Kim Little is a good point to focus a discussion about the issue around National Anthems; although she was not the only one involved, she serves as a case in point.
Quite rightly, she refused to sing what is recognised in these islands as England’s national anthem. She was firm in her refusal to participate although the British Olympic Committee had reportedly issued an edict that all athletes should learn it.
Let us consider the fact that there’s an English national anthem. That National anthem is “God save the Queen”. Also let’s consider that this anthem has never been formally adopted, like the Union flag, by either act of parliament or royal proclamation.
It has a verse, disused through “national sensitivities”, yet it has never been officially changed. It remains England’s national anthem; it is seldom sung in modern times in Scotland or Wales. Each nation has songs of its own that it prefers to use in various circumstances.
That unsung verse goes something like this.
Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the King/Queen.
The GB Olympics team organizers have traditionally adopted the English anthem as the GB Olympic team anthem. Surely this denigrates the history, allegiance and pride in heritage that athletes not from England might have.
Sebastian Coe, in large part an individual who has been credited with driving these games towards their massively overspent conclusion was said to have been “furious”.
Fatima Whitbread launched into the debate with comments based in the fact that athletes competing for Team GB should conform and sing/respect that anthem when asked.
Mr. Coe, Ms. Whitbread and others would do well to recall that these athletes have an inbuilt right of protest in any arena in which they are required to compete under a GB banner. These athletes had no choice; they were refused the ability to compete for their own nations.
The only really surprising thing about the entire debacle is that it has taken so long to surface, but like the small crack in the dam, it is without doubt only the smallest inkling of what is to come.
How long will it be, one wonders, before an athlete, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish becomes a medal recipient but refuses to take the podium because of their belief in the abominable history behind a song the London establishment would have us believe is an “official” anthem.
That day will mark a turning point indeed, for although we don’t expect it at these Olympics, who can say it will not happen.
The feats will stand attributed to the individual, for that can never be taken away. The ruckus that follows will fall squarely at the feet of the “British” establishment and the crown.
Such a public display from individuals such as Kim Little, Ryan Giggs and the others who will not recognise this song is but a prelude of what is to come. The public humiliation which the establishment will have to bear will know few bounds when that athlete refuses to take the podium, for it will signal most publically to the world at large that we are not one country.
It will herald to the billions of onlookers that we are four nations welded by the will and subterfuge of Westminster and its “British” associations, and it will tell them in so public a fashion that we are not what they wish, that we are independent peoples of proud nations who have been forced into a Union over which our individual constituents had neither consultation over, nor input.
It will highlight that Wales was a conquered land and that Scots were rioting and rebelling for years after the Union treaty. It will demonstrate it is and has always been, an uneasy alliance.
And it will effectively reduce or prohibit Scots and Welsh from participating in any “Team GB”. They will have little chance of being selected, without swearing allegiance first to everything the “UK” stands for.
Some may so swear, under duress, simply to compete, but when the first such recovers their principles on the podium, or after at the press conference – what then for the selection committees?
“Team GB” will not do what it needs to do, in its myriad guises. It will not divide itself and strengthen the opportunities of the individuals within these nations to compete for their own country. It will not allow two, or three or four qualifiers from Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland to each compete. This would have given a situation where Chris Hoy could have defended ALL his gold medals.
Instead Team GB will do as it has always done, and it will set itself up for the ultimate embarrassment that will be delivered by athlete with principles and belief.
In either case, following the breach in the dam at the 2012 London, no - not even British, or UK Olympics, there is no way back.
For the various “Team GB’s” who are not founded on a basis like the “Lions” but are force welded without the benefit of existing national teams there is only one path forward.
They will fragment, it will be up to history to record, decades hence, whether the decent was honourable retrenchment or simply transpired as a result of public embarrassment and ridicule.
Saturday, 28 July 2012
Sunday, 22 July 2012
It’s time to achieve.
We underachieve because we’re taught to.
In all walks of life we, humanity, underachieve, and in Scotland a great many of us underachieve.
It’s something ingrained in us, the establishment tells it to us daily, it’s re-enforced at so many levels that we should underachieve, that we, the great majority, should not “get ideas above our station”.
This “education by our betters” is severely working against us in the referendum.
Scots from birth are taught to respect authority. Deference to royalty, to “the establishment” is bred into our very bones. Now some uppity nationalist types are trying to convince mainstream Scots to cut these ethereal shackles we’ve worn since early childhood and stride out into a brave new world with purpose, drive and determination.
So far, according to the polls, they’re not meeting with much success.
Consider the history of Scotland’s people. They’ve undergone three centuries of clearances. Apathy remains triumphant above all emotions after such an interminable scourge.
Certainly the clearances haven’t always been called such, nowadays the term would be politically incorrect, but they’re with us still in one way or another, and they’re all engineered from Westminster.
Consider the 1700’s, there were two armed rebellions followed by mass clearances. In the 1800’s clearances continued as people were evicted to be replaced by sheep. These are firmly enough in the past that they can safely be called such. The people had no choice, no hope, no future; they could emigrate or face a future devoid of hope and promise, with barely a subsistence living to be eked out for those that remained.
I grew up after two world wars had somewhat cleared the men of the previous generations of Scots, in the ‘60s there was a new term, the “Brain Drain” for those who like our predecessors had no option but to leave our shores. There was no future for them in Scotland, no perceived chance of excellence.
The numbers of dislocated Scots are close to 1 in 6, that’s far exceeding the norm for most nations with a long and prosperous history of academic innovation, invention and technical excellence. Consider, almost 1 million of the current generation of Scots will be forced from their land of birth as they seek better opportunities, opportunities that are not largely available to them at home.
The politically correct term these days has changed from “dispossessed” to “Diaspora”.
While there will always be human migration, this high percentage for such a sustained period from such a small and relatively geographically isolated nation as ours is almost unprecedented.
Ireland had such levels of emigration during the period of Westminster rule.
Emigration does not happen without severe drivers, the average individual does not just up sticks, abandon family, friends and relationships without severe social drivers. The impact of losing the best and brightest in such significant ongoing quantities will be devastating to any society. A small society, such as Scotland’s cannot bear it for many more years.
Of those left behind, many are herded together into a quasi underclass. They are told not to get “ideas above their station”, not to expect much more from life than “the social” and perhaps the bottom of a bottle or an empty syringe, both of which held escapism from their plight, regardless of the damage inflicted upon society.
This is the underclass, this apathetic and disadvantaged group for whom we must find a message. It is the folk of the schemes and high rises, the apathetic, that we must reach and convince if the referendum is to be held and won.
We must do this because we live in a democracy, because each of their votes is worth exactly the same as anyone else’s, and because above all the Union has failed them so dramatically and extraordinarily.
This is why the polls typically and consistently show that independence as a concept is a much more vibrant and alive amongst the lower socio-economic strata. They have already been let down by the status quo. They have been abandoned by the establishment.
The “No” campaign will never reach this group, they know only too well the problems of overcrowding, of ATOS, of reduced benefits and more stringent criteria forced upon them by the establishment. These votes are there for the taking, but the “Yes” campaign will never reach these people in a meaningful way with TV celebrities or talk show debates.
The biggest issue facing the “Yes” campaign is motivating the supporters of its cause in these demographics to actually vote. If 80% enfranchised themselves the result should be a landslide for the Independence movement.
The biggest mistake the Holyrood campaign for Independence could make would be to treat these individuals with disdain or promises of “Jam tomorrow”. These are individuals who are stuck in a trap of social deprivation and immobility; they see no future for themselves or their children, but they can see through false promises.
We need to give them hope, not so much for the immediate future, or for themselves, as the truth will not allow that, and these people may be stuck, but they are not stupid. Scotland needs to give them hope of a better future for their children than their parents had; a better future than they currently foresee.
If we can convince the schemes by and large to vote for independence it will outweigh any publicity the “No” camp can bring to bear. A “Yes” vote from Scotland’s largely forgotten underclass who have the same hopes, dreams and fears as the rest of us will deliver this referendum.
The “No” campaign is primarily relying on three classes of individual, those it can fool into voting “No” through wooly statements about “better together” without substantive arguments about how. It is relying on the votes of the relatively small minority of individuals who have actually personally benefitted from the Union, such as peers and MP’s, and mostly it is relying upon those it can scare into voting “No” with tales of doom and fear of the unknown.
The “Yes” campaign is stalled for the present because it is relying on the core independence vote, it has yet to expound the ideas of the Scotland of tomorrow, the Scotland where not just a referendum will be “made, built, tested and delivered in Scotland” but so will a future for all our children. It has yet to get the message out how it will achieve this, how it will provide opportunity to stop the present day deprivation or clearances. In the face of a hostile media the “Yes” campaign may never be able to deliver this message with any form of sustainable success.
It is because of this that the present grass roots approach must work, but right now it is far too limited.
There are venues appearing in high streets and shopping centers, and while these are good they are not enough.
There are venues appearing on the internet to raise funds and organise marches and events, while these are vital they are not enough.
We need venues like the Tupperware parties of yesterday, where the individuals supporting independence get into the schemes, lower the apathy levels, raise the flag and provide motivation to folk to break the cycle, to exercise their franchise and to show up at the polls.
There is one thing above all the inhabitants of the schemes, our youth, the drug dependent, the unemployed, and those who see life through the bottom of a glass all know, and that’d be that whatever the reason they’re there, the status quo simply doesn’t work for them.
It’s time to give them motivation, it’s time to at least organise a referendum day party on every scheme we can reach, in every neighborhood we can get to, on every block and in every street. It’s up to us to get people motivated and to turn out.
It’s up to our generation to begin tackling apathy, for the loss of apathy in the electorate is the one thing the establishment fears.
It is time to show Scotland will no longer settle for being dragged down by Westminster; that Scotland is not a Greece, a Spain or Portugal who is slowly dying within Europe’s other Union.
We have two years to succeed, and we still have the ability.
It’s time to achieve.
In all walks of life we, humanity, underachieve, and in Scotland a great many of us underachieve.
It’s something ingrained in us, the establishment tells it to us daily, it’s re-enforced at so many levels that we should underachieve, that we, the great majority, should not “get ideas above our station”.
This “education by our betters” is severely working against us in the referendum.
Scots from birth are taught to respect authority. Deference to royalty, to “the establishment” is bred into our very bones. Now some uppity nationalist types are trying to convince mainstream Scots to cut these ethereal shackles we’ve worn since early childhood and stride out into a brave new world with purpose, drive and determination.
So far, according to the polls, they’re not meeting with much success.
Consider the history of Scotland’s people. They’ve undergone three centuries of clearances. Apathy remains triumphant above all emotions after such an interminable scourge.
Certainly the clearances haven’t always been called such, nowadays the term would be politically incorrect, but they’re with us still in one way or another, and they’re all engineered from Westminster.
Consider the 1700’s, there were two armed rebellions followed by mass clearances. In the 1800’s clearances continued as people were evicted to be replaced by sheep. These are firmly enough in the past that they can safely be called such. The people had no choice, no hope, no future; they could emigrate or face a future devoid of hope and promise, with barely a subsistence living to be eked out for those that remained.
I grew up after two world wars had somewhat cleared the men of the previous generations of Scots, in the ‘60s there was a new term, the “Brain Drain” for those who like our predecessors had no option but to leave our shores. There was no future for them in Scotland, no perceived chance of excellence.
The numbers of dislocated Scots are close to 1 in 6, that’s far exceeding the norm for most nations with a long and prosperous history of academic innovation, invention and technical excellence. Consider, almost 1 million of the current generation of Scots will be forced from their land of birth as they seek better opportunities, opportunities that are not largely available to them at home.
The politically correct term these days has changed from “dispossessed” to “Diaspora”.
While there will always be human migration, this high percentage for such a sustained period from such a small and relatively geographically isolated nation as ours is almost unprecedented.
Ireland had such levels of emigration during the period of Westminster rule.
Emigration does not happen without severe drivers, the average individual does not just up sticks, abandon family, friends and relationships without severe social drivers. The impact of losing the best and brightest in such significant ongoing quantities will be devastating to any society. A small society, such as Scotland’s cannot bear it for many more years.
Of those left behind, many are herded together into a quasi underclass. They are told not to get “ideas above their station”, not to expect much more from life than “the social” and perhaps the bottom of a bottle or an empty syringe, both of which held escapism from their plight, regardless of the damage inflicted upon society.
This is the underclass, this apathetic and disadvantaged group for whom we must find a message. It is the folk of the schemes and high rises, the apathetic, that we must reach and convince if the referendum is to be held and won.
We must do this because we live in a democracy, because each of their votes is worth exactly the same as anyone else’s, and because above all the Union has failed them so dramatically and extraordinarily.
This is why the polls typically and consistently show that independence as a concept is a much more vibrant and alive amongst the lower socio-economic strata. They have already been let down by the status quo. They have been abandoned by the establishment.
The “No” campaign will never reach this group, they know only too well the problems of overcrowding, of ATOS, of reduced benefits and more stringent criteria forced upon them by the establishment. These votes are there for the taking, but the “Yes” campaign will never reach these people in a meaningful way with TV celebrities or talk show debates.
The biggest issue facing the “Yes” campaign is motivating the supporters of its cause in these demographics to actually vote. If 80% enfranchised themselves the result should be a landslide for the Independence movement.
The biggest mistake the Holyrood campaign for Independence could make would be to treat these individuals with disdain or promises of “Jam tomorrow”. These are individuals who are stuck in a trap of social deprivation and immobility; they see no future for themselves or their children, but they can see through false promises.
We need to give them hope, not so much for the immediate future, or for themselves, as the truth will not allow that, and these people may be stuck, but they are not stupid. Scotland needs to give them hope of a better future for their children than their parents had; a better future than they currently foresee.
If we can convince the schemes by and large to vote for independence it will outweigh any publicity the “No” camp can bring to bear. A “Yes” vote from Scotland’s largely forgotten underclass who have the same hopes, dreams and fears as the rest of us will deliver this referendum.
The “No” campaign is primarily relying on three classes of individual, those it can fool into voting “No” through wooly statements about “better together” without substantive arguments about how. It is relying on the votes of the relatively small minority of individuals who have actually personally benefitted from the Union, such as peers and MP’s, and mostly it is relying upon those it can scare into voting “No” with tales of doom and fear of the unknown.
The “Yes” campaign is stalled for the present because it is relying on the core independence vote, it has yet to expound the ideas of the Scotland of tomorrow, the Scotland where not just a referendum will be “made, built, tested and delivered in Scotland” but so will a future for all our children. It has yet to get the message out how it will achieve this, how it will provide opportunity to stop the present day deprivation or clearances. In the face of a hostile media the “Yes” campaign may never be able to deliver this message with any form of sustainable success.
It is because of this that the present grass roots approach must work, but right now it is far too limited.
There are venues appearing in high streets and shopping centers, and while these are good they are not enough.
There are venues appearing on the internet to raise funds and organise marches and events, while these are vital they are not enough.
We need venues like the Tupperware parties of yesterday, where the individuals supporting independence get into the schemes, lower the apathy levels, raise the flag and provide motivation to folk to break the cycle, to exercise their franchise and to show up at the polls.
There is one thing above all the inhabitants of the schemes, our youth, the drug dependent, the unemployed, and those who see life through the bottom of a glass all know, and that’d be that whatever the reason they’re there, the status quo simply doesn’t work for them.
It’s time to give them motivation, it’s time to at least organise a referendum day party on every scheme we can reach, in every neighborhood we can get to, on every block and in every street. It’s up to us to get people motivated and to turn out.
It’s up to our generation to begin tackling apathy, for the loss of apathy in the electorate is the one thing the establishment fears.
It is time to show Scotland will no longer settle for being dragged down by Westminster; that Scotland is not a Greece, a Spain or Portugal who is slowly dying within Europe’s other Union.
We have two years to succeed, and we still have the ability.
It’s time to achieve.
Monday, 16 July 2012
Could they or would they manufacture a collapse to save the Union?
One big issue surrounding Scotland’s independence referendum, one that might just swing the result in the nationalist favour come the day, is what is seen as the ultimate argument by many nationalists.
Vote Labour, get Tory.
This is a situation that rankles with many an average, nominally politically disinterested Scot. It is an aspect of the United Kingdom’s democratic deficit that could shape the decision of several percentiles of undecided.
The coalition is slowly dying, it was never a marriage made in heaven and chances are it will not even reach the stage of enduring until the next election.
The arguments over the Lord’s reform go some way to highlight the hidden fractures within the coalition. Menzies Campbell made it clear over the weekend that the Tories better bend on the issue, or their boundary changes will not see the light of day.
In response to his and various other comments from the Liberal Democratic Party, the Conservative response has been, to say the least, vitriolic. Adam Afriyie who was amongst the milder of the Conservative rebels, limited his statements to enjoying the visions arising for a new Tory manifesto saw his more placid stance offset by the likes of Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 committee, who called into question the potential future life of the coalition. Additionally, Tory backbenchers have gone as far as to tweet hostile warnings to the Liberal Democrats about the failure to support their boundary reforms. Stewart Jackson tweeted, “Memo to bolshy Lib Dems: Break deal on boundary changes and you’ll be out of government. That vote has consequences too.”
Consider the Conservative statement on Lords reform, that “it’s hardly the public’s priority” when its need has been self evident for over a century to ensure a properly functioning democracy. We are effectively being told the public’s priority isn’t a functional democracy, and the furore isn’t even over achieving that. If full Lords reform was a four course dinner, what the Liberal Democrats propose is just the appetiser, and then the Tory counter proposal limits us to the cherry on the top of the sundae. Ridiculous, however, should we expect anything else from an establishment which historically demonstrates that protecting its own is the primary reason for its existence?
The issues which are creating serious fractures in the underlying structure of the coalition relationship have prompted some on both sides to call for a re-negotiation of the fundamentals behind the agreement, even as the Lib-Dem’s have ordered work on a new accord for a next term of office to be suspended.
These problems and more have required both Cameron and Clegg to step from the shadows and declare that the coalition is here to stay. At best, this is papering over the cracks on a sandcastle as they watch the tide progress on its inexorable march. The only thing that will hold this coalition together, the glue behind the wallpaper, is the thought of electoral oblivion. The knowledge that as the polls currently stand they will, for Tories at least, be whisked from power for an electoral cycle and for the LibDems it might just herald political Armageddon.
However, with the real power simply oscillating between the Tories and Labour party, each safe and secure in the knowledge that it represents one face of the establishment’s coin, then these perceived political enemies can come together in near absolute amity to preserve the establishment. This then begs the question; what will transpire within Westminster’s murky halls on the day that independence shows a significant upturn in the polls.
It is not only possible, but probable that as the independence debate inches towards the day of polling in Autumn 2014 that the predicted (by many nationalists) dramatic rise in support as the day nears, we will see either a real or manufactured discontinuity of purpose in London.
In other words, in response to this upsurge in polling data, we should expect that if rumours of change in the UK government through a fractured coalition and threats of resulting market turmoil do not stop the predicted nationalist juggernaut, then at the last instant there will be a terminal rupture within the coalition leading to a UK wide GE right before the referendum.
Can there be any doubt that if it is perceived by the Westminster parties that a Labour government would hold the UK together and a Conservative one will not, that there would be no attempt at power transfer within Westminster? Expect this scenario to provide an opportune moment for the coalition to discover it is in a marriage containing irreconcilable differences, and to simply opt for a no-fault divorce.
It is entirely conceivable that the coin will be flipped and once again a Labour government will be elected. It will carry out the policies of the previous coalition almost to the letter while stating it is approaching power with desires for social projects to help the poor and underprivileged, i.e. business as usual.
In view of Westminster’s previous record in the decades leading up to this event, any significant London driven constitutional change is exceedingly unlikely. It can therefore be seen that one half of the establishment will stand ready to be perceived as sacrificing itself on a spurious unrelated event, such as boundary changes or Lords reform, rather than the reality of Scotland’s vote.
Meanwhile, the media will continue to propagate the myth that the parties actually have different policies. Everything possible will be done by all associated with it to protect the umbrella establishment that is the amorphous, tentacle-clad British state, to which each individual entrenched within London’s political scene owe their place at the trough.
We can anticipate as the crisis of the day becomes self evident and that the end of the UK as Westminster knows it is seen to be approaching, there will be many private, undocumented backroom meetings.
We should not stand by in slack jawed shock if the last or first act of the outgoing or incoming administrations at Westminster is to pass an emergency act, or at least attempt to do so, to prevent the Scots poll in such a (manufactured) “period of uncertainty”. They will seek to buy extra months to reverse the course of political opinion in Scotland by proclamation that our northern nation is no longer Tory ruled.
If any doubt, this we need only look to independence opinion polls. During the last sustained period of Tory devastation at Westminster, independence surged in the polls to over 50%, it fell again under Labour. London must gamble that the pattern will repeat, as the alternative may be bankruptcy or bail-out should the markets lose confidence in a Bank of England/Westminster establishment that’s already embroiled in controversy.
None of these issues should shock us, and only two items are really open to question if the nationalists are correct. That truth and facts will prevail with Scotland’s electorate, and that these can be effectively disseminated to create the swings anticipated, then it all comes down to Holyrood’s response to Westminster’s actions.
We can be certain that as austerity bites and information is dispersed, the independence vote will increase, after that everything is on the table.
The only other answer we need will be resolved by the political actions in Westminster at that time; does London really give a toss about Scotland.
Vote Labour, get Tory.
This is a situation that rankles with many an average, nominally politically disinterested Scot. It is an aspect of the United Kingdom’s democratic deficit that could shape the decision of several percentiles of undecided.
The coalition is slowly dying, it was never a marriage made in heaven and chances are it will not even reach the stage of enduring until the next election.
The arguments over the Lord’s reform go some way to highlight the hidden fractures within the coalition. Menzies Campbell made it clear over the weekend that the Tories better bend on the issue, or their boundary changes will not see the light of day.
In response to his and various other comments from the Liberal Democratic Party, the Conservative response has been, to say the least, vitriolic. Adam Afriyie who was amongst the milder of the Conservative rebels, limited his statements to enjoying the visions arising for a new Tory manifesto saw his more placid stance offset by the likes of Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 committee, who called into question the potential future life of the coalition. Additionally, Tory backbenchers have gone as far as to tweet hostile warnings to the Liberal Democrats about the failure to support their boundary reforms. Stewart Jackson tweeted, “Memo to bolshy Lib Dems: Break deal on boundary changes and you’ll be out of government. That vote has consequences too.”
Consider the Conservative statement on Lords reform, that “it’s hardly the public’s priority” when its need has been self evident for over a century to ensure a properly functioning democracy. We are effectively being told the public’s priority isn’t a functional democracy, and the furore isn’t even over achieving that. If full Lords reform was a four course dinner, what the Liberal Democrats propose is just the appetiser, and then the Tory counter proposal limits us to the cherry on the top of the sundae. Ridiculous, however, should we expect anything else from an establishment which historically demonstrates that protecting its own is the primary reason for its existence?
The issues which are creating serious fractures in the underlying structure of the coalition relationship have prompted some on both sides to call for a re-negotiation of the fundamentals behind the agreement, even as the Lib-Dem’s have ordered work on a new accord for a next term of office to be suspended.
These problems and more have required both Cameron and Clegg to step from the shadows and declare that the coalition is here to stay. At best, this is papering over the cracks on a sandcastle as they watch the tide progress on its inexorable march. The only thing that will hold this coalition together, the glue behind the wallpaper, is the thought of electoral oblivion. The knowledge that as the polls currently stand they will, for Tories at least, be whisked from power for an electoral cycle and for the LibDems it might just herald political Armageddon.
However, with the real power simply oscillating between the Tories and Labour party, each safe and secure in the knowledge that it represents one face of the establishment’s coin, then these perceived political enemies can come together in near absolute amity to preserve the establishment. This then begs the question; what will transpire within Westminster’s murky halls on the day that independence shows a significant upturn in the polls.
It is not only possible, but probable that as the independence debate inches towards the day of polling in Autumn 2014 that the predicted (by many nationalists) dramatic rise in support as the day nears, we will see either a real or manufactured discontinuity of purpose in London.
In other words, in response to this upsurge in polling data, we should expect that if rumours of change in the UK government through a fractured coalition and threats of resulting market turmoil do not stop the predicted nationalist juggernaut, then at the last instant there will be a terminal rupture within the coalition leading to a UK wide GE right before the referendum.
Can there be any doubt that if it is perceived by the Westminster parties that a Labour government would hold the UK together and a Conservative one will not, that there would be no attempt at power transfer within Westminster? Expect this scenario to provide an opportune moment for the coalition to discover it is in a marriage containing irreconcilable differences, and to simply opt for a no-fault divorce.
It is entirely conceivable that the coin will be flipped and once again a Labour government will be elected. It will carry out the policies of the previous coalition almost to the letter while stating it is approaching power with desires for social projects to help the poor and underprivileged, i.e. business as usual.
In view of Westminster’s previous record in the decades leading up to this event, any significant London driven constitutional change is exceedingly unlikely. It can therefore be seen that one half of the establishment will stand ready to be perceived as sacrificing itself on a spurious unrelated event, such as boundary changes or Lords reform, rather than the reality of Scotland’s vote.
Meanwhile, the media will continue to propagate the myth that the parties actually have different policies. Everything possible will be done by all associated with it to protect the umbrella establishment that is the amorphous, tentacle-clad British state, to which each individual entrenched within London’s political scene owe their place at the trough.
We can anticipate as the crisis of the day becomes self evident and that the end of the UK as Westminster knows it is seen to be approaching, there will be many private, undocumented backroom meetings.
We should not stand by in slack jawed shock if the last or first act of the outgoing or incoming administrations at Westminster is to pass an emergency act, or at least attempt to do so, to prevent the Scots poll in such a (manufactured) “period of uncertainty”. They will seek to buy extra months to reverse the course of political opinion in Scotland by proclamation that our northern nation is no longer Tory ruled.
If any doubt, this we need only look to independence opinion polls. During the last sustained period of Tory devastation at Westminster, independence surged in the polls to over 50%, it fell again under Labour. London must gamble that the pattern will repeat, as the alternative may be bankruptcy or bail-out should the markets lose confidence in a Bank of England/Westminster establishment that’s already embroiled in controversy.
None of these issues should shock us, and only two items are really open to question if the nationalists are correct. That truth and facts will prevail with Scotland’s electorate, and that these can be effectively disseminated to create the swings anticipated, then it all comes down to Holyrood’s response to Westminster’s actions.
We can be certain that as austerity bites and information is dispersed, the independence vote will increase, after that everything is on the table.
The only other answer we need will be resolved by the political actions in Westminster at that time; does London really give a toss about Scotland.
Friday, 13 July 2012
Our grandchildren may be United in a Kingdom of Austerity.
Austerity – it’s the byword, and excuse for dismantling the United Kingdom’s social structure, for ripping apart the fabric of society in these islands. Westminster’s OMB (Office of Management and Budget) predicts we’ll still be under UK wide Austerity in 2060, that’s two unborn generations away and more.
Unless we act our children will still suffer under Austerity’s yoke.
OMB paints a canvas, vividly and brightly, which demonstrates Austerity will be endemic, systemic and largely unrelenting throughout the next fifty years.
The reality of Austerity is that it is fundamentally required, needed because of the fiscal mess we find ourselves in, and that fiscal mess is one that has been created by a succession of governments, Tory and Labour, ably supported, aided and abetted by a largely compliant media and establishment [City] who all act in their own best interest.
Austerity is rooted in mismanagement. Governments at Westminster have for decades, if not centuries been what can only be described as criminally negligent in their fiscal obligations to the electorate.
In the last week there have been several such areas of UK mismanagement, though not portrayed as such by the media and with absolutely no highlighting by the Conservative/Libdem Coalition government. These instances ranged from armed forces redundancies to hospital trusts going into administration under the burden of onerous Westminster mandated PFI contracts.
Examining one case in point, the armed forces redundancies, shows how the fools in their palaces in Westminster continue to play roulette, swiftly becoming Russian roulette, with our finances.
20,000 armed services redundancies, at a time when the economy is recording contraction and rapid decline in historical terms makes no sense for even the most basic student of economics when the alternatives are examined.
These 20,000 will not be employed, unless it’s to the detriment of the others who are already unfortunate enough to be short or long term unemployed. What it will do is increase the pool of available labour helping to shrink or stagnate pay and employee benefits. There will be more chasing every job; they will be willing to accept less in fear the position will go somewhere else. We have just witnessed the same happening in the dairy industry, where the price received in many cases no longer covers the costs of production. Bankruptcy follows, the already wealthy creditors get the assets for pennies.
These 20,000 now ex-military personnel will require housing, they will require subsistence, and they will require the medical care that we all enjoy, but will now contribute nothing of value to society.
They will be a drain on the nation’s already overstretched resources. Many will not adjust. The savings will not be what the government projects, but may come close to 1/3 of the official number. Westminster doesn’t take into account in its trumpeted data the knock on effects of base closures on local economies either – it’s all about the quick fix to the MOD budget.
There is a potential that Westminster and the MOD may save £100 million or a little more each year with these redundancies. The 20,000 will each just be another hidden face of Austerity. The 20,000 are actually needed, the services require boots on the ground, the men and women in uniform are already stretched to the breaking point. Psychological issues and stress related disorders are on the increase.
This is a criminally negligent and foolhardy use of national resources. Consider instead adding 20,000 to the services, in a time of Austerity and contraction the extra demand will kick start several local economies and revive long standing traditions.
The forces personnel give the government back almost 50% of their pay in direct and indirect taxation, so the real cost to the government and us – the taxpayer, is minimised. The money must first be uncovered to pay these personnel before we can tax their earnings [rather than supplying non-taxable benefits]. The same department, the MOD, would be charged with finding the funding.
The MOD could scrap Trident – sell the assets no longer required, and raise what’s reported to be £100 billion over the next thirty years. The MOD would then have some £3 billion plus per year to put into service personnel, with these 20,000 additional troops estimated to cost some £500 million a year the nation saves some £2.5 billion while it stimulates the economy and enhances the recovery – that’s smart Austerity. Reduce the unnecessary and enhance the required.
Trident, that’s stupidity, that’s posturing, that’s criminal fiscal mismanagement under the current economic conditions.
Without intelligent financial management, so evidently lacking at Westminster, the OMB reports that Austerity measures will have to continue, they will actually be required to unearth an extra £80bn per year by 2061.
£80bn per year is close to three times Holyrood’s current annual budget.
In its yearly check, the Office for Budget Responsibility said Britain's public finances were "clearly unsustainable" over the next 50 years, despite George Osborne's round of spending cuts.
Even if the UK government succeeds in saving its hoped for £123bn over the next seven years, the OBR said it would need to impose permanent tax increases or reduce spending by 1.1% of GDP – about £17bn in today's terms – to return the national debt to pre-crisis levels. It will not eliminate the debt, or permanently reverse its upwards trending, simply put it back in historical terms to 2008 levels, and hopefully manage it from there.
If the government continued with current policies, and if those policies succeeded, the OBR said public finances would improve until the mid-2020s. But there would still be a long-term deterioration in the decades that follow.
The only way to achieve more is with additional burdens on the individual and accelerated dismantling of the social structures of the United Kingdom.
OMB had this rather ominous wording in its final report.
"On current policy, we would expect the budget deficit to widen sufficiently over the long term to put public-sector net debt on a continuously rising trajectory as a share of national income," the report said. "This is clearly unsustainable."
OMB is telling George Osborne and David Cameron, in no uncertain terms – “your policies are mince”.
Rachel Reeves, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "The OBR's report sets out some of the huge challenges facing policymakers over the coming decades, including issues like the rising cost of social care, which this government has so far failed to grasp.
"But the failure of George Osborne's economic plan will make things worse. We are already seeing how the double-dip recession is causing borrowing to go up and an extra £150bn added to the debt. And Britain will pay a very heavy economic and social price if we continue to have years of slow growth and high long-term unemployment. That is why urgent action is needed now to get the economy moving again."
Intrinsically, Scotland has a referendum and a choice. It’s likely in either regard we will see Austerity in action. However, wouldn’t it be nice, wouldn’t it be intelligent if we awarded ourselves the right to make it an astute process, rather than an Astute class submarine?
Shouldn’t we put ourselves in the position of deciding for ourselves what our best path out of Austerity should be? Will we enhance our military as we eliminate toys that were designed never to be used, or will we strip our service personnel below any semblance of previously considered realistic levels just so we can point at some pictures and say “see what we’ve got” – ignoring the people who are required to man our regiments as they languish on the dole.
That this will be their life under present policies is certain, unless they choose to become the latest Scots forced from our shores by Westminster’s politically inspired clearances, for with benefit cuts to unemployment, housing, child support, welfare, disability and widows they will be in the same position as our ancient crofters. They will leave our shores or they will starve. Today however there is no new “promised land” awaiting them.
Should we allow another nation to choose whether our NHS survives, or if it is privatised, for with Westminster’s fiscal leverage they have that ability, or should we decide for ourselves?
Under Westminster, the Austerity in which we already find ourselves will dictate every aspect of our lives for years to come. Furthermore, according to Westminster it will continue to do so for the next half century. In a Scotland where London holds no sway we have the potential to escape from its effects in a few relatively short years.
Irrespective, the ability to decide where the cuts are made, the areas to be excised should be our choice and ours alone. To choose otherwise is to give London the scalpel and pray they take the right kidney.
Unless we act our children will still suffer under Austerity’s yoke.
OMB paints a canvas, vividly and brightly, which demonstrates Austerity will be endemic, systemic and largely unrelenting throughout the next fifty years.
The reality of Austerity is that it is fundamentally required, needed because of the fiscal mess we find ourselves in, and that fiscal mess is one that has been created by a succession of governments, Tory and Labour, ably supported, aided and abetted by a largely compliant media and establishment [City] who all act in their own best interest.
Austerity is rooted in mismanagement. Governments at Westminster have for decades, if not centuries been what can only be described as criminally negligent in their fiscal obligations to the electorate.
In the last week there have been several such areas of UK mismanagement, though not portrayed as such by the media and with absolutely no highlighting by the Conservative/Libdem Coalition government. These instances ranged from armed forces redundancies to hospital trusts going into administration under the burden of onerous Westminster mandated PFI contracts.
Examining one case in point, the armed forces redundancies, shows how the fools in their palaces in Westminster continue to play roulette, swiftly becoming Russian roulette, with our finances.
20,000 armed services redundancies, at a time when the economy is recording contraction and rapid decline in historical terms makes no sense for even the most basic student of economics when the alternatives are examined.
These 20,000 will not be employed, unless it’s to the detriment of the others who are already unfortunate enough to be short or long term unemployed. What it will do is increase the pool of available labour helping to shrink or stagnate pay and employee benefits. There will be more chasing every job; they will be willing to accept less in fear the position will go somewhere else. We have just witnessed the same happening in the dairy industry, where the price received in many cases no longer covers the costs of production. Bankruptcy follows, the already wealthy creditors get the assets for pennies.
These 20,000 now ex-military personnel will require housing, they will require subsistence, and they will require the medical care that we all enjoy, but will now contribute nothing of value to society.
They will be a drain on the nation’s already overstretched resources. Many will not adjust. The savings will not be what the government projects, but may come close to 1/3 of the official number. Westminster doesn’t take into account in its trumpeted data the knock on effects of base closures on local economies either – it’s all about the quick fix to the MOD budget.
There is a potential that Westminster and the MOD may save £100 million or a little more each year with these redundancies. The 20,000 will each just be another hidden face of Austerity. The 20,000 are actually needed, the services require boots on the ground, the men and women in uniform are already stretched to the breaking point. Psychological issues and stress related disorders are on the increase.
This is a criminally negligent and foolhardy use of national resources. Consider instead adding 20,000 to the services, in a time of Austerity and contraction the extra demand will kick start several local economies and revive long standing traditions.
The forces personnel give the government back almost 50% of their pay in direct and indirect taxation, so the real cost to the government and us – the taxpayer, is minimised. The money must first be uncovered to pay these personnel before we can tax their earnings [rather than supplying non-taxable benefits]. The same department, the MOD, would be charged with finding the funding.
The MOD could scrap Trident – sell the assets no longer required, and raise what’s reported to be £100 billion over the next thirty years. The MOD would then have some £3 billion plus per year to put into service personnel, with these 20,000 additional troops estimated to cost some £500 million a year the nation saves some £2.5 billion while it stimulates the economy and enhances the recovery – that’s smart Austerity. Reduce the unnecessary and enhance the required.
Trident, that’s stupidity, that’s posturing, that’s criminal fiscal mismanagement under the current economic conditions.
Without intelligent financial management, so evidently lacking at Westminster, the OMB reports that Austerity measures will have to continue, they will actually be required to unearth an extra £80bn per year by 2061.
£80bn per year is close to three times Holyrood’s current annual budget.
In its yearly check, the Office for Budget Responsibility said Britain's public finances were "clearly unsustainable" over the next 50 years, despite George Osborne's round of spending cuts.
Even if the UK government succeeds in saving its hoped for £123bn over the next seven years, the OBR said it would need to impose permanent tax increases or reduce spending by 1.1% of GDP – about £17bn in today's terms – to return the national debt to pre-crisis levels. It will not eliminate the debt, or permanently reverse its upwards trending, simply put it back in historical terms to 2008 levels, and hopefully manage it from there.
If the government continued with current policies, and if those policies succeeded, the OBR said public finances would improve until the mid-2020s. But there would still be a long-term deterioration in the decades that follow.
The only way to achieve more is with additional burdens on the individual and accelerated dismantling of the social structures of the United Kingdom.
OMB had this rather ominous wording in its final report.
"On current policy, we would expect the budget deficit to widen sufficiently over the long term to put public-sector net debt on a continuously rising trajectory as a share of national income," the report said. "This is clearly unsustainable."
OMB is telling George Osborne and David Cameron, in no uncertain terms – “your policies are mince”.
Rachel Reeves, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said: "The OBR's report sets out some of the huge challenges facing policymakers over the coming decades, including issues like the rising cost of social care, which this government has so far failed to grasp.
"But the failure of George Osborne's economic plan will make things worse. We are already seeing how the double-dip recession is causing borrowing to go up and an extra £150bn added to the debt. And Britain will pay a very heavy economic and social price if we continue to have years of slow growth and high long-term unemployment. That is why urgent action is needed now to get the economy moving again."
Intrinsically, Scotland has a referendum and a choice. It’s likely in either regard we will see Austerity in action. However, wouldn’t it be nice, wouldn’t it be intelligent if we awarded ourselves the right to make it an astute process, rather than an Astute class submarine?
Shouldn’t we put ourselves in the position of deciding for ourselves what our best path out of Austerity should be? Will we enhance our military as we eliminate toys that were designed never to be used, or will we strip our service personnel below any semblance of previously considered realistic levels just so we can point at some pictures and say “see what we’ve got” – ignoring the people who are required to man our regiments as they languish on the dole.
That this will be their life under present policies is certain, unless they choose to become the latest Scots forced from our shores by Westminster’s politically inspired clearances, for with benefit cuts to unemployment, housing, child support, welfare, disability and widows they will be in the same position as our ancient crofters. They will leave our shores or they will starve. Today however there is no new “promised land” awaiting them.
Should we allow another nation to choose whether our NHS survives, or if it is privatised, for with Westminster’s fiscal leverage they have that ability, or should we decide for ourselves?
Under Westminster, the Austerity in which we already find ourselves will dictate every aspect of our lives for years to come. Furthermore, according to Westminster it will continue to do so for the next half century. In a Scotland where London holds no sway we have the potential to escape from its effects in a few relatively short years.
Irrespective, the ability to decide where the cuts are made, the areas to be excised should be our choice and ours alone. To choose otherwise is to give London the scalpel and pray they take the right kidney.
The Art of Redaction and Open Government.
In reviewing the recent case where the commissioner found against the Scottish Government with respect to the fact that it must reveal whether it received legal advice on Scotland’s post referendum status on its EU membership, I can only find myself in agreement with the commissioner.
The minor problem is that the commissioner did not go far enough, and order the posting of all shades of legal advice by the government, or any other involved entity who sought such on this subject. The major problem is that any party of whatever hue thinks it either could, or should, be able to keep this type of information secret from the Scottish people.
Think about it for just two seconds – what we’re being asked is to give our support to legislation, acts, referendums or other binding mechanisms, but accept that the reasons and advice driving our decision, and the decisions of those recommending our courses of action can be lawfully withheld from us. We’re to do what we’re told and/or asked like good little boys and girls simply because someone who may perceive themselves “our better” demands it, cajoles it, or uses smoke and mirrors to get their way.
That is not the Scotland to which I aspire.
The information commissioner did not go far enough because the office was not used, albeit that it may have pushed the boundaries of its jurisdiction, to demand that all parties release their legal counsel on this issue.
The political parties in Scotland have for far too long emulated Westminster’s secrecy tactics. All of the major parties are equally guilty, all of the major parties are equally at fault and all of them can come together in a cross party bill in Holyrood which will lift this veil of secrecy, that Scots will actually appreciate.
When Holyrood was inaugurated it was promised that it would not be “politics as usual”, we were told it would be “open democracy” – it’s time to keep that promise, it is one reason Holyrood exists. However, we find that we still have to make “Freedom of Information” requests in order to gain access to the mechanisms of government. This doesn’t feel very “open” to me.
All commissioned legal counsel used within Holyrood must be published, irrespective of who or which political party requested it. Furthermore, it must be freely available to the public, without resort to an information commissioner. The only possible exceptions would be to protect service personnel in a time of war.
Rightly there is concern about abilities of those giving the opinion; it is after all just that, an opinion. The law can therefore be quite clear, only QC’s or those with “X” years standing in the specific area under the law society of Scotland, or their equivalent international bodies should be able to advise the government unless they are respected and tenured academics in their fields.
Then we enter the area where the opinion giver may wish their privacy to be protected. It would be appropriate for those submitting the opinion to have the option of requiring their names, locations and personally identifying aspects contained within their counsel or reports to be redacted. At day’s end who actually wrote the opinion can often be irrelevant as long as the opinion is one by an eminently qualified individual AND open to public scrutiny. If there are major issues with the opinion given, these will soon be uncovered by that public scrutiny.
After the opinion is published there should be a set period for professional comment, like any quality peer reviewed paper, and a place for qualified reviewers to insert their comments. The final document becomes the basis of the information to be used in government circles.
Individual Scots then get to review the data our lawmakers see and decide if they, independently, wish to reach the same conclusions. We get to better understand the quality, scope and content of the advice and information that our parliament is basing its judgments upon.
If this simple law applies to all parties then its implementation will eliminate much of the waste in time, money and resources that we presently see as the parties squabble amongst each other like unruly three year olds; for such squabbling serves only one apparent purpose – it screams “we’re hiding something” and trumpets aloud “we can’t agree” which mimics the antics of Westminster. I thought Holyrood would and should be different.
Quite simply, it’s time to act like grownups and protect the source [even Fleet Street can manage that] while we disseminate the data. Quality data.
Otherwise, what point is there claiming Holyrood is different, better than Westminster’s cabal when we need to continue the use of the Freedom of Information Act to access what should be public knowledge?
The minor problem is that the commissioner did not go far enough, and order the posting of all shades of legal advice by the government, or any other involved entity who sought such on this subject. The major problem is that any party of whatever hue thinks it either could, or should, be able to keep this type of information secret from the Scottish people.
Think about it for just two seconds – what we’re being asked is to give our support to legislation, acts, referendums or other binding mechanisms, but accept that the reasons and advice driving our decision, and the decisions of those recommending our courses of action can be lawfully withheld from us. We’re to do what we’re told and/or asked like good little boys and girls simply because someone who may perceive themselves “our better” demands it, cajoles it, or uses smoke and mirrors to get their way.
That is not the Scotland to which I aspire.
The information commissioner did not go far enough because the office was not used, albeit that it may have pushed the boundaries of its jurisdiction, to demand that all parties release their legal counsel on this issue.
The political parties in Scotland have for far too long emulated Westminster’s secrecy tactics. All of the major parties are equally guilty, all of the major parties are equally at fault and all of them can come together in a cross party bill in Holyrood which will lift this veil of secrecy, that Scots will actually appreciate.
When Holyrood was inaugurated it was promised that it would not be “politics as usual”, we were told it would be “open democracy” – it’s time to keep that promise, it is one reason Holyrood exists. However, we find that we still have to make “Freedom of Information” requests in order to gain access to the mechanisms of government. This doesn’t feel very “open” to me.
All commissioned legal counsel used within Holyrood must be published, irrespective of who or which political party requested it. Furthermore, it must be freely available to the public, without resort to an information commissioner. The only possible exceptions would be to protect service personnel in a time of war.
Rightly there is concern about abilities of those giving the opinion; it is after all just that, an opinion. The law can therefore be quite clear, only QC’s or those with “X” years standing in the specific area under the law society of Scotland, or their equivalent international bodies should be able to advise the government unless they are respected and tenured academics in their fields.
Then we enter the area where the opinion giver may wish their privacy to be protected. It would be appropriate for those submitting the opinion to have the option of requiring their names, locations and personally identifying aspects contained within their counsel or reports to be redacted. At day’s end who actually wrote the opinion can often be irrelevant as long as the opinion is one by an eminently qualified individual AND open to public scrutiny. If there are major issues with the opinion given, these will soon be uncovered by that public scrutiny.
After the opinion is published there should be a set period for professional comment, like any quality peer reviewed paper, and a place for qualified reviewers to insert their comments. The final document becomes the basis of the information to be used in government circles.
Individual Scots then get to review the data our lawmakers see and decide if they, independently, wish to reach the same conclusions. We get to better understand the quality, scope and content of the advice and information that our parliament is basing its judgments upon.
If this simple law applies to all parties then its implementation will eliminate much of the waste in time, money and resources that we presently see as the parties squabble amongst each other like unruly three year olds; for such squabbling serves only one apparent purpose – it screams “we’re hiding something” and trumpets aloud “we can’t agree” which mimics the antics of Westminster. I thought Holyrood would and should be different.
Quite simply, it’s time to act like grownups and protect the source [even Fleet Street can manage that] while we disseminate the data. Quality data.
Otherwise, what point is there claiming Holyrood is different, better than Westminster’s cabal when we need to continue the use of the Freedom of Information Act to access what should be public knowledge?
Wednesday, 4 July 2012
Crucial to America’s independence; it’s time to claim our own
It is time to learn from our ancestors, those forced to leave in the wake of Unionism.
There are many things that the British state immersed in Whitehall doesn’t like. Failure, and the reason behind it are two of the main issues it has a problem with. It has a tendency to whitewash these items in historical terms. It has whitewashed a failed policy of clearances that cost it a continent.
July 4th is a good day to write this blog, for on this day in 1776 a wee event took place which had the roots of its success thirty years earlier, 16th April 1746, when Union forces defeated the Stewarts and their supporters on Drumossie moor at Culloden.
England, with her sprinkling of vested Scots supporters had won a war; they then began an occupation, oppression and a regime of tyranny, horror and clearances that would effectively depopulate much of the Highlands over the next two decades. Either unable to support “the crown”, unable to accept the reality of England’s over lordship, or simply unable to pay its taxes, our ancestors were forced from our shores.
What followed for those who escaped death was mostly indentured servitude in the New World. The vast majority ended up in the plantations of the Virginia’s and Carolinas. From 1750 to 1770 there was a massive influx of predominantly Gaelic speaking Scots.
The taxes followed them to the new world, they worked off their servitude, they raised families, they won land and a small amount of prosperity, but still the taxes followed them. The first big problem was the stamp act of 1765, it was necessary as the crown had much need of money. It had just undergone a civil war, it was almost bankrupt, and it had cleared 1/3 of its British land of those who created the wealth. Those perceived as creating the issue, those Highland rebels, were still reachable in the colonies and the crown did reach.
The stamp act led directly to the formation of a Continental Congress. There followed the Declaration of Independence and the start of a new nation who’s constitution was largely written along the lines of the Declaration of Arbroath.
The struggle started well for the colonist’s militia, at the Battle of Concord, they won. The reversals began with the British capture of New York City, Howe forced Washington to retreat at White-Plains, and Cornwallis harried him through New Jersey. Philadelphia was abandoned and the Continental Army was set to be reduced to a mere guerilla force of about 1,500 by year end.
The displaced highlanders of the Carolinas, spoiling for a tussle with the English were ready and more than willing, responding to the call to arms they added some men to Washington’s ranks as he took to the assault across the Delaware River at Christmas. These Gaelic speakers were responsible for preserving the flank of the Continental army by beating royalist and British forces working in alliance in both North Carolina and South Carolina. Guerilla fighting was second nature to these men and they took to it well once again.
The only delay to peace was King George recognising the rights of the colonists. In the centuries between then and now, this lack of recognition has continued to be a major factor supporting ongoing death e.g. India, Kenya, Indonesia and more. London recognising individual human rights to nationhood and self determination has always been a process of delay and deny and denigrate.
In the thirty years from 1746 to 1776 London effectively solidified control of an Island, first by subterfuge then through military means in the above period, it largely destroyed an ancient culture and in doing so it lost the wealth of a continent and became embroiled in European wars that it could not afford. The Dutch, Spanish and French came in to support the colonists. The colonists won with their help, but it almost bankrupted the French and created what became an underlying cause of that nation’s revolution.
In Scotland, peace was forced by an iron clad jackboot, there were forts at William and George to subdue any future problems, the expense to the London exchequer was enormous, and for little to no return. They swapped a continent for a land they had impoverished.
That was then, this is now.
Scotland has the opportunity to assert the rights our ancestors fought for, and won, in another continent and in another time.
Our future remains bright, if more than a little delayed, but a vital part of the promise of that future remains missing. Many of us remain uninspired, we are on the wrong side of the Delaware and our numbers are not presently sufficient to carry the day. We need re-enforcements that are inspired to march with us on this road, but we need the message to reach them.
Many have thought that a constitution is the answer, a new constitution. What we need is not a constitution but something more like America’s document. We don’t need ten thousand words of legalese that will inspire no one but its authors. We can’t do a formal declaration in our present circumstances.
What we can do is draft and enact provisional legislation. It only becomes effective if the referendum passes. It updates Scotland’s constitution, nothing else. It may even be legal to enact without a timeframe, which is for others to decide.
What we are missing is a rallying call, a promise; the American Declaration had “No taxation without representation”, with several other issues that folks saw worthy of sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice if necessary. Scotland needs such a guiding document, a rallying declaration. We can create it, but Holyrood is the only entity that can credibly provide it. So far, Holyrood just doesn’t seem to have the will. And only Holyrood can show us that we will set our feet onto a better path.
This declaration must be short, the colonists managed it on one page, and it must hold the promise of what is to come with the guarantee that the details will be filled in by the community of the realm of Scots when the time comes. It must be a wholly citizen driven document and it must be democratically enacted. A child of ten must understand it, a child of seven must be able to repeat it. These are the ways we will win our nation back. These are the principles that can weld us together.
An example of such a document might simply revolve around the mnemonic “sovereignty” – it could as easily be encompassed by the letters of our nation “Scotland”.
Here is an example for “Sovereignty”, for without sovereignty, nothing else truly matters.
1. Sovereignty is individual: Every Scot is Sovereign and equal under the law. [1320]
2. Our collective will is paramount: We are a democracy, our collective will must be expressed (referendums).
3. Visual government, open and clear, “nae limits”. No Secrets acts, no FOI restrictions except in time of declared war, no behind the scenes lobbyists.
4. Expression and speech protected. These must be fundamental guarantees for all Scots.
5. Rights, human and basic, healthcare, food and shelter. There will be more detailed explanation of this, defined by others at some future time.
6. Equal chambers of government. Two chambers of government, both elected, a “construction” chamber and a “review” chamber. This can place Holyrood as the constructionary legislature with an as yet to be defined “watchdog” chamber, to uphold the constitutional and budgetary requirements. The second chamber will have a right to a line item veto or simple rejection. One chamber represented by population, the other by geographic area. Party politics must be excluded from at least one chamber
7. Innocent until proven guilty, is a foundation of the legal system, and that any individual accused of crime will have a right to speedy trial, and there can be no detention without trial. It is disappearing under Westminster rule.
8. Guarantee of currency, Viable, stable currency. It can be enshrined, we will operate under the pound Scots, and we can link it wherever we choose or let it stand alone, but it will be our currency. In the first instance it can be linked to Sterling.
9. Nothing unfunded: Our people must know that our politicians will only do what our nation can afford; every policy or program will require having a funding source. In these days of computerisation this is relatively simple. Every proposed program, every manifesto pledge must have identified funding. This will stop the Westminster mess of “politics as usual”, with its dramatic overspend.
10. Term limits, no premier may stand for more than three consecutive terms, governments limited to 5 years? There must be a right of recall, power abuse would terminate terms of office. Term limits to treaties also.
11. You are the guardian of our freedoms: This is vital, we must all understand it if we are to forestall another 1707, with anyone. It should be ingrained in our children at primary school.
There are many things that the British state immersed in Whitehall doesn’t like. Failure, and the reason behind it are two of the main issues it has a problem with. It has a tendency to whitewash these items in historical terms. It has whitewashed a failed policy of clearances that cost it a continent.
July 4th is a good day to write this blog, for on this day in 1776 a wee event took place which had the roots of its success thirty years earlier, 16th April 1746, when Union forces defeated the Stewarts and their supporters on Drumossie moor at Culloden.
England, with her sprinkling of vested Scots supporters had won a war; they then began an occupation, oppression and a regime of tyranny, horror and clearances that would effectively depopulate much of the Highlands over the next two decades. Either unable to support “the crown”, unable to accept the reality of England’s over lordship, or simply unable to pay its taxes, our ancestors were forced from our shores.
What followed for those who escaped death was mostly indentured servitude in the New World. The vast majority ended up in the plantations of the Virginia’s and Carolinas. From 1750 to 1770 there was a massive influx of predominantly Gaelic speaking Scots.
The taxes followed them to the new world, they worked off their servitude, they raised families, they won land and a small amount of prosperity, but still the taxes followed them. The first big problem was the stamp act of 1765, it was necessary as the crown had much need of money. It had just undergone a civil war, it was almost bankrupt, and it had cleared 1/3 of its British land of those who created the wealth. Those perceived as creating the issue, those Highland rebels, were still reachable in the colonies and the crown did reach.
The stamp act led directly to the formation of a Continental Congress. There followed the Declaration of Independence and the start of a new nation who’s constitution was largely written along the lines of the Declaration of Arbroath.
The struggle started well for the colonist’s militia, at the Battle of Concord, they won. The reversals began with the British capture of New York City, Howe forced Washington to retreat at White-Plains, and Cornwallis harried him through New Jersey. Philadelphia was abandoned and the Continental Army was set to be reduced to a mere guerilla force of about 1,500 by year end.
The displaced highlanders of the Carolinas, spoiling for a tussle with the English were ready and more than willing, responding to the call to arms they added some men to Washington’s ranks as he took to the assault across the Delaware River at Christmas. These Gaelic speakers were responsible for preserving the flank of the Continental army by beating royalist and British forces working in alliance in both North Carolina and South Carolina. Guerilla fighting was second nature to these men and they took to it well once again.
The only delay to peace was King George recognising the rights of the colonists. In the centuries between then and now, this lack of recognition has continued to be a major factor supporting ongoing death e.g. India, Kenya, Indonesia and more. London recognising individual human rights to nationhood and self determination has always been a process of delay and deny and denigrate.
In the thirty years from 1746 to 1776 London effectively solidified control of an Island, first by subterfuge then through military means in the above period, it largely destroyed an ancient culture and in doing so it lost the wealth of a continent and became embroiled in European wars that it could not afford. The Dutch, Spanish and French came in to support the colonists. The colonists won with their help, but it almost bankrupted the French and created what became an underlying cause of that nation’s revolution.
In Scotland, peace was forced by an iron clad jackboot, there were forts at William and George to subdue any future problems, the expense to the London exchequer was enormous, and for little to no return. They swapped a continent for a land they had impoverished.
That was then, this is now.
Scotland has the opportunity to assert the rights our ancestors fought for, and won, in another continent and in another time.
Our future remains bright, if more than a little delayed, but a vital part of the promise of that future remains missing. Many of us remain uninspired, we are on the wrong side of the Delaware and our numbers are not presently sufficient to carry the day. We need re-enforcements that are inspired to march with us on this road, but we need the message to reach them.
Many have thought that a constitution is the answer, a new constitution. What we need is not a constitution but something more like America’s document. We don’t need ten thousand words of legalese that will inspire no one but its authors. We can’t do a formal declaration in our present circumstances.
What we can do is draft and enact provisional legislation. It only becomes effective if the referendum passes. It updates Scotland’s constitution, nothing else. It may even be legal to enact without a timeframe, which is for others to decide.
What we are missing is a rallying call, a promise; the American Declaration had “No taxation without representation”, with several other issues that folks saw worthy of sacrifice, the ultimate sacrifice if necessary. Scotland needs such a guiding document, a rallying declaration. We can create it, but Holyrood is the only entity that can credibly provide it. So far, Holyrood just doesn’t seem to have the will. And only Holyrood can show us that we will set our feet onto a better path.
This declaration must be short, the colonists managed it on one page, and it must hold the promise of what is to come with the guarantee that the details will be filled in by the community of the realm of Scots when the time comes. It must be a wholly citizen driven document and it must be democratically enacted. A child of ten must understand it, a child of seven must be able to repeat it. These are the ways we will win our nation back. These are the principles that can weld us together.
An example of such a document might simply revolve around the mnemonic “sovereignty” – it could as easily be encompassed by the letters of our nation “Scotland”.
Here is an example for “Sovereignty”, for without sovereignty, nothing else truly matters.
1. Sovereignty is individual: Every Scot is Sovereign and equal under the law. [1320]
2. Our collective will is paramount: We are a democracy, our collective will must be expressed (referendums).
3. Visual government, open and clear, “nae limits”. No Secrets acts, no FOI restrictions except in time of declared war, no behind the scenes lobbyists.
4. Expression and speech protected. These must be fundamental guarantees for all Scots.
5. Rights, human and basic, healthcare, food and shelter. There will be more detailed explanation of this, defined by others at some future time.
6. Equal chambers of government. Two chambers of government, both elected, a “construction” chamber and a “review” chamber. This can place Holyrood as the constructionary legislature with an as yet to be defined “watchdog” chamber, to uphold the constitutional and budgetary requirements. The second chamber will have a right to a line item veto or simple rejection. One chamber represented by population, the other by geographic area. Party politics must be excluded from at least one chamber
7. Innocent until proven guilty, is a foundation of the legal system, and that any individual accused of crime will have a right to speedy trial, and there can be no detention without trial. It is disappearing under Westminster rule.
8. Guarantee of currency, Viable, stable currency. It can be enshrined, we will operate under the pound Scots, and we can link it wherever we choose or let it stand alone, but it will be our currency. In the first instance it can be linked to Sterling.
9. Nothing unfunded: Our people must know that our politicians will only do what our nation can afford; every policy or program will require having a funding source. In these days of computerisation this is relatively simple. Every proposed program, every manifesto pledge must have identified funding. This will stop the Westminster mess of “politics as usual”, with its dramatic overspend.
10. Term limits, no premier may stand for more than three consecutive terms, governments limited to 5 years? There must be a right of recall, power abuse would terminate terms of office. Term limits to treaties also.
11. You are the guardian of our freedoms: This is vital, we must all understand it if we are to forestall another 1707, with anyone. It should be ingrained in our children at primary school.
Monday, 2 July 2012
A picture and a thousand words.
The better together, or “vote NO” campaign launched last week, one picture reverberated through the psyche. Lamont, Darling, Davidson and Rennie; all standing together, not one able to look at the other and all declaring, “Better Together”.
Time and
again, it appeared there were words missing from the frame. The omitted words
were obvious, justified, and so very self explanatory.
The liberty
has been taken of filling in the missing words, consider what each
representative of union stands for individually and collectively, arguably
there can be no more apt and fitting banner than that pictured above.
The
horsemen of the apocalypse, collectively that is what these individuals
represent for Scots, Scotland and Scottish nationhood, if they can fool us into
supporting them.
They are on
a recruiting drive.
Yes, in
this scenario Alistair Darling represents death, just as he did for much of the
UK’s viability when he was chancellor.
As
chancellor he should have allowed institutions to fail and supported the
individual saver. At the least there should have been new, stringent laws. Those
potential protections met their doom under his fiscal watch.
As
chancellor he should have ensured “too big to fail” did not exist in our
lexicon, as chancellor he should have reigned in the excess before the fatal
blows were delivered.
Alistair
Darling represents death, because if his cause emerges victorious it can signal
an end to Scottish aspirations for a generation, more cultural integration by
the BBC and media, a nail in the coffin of Scots individuality and sovereignty.
The parties
of the Union, like the horsemen of the apocalypse are focused on bringing
continued death and misery to Scots, they don’t care about our areas of social
deprivation, our unemployed, our industrial demise or our appalling health
statistics. If they did, these things would no longer exist in our potentially
prosperous land.
These
individuals don’t care that our children are deprived and that youth
unemployment soars faster than sales of cheap alcohol, they work for their
paymasters in the City of London.
These
individuals represent parties which are on record as stating that a
Conservative Westminster is preferable to a nationalist Holyrood, they are on
record as stating there could be a future need to bomb an independent Scotland,
and they are on record as fomenting dissent in our land to achieve their ends –
they would sooner create another Irish question with all that entails around
Scotland’s islands than see an independent land. They are on record as stating
that unemployment in the North is a price worth paying for prosperity in the
South.
Who outside
the south, in their right minds, could or would support such ideas. It
continues as the horsemen strip our wealth and strangle our green future
through unfair taxation, like grid connection tariffs, just another tax by yet
another name.
Think of what
these horsemen would have you support, individually and collectively. They
would have you support poverty, they would have you support unemployment, they
would have you support weapons of mass destruction; and they prefer any nuclear
apocalypse to be aimed at Scotland.
Think more
on what they ask, they demand that Scotland’s next generation is as bereft of
opportunity as our present, where 800,000, one in six of us had to leave our
homes or face a future as bleak as many of our ancestors knew. The clearances
continue today, we just don’t call them that anymore, the horsemen have deemed
that politically incorrect.
For three
centuries and more Scotland has seen our best and brightest flow from our land
through lack of opportunity, lack of hope, lack of promise, a lack of tomorrows.
Many would return.
We cannot
guarantee that turning our faces from the horsemen, refusing their empty words
and ignoring their hollow promises will lead us to a better tomorrow, but we
can promise our children and our grandchildren that we will give them, each and
every one, the opportunity to decide for themselves the kind of world they will
live in.
We can
promise them they will no longer have to suffer under the united yoke of the
horsemen as they seek to stabilize their extended kingdom. We can promise our
children that the future will be their own, it will be theirs to forge and not
another’s to dictate. We can promise an opportunity to achieve democracy.
That is the
gift we give our descendants by turning our backs on the horsemen.
Tuesday, 26 June 2012
Scotland’s referendum will be decided by the Banks.
International banking, the big investment houses and the global investment companies will be the ones to ultimately decide Scotland’s future path. Unless we, through political leadership, act now.
There are many scenarios, all pointing to only one of two possible outcomes in the 2014 referendum, a “YES” or a “NO”. While that sounds obvious what is not often spoken of in the “YES” camp is that the “NO” camp is presently winning. That and the fact that the “YES” camp isn’t making any significant inroads on even the soft “NO” vote.
This has much to do with the fact that the “NO” camp will not, cannot allow a Scotland only referendum, built in Scotland and funded in Scotland, because just like 1706 it needs the money and support of the City, her institutions and her bankers to secure victory. The “NO” camp will get that support, funnelled from the Union parties if needed, channelled by thousands of little donations if required, but it will get it.
This is the principle reason Independence support has wavered in Scotland over the last three decades, from less than 30% to almost 60%. Polls show the last five years of SNP administration has seen independence support at between 30% and 45%, but its static nature within that band does nothing to affirm the present Holyrood administration’s primary policy, rather it reflects the desires of Westminster, of its backers and its accomplices in Fleet Street.
Simply put, that level of support is not enough. Independence will remain just a dream.
Scotland runs a real risk of becoming not just bought and sold for English gold, but duped by it as well. The joke ultimately will be upon us however, as there isn’t any gold left these days.
Since the late 1990’s when support for Independence peaked there have been two Labour led coalitions in Holyrood, there have also been two substantial depressions with the dot com burst and the market collapse / credit crunch. It can be construed that the failure of promise, that lack of vitality at Holyrood during these first two administrations was a Union success; it soured the attitudes of many Scots towards the administration in Edinburgh.
We did however get what we collectively voted for, again with the above caveats of money and influence.
The depressions added little cause for optimism.
A major scare tactic used by the UK government and her proponents is the financial doom and gloom surrounding the bank bailouts related to the credit crunch. It has been repeated so loudly and so often that many believe it on some level. These people may not have swallowed the whole Union bile, but it is without doubt colouring their perspective. All the negativity the Union puts forwards about Scotland colours opinion.
Support for independence therefore waxes and wanes amongst the electorate at large, presently hovering just above that 1/3 of individuals who see themselves as Scots patriots and who’d vote “freedom” whatever the price. For the rest as they watch Europe’s woes, independence is a dying cause; they see Edinburgh tied to London as Greece is tied to Germany, dancing to her tune under the Euro. With Holyrood’s proposal that post independence we’ll be tied to Sterling and the Bank of England, the common perception can be no other way.
The Darling [Alistair] of the Union aptly playing the only card the Union has left. The solitary ace in the Union deck is Sterling. The Scots electorate are not stupid. As they watch Europe unfold its tale of woe in the Eurozone they can only wonder if this is the fate awaiting Scotland if we vote “YES”; subtly the response from our electorate veers towards “no thanks” to the Independence cause.
The Union has a strong positive case in this argument, if Scots leave there will be no return, but London says “you’ll be the Euro zone’s Greece to our Germany”. It is only a positive case on the surface because Scots are not getting all the facts, and it’s safe to say the facts will continue to be sparsely disseminated.
Scotland will have to use the Bank of England as a lender of last resort we’re told, but it’s often overlooked that we’re simply not likely to need such a lender. It’s rarely told that the Bank of England needs a lender of last resort; it’s the IMF. The very establishment the BoE called during the 1970’s. Westminster’s proponents ignore the fact that Greece was not only bailed by the EU, the IMF has many hands in that pot as well.
Many colonial nations and Ireland used the pound for a period after independence, the Bahamas and many other nations use the dollar, and they are not tied to US fiscal policy other than in the currency value. This would apply to Scotland in Sterling, yet the case made by Holyrood for this is muddy, it simply isn’t reaching the electorate at large. Average Scots are having difficulty getting past the media spin. They are able to reach through the message Westminster and the City wants us to hear, but can’t seem to decipher Holyrood’s code.
The administration in Holyrood need to make plain to all Scots that the tie-in to the pound would only last as long as it benefits Scots; that if and when the times comes where Sterling becomes no longer viable, we will be presented with alternative currency choices. This is a small and acceptable policy step for Holyrood, an intelligent step of a forward looking government while planting the seed that Sterling itself is none so secure a currency.
It is time to spike the Union guns. Time to destroy what should be their final argument.
If we are to stride with purpose towards the referendum and not stagger drunkenly towards oblivion of the type facing Greece, Spain or Portugal then these currency steps are necessary. These are steps we must take if we are to enlist the markets help, for the market will in many ways decide Scotland’s referendum. If the Unionists continue to control monetary policy and the Nationalists continue to promote it, essentially it’s “game over” for Independence for at least a generation. The referendum could be lost by as much as a 70/30 split. It may take the nationalist cause decades to recover.
The markets are crashing; worldwide they are in some type of subdued panic mode. Europe’s economies are moribund, stagnant, almost zombie like.
An independent Scotland must put herself in a legislative position of achieving anything from letting the banks liquidate, to securing the small savers, to bailing out the banks. Holyrood must propose that in a Sovereign Scotland the small saver will be secure; the banks will be liquidated as appropriate. Our government, all of us, we’ll simply guarantee deposits to a percentage of the annual median salary with any banking group. It’s far cheaper than bailing out the banks. It promotes multiple smaller banks and helps curb the “too big to fail” culture. Banking costs are driven down by competition. We can gain both diversity and vitality here.
The markets are crashing; there simply isn’t enough bail-out money to go around. The EU is struggling with Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and France. Meanwhile, Germany is being asked to underwrite these debtors, but is also staggering under the burdens already imposed by EU policies.
Credit ratings are being slashed across Europe; from banks to Sovereign nations, they’re consistently revised – down. Brussels recently legislated to basically ignore the agencies reviews, the EU might well do that, but the private investors won’t. The agencies and investors are multinational, they really don’t care what Brussels thinks, money is their law, and the pursuit of more is their god.
Still, the markets are starting to get very jittery, just last week they bought billions of Euro’s worth of Danish currency at a negative return. Essentially they loan Denmark ten billion Euros for three years, Denmark pays them back nine billion Euros and keeps a billion for the privilege of borrowing the money. The numbers may be slightly exaggerated, the principle is not.
The markets are doing this because they’re putting their money where their mouth is, that Denmark will decouple their currency from the Euro, and its relative value will rise, ultimately giving them a profit. Even if it doesn’t the cost to insure Euro based debt is now virtually guaranteeing investors a loss. Scotland can guarantee a profit from its currency and stimulate inward investment by similarly de-coupling from Sterling in time of need.
This brings us back to the UK, now the most indebted nation on earth by many standards. The last time UK-plc turned a significant profit it relied on Scottish oil, and Michael Foot was running against Margaret Thatcher. Since then it’s been a nation living of the never-never. Eventually there comes a day of reckoning, and that day is almost upon us. Scotland was in the black as recently as our first ministers’ last administration. We may still be in the black if we had accurate accountings, for GERS does not give the whole story.
The question for Scots of an independent mind is weather the crash in the pound Sterling will come before or after the referendum. It will be close in historical terms either way. The question for Holyrood is will they have a “Plan B” or is there such a dramatic lack of foresight on the part of all concerned in Edinburgh that they will simply wallow in the subsequent mire.
Alex Salmond must make clear that the pound Scots will be an independent currency if the need arises, the markets must also be aware of that. Stating that this is simply a clarification of policy is easily achieved, it’s an independent currency tied to the pound Sterling. Sterling will be accepted in Scotland as the pound Scots should be south of the border. Note – should be, as little is expected to change there.
When the markets remove their funding from UK debt, when the collapse comes, if it’s before the referendum there can be a plan “ready for implementation”, but dependent upon a “YES” vote. Who would wish to stay with Sterling in a tailspin of devaluation against a stronger “pound” Scots.
If it’s after the referendum, after a “YES” then Holyrood can tie the Scots pound to the dollar, the Euro or any other tradable currency it chooses. A true Scots government could even elect to make it an independently tradable currency of its own. Again we Scots have options; the back door remains wide open. Only a fool or foolish government cuts off lines of escape.
By re-adopting the pound Scots, whose notes we are familiar with, whose coins already line our pockets, the politicians in Edinburgh will be following their goal of minimal perceived upheaval while achieving the much more valuable prize of getting Scots pounds back onto the international markets. The pound Scots will be right alongside all other nations’ currencies, ready for that decoupling in case of need.
When the butcher’s bill becomes due for Sterling’s decades of excess on the good graces of the world and her markets, it is the markets who will dictate where their money flows. It will flow away from Sterling, from London and from “The City”. Scotland can either be tied to the UK and suffer the ignominy of a position like that of Greece, where even medications for hospitals are unavailable, or she can be in a position to free herself from Sterling and stimulate investment.
In the run up to the referendum the markets will likely push for and fund a campaign for the retention of an integrated UK, it’s what they know, and investors hate uncertainty or upheaval. After the referendum if the markets get their way, as is likely, for money is often what makes the world go around, the chance is strong indeed that they will rue the decisions made. It will be the old case of “be careful what you wish for”.
As for the average swing voter on the independence issue, polls indicate that much will be decided on the value and type of currency in their pocket, and that value is something the markets will also dictate.
They always have done.
It’s simply up to us Scots to give the markets a few options and some sensible direction. We can either let the banker’s money, fundamentally our own money, hoodwink us. Alternatively we can put forward monetary policies that will get Scots excited, policies to make them vote “YES”, for without them the Union and her bankers will win, the only real question will be “by how much?”.
There are many scenarios, all pointing to only one of two possible outcomes in the 2014 referendum, a “YES” or a “NO”. While that sounds obvious what is not often spoken of in the “YES” camp is that the “NO” camp is presently winning. That and the fact that the “YES” camp isn’t making any significant inroads on even the soft “NO” vote.
This has much to do with the fact that the “NO” camp will not, cannot allow a Scotland only referendum, built in Scotland and funded in Scotland, because just like 1706 it needs the money and support of the City, her institutions and her bankers to secure victory. The “NO” camp will get that support, funnelled from the Union parties if needed, channelled by thousands of little donations if required, but it will get it.
This is the principle reason Independence support has wavered in Scotland over the last three decades, from less than 30% to almost 60%. Polls show the last five years of SNP administration has seen independence support at between 30% and 45%, but its static nature within that band does nothing to affirm the present Holyrood administration’s primary policy, rather it reflects the desires of Westminster, of its backers and its accomplices in Fleet Street.
Simply put, that level of support is not enough. Independence will remain just a dream.
Scotland runs a real risk of becoming not just bought and sold for English gold, but duped by it as well. The joke ultimately will be upon us however, as there isn’t any gold left these days.
Since the late 1990’s when support for Independence peaked there have been two Labour led coalitions in Holyrood, there have also been two substantial depressions with the dot com burst and the market collapse / credit crunch. It can be construed that the failure of promise, that lack of vitality at Holyrood during these first two administrations was a Union success; it soured the attitudes of many Scots towards the administration in Edinburgh.
We did however get what we collectively voted for, again with the above caveats of money and influence.
The depressions added little cause for optimism.
A major scare tactic used by the UK government and her proponents is the financial doom and gloom surrounding the bank bailouts related to the credit crunch. It has been repeated so loudly and so often that many believe it on some level. These people may not have swallowed the whole Union bile, but it is without doubt colouring their perspective. All the negativity the Union puts forwards about Scotland colours opinion.
Support for independence therefore waxes and wanes amongst the electorate at large, presently hovering just above that 1/3 of individuals who see themselves as Scots patriots and who’d vote “freedom” whatever the price. For the rest as they watch Europe’s woes, independence is a dying cause; they see Edinburgh tied to London as Greece is tied to Germany, dancing to her tune under the Euro. With Holyrood’s proposal that post independence we’ll be tied to Sterling and the Bank of England, the common perception can be no other way.
The Darling [Alistair] of the Union aptly playing the only card the Union has left. The solitary ace in the Union deck is Sterling. The Scots electorate are not stupid. As they watch Europe unfold its tale of woe in the Eurozone they can only wonder if this is the fate awaiting Scotland if we vote “YES”; subtly the response from our electorate veers towards “no thanks” to the Independence cause.
The Union has a strong positive case in this argument, if Scots leave there will be no return, but London says “you’ll be the Euro zone’s Greece to our Germany”. It is only a positive case on the surface because Scots are not getting all the facts, and it’s safe to say the facts will continue to be sparsely disseminated.
Scotland will have to use the Bank of England as a lender of last resort we’re told, but it’s often overlooked that we’re simply not likely to need such a lender. It’s rarely told that the Bank of England needs a lender of last resort; it’s the IMF. The very establishment the BoE called during the 1970’s. Westminster’s proponents ignore the fact that Greece was not only bailed by the EU, the IMF has many hands in that pot as well.
Many colonial nations and Ireland used the pound for a period after independence, the Bahamas and many other nations use the dollar, and they are not tied to US fiscal policy other than in the currency value. This would apply to Scotland in Sterling, yet the case made by Holyrood for this is muddy, it simply isn’t reaching the electorate at large. Average Scots are having difficulty getting past the media spin. They are able to reach through the message Westminster and the City wants us to hear, but can’t seem to decipher Holyrood’s code.
The administration in Holyrood need to make plain to all Scots that the tie-in to the pound would only last as long as it benefits Scots; that if and when the times comes where Sterling becomes no longer viable, we will be presented with alternative currency choices. This is a small and acceptable policy step for Holyrood, an intelligent step of a forward looking government while planting the seed that Sterling itself is none so secure a currency.
It is time to spike the Union guns. Time to destroy what should be their final argument.
If we are to stride with purpose towards the referendum and not stagger drunkenly towards oblivion of the type facing Greece, Spain or Portugal then these currency steps are necessary. These are steps we must take if we are to enlist the markets help, for the market will in many ways decide Scotland’s referendum. If the Unionists continue to control monetary policy and the Nationalists continue to promote it, essentially it’s “game over” for Independence for at least a generation. The referendum could be lost by as much as a 70/30 split. It may take the nationalist cause decades to recover.
The markets are crashing; worldwide they are in some type of subdued panic mode. Europe’s economies are moribund, stagnant, almost zombie like.
An independent Scotland must put herself in a legislative position of achieving anything from letting the banks liquidate, to securing the small savers, to bailing out the banks. Holyrood must propose that in a Sovereign Scotland the small saver will be secure; the banks will be liquidated as appropriate. Our government, all of us, we’ll simply guarantee deposits to a percentage of the annual median salary with any banking group. It’s far cheaper than bailing out the banks. It promotes multiple smaller banks and helps curb the “too big to fail” culture. Banking costs are driven down by competition. We can gain both diversity and vitality here.
The markets are crashing; there simply isn’t enough bail-out money to go around. The EU is struggling with Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and France. Meanwhile, Germany is being asked to underwrite these debtors, but is also staggering under the burdens already imposed by EU policies.
Credit ratings are being slashed across Europe; from banks to Sovereign nations, they’re consistently revised – down. Brussels recently legislated to basically ignore the agencies reviews, the EU might well do that, but the private investors won’t. The agencies and investors are multinational, they really don’t care what Brussels thinks, money is their law, and the pursuit of more is their god.
Still, the markets are starting to get very jittery, just last week they bought billions of Euro’s worth of Danish currency at a negative return. Essentially they loan Denmark ten billion Euros for three years, Denmark pays them back nine billion Euros and keeps a billion for the privilege of borrowing the money. The numbers may be slightly exaggerated, the principle is not.
The markets are doing this because they’re putting their money where their mouth is, that Denmark will decouple their currency from the Euro, and its relative value will rise, ultimately giving them a profit. Even if it doesn’t the cost to insure Euro based debt is now virtually guaranteeing investors a loss. Scotland can guarantee a profit from its currency and stimulate inward investment by similarly de-coupling from Sterling in time of need.
This brings us back to the UK, now the most indebted nation on earth by many standards. The last time UK-plc turned a significant profit it relied on Scottish oil, and Michael Foot was running against Margaret Thatcher. Since then it’s been a nation living of the never-never. Eventually there comes a day of reckoning, and that day is almost upon us. Scotland was in the black as recently as our first ministers’ last administration. We may still be in the black if we had accurate accountings, for GERS does not give the whole story.
The question for Scots of an independent mind is weather the crash in the pound Sterling will come before or after the referendum. It will be close in historical terms either way. The question for Holyrood is will they have a “Plan B” or is there such a dramatic lack of foresight on the part of all concerned in Edinburgh that they will simply wallow in the subsequent mire.
Alex Salmond must make clear that the pound Scots will be an independent currency if the need arises, the markets must also be aware of that. Stating that this is simply a clarification of policy is easily achieved, it’s an independent currency tied to the pound Sterling. Sterling will be accepted in Scotland as the pound Scots should be south of the border. Note – should be, as little is expected to change there.
When the markets remove their funding from UK debt, when the collapse comes, if it’s before the referendum there can be a plan “ready for implementation”, but dependent upon a “YES” vote. Who would wish to stay with Sterling in a tailspin of devaluation against a stronger “pound” Scots.
If it’s after the referendum, after a “YES” then Holyrood can tie the Scots pound to the dollar, the Euro or any other tradable currency it chooses. A true Scots government could even elect to make it an independently tradable currency of its own. Again we Scots have options; the back door remains wide open. Only a fool or foolish government cuts off lines of escape.
By re-adopting the pound Scots, whose notes we are familiar with, whose coins already line our pockets, the politicians in Edinburgh will be following their goal of minimal perceived upheaval while achieving the much more valuable prize of getting Scots pounds back onto the international markets. The pound Scots will be right alongside all other nations’ currencies, ready for that decoupling in case of need.
When the butcher’s bill becomes due for Sterling’s decades of excess on the good graces of the world and her markets, it is the markets who will dictate where their money flows. It will flow away from Sterling, from London and from “The City”. Scotland can either be tied to the UK and suffer the ignominy of a position like that of Greece, where even medications for hospitals are unavailable, or she can be in a position to free herself from Sterling and stimulate investment.
In the run up to the referendum the markets will likely push for and fund a campaign for the retention of an integrated UK, it’s what they know, and investors hate uncertainty or upheaval. After the referendum if the markets get their way, as is likely, for money is often what makes the world go around, the chance is strong indeed that they will rue the decisions made. It will be the old case of “be careful what you wish for”.
As for the average swing voter on the independence issue, polls indicate that much will be decided on the value and type of currency in their pocket, and that value is something the markets will also dictate.
They always have done.
It’s simply up to us Scots to give the markets a few options and some sensible direction. We can either let the banker’s money, fundamentally our own money, hoodwink us. Alternatively we can put forward monetary policies that will get Scots excited, policies to make them vote “YES”, for without them the Union and her bankers will win, the only real question will be “by how much?”.
Sunday, 24 June 2012
After independence Scotland needs a second chamber.
There have been too many scare stories, opinions, preferences and noises from all aspects of society to make anyone believe we don’t actually require a second house, although Holyrood’s political leaders are on record that one is not necessary.
Individuals, nationalist, unionist and those with no political opinion have all voiced concerns about the dominance of a single party. It seems to be fine at Westminster, or in France where Hollande’s socialists just swept all chambers, but not in Scotland. Odd that.
Perhaps the reality is that Scots are more finely tuned towards democracy, it’s an ages old tradition here. It wasn’t always effective but we used to have clan councils, clan heads, chiefs and others would get together and agree, our seven Ri, or sub kings, would elect our Ard-Ri, or high king. Our old parliament was constructed of three “estates”, all of whom had to be won to a cause. Arguably Scots had one of the best of old world democracies.
It is fair to make the argument that more than any other nation on earth democratic principle and individual sovereignty is in our heritage, our psyche, our blood.
What we don’t need in Scotland is two elected houses that operate in contradictory fashion, as the US often has with Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the house, this usually just ends in “horse trading” and more un-required money being spent on additional “bridges to nowhere”.
What we need in Scotland is a uniquely Scottish solution to our perceived issue. What we need is a second house which is funded by the taxpayer without requiring significant additional burdens to be borne by the taxpayer, better yet by reducing burdens we already have.
Proportionately we have somewhere around 150 “representatives” at Westminster, between commons and Lords. That’s approaching an all in bill, when they’re working for us 9-5 daily, of about £50 million a year for folk we “send south”. Simply transferring half that burden to a new second house of around 51 will create substantial savings of about 2/3 just by numbers alone, more when removing any need for a “London loading”.
How would a second house work, what would it do, and how would it interact at Holyrood are all excellent questions. Questions that are best answered individually over time, but suggestions might be that it would only review Holyrood’s proposed legislation for benefits to the Scottish people and affordability – is it properly costed or must other areas be reduced to accommodate the legislative proposals.
The second house might best work if it was remote from Holyrood, yet balanced with it geographically. Perhaps locating it in the old Highland capitol, Inverness might be an option. Placing it in a smaller building than Holyrood, perhaps a restoration or conversion of an existing historic site would be appropriate. If we choose this path and choose it well the budget could be small.
Meetings could be held in Inverness once each month; the principle office of each representative would be in their constituency.
These individuals could vote on the legislation by a simple majority, and it could be done either in Inverness or from their offices, all votes of each individual being subject to immediate publication. These individuals we elect could even be permitted to vote electronically – with today’s technology it would be simple. With the results public on such a small sample the opportunity for fraud would be almost nonexistent and if suspected could be quickly remedied.
It would also be important for the second house to be as devoid as possible of party politics. Only independents should sit there. The criteria for public campaign funding should be simple, comprehensive and elegant. Each candidate should have a set grant and be permitted no other funding. Private funding from any source to second house members, except perhaps from their pre-existing own business, should be illegal.
If our national leaders at Holyrood had the spirit to pass such legislation and enact such a second chamber it would stop much corruption in its tracks. It would advance cleanliness in Scottish politics by a considerable degree.
It would help arrest any potential of corruption, this second house, but it would also put the UK system to shame. It would be no toothless chamber, able to be ignored at whim, able to reform without a constitutional referendum. It would be a truly inclusive, geographically representational body for all Scots.
Orcadians would have five representatives, as would Glaswegians. There could be five more from the highlands, offset by another five from the borders. Each of our three largest cities could have five representatives. The Western Isles would have an equal voice to central Scotland. Such an inclusive chamber would go a substantial way to preventing or lessening feelings of disenfranchisement within our more remote communities.
Such an inclusive chamber could only serve to weld our nation together as one single polity. It will forever spike the Union guns about a situation in Scotland that might mirror the Irish, where some parts decided to found a new state allied and beholden to London.
It is time Holyrood started clarifying the choices that will be available to Scots after a yes vote. A second chamber should be a choice of all Scots, enhanced democracy and democratic safeguards are difficult for the establishment to argue against. But they will.
Holyrood, it’s up to you, you have the voice, the authority, the coverage to initiate and disseminate policies that will get us excited, make us enthused and weld a brave new path for a resurgent nation, or you can do nothing and watch the dreams sink in a sea of privilege and political correctness.
Individuals, nationalist, unionist and those with no political opinion have all voiced concerns about the dominance of a single party. It seems to be fine at Westminster, or in France where Hollande’s socialists just swept all chambers, but not in Scotland. Odd that.
Perhaps the reality is that Scots are more finely tuned towards democracy, it’s an ages old tradition here. It wasn’t always effective but we used to have clan councils, clan heads, chiefs and others would get together and agree, our seven Ri, or sub kings, would elect our Ard-Ri, or high king. Our old parliament was constructed of three “estates”, all of whom had to be won to a cause. Arguably Scots had one of the best of old world democracies.
It is fair to make the argument that more than any other nation on earth democratic principle and individual sovereignty is in our heritage, our psyche, our blood.
What we don’t need in Scotland is two elected houses that operate in contradictory fashion, as the US often has with Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the house, this usually just ends in “horse trading” and more un-required money being spent on additional “bridges to nowhere”.
What we need in Scotland is a uniquely Scottish solution to our perceived issue. What we need is a second house which is funded by the taxpayer without requiring significant additional burdens to be borne by the taxpayer, better yet by reducing burdens we already have.
Proportionately we have somewhere around 150 “representatives” at Westminster, between commons and Lords. That’s approaching an all in bill, when they’re working for us 9-5 daily, of about £50 million a year for folk we “send south”. Simply transferring half that burden to a new second house of around 51 will create substantial savings of about 2/3 just by numbers alone, more when removing any need for a “London loading”.
How would a second house work, what would it do, and how would it interact at Holyrood are all excellent questions. Questions that are best answered individually over time, but suggestions might be that it would only review Holyrood’s proposed legislation for benefits to the Scottish people and affordability – is it properly costed or must other areas be reduced to accommodate the legislative proposals.
The second house might best work if it was remote from Holyrood, yet balanced with it geographically. Perhaps locating it in the old Highland capitol, Inverness might be an option. Placing it in a smaller building than Holyrood, perhaps a restoration or conversion of an existing historic site would be appropriate. If we choose this path and choose it well the budget could be small.
Meetings could be held in Inverness once each month; the principle office of each representative would be in their constituency.
These individuals could vote on the legislation by a simple majority, and it could be done either in Inverness or from their offices, all votes of each individual being subject to immediate publication. These individuals we elect could even be permitted to vote electronically – with today’s technology it would be simple. With the results public on such a small sample the opportunity for fraud would be almost nonexistent and if suspected could be quickly remedied.
It would also be important for the second house to be as devoid as possible of party politics. Only independents should sit there. The criteria for public campaign funding should be simple, comprehensive and elegant. Each candidate should have a set grant and be permitted no other funding. Private funding from any source to second house members, except perhaps from their pre-existing own business, should be illegal.
If our national leaders at Holyrood had the spirit to pass such legislation and enact such a second chamber it would stop much corruption in its tracks. It would advance cleanliness in Scottish politics by a considerable degree.
It would help arrest any potential of corruption, this second house, but it would also put the UK system to shame. It would be no toothless chamber, able to be ignored at whim, able to reform without a constitutional referendum. It would be a truly inclusive, geographically representational body for all Scots.
Orcadians would have five representatives, as would Glaswegians. There could be five more from the highlands, offset by another five from the borders. Each of our three largest cities could have five representatives. The Western Isles would have an equal voice to central Scotland. Such an inclusive chamber would go a substantial way to preventing or lessening feelings of disenfranchisement within our more remote communities.
Such an inclusive chamber could only serve to weld our nation together as one single polity. It will forever spike the Union guns about a situation in Scotland that might mirror the Irish, where some parts decided to found a new state allied and beholden to London.
It is time Holyrood started clarifying the choices that will be available to Scots after a yes vote. A second chamber should be a choice of all Scots, enhanced democracy and democratic safeguards are difficult for the establishment to argue against. But they will.
Holyrood, it’s up to you, you have the voice, the authority, the coverage to initiate and disseminate policies that will get us excited, make us enthused and weld a brave new path for a resurgent nation, or you can do nothing and watch the dreams sink in a sea of privilege and political correctness.
Saturday, 16 June 2012
The six things Holyrood could promise to be certain we'll vote yes.
The issue at present- until Scots of a nationalist persuasion can reach into and beyond the ranks of the undecided, there remains a possibility of the referendum failing to achieve our desired result. Holyrood, the elected government of Scotland is a mirror of Scots society. The majority believe in more powers through to full sovereignty for all Scots, yet the debate drivers are focusing on entirely the wrong areas. Holyrood continues to debate on Westminster’s terms.
There’s no present indication of any change in tone or direction, the debate has been bogged down in minutiae, primarily driven by Unionist leaning politicians and an often fawning media with a London centric world view. It’s not a minutiae debate; it’s a full canvas big picture debate.
That Scots are hungry for change is without question, with more than 2/3 leaning towards either more powers or full independence. With such a healthy majority backing additional repatriation of sovereignty in some form then it should be a foregone conclusion that this will come to pass.
This conclusion has the potential of being stymied through Westminster intervention, where the range of options available to Scots will not reflect the wishes or aspirations of the nation.
Its worthwhile examining what, under a truly representative democracy, should be available to the Scots people. All variables and potentials should be on offer, and our polls would refine them as our nation sees fit. It may require multiple polls to accomplish this constitutional issue in a truly democratic society, for democracy itself is not a static issue.
Having resolved the parliament question in 1997, perhaps the next subject could simply be do we wish to continue with the status quo or do we wish more powers repatriated to Holyrood. In the unlikely event the nation votes for the status-quo the story ends until a popular up-surging through electoral returns or political agitation is indicated. If the populace votes for additional repatriation the debate continues.
Eventually we arrive at the level of self government we as a people select. That’s true democracy, that’s a fundamental right under the UN, but with London rule it will not be coming to a location near you anytime soon.
One issue that’s apparently taboo in Scotland’s mainstream media is just why anyone, not just Scots, is willing to meekly accept such disenfranchisement.
Given the absence of true democracy which is being forced upon us by Westminster, we must examine the limited choices available. Until a middle ground is defined and identified on the ballot, and all sides agree on the content of the middle ground then it must be removed from the equation. Today, although a denial of democracy, that middle ground is somewhere as likely as a significant lottery win.
Choices are therefore reduced to either the status quo or a fully sovereign parliament in Edinburgh.
There are potentially some 30% or more of Scots residents who’d fall into the undecided category, these are the devo-max supporters who must find another home, or simply stay home.
Present polling indicators on a two choice ballot are that slightly more of them may lean towards the status quo than sovereignty, perhaps by as much as 2:1. This speaks of a lack of compelling argument in favour of full sovereignty from the perspective of this significant section of the franchise. The ubiquitous Cybernat or other individual can’t address this; the leadership is required to come from Scotland’s parliament.
The challenge for Holyrood is how to sway this segment. In part Holyrood has gone some distance towards meeting that challenge with its consultation; it garnered some 20,000 plus responses.
The issue is that that number is still only around 0.3% of the population. Amongst the voting section of the population it’s somewhere around half that number. That is a woefully small percentage, less than 2 of every thousand of us, who felt this subject mattered enough to voice an opinion, although it still a magnitude better than managed by Westminster on a significantly larger base.
Scots simply aren’t moved to act, to devote time and resources necessary to the single question which would be the most important political event in their nation during the last three centuries, and few in the establishment are asking why. As this situation self evidently benefits Unionists, Nationalists must examine and respond to these fundamentals of self disenfranchisement.
To be certain of winning the referendum Holyrood must first beat voter apathy.
Everything surrounding the negative perspective appears to center around one thing, which is the “why bother” or “nothing much will change anyway” type of attitudes.
These attitudes strongly reflect the political reality of today’s Scotland, where we as a whole view politics and the political process with distrust.
It’s a system that is perpetuated by continual media scare stories and articles headlined “politician accused”. A constant stream of Westminster based scandals, Leveson, expenses, cash for honours, police corruption and sex for secrets also do nothing to inspire confidence in any elected official. Without confidence in those elected and appointed it is difficult for many to uncover the need or desire to express their right of franchise. It becomes exceedingly difficult to actually persuade them to make the effort to go and vote.
This lack of engagement, the problem with the upcoming referendum is that it is bogged down in minutiae. The media circus focus varies from the wording of the question to how many soldiers or ships a sovereign Scotland might have. Will we be £540 per year better off, or just £450, these are the detail distractions the media and Westminster are using to obfuscate, confuse and create apathy. The internet and message boards are infested with proponents of both sides doggedly arguing the hues without an apparent comprehension of the spectrum.
The referendum debate to date has been a triumph of obfuscation for London.
At day’s end these debates are simply that, they’re a distraction. The only predominant question Scots needs answered is “are we viable”, to which the widely acknowledged answer remains what it has always been, “yes”.
After that it’s simply a matter of choice as to the physical location of government and the specific political system Scots choose to select. In that perspective it is incredulous that five million voluntarily would allow fifty million neighbours to dictate to them, to dilute their franchise.
In 2014 there is opportunity for real democracy, a change the establishment in London is trying to prevent by using the micro debates false premises to create confusion, because as they themselves are well aware no government can solidly dictate future policy.
Quite simply, in a democracy if the electorate doesn’t like what the existing government is doing, they throw them out during the next electoral cycle and put in an elected leadership they prefer, usually with different policies. Sometimes this even happens at UK level, though the policies rarely change there.
The real issue about the upcoming poll is missing, and that’s the aspect of constitutional change.
The constitution when updated and enacted in Scotland should remain constant irrespective of individual government policies unless the people vote for subsequent constitutional change. This is unlike the present scenario whereby true democracy is being treated like the plague by almost all parties concerned with driving the upcoming poll.
Under the present Holyrood limitations, barring line item specific declarations of UDI by Holyrood against the “reserved powers” issues, there’s not much that can be implemented until after a positive referendum result. It can still be planned for however.
It is beyond time for Holyrood to unveil the big picture plans.
Various parties, individuals and organisations have looked into, even drafted an updated constitution for Scotland. These could be put forward for consideration after the referendum. Representatives should be placed on a panel that is assembled like Iceland’s was – people driven. Then the final document should be voted in, or rejected for amendment. Once adopted it should have constitutional hurdles to prevent needless tinkering. This should be one facet of the new Scotland we will vote upon in 2014.
Holyrood also appears to give little consideration to the fact that Scotland is a completely diverse country. We have mountains and lowland’s, we have moors and farmland, industry and agriculture, with cities, towns, villages all the way through small crofting and fishing communities to lonely dwellings in the glens. All need a voice.
Perhaps a second chamber of government is appropriate, although Holyrood at present thinks not.
The Westminster MP’s will cease to exist for us, that funding could mean each of Scotland’s regions given a vote with identical membership on this second house, a requirement being no party affiliation. Independents would give people politics, not party politics to that legislative area.
Highland could have ten members, as could Strathclyde. There would be a balance on the political representation of our communities. This is a subject that has a potential to excite many, especially if all politicians salaries and packages were tied to a percentage of the average wage.
This second house would not initiate laws, but could reject and amend proposals. The better the nation is managed, the better the nation performs, the better our politicians are rewarded. Ask the people and we will answer. We will tell you that promoting economically sound and sustainable policy is what we want.
Scots need to know that parliaments are not “just au’ the same”, that ours will be different. We need to know that all primary election promises must be funded, and that the parties making them must publish the details and timeframes before the election, then hold to the promises that are made or face a recall. Scots need to know that issues like the Liberal Democrats signed and discarded pledges will not be allowed to happen here. We will happily enshrine these principles.
When it comes to Europe we must be asked, the choice must be ours. The promise of such an expansion of democracy after the referendum will win many to the cause Holyrood is promoting. There also must be policies to make certain that if our best intentions result in a mistake today; our children are not bound by our revealed stupidity. All treaties entered into by our nation that deal with future issues of sovereignty must have sunset clauses, clauses which do not prevent popular reaffirmation. Our children must be ensured the freedom of choice that has for so long been denied to us.
We know that the Euro is threatened; we know that the pound has been inflation prone for almost three quarters of a century, and that the Bank of England is a serial de-valuer with a record stretching back even longer than that. Neither Brussels nor London has been proven capable of effective money management. With these facts self evident Scots need options for a plebiscite on currency under a sovereign Holyrood. It is not necessary to supply details at present, simply the timeframe under which we will be polled.
On the subject of Money, we need to know our land will never be in thrall to the bankers, usury agencies and financiers who are increasingly running our world. We need to know that we will continually balance our budget and that in cases where borrowing is called for beyond a certain minimal limit, we must approve it. That is a democracy I would vote for, that is a democracy which will be worth fighting for.
Six simple enhancements of democracy, give us a constitution we ourselves develop. Mandate an independent second house as a check and balance, make political promises real, make them funded and binding. If we can do this and add the choices on Europe, our monetary system and our nations finances to be all driven by the electorate we would have a system worthy of acclaim, a system worth implementing, a system that will never happen in Westminster’s corrupt halls. There is only one location Scots can ensure such a system.
Give me this and you will inspire me, give us this and you can inspire a nation, for the debate is not about the minutiae, it’s not about Unionist V Nationalist, it’s quite simply about the potential of democracy from Edinburgh against dictatorship from London.
Holyrood, show me you are aware of this divide in the debate, show me you know it’s about something far, far larger than the petty squabbles we presently hear, show me you know and understand the bigger picture.
Edinburgh, make me this promise and win not only my interest, win my vote. Grab not only the imagination of Scots, but behold a world astounded.
There’s no present indication of any change in tone or direction, the debate has been bogged down in minutiae, primarily driven by Unionist leaning politicians and an often fawning media with a London centric world view. It’s not a minutiae debate; it’s a full canvas big picture debate.
That Scots are hungry for change is without question, with more than 2/3 leaning towards either more powers or full independence. With such a healthy majority backing additional repatriation of sovereignty in some form then it should be a foregone conclusion that this will come to pass.
This conclusion has the potential of being stymied through Westminster intervention, where the range of options available to Scots will not reflect the wishes or aspirations of the nation.
Its worthwhile examining what, under a truly representative democracy, should be available to the Scots people. All variables and potentials should be on offer, and our polls would refine them as our nation sees fit. It may require multiple polls to accomplish this constitutional issue in a truly democratic society, for democracy itself is not a static issue.
Having resolved the parliament question in 1997, perhaps the next subject could simply be do we wish to continue with the status quo or do we wish more powers repatriated to Holyrood. In the unlikely event the nation votes for the status-quo the story ends until a popular up-surging through electoral returns or political agitation is indicated. If the populace votes for additional repatriation the debate continues.
Eventually we arrive at the level of self government we as a people select. That’s true democracy, that’s a fundamental right under the UN, but with London rule it will not be coming to a location near you anytime soon.
One issue that’s apparently taboo in Scotland’s mainstream media is just why anyone, not just Scots, is willing to meekly accept such disenfranchisement.
Given the absence of true democracy which is being forced upon us by Westminster, we must examine the limited choices available. Until a middle ground is defined and identified on the ballot, and all sides agree on the content of the middle ground then it must be removed from the equation. Today, although a denial of democracy, that middle ground is somewhere as likely as a significant lottery win.
Choices are therefore reduced to either the status quo or a fully sovereign parliament in Edinburgh.
There are potentially some 30% or more of Scots residents who’d fall into the undecided category, these are the devo-max supporters who must find another home, or simply stay home.
Present polling indicators on a two choice ballot are that slightly more of them may lean towards the status quo than sovereignty, perhaps by as much as 2:1. This speaks of a lack of compelling argument in favour of full sovereignty from the perspective of this significant section of the franchise. The ubiquitous Cybernat or other individual can’t address this; the leadership is required to come from Scotland’s parliament.
The challenge for Holyrood is how to sway this segment. In part Holyrood has gone some distance towards meeting that challenge with its consultation; it garnered some 20,000 plus responses.
The issue is that that number is still only around 0.3% of the population. Amongst the voting section of the population it’s somewhere around half that number. That is a woefully small percentage, less than 2 of every thousand of us, who felt this subject mattered enough to voice an opinion, although it still a magnitude better than managed by Westminster on a significantly larger base.
Scots simply aren’t moved to act, to devote time and resources necessary to the single question which would be the most important political event in their nation during the last three centuries, and few in the establishment are asking why. As this situation self evidently benefits Unionists, Nationalists must examine and respond to these fundamentals of self disenfranchisement.
To be certain of winning the referendum Holyrood must first beat voter apathy.
Everything surrounding the negative perspective appears to center around one thing, which is the “why bother” or “nothing much will change anyway” type of attitudes.
These attitudes strongly reflect the political reality of today’s Scotland, where we as a whole view politics and the political process with distrust.
It’s a system that is perpetuated by continual media scare stories and articles headlined “politician accused”. A constant stream of Westminster based scandals, Leveson, expenses, cash for honours, police corruption and sex for secrets also do nothing to inspire confidence in any elected official. Without confidence in those elected and appointed it is difficult for many to uncover the need or desire to express their right of franchise. It becomes exceedingly difficult to actually persuade them to make the effort to go and vote.
This lack of engagement, the problem with the upcoming referendum is that it is bogged down in minutiae. The media circus focus varies from the wording of the question to how many soldiers or ships a sovereign Scotland might have. Will we be £540 per year better off, or just £450, these are the detail distractions the media and Westminster are using to obfuscate, confuse and create apathy. The internet and message boards are infested with proponents of both sides doggedly arguing the hues without an apparent comprehension of the spectrum.
The referendum debate to date has been a triumph of obfuscation for London.
At day’s end these debates are simply that, they’re a distraction. The only predominant question Scots needs answered is “are we viable”, to which the widely acknowledged answer remains what it has always been, “yes”.
After that it’s simply a matter of choice as to the physical location of government and the specific political system Scots choose to select. In that perspective it is incredulous that five million voluntarily would allow fifty million neighbours to dictate to them, to dilute their franchise.
In 2014 there is opportunity for real democracy, a change the establishment in London is trying to prevent by using the micro debates false premises to create confusion, because as they themselves are well aware no government can solidly dictate future policy.
Quite simply, in a democracy if the electorate doesn’t like what the existing government is doing, they throw them out during the next electoral cycle and put in an elected leadership they prefer, usually with different policies. Sometimes this even happens at UK level, though the policies rarely change there.
The real issue about the upcoming poll is missing, and that’s the aspect of constitutional change.
The constitution when updated and enacted in Scotland should remain constant irrespective of individual government policies unless the people vote for subsequent constitutional change. This is unlike the present scenario whereby true democracy is being treated like the plague by almost all parties concerned with driving the upcoming poll.
Under the present Holyrood limitations, barring line item specific declarations of UDI by Holyrood against the “reserved powers” issues, there’s not much that can be implemented until after a positive referendum result. It can still be planned for however.
It is beyond time for Holyrood to unveil the big picture plans.
Various parties, individuals and organisations have looked into, even drafted an updated constitution for Scotland. These could be put forward for consideration after the referendum. Representatives should be placed on a panel that is assembled like Iceland’s was – people driven. Then the final document should be voted in, or rejected for amendment. Once adopted it should have constitutional hurdles to prevent needless tinkering. This should be one facet of the new Scotland we will vote upon in 2014.
Holyrood also appears to give little consideration to the fact that Scotland is a completely diverse country. We have mountains and lowland’s, we have moors and farmland, industry and agriculture, with cities, towns, villages all the way through small crofting and fishing communities to lonely dwellings in the glens. All need a voice.
Perhaps a second chamber of government is appropriate, although Holyrood at present thinks not.
The Westminster MP’s will cease to exist for us, that funding could mean each of Scotland’s regions given a vote with identical membership on this second house, a requirement being no party affiliation. Independents would give people politics, not party politics to that legislative area.
Highland could have ten members, as could Strathclyde. There would be a balance on the political representation of our communities. This is a subject that has a potential to excite many, especially if all politicians salaries and packages were tied to a percentage of the average wage.
This second house would not initiate laws, but could reject and amend proposals. The better the nation is managed, the better the nation performs, the better our politicians are rewarded. Ask the people and we will answer. We will tell you that promoting economically sound and sustainable policy is what we want.
Scots need to know that parliaments are not “just au’ the same”, that ours will be different. We need to know that all primary election promises must be funded, and that the parties making them must publish the details and timeframes before the election, then hold to the promises that are made or face a recall. Scots need to know that issues like the Liberal Democrats signed and discarded pledges will not be allowed to happen here. We will happily enshrine these principles.
When it comes to Europe we must be asked, the choice must be ours. The promise of such an expansion of democracy after the referendum will win many to the cause Holyrood is promoting. There also must be policies to make certain that if our best intentions result in a mistake today; our children are not bound by our revealed stupidity. All treaties entered into by our nation that deal with future issues of sovereignty must have sunset clauses, clauses which do not prevent popular reaffirmation. Our children must be ensured the freedom of choice that has for so long been denied to us.
We know that the Euro is threatened; we know that the pound has been inflation prone for almost three quarters of a century, and that the Bank of England is a serial de-valuer with a record stretching back even longer than that. Neither Brussels nor London has been proven capable of effective money management. With these facts self evident Scots need options for a plebiscite on currency under a sovereign Holyrood. It is not necessary to supply details at present, simply the timeframe under which we will be polled.
On the subject of Money, we need to know our land will never be in thrall to the bankers, usury agencies and financiers who are increasingly running our world. We need to know that we will continually balance our budget and that in cases where borrowing is called for beyond a certain minimal limit, we must approve it. That is a democracy I would vote for, that is a democracy which will be worth fighting for.
Six simple enhancements of democracy, give us a constitution we ourselves develop. Mandate an independent second house as a check and balance, make political promises real, make them funded and binding. If we can do this and add the choices on Europe, our monetary system and our nations finances to be all driven by the electorate we would have a system worthy of acclaim, a system worth implementing, a system that will never happen in Westminster’s corrupt halls. There is only one location Scots can ensure such a system.
Give me this and you will inspire me, give us this and you can inspire a nation, for the debate is not about the minutiae, it’s not about Unionist V Nationalist, it’s quite simply about the potential of democracy from Edinburgh against dictatorship from London.
Holyrood, show me you are aware of this divide in the debate, show me you know it’s about something far, far larger than the petty squabbles we presently hear, show me you know and understand the bigger picture.
Edinburgh, make me this promise and win not only my interest, win my vote. Grab not only the imagination of Scots, but behold a world astounded.
Thursday, 14 June 2012
Europe’s Scotland, Scotland’s Europe; both can be defined by Scots leadership.
Today Scotland isn’t even worthy of consideration on the European stage. Scotland and her resources are administered by Westminster. London is who Brussels deals with and in practical terms rarely a thought is given otherwise. Scotland at present effectively has no voice in Europe. The interests of Scots are subordinated to general UK policy. This is Scotland’s Europe, 2012.
Scotland’s MEPs are mostly faceless amid myriad others, key committee roles and policies from fisheries and farming to oil remain decided by Westminster.
In 2012 Scotland has no opportunity for leadership in Europe, but she is full of promise.
Against this background the next half decade is fluid, dynamic and potentially vibrant, at least for Scots, should we choose. We can also lead Europe to a new path.
Europe is changing because Europe must. Most of us pay little regard to the backdrop of the EU and Eurozone crisis, it’s a news item, but not that significant as we deal with the turmoil of our daily lives and more personal crises.
The Europe we know is changing, and it’s changing quickly. Many are seeing it as Germany’s Europe, where the mid European powerhouse economy dictates to the rest of the EU, primarily through its financial support of the Eurozone. Germany is laying down the law, dictating social structure, welfare and benefits, her tentacles are seeping into every aspect of EU life as conditions of perpetual bailouts.
This perception of Germany is a myth based in reality. The Germans are certainly underwriting the EZ, but only because that’s what the EZ governments, these popular “democracies” desire. We the citizens demand benefits and safety nets, policies and welfare to elect our politicians, so our politicians promise them, even in the knowledge that our nations can’t afford them. Then our politicians turn to the German backed institutions of the EU or the global IMF for funding.
This is essentially underwritten by the parasitic banking system, where private banks are licensed to create money and lend it to us so that we have to pay interest on the money they create.
We have lived with this snake eating its tail since William Patterson first convinced William of Orange this was a good idea. With the concept that money and wealth can be “created” by private banking companies and not as a product of the work of the people there would always be a day of reckoning, and that day for Europe is now dawning.
Europe is now in a situation that will play out largely in a timeline with Scots independence, barring an accelerated disaster with Spain, Italy, Ireland or Portugal. The two, the EU and Scots sovereignty are interrelated and intertwined on a multitude of levels. Both scenarios are about money, power and the politics of fear.
It was the politics of fear that had the Irish confirm the latest EU treaty, it will be the politics of fear that will have the Greeks vote for an EU supporting party this weekend. Of course there could be an unlikely result where the Greeks vote to restore their sovereignty and steal Scotland’s thunder. Don’t expect such a result in Greece; the entire EU machine has directed its broadside of impending doom at Greece in recent months. Present indicators are that the Greeks will buckle.
The Greeks will join the other countries of the EZ who are now bailing each other out – it’s portrayed as neighbours helping neighbours. The problem is there’s only one truly strong neighbour, Germany, with the others all in varying degrees of onerous debt. We’re now seeing Spain’s banks being bailed out, Ireland has to use some of its bailout funds to help Spain – or it can try to borrow more. Italy is on the hook for almost 20B Euro’s as part of Spain’s banking package, and it has to borrow that money at 5% to lend it to Spain at 3%. That’s the EU rules. For those who noticed, Spain’s bailout euphoria only lasted a few hours this time. The banks and “investors” are always demanding more, and with governments in debt to them they are rarely told “no”, and then it’s often just for appearances sake with decisions quickly, quietly reversed.
This Spanish bailout is a good example, it means Italy who the markets are already avoiding, will have to find 2% of 20b each year to finance Spain, that’s 400 million Euro’s a year the Italian taxpayer has to eat, on top of financing their own debt and paying into the EU. The Italian taxpayer, like the Greek and Spanish are beginning to have second thoughts. Confidence in the EU and Euro is dropping and the drop can be expected to gain momentum. The UK is a microcosm of the EU.
Contrast this with Iceland’s experience; it dumped the debt on the bankers rather than the public purse. Iceland had two rough years but is now well on its way to sustained recovery. The markets are not avoiding Iceland. Iceland also held the bankers criminally to account.
The EZ and the UK by contrast has an overall negative debt ratio, a negative balance of payments and an overall contracting economy.
The EU, particularly the Eurozone, as it presently exists is lacking a single overall positive indicator which says the recession/depression will even have a potential of terminating. The politicians of the EU and the UK are using wealth that has only one foundation in reality, the future penury of the individual through onerous taxation. Our premiers and politicians are enriching a privileged few as they perpetuate an ideology of a United States of Europe.
This United States of Europe is simply a project that most of those involved with can’t afford to see fail, for with its failure goes their credibility, careers and backers profits.
The single prop still holding up the EU is the one leg of a four legged stool, when the economic foundation is eroded, the natural wealth denuded and mortgaged, national assets stripped and sold or privatised all that remains is taxing the futures of the average citizen. The average citizen can only be taxed so far, have so much of their future mortgaged before social unrest commences. It’s that burden which has led to revolution, to upheaval, and to demands for only taxation with representation in the past.
Europe is about to undergo such a period. Scotland will also undergo such a simultaneous change, both are now predetermined. What is not set is Scotland’s path, it can be the opposite of Europe and the UK should her people choose, or it can mirror the impacts of the larger area. Everything is dependent upon whether Scotland’s course is within or outwith the UK. Indicators state that charting our own path will mean travelling in much calmer waters.
We can expect the Euro to collapse during the period of Scotland’s march to self determination, we can also expect the pound to lose approximatetely 20% to 50% of its value over the same 2012 – 2017 period; both relative collapses have already started. Both Europe and the UK are suffering from the same malaise.
The revolution within the EU will likely be peaceful for the most part, like the revolution that created the Euro. A two tier EU will emerge, with the EZ being reduced to a block largely consisting of the original EEC members, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Holland and Luxembourg. Italy, from a market perspective is ailing and questionable, but the potential for a viable reduced EZ certainly still appears to be present amongst the group. The EZ has a potential to retrench, reorganize and expand, but it has a relatively small window of opportunity.
Scotland within the UK is in the same position.
The scenario we can expect to develop as Scotland elects to once again to beat her own drum, putting her own needs forward within the international community instead of relying upon London using her “proxy” vote, all too often left in the envelope, is one of hope for other small EU nations.
We can anticipate the EU/Eurozone very reluctantly reducing to a more stable trading community with a substantial recovery of national sovereignty. A sovereign Scotland will help the retrenchment; it will enhance the viability and reduce the social unrest. Scotland will be able to demonstrate to Europe that smaller nations can repatriate sovereignty and recreate the levers of economic success without destructive revolution and terminal social decline.
This is the base scenario of what we can consider to be Europe’s Scotland in 2017 and beyond. Europe will be a continent struggling through the aftereffects of abysmal policy by Brussels and resurrecting national sovereignty on a nation by nation basis. The electorates will demand it.
A newly independent Scotland will be undergoing a similar, but peaceful upheaval as she finally stumbles towards prosperity in her own right, prosperity now delayed some three centuries.
That our future Scotland will be part of the new European framework in some fashion is without question. That she will be there on her own fair, democratically decided terms is also without question, for Scots have what Europe needs. It is those very needs that for good or ill will make Scotland a focus, a beacon.
Scotland has more than 40% of the EU fossil fuel reserves, our coal supplies are relatively untapped, and we have between 10% and 40% of the EU’s renewable energy potential by industry, with less than 2% of her population. Scotland can also be a net exporter of water and food to the remainder of the EU; we have an abundance of both. Scots stand poised for a boom of potentially unprecedented proportions.
As this decade of radical change draws down, Europe’s Scotland can be developing into Continental Europe’s powerhouse, it can be helping fill Europe’s breadbaskets, it can be culturally enhancing our fellow nations within the EU to a considerable degree.
Most importantly, the dissolution of the UK that can be engineered by the Scots in 2014, in peace, in friendship and with amity can shine a light for the rest of the peoples of the EU. We can show them that “stronger together” is a great ideal when nations remove trading barriers, but also that sovereignty reclaimed is democracy enhanced and the individual re-enfranchised.
Europe’s Scotland can be a place where the Greeks, Spaniards, Irish and Italians can learn that fear of withdrawal from the EZ is just that, fear. That it can be done in an orderly fashion, that it may not be painless, but will involve far less hardship than perpetually pursuing failed monetarist policies to ultimate bankruptcy and individual penury.
Europe’s Scotland will only exist for a short time, until she learns what Scots can teach her, that Unions must be equal, that proportionate representation between nations simply doesn’t work, for the smaller is always subsumed and the greater will accept no other form of Union. Slowly, after our referendum, it will again become Scotland’s Europe.
If we choose.
Scotland’s MEPs are mostly faceless amid myriad others, key committee roles and policies from fisheries and farming to oil remain decided by Westminster.
In 2012 Scotland has no opportunity for leadership in Europe, but she is full of promise.
Against this background the next half decade is fluid, dynamic and potentially vibrant, at least for Scots, should we choose. We can also lead Europe to a new path.
Europe is changing because Europe must. Most of us pay little regard to the backdrop of the EU and Eurozone crisis, it’s a news item, but not that significant as we deal with the turmoil of our daily lives and more personal crises.
The Europe we know is changing, and it’s changing quickly. Many are seeing it as Germany’s Europe, where the mid European powerhouse economy dictates to the rest of the EU, primarily through its financial support of the Eurozone. Germany is laying down the law, dictating social structure, welfare and benefits, her tentacles are seeping into every aspect of EU life as conditions of perpetual bailouts.
This perception of Germany is a myth based in reality. The Germans are certainly underwriting the EZ, but only because that’s what the EZ governments, these popular “democracies” desire. We the citizens demand benefits and safety nets, policies and welfare to elect our politicians, so our politicians promise them, even in the knowledge that our nations can’t afford them. Then our politicians turn to the German backed institutions of the EU or the global IMF for funding.
This is essentially underwritten by the parasitic banking system, where private banks are licensed to create money and lend it to us so that we have to pay interest on the money they create.
We have lived with this snake eating its tail since William Patterson first convinced William of Orange this was a good idea. With the concept that money and wealth can be “created” by private banking companies and not as a product of the work of the people there would always be a day of reckoning, and that day for Europe is now dawning.
Europe is now in a situation that will play out largely in a timeline with Scots independence, barring an accelerated disaster with Spain, Italy, Ireland or Portugal. The two, the EU and Scots sovereignty are interrelated and intertwined on a multitude of levels. Both scenarios are about money, power and the politics of fear.
It was the politics of fear that had the Irish confirm the latest EU treaty, it will be the politics of fear that will have the Greeks vote for an EU supporting party this weekend. Of course there could be an unlikely result where the Greeks vote to restore their sovereignty and steal Scotland’s thunder. Don’t expect such a result in Greece; the entire EU machine has directed its broadside of impending doom at Greece in recent months. Present indicators are that the Greeks will buckle.
The Greeks will join the other countries of the EZ who are now bailing each other out – it’s portrayed as neighbours helping neighbours. The problem is there’s only one truly strong neighbour, Germany, with the others all in varying degrees of onerous debt. We’re now seeing Spain’s banks being bailed out, Ireland has to use some of its bailout funds to help Spain – or it can try to borrow more. Italy is on the hook for almost 20B Euro’s as part of Spain’s banking package, and it has to borrow that money at 5% to lend it to Spain at 3%. That’s the EU rules. For those who noticed, Spain’s bailout euphoria only lasted a few hours this time. The banks and “investors” are always demanding more, and with governments in debt to them they are rarely told “no”, and then it’s often just for appearances sake with decisions quickly, quietly reversed.
This Spanish bailout is a good example, it means Italy who the markets are already avoiding, will have to find 2% of 20b each year to finance Spain, that’s 400 million Euro’s a year the Italian taxpayer has to eat, on top of financing their own debt and paying into the EU. The Italian taxpayer, like the Greek and Spanish are beginning to have second thoughts. Confidence in the EU and Euro is dropping and the drop can be expected to gain momentum. The UK is a microcosm of the EU.
Contrast this with Iceland’s experience; it dumped the debt on the bankers rather than the public purse. Iceland had two rough years but is now well on its way to sustained recovery. The markets are not avoiding Iceland. Iceland also held the bankers criminally to account.
The EZ and the UK by contrast has an overall negative debt ratio, a negative balance of payments and an overall contracting economy.
The EU, particularly the Eurozone, as it presently exists is lacking a single overall positive indicator which says the recession/depression will even have a potential of terminating. The politicians of the EU and the UK are using wealth that has only one foundation in reality, the future penury of the individual through onerous taxation. Our premiers and politicians are enriching a privileged few as they perpetuate an ideology of a United States of Europe.
This United States of Europe is simply a project that most of those involved with can’t afford to see fail, for with its failure goes their credibility, careers and backers profits.
The single prop still holding up the EU is the one leg of a four legged stool, when the economic foundation is eroded, the natural wealth denuded and mortgaged, national assets stripped and sold or privatised all that remains is taxing the futures of the average citizen. The average citizen can only be taxed so far, have so much of their future mortgaged before social unrest commences. It’s that burden which has led to revolution, to upheaval, and to demands for only taxation with representation in the past.
Europe is about to undergo such a period. Scotland will also undergo such a simultaneous change, both are now predetermined. What is not set is Scotland’s path, it can be the opposite of Europe and the UK should her people choose, or it can mirror the impacts of the larger area. Everything is dependent upon whether Scotland’s course is within or outwith the UK. Indicators state that charting our own path will mean travelling in much calmer waters.
We can expect the Euro to collapse during the period of Scotland’s march to self determination, we can also expect the pound to lose approximatetely 20% to 50% of its value over the same 2012 – 2017 period; both relative collapses have already started. Both Europe and the UK are suffering from the same malaise.
The revolution within the EU will likely be peaceful for the most part, like the revolution that created the Euro. A two tier EU will emerge, with the EZ being reduced to a block largely consisting of the original EEC members, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Holland and Luxembourg. Italy, from a market perspective is ailing and questionable, but the potential for a viable reduced EZ certainly still appears to be present amongst the group. The EZ has a potential to retrench, reorganize and expand, but it has a relatively small window of opportunity.
Scotland within the UK is in the same position.
The scenario we can expect to develop as Scotland elects to once again to beat her own drum, putting her own needs forward within the international community instead of relying upon London using her “proxy” vote, all too often left in the envelope, is one of hope for other small EU nations.
We can anticipate the EU/Eurozone very reluctantly reducing to a more stable trading community with a substantial recovery of national sovereignty. A sovereign Scotland will help the retrenchment; it will enhance the viability and reduce the social unrest. Scotland will be able to demonstrate to Europe that smaller nations can repatriate sovereignty and recreate the levers of economic success without destructive revolution and terminal social decline.
This is the base scenario of what we can consider to be Europe’s Scotland in 2017 and beyond. Europe will be a continent struggling through the aftereffects of abysmal policy by Brussels and resurrecting national sovereignty on a nation by nation basis. The electorates will demand it.
A newly independent Scotland will be undergoing a similar, but peaceful upheaval as she finally stumbles towards prosperity in her own right, prosperity now delayed some three centuries.
That our future Scotland will be part of the new European framework in some fashion is without question. That she will be there on her own fair, democratically decided terms is also without question, for Scots have what Europe needs. It is those very needs that for good or ill will make Scotland a focus, a beacon.
Scotland has more than 40% of the EU fossil fuel reserves, our coal supplies are relatively untapped, and we have between 10% and 40% of the EU’s renewable energy potential by industry, with less than 2% of her population. Scotland can also be a net exporter of water and food to the remainder of the EU; we have an abundance of both. Scots stand poised for a boom of potentially unprecedented proportions.
As this decade of radical change draws down, Europe’s Scotland can be developing into Continental Europe’s powerhouse, it can be helping fill Europe’s breadbaskets, it can be culturally enhancing our fellow nations within the EU to a considerable degree.
Most importantly, the dissolution of the UK that can be engineered by the Scots in 2014, in peace, in friendship and with amity can shine a light for the rest of the peoples of the EU. We can show them that “stronger together” is a great ideal when nations remove trading barriers, but also that sovereignty reclaimed is democracy enhanced and the individual re-enfranchised.
Europe’s Scotland can be a place where the Greeks, Spaniards, Irish and Italians can learn that fear of withdrawal from the EZ is just that, fear. That it can be done in an orderly fashion, that it may not be painless, but will involve far less hardship than perpetually pursuing failed monetarist policies to ultimate bankruptcy and individual penury.
Europe’s Scotland will only exist for a short time, until she learns what Scots can teach her, that Unions must be equal, that proportionate representation between nations simply doesn’t work, for the smaller is always subsumed and the greater will accept no other form of Union. Slowly, after our referendum, it will again become Scotland’s Europe.
If we choose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)