spin, lies and dissemination still couldn’t fool the majority of the voters.
David Cameron is a product of his party, his society and of the London elite. It looks like the next Labour leader will be too. Everything emerging during the current Westminster and EU debates is indicating that David Cameron probably isn’t fit to lick Alistair Carmichael’s boots, and that’s some achievement by any measure. Perhaps it’s not one to be so proud of though?
In Scotland however, we can analyse these self-serving party and individual personalities, where we find them, we need to root them out from positions of responsibility or authority, because gods forbid we’d ever emulate, admire or elect them again!
Holyrood needs to pass just one law. It’d be a good, fair and just law, and I’d love to see any Westminster dominated party argue against it.
Simply, what you as a party or individual promise to win a vote, must be delivered or face being recalled.
End of.
Sunday, 5 April 2015
England Expects.
I’m re-entering the Memo-Gate affair here, because for the life of me, I couldn't at first see how anyone could possibly expect it to be successful.
The more I thought about it, the more I came to understand, there’s only really one scenario which fits, and it’s a cracker!
Essentially, Westminster’s establishment shot itself in the foot.
Let’s consider a couple of things; Europe’s about bloody-well fed up with them. Then we have the festering wound of the Calais situation with a semi-permanent camp of illegals sitting on French soil, for which France, rightly or wrongly, blames the UK.
That’s just the latest in an ongoing round of disputes that are all easy to uncover.
Now, under normal circumstances, in the world of diplomacy, London’s establishment had every right to expect the following to happen, and with very cordial relations between the two, it possibly might have. What the engines of Westminster didn’t allow for was France’s integrity (at least here) or possibly common cause with left of center leaning administrations in both Paris and Edinburgh.
It should, per London’s gutter press and dirty tricks department, have played out as follows.
Story breaks.
Nicola denies.
French decline to comment on the basis of it being “a confidential closed door diplomatic meeting”.
(And let's face it, in lieu of the actions of Sr Barrossa et al. during the independence referendum, we can clearly see that England had established a foundation upon which to expect)
Nicola denies again. Now supported by the other (all SNP) Scots in that room.
Gutter press picks up and distributes it with the strongest possible negative spin on Nicola specifically and the SNP in general.
The story runs conclusively for four to five days, is dragged out periodically throughout the election.
In the minds of many, the character and integrity of Nicola Sturgeon is now severely questionable.
At best (from a Scots’ influence perspective) the First Minister and her party only drop a few percent in the polls.
At worst, they are tainted, for some love to repeat rumors and innuendo (Telegraph, Scotsman, BBC et al), and lose as much as 6% to 7% of their vote, which swings back to labour – effectively re-enforcing labour hegemony in Scotland.
The establishment protects itself, all is well, per the London establishment. For make no mistake, London knows it will need to make concessions to Scotland if the SNP hold the balance of power, and as history so self evidently tells us, London absolutely doesn't want to do that.
Consider for a moment if the French had done as England Expects, and after all England always expects, as one Horatio Nelson put it (though there were Scots in that one too).
The end result - and Westminster’s preferred outcome - would have meant that Nicola Sturgeon and her party would have been left flapping harder in the wind than one of Nelson’s bloody flags that carried the famous message before that particular battle.
I think we need to say thank you to France for entering this particular fray and pinning its own flag to the mast of integrity, honour and decency.
The more I thought about it, the more I came to understand, there’s only really one scenario which fits, and it’s a cracker!
Essentially, Westminster’s establishment shot itself in the foot.
Let’s consider a couple of things; Europe’s about bloody-well fed up with them. Then we have the festering wound of the Calais situation with a semi-permanent camp of illegals sitting on French soil, for which France, rightly or wrongly, blames the UK.
That’s just the latest in an ongoing round of disputes that are all easy to uncover.
Now, under normal circumstances, in the world of diplomacy, London’s establishment had every right to expect the following to happen, and with very cordial relations between the two, it possibly might have. What the engines of Westminster didn’t allow for was France’s integrity (at least here) or possibly common cause with left of center leaning administrations in both Paris and Edinburgh.
It should, per London’s gutter press and dirty tricks department, have played out as follows.
Story breaks.
Nicola denies.
French decline to comment on the basis of it being “a confidential closed door diplomatic meeting”.
(And let's face it, in lieu of the actions of Sr Barrossa et al. during the independence referendum, we can clearly see that England had established a foundation upon which to expect)
Nicola denies again. Now supported by the other (all SNP) Scots in that room.
Gutter press picks up and distributes it with the strongest possible negative spin on Nicola specifically and the SNP in general.
The story runs conclusively for four to five days, is dragged out periodically throughout the election.
In the minds of many, the character and integrity of Nicola Sturgeon is now severely questionable.
At best (from a Scots’ influence perspective) the First Minister and her party only drop a few percent in the polls.
At worst, they are tainted, for some love to repeat rumors and innuendo (Telegraph, Scotsman, BBC et al), and lose as much as 6% to 7% of their vote, which swings back to labour – effectively re-enforcing labour hegemony in Scotland.
The establishment protects itself, all is well, per the London establishment. For make no mistake, London knows it will need to make concessions to Scotland if the SNP hold the balance of power, and as history so self evidently tells us, London absolutely doesn't want to do that.
Consider for a moment if the French had done as England Expects, and after all England always expects, as one Horatio Nelson put it (though there were Scots in that one too).
The end result - and Westminster’s preferred outcome - would have meant that Nicola Sturgeon and her party would have been left flapping harder in the wind than one of Nelson’s bloody flags that carried the famous message before that particular battle.
I think we need to say thank you to France for entering this particular fray and pinning its own flag to the mast of integrity, honour and decency.
Tuesday, 7 October 2014
‘You Lost – Now get over it’
The truth will out, the old saying goes. And by jings, I think we’re seeing the evidence of that now.
My-oh-my. How little they understand, it’s just that in this case, the truth will take time to permeate, to insinuate itself into the consciousness of almost every ‘NO’ voter. If the NO side or the NO voter believes there was a loser in this referendum, they are absolutely correct. The identity of the loser is very easy for them to uncover, they just require a mirror.
The cry of “You Lost - Get over it” is one I’ve seen times almost without number in the two weeks since the referendum result was announced. The truth of the matter is, although I would have been delighted with a ‘Yes’ vote, and campaigned and worked to try to gain one, I suppose deep down, I never really expected it. What I did get has exceeded almost every expectation I had. It’s a pity that those who voted ‘NO’ from either a false sense of allegiance, or I suspect more often from simple fear, will have to wait until anywhere from a day to a decade to realize it. Of course by then many who did vote ‘NO’ will no longer be among the living, but before they leave us, they’ll have been privileged to see ‘Austerity’ really bite. I just wonder if they’ll be able to admit their voting error before their personal final curtain drops.
You see, those relying on state pensions voted to perpetuate a virtually bankrupt state, as opposed to a vibrant, energised and resurrected one, one which needn’t have hamstrung their retirement, one which needn’t have continued to pay about the lowest proportional pensions in Northern Europe.
But what about those cries of ‘You Lost!’. Obviously those elderly who voted to ‘protect their pensions’ lost, because with both governments guaranteeing them, how could they not have won?
For the rest of us, here’s where those gloating, troublemaking Unionistas essentially have it backwards.
They themselves are the ones who ‘Lost’; they lost the opportunity to increase the personal value of their vote ten-fold.
They lost the opportunity for a sovereign parliament, answerable only to us, the Scots, and I include every Scot who holds nationhood dear to heart, resident, ex-pat, it’s irrelevant.
These individuals, on the face of it, have lost the opportunity for a constitution to enshrine their rights; their own personally-tailored Bill of Rights. That those self serving careerists in Westminster might be discussing a UK version is immaterial because, let’s face it, they’re even afraid of and desperate to duck the obligations of the European Human Rights court. However, I’m willing to bet their “bill” will protect both their and their bankers’ rights.
Therefore, let me examine exactly what their NO vote guarantees.
Their NO vote will guarantee more broken promises, more London centric policies.
Their NO vote will see politics as usual, Scotland and its referendum is already a footnote to Westminster’s perspective.
Their NO vote will not guarantee any significant extra powers, on the contrary, it can’t. To change things more significantly, they need an English Parliament, if they get that, the UK is over, or it becomes fully federalised with each nation demanding and having an equal say. However, when one nation controls over eighty percent of the population, they’re not going to accept that. To be in the position of having to agree with representatives of the other nations will be intolerable for them. If you doubt it, just research why ‘The West Lothian Question’ has never been resolved.
Their NO vote will guarantee increased taxes and reduced benefits as the extra income is required to pay for England’s debt. When these No voters are poorer and have seen inflation run rampant again, that’s when they will really understand what the NO vote will have won.
Their NO vote has guaranteed as part of a unitary state, the NHS in Scotland has no protection. While NHS England opens the door to privatisation, the same will come to Scotland. We simply don’t have adequate funding to protect it, unless London decides we should.
Their NO vote guaranteed you the right to have Weapons of Mass Destruction parked on your doorstep.
Their NO vote has already put your children in harms’ way again, as we walk the path back to a war in the Middle East. This time it’s the Islamic State. Last time, Iraq, before that, Aden, Palestine, Egypt; where will the next conflict drain the blood of our children into those hot unforgiving desert sands?
A NO vote lost you the immediate right to control those oil revenues, which within few days of the vote you were told had been ‘vastly underestimated’ just the week before. The only real difference, the referendum was over. Those who cared to look had known this for months or years. If that was false, you’d have seen the pound rise, not fall that week.
These are just some of the things those who voted NO have lost.
For myself, I think we won. No, we didn’t get the big prize, as a whole, nor did we bite the apple, but what else did we expect? Believe it; Westminster controls the media, that’s the one power it’ll never willingly give up (Media Bias During The Referendum). It might privatise the NHS, Education, the Mail, Water, Railways, Utilities, but it’ll never give up its propaganda machine. Think about it, the broadcast media are all beholden to Westminster for their licenses – at the minimum. Literally every paper in Scotland is either Union controlled or foreign owned. Glasgow/Sunday Herald/Evening Times Owners (Any thinking individual or Scotland's vaunted media - including the BBC - could easily have explained to the Scottish electorate that Westminster could no more keep the promises published in the Daily Record's "Vow" page than it could have produced rocking horse shit from thin air. Simply another example of how our media failed us.)
We won because we exposed that propaganda machine.
We won because we took that vote, which had been hovering sometimes in the 20’s, to over 50. It failed on the day, but it failed through lies and gullibility, not our efforts which will be re-doubled next time.
We won, because the politicians in England were forced to make promises that will destroy the status quo, the Union or both. It’s that or be proven liars. That they will keep those promises is unthinkable, that we would vote NO a second time is unimaginable.
We won because already, after just a few weeks, many ‘Noes’ would change their vote. While I have no sympathy, you can do so in perpetuity, a majority of independence MP’s elected to Westminster or Holyrood, with that proclaimed goal, can easily still deliver the result.
We won because the notion of a free, resurrected and resurgent Scotland is viable, it’s normalised, and it’s desired.
We won, most of all, because we realise that we’re in a world class boxing match, and against us we’ve a world class opponent, at least when it comes to the mechanics of holding others in thrall as it pursues its fading dreams of imperial glory. On the morning of September 19th, the announcement was clear, that in round one, Scotland had failed to deliver the knockout blow, but we know our enemy, for such is the only description of one that would take the food from your mouth and force you to rely on charity.
Round two is just starting, it’ll end with the Westminster elections; if we hold the balance of power there by returning pro-independence supporting MPs we can proclaim independence. Round three, if needed, will see us at the next Holyrood Elections, again where the stated intent of the MSPs returned will and must be independence.
We must grab the thistle, we must grab it firmly, and we must protect both ourselves and those who come after from this incredible act of what is now self-harm that we call ‘The Union’.
Quite simply, we owe it to the unborn.
My-oh-my. How little they understand, it’s just that in this case, the truth will take time to permeate, to insinuate itself into the consciousness of almost every ‘NO’ voter. If the NO side or the NO voter believes there was a loser in this referendum, they are absolutely correct. The identity of the loser is very easy for them to uncover, they just require a mirror.
The cry of “You Lost - Get over it” is one I’ve seen times almost without number in the two weeks since the referendum result was announced. The truth of the matter is, although I would have been delighted with a ‘Yes’ vote, and campaigned and worked to try to gain one, I suppose deep down, I never really expected it. What I did get has exceeded almost every expectation I had. It’s a pity that those who voted ‘NO’ from either a false sense of allegiance, or I suspect more often from simple fear, will have to wait until anywhere from a day to a decade to realize it. Of course by then many who did vote ‘NO’ will no longer be among the living, but before they leave us, they’ll have been privileged to see ‘Austerity’ really bite. I just wonder if they’ll be able to admit their voting error before their personal final curtain drops.
You see, those relying on state pensions voted to perpetuate a virtually bankrupt state, as opposed to a vibrant, energised and resurrected one, one which needn’t have hamstrung their retirement, one which needn’t have continued to pay about the lowest proportional pensions in Northern Europe.
But what about those cries of ‘You Lost!’. Obviously those elderly who voted to ‘protect their pensions’ lost, because with both governments guaranteeing them, how could they not have won?
For the rest of us, here’s where those gloating, troublemaking Unionistas essentially have it backwards.
They themselves are the ones who ‘Lost’; they lost the opportunity to increase the personal value of their vote ten-fold.
They lost the opportunity for a sovereign parliament, answerable only to us, the Scots, and I include every Scot who holds nationhood dear to heart, resident, ex-pat, it’s irrelevant.
These individuals, on the face of it, have lost the opportunity for a constitution to enshrine their rights; their own personally-tailored Bill of Rights. That those self serving careerists in Westminster might be discussing a UK version is immaterial because, let’s face it, they’re even afraid of and desperate to duck the obligations of the European Human Rights court. However, I’m willing to bet their “bill” will protect both their and their bankers’ rights.
Therefore, let me examine exactly what their NO vote guarantees.
Their NO vote will guarantee more broken promises, more London centric policies.
Their NO vote will see politics as usual, Scotland and its referendum is already a footnote to Westminster’s perspective.
Their NO vote will not guarantee any significant extra powers, on the contrary, it can’t. To change things more significantly, they need an English Parliament, if they get that, the UK is over, or it becomes fully federalised with each nation demanding and having an equal say. However, when one nation controls over eighty percent of the population, they’re not going to accept that. To be in the position of having to agree with representatives of the other nations will be intolerable for them. If you doubt it, just research why ‘The West Lothian Question’ has never been resolved.
Their NO vote will guarantee increased taxes and reduced benefits as the extra income is required to pay for England’s debt. When these No voters are poorer and have seen inflation run rampant again, that’s when they will really understand what the NO vote will have won.
Their NO vote has guaranteed as part of a unitary state, the NHS in Scotland has no protection. While NHS England opens the door to privatisation, the same will come to Scotland. We simply don’t have adequate funding to protect it, unless London decides we should.
Their NO vote guaranteed you the right to have Weapons of Mass Destruction parked on your doorstep.
Their NO vote has already put your children in harms’ way again, as we walk the path back to a war in the Middle East. This time it’s the Islamic State. Last time, Iraq, before that, Aden, Palestine, Egypt; where will the next conflict drain the blood of our children into those hot unforgiving desert sands?
A NO vote lost you the immediate right to control those oil revenues, which within few days of the vote you were told had been ‘vastly underestimated’ just the week before. The only real difference, the referendum was over. Those who cared to look had known this for months or years. If that was false, you’d have seen the pound rise, not fall that week.
These are just some of the things those who voted NO have lost.
For myself, I think we won. No, we didn’t get the big prize, as a whole, nor did we bite the apple, but what else did we expect? Believe it; Westminster controls the media, that’s the one power it’ll never willingly give up (Media Bias During The Referendum). It might privatise the NHS, Education, the Mail, Water, Railways, Utilities, but it’ll never give up its propaganda machine. Think about it, the broadcast media are all beholden to Westminster for their licenses – at the minimum. Literally every paper in Scotland is either Union controlled or foreign owned. Glasgow/Sunday Herald/Evening Times Owners (Any thinking individual or Scotland's vaunted media - including the BBC - could easily have explained to the Scottish electorate that Westminster could no more keep the promises published in the Daily Record's "Vow" page than it could have produced rocking horse shit from thin air. Simply another example of how our media failed us.)
We won because we exposed that propaganda machine.
We won because we took that vote, which had been hovering sometimes in the 20’s, to over 50. It failed on the day, but it failed through lies and gullibility, not our efforts which will be re-doubled next time.
We won, because the politicians in England were forced to make promises that will destroy the status quo, the Union or both. It’s that or be proven liars. That they will keep those promises is unthinkable, that we would vote NO a second time is unimaginable.
We won because already, after just a few weeks, many ‘Noes’ would change their vote. While I have no sympathy, you can do so in perpetuity, a majority of independence MP’s elected to Westminster or Holyrood, with that proclaimed goal, can easily still deliver the result.
We won because the notion of a free, resurrected and resurgent Scotland is viable, it’s normalised, and it’s desired.
We won, most of all, because we realise that we’re in a world class boxing match, and against us we’ve a world class opponent, at least when it comes to the mechanics of holding others in thrall as it pursues its fading dreams of imperial glory. On the morning of September 19th, the announcement was clear, that in round one, Scotland had failed to deliver the knockout blow, but we know our enemy, for such is the only description of one that would take the food from your mouth and force you to rely on charity.
Round two is just starting, it’ll end with the Westminster elections; if we hold the balance of power there by returning pro-independence supporting MPs we can proclaim independence. Round three, if needed, will see us at the next Holyrood Elections, again where the stated intent of the MSPs returned will and must be independence.
We must grab the thistle, we must grab it firmly, and we must protect both ourselves and those who come after from this incredible act of what is now self-harm that we call ‘The Union’.
Quite simply, we owe it to the unborn.
Thursday, 11 September 2014
September 9th 2014; the day the Union Died - Again.
Regardless of the outcome of the vote on the 18th, today marks the day the Union died - again! I say again because I wrote a similarly titled blog in 2011. Perhaps we exist in a strange Union led Zombie Apocalypse?
Today marks the day that the ‘No Campaign’ went into terminal meltdown, that the ‘offers were put on the table’ that the lie that these things take years was exposed.
Today marks the day that David Cameron’s leadership was called into question, in the last twenty four hours, we’ve seen those calls reverberate, because of what; because of two polls? Surely, two polls don’t create a reason, in England anyway, for presenting a PM with a P45.
No, the reason for the meltdown is the drop in Sterling and its impact. That first poll showed the City of London and its traders that they might just ‘lose Scotland’, so they did what good business folk might be expected to do, they started to price it in to Sterling’s value.
There’re a few interesting things behind these adjustments, things the regular press isn’t saying.
Firstly, if a currency union hadn’t been rejected by their lackey’s in Downing Street, it’s very unlikely they’d be concerned at all, not much anyway. If the UK didn’t have lunatics minding the asylum, none of us would be in this position. For several days the currency has been dropping. I’m getting hard hit by that currency drop, can I just say I’m conflicted, between ‘Damn’ and ‘Woo-hoo!’, it’s a hit I’ll happily take.
Secondly, Scotland represents just about 10% of the UK economy, so if we were a sponge, a soak, a drain, then dumping the deadwood could only see Sterling strengthen, stabilize or ‘firm up’ its position. The loss of size would most probably be more than offset by the reduction in liability. Effectively the drop in value by the markets is saying we’re a major contributor to Sterling and the UK’s credit-worthiness.
Put simply, if you’re the bank, and the junkie sponging kid wants to leave home, you might consider a loan to mum and dad. If the major breadwinner leaves and the junkie kid stays to keep draining resources, when the remaining parent who’s shown bad money skills comes along for another loan, your reaction might be a bit different.
It’s the prospect of that reaction, of the near calamity that the remaining UK would be forced into that’s causing the current panic in London Town. Let’s face it, if a kid’s a drain and a problem, we’re happy to see it leave, make its own way and grow up a bit in the big bad world. If that kid’s contributing and useful, there’s just a possibility we might not be so eager. Now just imagine if we’d borrowed on the strength of that kid’s wages and couldn’t pay it back without them?
Wouldn’t we fight to keep them under our roof?
Wouldn’t we argue against the risks and consequences of leaving?
Wouldn’t we hide our true predicament from them?
If we were unscrupulous, we absolutely would. There’s one thing we’d have to know though, we’d have to be aware that one day, some day, we’d be ‘found out’.
Today, the Union has been ‘found out’. Like the child who’s now growing into the knowledge, that information, that genie, it can’t be stuffed back into its bottle. It’s just not that compliant.
The referendum might fail, although I doubt it. Despite the outcome, today marks the day the Union died. Those powers being promised, the soul searching in Westminster, the hand wringing and finger pointing by our ultra biased media, in the event of a ‘NO’, they’ll fade away. It’s likely that those promised extra powers will too. There’ll be ‘unforeseen difficulties’ and they’ll never be implemented in any sort of functional way.
The thing is, the Scots won’t forget, Scotland is now a nation re-energized, it has recovered much of its political will. If ‘Yes’ isn’t successful on this occasion, there will be another, because the people won’t forget. However, next time don’t expect Westminster to agree, they’ve just had too big a fright.
‘Next time’ it’ll possibly even be a Unilateral Declaration of Independence that’s voted through by the people, after a party wins power on that platform, and it possibly won’t be far away. You see, you can lie, cheat and steal from the kids, but once their trust is finally betrayed, it’s over.
‘Next time’, be it referendum or declaration, can be prevented, but only with wholesale power transference to Edinburgh, power transference so meaningful and so utterly comprehensive that Scots will come to believe that we’re truly ‘better together’. The issue is that if any Cabinet attempted this, the riots in England would be unimaginable. Politically, such a transference of power is next door to impossible.
History will show September 9th 2014 to have been important, not only will it have been an excellent birthday present for my mother’s 80th, the day Flodden’s loss began the effective path to Union, and the day Mary of Scots was crowned, it will also mark the effective end of Scotland as a proclaimed dependency, and I say ‘proclaimed’ as it’s been such in the popular UK media for centuries. I say ‘proclaimed’ because the markets are right now, right here, telling a very different story. They’re telling a story similar to that of immensely prosperous Luxembourg, tiny, incredibly wealthy, it also got its independence today, 147 years ago.
One other thing, today was also the day in 1914 that the Irish met at the Gaelic conference and initiated the process that would become the revolt to free a nation. Ours is simpler, it doesn't involve guns, but just like theirs, it’s thrown Westminster into a state of confusion and panic.
A resumption of statehood for Scotland is drawing close; only the final date really has a question over it, that and how simple the process will be.
So, in a few days, there’s a choice. Do it now and do it simply, or suffer more and do it later.
For Scotland, it’s a bit like the difference between flossing today and a root canal tomorrow.
Today marks the day that the ‘No Campaign’ went into terminal meltdown, that the ‘offers were put on the table’ that the lie that these things take years was exposed.
Today marks the day that David Cameron’s leadership was called into question, in the last twenty four hours, we’ve seen those calls reverberate, because of what; because of two polls? Surely, two polls don’t create a reason, in England anyway, for presenting a PM with a P45.
No, the reason for the meltdown is the drop in Sterling and its impact. That first poll showed the City of London and its traders that they might just ‘lose Scotland’, so they did what good business folk might be expected to do, they started to price it in to Sterling’s value.
There’re a few interesting things behind these adjustments, things the regular press isn’t saying.
Firstly, if a currency union hadn’t been rejected by their lackey’s in Downing Street, it’s very unlikely they’d be concerned at all, not much anyway. If the UK didn’t have lunatics minding the asylum, none of us would be in this position. For several days the currency has been dropping. I’m getting hard hit by that currency drop, can I just say I’m conflicted, between ‘Damn’ and ‘Woo-hoo!’, it’s a hit I’ll happily take.
Secondly, Scotland represents just about 10% of the UK economy, so if we were a sponge, a soak, a drain, then dumping the deadwood could only see Sterling strengthen, stabilize or ‘firm up’ its position. The loss of size would most probably be more than offset by the reduction in liability. Effectively the drop in value by the markets is saying we’re a major contributor to Sterling and the UK’s credit-worthiness.
Put simply, if you’re the bank, and the junkie sponging kid wants to leave home, you might consider a loan to mum and dad. If the major breadwinner leaves and the junkie kid stays to keep draining resources, when the remaining parent who’s shown bad money skills comes along for another loan, your reaction might be a bit different.
It’s the prospect of that reaction, of the near calamity that the remaining UK would be forced into that’s causing the current panic in London Town. Let’s face it, if a kid’s a drain and a problem, we’re happy to see it leave, make its own way and grow up a bit in the big bad world. If that kid’s contributing and useful, there’s just a possibility we might not be so eager. Now just imagine if we’d borrowed on the strength of that kid’s wages and couldn’t pay it back without them?
Wouldn’t we fight to keep them under our roof?
Wouldn’t we argue against the risks and consequences of leaving?
Wouldn’t we hide our true predicament from them?
If we were unscrupulous, we absolutely would. There’s one thing we’d have to know though, we’d have to be aware that one day, some day, we’d be ‘found out’.
Today, the Union has been ‘found out’. Like the child who’s now growing into the knowledge, that information, that genie, it can’t be stuffed back into its bottle. It’s just not that compliant.
The referendum might fail, although I doubt it. Despite the outcome, today marks the day the Union died. Those powers being promised, the soul searching in Westminster, the hand wringing and finger pointing by our ultra biased media, in the event of a ‘NO’, they’ll fade away. It’s likely that those promised extra powers will too. There’ll be ‘unforeseen difficulties’ and they’ll never be implemented in any sort of functional way.
The thing is, the Scots won’t forget, Scotland is now a nation re-energized, it has recovered much of its political will. If ‘Yes’ isn’t successful on this occasion, there will be another, because the people won’t forget. However, next time don’t expect Westminster to agree, they’ve just had too big a fright.
‘Next time’ it’ll possibly even be a Unilateral Declaration of Independence that’s voted through by the people, after a party wins power on that platform, and it possibly won’t be far away. You see, you can lie, cheat and steal from the kids, but once their trust is finally betrayed, it’s over.
‘Next time’, be it referendum or declaration, can be prevented, but only with wholesale power transference to Edinburgh, power transference so meaningful and so utterly comprehensive that Scots will come to believe that we’re truly ‘better together’. The issue is that if any Cabinet attempted this, the riots in England would be unimaginable. Politically, such a transference of power is next door to impossible.
History will show September 9th 2014 to have been important, not only will it have been an excellent birthday present for my mother’s 80th, the day Flodden’s loss began the effective path to Union, and the day Mary of Scots was crowned, it will also mark the effective end of Scotland as a proclaimed dependency, and I say ‘proclaimed’ as it’s been such in the popular UK media for centuries. I say ‘proclaimed’ because the markets are right now, right here, telling a very different story. They’re telling a story similar to that of immensely prosperous Luxembourg, tiny, incredibly wealthy, it also got its independence today, 147 years ago.
One other thing, today was also the day in 1914 that the Irish met at the Gaelic conference and initiated the process that would become the revolt to free a nation. Ours is simpler, it doesn't involve guns, but just like theirs, it’s thrown Westminster into a state of confusion and panic.
A resumption of statehood for Scotland is drawing close; only the final date really has a question over it, that and how simple the process will be.
So, in a few days, there’s a choice. Do it now and do it simply, or suffer more and do it later.
For Scotland, it’s a bit like the difference between flossing today and a root canal tomorrow.
Monday, 1 September 2014
No Contingency Plan For a "Yes" Vote.
We heard it again last week, it’s been voiced before by MPs, top civil servants and several Lords a Leaping. Interestingly it would seem that only those with a vested interest in the British State appear to care about this. Joe and Jemima public haven’t really had it at the forefront of their concerns, at least in so far as media reports have indicated.
Well, we’re coming down to the wire, only eighteen days to go until the vote, soon it’ll be less than ten, and I’m betting we won’t hear more, much more anyway, about the lack of contingency in case of a yes vote.
You see, it’s a fairly safe bet that Westminster does have a contingency plan; only, they can’t afford for anyone to know about it. The reason that they do not have a contingency plan for such a momentous event, as they’ve acknowledged this referendum as being, can only fall into one of three categories.
Firstly, everyone in London Town is an ostrich, every last one who counts as a professed ‘leader of the British Isles’ is a certifiable idiot with their head stuck firmly in the few remaining sandy bits of the Thames embankments. While it would be comforting in a way to go with this scenario, which gets its credence due to the distinct ignorance and highly dubious decision making that’s come from that region in times past, it’s not really the most probable of options, now is it?
Secondly, it could simply be that we’ve been getting lied to. That the ‘difficulty’ experienced by both sides in disentangling the Union will actually cause minimal upheaval in everyone’s lives, with the possible exclusion of perhaps a few civil servants. Based upon the garbage and lies fed to all and sundry during this debate, by the representatives of the ‘mother of parliaments’, this scenario seems much more likely. It’s sad, but should be considered to be streets ahead of option 1 in the probability stakes. It’s sad because it says we elected a bunch of liars, but they were the best of the group offered to us. Now we’re being asked to perpetuate their employment.
The third option is perhaps the most troublesome. You see, option three means never needing a contingency plan, simply because you know it’ll be pointless, simply wasted energy to divert resources to something which you’re certain you can prevent from happening. I’d give it a weight approaching that of, or perhaps even surpassing, option two.
Option three involves many things. However, many things are what Westminster has shown itself capable of. It used the security branches in 1979 to work against Scotland’s interests, as well as that belated 40% rule and counting the dead. There’ve been other incidents too, like the lawyer Willie McRae, who allegedly committed suicide by shooting himself in the head (twice) then throwing the gun away, this after allegedly uncovering something akin to the McCrone report. There’s the last referendum where we voted for a parliament with tax raising powers only to have those powers so diluted by Westminster as to be effectively useless. Even the latest tranche, scheduled for next year can’t be used without hurting ourselves.
Another aspect that just doesn’t ‘ring’ is the disparity in polling data. That alone should have London in a lather, yet while the ‘unofficial polls’ with often massive sample sizes are consistently showing a landslide for ‘Yes’, the ‘official’ polls continue with ‘No’ by a nose.
Ultimately, if we treat option one with the derision deserved, it is certain that there actually is at least one contingency plan out there; one which will allow for London’s elite to remain in control of Scotland or to cut us loose with absolutely minimal impact. It’s an ‘either/or’, I personally can’t see the possibility for any middle ground here.
Up until recently I’d simply thought that with our separate NHS, legal system, educational system etc that we were just being lied to - again. Perhaps an uncomplicated "Velvet Divorce" is to much to hope for.
Now however I have a very real concern. One that has been generated by recent media releases and events, from Jim Murphy’s ‘egging’ (and let’s face it, the only difference this time is that it wasn’t self applied, although we’ve still to uncover just who directed the egg in his direction. What we do know however is it seems to be primarily the nationalist community with an interest in uncovering the perpetrator). Now, add that to recent inflammatory articles appearing in the media indicating "polling carnage" on the 18th, articles which even went so far as to prompt a response from the Police Scotland on September 1st, and we've got a quickly building scenario.
In its best case, a few ‘nutters’ heckling at a handful of polling stations would be unfortunate but ultimately laughable. On the other hand, in a systemic worst-case scenario anything is possible - from missing ballot boxes to calling the fairness of the vote itself into question. Yes, it’d need to be coordinated on a relatively massive scale, but when you largely ‘own’ the output of the media in such circumstances, can anything really be discounted?
Personally, I hope a lot of things can and will be discounted, although I suspect we’ll be approaching October before they can safely be binned.
There’s only one thing that’s certain, London has used every resource and contingency we know of to ensure a ‘No’. On the other hand, if it’s a ‘Yes’ as those on the ground have solid reason to believe, one can only ask what the contingencies are – and why don’t we know about them?
When there is a ‘Yes’ we can be certain those plans will be dusted off; when there is a ‘Yes’ we can only hope that good sense and democracy prevail.
Well, we’re coming down to the wire, only eighteen days to go until the vote, soon it’ll be less than ten, and I’m betting we won’t hear more, much more anyway, about the lack of contingency in case of a yes vote.
You see, it’s a fairly safe bet that Westminster does have a contingency plan; only, they can’t afford for anyone to know about it. The reason that they do not have a contingency plan for such a momentous event, as they’ve acknowledged this referendum as being, can only fall into one of three categories.
Firstly, everyone in London Town is an ostrich, every last one who counts as a professed ‘leader of the British Isles’ is a certifiable idiot with their head stuck firmly in the few remaining sandy bits of the Thames embankments. While it would be comforting in a way to go with this scenario, which gets its credence due to the distinct ignorance and highly dubious decision making that’s come from that region in times past, it’s not really the most probable of options, now is it?
Secondly, it could simply be that we’ve been getting lied to. That the ‘difficulty’ experienced by both sides in disentangling the Union will actually cause minimal upheaval in everyone’s lives, with the possible exclusion of perhaps a few civil servants. Based upon the garbage and lies fed to all and sundry during this debate, by the representatives of the ‘mother of parliaments’, this scenario seems much more likely. It’s sad, but should be considered to be streets ahead of option 1 in the probability stakes. It’s sad because it says we elected a bunch of liars, but they were the best of the group offered to us. Now we’re being asked to perpetuate their employment.
The third option is perhaps the most troublesome. You see, option three means never needing a contingency plan, simply because you know it’ll be pointless, simply wasted energy to divert resources to something which you’re certain you can prevent from happening. I’d give it a weight approaching that of, or perhaps even surpassing, option two.
Option three involves many things. However, many things are what Westminster has shown itself capable of. It used the security branches in 1979 to work against Scotland’s interests, as well as that belated 40% rule and counting the dead. There’ve been other incidents too, like the lawyer Willie McRae, who allegedly committed suicide by shooting himself in the head (twice) then throwing the gun away, this after allegedly uncovering something akin to the McCrone report. There’s the last referendum where we voted for a parliament with tax raising powers only to have those powers so diluted by Westminster as to be effectively useless. Even the latest tranche, scheduled for next year can’t be used without hurting ourselves.
Another aspect that just doesn’t ‘ring’ is the disparity in polling data. That alone should have London in a lather, yet while the ‘unofficial polls’ with often massive sample sizes are consistently showing a landslide for ‘Yes’, the ‘official’ polls continue with ‘No’ by a nose.
Ultimately, if we treat option one with the derision deserved, it is certain that there actually is at least one contingency plan out there; one which will allow for London’s elite to remain in control of Scotland or to cut us loose with absolutely minimal impact. It’s an ‘either/or’, I personally can’t see the possibility for any middle ground here.
Up until recently I’d simply thought that with our separate NHS, legal system, educational system etc that we were just being lied to - again. Perhaps an uncomplicated "Velvet Divorce" is to much to hope for.
Now however I have a very real concern. One that has been generated by recent media releases and events, from Jim Murphy’s ‘egging’ (and let’s face it, the only difference this time is that it wasn’t self applied, although we’ve still to uncover just who directed the egg in his direction. What we do know however is it seems to be primarily the nationalist community with an interest in uncovering the perpetrator). Now, add that to recent inflammatory articles appearing in the media indicating "polling carnage" on the 18th, articles which even went so far as to prompt a response from the Police Scotland on September 1st, and we've got a quickly building scenario.
In its best case, a few ‘nutters’ heckling at a handful of polling stations would be unfortunate but ultimately laughable. On the other hand, in a systemic worst-case scenario anything is possible - from missing ballot boxes to calling the fairness of the vote itself into question. Yes, it’d need to be coordinated on a relatively massive scale, but when you largely ‘own’ the output of the media in such circumstances, can anything really be discounted?
Personally, I hope a lot of things can and will be discounted, although I suspect we’ll be approaching October before they can safely be binned.
There’s only one thing that’s certain, London has used every resource and contingency we know of to ensure a ‘No’. On the other hand, if it’s a ‘Yes’ as those on the ground have solid reason to believe, one can only ask what the contingencies are – and why don’t we know about them?
When there is a ‘Yes’ we can be certain those plans will be dusted off; when there is a ‘Yes’ we can only hope that good sense and democracy prevail.
Saturday, 23 August 2014
The shame of NO
I was asked recently what my reaction would be to a ‘No Vote’.
The reality, no matter how I look at the various responses, there’s only one that will fit.
I’d be ashamed of my country; I’d be ashamed of my people.
The reasoning is simple; with a majority voice my country will proclaim to the world at large that it is No nation of ‘proud Scots’, but has been bred into becoming a nation of wee, cowering, timourous beasties.
It will proclaim from every polling station in our land that it has No self belief, No self worth and No aspiration.
I’ll feel that way, and I’ll believe it, because of one thing above all; it’s what the ‘NO Campaign’ have told us. It doesn’t matter what you call them, those paid and indentured lackeys who are trying to spread fear amongst us. ‘Better Together’, ‘Vote No Borders’, ‘No Thanks’, they’re all the same, backed by London or City interests, funded by Tory donors and peers.
I’ll feel ashamed because the ‘NO’ campaign has continually demanded certainties from those who’d choose a better direction - and let’s face it any direction we choose is better than one forced or foisted upon us from afar. I’ll feel ashamed because these people have the power, right now, to provide the certainties they demand of the positive message.
I’m already ashamed, not of my nation, not of the Scots, but of what David Cameron, chief of the nay-sayers has done with what he declares is ‘his country’. He alone, as de-facto leader of the negative message, has the power to inject certainty. He alone can direct that the questions be asked that remove the doubt. He alone can demand that when the time comes that England and an independent Scotland assume their rightful places within the EU, within NATO and continue being party to any other treaties to which we’re currently obligated; unless, of course, we choose differently.
He and he alone is responsible for driving much of the lack of information, the lack of credibility, the direction of the media reporting that has been so convoluted and biased as to leave many Scots bewildered.
Yet, he is not entirely responsible for their bewilderment. For in the end, although they might be confused by his threats, innuendoes, predictions of cataclysm and doom, they and they alone will bear the responsibility for the true disaster that will transpire afterwards – because they did not take on the responsibility of discovering the truth behind all the misinformation. The Truth is out there. They should have taken the time and sought out the answers for themselves.
They will be responsible, because on September 18th, for the first time in their lives, each and every Scot will wake up with the responsibility for our own future, and it will be up to each and every Scot to decide what to do with that responsibility.
For those that vote NO because of vested interest; for the Lords, Ladies, CBE’s and OBE’s, or those that need the British State for a meal-ticket, those chiefest amongst the current nay-sayers, in a way I can respect their NO vote, they are after all working diligently to preserve their entitlements. For that which the British State can bestow can also remove. They’re nothing other than the paid lackey’s of a London establishment that daren’t even engage publically in our debate, a debate which wouldn’t even exist without London controlled media. They may not acknowledge their position as such, they may be genuinely confused, but I doubt it.
I will be ashamed because, should there be a NO vote, so many of my country’s people will have bought into such a negative message, such a song devoid of hope and aspiration that I can only imagine they’ve forgotten what it means to be Scots. In a dependent Scotland a dirge will be top of the pops.
I’ll still defend your right to your views, to that NO vote, should you choose to cast it, should you select to abdicate your sovereignty on the day it is given to you, even as I’m ashamed you saw the need to mark that particular box.
You see, the reason for my feelings won’t be immediately apparent on the 18th, but on the days, weeks, months and years afterwards.
It’s during that subsequent time that Scotland will display the results of having its soft proud underbelly eviscerated. Those who have driven this movement, this retention of new-found rights that will come on the 18th, if they watch them evaporate that night, you should believe that the hopes and aspirations they carry for their country will pour from their souls as well.
When you do that to the collective spirit of a nation, there’s only one result, and it’s not a good one.
I can guarantee, that there’ll be a dearth of folks to proudly proclaim they voted NO in the years to come, they’ll not sit with their children and grandchildren, they’ll not tell them how hard they worked to secure their futures, how the cross on the box was only the last small step in centuries long struggle, a struggle that for many of them lasted an entire lifetime.
Actually, as I think on it, you don’t need me to be ashamed for you, because the next time an English government, for with over 80% of the seats in the Commons, that’s what it is, an English government; the next time one of them foists something on you or yours that you despise, I know you’ll look back ruefully, and you’ll wish you’d acted differently on that day. I know that then though, you’ll not proclaim what you did on that day; that you were either a wee timourous, cowering beastie, or bribed.
Ultimately, the 18th is a day for us to decide our future and that afterwards we will be in the enviable position of being able to make our own choices ad infinitum. That ability to access your representatives, to have your rights protected, to decide a constitution, to choose who to treat and ally with, it’s called freedom. To have it filtered by another parliament in another country where you have naught but the tiniest of voices, it’s called servitude.
Servitude; willing servitude is a cause for shame.
The reality, no matter how I look at the various responses, there’s only one that will fit.
I’d be ashamed of my country; I’d be ashamed of my people.
The reasoning is simple; with a majority voice my country will proclaim to the world at large that it is No nation of ‘proud Scots’, but has been bred into becoming a nation of wee, cowering, timourous beasties.
It will proclaim from every polling station in our land that it has No self belief, No self worth and No aspiration.
I’ll feel that way, and I’ll believe it, because of one thing above all; it’s what the ‘NO Campaign’ have told us. It doesn’t matter what you call them, those paid and indentured lackeys who are trying to spread fear amongst us. ‘Better Together’, ‘Vote No Borders’, ‘No Thanks’, they’re all the same, backed by London or City interests, funded by Tory donors and peers.
I’ll feel ashamed because the ‘NO’ campaign has continually demanded certainties from those who’d choose a better direction - and let’s face it any direction we choose is better than one forced or foisted upon us from afar. I’ll feel ashamed because these people have the power, right now, to provide the certainties they demand of the positive message.
I’m already ashamed, not of my nation, not of the Scots, but of what David Cameron, chief of the nay-sayers has done with what he declares is ‘his country’. He alone, as de-facto leader of the negative message, has the power to inject certainty. He alone can direct that the questions be asked that remove the doubt. He alone can demand that when the time comes that England and an independent Scotland assume their rightful places within the EU, within NATO and continue being party to any other treaties to which we’re currently obligated; unless, of course, we choose differently.
He and he alone is responsible for driving much of the lack of information, the lack of credibility, the direction of the media reporting that has been so convoluted and biased as to leave many Scots bewildered.
Yet, he is not entirely responsible for their bewilderment. For in the end, although they might be confused by his threats, innuendoes, predictions of cataclysm and doom, they and they alone will bear the responsibility for the true disaster that will transpire afterwards – because they did not take on the responsibility of discovering the truth behind all the misinformation. The Truth is out there. They should have taken the time and sought out the answers for themselves.
They will be responsible, because on September 18th, for the first time in their lives, each and every Scot will wake up with the responsibility for our own future, and it will be up to each and every Scot to decide what to do with that responsibility.
For those that vote NO because of vested interest; for the Lords, Ladies, CBE’s and OBE’s, or those that need the British State for a meal-ticket, those chiefest amongst the current nay-sayers, in a way I can respect their NO vote, they are after all working diligently to preserve their entitlements. For that which the British State can bestow can also remove. They’re nothing other than the paid lackey’s of a London establishment that daren’t even engage publically in our debate, a debate which wouldn’t even exist without London controlled media. They may not acknowledge their position as such, they may be genuinely confused, but I doubt it.
I will be ashamed because, should there be a NO vote, so many of my country’s people will have bought into such a negative message, such a song devoid of hope and aspiration that I can only imagine they’ve forgotten what it means to be Scots. In a dependent Scotland a dirge will be top of the pops.
I’ll still defend your right to your views, to that NO vote, should you choose to cast it, should you select to abdicate your sovereignty on the day it is given to you, even as I’m ashamed you saw the need to mark that particular box.
You see, the reason for my feelings won’t be immediately apparent on the 18th, but on the days, weeks, months and years afterwards.
It’s during that subsequent time that Scotland will display the results of having its soft proud underbelly eviscerated. Those who have driven this movement, this retention of new-found rights that will come on the 18th, if they watch them evaporate that night, you should believe that the hopes and aspirations they carry for their country will pour from their souls as well.
When you do that to the collective spirit of a nation, there’s only one result, and it’s not a good one.
I can guarantee, that there’ll be a dearth of folks to proudly proclaim they voted NO in the years to come, they’ll not sit with their children and grandchildren, they’ll not tell them how hard they worked to secure their futures, how the cross on the box was only the last small step in centuries long struggle, a struggle that for many of them lasted an entire lifetime.
Actually, as I think on it, you don’t need me to be ashamed for you, because the next time an English government, for with over 80% of the seats in the Commons, that’s what it is, an English government; the next time one of them foists something on you or yours that you despise, I know you’ll look back ruefully, and you’ll wish you’d acted differently on that day. I know that then though, you’ll not proclaim what you did on that day; that you were either a wee timourous, cowering beastie, or bribed.
Ultimately, the 18th is a day for us to decide our future and that afterwards we will be in the enviable position of being able to make our own choices ad infinitum. That ability to access your representatives, to have your rights protected, to decide a constitution, to choose who to treat and ally with, it’s called freedom. To have it filtered by another parliament in another country where you have naught but the tiniest of voices, it’s called servitude.
Servitude; willing servitude is a cause for shame.
Tuesday, 19 August 2014
An Open Letter To An Unapproachable Prime Minister.
Dear Mr. Cameron,
Now, let me tell you why I'm asking that. You see, for me to care about something, it has to have some sort of value and since about 1930, under Westminster’s stewardship, the pound has steadily devalued to the point where it’s not really worth much at all, not any more. It was $5 to the pound back in 1930. Mind you, the dollar’s devalued too, but the pound’s gone downhill at twice that rate, which isn’t very good testimony to Westminster’s handling of the currency in my pocket.
Now, please, convince me why I should vote for you, because, after all, that’s what a "No" vote is, isn’t it? It’s nothing less than a vote for the current unrepresentative system and the current leader; and that’d be yourself Mr. Cameron - and your likes.
Yours Sincerely,
Hazel Lewry.
I hope that you will take the time to read this, that it finds its way into your hands. You see, I’d like just three questions answered, and if you can answer them to my satisfaction, I’ll really might consider a ‘No’ vote.
My first question concerns the currency bit. You see, the media, much of whom I believe you effectively control (well, your lot in Westminster did ‘reserve’ broadcasting after all) are pounding on about this currency thing. Now, allowing broadcasting is reserved to you, they are delivering your message, which makes me curious.
My first question concerns the currency bit. You see, the media, much of whom I believe you effectively control (well, your lot in Westminster did ‘reserve’ broadcasting after all) are pounding on about this currency thing. Now, allowing broadcasting is reserved to you, they are delivering your message, which makes me curious.
My question specifically about the currency bit is, well, why should I care?
Now, let me tell you why I'm asking that. You see, for me to care about something, it has to have some sort of value and since about 1930, under Westminster’s stewardship, the pound has steadily devalued to the point where it’s not really worth much at all, not any more. It was $5 to the pound back in 1930. Mind you, the dollar’s devalued too, but the pound’s gone downhill at twice that rate, which isn’t very good testimony to Westminster’s handling of the currency in my pocket.
With the best predictor of future behaviour being the proven record of the past, you might have to work hard to convince me you won’t keep up that stealth tax called Inflation. We all know inflation is just a way of hiding mismanaged economies. So, to be clear, do you, or do you not want me to vote for ongoing economic mismanagement?
In view of the last three centuries, I’d love to hear your plans for fixing things as we go forward. Don’t worry, I know I can’t hold you to any promise, but I’d like to hear anyway?
That brings me to my second question; it’s about management too. Most specifically, of your responsibilities to those who elect you. Let’s look at the NHS in England for a minute.
In view of the last three centuries, I’d love to hear your plans for fixing things as we go forward. Don’t worry, I know I can’t hold you to any promise, but I’d like to hear anyway?
That brings me to my second question; it’s about management too. Most specifically, of your responsibilities to those who elect you. Let’s look at the NHS in England for a minute.
In 2012 you passed a law effectively repealing the 1947 act which Bevin brought forward, guaranteeing universal medical care, free at the point of service. There wasn't a referendum, there was no vote, it wasn't in a manifesto, but your coalition just did it anyway.
To all intents and purposes, my family and friends in England don’t have the right to be seen by a physician. I know you say they do, but the legal right to receive care has been removed with much of the privatisation that’s going on down there.
I'm fairly certain you know that most folk aren't aware of the changes, mostly because of your stealth privatisation we are now at the point where global companies currently run much of what was England’s NHS. I say “what was”, because although they still look like the NHS staff to the patients, with NHS badges and all, we really know who they work for, and it’s not the NHS. So, this question is a ‘two-parter’ on health care.
The first part is, why did you remove the government’s statutory requirement to provide care?
The second part of the question is, in the event of a "No" vote will Scotland still be in a position to keep her NHS in its current format or will your austerity program force changes there too and allow private health-care companies take over our hospitals and GP surgeries?
Oops! There’s me crossing back to my first question; managing, or mismanaging the money. Thinking about the NHS, perhaps if you had cared (really cared) about Sterling, maybe the money would have been available to maintain England’s public health-care system? But you promised in your manifesto the "NHS Was Safe In Conservative Hands"! Seems we should have tried to force you to keep your word.
Keeping your word, sort of leads into my third question. You see, I know you can lie; your Coalition can even sign pledges to get votes and then blame it on the ‘bad boy’s down at the swings’ while you go off and do the exact opposite, e.g. Student Loans.
Personally, I think that’s because we don't have a written constitution and this is an area where we are virtually alone amongst developed nations. There is nothing guaranteeing anyone any rights, except Parliamentarians, and it seems to me like they’re pretty much always ‘all right’.
Now, you've said we don’t need a constitution down London way. Really? While you quietly privatise, demonise, demoralise and devalue much of what "The British" way of life was.
I'm fairly certain you know that most folk aren't aware of the changes, mostly because of your stealth privatisation we are now at the point where global companies currently run much of what was England’s NHS. I say “what was”, because although they still look like the NHS staff to the patients, with NHS badges and all, we really know who they work for, and it’s not the NHS. So, this question is a ‘two-parter’ on health care.
The first part is, why did you remove the government’s statutory requirement to provide care?
The second part of the question is, in the event of a "No" vote will Scotland still be in a position to keep her NHS in its current format or will your austerity program force changes there too and allow private health-care companies take over our hospitals and GP surgeries?
Oops! There’s me crossing back to my first question; managing, or mismanaging the money. Thinking about the NHS, perhaps if you had cared (really cared) about Sterling, maybe the money would have been available to maintain England’s public health-care system? But you promised in your manifesto the "NHS Was Safe In Conservative Hands"! Seems we should have tried to force you to keep your word.
Keeping your word, sort of leads into my third question. You see, I know you can lie; your Coalition can even sign pledges to get votes and then blame it on the ‘bad boy’s down at the swings’ while you go off and do the exact opposite, e.g. Student Loans.
Personally, I think that’s because we don't have a written constitution and this is an area where we are virtually alone amongst developed nations. There is nothing guaranteeing anyone any rights, except Parliamentarians, and it seems to me like they’re pretty much always ‘all right’.
Now, you've said we don’t need a constitution down London way. Really? While you quietly privatise, demonise, demoralise and devalue much of what "The British" way of life was.
Nevertheless, I have to disagree and ask you for a constitution.
I fully understand I'm getting the offer to have my say in the referendum. Now, if my rights are enshrined and then protected for the future generations then "my say" won’t stop after the referendum. I don't know if you noticed, but we have been promised a written constitution following a "Yes" vote. That means we can (if we wish) petition to have public healthcare as a right or to have our own mail service or even recall bad governments and outlaw lobbying.
I don't expect we'd get all of our desires, but the American’s (whom you apparently greatly admire) have a fabulous saying you may have heard; "no taxation without representation". They get to vote on almost everything. I would like that, but I know I can’t ever get it under the present Westminster system. Tell me why you won’t enshrine our rights. Unless the reality is that we truly haven’t got any; just what London deigns to allow on any given day.
Will you promise to clarify and then enshrine our rights?
So, there you go, my three questions. Sadly, I'm expecting if you do read this, you’ll just say ‘No Thanks’ to answering any of them, since nobody can force you, even though you’re officially employed by each and every one of us. In fact, you and your fellow parliamentarians seem to prefer to keep a system where you’re better together; it’s one where London meddling seems to know no borders either.
I fully understand I'm getting the offer to have my say in the referendum. Now, if my rights are enshrined and then protected for the future generations then "my say" won’t stop after the referendum. I don't know if you noticed, but we have been promised a written constitution following a "Yes" vote. That means we can (if we wish) petition to have public healthcare as a right or to have our own mail service or even recall bad governments and outlaw lobbying.
I don't expect we'd get all of our desires, but the American’s (whom you apparently greatly admire) have a fabulous saying you may have heard; "no taxation without representation". They get to vote on almost everything. I would like that, but I know I can’t ever get it under the present Westminster system. Tell me why you won’t enshrine our rights. Unless the reality is that we truly haven’t got any; just what London deigns to allow on any given day.
Will you promise to clarify and then enshrine our rights?
So, there you go, my three questions. Sadly, I'm expecting if you do read this, you’ll just say ‘No Thanks’ to answering any of them, since nobody can force you, even though you’re officially employed by each and every one of us. In fact, you and your fellow parliamentarians seem to prefer to keep a system where you’re better together; it’s one where London meddling seems to know no borders either.
I'm just about finished but simply out of devilment, I’ll sneak in a last question. Why is it that when everybody agreed this referendum was for the Scots alone to decide, is one side funded almost entirely by donations appearing from Tory millionaires living outwith Scotland. Oh, sorry about that - sort of slipped my mind a bit; nobody has the power to enforce you to keep your word - or answer our questions, do they?
Now, please, convince me why I should vote for you, because, after all, that’s what a "No" vote is, isn’t it? It’s nothing less than a vote for the current unrepresentative system and the current leader; and that’d be yourself Mr. Cameron - and your likes.
Yours Sincerely,
Hazel Lewry.
Saturday, 16 February 2013
Is The Treaty of Union Already Dead?
Due to the renewed interest in Scotland's status of existence or not, recently dragged up by Governor General Moore et al, it seems there has been a resurgence in interest in an article I had published in Newsnet Scotland in July of 2011. As I'd never previously included it in the blog, I've decided that perhaps now would be a good time to do just that.
The question I posed at the time was: Is the Treaty of Union Already Dead?
The Treaty of Union 1707, we live every day of our lives with its effects – but should we?
Could we, if we choose, simply denounce it, has that already been done, or have events simply transpired to void it entirely? Are we at liberty, under international law, to simply “walk away’.
For almost all of us it consumes much of our waking time, consciously or otherwise as we struggle to pay the taxes and debts imposed by its after effects. It has done so for generations of Scots.
Our forebears fought and died because of it, through it, in support of it or against it.
Yet under international law It certainly appears void, if not simply revoked. It just seems there’s a distinct lack of willingness to test this by any relevant party.
In view of the above this article specifically does not advocate or focus on a single course of action; although it certainly uncovers several intriguing and interesting potentialities available to us Scots, should we choose. Law is about interpretation, what follows is one very reasonable such interpretation.
Our land and our nation has often been derided, pilloried and a comic joke because of it [this Union], mainly from within.
Even in the halls of power, that corrupt underbelly that we call Westminster, proven so in the courts of our lands, that place which is supposed to uphold our nation and care for it in this Union there is little respect demonstrated for Scotland.
There is an interesting and entertaining aspect to international law, it’s called the Vienna Convention, and it exists in a stratosphere of law that governs international treaties.
This article of law was adopted on May 23rd, 1969. It didn't exist in 1707, but it does claim jurisprudence over almost all international treaty and law since its ratification. And it has very definite retroactive implications.
If it had existed in 1706/1707, there would have been no Union Treaty as we know it. That is irrefutable.
The signatory states to the Vienna Convention agreed that international law and treaty law as defined by it would have jurisdiction over their own national laws. Basically if the UK [and thereby its constituent nations] signed up to it, they agreed to be bound by it.
It can be regarded as entertaining because the signatories to it, including the United Kingdom which ratified it on June 25th 1971, and implemented it on January 27th 1980, on the surface did not appear to fully understand the entire scope of their actions.
The UK and its constitutional law brigade certainly thought it may have covered its bases, yet there is a section or two in the Vienna Convention that indicates it may not have. The language is not categorically unambiguous, but the intent certainly appears clear.
We really should test it. At the very least it would prove interesting.
Where the Vienna Convention specifically does not remove itself from treaties of a historical nature are when their principles are overtaken by new or ratified principles of recognized international law, or when they have been voided prior to inception and would be regarded as so being by evolving international law (article 64).
This aspect of the Vienna Convention specifically itemizes the following areas as voiding treaty agreements.
Article 49
Fraud
If a State has been induced to conclude a treaty by the fraudulent conduct of another negotiating State, the State may invoke the fraud as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.
Article 50
Corruption of a representative of a State
If the expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty has been procured through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another negotiating State, the State may invoke such corruption as invalidating its consent to be bound by the treaty.
Article 51
Coercion of a representative of a State
The expression of a State’s consent to be bound by a treaty which has been procured by the coercion of its representative through acts or threats directed against him shall be without any legal effect.
Article 52
Coercion of a State by the threat or use of force
A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations.
A quick examination into the founding aspects around the Union Treaty is worthwhile – did it significantly contravene articles 49 through 52 of the Vienna Convention. Investigations and perusal of records show there is a relatively simple case to be made for contravention, not just of one the above, but potentially all of the above.
Any single contravention of the above articles would be more than valid enough reason to negate the Treaty of Union since inception.
It would certainly leave us with an entertaining constitutional conundrum.
Interestingly even article 14 of the Treaty of Union itself can be used as verification of corruption. Article 14 stating; “the Equivalent, granted £398,085 and 10 s sterling to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt”. In essence as history records, it was detailed as being subsequently used as a means of compensation [bribery] for investors in the Darien Scheme, and Union supporters.
This sum noted above was only paid after signature. None of the above funds were recorded as being distributed to anyone who opposed the Treaty of Union, nor could they be given to “Scotland’s government” – it no longer existed. They are reported and acknowledged to have been distributed solely amongst those who worked for passage of the Union Treaty.
Direct bribery was also known to be a factor. £20,000 (£240,000 Scots) was dispatched to Scotland for distribution by the Earl of Glasgow. James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, the Queen's Commissioner in Parliament, received £12,325, himself.
Now under Article 45
Loss of a right to invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty
A State may no longer invoke a ground for invalidating, terminating, withdrawing from or suspending the operation of a treaty under articles 46 to 50 or articles 60 and 62 if, after becoming aware of the facts:
(a) it shall have expressly agreed that the treaty is valid or remains in force or continues in operation, as the case may be; or
(b) it must by reason of its conduct be considered as having acquiesced in the validity of the treaty or in its maintenance in force or in operation, as the case may be.
It can be clearly seen these do not apply to Scotland – the civil unrest and popular (dis)Unity has been widespread since treaty inception, and, in its most basic form, absent an independent government it was unable to fall into the first category. Without an independent government, Scots could not expressly agree.
So much for the past, this is the present, and it’s within article 45[b] that past meets present. There was an interesting quirk in 1999 when Winnie Ewing made her famous statement.
Certainly Winnie was acting as a government representative – certainly she had full authority to make the address, just as certainly her words have never been officially disputed either by Westminster or Holyrood. Arguably just as certainly she served notice on Westminster that under 45b that Scotland did NOT acquiesce.
The actual words of Winnie Ewing have been widely acclaimed; "The Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on 25 March 1707, is hereby reconvened."
Basically and effectively Ms. Ewing served notice on the Westminster government that the treaty of Union was ended.
The Scottish government had re-convened. It went undisputed. Treaties can be terminated by universal, bi-lateral or unilateral acts. They can also be terminated by the fundamental reason d’être of the treaty no longer being valid.
In 1999 a fundamental change took place within the Treaty of Union – there were again two parliaments.
The primary reason for the Union Treaty was to remove the dual parliamentary system. The Scots through their representative declared that their parliament was “re-convened” the English under international law in its most basic interpretation have no right of interference in the internal politics of another country.
Arguably, on 12th of May 1999 Ms. Ewing told our nation “if you want a Union – now go negotiate one” – perhaps that is just what Alex Salmond should do – declare the treaty of Union dead as of a set date [12th May 1999] based upon the facts, and request of the Scottish people the authority to renegotiate a treaty that is fair and reasonable towards Scotland – if such can be achieved. The actual official date of termination, and the end of all obligations under that ancient agreement could be June 24th 2014.
We should therefore invite England to the negotiating table. That would require a separate English parliament however.
Let them decline if they choose. It would also solve that pesky “West Lothian question”.
If the English do come to the negotiating table, and agreements are reached, then let the Scots vote on the new treaty, allowing terms can be arranged that the Scots might accept.
Perhaps we should simply take that “Independence” word right of the table. It is certainly appearing an option. The question then becomes do we devolve our government to Westminster again, and if so, what aspects?
Last but not least, and worthy as a footnote is an interesting Westminster quirk – Westminster now sees itself categorically as England’s parliament and Scotland’s overlord.
It views itself as a UK government of dominion, not of partners. It has demonstrated it would retain dominion.
If Westminster / the UK parliament had any other pretexts these are effectively dismissed by the list of countries with whom it can “do business”, conclude treaties etc.
Scotland is on that list, England is not. Northern Ireland is also on this list, but as Wales was taken by right of conquest it doesn't have to be. Wales is absent. The only discernible reason England would not be on that list is because Westminster views itself as England’s Parliament.
Although the UK Government’s website does list Scotland as a nation with which it can enter and execute treaties, it has none listed for review against our nation. Not the treaty of 1328 (Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton) recognising our nationhood “for all time coming” or the treaty of 1707 where we entered the Union of Parliaments.
The treaties recognising our borders are also conveniently absent, as is the existence of a treaty where the latest 6,000 miles of seabed was “grabbed by England” in the last decade – meaning under UN rules that act can also be construed as basically illegal – void.
Wednesday, 6 February 2013
Just what are they afraid of?
The Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Tories in Scotland; what are they afraid of? Watching the Libdems in Westminster snorting at the trough, you would think any one of these so-called representatives of the Scottish people would leap with out-stretched arms at the opportunity at a shot of time in government. And not just a devolved government, but fully matured, grown up, independent government with powers over taxation, spending, foreign policy and the sundry responsibilities that this would entail.
This next step, to my mind, is the logical one to take. Following on from the devolution “experiment”, independence can be the only destination.
While reading another article here: Scottish Socialist Voice, it hit me on the forehead that these enemies from apparent opposite ends of the political spectrum (with the dead-beat Libdems swinging either way to suit whatever side is “in”) were more than willing to cosy up in a thorny bed to maintain this dysfunctional Union, rather than stand up and go boldly into the future which is full of potential. They are happy to support all these awful cuts to benefits which is the cause of much suffering to the weak and vulnerable in our society; cuts which Labour have promised will continue in the future following 2015 general election, should they win. They seem content – every one of them – to watch the gap between the wealthy and the poor stretch to mind-bending, record breaking levels, rather than say “No, this can’t go on, there is another, better way!”
What is it that keeps them tied hard and fast to the Butcher’s Bloody Apron-strings; that makes them too afraid to take up the cause of their kith and kin and actually try to improve the lot of the Scottish Nation?
Consider the gasping corpse that is the Tory Party in Scotland; why would it consign itself to electoral oblivion under the current system? Potentially, in an independent Scotland they could achieve a return to the popular party they were during the 1950s, but with a uniquely Scottish conservative slant. Or perhaps that’s where their imagination runs out. It has to be like Westminster.
Then there is the Labour Party, North Britain Branch, because they do not behave like a representative of the Scottish people. This crowd, as so eloquently pointed out on many, many occasions, would prefer to be ruled and dictated to by a Conservative parliament in Westminster, than put a foot on the next step of the promotional ladder and use the power of Holyrood to improve the lot of the people of, for example, Glasgow. These same people of Glasgow whose life-span, despite many decades of local councils being under Labour stewardship, has been shown to be shorter than the residents of Gaza.
When we come to the Liberal Democrats we appear to have a political party whose malleability is second only to warm Plasticine; willing to compromise their ideals for any taste of power. So, why not in an independent Scotland?
Could it be they are so used to taking instructions from headquarters in London that they have lost all confidence in themselves and are emotionally, psychologically and physically incapable of taking charge of decision-making and of forming a government? They certainly seem bereft of ideas and policies, and are deadly silent on what their function in an independent country would be.
Obviously the SNP never had to take instructions from, or toe the line of, any London-centric party. They have always been their own masters and have grown and matured over the last 70-odd years to become a very competent party of government within the devolved parameters of Holyrood. Furthermore, I’m confident that the changeover to independent, autonomous nation-hood will be no great problem to them either. As individuals they are, each and every one, all ready to work for the needs and the needy of Scotland.
In contrast, however, I think the other political representatives do not have that confidence, intellect or ability. They only know how to take and carry out orders. Therefore, to suddenly give them the power of a fully functioning government would cause them to behave like rabbits in headlights. As a result of their current set-up, i.e. receiving instructions from London bosses, they have never had to stretch their abilities beyond that of a glorified councillor. They’ve not really had to balance a budget as well as they should.
This is true, especially when you take into consideration their past record in power (1999-2007); PFI, PPI and so on. They have bequeathed a whole slew of extortionately expensive schemes, which have in reality indebted our grandchildren. My nephew’s daughter will be paying off hospitals and other public expenditure into HER adulthood.
Perhaps some of the now retired and more mature ex-members of those parties could have coped in government, but when I look at Lamont, Rennie and Davidson, I’m left with the knowledge they are followers not leaders.
You only have to watch their cringe worthy “performances” at First Minister’s Questions to see that. Their debating skills are limited ad hominem commentary and petty point scoring, instead of discussion and debate. Their sense of achievement appears to come from their perception that they have successfully dragged other MSPs characters, chiefly SNP MSPs, into the dirt, rather than finding solutions to the myriad of social and economical issues that affect the everyday lives of our fellow Scots.
It is now obvious to me and much of the general public that many of the current members of Labour, Libdems and Tories are by no manner of means ready for serious, grown-up politics; they’ve relinquished that responsibility to their masters in London. They have chosen to self-fulfil the “too stupid” myth by being incapable of standing up to the mark and saying “Not only, Yes We Can, But Let’s Show Westminster How It’s Done!”
Since the SNP landslide of 2011 and the promise of the referendum, not one positive reason for remaining part of the United Kingdom has been given by any of them. All that has happened is a torrent of scaremongering has cascaded from all Unionist quarters. Slurs, insults and in many cases, out and out lies have been utelised by them in an attempt to subdue the Scots into giving up their right to autonomy. In addition, we’ve had the “Jam Tomorrow” promise of increased powers post 2014. All we need do is look at the NHS in England and watch it evaporate despite promises made to conserve and nurture it, same with education fees.
Scotland’s fate in 2014 following a No vote is something I have no desire to even contemplate. It’s too dismal and depressing.
I believe that one of the reasons these Union politicians in Scotland are so unreservedly ideologically stuck to the maintenance of the United Kingdom comes down to basic lack of ability. They may even have some insight that they themselves are incapable of making such important decisions, and this is why they are afraid to step up to the mark. However, more importantly and probably closer to their hearts, it really does come down to the money.
Many believe their financial rewards will be greater remaining with the status quo. With the potential of a gift of a place on the Green Bench and an ermine cape, so long as they do their master’s bidding, they are more than happy to keep the querulous Scots kow-towing to Westminster’s increasingly miserly plan. However, they are not so daft as to miss the point that as members of an Edinburgh Government, we the people have sovereignty over it and them, and could ask awkward questions about expenses and dubious accounting. Whereas Westminster not only does very little to prevent this type of corruption, it actively encourages it, as we have seen many of those who paid back false claims are having them repaid.
And for these selfish reasons alone, Scotland could remain yoked to a system which has little in common with her social aspirations. A system dedicated to maintaining the false perception bolstered by compliant media that, although The United Kingdom is over-run with layabout spongers, the worst of them all (if the comments section of the Daily Mail and Telegraph are to be taken seriously) are the lazy, drunken, scrounging Scots north of the border.
When in reality, we all know the real scroungers and money-wasters occupy Green and Red Leather Benches in a luxurious palace on the banks of the Thames.
The very place that many, if not most of the Unionist supporting politicians would dearly love to be.
This next step, to my mind, is the logical one to take. Following on from the devolution “experiment”, independence can be the only destination.
While reading another article here: Scottish Socialist Voice, it hit me on the forehead that these enemies from apparent opposite ends of the political spectrum (with the dead-beat Libdems swinging either way to suit whatever side is “in”) were more than willing to cosy up in a thorny bed to maintain this dysfunctional Union, rather than stand up and go boldly into the future which is full of potential. They are happy to support all these awful cuts to benefits which is the cause of much suffering to the weak and vulnerable in our society; cuts which Labour have promised will continue in the future following 2015 general election, should they win. They seem content – every one of them – to watch the gap between the wealthy and the poor stretch to mind-bending, record breaking levels, rather than say “No, this can’t go on, there is another, better way!”
What is it that keeps them tied hard and fast to the Butcher’s Bloody Apron-strings; that makes them too afraid to take up the cause of their kith and kin and actually try to improve the lot of the Scottish Nation?
Consider the gasping corpse that is the Tory Party in Scotland; why would it consign itself to electoral oblivion under the current system? Potentially, in an independent Scotland they could achieve a return to the popular party they were during the 1950s, but with a uniquely Scottish conservative slant. Or perhaps that’s where their imagination runs out. It has to be like Westminster.
Then there is the Labour Party, North Britain Branch, because they do not behave like a representative of the Scottish people. This crowd, as so eloquently pointed out on many, many occasions, would prefer to be ruled and dictated to by a Conservative parliament in Westminster, than put a foot on the next step of the promotional ladder and use the power of Holyrood to improve the lot of the people of, for example, Glasgow. These same people of Glasgow whose life-span, despite many decades of local councils being under Labour stewardship, has been shown to be shorter than the residents of Gaza.
When we come to the Liberal Democrats we appear to have a political party whose malleability is second only to warm Plasticine; willing to compromise their ideals for any taste of power. So, why not in an independent Scotland?
Could it be they are so used to taking instructions from headquarters in London that they have lost all confidence in themselves and are emotionally, psychologically and physically incapable of taking charge of decision-making and of forming a government? They certainly seem bereft of ideas and policies, and are deadly silent on what their function in an independent country would be.
Obviously the SNP never had to take instructions from, or toe the line of, any London-centric party. They have always been their own masters and have grown and matured over the last 70-odd years to become a very competent party of government within the devolved parameters of Holyrood. Furthermore, I’m confident that the changeover to independent, autonomous nation-hood will be no great problem to them either. As individuals they are, each and every one, all ready to work for the needs and the needy of Scotland.
In contrast, however, I think the other political representatives do not have that confidence, intellect or ability. They only know how to take and carry out orders. Therefore, to suddenly give them the power of a fully functioning government would cause them to behave like rabbits in headlights. As a result of their current set-up, i.e. receiving instructions from London bosses, they have never had to stretch their abilities beyond that of a glorified councillor. They’ve not really had to balance a budget as well as they should.
This is true, especially when you take into consideration their past record in power (1999-2007); PFI, PPI and so on. They have bequeathed a whole slew of extortionately expensive schemes, which have in reality indebted our grandchildren. My nephew’s daughter will be paying off hospitals and other public expenditure into HER adulthood.
Perhaps some of the now retired and more mature ex-members of those parties could have coped in government, but when I look at Lamont, Rennie and Davidson, I’m left with the knowledge they are followers not leaders.
You only have to watch their cringe worthy “performances” at First Minister’s Questions to see that. Their debating skills are limited ad hominem commentary and petty point scoring, instead of discussion and debate. Their sense of achievement appears to come from their perception that they have successfully dragged other MSPs characters, chiefly SNP MSPs, into the dirt, rather than finding solutions to the myriad of social and economical issues that affect the everyday lives of our fellow Scots.
It is now obvious to me and much of the general public that many of the current members of Labour, Libdems and Tories are by no manner of means ready for serious, grown-up politics; they’ve relinquished that responsibility to their masters in London. They have chosen to self-fulfil the “too stupid” myth by being incapable of standing up to the mark and saying “Not only, Yes We Can, But Let’s Show Westminster How It’s Done!”
Since the SNP landslide of 2011 and the promise of the referendum, not one positive reason for remaining part of the United Kingdom has been given by any of them. All that has happened is a torrent of scaremongering has cascaded from all Unionist quarters. Slurs, insults and in many cases, out and out lies have been utelised by them in an attempt to subdue the Scots into giving up their right to autonomy. In addition, we’ve had the “Jam Tomorrow” promise of increased powers post 2014. All we need do is look at the NHS in England and watch it evaporate despite promises made to conserve and nurture it, same with education fees.
Scotland’s fate in 2014 following a No vote is something I have no desire to even contemplate. It’s too dismal and depressing.
I believe that one of the reasons these Union politicians in Scotland are so unreservedly ideologically stuck to the maintenance of the United Kingdom comes down to basic lack of ability. They may even have some insight that they themselves are incapable of making such important decisions, and this is why they are afraid to step up to the mark. However, more importantly and probably closer to their hearts, it really does come down to the money.
Many believe their financial rewards will be greater remaining with the status quo. With the potential of a gift of a place on the Green Bench and an ermine cape, so long as they do their master’s bidding, they are more than happy to keep the querulous Scots kow-towing to Westminster’s increasingly miserly plan. However, they are not so daft as to miss the point that as members of an Edinburgh Government, we the people have sovereignty over it and them, and could ask awkward questions about expenses and dubious accounting. Whereas Westminster not only does very little to prevent this type of corruption, it actively encourages it, as we have seen many of those who paid back false claims are having them repaid.
And for these selfish reasons alone, Scotland could remain yoked to a system which has little in common with her social aspirations. A system dedicated to maintaining the false perception bolstered by compliant media that, although The United Kingdom is over-run with layabout spongers, the worst of them all (if the comments section of the Daily Mail and Telegraph are to be taken seriously) are the lazy, drunken, scrounging Scots north of the border.
When in reality, we all know the real scroungers and money-wasters occupy Green and Red Leather Benches in a luxurious palace on the banks of the Thames.
The very place that many, if not most of the Unionist supporting politicians would dearly love to be.
Thursday, 13 December 2012
This HAS to change.
Yesterday, I read the online account of Prime Minister’s Question Time. I also followed some of the Twitter response to the so-called “clash” between Mssrs Balls, Miliband and Cameron. The immediate thought that struck me was:
“How can this 18th century bullyboy-style mockery for government debate really come up with solutions to 21st century problems? I don't think it can, it's no longer fit for purpose, and possibly it never was. A complete and radical change is required; unfortunately, no-one has a clue how to think beyond their limitations within Westminster.”
The foundation of the establishment, Parliament, is based in the old French word, parley. Simply put it means to talk, discuss amicably, to resolve to mutual benefit. There is little in Westminster’s “Parley” or Parliament that gives any hope to a resolution of the trench warfare and inimical party points scoring that persists and destroys our democracy. The only surprise so far is that it’s been only jibes and insults that cross the no-man’s land of Westminster’s plush carpet, yet the effect on our economy has been as destructive as the bombs and bullets that crossed the Somme.
How can a culture become adult and mature in its outlook when it has to witness the “cream” of society behaving like spoilt brats at a Sunday-school picnic? When these “elders and betters”, these rule makers, cannot actually debate subjects without delving for insults, cheap jibes and point scoring off each other? When it sees the true policies on which we could thrive mown down before they ever manage to climb from the trenches?
Nothing is discussed or debated, no common ground is found, no compromise is ever achieved. This crock of nonsense is purely for show, and does nothing to benefit the people who voted these men and women into such powerful positions. Westminster did manage a ‘Christmas truce’ from 1939 to 1945, and they achieved remarkable things. However, since then their ideas and decisions are increasingly set in stone, polarised and already made, long before they come to the “debating” chamber. There is absolutely no point to PMQ’s – other than strutting, preening, grandstanding and point-scoring. It is an inane exercise. And sadly, First Minister’s Questions is going the same route, thanks to the Unionist parties attempt to mimic all things Westminster.
It is human nature; when someone poses a threat to us, we fight back. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, the parties who might put Scotland needs first will attack in return. Ultimately, the Union parties in their aspirations for Westminster-like adversarial conflict guarantee the useless and destructive spiral will continue.
Returning to the Twitter “debate” it really did not improve any of the events that took place in the chamber; in fact it merely continued the pathetic score-keeping of “my politician was better than your politician”, as if this type of political non-achieving is something of which we should be proud.
How is this example of non-cooperation, insults, bully-boy tactics and the rest setting any sort of example to youngsters in society? Politicians are saying it’s perfectly ok to behave likes this, but you kids have to behave in quite a different manner. Instead of leading by example, they’re yet again meting out more of the “do as I say, not as I do” nonsense that most people resent. Then these politicians become all confused and befuddled because there is a lack of respect for any of them.
Westminster is so deeply entrenched in tradition I think it is beyond them to alter the mindset. They have to be dressed like 18th century guisers to open and close the sessions, and they require the anachronistic presence of HRH Queen Elizabeth to sanction the proceedings. Now I could go on at this juncture about HRH and family being the biggest benefits scroungers out there, something for nothing layabouts, whose influence is beyond the pale, and how can you expect people to work for a living when they see this crowd at the peak of society living off tax-payers money, but I won’t. The monarchy is a different debate for another time.
So what to do?
Personally, I believe there is nothing that can be done for Westminster; this cause was lost generations ago, stuck in the mud of tradition going back centuries. It had, at best, a brief twilight renaissance between 1945 and 1950. Therefore, we must look to Holyrood to beat a path to mature, consensual politics.
The Unionist supporting parties, as I mentioned previously, appear to advocate, promote and thrive on the Westminster style of rabid, party-led, point-scoring attempts, without much consideration for any constituents during FMQs.
Our reconstituted parliament in Holyrood, having retained few of the relics from the 18th century, is arguably one of the oldest parliaments in Europe. Moreover, having only been reinvested very recently, it isn’t mired in tradition like London and it should therefore be very simple to change ways of doing business BEFORE they become rooted in the mists of time as some weird, immutable folklore defining how a parliament should function. Changes are required in the system in order to ensure we have politics that represent the people and not the party. With an absolute majority, the SNP should be looking at this as a matter of extreme urgency.
While the way Holyrood’s debating chamber is set out physically, (i.e. semi-circular instead of sitting in opposition to one another) is a good start, it is undermined as each party continues to sit in its own little clique or block thus perpetuating the tribal mentality of “Us versus Them”.
More must be done to alter the way these politicians think about their role in parliament. That means altering the entire mind set. It is time to move away from “Party Politics” and start choosing people on their individual merits and promises. For example, while I support the SNP in many, many issues, there are some things with which I do not agree. But it doesn't mean they’re not the best all around choice for me as a party. By the same token, individuals may represent my core beliefs more closely and I’d be more prone to support them. All our politicians should be in the chambers to represent those people who cared sufficiently to attend polling stations and vote for them. To play the game along party lines is nothing but a slap in the face to the voter.
Changing the mind set is probably not achievable among many of the current crop, but surely they are not so blinkered that they are unable to see how damaging this type of so-called debate is on their standing, politics in general and the nation in its whole.
All the “ya-boo-sucks” hollering does nothing to advance people’s interest in how their country is governed, and in fact alienates them from the process. Perhaps this is the true goal of those who prefer the adversarial type politicking. Put sufficient numbers of people off voting, bring about such apathy towards the process, that the politicians can do whatever they please with impunity. Literally giving us what we vote for.
Alternatively, Holyrood could simply pass legislation that makes every vote in its chambers a secret ballot - at the time of voting; consequently, every vote becomes a conscience vote. In addition to this, the voting record of every member of the Scottish parliament would be published following the dissolution of each and every session, ensuring they are immune from pressure by the party system. Subsequently offering the sovereign people of Scotland the opportunity to see how their parliamentarians voted, before having the option to re-elect them.
Now, wouldn't that be a wonderful and brave new world?
“How can this 18th century bullyboy-style mockery for government debate really come up with solutions to 21st century problems? I don't think it can, it's no longer fit for purpose, and possibly it never was. A complete and radical change is required; unfortunately, no-one has a clue how to think beyond their limitations within Westminster.”
The foundation of the establishment, Parliament, is based in the old French word, parley. Simply put it means to talk, discuss amicably, to resolve to mutual benefit. There is little in Westminster’s “Parley” or Parliament that gives any hope to a resolution of the trench warfare and inimical party points scoring that persists and destroys our democracy. The only surprise so far is that it’s been only jibes and insults that cross the no-man’s land of Westminster’s plush carpet, yet the effect on our economy has been as destructive as the bombs and bullets that crossed the Somme.
How can a culture become adult and mature in its outlook when it has to witness the “cream” of society behaving like spoilt brats at a Sunday-school picnic? When these “elders and betters”, these rule makers, cannot actually debate subjects without delving for insults, cheap jibes and point scoring off each other? When it sees the true policies on which we could thrive mown down before they ever manage to climb from the trenches?
Nothing is discussed or debated, no common ground is found, no compromise is ever achieved. This crock of nonsense is purely for show, and does nothing to benefit the people who voted these men and women into such powerful positions. Westminster did manage a ‘Christmas truce’ from 1939 to 1945, and they achieved remarkable things. However, since then their ideas and decisions are increasingly set in stone, polarised and already made, long before they come to the “debating” chamber. There is absolutely no point to PMQ’s – other than strutting, preening, grandstanding and point-scoring. It is an inane exercise. And sadly, First Minister’s Questions is going the same route, thanks to the Unionist parties attempt to mimic all things Westminster.
It is human nature; when someone poses a threat to us, we fight back. Therefore, rightly or wrongly, the parties who might put Scotland needs first will attack in return. Ultimately, the Union parties in their aspirations for Westminster-like adversarial conflict guarantee the useless and destructive spiral will continue.
Returning to the Twitter “debate” it really did not improve any of the events that took place in the chamber; in fact it merely continued the pathetic score-keeping of “my politician was better than your politician”, as if this type of political non-achieving is something of which we should be proud.
How is this example of non-cooperation, insults, bully-boy tactics and the rest setting any sort of example to youngsters in society? Politicians are saying it’s perfectly ok to behave likes this, but you kids have to behave in quite a different manner. Instead of leading by example, they’re yet again meting out more of the “do as I say, not as I do” nonsense that most people resent. Then these politicians become all confused and befuddled because there is a lack of respect for any of them.
Westminster is so deeply entrenched in tradition I think it is beyond them to alter the mindset. They have to be dressed like 18th century guisers to open and close the sessions, and they require the anachronistic presence of HRH Queen Elizabeth to sanction the proceedings. Now I could go on at this juncture about HRH and family being the biggest benefits scroungers out there, something for nothing layabouts, whose influence is beyond the pale, and how can you expect people to work for a living when they see this crowd at the peak of society living off tax-payers money, but I won’t. The monarchy is a different debate for another time.
So what to do?
Personally, I believe there is nothing that can be done for Westminster; this cause was lost generations ago, stuck in the mud of tradition going back centuries. It had, at best, a brief twilight renaissance between 1945 and 1950. Therefore, we must look to Holyrood to beat a path to mature, consensual politics.
The Unionist supporting parties, as I mentioned previously, appear to advocate, promote and thrive on the Westminster style of rabid, party-led, point-scoring attempts, without much consideration for any constituents during FMQs.
Our reconstituted parliament in Holyrood, having retained few of the relics from the 18th century, is arguably one of the oldest parliaments in Europe. Moreover, having only been reinvested very recently, it isn’t mired in tradition like London and it should therefore be very simple to change ways of doing business BEFORE they become rooted in the mists of time as some weird, immutable folklore defining how a parliament should function. Changes are required in the system in order to ensure we have politics that represent the people and not the party. With an absolute majority, the SNP should be looking at this as a matter of extreme urgency.
While the way Holyrood’s debating chamber is set out physically, (i.e. semi-circular instead of sitting in opposition to one another) is a good start, it is undermined as each party continues to sit in its own little clique or block thus perpetuating the tribal mentality of “Us versus Them”.
More must be done to alter the way these politicians think about their role in parliament. That means altering the entire mind set. It is time to move away from “Party Politics” and start choosing people on their individual merits and promises. For example, while I support the SNP in many, many issues, there are some things with which I do not agree. But it doesn't mean they’re not the best all around choice for me as a party. By the same token, individuals may represent my core beliefs more closely and I’d be more prone to support them. All our politicians should be in the chambers to represent those people who cared sufficiently to attend polling stations and vote for them. To play the game along party lines is nothing but a slap in the face to the voter.
Changing the mind set is probably not achievable among many of the current crop, but surely they are not so blinkered that they are unable to see how damaging this type of so-called debate is on their standing, politics in general and the nation in its whole.
All the “ya-boo-sucks” hollering does nothing to advance people’s interest in how their country is governed, and in fact alienates them from the process. Perhaps this is the true goal of those who prefer the adversarial type politicking. Put sufficient numbers of people off voting, bring about such apathy towards the process, that the politicians can do whatever they please with impunity. Literally giving us what we vote for.
Alternatively, Holyrood could simply pass legislation that makes every vote in its chambers a secret ballot - at the time of voting; consequently, every vote becomes a conscience vote. In addition to this, the voting record of every member of the Scottish parliament would be published following the dissolution of each and every session, ensuring they are immune from pressure by the party system. Subsequently offering the sovereign people of Scotland the opportunity to see how their parliamentarians voted, before having the option to re-elect them.
Now, wouldn't that be a wonderful and brave new world?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)