It’s interesting how the Unionist Parties, all of them, say that the fate of the NHS in Scotland is ‘devolved’, that therefore it becomes wholly the choice of the Scottish Parliament to privatise, or not to privatise, all the while claiming that NHS spending in England is increasing, so our ‘Barnett Equivalent’ is increasing.
Perhaps some of us are stupid enough to believe that. Westminster certainly thinks we are right now, at least judging by its actions.
It’s a bit like me giving you my car, which you absolutely need but don’t have the money to run. I’ll tell you it’ll be fine, just give me your vote and everything will work out, I’ll even pay for the maintenance, I’ll pay for the roads too, the infrastructure, I just won’t tell you it’s actually your money I’m using.
I’m not going to tell you today, when I need that vote, that tomorrow, after you’ve given it to me, I’ll stop giving you the money to buy petrol,
even though I know you don’t have the ability to buy it yourself. I won’t ever actually ask for the car back, why should I? Effectively, I’ll just stop you using it so I don’t have to maintain it any longer; that means I can ignore the infrastructure too.
My car in your hands, the NHS as we know it in Westminster’s hands, both a bit useless after that vote has been used, both of little value once the currency of negotiation has been spent. Without the ability to fund its NHS being firmly in Scotland’s hands, it’s not Scotland’s NHS. It never will be, like anything else, if we can’t fund it, like a car with no petrol, it’s pointless.
There’re two things we all need to be aware of when it comes to funding.
Firstly, Barnett’s on the way out. No Westminster party has pledged to maintain it; mind you, after the student loans debacle, amongst others, those promises wouldn’t be worth much even if they were made.
Secondly, NHS spending in England has increased, but a significant part of that increase now funds shareholder profits, not patient care. It’s still ‘government spending’ they argue in London Town, so Scotland benefits. They’re right as well, but only for today.
After you spend that vote on Thursday, if you spend it foolishly, if you vote ‘No’, here’s what will happen to your NHS, amongst other cherished institutions.
The main English parties have all said they are committed to Austerity. In actual fact, they’ve no choice; they spend so much on servicing a debt created by their economic mismanagement that it’s possibly their only true option.
UK Debt payments, just for interest, already equal four times the cost of Scotland’s NHS, by 2020 they’re going to be close to outstripping the cost of the entire UK’s health care system. That money has to be ‘found’ from somewhere, and they can’t indenture Scottish Oil or sell off the Royal Mail again.
The money will be found from the same place it’s always found, our taxes. In this case, stealth taxes once more. Just like the pensions raids, except now it’ll be an NHS raid.
The NHS in England is largely privately run these days; we just pay the bills and the profits on top. It’s ripe for shifting from the public books.
As that shifting process initiates, expect co-pays to be introduced in England, the think tanks and committees are already sounding them out, the responses they’re getting are positive.
The next stage will be a supplemental ‘tax’ or extra NI contribution, after that employer funded insurance will become de-rigueur. Each small step not that big of a deal alone, each small step so singularly significant moving that £100 billion plus from the government books to our own. Each small step contributing to City profits, even as the square mile contributes to the party coffers.
Expect, over the course of several years, the NHS to go from ‘universal entitlement’ to a ‘needs based benefit’.
As this all happens, even at just a twenty pound co-pay per visit, and three visits a year, that’s 3.6 billion shaved from the public budget in England. That’s about 1/3 of Scotland’s NHS costs, and that proportionate allocation won’t come north anymore, even in the unlikely event Barnett survives. That twenty pound co-pay is only half what Labour’s proposing mind you, Red-Ed is on record at £120 per person a year, with other’s in Westminster’s circles suggesting a tenner a month a head ‘access fee’ per user, so that’d be over seven billion, it’ll cover a bit more mismanagement then?
Typically it can be expected that any tests and procedures will also come with their individual co-pays, and all this will happen, because folk are only too willing to ‘pay a co-pay to save their NHS’, not realizing that even although the staff in front of them might be wearing NHS insignias, they actually aren’t NHS employees. The public doesn’t realize that what ‘they’re paying to save’ is already effectively dead, in England.
Once these conditions become the norm, its reasonable, based upon past trends, to expect those still using the NHS to become vilified as are the public health recipients in America by the US right wing media, they’ll be just another round of ‘benefits scroungers’.
When it’s all done, just remember, you cast that vote, and with an opportunity to truly change the way folk get treated in these Islands, throughout the entirety of these islands, if you cast it with poor judgement, you’ll have used up all your currency, and Westminster certainly isn’t going to call for free critical care or life support for a cause which it views as simply creating wasteful constitutional crises. If Westminster can stop it, there’ll be no more ‘wasteful’ constitutional amendments, otherwise known as devolution.
Remember too, on some future day, when you personally need that life support, from the birth of a child to major surgery, or even simply your elderly care in the years to come, as it is in England already, you’d better be prepared to pay.
There you have it, it’s quite simple really, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Alistair Darling, Ed Miliband or the man who helped start the sell-off of the NHS, and raided your pensions, Gordon Brown. Would you buy a used car from them under any conditions, not just these conditions? How about a soon to be very underfunded NHS Perhaps the promise of a scandal free Westminster works for you?
If you wouldn’t do any of these, why would you buy a Union?
Showing posts with label referendum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label referendum. Show all posts
Monday, 15 September 2014
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.
Wednesday, 27 August 2014
Guest writer Steven McBrien Looks At Better Together's Patronising Video.
Guest writer Steven McBrien tackles the deeply offensive and patronising piece of publicity from Better Together/ Jist Say Eh?/ No Borders ... (an update on their current title would be helpful....)
--------------------------------------------------
Hear ye, hear ye! I want each and every woman on my (Facebook) friends list, regardless of nationality, to watch this. I want you all to see exactly what kind of campaign "No Thanks" actually is. Because when Better Together finally hit rock bottom, what do they do? That's right: they proceed to unveil their shovels and start digging, and this advert literally has to be seen in order to be believed. I was strongly reminded of Harry Enfield's brilliant "WOMEN: KNOW YOUR LIMITS" piss-take while watching this.
Apparently, your average Scotswoman thinks of the referendum as some sort of distraction which shouldn't be discussed, doesn't know Alex Salmond's name and refers to the First Minister of her country as "that bloke off the telly", believes that the opinions of children don't count because they are children, imagines that the YES Campaign have somehow promised that "oil will pay for it all," (and thereby refuses to acknowledge to herself that the YES Campaign have stated time and again that a trillion quid oil bonanza is only part of the package, along with renewables, some of the finest exports in Europe, tourism, no upkeep for a nuclear arsenal, over 65% of UK coastline being in Scotland, not having to finance illegal wars and ever-increasing global investment thanks to us actually having a financial capital that's not hundreds of miles away from us in another country), thinks that because there is a degree of uncertainty attached to doing something, that means you shouldn't do it at all (Why move out of home/get married/have kids in the first place then? And hang on while I ask the world's leading businesswomen if they let uncertainty hold them back at the beginning), thinks that "loving" your country means not giving it the chance to do what the rest of the world is doing, doesn't have "enough hours in the day" to go and discover facts and think for herself, gives credit only to things she sees on TV or hears by chance, believes that pensions and hospitals would be somehow safer in a Tory or UKIP-led United Kingdom than they would under an iScotland, believes that something an entire nation has spent two years discussing "hasn't been thought through" and seriously states to herself that there will be no risk posed to Scotland at all if it votes NO, ignoring the fact that we as a nation will be effectively crucified if we do refuse self-determination. The whole woeful thing basically amounts to: "Never mind any of this referendum nonsense, women of Scotland: just eat your cereal and get the dinner on." Pathetic.
Needless to say, like every other Better Together advert I've ever seen online, comments and ratings are thoroughly disabled. Because they are every bit as interested in hearing the thoughts of real women as they are in democracy.
Jesus Christ, these people stink.
Better Together Patronise The Women Of Scotland
Steven McBrien
Hear ye, hear ye! I want each and every woman on my (Facebook) friends list, regardless of nationality, to watch this. I want you all to see exactly what kind of campaign "No Thanks" actually is. Because when Better Together finally hit rock bottom, what do they do? That's right: they proceed to unveil their shovels and start digging, and this advert literally has to be seen in order to be believed. I was strongly reminded of Harry Enfield's brilliant "WOMEN: KNOW YOUR LIMITS" piss-take while watching this.
 |
| Not just you Steven! |
Apparently, your average Scotswoman thinks of the referendum as some sort of distraction which shouldn't be discussed, doesn't know Alex Salmond's name and refers to the First Minister of her country as "that bloke off the telly", believes that the opinions of children don't count because they are children, imagines that the YES Campaign have somehow promised that "oil will pay for it all," (and thereby refuses to acknowledge to herself that the YES Campaign have stated time and again that a trillion quid oil bonanza is only part of the package, along with renewables, some of the finest exports in Europe, tourism, no upkeep for a nuclear arsenal, over 65% of UK coastline being in Scotland, not having to finance illegal wars and ever-increasing global investment thanks to us actually having a financial capital that's not hundreds of miles away from us in another country), thinks that because there is a degree of uncertainty attached to doing something, that means you shouldn't do it at all (Why move out of home/get married/have kids in the first place then? And hang on while I ask the world's leading businesswomen if they let uncertainty hold them back at the beginning), thinks that "loving" your country means not giving it the chance to do what the rest of the world is doing, doesn't have "enough hours in the day" to go and discover facts and think for herself, gives credit only to things she sees on TV or hears by chance, believes that pensions and hospitals would be somehow safer in a Tory or UKIP-led United Kingdom than they would under an iScotland, believes that something an entire nation has spent two years discussing "hasn't been thought through" and seriously states to herself that there will be no risk posed to Scotland at all if it votes NO, ignoring the fact that we as a nation will be effectively crucified if we do refuse self-determination. The whole woeful thing basically amounts to: "Never mind any of this referendum nonsense, women of Scotland: just eat your cereal and get the dinner on." Pathetic.
Needless to say, like every other Better Together advert I've ever seen online, comments and ratings are thoroughly disabled. Because they are every bit as interested in hearing the thoughts of real women as they are in democracy.
Jesus Christ, these people stink.
Better Together Patronise The Women Of Scotland
Steven McBrien
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for that Steven.
Thanks for that Steven.
Frightening, isn't it? But then if it's true that BT have used the advertising firm owned by Saatchi - is the derogatory attitude towards women so unexpected?
However, the internet is a wonderful place - if only the poor lassie in the advert could discover that between washing cereal plates and putting down her wean's intelligence:
As does Alistair Davidson.
And Finally: Jackie Crawford's take.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven McBrien's Tumblr Blog can be found here.
And Finally: Jackie Crawford's take.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven McBrien's Tumblr Blog can be found here.
Saturday, 9 August 2014
The choreographed debate – Union style.
I've watched and re-watched that first referendum debate, and the more I do, the more I understand. It wasn't really a debate at all. It was a set up; a set up by irrelevant participants (Mr. A. Darling and Better Together audience plants 1 2) designed to hamper rather than enhance knowledge.
I can say that because as it unfolded, I watched the focus slide unerringly to the fiscal aspect, not surprisingly as it’s what many of us need answers on, or so the Union’s organizers’ would have us believe.
In actuality, it was a debate designed from the outset to hammer Alex Salmond and ‘his pet project’. I'm not even certain Bernard Ponsonby was aware of the facts, though it’s hard to see how he’d be ignorant of them. Ponsonby did give Darling, which appeared well anticipated, a few hard shoves but failed to use the debate to move issues and educate. As such, Bernie very much ‘shot his bolt’.
I'm taking that position as it was clear while it unfolded the script like the wrestling results of the ‘70’s, had already been drafted for release by the UK’s media the following day; they just needed to insert quote A into line B.
To any half-witted idiot it became clear before half time that it would be a twofold prong, currency and how ‘Darling won the debate’ after studiously selling ‘their guy’ low. Alistair Darling came across to me more as a renegade guest from the Jerry Springer show, not as a serious debater, although he did raise a few valid questions. He’d obviously been ‘coached’ to interrupt, shout, talk over and negate in any way possible what his ‘opponent’ had been saying. If he wasn't coached into behaving as he did, then in my mind he’s got the decorum and manners of a pig. In civilised debate, both sides get to make their points in allocated time frames, and without interruption.
Now, about those points. My, oh my, about those points.
Firstly, the currency issue. There really wasn't any reason for either of those blokes to be there last night, you see, the white paper told us what ‘Plan A’ and ‘Plan B’ are, and they’re not changing. We’ll use the pound like Ireland and a host of other’s, and we’ll do it unofficially or by preference, officially by treaty. Now, that makes life throw up another few questions, because if we were so clearly laying plan A and plan B on the table, why the screaming heebies the next day, unless the maps had already been drawn and the course charted. Where Ponsonby lost and STV shot its credibility out the window was when they didn’t make this clear.
Now, there’s the 'retirement thing', which was a more minor string on the fiddle of the sonnet to be released the following day. Both sides have agreed that everybody alive today who’s already a UK citizen will continue to have that right to a UK pension. Oddly, Chemical Ali (because he must've used some serious alchemy to arrive at his viewpoint) made it clear that as pensions are supported by those currently working, there’d need to be an agreement, and this would be part of any ‘future negotiation’. In anybody’s book, that’s a nice little addendum to ‘project fear’.
The truth of the Pension’s issue is simple, if you paid in, you get out. Westminster just has to figure out how to keep paying what are close to Europe’s worst pensions to some of Europe’s most deserving and long suffering pensioners. Westminster has to do this because there’s no real way to not do it. Do they enact a law saying you have to live in the rump state, England/Wales/NI? Then what about freedom of movement and all those ex-pats living all over the world. They’ll be coming home, and they’ll be needing cared for. What’s left of the UK neither needs nor wants that burden. What about English in Scotland, do they get a pension? How about one Scot’s parent? How about a Scotswoman married to an Englishman and living in Spain?
The pension issue is smoke and mirrors, no question about it, because any government in Westminster which dumped its pensioners would likely be out on its ear in short order. Or it would if there was such a mechanism. Do I really want to live in country without such a mechanism? We could implement such a right to recall wayward governments and officials in iScotland's new constitution.
Either way, Ponsonby and ITV lost credibility, because at the day’s end, no matter how I've looked at these issues, and what nobody wrote into any of the pre-ordained press releases was this; it all boils down to just three things on both main planks of that debate.
Firstly, we’re being blackmailed in a most horrible, spiteful way, and it’s being done by a bunch of idiots at Westminster who don’t give an actual low flying turd about their own constituents. I have to ask myself, am I in favour of that? Do I support these Bullingdon Bullies.
Sorry guys, it’s your slogan, but it’s ideal here, I’ve got to say ‘no thanks’
Secondly, I'm (still) being told Scotland’s a basket case, an economic basket case that is just too small to manage itself properly. I’ll admit to my jaw almost hitting the coffee table when one audience participant said London had more folk than Scotland, so how could Scotland possibly survive ‘alone’. I smiled incredulously; this bloke get’s to vote? I don’t see Norway, Switzerland or Luxembourg asking Davie lad to let them snuggle under his wing because they’re ‘just too wee’, or Nicky Clegg tabling a motion to devolve all sovereignty to the US, Russia or China? If we’re such a basket case, why fight to keep us? If we can’t afford pensions, the NHS, a banking system that plays fast and loose (we really want that?) and various phallic substitutes, er, sorry, nukes. Something just doesn't ring true here.
Let’s just assume for a second that what’s being conveyed here is a fact, then the only possible conclusion is that for three centuries Scotland’s been so utterly mismanaged, exploited and under-invested by successive London governments, governments who know our vote really means nowt; that they’re happy to continue to pillage and strip rather than invest and encourage.
Sorry guys, again, got to say ‘no thanks’
The third possibility, the one I'm betting on is that we've just been lied to all along. You see, I’ve done my research, unlike ‘Mr. too small’, that being the case, again, I’ve got to say again, ‘no thanks’.
Bernie, and our so trustworthy media, could easily have pointed out that what we really had the other night was a choice. We have a choice to go our own way, or opt for the fearmongering, asset stripping liars.
We do have a choice. We have a choice to watch the next debate, to see where Chemical Ali is allowed to work his alchemical skills of wonder; which one or two areas will be the highlight of his interruptions and shouty, ill mannered focus, then we can watch the media reaction the next day, and smile.
After September 18th we can decide we’ll never have to watch the like again, because we know with absolute certainty that the ones from the Bullingdon Club in London, those mired in corruption and scandal, they’re the only ones until September 18th who are worth being in the debating chair, because they’re the only ones with the power to answer our questions, like the ones for the EU and NATO, and they’re the only ones who can clarify this debate.
Except, we already know they won’t do that. They won’t give me what I need, yet they still want me to endorse them, they want me to say ‘no thanks’.
Fine, then I will, on September 18th I’ll say ‘no thanks’; no thanks to the lies, the misinformation, the half truths, the innuendoes and scare tactics, and I’ll watch us walk away from this disreputable shambles called Westminster.
Yes, it might be to an uncertain future, but it’s a future filled with potential and possibility, and I dream of being a part of it. If we don’t grasp the thistle, we know we’ll get stung for more lies, more official secrets, more obfuscation, more stripped rights and we’ll lose more of our cherished values.
Yes. Give me that uncertainty, because it really can’t be worse that what London’s offering, and in less than a generation, if we decide, it can be so, so much more.
You know what? I trust my fellow Scots to make the right decisions, now, and as we walk forward. September 19th will tell us all if we’re a confident nation.
1: Craig Murray's Blog concerning the debate
2: STV Rigging Audiences?
I can say that because as it unfolded, I watched the focus slide unerringly to the fiscal aspect, not surprisingly as it’s what many of us need answers on, or so the Union’s organizers’ would have us believe.
In actuality, it was a debate designed from the outset to hammer Alex Salmond and ‘his pet project’. I'm not even certain Bernard Ponsonby was aware of the facts, though it’s hard to see how he’d be ignorant of them. Ponsonby did give Darling, which appeared well anticipated, a few hard shoves but failed to use the debate to move issues and educate. As such, Bernie very much ‘shot his bolt’.
I'm taking that position as it was clear while it unfolded the script like the wrestling results of the ‘70’s, had already been drafted for release by the UK’s media the following day; they just needed to insert quote A into line B.
To any half-witted idiot it became clear before half time that it would be a twofold prong, currency and how ‘Darling won the debate’ after studiously selling ‘their guy’ low. Alistair Darling came across to me more as a renegade guest from the Jerry Springer show, not as a serious debater, although he did raise a few valid questions. He’d obviously been ‘coached’ to interrupt, shout, talk over and negate in any way possible what his ‘opponent’ had been saying. If he wasn't coached into behaving as he did, then in my mind he’s got the decorum and manners of a pig. In civilised debate, both sides get to make their points in allocated time frames, and without interruption.
Now, about those points. My, oh my, about those points.
Firstly, the currency issue. There really wasn't any reason for either of those blokes to be there last night, you see, the white paper told us what ‘Plan A’ and ‘Plan B’ are, and they’re not changing. We’ll use the pound like Ireland and a host of other’s, and we’ll do it unofficially or by preference, officially by treaty. Now, that makes life throw up another few questions, because if we were so clearly laying plan A and plan B on the table, why the screaming heebies the next day, unless the maps had already been drawn and the course charted. Where Ponsonby lost and STV shot its credibility out the window was when they didn’t make this clear.
Now, there’s the 'retirement thing', which was a more minor string on the fiddle of the sonnet to be released the following day. Both sides have agreed that everybody alive today who’s already a UK citizen will continue to have that right to a UK pension. Oddly, Chemical Ali (because he must've used some serious alchemy to arrive at his viewpoint) made it clear that as pensions are supported by those currently working, there’d need to be an agreement, and this would be part of any ‘future negotiation’. In anybody’s book, that’s a nice little addendum to ‘project fear’.
The truth of the Pension’s issue is simple, if you paid in, you get out. Westminster just has to figure out how to keep paying what are close to Europe’s worst pensions to some of Europe’s most deserving and long suffering pensioners. Westminster has to do this because there’s no real way to not do it. Do they enact a law saying you have to live in the rump state, England/Wales/NI? Then what about freedom of movement and all those ex-pats living all over the world. They’ll be coming home, and they’ll be needing cared for. What’s left of the UK neither needs nor wants that burden. What about English in Scotland, do they get a pension? How about one Scot’s parent? How about a Scotswoman married to an Englishman and living in Spain?
The pension issue is smoke and mirrors, no question about it, because any government in Westminster which dumped its pensioners would likely be out on its ear in short order. Or it would if there was such a mechanism. Do I really want to live in country without such a mechanism? We could implement such a right to recall wayward governments and officials in iScotland's new constitution.
Either way, Ponsonby and ITV lost credibility, because at the day’s end, no matter how I've looked at these issues, and what nobody wrote into any of the pre-ordained press releases was this; it all boils down to just three things on both main planks of that debate.
Firstly, we’re being blackmailed in a most horrible, spiteful way, and it’s being done by a bunch of idiots at Westminster who don’t give an actual low flying turd about their own constituents. I have to ask myself, am I in favour of that? Do I support these Bullingdon Bullies.
Sorry guys, it’s your slogan, but it’s ideal here, I’ve got to say ‘no thanks’
Secondly, I'm (still) being told Scotland’s a basket case, an economic basket case that is just too small to manage itself properly. I’ll admit to my jaw almost hitting the coffee table when one audience participant said London had more folk than Scotland, so how could Scotland possibly survive ‘alone’. I smiled incredulously; this bloke get’s to vote? I don’t see Norway, Switzerland or Luxembourg asking Davie lad to let them snuggle under his wing because they’re ‘just too wee’, or Nicky Clegg tabling a motion to devolve all sovereignty to the US, Russia or China? If we’re such a basket case, why fight to keep us? If we can’t afford pensions, the NHS, a banking system that plays fast and loose (we really want that?) and various phallic substitutes, er, sorry, nukes. Something just doesn't ring true here.
Let’s just assume for a second that what’s being conveyed here is a fact, then the only possible conclusion is that for three centuries Scotland’s been so utterly mismanaged, exploited and under-invested by successive London governments, governments who know our vote really means nowt; that they’re happy to continue to pillage and strip rather than invest and encourage.
Sorry guys, again, got to say ‘no thanks’
The third possibility, the one I'm betting on is that we've just been lied to all along. You see, I’ve done my research, unlike ‘Mr. too small’, that being the case, again, I’ve got to say again, ‘no thanks’.
Bernie, and our so trustworthy media, could easily have pointed out that what we really had the other night was a choice. We have a choice to go our own way, or opt for the fearmongering, asset stripping liars.
We do have a choice. We have a choice to watch the next debate, to see where Chemical Ali is allowed to work his alchemical skills of wonder; which one or two areas will be the highlight of his interruptions and shouty, ill mannered focus, then we can watch the media reaction the next day, and smile.
After September 18th we can decide we’ll never have to watch the like again, because we know with absolute certainty that the ones from the Bullingdon Club in London, those mired in corruption and scandal, they’re the only ones until September 18th who are worth being in the debating chair, because they’re the only ones with the power to answer our questions, like the ones for the EU and NATO, and they’re the only ones who can clarify this debate.
Except, we already know they won’t do that. They won’t give me what I need, yet they still want me to endorse them, they want me to say ‘no thanks’.
Fine, then I will, on September 18th I’ll say ‘no thanks’; no thanks to the lies, the misinformation, the half truths, the innuendoes and scare tactics, and I’ll watch us walk away from this disreputable shambles called Westminster.
Yes, it might be to an uncertain future, but it’s a future filled with potential and possibility, and I dream of being a part of it. If we don’t grasp the thistle, we know we’ll get stung for more lies, more official secrets, more obfuscation, more stripped rights and we’ll lose more of our cherished values.
Yes. Give me that uncertainty, because it really can’t be worse that what London’s offering, and in less than a generation, if we decide, it can be so, so much more.
You know what? I trust my fellow Scots to make the right decisions, now, and as we walk forward. September 19th will tell us all if we’re a confident nation.
1: Craig Murray's Blog concerning the debate
2: STV Rigging Audiences?
Sunday, 29 September 2013
The Westminster Cronies Al Qaeda ... You decide.
Something has been troubling me for some time; it did in 1979 before that referendum, it has again for more than a year. It crystalised not too long ago when the denizens of that inimical palace of Westminster labelled the tactics they would use in Scotland to secure a ‘No’ vote as ‘Project Fear’.
If we doubt Westminster and her allies are indeed inimical towards the Scots, we need only look to five quick definitions which can be uncovered with two minutes of browsing through almost any dictionary.
Also, that Unionists are utelising a not-so-subtle form of terrorism against Scottish aspirations is becoming increasingly apparent as we begin coasting down the months towards the referendum in September 2014.
The only significant question to be asked is "why would we believe anything from such a source?".
Meantime, consider those above; the actions, words and deeds emanating from the London Parliament and its supporters, and decide for yourself if a no vote is a vote in support of terrorism, blackmail and fear?
There is no grey area, if you decide that’s what’s happening, a NO vote is simply a vote to support state sponsored terrorism and blackmail.
The online Cambridge dictionary was used for the definitions pasted below.
Project: a piece of planned work or an activity that is finished over a period of time and intended to achieve a particular aim.
Fear: an unpleasant emotion or thought that you have when you are frightened or worried by something dangerous, painful, or bad that is happening or might happen e.g., "Trembling with fear, she handed over the money to the gunman."
Terrorism: defined as ‘Threats of violent action for political purposes’
Project: a piece of planned work or an activity that is finished over a period of time and intended to achieve a particular aim.
Fear: an unpleasant emotion or thought that you have when you are frightened or worried by something dangerous, painful, or bad that is happening or might happen e.g., "Trembling with fear, she handed over the money to the gunman."
Terrorism: defined as ‘Threats of violent action for political purposes’
Terrorist: would be someone who uses violent action or threats of violent action for political purposes.
Blackmail: the act of getting money from people or forcing them to do something by threatening to tell a secret of theirs or to harm them.
Accordingly, we have it clearly from the architects themselves. They describe their own work as ‘Project Fear’ and they’re proud of it, damned proud.
Consider the multitude of scare stories; from currency to oil; from the northern isles breaking away to ejection from the EU; from border controls to debt; the storming of Scotland’s airports by English forces to our inability to defend ourselves. Then consider and remember that each of the principle denizens of the belly of the beast, the main political leaders of Westminster and their puppets in Edinburgh, for surely they deserve no other title under these circumstances, have all stated that ‘of course, Scotland could be a successful independent country’.
These same political leaders have then gone on to bless "Project Fear". Perhaps not overtly or openly, but neither have they decried it, which at the least is tacit approval. And we all know the danger of mute inaction because as widely acknowledged; evil only wins when good folk don’t take a stand and speak out against it.
It’s also re-enforced by the fact that the threats and implied actions against the Scots aren't presently enacted against the Irish, who like us were also ‘engineered’ into this same union. It is not enacted, it would appear, simply because they've already left, though history tells us of tactics utelised before they did.
It is said the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. We should have good cause to expect similar treatment to the Irish, though like the Irish, we might expect it to take three quarters of a century.
Project Fear is quite simply a piece of planned work that will be finished over a period of time and is intended to achieve a particular aim. In the eyes of its architects, it will secure a ‘No’ vote in the upcoming referendum. Remembering of course, a referendum is a political event. ‘Project Fear’ is therefore decidedly an attempt to influence a political process through intimidation.
This leads to the fact that Project Fear is clearly an attempt by those pictured above to convince Scots that something dangerous, painful, or bad might, most likely will happen should they dare to vote ‘Yes’
Project Fear is therefore clearly state terrorism under this accepted interpretation. For like many political or religious extremists, it is carrying both the implied and overt threat of violent action for political purposes. What else can describe the almost 'hell on earth' which would be engendered in Scotland if every one of the dire utterances from, or on behalf of the Union were to play out after a successful independence vote.
It would clearly follow that the leaders of project fear are at worst terrorists under the literal meaning. It means those pictured above who might participate in such negative propaganda lie anywhere in the scope of this blog from real actual terrorists in the true Al Qaeda vein, to simply not very pleasant people; if one equates good people with pleasant people. If it were otherwise they’d surely be speaking with one voice and condemning ‘Project Fear’.
Blackmail: the act of getting money from people or forcing them to do something by threatening to tell a secret of theirs or to harm them.
Accordingly, we have it clearly from the architects themselves. They describe their own work as ‘Project Fear’ and they’re proud of it, damned proud.
Consider the multitude of scare stories; from currency to oil; from the northern isles breaking away to ejection from the EU; from border controls to debt; the storming of Scotland’s airports by English forces to our inability to defend ourselves. Then consider and remember that each of the principle denizens of the belly of the beast, the main political leaders of Westminster and their puppets in Edinburgh, for surely they deserve no other title under these circumstances, have all stated that ‘of course, Scotland could be a successful independent country’.
These same political leaders have then gone on to bless "Project Fear". Perhaps not overtly or openly, but neither have they decried it, which at the least is tacit approval. And we all know the danger of mute inaction because as widely acknowledged; evil only wins when good folk don’t take a stand and speak out against it.
It’s also re-enforced by the fact that the threats and implied actions against the Scots aren't presently enacted against the Irish, who like us were also ‘engineered’ into this same union. It is not enacted, it would appear, simply because they've already left, though history tells us of tactics utelised before they did.
It is said the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. We should have good cause to expect similar treatment to the Irish, though like the Irish, we might expect it to take three quarters of a century.
Project Fear is quite simply a piece of planned work that will be finished over a period of time and is intended to achieve a particular aim. In the eyes of its architects, it will secure a ‘No’ vote in the upcoming referendum. Remembering of course, a referendum is a political event. ‘Project Fear’ is therefore decidedly an attempt to influence a political process through intimidation.
This leads to the fact that Project Fear is clearly an attempt by those pictured above to convince Scots that something dangerous, painful, or bad might, most likely will happen should they dare to vote ‘Yes’
Project Fear is therefore clearly state terrorism under this accepted interpretation. For like many political or religious extremists, it is carrying both the implied and overt threat of violent action for political purposes. What else can describe the almost 'hell on earth' which would be engendered in Scotland if every one of the dire utterances from, or on behalf of the Union were to play out after a successful independence vote.
It would clearly follow that the leaders of project fear are at worst terrorists under the literal meaning. It means those pictured above who might participate in such negative propaganda lie anywhere in the scope of this blog from real actual terrorists in the true Al Qaeda vein, to simply not very pleasant people; if one equates good people with pleasant people. If it were otherwise they’d surely be speaking with one voice and condemning ‘Project Fear’.
As to the role of the head of the state in all this? Surely a benevolent monarch should be decrying such tactics in ‘her’ land? In respect to the Queen, what will change, except perhaps Scotland’s financial contribution?
Finally, we have blackmail, for surely ‘Project Fear’ is blackmail, because it’s got every appearance of trying to force a particular course of action in order to avoid the threat of, or actual personal harm.
Personally I believe Scots to be a bit better than to submit to blackmail, terrorism, or other such attempts at coercion.
Finally, we have blackmail, for surely ‘Project Fear’ is blackmail, because it’s got every appearance of trying to force a particular course of action in order to avoid the threat of, or actual personal harm.
Personally I believe Scots to be a bit better than to submit to blackmail, terrorism, or other such attempts at coercion.
In addition, I believe we’re overall a worthy, competent and conscientious folk more than capable of building our own home and living peacefully in the village of nations.
Meantime, consider those above; the actions, words and deeds emanating from the London Parliament and its supporters, and decide for yourself if a no vote is a vote in support of terrorism, blackmail and fear?
There is no grey area, if you decide that’s what’s happening, a NO vote is simply a vote to support state sponsored terrorism and blackmail.
Monday, 8 July 2013
Is there pact to destroy the NHS?
I've had the opportunity to live in both the UK and US. In a previous life I spent a career in healthcare. Consequently, I have always kept an eye on this subject as I'm interested in it, and have watched England’s steady march to Privatisation for a decade and more.
The first issue is; why privatise?
No, really, why bother?
The universal government line is that it is:
1) ‘Necessary’
2) ‘Reduces costs’
3) ‘Fosters competition’.
The first two are obviously hokum; the last is probably undesirable in a health care scenario, unless folk just get the opportunity to go elsewhere, which could be satisfied by simply electing to go to another health board. It would be easy to make a statute to cover a right to change health boards. The cost would be no more than some legislation.
Let’s look at the first two for a minute, the hokum claims.
Well, I would deal with ‘Necessary’ first, except I've come up against an immediate issue; nobody is telling me Why it’s necessary, unless it circles around points two or three, in which case it’s irrelevant fluff; and fluff we should also be able to agree is hokum.
So, if reason one for privatisation is self evident ‘padding’ of hokum, and reason three can be fixed by statute that leaves reason two.
Reason two says it ‘reduces costs’, which is smoke and mirrors. Let’s say the State, and we’ll make it the entire UK as well as use easy numbers, has a hundred billion for health care. We’ll make it simple by abbreviating scenarios and not adjusting for inflation.
In 1973 the nation had a hundred billion to spend on health care. We were taxed a hundred billion to support it, we spent a hundred billion on it. We got what we paid for, more or less directly returned.
Now, fast forward forty years. At this point about a third, twenty to fifty percent depending on how you work the numbers, of that service is effectively privatised, from PPI to PFI contracts to farming out of services and people.
So, now we've got a hundred billion of our money going in and about sixty five billion returned directly in ‘services’
What has happened to the other thirty five billion? Well, ‘The City’ and ‘Wall Street’ like to see profits of thirty to forty percent; we’ll call it a third on average. Executive salaries in the private sector are generally higher, hourly wages generally lower, but about ten percent of company revenue is usually kept to repay banks and shareholders as well.
Of that thirty five billion, we’ll be generous; about twenty billion might come back in services which have been included as part of PFI/PPI agreements, e.g. laundry, security, some aspects of direct care services, building maintenance etc.
So, in 2013, we still put in a hundred billion, but we lost fifteen of it to the ‘privateers’ padding their treasure chests. Now you know how a lot of those new yachts I see every day get paid for. Luxury lifestyles being financed while your children or your grandparents go on waiting lists. In fact, at the time of writing, our £19,000 floating home is next to a $7,000,000 yacht – financed by the insurance side of the US health care industry. And let’s be clear, it is an Industry.
So, what inspired this blog, and why now?
The NHS has just announced it expects a thirty billion funding gap by 2020.
To meet that, Lady Williams is advocating charging for visits to doctor’s surgeries. They’re also proposing having pensioners pay. So-called “wealthier” pensioners, just because they might have worked all their lives and saved like crazy and have a pension other than the State’s, now get to buy that executive or banker’s new yacht. Yet, had those elderly squandered their money instead of saving, they’d be off the hook for the time being - until the financial threshold is eliminated.
Of interest are the comments made by NHS England’s information director, Tim Kelsey.
Here is the gist of what Mr. Kelsey said:
"We are about to run out of cash in a very serious fashion."
Followed by a revealing statement:
‘... the UK and US governments were currently working on a common standard of certification for health companies to make it easier for them to access both markets”.
As the Guardian article pointed out, critics of the government's health reforms say they were conceived as a "necessary prelude" to a trade agreement with the US.
He further stated:
"one of the things that we agreed with the US government which will be hopefully signing at the G8 meeting in November is that we want to make it as easy as possible for small businesses to get access to both the US and the UK market places” .
“To do that we want to have some common standards. We will be working on a standard of certification so that you can be in the digital hospital marketplace or the apps marketplace and you only need to sign up to one certification scheme."
Based upon his statement and those of others, US healthcare companies, in return for their millions poured into US election campaigns, want a return on those millions. They need fresh markets and fresh profits. The government and those who manage the NHS appear to be on the brink of devising a system which would enable the simple, painless integration of NHS services into private US health care systems. This is a very accomplished system that charges ever-increasing amounts of money in the form of monthly insurance payments from its users i.e. Patients.
The fundamental interpretation here is that these US companies have lobbied their ‘bought’ representatives to make access to the UK market a prerequisite of any future trade deal. Very quietly, the US is telling Westminster, ‘Privatise Your Healthcare’, and Westminster, London, like the subservient poodle it is, is agreeing.
The only way they (health care companies based in North America) can get that access, and therefore additional opportunities for profit, is through increased privatisation of the NHS. If that privatisation doesn't happen, then they’re only fighting for a bit of that existing thirty percent. They will then undercut each other, services will suffer, bankruptcies will follow, and our people will get hurt by both poorer care and unpaid bills.
Remember just because Blue Cross UK goes belly-up and leaves a medical wasteland in its wake, it doesn't mean Blue Cross USA has to pay. That’s the “beauty” of independent subsidiary companies.
Therefore, feel free to vote “NO” in 2014. Just be aware there is every likelihood one of the many things you’ll be voting “NO” to is the NHS. You have to remember, reduced public spending in England will result in a claw-back of our meagre pocket money under the Barnett Formula. The outcome of which can only mean reduced spending in Scotland.
The current cost of a quality ‘family healthcare plan, i.e. the kind of health care we currently take for granted, in the USA is creeping towards a thousand pounds per month. Can you afford that?
Furthermore, from personal experience, I know that even “comprehensive” cover doesn't truly ensure care in every eventuality that may become a health imperative in your life. Like many in the US, we were forced to sell everything we owned - from our home to my guitars - to pay for brain-scans and tests following a serious industrial accident.
As the UK will be copying the US health care model over the next several years, with both Labour and Conservative members pledging to ‘continue these reforms’, what you’re looking at is a return to the nineteen thirties. If you have any doubts about this, just check the list of Registered Members Interest in both Houses and see how many are intertwined with private healthcare companies. We need only look as far as Ms. Cherie Blair to find one very well-known example.
Then again if you do vote no, perhaps next time I break down on the ocean, maybe one of these new multi-million pound yachts will stop and help me. If it does, I’ll thank you for that ‘No’ vote. In reality, I’d expect it to do what the last one did when emergency struck. I’d expect it to ignore us, to keep on sailing, and pretend it didn't see the distress flare’s being let off or it didn't hear our anxious calls on the emergency radio channels.
You see, like us, if you don’t have health insurance in several years time, you’ll be able to expect that hospital ship to just maintain its current course and keep sailing on by.
The first issue is; why privatise?
No, really, why bother?
The universal government line is that it is:
1) ‘Necessary’
2) ‘Reduces costs’
3) ‘Fosters competition’.
The first two are obviously hokum; the last is probably undesirable in a health care scenario, unless folk just get the opportunity to go elsewhere, which could be satisfied by simply electing to go to another health board. It would be easy to make a statute to cover a right to change health boards. The cost would be no more than some legislation.
Let’s look at the first two for a minute, the hokum claims.
Well, I would deal with ‘Necessary’ first, except I've come up against an immediate issue; nobody is telling me Why it’s necessary, unless it circles around points two or three, in which case it’s irrelevant fluff; and fluff we should also be able to agree is hokum.
So, if reason one for privatisation is self evident ‘padding’ of hokum, and reason three can be fixed by statute that leaves reason two.
Reason two says it ‘reduces costs’, which is smoke and mirrors. Let’s say the State, and we’ll make it the entire UK as well as use easy numbers, has a hundred billion for health care. We’ll make it simple by abbreviating scenarios and not adjusting for inflation.
In 1973 the nation had a hundred billion to spend on health care. We were taxed a hundred billion to support it, we spent a hundred billion on it. We got what we paid for, more or less directly returned.
Now, fast forward forty years. At this point about a third, twenty to fifty percent depending on how you work the numbers, of that service is effectively privatised, from PPI to PFI contracts to farming out of services and people.
So, now we've got a hundred billion of our money going in and about sixty five billion returned directly in ‘services’
What has happened to the other thirty five billion? Well, ‘The City’ and ‘Wall Street’ like to see profits of thirty to forty percent; we’ll call it a third on average. Executive salaries in the private sector are generally higher, hourly wages generally lower, but about ten percent of company revenue is usually kept to repay banks and shareholders as well.
Of that thirty five billion, we’ll be generous; about twenty billion might come back in services which have been included as part of PFI/PPI agreements, e.g. laundry, security, some aspects of direct care services, building maintenance etc.
So, in 2013, we still put in a hundred billion, but we lost fifteen of it to the ‘privateers’ padding their treasure chests. Now you know how a lot of those new yachts I see every day get paid for. Luxury lifestyles being financed while your children or your grandparents go on waiting lists. In fact, at the time of writing, our £19,000 floating home is next to a $7,000,000 yacht – financed by the insurance side of the US health care industry. And let’s be clear, it is an Industry.
So, what inspired this blog, and why now?
The NHS has just announced it expects a thirty billion funding gap by 2020.
To meet that, Lady Williams is advocating charging for visits to doctor’s surgeries. They’re also proposing having pensioners pay. So-called “wealthier” pensioners, just because they might have worked all their lives and saved like crazy and have a pension other than the State’s, now get to buy that executive or banker’s new yacht. Yet, had those elderly squandered their money instead of saving, they’d be off the hook for the time being - until the financial threshold is eliminated.
Of interest are the comments made by NHS England’s information director, Tim Kelsey.
Here is the gist of what Mr. Kelsey said:
"We are about to run out of cash in a very serious fashion."
Followed by a revealing statement:
‘... the UK and US governments were currently working on a common standard of certification for health companies to make it easier for them to access both markets”.
As the Guardian article pointed out, critics of the government's health reforms say they were conceived as a "necessary prelude" to a trade agreement with the US.
He further stated:
"one of the things that we agreed with the US government which will be hopefully signing at the G8 meeting in November is that we want to make it as easy as possible for small businesses to get access to both the US and the UK market places” .
“To do that we want to have some common standards. We will be working on a standard of certification so that you can be in the digital hospital marketplace or the apps marketplace and you only need to sign up to one certification scheme."
Based upon his statement and those of others, US healthcare companies, in return for their millions poured into US election campaigns, want a return on those millions. They need fresh markets and fresh profits. The government and those who manage the NHS appear to be on the brink of devising a system which would enable the simple, painless integration of NHS services into private US health care systems. This is a very accomplished system that charges ever-increasing amounts of money in the form of monthly insurance payments from its users i.e. Patients.
The fundamental interpretation here is that these US companies have lobbied their ‘bought’ representatives to make access to the UK market a prerequisite of any future trade deal. Very quietly, the US is telling Westminster, ‘Privatise Your Healthcare’, and Westminster, London, like the subservient poodle it is, is agreeing.
The only way they (health care companies based in North America) can get that access, and therefore additional opportunities for profit, is through increased privatisation of the NHS. If that privatisation doesn't happen, then they’re only fighting for a bit of that existing thirty percent. They will then undercut each other, services will suffer, bankruptcies will follow, and our people will get hurt by both poorer care and unpaid bills.
Remember just because Blue Cross UK goes belly-up and leaves a medical wasteland in its wake, it doesn't mean Blue Cross USA has to pay. That’s the “beauty” of independent subsidiary companies.
Therefore, feel free to vote “NO” in 2014. Just be aware there is every likelihood one of the many things you’ll be voting “NO” to is the NHS. You have to remember, reduced public spending in England will result in a claw-back of our meagre pocket money under the Barnett Formula. The outcome of which can only mean reduced spending in Scotland.
The current cost of a quality ‘family healthcare plan, i.e. the kind of health care we currently take for granted, in the USA is creeping towards a thousand pounds per month. Can you afford that?
Furthermore, from personal experience, I know that even “comprehensive” cover doesn't truly ensure care in every eventuality that may become a health imperative in your life. Like many in the US, we were forced to sell everything we owned - from our home to my guitars - to pay for brain-scans and tests following a serious industrial accident.
As the UK will be copying the US health care model over the next several years, with both Labour and Conservative members pledging to ‘continue these reforms’, what you’re looking at is a return to the nineteen thirties. If you have any doubts about this, just check the list of Registered Members Interest in both Houses and see how many are intertwined with private healthcare companies. We need only look as far as Ms. Cherie Blair to find one very well-known example.
Then again if you do vote no, perhaps next time I break down on the ocean, maybe one of these new multi-million pound yachts will stop and help me. If it does, I’ll thank you for that ‘No’ vote. In reality, I’d expect it to do what the last one did when emergency struck. I’d expect it to ignore us, to keep on sailing, and pretend it didn't see the distress flare’s being let off or it didn't hear our anxious calls on the emergency radio channels.
You see, like us, if you don’t have health insurance in several years time, you’ll be able to expect that hospital ship to just maintain its current course and keep sailing on by.
Tuesday, 19 March 2013
European Union or European Court of Human Rights - Choices.
This week I had a Twitter chat with an independence supporter which began following my posting of a link to the recent executions in Saudi Arabia, of seven men whose convictions were achieved by using torture.
This led in turn to the Tories recent announcement that they'd love to dump the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) because - let's face it - Europe is a meddling pest etc. This conversation also then went on to include Tory interests into having secret courts in the name of "national security".
What did become evident was that many people equate the European Union in Brussels with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. You know the statement; we've heard many of our independence supporting friends use it: "I want independence, BUT I'm not sure about Europe!".
This is EXACTLY what Westminster wants you to do.
Mr.Cameron has promised some sort of "In/Out" referendum in regards to Europe in 2015. However, there is a confusion out there about what "Europe", and "which" Europe he may mean. They (Westminster) seem to mix the ECHR and the European Union in one sentence. To my mind they are attempting, and in many instances succeeding, to make them appear to be the one and the same organisation.
This led in turn to the Tories recent announcement that they'd love to dump the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) because - let's face it - Europe is a meddling pest etc. This conversation also then went on to include Tory interests into having secret courts in the name of "national security".
What did become evident was that many people equate the European Union in Brussels with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. You know the statement; we've heard many of our independence supporting friends use it: "I want independence, BUT I'm not sure about Europe!".
This is EXACTLY what Westminster wants you to do.
Mr.Cameron has promised some sort of "In/Out" referendum in regards to Europe in 2015. However, there is a confusion out there about what "Europe", and "which" Europe he may mean. They (Westminster) seem to mix the ECHR and the European Union in one sentence. To my mind they are attempting, and in many instances succeeding, to make them appear to be the one and the same organisation.
Therefore will this vote in 2015 may be just a vote to remove the UK (or rUK) from the economic organisation of the EU, or will they confuse things further by including self removal from the ECHR? And once we (or rUK) choose to remove ourselves - what will be next on the rather strange agenda of Westminster? I'm not going say this is just a Conservative Party issue, as Labour aren't exactly making the kind of reassuring noises or clarifying this issue, as one would hope under the circumstances.
The European Union and the European Court of Human Rights, they're just the same, aren't they? They're both in Europe, they both affect and meddle in what happens in the UK, right?
Well, no; neither body has a lot to do with the other - in the way Westminster want you to believe, anyway.
The Court of Human Rights began its life under the Council of Europe in 1959; the Council of Europe [1] being founded by the Treaty of London in 1949, and signed by the United Kingdom and 9 other states.
This isn't some fang-dangle invention of Brussels. This was something which was born of World War II. Even Churchill mooted a "United States of Europe" as far back as 1946, and during a radio broadcast in 1943, he mentioned a Council of Europe.
Well, no; neither body has a lot to do with the other - in the way Westminster want you to believe, anyway.
The Court of Human Rights began its life under the Council of Europe in 1959; the Council of Europe [1] being founded by the Treaty of London in 1949, and signed by the United Kingdom and 9 other states.
This isn't some fang-dangle invention of Brussels. This was something which was born of World War II. Even Churchill mooted a "United States of Europe" as far back as 1946, and during a radio broadcast in 1943, he mentioned a Council of Europe.
The birth of the European Union was in 1957 with the Treaty of Rome [2]. It was from this basis the economic union of European nations grew, and to which Britain became a fully signed-up member in 1973 [3]. What isn't clear in all this, is even "Europe", governed from Brussels, has to be held accountable to the human rights standards set in Strasbourg. Otherwise it would be case of the tail wagging the dog.
The need for Westminster to induce public confusion with these two organisations is very clear. This is all to do with stripping you of your human rights. And it will be done using lies, confabulation, sleight of hand and down-right bovine effluent.
The need for Westminster to induce public confusion with these two organisations is very clear. This is all to do with stripping you of your human rights. And it will be done using lies, confabulation, sleight of hand and down-right bovine effluent.
"But!" - I hear you cry, "Europe is interfering with everything, just look at that Abu Qatada!" Well, what about him? Everyone of us is entitled to human rights, are we not? It may well have worked fine for Mr Qatada, but it certainly didn't work for Saddam Hussein who appealed frantically to the ECHR to prevent the coalition troops from handing him over to the Iraqi interim government, stating he feared he would be executed [4].
You also have to recognise just how much the ECHR interferes with legal decisions made in Britain. Westminster wants you to think that UK courts can't take a breath without some European judge jumping on their backs. This is not so. The UK lost only 10 cases last year [5].
Westminster needs this confusion to continue in order for people to VOLUNTARILY give up their human rights. And once forfeited how would we ever get them back?
We can look on in horror just now as the rights of vulnerable, sick and disabled people are eroded by the changes in benefit entitlements, and currently there may be ways of dealing with this with help from Europe. There may even be ways of dealing with the fact that Westminster is trying very hard to introduce a law which can be retroactively applied [6]. Something that could never happen if it were included in a written constitution, similar to the USA.
A retroactive law could seem "benign". For instance, a local authority could decide to make a place that was free and legal to park illegal - and backdating it however long. You could, conceivably, receive a parking ticket for leaving your car there one day 3 months ago - when it was legal. Nice little income generator, but what if it were to be applied to other, more sinister areas? What if a government decides to increase income tax - then backdate to last year? Where would it end?
This situation of confusion over what constitutes Europe affects those uncertain voters in the independence referendum. It must be clear that the human rights issue is separate from the European membership issue.
We need to be sure of what we are demanding from our political representatives.
If we're not, it might just come back and bite us hard - in a Room 101 near you [7]
Further Reading:
Monday, 25 February 2013
The Wrong Message
Creation of a sterling-zone as trumpeted by the SNP is decidedly the wrong message.
Scotland needs to dump the pound faster than a drowning diver needs to dump his weight belt.
The recent downgrading to Sterling brings only one question, posed by the French almost a year ago, and that is, why has it not happened long, long before now?
In the last week I saw the value of my income plummet. For argument’s sake let’s say I get £725 a month. That’s what it was last month anyway, or last time I drew it out. Today they handed me £688. This was, they said, due to the fact the £ plummeted against the $ after the downgrade.
My account said £725 had been deposited, the bank gave me £688, there’s a problem when my bills are £700. The ends no longer meet in the middle. I’m now worse than broke.
Anyone not relying on foreign exchange rates may see it as a minor thing, but with pretty much everything made overseas these days it simply means, in Scotland, when the current supplies on the shelves run out, the new ones are going to cost more. We are all two months away from losing that real money.
In about ninety days, and much less for many items, that £725 a month in every pocket will soon become £688. It will still say £725 on the statement, so we’ll fool ourselves. But at the end of the day if it doesn’t buy anyone what £725 did a month ago, how can you argue it’s still £725?
Let’s invent a little scenario. You’re selling your car, you want £5,000, but you drove it this morning and had a wee fender-bender and slightly bent the chassis – but it still looks not too bad. Hey, it’s still your £5,000 car. It has a couple of dents here and there that weren’t there yesterday, but you've still got the same sticker on the window, £5,000 it proudly declares. Think you’ll ever get that now?
That dented car of yours is Sterling. These are just the first view visible dents. The difference is it has been ready for the knackers yard for years, the rot was just hidden under the shiny exterior, but any decent mechanic would walk away from it asking if you’re insane. MOT; No chance mate, but there’s a bloke in the next village who, for fifty quid like….
We’re now at the point where even the bloke in the next village won’t touch it.
For the UK and Sterling, it means this time it won’t recover.
Expect the pound to continue to devalue. After all, it has for over eighty years. The ability to devalue the pound and thereby steal our savings is the primary reason that Westminster didn't join the Euro.
We've all heard and seen the unrest in Greece; in many instances the United Kingdom’s press have given the Greek people short shrift in terms of sympathy. The Irish have been the media’s financial whipping boy. The Spanish, Portuguese and Italians have all been slated and derided by the papers. Whereas, for most of the UK’s self vaunted media, the Italian’s have always been good for a joke; the Spanish and Portuguese seem to me largely ignored.
It may take once-mighty Britannia a decade more to be in such a condition that Greece looks like a safe haven. It may only take a few months. The United Kingdom’s per capita and national debt burden is fast outstripping that of Greece. Don’t doubt it, Greece’s debt load stands at less than 70% of the United Kingdom as a percentage of GDP.
What about Italy, Spain and Portugal? They are likewise positioned with debt about 75% of the UK’s. Only Ireland, another favourite punching bag of the UK media, is actually worse. However, we’re entering the home stretch and the nag in green white and gold isn’t the favourite in this race anymore. With the finishing posts ahead, the cuddy in red white and blue is set to come thundering down the home stretch. That poor old Irish nag seems like it hasn't got a hope of staying in front.
Except this is a race to poverty, to national penury and isn’t a race anyone really wants to win, is it?
The reality of the situation is that no matter who is elected to Westminster, the average individual is going to get screwed.
Westminster can barely service its debts right now. If interest rates climbed just a little, say to the historical norms of five percent, then Germany’s old Weimar Republic where wheelbarrows were needed to carry the cash to buy a loaf of bread might look like a wonderful place to have lived. Our debt burden is already worse than that of the Weimar Republic.
So, why has the crash not already happened?
It has begun, but most people want to play the ostrich. Maybe if we stick our heads in the sand long enough, we might fool the lion and he won’t actually bite us on the behind. Sadly, the lion has the luxury to decide when the ideal time will be to bite us. The only thing we know is that his jaws will snap shut someday soon, and when it does out collective behookie is going to hurt like hell.
Social upheaval, no jobs, riots, deprivation and hunger are possibly the nicer parts of what lies ahead, if we don’t get our act together. Mr. Osborne’s current attitude of “it’ll be alright” and Westminster’s continual “Nothing to see here folks, move along” are even bigger lies than Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time” declaration in 1938. Six years of “peace” broke out the following year in September. Chamberlain’s piece of paper had as much true worth as that printed by the Bank of England today.
Consider at the time of the collapse of the Weimar Republic, still in living memory for some, that one pound of sterling bought one pound of silver. At the time of writing the value of silver is £300 per pound. Where did the other £299 go?
It was neatly pochled by Westminster, through that cunning mechanism “inflation”.
Surely, we may think, the value of silver has just risen incredibly? No, it hasn't At that time five hundred pounds, sterling or silver, bought a modestly sized family home. Five hundred pounds of silver today will still buy that £150,000 home. And what about the £1 note from 1932? Well there is not a coin small enough in the treasury’s inventory that I could now trade it for. It is worth a fraction more than one old ha’penny. They have legally devalued that £1 to nothing viable in today’s currency; only in Westminster.
Remember, in the five centuries prior to World War One, inflation was by all comparisons, nonexistent.
The only way the United Kingdom is surviving today is by borrowing. Where do the banks get the money they lend to the government? Essentially, it’s invested savings. You put your extra cash (if you are one of the lucky folks to have any) in the bank to save. The bank loans it to the government at less than 2%, sometimes less than 1%. Inflation has swung from over 5% to less than 3% in the last seventeen months. That means your bank is loaning to your government at a guaranteed loss.
There have even been instances of late when some governments have been able to borrow money at negative interest rates. Although, not Westminster, they’re not “safe enough”. Effectively, the investment firms supplying that money have been willing to guarantee their investors i.e. you, an instant loss for the so-called safe keeping of your money. In other words, well managed economies are actually being paid to borrow your money.
The United Kingdom passed the point of no return about five years ago and has been hovering around there, barely surviving, making payments, but not cancelling debt.
The problem is those interest payments, those billions upon billions paid every year are our new hospitals, schools and our infrastructure. Our future.
Westminster is bankrupt, arguably it’s fiscally, morally, and intellectually bankrupt. Like the destitute old lord in the crumbling manor, it is time to sell the family silverware. Except, we are the only silverware Westminster has. Our savings, our pensions, our health service, our children’s education. Like any government in history, Westminster has only one option; its people and their pockets.
This fiscal tsunami will be released in the not too distant future.
Hopefully it won’t be released until after the 2014 referendum. If Scots vote YES, which appears to be the intelligent course of action, it could well be released with early. After all, the release of this tidal wave will only require a very modest 1.5% change in the interest rates, and we've all seen that happen on countless occasions in our adult lifetimes.
Any way you look at it, promoting a “Sterling Zone” is insanity incarnate.
The Scots Pound is already in circulation. We need to resurrect it as a world currency once more. As many economists have pointed out, it wouldn't be difficult. Let our money float, or tie it with other currencies, any currency - except Sterling.
Our choice is simple, since no nation in history has ever recovered from the UK’s debt load; we have to vote Yes to survive or we vote No for long term debt, poverty and bankruptcy.
Scotland needs to dump the pound faster than a drowning diver needs to dump his weight belt.
The recent downgrading to Sterling brings only one question, posed by the French almost a year ago, and that is, why has it not happened long, long before now?
In the last week I saw the value of my income plummet. For argument’s sake let’s say I get £725 a month. That’s what it was last month anyway, or last time I drew it out. Today they handed me £688. This was, they said, due to the fact the £ plummeted against the $ after the downgrade.
My account said £725 had been deposited, the bank gave me £688, there’s a problem when my bills are £700. The ends no longer meet in the middle. I’m now worse than broke.
Anyone not relying on foreign exchange rates may see it as a minor thing, but with pretty much everything made overseas these days it simply means, in Scotland, when the current supplies on the shelves run out, the new ones are going to cost more. We are all two months away from losing that real money.
In about ninety days, and much less for many items, that £725 a month in every pocket will soon become £688. It will still say £725 on the statement, so we’ll fool ourselves. But at the end of the day if it doesn’t buy anyone what £725 did a month ago, how can you argue it’s still £725?
Let’s invent a little scenario. You’re selling your car, you want £5,000, but you drove it this morning and had a wee fender-bender and slightly bent the chassis – but it still looks not too bad. Hey, it’s still your £5,000 car. It has a couple of dents here and there that weren’t there yesterday, but you've still got the same sticker on the window, £5,000 it proudly declares. Think you’ll ever get that now?
That dented car of yours is Sterling. These are just the first view visible dents. The difference is it has been ready for the knackers yard for years, the rot was just hidden under the shiny exterior, but any decent mechanic would walk away from it asking if you’re insane. MOT; No chance mate, but there’s a bloke in the next village who, for fifty quid like….
We’re now at the point where even the bloke in the next village won’t touch it.
For the UK and Sterling, it means this time it won’t recover.
Expect the pound to continue to devalue. After all, it has for over eighty years. The ability to devalue the pound and thereby steal our savings is the primary reason that Westminster didn't join the Euro.
We've all heard and seen the unrest in Greece; in many instances the United Kingdom’s press have given the Greek people short shrift in terms of sympathy. The Irish have been the media’s financial whipping boy. The Spanish, Portuguese and Italians have all been slated and derided by the papers. Whereas, for most of the UK’s self vaunted media, the Italian’s have always been good for a joke; the Spanish and Portuguese seem to me largely ignored.
It may take once-mighty Britannia a decade more to be in such a condition that Greece looks like a safe haven. It may only take a few months. The United Kingdom’s per capita and national debt burden is fast outstripping that of Greece. Don’t doubt it, Greece’s debt load stands at less than 70% of the United Kingdom as a percentage of GDP.
What about Italy, Spain and Portugal? They are likewise positioned with debt about 75% of the UK’s. Only Ireland, another favourite punching bag of the UK media, is actually worse. However, we’re entering the home stretch and the nag in green white and gold isn’t the favourite in this race anymore. With the finishing posts ahead, the cuddy in red white and blue is set to come thundering down the home stretch. That poor old Irish nag seems like it hasn't got a hope of staying in front.
Except this is a race to poverty, to national penury and isn’t a race anyone really wants to win, is it?
The reality of the situation is that no matter who is elected to Westminster, the average individual is going to get screwed.
Westminster can barely service its debts right now. If interest rates climbed just a little, say to the historical norms of five percent, then Germany’s old Weimar Republic where wheelbarrows were needed to carry the cash to buy a loaf of bread might look like a wonderful place to have lived. Our debt burden is already worse than that of the Weimar Republic.
So, why has the crash not already happened?
It has begun, but most people want to play the ostrich. Maybe if we stick our heads in the sand long enough, we might fool the lion and he won’t actually bite us on the behind. Sadly, the lion has the luxury to decide when the ideal time will be to bite us. The only thing we know is that his jaws will snap shut someday soon, and when it does out collective behookie is going to hurt like hell.
Social upheaval, no jobs, riots, deprivation and hunger are possibly the nicer parts of what lies ahead, if we don’t get our act together. Mr. Osborne’s current attitude of “it’ll be alright” and Westminster’s continual “Nothing to see here folks, move along” are even bigger lies than Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time” declaration in 1938. Six years of “peace” broke out the following year in September. Chamberlain’s piece of paper had as much true worth as that printed by the Bank of England today.
Consider at the time of the collapse of the Weimar Republic, still in living memory for some, that one pound of sterling bought one pound of silver. At the time of writing the value of silver is £300 per pound. Where did the other £299 go?
It was neatly pochled by Westminster, through that cunning mechanism “inflation”.
Surely, we may think, the value of silver has just risen incredibly? No, it hasn't At that time five hundred pounds, sterling or silver, bought a modestly sized family home. Five hundred pounds of silver today will still buy that £150,000 home. And what about the £1 note from 1932? Well there is not a coin small enough in the treasury’s inventory that I could now trade it for. It is worth a fraction more than one old ha’penny. They have legally devalued that £1 to nothing viable in today’s currency; only in Westminster.
Remember, in the five centuries prior to World War One, inflation was by all comparisons, nonexistent.
The only way the United Kingdom is surviving today is by borrowing. Where do the banks get the money they lend to the government? Essentially, it’s invested savings. You put your extra cash (if you are one of the lucky folks to have any) in the bank to save. The bank loans it to the government at less than 2%, sometimes less than 1%. Inflation has swung from over 5% to less than 3% in the last seventeen months. That means your bank is loaning to your government at a guaranteed loss.
There have even been instances of late when some governments have been able to borrow money at negative interest rates. Although, not Westminster, they’re not “safe enough”. Effectively, the investment firms supplying that money have been willing to guarantee their investors i.e. you, an instant loss for the so-called safe keeping of your money. In other words, well managed economies are actually being paid to borrow your money.
The United Kingdom passed the point of no return about five years ago and has been hovering around there, barely surviving, making payments, but not cancelling debt.
The problem is those interest payments, those billions upon billions paid every year are our new hospitals, schools and our infrastructure. Our future.
Westminster is bankrupt, arguably it’s fiscally, morally, and intellectually bankrupt. Like the destitute old lord in the crumbling manor, it is time to sell the family silverware. Except, we are the only silverware Westminster has. Our savings, our pensions, our health service, our children’s education. Like any government in history, Westminster has only one option; its people and their pockets.
This fiscal tsunami will be released in the not too distant future.
Hopefully it won’t be released until after the 2014 referendum. If Scots vote YES, which appears to be the intelligent course of action, it could well be released with early. After all, the release of this tidal wave will only require a very modest 1.5% change in the interest rates, and we've all seen that happen on countless occasions in our adult lifetimes.
Any way you look at it, promoting a “Sterling Zone” is insanity incarnate.
The Scots Pound is already in circulation. We need to resurrect it as a world currency once more. As many economists have pointed out, it wouldn't be difficult. Let our money float, or tie it with other currencies, any currency - except Sterling.
Our choice is simple, since no nation in history has ever recovered from the UK’s debt load; we have to vote Yes to survive or we vote No for long term debt, poverty and bankruptcy.
Thursday, 18 October 2012
A single question, but we still get three choices.
I have spent a month back in the company of my fellow Scots, and a wonderful month it was, sadly like everything else in life it is over, for now.
During the visit I witnessed Alex Salmond sign the accord with David Cameron, an accord which on the surface betrayed democracy in Scotland. The Holyrood Consultation results haven’t even been announced, and those who might have expressed a desire for a third question were being discarded.
The key is on the surface.
Scots will still have a multi option referendum, it’s simply that none in the UK Westminster centric “national” media care to investigate, or highlight it.
As Scots go to the polls in 2014’s referendum there is every possibility that they will do so not simply to decide upon Union or not, but which Union. Westminster is hoping the additional air of uncertainty surrounding what will then be our times coupled with the disgusting celebrations earmarked to herald the start of a war will scare the nation into keeping the existing “pocket money” set up.
What’s not trumpeted is that so far, referencing OMB (Office of Management and Budget) and media reports, over 80% of the cuts that are required by Cameron’s “austerity” have still to be enacted. They’ll bite between now and 2016. Westminster is holding off and praying for a miracle. Someone should tell Mr. Cameron, Scotland is a long way from 34th street.
What else isn't trumpeted is the Euro-sceptic Tory mindset. In recent days we’ve seen several major cabinet players come forward with such positions. It appears most of the Tory front bench are lining up behind Teresa May; a person quietly tipped as possibly the next Tory leader.
Where this leads us, and not just on the Tory benches, is to a probable referendum on EU membership, a referendum where once again Scots stand to have their wishes subordinated to that of England in our “democratic” system. Bet on it. We will either stand united with England’s electorate, or be trampled divided. Our voice will count for little other than a distant barely audible OK, or simply be drowned.
It will happen, believe it.
It will happen because the EU Euro nations are being forced into tighter unity. Merkel and the Bundestag want a federal Europe, a United States of the Euro.
Note the difference, there will be a two tier EU, and it will come about inside the next five years. Already there is talk of what amounts to full fiscal Euro zone integration coming on line in January, that’s this January, with the ECB bond buying and backstopping shoogly economies.
When the Euro zone begins direct intervention there will be a de-facto United Sates of the Eurozone, leaving nine nations, including the United Kingdom simply peering in from the outside. We will have no say.
This is because the vaunted veto isn't really worth diddly, as we've seen. David Cameron played the trump card and achieved a small delay, substantial ridicule, was shunned in Europe and received accolades from his back benchers, but not a lot else. The rest of Europe basically set up in another room and did their deeds anyway.
Laughing stock doesn't even begin to describe what took place following that action.
The markets are pressing for Eurozone integration, the member nations are largely pressing for Eurozone integration, even David Cameron is pressing for Eurozone integration. Everyone appears to acknowledge it’s about the only way the Eurozone can sort itself out. Integration.
There are calls for a unified foreign policy, police and armed services, each made up from constituents of the Eurozone countries in the first instance no doubt. Ms. May is already calling for “repatriation” of laws and another look at the EU arrest warrants. The blackout blinds are being pulled down in London.
Where this leads us to is the fact that the already largely worthless but much vaunted veto will become effectively redundant. Since the Lisbon treaty much, most, of EU voting is done by QMV, Qualified Majority Voting. This means alliances come and go, the sands shift, and on most days every constituent nation is happy enough with what it gets.
The issue with a formal Eurozone bloc is that it will hold a perpetual majority in QMV. There will be no further need of alliances, the sands will be scorched until they become a solid immovable block of glass, and that glass will bear the word ‘Eurozone”.
Within five years, the Eurozone will either fracture and disintegrate or rule the EU. With Germany, France and Holland backing the Eurozone, Westminster can already see the sands solidifying; the groundwork is being prepared to take the UK out of the EU to protect the City of London.
No one has yet hazarded a guess as to what the few states like the UK that are not presently in the Eurozone will do when the bloc solidifies its voting structure, but one can expect most to simply join the bloc. Those that don’t can either leave or live with the multitude of diktats that emanate from Brussels while having no true say in their formation.
This is something akin to Scotland in our current Union. Westminster appears to find that option unpalatable in Europe, yet believes Scots should be browbeaten into acceptance of such a situation.
Scots will therefore have a choice in 2014, not about Union or not, but about which Union.
A “No” vote gives them what they've had these last three centuries, a short spoon and a distant seat at Westminster’s table.
A “Yes” vote gives them the opportunity to see for themselves where they would rather be, they can enter into a more loose form of Union with England should they desire, a form outwith the EU.
They could opt to remain within the EU but tied to Sterling, effectively replicate the current situation but within a bigger, safer more cosmopolitan union than Westminster could ever provide.
They could opt to join the Eurozone, because with fiscal integration the Euro will be here to stay, and backstopped by Germany, France, Holland to which would be added Scotland’s resources it will become the currency of choice.
Or our fellow countrymen and women can opt for an independent Scotland, standing aloof but ready to assist.
Four choices, two boxes, one referendum.
Only one box opens up all the choices to every Scot.
During the visit I witnessed Alex Salmond sign the accord with David Cameron, an accord which on the surface betrayed democracy in Scotland. The Holyrood Consultation results haven’t even been announced, and those who might have expressed a desire for a third question were being discarded.
The key is on the surface.
Scots will still have a multi option referendum, it’s simply that none in the UK Westminster centric “national” media care to investigate, or highlight it.
As Scots go to the polls in 2014’s referendum there is every possibility that they will do so not simply to decide upon Union or not, but which Union. Westminster is hoping the additional air of uncertainty surrounding what will then be our times coupled with the disgusting celebrations earmarked to herald the start of a war will scare the nation into keeping the existing “pocket money” set up.
What’s not trumpeted is that so far, referencing OMB (Office of Management and Budget) and media reports, over 80% of the cuts that are required by Cameron’s “austerity” have still to be enacted. They’ll bite between now and 2016. Westminster is holding off and praying for a miracle. Someone should tell Mr. Cameron, Scotland is a long way from 34th street.
What else isn't trumpeted is the Euro-sceptic Tory mindset. In recent days we’ve seen several major cabinet players come forward with such positions. It appears most of the Tory front bench are lining up behind Teresa May; a person quietly tipped as possibly the next Tory leader.
Where this leads us, and not just on the Tory benches, is to a probable referendum on EU membership, a referendum where once again Scots stand to have their wishes subordinated to that of England in our “democratic” system. Bet on it. We will either stand united with England’s electorate, or be trampled divided. Our voice will count for little other than a distant barely audible OK, or simply be drowned.
It will happen, believe it.
It will happen because the EU Euro nations are being forced into tighter unity. Merkel and the Bundestag want a federal Europe, a United States of the Euro.
Note the difference, there will be a two tier EU, and it will come about inside the next five years. Already there is talk of what amounts to full fiscal Euro zone integration coming on line in January, that’s this January, with the ECB bond buying and backstopping shoogly economies.
When the Euro zone begins direct intervention there will be a de-facto United Sates of the Eurozone, leaving nine nations, including the United Kingdom simply peering in from the outside. We will have no say.
This is because the vaunted veto isn't really worth diddly, as we've seen. David Cameron played the trump card and achieved a small delay, substantial ridicule, was shunned in Europe and received accolades from his back benchers, but not a lot else. The rest of Europe basically set up in another room and did their deeds anyway.
Laughing stock doesn't even begin to describe what took place following that action.
The markets are pressing for Eurozone integration, the member nations are largely pressing for Eurozone integration, even David Cameron is pressing for Eurozone integration. Everyone appears to acknowledge it’s about the only way the Eurozone can sort itself out. Integration.
There are calls for a unified foreign policy, police and armed services, each made up from constituents of the Eurozone countries in the first instance no doubt. Ms. May is already calling for “repatriation” of laws and another look at the EU arrest warrants. The blackout blinds are being pulled down in London.
Where this leads us to is the fact that the already largely worthless but much vaunted veto will become effectively redundant. Since the Lisbon treaty much, most, of EU voting is done by QMV, Qualified Majority Voting. This means alliances come and go, the sands shift, and on most days every constituent nation is happy enough with what it gets.
The issue with a formal Eurozone bloc is that it will hold a perpetual majority in QMV. There will be no further need of alliances, the sands will be scorched until they become a solid immovable block of glass, and that glass will bear the word ‘Eurozone”.
Within five years, the Eurozone will either fracture and disintegrate or rule the EU. With Germany, France and Holland backing the Eurozone, Westminster can already see the sands solidifying; the groundwork is being prepared to take the UK out of the EU to protect the City of London.
No one has yet hazarded a guess as to what the few states like the UK that are not presently in the Eurozone will do when the bloc solidifies its voting structure, but one can expect most to simply join the bloc. Those that don’t can either leave or live with the multitude of diktats that emanate from Brussels while having no true say in their formation.
This is something akin to Scotland in our current Union. Westminster appears to find that option unpalatable in Europe, yet believes Scots should be browbeaten into acceptance of such a situation.
Scots will therefore have a choice in 2014, not about Union or not, but about which Union.
A “No” vote gives them what they've had these last three centuries, a short spoon and a distant seat at Westminster’s table.
A “Yes” vote gives them the opportunity to see for themselves where they would rather be, they can enter into a more loose form of Union with England should they desire, a form outwith the EU.
They could opt to remain within the EU but tied to Sterling, effectively replicate the current situation but within a bigger, safer more cosmopolitan union than Westminster could ever provide.
They could opt to join the Eurozone, because with fiscal integration the Euro will be here to stay, and backstopped by Germany, France, Holland to which would be added Scotland’s resources it will become the currency of choice.
Or our fellow countrymen and women can opt for an independent Scotland, standing aloof but ready to assist.
Four choices, two boxes, one referendum.
Only one box opens up all the choices to every Scot.
Friday, 31 August 2012
Can a Nation suffer from Stockholm syndrome.
The Question is this:
Are the Scottish proponents of continued Union with England purely mercenary or simply suffering from a Stockholm’s type delusion – is there another possibility?
Before investigating the concept of a large section of our populace suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome, it is necessary to examine the background of the nation or nations involved.
Can it be so simple to apply Stockholm’s to our nation that it doesn’t even need, as in my case, either a psychology degree or convoluted logic to demonstrate how simply the facts fit the case.
Our present Union construct of four quasi-devolved nations, evolving since the legal construction of the UK in 1926 is simply an ongoing dialogue that’s principally between the Scots and English, Holyrood and Westminster. Key to this is in understanding that for a captive to exist there has to be a captor. If the traditionally disseminated Union story of voluntary assimilation by both nations into one government, of a benign rescue by London of a debt burdened near bankrupt Edinburgh is factual there can be no case for Stockholm’s.
The background
A look at the history behind the creation of this “Gee-Bee” perception and the psychology that maintains it proves fascinating.
Prior to our present quasi-devolved state construct of four nations there is the older Union by Treaty of two sovereign nations, that of England and Scotland from 1707.
That the Scots never wanted that treaty is self evident to any student of history. Anyone doubting this fact needs only to examine the facts. In Scotland it was signed in secret, with the supporters fearing for their lives. Daniel Defoe, King William’s paymaster and agent of subterfuge within Scotland in the lead up to the Treaty of Union also recorded in his journals that more than 9 in 10 Scots were against the Acts.
It is well documented that Darien was a failure, leaving many nobles near bankruptcy. Not so well acclaimed is the historical fact that it was English and Spanish collusion that were substantial drivers in the failure. Darien’s demise was engineered in London.
With the demise of Darien many Scots in opposition to Union perished, others of the ruling class were near destitute, and although the nation itself remained debt free and relatively wealthy, it was this ruling class which sold their votes to avoid penury.
Effectively we have a captive / captured situation.
There have been many attempts by the Scots to dissolve the Union that prove this, from rioting at inception to a parliamentary act some five years after, two open rebellions and other home rule acts, petitions and finally devolution.
On the oppressive side there have been “the clearances”, “the banning of name and dress” proscription of weapon, and educational acts prohibiting use of our native language. In all it leads to a picture of what can only be accurately described as cultural genocide.
There are examples in living memory, from the simple act of repression created by ignoring the 1952 National Covenant to overturning the 1979 referendum by invention and insertion of a “one time” constitutional hurdle. In the devolution settlement of the 1990’s Scots voted for a “Parliament”, Westminster then “granted” an “executive”.
Having set the background stage it is opportune to see if the current proponents of Union with England, claiming Scotland’s best interests as dear to the heart, still act simply from personal self interest as their forebears did, or are principally victims of the Stockholm syndrome.
On the surface at least it is apparent that those projecting vacuous or unsubstantiated reasons for Scotland remaining in this present union “stronger together” “Britishness is a state of mind” have no apparently hard credible arguments, but almost without exception these individuals or organisations have benefitted substantially from espousing that view. Arguably for them the captor has been kind; they have been elevated above their peers.
Stockholm or personal profit is for the reader to decide – for without a credible third argument appearing, it would appear to be an either/or situation.
No other viable explanation appears to exist, as Annabelle Goldie, ex leader of the Conservative party in Scotland publically confirmed to the UK Prime Minister David Cameron on the weekend of October 1st 2011, “Scotland is not subsidized, the UK would be poorer without Scotland”. The Union proponents have still failed to give Scots a hard and fast third option, they still, after three centuries and counting, have not given the average Scot a solid Union benefit.
Ms. Goldie herself here clearly states “Scotland would be richer” outside the Union, simple interpretation of her statement must mean that Scotland is poorer within the Union. Ms. Goldie therefore supports poverty to a greater degree than is required for her nation, asking why she and those like her take this position is certainly legitimate.
What is Stockholm’s Syndrome?
An accepted definition of the Stockholm syndrome: An extraordinary phenomenon in which a hostage begins to identify with and grow sympathetic to their captor.
Named for an episode that occurred in Stockholm in August, 1973 when an armed Swedish robber took some bank workers captive, held them for six days and stole their hearts. The Stockholm syndrome is not limited to Swedes.
Patty Hearst, heir to the publishing fortune, was kidnapped in 1974 by the Symbionese Liberation Army. She later joined the SLA and participated in a bank robbery with them.
More recently, Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped by a couple for 9 months. Elizabeth repeatedly had the chance to run away or ask for help but did not. It is now generally believed that she had the Stockholm syndrome, in which she formed emotional bonds with her captors.
Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, essentially mistaking a lack or perceived lowering of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.
The FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome. It also appears more prevalent among women. This therefore begs the question, “is this why Scots women consistently lag behind Scots men in polling for a Yes vote?”.
While there is still disagreement as to what factors precisely characterize incidents that contribute to the development of Stockholm syndrome, research suggests that hostages may exhibit the condition in situations where the following four factors are present:
· They feature captors who do not overtly physically abuse the victim.
· There is a long duration before resolution.
· There is continued contact between the perpetrator and hostage.
· There is a high level of emotion involved.
How it can apply in the case of Scots supporting Union.
Firstly hostages who develop Stockholm syndrome often view the perpetrator as giving life by simply not taking it. In this sense, the captor becomes the person in control of the captive’s basic needs for survival and the victim’s life itself.
It is relatively simple to place this into context, with Westminster controlling all taxes, welfare, pensions and much of criminal and social justice systems.
Secondly the hostage endures isolation from other people and has only the captor’s perspective available. Perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world’s response to their actions from captives to keep them totally dependent.
Following three centuries of death, deprivation, clearances, execution, proscription and exile, dating from a time well prior to the signature of the Treaty Of Union through the present Scots now live in a reasonably just society, arguably more so than in England.
One should consider however that in the 20th century alone there was more than one occasion when censorship was rife and directed by London. This included the reported issuance of provisional orders for English armour to take to the streets in 1919 and in the 1960’s [Glasgow] through the ’74 gagging of McCrone. There were innumerable instances of atrocity that went unreported during the fall of empire to maintain the appearance of “benevolence” to the dispossession of the Diego Garcia inhabitants.
The condition of censorship continues in the present decade as we escape illegal wars and in the last week alone the attempts at suppressing the antics of “Prince Harry” are just a recent example. Corruption is endemic in the state, it’s rarely reported as such, and it’s only a miniscule percentage of offenders that is ever held to account. Even the state needs examples on occasion.
For three centuries and more, the people of Scotland have now largely obtained their information through Anglo centered, London based media, where censorship is rife, often simply by omission, and through the 20th century has been controlled, in disproportionate fashion by the BBC, with the greater portion of funds provided by the nation of Scotland directed towards production facilities in and around the English Capitol.
This was forcibly underlined during the recent Scotland Act, 1998, whereby the Media and broadcasting was specifically noted as a power reserved to the Westminster Parliament. At the Olympics we just witnessed the obliteration of anything with the potential to demonstrate to the world, during Westminster’s showcase, that there might actually be a nation called Scotland.
The message delivered through these media over decades, often subliminally, is that the Scots are now a race of “Subsidy Junkies”. Scots are also informed that they could not survive as an independent nation (while the UK attempts to simultaneously convince nations larger and smaller, from the BVI to India that they CAN survive), and that the voice of Scotland would be mediocre on the international stage. It omits to point out that within the Union presentation on the world stage the voice of Scotland does not exist.
Scots are also informed that as a member of the Union the international community views them with respect and dignity, which is obviously incorrect as demonstrated by such internal stories printed by the often perceived Scots sycophantic press. Everything is filtered through Westminster.
The Scots world view has therefore spent almost the entire time of Union being shaped by London. Scots see the world largely through London’s selective lens; even the weather maps on BBC television contain subtle minimizing psychology.
Thirdly, the hostage taker threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception of having the capability to do so. The captive judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor than to resist and face murder.
Clearly the attempt, almost successfully, was made to destroy an independent national identity and erase that culture from amongst the Brotherhood of Nations. Through encouragement of divisions along ethnic/religious divides, clearances, and two unsuccessful risings, the realm of Scotland was to be relegated to simply “North Britain” throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth and much of the twentieth century’s.
It is in fact not uncommon to still see the phrase “North Britain” used in print, video and other media post 2010. That it was largely successful on the international stage is evidenced by the fact that to the world community at large, England and Britain are interchangeable phrases for the same identity. Scotland is not perceived as a nation in its own right by much of our world.
Our voice is not “stronger within”, it is decidedly gagged.
The dominant faction of the Union (England) began apparent moderation of these policies as the twentieth century wore on. It is arguable the moderation took place after Westminster perceived the case as “won beyond redemption”. When Scots returned a Tory majority vote in the 1950’s that opinion was likely catalyzed.
The centuries of abuse also arguably left the most solid underlying impression in the national identity of the common Scot that both the ability and the will were present on England’s part for an attempt at utter extinction of the national Scots identity should it become a necessity. Endurance and compliance could, in large part, prevent this. Even in today’s Olympics, when Scots athletes proudly display the Saltire it is, for the most part, simply edited out – like the attempt upon Scotland herself from history through Westminster’s control of broadcasting.
With a referendum approaching the overriding theme from the Union is negativity. Scots have heard all the doom cries, possibly more than could have been expected. Everything from expulsion from Europe to bombing our airports, Scots have been promised fiscal and literal death. Perhaps NATO would be a good idea to give us allies and forestall English aggression – the overtone is unmistakable.
Lastly, the captive sees the perpetrator as showing some degree of kindness. Kindness serves as the cornerstone of Stockholm syndrome; the condition will not develop unless the captor exhibits it in some form toward the hostage. However, captives often misinterpret a lack of abuse as kindness and may develop feelings of appreciation for this perceived benevolence. If the captor is purely evil and abusive, the hostage will respond with hatred. But, if perpetrators show some kindness, victims will submerge the anger they feel in response to the terror and concentrate on the captors’ “good side” to protect themselves.
The captive nation (Scotland), from the apparent perspective of a mass of individuals within the nation could be said in many/most cases to observe the union as “Kindly”.
This is because it ensures in the present day and age that a roof is still available, as is nourishment. What appears more difficult for these individuals to understand is that these same mechanisms would in almost all scenarios still exist without the union, perhaps in greater plenty and with greater security.
The Union and its proponents self edit the atrocities, the abuses and the practiced cultural genocide, highlighting instead warm and fuzzy “better together” images, without ever explaining exactly how we are better together.
It remains to be seen what the outcome of austerity will ultimately be with respect to the Union as Scots witness the dismantling of the socially beneficial aspects of the United Kingdom. It may alter the “kindly” perception enough to create a substantial difference.
These scenarios are apparently subconsciously discounted by media and politicians alike, with phrases such as “Scotland’s wishes to be considered” (a statement by Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg with regards to Scots being forced to change the date of their national elections by Westminster).
The incredible issue here is that these statements can be portrayed as acts of benevolent kindness rather than an inalienable right in a democratic society! Somehow rather than generate a universal national anger, these comments instead are apparently seen by many less astute Scots with a type of “we’re being cared for” perspective.
Conclusion.
When only 3% of Scots residents view themselves as “British” foremost, it seems appropriate to enquire how this Union survives. Furthermore, what, if any, are the driving factors for its survival outwith the probability of the almost universally unhealthily decried Stockholm Syndrome or England’s economic need.
Throughout the last three hundred years there have been a great many notable cases which reflect the fact many of us, past and present, arguably, very strongly arguably, suffer from the Stockholm syndrome. There are very few equally notable exceptions.
In cases where Stockholm syndrome has occurred, the captive is in a situation where they have been stripped of nearly all forms of independence as well as their basic needs for survival, and the captor has effectively gained control of the victim’s life.
Some experts say that the hostage regresses to, perhaps, a state of infancy; the captive must cry for food, or in our case natural sovereign powers, or remain silent, and exist in an extreme state of dependence.
In contrast, the perpetrator serves as a 'mother' figure protecting the 'child' from a threatening outside world, including law enforcement’s deadly weapons. The issue with Stockholm’s is that it is insidious; it is invisible to the sufferer.
We can only conclude that, as a nation, it is past time for Scotland to take her position of responsibility in the global community. It is time for individual contribution, for individual recognition. It is time to cease being Scots in failure and “Brits” when triumphant. It is time to stand proudly once again.
This is where we stand today, but with a referendum due in 2014, and those who would vote “No” appearing to opt for decades more privatisation, austerity, asset stripping and social policy decimation is there any other ready explanation than that posed above?
For those who would vote “No” in the referendum, knowing that by common consensus they will be poorer if they do, they should ask themselves why they would deny their own Sovereignty, why they would further impoverish themselves and their children.
The definition of foolhardiness has been said to be repeating the action and expecting a different outcome. As the Union has undeniably failed most Scots, it is amongst the most unequal nations on earth. Individuals who would vote “No” must surely question their choice.
Therapy anyone?
Are the Scottish proponents of continued Union with England purely mercenary or simply suffering from a Stockholm’s type delusion – is there another possibility?
Before investigating the concept of a large section of our populace suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome, it is necessary to examine the background of the nation or nations involved.
Can it be so simple to apply Stockholm’s to our nation that it doesn’t even need, as in my case, either a psychology degree or convoluted logic to demonstrate how simply the facts fit the case.
Our present Union construct of four quasi-devolved nations, evolving since the legal construction of the UK in 1926 is simply an ongoing dialogue that’s principally between the Scots and English, Holyrood and Westminster. Key to this is in understanding that for a captive to exist there has to be a captor. If the traditionally disseminated Union story of voluntary assimilation by both nations into one government, of a benign rescue by London of a debt burdened near bankrupt Edinburgh is factual there can be no case for Stockholm’s.
The background
A look at the history behind the creation of this “Gee-Bee” perception and the psychology that maintains it proves fascinating.
Prior to our present quasi-devolved state construct of four nations there is the older Union by Treaty of two sovereign nations, that of England and Scotland from 1707.
That the Scots never wanted that treaty is self evident to any student of history. Anyone doubting this fact needs only to examine the facts. In Scotland it was signed in secret, with the supporters fearing for their lives. Daniel Defoe, King William’s paymaster and agent of subterfuge within Scotland in the lead up to the Treaty of Union also recorded in his journals that more than 9 in 10 Scots were against the Acts.
It is well documented that Darien was a failure, leaving many nobles near bankruptcy. Not so well acclaimed is the historical fact that it was English and Spanish collusion that were substantial drivers in the failure. Darien’s demise was engineered in London.
With the demise of Darien many Scots in opposition to Union perished, others of the ruling class were near destitute, and although the nation itself remained debt free and relatively wealthy, it was this ruling class which sold their votes to avoid penury.
Effectively we have a captive / captured situation.
There have been many attempts by the Scots to dissolve the Union that prove this, from rioting at inception to a parliamentary act some five years after, two open rebellions and other home rule acts, petitions and finally devolution.
On the oppressive side there have been “the clearances”, “the banning of name and dress” proscription of weapon, and educational acts prohibiting use of our native language. In all it leads to a picture of what can only be accurately described as cultural genocide.
There are examples in living memory, from the simple act of repression created by ignoring the 1952 National Covenant to overturning the 1979 referendum by invention and insertion of a “one time” constitutional hurdle. In the devolution settlement of the 1990’s Scots voted for a “Parliament”, Westminster then “granted” an “executive”.
Having set the background stage it is opportune to see if the current proponents of Union with England, claiming Scotland’s best interests as dear to the heart, still act simply from personal self interest as their forebears did, or are principally victims of the Stockholm syndrome.
On the surface at least it is apparent that those projecting vacuous or unsubstantiated reasons for Scotland remaining in this present union “stronger together” “Britishness is a state of mind” have no apparently hard credible arguments, but almost without exception these individuals or organisations have benefitted substantially from espousing that view. Arguably for them the captor has been kind; they have been elevated above their peers.
Stockholm or personal profit is for the reader to decide – for without a credible third argument appearing, it would appear to be an either/or situation.
No other viable explanation appears to exist, as Annabelle Goldie, ex leader of the Conservative party in Scotland publically confirmed to the UK Prime Minister David Cameron on the weekend of October 1st 2011, “Scotland is not subsidized, the UK would be poorer without Scotland”. The Union proponents have still failed to give Scots a hard and fast third option, they still, after three centuries and counting, have not given the average Scot a solid Union benefit.
Ms. Goldie herself here clearly states “Scotland would be richer” outside the Union, simple interpretation of her statement must mean that Scotland is poorer within the Union. Ms. Goldie therefore supports poverty to a greater degree than is required for her nation, asking why she and those like her take this position is certainly legitimate.
What is Stockholm’s Syndrome?
An accepted definition of the Stockholm syndrome: An extraordinary phenomenon in which a hostage begins to identify with and grow sympathetic to their captor.
Named for an episode that occurred in Stockholm in August, 1973 when an armed Swedish robber took some bank workers captive, held them for six days and stole their hearts. The Stockholm syndrome is not limited to Swedes.
Patty Hearst, heir to the publishing fortune, was kidnapped in 1974 by the Symbionese Liberation Army. She later joined the SLA and participated in a bank robbery with them.
More recently, Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped by a couple for 9 months. Elizabeth repeatedly had the chance to run away or ask for help but did not. It is now generally believed that she had the Stockholm syndrome, in which she formed emotional bonds with her captors.
Stockholm syndrome is a term used to describe a paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, essentially mistaking a lack or perceived lowering of abuse from their captors as an act of kindness.
The FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome. It also appears more prevalent among women. This therefore begs the question, “is this why Scots women consistently lag behind Scots men in polling for a Yes vote?”.
While there is still disagreement as to what factors precisely characterize incidents that contribute to the development of Stockholm syndrome, research suggests that hostages may exhibit the condition in situations where the following four factors are present:
· They feature captors who do not overtly physically abuse the victim.
· There is a long duration before resolution.
· There is continued contact between the perpetrator and hostage.
· There is a high level of emotion involved.
How it can apply in the case of Scots supporting Union.
Firstly hostages who develop Stockholm syndrome often view the perpetrator as giving life by simply not taking it. In this sense, the captor becomes the person in control of the captive’s basic needs for survival and the victim’s life itself.
It is relatively simple to place this into context, with Westminster controlling all taxes, welfare, pensions and much of criminal and social justice systems.
Secondly the hostage endures isolation from other people and has only the captor’s perspective available. Perpetrators routinely keep information about the outside world’s response to their actions from captives to keep them totally dependent.
Following three centuries of death, deprivation, clearances, execution, proscription and exile, dating from a time well prior to the signature of the Treaty Of Union through the present Scots now live in a reasonably just society, arguably more so than in England.
One should consider however that in the 20th century alone there was more than one occasion when censorship was rife and directed by London. This included the reported issuance of provisional orders for English armour to take to the streets in 1919 and in the 1960’s [Glasgow] through the ’74 gagging of McCrone. There were innumerable instances of atrocity that went unreported during the fall of empire to maintain the appearance of “benevolence” to the dispossession of the Diego Garcia inhabitants.
The condition of censorship continues in the present decade as we escape illegal wars and in the last week alone the attempts at suppressing the antics of “Prince Harry” are just a recent example. Corruption is endemic in the state, it’s rarely reported as such, and it’s only a miniscule percentage of offenders that is ever held to account. Even the state needs examples on occasion.
For three centuries and more, the people of Scotland have now largely obtained their information through Anglo centered, London based media, where censorship is rife, often simply by omission, and through the 20th century has been controlled, in disproportionate fashion by the BBC, with the greater portion of funds provided by the nation of Scotland directed towards production facilities in and around the English Capitol.
This was forcibly underlined during the recent Scotland Act, 1998, whereby the Media and broadcasting was specifically noted as a power reserved to the Westminster Parliament. At the Olympics we just witnessed the obliteration of anything with the potential to demonstrate to the world, during Westminster’s showcase, that there might actually be a nation called Scotland.
The message delivered through these media over decades, often subliminally, is that the Scots are now a race of “Subsidy Junkies”. Scots are also informed that they could not survive as an independent nation (while the UK attempts to simultaneously convince nations larger and smaller, from the BVI to India that they CAN survive), and that the voice of Scotland would be mediocre on the international stage. It omits to point out that within the Union presentation on the world stage the voice of Scotland does not exist.
Scots are also informed that as a member of the Union the international community views them with respect and dignity, which is obviously incorrect as demonstrated by such internal stories printed by the often perceived Scots sycophantic press. Everything is filtered through Westminster.
The Scots world view has therefore spent almost the entire time of Union being shaped by London. Scots see the world largely through London’s selective lens; even the weather maps on BBC television contain subtle minimizing psychology.
Thirdly, the hostage taker threatens to kill the victim and gives the perception of having the capability to do so. The captive judges it safer to align with the perpetrator, endure the hardship of captivity, and comply with the captor than to resist and face murder.
Clearly the attempt, almost successfully, was made to destroy an independent national identity and erase that culture from amongst the Brotherhood of Nations. Through encouragement of divisions along ethnic/religious divides, clearances, and two unsuccessful risings, the realm of Scotland was to be relegated to simply “North Britain” throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth and much of the twentieth century’s.
It is in fact not uncommon to still see the phrase “North Britain” used in print, video and other media post 2010. That it was largely successful on the international stage is evidenced by the fact that to the world community at large, England and Britain are interchangeable phrases for the same identity. Scotland is not perceived as a nation in its own right by much of our world.
Our voice is not “stronger within”, it is decidedly gagged.
The dominant faction of the Union (England) began apparent moderation of these policies as the twentieth century wore on. It is arguable the moderation took place after Westminster perceived the case as “won beyond redemption”. When Scots returned a Tory majority vote in the 1950’s that opinion was likely catalyzed.
The centuries of abuse also arguably left the most solid underlying impression in the national identity of the common Scot that both the ability and the will were present on England’s part for an attempt at utter extinction of the national Scots identity should it become a necessity. Endurance and compliance could, in large part, prevent this. Even in today’s Olympics, when Scots athletes proudly display the Saltire it is, for the most part, simply edited out – like the attempt upon Scotland herself from history through Westminster’s control of broadcasting.
With a referendum approaching the overriding theme from the Union is negativity. Scots have heard all the doom cries, possibly more than could have been expected. Everything from expulsion from Europe to bombing our airports, Scots have been promised fiscal and literal death. Perhaps NATO would be a good idea to give us allies and forestall English aggression – the overtone is unmistakable.
Lastly, the captive sees the perpetrator as showing some degree of kindness. Kindness serves as the cornerstone of Stockholm syndrome; the condition will not develop unless the captor exhibits it in some form toward the hostage. However, captives often misinterpret a lack of abuse as kindness and may develop feelings of appreciation for this perceived benevolence. If the captor is purely evil and abusive, the hostage will respond with hatred. But, if perpetrators show some kindness, victims will submerge the anger they feel in response to the terror and concentrate on the captors’ “good side” to protect themselves.
The captive nation (Scotland), from the apparent perspective of a mass of individuals within the nation could be said in many/most cases to observe the union as “Kindly”.
This is because it ensures in the present day and age that a roof is still available, as is nourishment. What appears more difficult for these individuals to understand is that these same mechanisms would in almost all scenarios still exist without the union, perhaps in greater plenty and with greater security.
The Union and its proponents self edit the atrocities, the abuses and the practiced cultural genocide, highlighting instead warm and fuzzy “better together” images, without ever explaining exactly how we are better together.
It remains to be seen what the outcome of austerity will ultimately be with respect to the Union as Scots witness the dismantling of the socially beneficial aspects of the United Kingdom. It may alter the “kindly” perception enough to create a substantial difference.
These scenarios are apparently subconsciously discounted by media and politicians alike, with phrases such as “Scotland’s wishes to be considered” (a statement by Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg with regards to Scots being forced to change the date of their national elections by Westminster).
The incredible issue here is that these statements can be portrayed as acts of benevolent kindness rather than an inalienable right in a democratic society! Somehow rather than generate a universal national anger, these comments instead are apparently seen by many less astute Scots with a type of “we’re being cared for” perspective.
Conclusion.
When only 3% of Scots residents view themselves as “British” foremost, it seems appropriate to enquire how this Union survives. Furthermore, what, if any, are the driving factors for its survival outwith the probability of the almost universally unhealthily decried Stockholm Syndrome or England’s economic need.
Throughout the last three hundred years there have been a great many notable cases which reflect the fact many of us, past and present, arguably, very strongly arguably, suffer from the Stockholm syndrome. There are very few equally notable exceptions.
In cases where Stockholm syndrome has occurred, the captive is in a situation where they have been stripped of nearly all forms of independence as well as their basic needs for survival, and the captor has effectively gained control of the victim’s life.
Some experts say that the hostage regresses to, perhaps, a state of infancy; the captive must cry for food, or in our case natural sovereign powers, or remain silent, and exist in an extreme state of dependence.
In contrast, the perpetrator serves as a 'mother' figure protecting the 'child' from a threatening outside world, including law enforcement’s deadly weapons. The issue with Stockholm’s is that it is insidious; it is invisible to the sufferer.
We can only conclude that, as a nation, it is past time for Scotland to take her position of responsibility in the global community. It is time for individual contribution, for individual recognition. It is time to cease being Scots in failure and “Brits” when triumphant. It is time to stand proudly once again.
This is where we stand today, but with a referendum due in 2014, and those who would vote “No” appearing to opt for decades more privatisation, austerity, asset stripping and social policy decimation is there any other ready explanation than that posed above?
For those who would vote “No” in the referendum, knowing that by common consensus they will be poorer if they do, they should ask themselves why they would deny their own Sovereignty, why they would further impoverish themselves and their children.
The definition of foolhardiness has been said to be repeating the action and expecting a different outcome. As the Union has undeniably failed most Scots, it is amongst the most unequal nations on earth. Individuals who would vote “No” must surely question their choice.
Therapy anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)