Johann Lamont was elected in December 2011, not even three months ago, and she’s now averaging in excess of at least one example of cowardice per month. Cowardice is the primary verb one would use to indicate failure to take a stand, accept responsibility or act on a situation through apparent fear of consequences.
We have been informed that Ms. Lamont is the Labour leader, that she has responsibility for all Labour in Scotland. Ms. Lamont therefore has the duty to lead her party; it is a duty that so far she has shirked.
The lack of backbone exhibited by Labour leadership in Scotland makes it clear; the Union in Scotland is in utter disarray.
It is credible that the largest of the Union parties should lead the way in the upcoming fight over independence, but based on current performance who will lead that party, because at the present time, London influence excluded, it is most definitely leaderless.
Leadership is about traits and attributes, a state of being, Johann Lamont to date has been prominent by her lack of leadership traits, by her silence, rather than exemplifying characteristics we should admire, support and wish to emulate or follow.
With Labour being the recognized opposition to the governing party, this is representative of an extremely worrying situation. An opposition party is supposed to provide a check and balance, it should offer alternatives, it should be constructive in debate and it should contribute to policy development.
Under the reported leadership of Johann Lamont, rapidly fading beyond gray, it has demonstrably exhibited none of those characteristics.
In the case of Stirling Council the Labour party joined forces with the Tory’s to defeat the minority SNP budget. In so doing they voted against their own Labour amendments and scuppered a national Labour party policy of standing against council tax cuts. There was no response from Ms. Lamont. Silence is not a mark of leadership. Silence when faced with promotion of a policy that is inconsistent with your stated goals is simply incomprehensible. Stirling Labour just ridiculed Scottish Labour.
In the case of Falkirk MP Eric Joyce, now awaiting disposition of charges for assault, in addition to being the first MP to claim over 1,000,000 in expenses the lack of leadership action is stupefying. Ms. Lamont was officially given responsibility for all Labour in Scotland. Mr. Joyce is a representative of Labour in Scotland. Mr. Joyce is Ms. Lamont’s responsibility. That Ed Miliband had to take matters into his own hands regarding a Scottish MP is deplorable. That the Labour leader in Scotland took no action and made no statement relegates her position to sham puppetry, fear or cowardice, not leadership.
There was a recently reported comment in national media, attributed to the Labour party, from a senior party official that Labour would rather have a “nutter than a Nat” in the Falkirk seat, and therefore strongly inferred that there would be no by-election. A leader, a real leader, would get help for the individual concerned before events reached the stage they are at, allowing that the local party attempted de-selection because of “concerns”. Leadership in the political arena would acknowledge the constituents desires come before any party.
In failing to act prior to the situation exploding leadership can still be effective, it can offer support, treatment and counseling for one who has lost their way. In a public case it should do so publically, and acknowledge the errors made in leadership. It cannot force the individual to accept help, but it must be offered as the organization demonstrates what procedures are being put in place to stop a repeat performance. That these measures are not being announced are additional examples of less than poor leadership.
Glasgow council is in meltdown; any stand Johanna Lamont was considering there has melted away. There has been no response from Labour’s non entity, for such is the only realistic way to describe one appointed to lead and who then does so by absence. Glasgow needs leadership until the Council elections, not just after them.
Referencing Glasgow once more, there has been an allegation of bullying and improper pressure against specific council members, yet the member making alleged threats is remains a candidate when others do not, all without any inkling of an enquiry. This only lends credence to the allegations that the Scots Labour leader is but a puppet, with strings being jerked in London. This is not leadership in Scotland; it appears simple cowardice, a fear of the potential issues that might be uncovered in a well executed investigation. Cowardice is not a generally accepted leadership quality.
There was an instance regarding rape allegations made in the chamber at Holyrood, allegations that appear to be contrived, aged, prior to the administration presently in office and fundamentally misdirected. As Alex Salmond showed when quoting erroneously supplied data in the same chamber, mistakes can happen but true leadership is about acknowledging these issues at the earliest possible opportunity and offering apology with acceptance. That is a cost of leadership. Scotland is still waiting for the apology in the above case; Scotland is still waiting for that acknowledgement of leadership. We are not waiting for more silence.
Scotland has asked the Labour leader for her position on Trident, again silence.
Our government has asked the Labour leader for her support in its budget, a budget amended at her organisation’s request, we still failed to see that support.
The Edinburgh legislature has requested input on legislation, bills like the upcoming or soon to be discarded Scotland bill, Scotland gets refusal, abstention, obstruction or obfuscation.
Silence, refusal, obfuscation, obstruction, cowardice, these are not leadership qualities we either need or want in Scotland. We saw a prime time example of cowardice last year, involving another Labour leader hiding in a sandwich shop, Ms. Lamont has had so many allegorical examples it’s barely worth keeping score.
Our nation needs a voice that supports her, that defends her, that will fight for her. It needs that voice; it needs that clarity of purpose in far more than one political party.
Examining the above with respect to the upcoming referendum it is hardly surprising the Union parties, fronted by Labour in Scotland have so far failed to promote a positive case for the Union. Before they can present any positive case on an ideal they reportedly hold dear to their hearts, they must first be able to present a positive case for themselves and their leadership.
Labour needs to decide, does the leader change, does the leadership change, does the party change or do they simply continue an apparently inexorable march to electoral oblivion.
The other Union parties should consider well Labour’s plight, it is also theirs.
Tuesday, 28 February 2012
Everything Is Connected – to London.
The Crown Estates report, “East Coast Transmission Network: Technical Feasibility Study” confirmed the practicality of an offshore transmission system to move energy from as far north as Shetland to London, from where it could be sold on to European states.
With peak oil having arrived and global economies under strain under of diminishing resources, we can increasingly expect more items to switch from fossil fuel to electricity as their base energy unit. This will apply to everything from home heating to transportation. Electricity will become the primary lifeblood of tomorrow’s economies.
The cost of this Crown Estate’s proposed transmission line alone would be just shy of £5 billion by 2020. It would have a capacity to transmit up to 10 giga-watts, or about ¼ of the total UK electrical requirement down the East coast alone. This is only 1/6th of Scotland’s potential renewable output.
 |
| Potential Inter-Connector Route - Destination London |
The Crown Estate findings are largely concurrent and consistent with Ofgem’s workshop report of May 6th 2011, but not with Ofgem’s policies which heavily discriminate against peripheral generation of electricity. Ofgem provides significant subsidies to power producers in London and the South East; subsidies that are paid for by penalties imposed upon generators in Scotland and to a lesser extent Wales.
The first item of note is that Ofgem’s policy would require alteration if the lines are to become financially viable, a review is currently underway. Ofgem’s current discriminatory policies were largely implemented during the last period of UK Labour government.
There is also a proposed East-West interconnector from Ireland, through Wales to the South East. According to Deloitte this part of the project already has several hundred millions in investment funds committed.
The West coast offshore wind grid currently under consideration may easily be tied to the East-West interconnector. The West coast grid is primarily in Scottish territory.
The potential ring could eventually carry over 75% of the UK electrical requirements directly to a distribution point just outside London.
The only logical conclusion, supported by Ofgem’s data is that London is preparing the way for itself to become a major European power hub; a hub from which it will derive substantial revenues and royalties.
Essentially the UK government gives every appearance of positioning itself to tax Scottish and Irish resources while having something of a stranglehold over EU power supplies.
It would be an effective method of ensuring future influence. Energy does largely equate to power in many different ways. What we have seen in Scotland as a result of oil is largely insignificant when viewed alongside our renewables potential – and that will not run out.
The aspect that previously cast a shadow on the entire issue was the UK Governments lack of commitment to renewables. Recently Westminster was forced to backtrack on reductions in solar power subsidies, and currently other aspects of the renewables industry are waiting on Westminster to end their regulatory uncertainty so they can get either get to work, or go elsewhere.
To have one arm of government effectively walking away from renewables while the other is investigating new grid ties and transmission lines seemed at cross purposes. The voracious pit of energy demand that is the SE needs fed. Scottish renewables appear fit for supply purpose.
One certainty arising from these proposals is London expects energy generated in Scotland to be available for her use; the method of generation is largely irrelevant. Scotland needs less than 5 giga-watts, leaving up to 60 giga-watts of her abundant green energy for export.
However, the proposed transmission lines can hardly carry 20% of Scotland's potential green energy output; it would seem a classic case of under investment.
There was a meeting last week during which London and Paris reached agreement on future defense spending; this included a small section where London would become a co-op to French nuclear power technology, for implementation in the UK.
The message can only be interpreted in one logical way. Westminster can use the future transmission links to supply energy to the SE for sale on to Europe. That energy can just as easily be nuclear energy as it could be green energy. The current UK administration, as with past administrations in London shows a decided preference for nuclear. The nuclear lobby is potent indeed in Whitehall.
If Scotland should vote No in the independence referendum, it appears not unrealistically that she can expect imposed changes in the constitutional settlement to require new nuclear power plants to be built in Scottish territory. Anticipate green energy being put on the compost pile.
Then again, irrespective of how Scotland votes, it is Westminster’s intent to have a stranglehold over what will be one of Scotland’s main exports, energy. It will be no different than Ukraine’s ability to stop the Russian gas supplies from reaching Western Europe.
In other words, Westminster is readying itself to profit from Scotland’s resources whichever way Scotland votes.
It is appropriate for Edinburgh to be able to sell our surplus energy to London, or wherever else it may be both required and profitable. What is not required is a London stranglehold on Scotland’s ability to perform even after she votes “YES”.
If the proposed grids go ahead without any alternative to allow Scottish renewable energy production to be independently exported, London could literally hold the balance of power over not only Scotland but much of Western Europe.
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
News International’s hold over Cameron.
What we have been waiting for has finally happened, Rupert Murdoch as a policy director of main stream media, has broken ranks and tweeted support for Scots independence.
The media mogul is currently facing difficult legal inquisitions into his affairs on both sides of the Atlantic. Under such circumstances a lessening of pressure from any area would be a welcome reprieve.
For a man like Rupert Murdoch it all comes down, historically, to applied or implied pressure. Applied pressure is what politicians fear from the media, it causes anything from mild consternation around Westminster’s water coolers through to resignations and even jail time.
Political leaders do not like applied pressure, from wherever source, that is why they so avidly court those with the ability to quickly spin a story into harmlessness or extend it to being a saber stroke through the heart.
Rupert Murdoch, his family and friends have been under extreme pressure from the UK government. He has lost a title, News of the World and its revenues. He has also lost a takeover, for now, and his media have been rabidly anti independence, until now.
The Sun carried the infamous noose picture on Election Day, 2007, and although supporting the SNP in 2011 it did so under the banner of it being the best option on the table while stating it firmly opposed independence.
What has changed is Westminster’s actions; it’s lifting the carpet on Fleet Street through the Leveson inquiry. There’s a feeling abroad that the investigation is still only grabbing one corner of the rug, and if it ever takes it outdoors into the sunshine for a good beating there’s no telling what might drop out.
The head of NI has now finally realised Westminster’s open goal that’s been staring him in the face for years, Scotland.
Rupert Murdoch knows that David Cameron will do anything short of sell his soul to keep the UK together, and even that hasn’t formally been taken from the table.
This media mogul knows that he personally holds the fate of the Union in his hands. He can ensure that Alex Salmond’s probable 2014 “YES” becomes a landslide of monumental proportions.
NI is well aware that all they need do is run a weekly set of stories that tell the true, unvarnished, un-spun facts and the un-decided will jump to the “Yes” camp, that many of the “No’s” will jump in large part to the un-decided. The rump-UK vote will be but a shadow.
Rupert Murdoch also knows that David Cameron is aware of this, and that once the Genie is out the bottle, there’s no putting it back.
The only question remaining from the UK PM’s viewpoint was would Murdoch’s enterprise actually use this most potent of weapons in its arsenal, this Scotland of ours.
That question was answered with a tweet from Murdoch himself, and reports in the Scotsman Newspaper and on the BBC, one praised First Minister Alex Salmond, and the other told Westminster to “Let Scotland go and compete. Everyone would win”.
There’s only one viable interpretation, it’s a message from Rupert Murdoch to David Cameron, “you’re attacking my family, you’re trying to destroy my family, and I care about my family. Stop, or watch the same being done to what you claim is yours, for I can, and I will see you go down in history as the last Prime Minister”.
These are tweets the media has ignored, even as they give voice to so many others that are comparatively irrelevant. None except NNS even thought it worthy of comment, this is almost unheard of. When someone as significant as Rupert Murdoch speaks out on any constitution it is often viewed as a “game changer”. Instead we get media silence, even from his own tabloids.
The stakes have been quietly raised, but the endgame has not yet started. These tweets can be viewed as a personal opinion; News International’s empire can still continue to support the UK juggernaut. Everything is now on the board and its Cameron’s move.
We will know the outcome of the game, even if the very existence of the game is denied. Leveson will be neutered, the NI empire will go on and no executive of significance to Rupert Murdoch will be impeached. None of significance in the NI world will get more than a knuckle rapping, quickly forgotten after much sensationalism to “show” the wheels of justice have turned.
Or we will see the NI media empire turn its focus fully on support for independence. This would have a secondary benefit for Murdoch’s organisation in that it should also see its sales increase. In this circumstance truth will win, Scotland will win.
The only question still needing answered before the game properly begins, will David Cameron blink, and will he capitulate before the action really starts.
Expect him to; in either scenario we will have our answer as events unfold.
The media mogul is currently facing difficult legal inquisitions into his affairs on both sides of the Atlantic. Under such circumstances a lessening of pressure from any area would be a welcome reprieve.
For a man like Rupert Murdoch it all comes down, historically, to applied or implied pressure. Applied pressure is what politicians fear from the media, it causes anything from mild consternation around Westminster’s water coolers through to resignations and even jail time.
Political leaders do not like applied pressure, from wherever source, that is why they so avidly court those with the ability to quickly spin a story into harmlessness or extend it to being a saber stroke through the heart.
Rupert Murdoch, his family and friends have been under extreme pressure from the UK government. He has lost a title, News of the World and its revenues. He has also lost a takeover, for now, and his media have been rabidly anti independence, until now.
The Sun carried the infamous noose picture on Election Day, 2007, and although supporting the SNP in 2011 it did so under the banner of it being the best option on the table while stating it firmly opposed independence.
What has changed is Westminster’s actions; it’s lifting the carpet on Fleet Street through the Leveson inquiry. There’s a feeling abroad that the investigation is still only grabbing one corner of the rug, and if it ever takes it outdoors into the sunshine for a good beating there’s no telling what might drop out.
The head of NI has now finally realised Westminster’s open goal that’s been staring him in the face for years, Scotland.
Rupert Murdoch knows that David Cameron will do anything short of sell his soul to keep the UK together, and even that hasn’t formally been taken from the table.
This media mogul knows that he personally holds the fate of the Union in his hands. He can ensure that Alex Salmond’s probable 2014 “YES” becomes a landslide of monumental proportions.
NI is well aware that all they need do is run a weekly set of stories that tell the true, unvarnished, un-spun facts and the un-decided will jump to the “Yes” camp, that many of the “No’s” will jump in large part to the un-decided. The rump-UK vote will be but a shadow.
Rupert Murdoch also knows that David Cameron is aware of this, and that once the Genie is out the bottle, there’s no putting it back.
The only question remaining from the UK PM’s viewpoint was would Murdoch’s enterprise actually use this most potent of weapons in its arsenal, this Scotland of ours.
That question was answered with a tweet from Murdoch himself, and reports in the Scotsman Newspaper and on the BBC, one praised First Minister Alex Salmond, and the other told Westminster to “Let Scotland go and compete. Everyone would win”.
There’s only one viable interpretation, it’s a message from Rupert Murdoch to David Cameron, “you’re attacking my family, you’re trying to destroy my family, and I care about my family. Stop, or watch the same being done to what you claim is yours, for I can, and I will see you go down in history as the last Prime Minister”.
These are tweets the media has ignored, even as they give voice to so many others that are comparatively irrelevant. None except NNS even thought it worthy of comment, this is almost unheard of. When someone as significant as Rupert Murdoch speaks out on any constitution it is often viewed as a “game changer”. Instead we get media silence, even from his own tabloids.
The stakes have been quietly raised, but the endgame has not yet started. These tweets can be viewed as a personal opinion; News International’s empire can still continue to support the UK juggernaut. Everything is now on the board and its Cameron’s move.
We will know the outcome of the game, even if the very existence of the game is denied. Leveson will be neutered, the NI empire will go on and no executive of significance to Rupert Murdoch will be impeached. None of significance in the NI world will get more than a knuckle rapping, quickly forgotten after much sensationalism to “show” the wheels of justice have turned.
Or we will see the NI media empire turn its focus fully on support for independence. This would have a secondary benefit for Murdoch’s organisation in that it should also see its sales increase. In this circumstance truth will win, Scotland will win.
The only question still needing answered before the game properly begins, will David Cameron blink, and will he capitulate before the action really starts.
Expect him to; in either scenario we will have our answer as events unfold.
Sunday, 19 February 2012
Ultimate Trolls.
What is a Troll? In the classical sense it is the big bogie man from the frozen past of Norse mythology, a mythology we in Scotland also partly share thanks to the internationalist aspect of our mutual histories.
In more modern mythologies is the version of the troll as portrayed in the recent Harry Potter films and books. This took the thought process a step further. Who stuffed the metaphorical wand up the nose of our latest itineration of a Troll, the Unionist? Who, or what, has irritated it enough to make it venture forth?
The version of troll now being referred to is described by the urban dictionary as “One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark off such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks ... with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue”.
The origin of the word also can refer to a corruption of “Trawling” where a boat somewhat randomly fishes the ocean, hoping for a catch of anything productive and marketable in its nets, often directed to appropriate “grounds” either by knowledge or electronics. “Trolling the internet” has in some ways replaced random wanderings in cyberspace as a preference to “surfing”, although trolling has a decidedly more nefarious undertone to it.
On Sunday the 19th February 2012, there was a tweet at 12:16pm from one George Foulkes, Lord, currently resident at Westminster. The good laird tweeted “CyberNat myth that devolution was forced on the Labour Govt.by EU or Council of Europe (stories vary) is akin to Holocaust denial”.
The essence of the message was simple – Tony Blair, out of the goodness of his heart, despite being very opposed to devolution, just decided to let the Scots “go for it”.
Not required in the tweet was the flagrant and rather ubiquitous reference to the Holocaust – that was trolling for reaction.
Not required in the tweet was the phrase “CyberNat myth”, this is, again, trolling for reaction.
Lairdy Foulkes got his reaction on both counts as the “twittesphere” briefly lit in localized areas responding to this outrageous provocation.
The troll got his reaction, he was fed. Job done!
The troll aspect is additionally re-enforced as the tweet under discussion came about less than forty eight hours after a Newsnet Scotland article on the forces behind devolution. Coincidence? That is a possibility, but then again there is that old Scots double affirmative, “Aye, right!”
This is not the Labour Peer’s first foray into the realm of the internet and social media utelising inflammatory comments and oblique references to actual events. He’s also a frequent user of the coin “CyberNat”. In this turn of phrase he’s been ably aided and abetted by one Tom Harris MP, also a denizen of the halls of Westminster, and some would say erstwhile troll.
Lord Foulkes is in an envious position; he can stir the cauldron at Westminster with no fear of electoral consequences. He has his face firmly in the trough for life, getting more in a day’s allowance than he expects many others to live on for a month. We can’t kick him out. Nor can we get rid of Lord Forsyth even though in 1997 Scots gave the biggest ever electoral thumbs down to the man, he has now been “elevated” without a “by your leave” after we rejected him and also gets to sup at our expense.
Lords Foulkes and Forsyth are the chief Scots trolls in the House of Lords, although they do appear to have their hands full keeping just a nose further ahead than either Tankerness or Sutherland. In case any of the front runners start to slack in their trolling at the trough, Hamilton is pushing from up behind as he reminds us his ancestors were unjustly vilified simply because they found themselves bankrupt after Darien and chose to become a member of the group no known as the “Parcel ‘O Rogues”.
Trolling through legislation at Westminster is no different than trolling the internet. Acting as a Troll at Westminster, where like Hogwarts there are halls and bathrooms through which to prowl, is no different than entering chat rooms or social media sites when your primary result is to cause consternation, upset and strong reaction without a meaningful contribution to the debate.
This is just as obvious at Westminster as it is in cyberspace; the various amendments dragged to the legislative table after being dredged from Westminster’s trough by relevant snouts have no hope of becoming law. They will never be part of any finalized Scotland Bill, as the bill requires assent through both parliaments. That is a political reality.
These amendments, sham protests at vilification, infantile attention seeking and media grandstanding are therefore designed only to produce a reaction without adding to the matter surrounding the constitutional debate. What they achieve instead is muddying the waters and confusing the issues. That is troll work.
The allocation of the term “Cybernat” is one to be worn proudly; it is a badge of honour and pride. The “Cybernat” of which the lifelong benefits claimants of the Lords live in fear, actually represents the nemesis of those benefits.
The “Cybernat” disseminates and refutes the stories of trolling, of deceit, of obfuscation, of betrayal, and these “Lords” no matter their elevated station in life, no matter how rightly or wrongly they attained such station, no matter the fawners, the lobbyists or sycophants that swarm around them, they acknowledge every day they voice their opposition, that they are no match for the truths espoused by the Cybernat.
The Cybernat appears to be a Scots phenomenon, but they’re everywhere, they’re found in every corner of the world, they’re the expats and pats, they’re the average Scot who will no longer be lied to or deceived. At day’s end the Cybernat is a simple phenomenon, it is a representation of Scotland’s voice, muffled for centuries, at last having an avenue of expression.
London’s ignorance of the Cybernat is ignorance of Scotland. This lack of engagement with credible message is the same treatment Scotland has seen for three centuries. Ability to talk, to be open, to be honest and to engage; these are just some of the deficiencies that Westminster and her denizens exhibit when it comes to dealing with the Cybernat. These are the same issues that have made it necessary to gag Scotland since the inception of the Union.
Fundamentally, Scotland and the Cybernat are one and the same; they are proud, independent, loyal, caring and compassionate. When Westminster understands these qualities and puts them before avarice, dominion and gluttony, then its inhabitants will not just have a means to speak as equals to the Cybernat, they will have found a way to treat properly with Scotland herself.
There is an exception, Scotland and the rabid Cybernat are at distinct odds. Our vision of a future land of opportunity and equality has no room for such bigotry. In fact, it appears at such odds to the goal of independence one could be forgiven if caught wondering, do we have modern day Daniel Defoe's amongst us?
Until that time is upon us we should try to minimize the impact of this Troll breeding ground we seem to have disturbed, as if we had poked a hornet’s nest with a stick. The great echoing halls of Westminster seem to be such a den. The near incessant rumblings of Lords Foulkes, Forsyth and others give blunt testimony to this fact.
Today we can recognize this and stop feeding the trolls. In 2014, we can even remove the trough.
In more modern mythologies is the version of the troll as portrayed in the recent Harry Potter films and books. This took the thought process a step further. Who stuffed the metaphorical wand up the nose of our latest itineration of a Troll, the Unionist? Who, or what, has irritated it enough to make it venture forth?
The version of troll now being referred to is described by the urban dictionary as “One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark off such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks ... with no substance or relevance to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue”.
The origin of the word also can refer to a corruption of “Trawling” where a boat somewhat randomly fishes the ocean, hoping for a catch of anything productive and marketable in its nets, often directed to appropriate “grounds” either by knowledge or electronics. “Trolling the internet” has in some ways replaced random wanderings in cyberspace as a preference to “surfing”, although trolling has a decidedly more nefarious undertone to it.
On Sunday the 19th February 2012, there was a tweet at 12:16pm from one George Foulkes, Lord, currently resident at Westminster. The good laird tweeted “CyberNat myth that devolution was forced on the Labour Govt.by EU or Council of Europe (stories vary) is akin to Holocaust denial”.
The essence of the message was simple – Tony Blair, out of the goodness of his heart, despite being very opposed to devolution, just decided to let the Scots “go for it”.
Not required in the tweet was the flagrant and rather ubiquitous reference to the Holocaust – that was trolling for reaction.
Not required in the tweet was the phrase “CyberNat myth”, this is, again, trolling for reaction.
Lairdy Foulkes got his reaction on both counts as the “twittesphere” briefly lit in localized areas responding to this outrageous provocation.
The troll got his reaction, he was fed. Job done!
The troll aspect is additionally re-enforced as the tweet under discussion came about less than forty eight hours after a Newsnet Scotland article on the forces behind devolution. Coincidence? That is a possibility, but then again there is that old Scots double affirmative, “Aye, right!”
This is not the Labour Peer’s first foray into the realm of the internet and social media utelising inflammatory comments and oblique references to actual events. He’s also a frequent user of the coin “CyberNat”. In this turn of phrase he’s been ably aided and abetted by one Tom Harris MP, also a denizen of the halls of Westminster, and some would say erstwhile troll.
Lord Foulkes is in an envious position; he can stir the cauldron at Westminster with no fear of electoral consequences. He has his face firmly in the trough for life, getting more in a day’s allowance than he expects many others to live on for a month. We can’t kick him out. Nor can we get rid of Lord Forsyth even though in 1997 Scots gave the biggest ever electoral thumbs down to the man, he has now been “elevated” without a “by your leave” after we rejected him and also gets to sup at our expense.
Lords Foulkes and Forsyth are the chief Scots trolls in the House of Lords, although they do appear to have their hands full keeping just a nose further ahead than either Tankerness or Sutherland. In case any of the front runners start to slack in their trolling at the trough, Hamilton is pushing from up behind as he reminds us his ancestors were unjustly vilified simply because they found themselves bankrupt after Darien and chose to become a member of the group no known as the “Parcel ‘O Rogues”.
Trolling through legislation at Westminster is no different than trolling the internet. Acting as a Troll at Westminster, where like Hogwarts there are halls and bathrooms through which to prowl, is no different than entering chat rooms or social media sites when your primary result is to cause consternation, upset and strong reaction without a meaningful contribution to the debate.
This is just as obvious at Westminster as it is in cyberspace; the various amendments dragged to the legislative table after being dredged from Westminster’s trough by relevant snouts have no hope of becoming law. They will never be part of any finalized Scotland Bill, as the bill requires assent through both parliaments. That is a political reality.
These amendments, sham protests at vilification, infantile attention seeking and media grandstanding are therefore designed only to produce a reaction without adding to the matter surrounding the constitutional debate. What they achieve instead is muddying the waters and confusing the issues. That is troll work.
The allocation of the term “Cybernat” is one to be worn proudly; it is a badge of honour and pride. The “Cybernat” of which the lifelong benefits claimants of the Lords live in fear, actually represents the nemesis of those benefits.
The “Cybernat” disseminates and refutes the stories of trolling, of deceit, of obfuscation, of betrayal, and these “Lords” no matter their elevated station in life, no matter how rightly or wrongly they attained such station, no matter the fawners, the lobbyists or sycophants that swarm around them, they acknowledge every day they voice their opposition, that they are no match for the truths espoused by the Cybernat.
The Cybernat appears to be a Scots phenomenon, but they’re everywhere, they’re found in every corner of the world, they’re the expats and pats, they’re the average Scot who will no longer be lied to or deceived. At day’s end the Cybernat is a simple phenomenon, it is a representation of Scotland’s voice, muffled for centuries, at last having an avenue of expression.
London’s ignorance of the Cybernat is ignorance of Scotland. This lack of engagement with credible message is the same treatment Scotland has seen for three centuries. Ability to talk, to be open, to be honest and to engage; these are just some of the deficiencies that Westminster and her denizens exhibit when it comes to dealing with the Cybernat. These are the same issues that have made it necessary to gag Scotland since the inception of the Union.
Fundamentally, Scotland and the Cybernat are one and the same; they are proud, independent, loyal, caring and compassionate. When Westminster understands these qualities and puts them before avarice, dominion and gluttony, then its inhabitants will not just have a means to speak as equals to the Cybernat, they will have found a way to treat properly with Scotland herself.
There is an exception, Scotland and the rabid Cybernat are at distinct odds. Our vision of a future land of opportunity and equality has no room for such bigotry. In fact, it appears at such odds to the goal of independence one could be forgiven if caught wondering, do we have modern day Daniel Defoe's amongst us?
Until that time is upon us we should try to minimize the impact of this Troll breeding ground we seem to have disturbed, as if we had poked a hornet’s nest with a stick. The great echoing halls of Westminster seem to be such a den. The near incessant rumblings of Lords Foulkes, Forsyth and others give blunt testimony to this fact.
Today we can recognize this and stop feeding the trolls. In 2014, we can even remove the trough.
Friday, 17 February 2012
Union Jam on sale 2015 - at a supermarket near you!
David Cameron visited Alex Salmond in Edinburgh this week; pro-union national media trumpeted a softening of the rhetoric, heralded by a promise of more powers if Scotland votes down her natural right to self determination.
This is the “Jam Tomorrow” promise of Alex Douglas Home in 1979. Just Jam? Scotland even had the toast hidden from her for umpteen years and more by one Westminster administration after another since the discovery of North Sea Oil .
The first question this proposal for more powers sparks is “why should we believe you this time?” The answer, just as clearly and from David Cameron’s own mouth was, “You shouldn’t”.
There was no other interpretation because Cameron didn’t actually promise anything; he said “consider”. We might as well ask the local bank if they’d consider putting a few million extra in that Super Saver Account we all have. You know, just so it might actually resemble the name. The bank will also consider the deposit you’re asking for, most likely for about a nano-second before kicking you out the front door. The bank pondered your request and pondered it well.
Nothing tells us Cameron’s period of contemplation will be any longer, or deeper than the Bank’s. This is because nothing stops him putting his proposals forward now. Let us consider what flavour of jam is on offer, and then we can decide if we like the taste.
It’s not Jam Tomorrow; it’s not even a promise of Jam Tomorrow. It’s a promise of a consideration of a proposal of a little Jam Tomorrow - after we gift him sufficient ingredients, consisting of the keys to our nation, which will supply him enough to ensure we can all eat cake. But then we know where Scotland’s choice ingredients are destined, the same place they already go in large part, to London and the South East.
Let’s consider that David Cameron was to keep his word, turn his considerations over a while and solidify them into promises, and that the promises actually make their way through Westminster’s echoing halls and into the legislative books.
What flavour of Jam might we expect?
The sensible money would be on soor ploom, made somehow without sugar.
We will buy it and we will consume it even as it makes our jowls hollow and our eyes water, our bellies cramp as we head with haste for the commode. We’ll do this because we’ll have no other immediate option. We’ll do this because we will have voluntarily voted away our own recipe book.
It will taste so bad for we’ll be supping knowing it could have been so much better had we not been so insufferably obstinate, stupid and voluntarily blind to uncovering the arguments we will afterwards wish we had not turned a deaf ear to. Arguments that would have made us aware the YES vote was our only option.
We will get Extra Powers, which might become a reality, but it is semantics. We might get the power to set our own speed limits or regulate air-guns. These will be our Extra Powers. However, expect to lose control over University funding, over our NHS and over much of our budget. But we will still have Extra Powers.
Also expect Holyrood to be completely neutered in some peculiar fashion, and the media will spin this in an effort to make it acceptable to the international audience, while at the ballot box we will be rendered powerless to impact our future, our children’s future or our national destiny. Yet we will still have Extra Powers.
We can expect this because Westminster has had the fright to end all frights, and Westminster does not like frights. Those in power in London have demonstrated time and again they will react ruthlessly to anything that causes them fright. For a recent example, just look at the sentences against the rioters last summer. With the Olympics approaching riots gave Westminster a fright and Westminster struck back - hard.
We can expect our welfare system, our community values and national sense of compassion to be obliterated. Social programs stand to be decimated as each cut in England transfers to a respective cut in Scotland. This is allowing that even Barnett survives the reprisals to come.
Our soor ploom jam will be on the shelf at Tesco’s, and as we put it out to be scanned at the checkout we might find ourselves looking into our mothers’ eyes, eyes that can hardly remain open after her last bout of chemotherapy. Mother may not even be able to stand properly, or may be incontinent, but she’ll be on that checkout or lose her right to sustenance - unless we can prove she’ll really be dead in a few weeks. It won’t matter that these inhumane policies will be what kills her – she’ll be scanning our soor ploom jam.
Before you get to the checkout you might walk past your child stocking shelves. She’s got a degree, she worked hard for it, but now she’s forced to work for her benefits because Westminster policies which decimated four nations to protect a city, means there are no jobs. You might pass her in the aisle knowing that your spouse, the only one still working in your family, is paying her wages through their taxes, because Tesco aren’t. Tesco are just giving her the bus fare to get to work.
Part of the recipe for tomorrows soor ploom jam appears to be making certain that big business makes more money as we subsidise them through our benefits system. It is Westminster passing these inhumane laws; it is often the result of these businesses lobbying London.
The recipe also seems to include protections for the City, the bankers, bonus schemes and more light touch regulation. It also includes isolation in Europe, more wage freezes, austerity, lower living standards, higher fuel bills and the weakest in our society being targeted and vilified. This soor ploom jam which London’s offering has a recipe most sensible folk might want to steer clear of.
In 2014 it appears there’s an alternative on offer, if we like Westminster’s soor ploom jam we can fire up the toaster. However, if we think our own recipe has even a chance of being a wee bit tastier we should dig through our ingredients and perhaps throw a few raspberries at London for its bigger jar.
Then, we will get busy making something fit for a real nation to enjoy.
This is the “Jam Tomorrow” promise of Alex Douglas Home in 1979. Just Jam? Scotland even had the toast hidden from her for umpteen years and more by one Westminster administration after another since the discovery of North Sea Oil .
The first question this proposal for more powers sparks is “why should we believe you this time?” The answer, just as clearly and from David Cameron’s own mouth was, “You shouldn’t”.
There was no other interpretation because Cameron didn’t actually promise anything; he said “consider”. We might as well ask the local bank if they’d consider putting a few million extra in that Super Saver Account we all have. You know, just so it might actually resemble the name. The bank will also consider the deposit you’re asking for, most likely for about a nano-second before kicking you out the front door. The bank pondered your request and pondered it well.
Nothing tells us Cameron’s period of contemplation will be any longer, or deeper than the Bank’s. This is because nothing stops him putting his proposals forward now. Let us consider what flavour of jam is on offer, and then we can decide if we like the taste.
It’s not Jam Tomorrow; it’s not even a promise of Jam Tomorrow. It’s a promise of a consideration of a proposal of a little Jam Tomorrow - after we gift him sufficient ingredients, consisting of the keys to our nation, which will supply him enough to ensure we can all eat cake. But then we know where Scotland’s choice ingredients are destined, the same place they already go in large part, to London and the South East.
Let’s consider that David Cameron was to keep his word, turn his considerations over a while and solidify them into promises, and that the promises actually make their way through Westminster’s echoing halls and into the legislative books.
What flavour of Jam might we expect?
The sensible money would be on soor ploom, made somehow without sugar.
We will buy it and we will consume it even as it makes our jowls hollow and our eyes water, our bellies cramp as we head with haste for the commode. We’ll do this because we’ll have no other immediate option. We’ll do this because we will have voluntarily voted away our own recipe book.
It will taste so bad for we’ll be supping knowing it could have been so much better had we not been so insufferably obstinate, stupid and voluntarily blind to uncovering the arguments we will afterwards wish we had not turned a deaf ear to. Arguments that would have made us aware the YES vote was our only option.
We will get Extra Powers, which might become a reality, but it is semantics. We might get the power to set our own speed limits or regulate air-guns. These will be our Extra Powers. However, expect to lose control over University funding, over our NHS and over much of our budget. But we will still have Extra Powers.
Also expect Holyrood to be completely neutered in some peculiar fashion, and the media will spin this in an effort to make it acceptable to the international audience, while at the ballot box we will be rendered powerless to impact our future, our children’s future or our national destiny. Yet we will still have Extra Powers.
We can expect this because Westminster has had the fright to end all frights, and Westminster does not like frights. Those in power in London have demonstrated time and again they will react ruthlessly to anything that causes them fright. For a recent example, just look at the sentences against the rioters last summer. With the Olympics approaching riots gave Westminster a fright and Westminster struck back - hard.
We can expect our welfare system, our community values and national sense of compassion to be obliterated. Social programs stand to be decimated as each cut in England transfers to a respective cut in Scotland. This is allowing that even Barnett survives the reprisals to come.
Our soor ploom jam will be on the shelf at Tesco’s, and as we put it out to be scanned at the checkout we might find ourselves looking into our mothers’ eyes, eyes that can hardly remain open after her last bout of chemotherapy. Mother may not even be able to stand properly, or may be incontinent, but she’ll be on that checkout or lose her right to sustenance - unless we can prove she’ll really be dead in a few weeks. It won’t matter that these inhumane policies will be what kills her – she’ll be scanning our soor ploom jam.
Before you get to the checkout you might walk past your child stocking shelves. She’s got a degree, she worked hard for it, but now she’s forced to work for her benefits because Westminster policies which decimated four nations to protect a city, means there are no jobs. You might pass her in the aisle knowing that your spouse, the only one still working in your family, is paying her wages through their taxes, because Tesco aren’t. Tesco are just giving her the bus fare to get to work.
Part of the recipe for tomorrows soor ploom jam appears to be making certain that big business makes more money as we subsidise them through our benefits system. It is Westminster passing these inhumane laws; it is often the result of these businesses lobbying London.
The recipe also seems to include protections for the City, the bankers, bonus schemes and more light touch regulation. It also includes isolation in Europe, more wage freezes, austerity, lower living standards, higher fuel bills and the weakest in our society being targeted and vilified. This soor ploom jam which London’s offering has a recipe most sensible folk might want to steer clear of.
In 2014 it appears there’s an alternative on offer, if we like Westminster’s soor ploom jam we can fire up the toaster. However, if we think our own recipe has even a chance of being a wee bit tastier we should dig through our ingredients and perhaps throw a few raspberries at London for its bigger jar.
Then, we will get busy making something fit for a real nation to enjoy.
Saturday, 4 February 2012
If you want Independence; plan to take a neighbour.
There was a rather interesting tweet from Humza Yousaf on the 31st of January, “presenter tells me Peter Robinson urging Ulster Scots get to Scotland for no vote” presumably referring to the lead person in Northern Ireland’s assembly instructing Northern Irish unionists to travel to Scotland and make sure they were eligible to cast a “No” vote in 2014.
This attempt to subvert democracy has a potential to call into question any possible outcome involving a vote against the Scottish government’s proposed question.
If the comment is factual, and we’ve no reason to believe it isn’t, why are the supporters of the Union giving Holyrood a cast iron reason to call down any failure to pass their primary motion; independence. What has unionists panicking at this very early stage and how is it that they appear to be already expecting to lose?
We understand that David Cameron basically threw in the towel last weekend with his “in or out” ultimatum; with the appetite for increased enfranchisement and democracy that’s self-evident in Scotland, the UK PM’s action has no other interpretation. This followed by the blatant slight of Alex Salmond by the BBC over an appearance before the Calcutta Cup, the Union is destroying its own cause.
Let us be very clear, “Do you agree Scotland should be an independent country” is a question being asked by a sitting government of its electorate and it’s there because we asked for it. Democracy in action has been a rarity in this Scotland, and the taste is rather pleasing when a democratic deficit has been the norm.
Incidentally, another interesting point for those who argue semantics about Holyrood being a Scottish Executive is the wording of the 1997 poll “I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament”. A Scottish parliament is what was voted on by the electorate. It was the will of the people, it was democracy; anything else is confabulation.
The 1997 referendum also used the word “agree”, to find fault with that terminology now would be ludicrous. It is Westminster’s nit picking its own electoral commission’s approved phraseology, period.
The thoughts engendered by the tweet and Cameron’s actions required looking at the polls again, but looking at them in a different light. It’s been an interesting 2012 so far. Barely a month in and the polls for the independence referendum are showing a reasonable surge for the yes campaign.
It’s not the surge that’s so important, or the polls, but who will actually turn out and vote. Who will that 60% to 70% of the populace represent? For if they’re primarily independence supporters, Westminster’s position is justifiably in trouble.
This may be what lies behind Salmond’s confident smile.
Polling for independence around the time of last year’s Holyrood elections had support for a full restoration of Scotland’s rights in the low 30% area. From there it took a little spike after the election and has now settled into a slow upwards creep.
January 2012 saw the anticipated flurry of polls around the time of the announcement of the consultation document. While most show independence neck and neck with unionism, in some cases it is actually nudging slightly ahead for the first time in years.
Since the advent of approval for a parliament at Holyrood there has been a significant fluctuation in independence support, a Scotsman ICM poll on June 5th 1998 showed 52% in favour with only 41% against and 7% undecided. These heady heights were balanced by another poll, the Telegraph’s Yougov survey on March 1st 2010 showing support for Holyrood’s motion down to 27%.
The low support poll was a potential aberration, it was taken in the middle of a Westminster election and it was done by Yougov who have a distinct track record of inaccuracy in Scots polling numbers, so much so, that they’ve actually had to acknowledge their errors themselves.
Working on the fact that the low Yougov result in 2010 is a reasonably pessimistic estimate of the bottom end of hard core independence support and that hard core support will walk through Hades itself to cast a ballot, the Scottish government can conservatively expect some 25% of the electorate to endorse its motion for independence.
We know there are about 4 million voters in Scotland.
It’s reasonable to estimate using polling and prior referendum results, which about 25% or 1 million are hard core nationalists upon whom Scotland can count to actually vote for her march to restoration.
In 1997 we know that 74.3% believed there should be a Scottish parliament and that 63.5% of those who turned out thought it should have tax raising powers. Both are almost 10% above where many polls had the numbers. We also know that almost 26% didn’t like the idea of a Scottish parliament at all, let’s call these 26% the hard core unionists of 1997.
An interesting poll that’s not been done, perhaps because our mainstream media wouldn’t like the result, is one asking the 1997 referendum questions of those who have become eligible to vote since then. It would certainly help identify the hard core “no” vote.
It is a reasonable hypothesis based upon polling demographics, that if the same questions were to be posed today the relative numbers would be over 80/20. With many of our younger generation who have known nothing other than Holyrood shaping their lives not being able to conceive of life without a Scottish parliament. We may therefore have a hard core 20% no vote.
In 1997 there was a turnout approaching 2.4 million, it’s reasonable to postulate we’ll see the same again, perhaps a hundred thousand more with our population increase.
Based upon 1997 data, on a referendum taken before the SNP had fully begun embrace social media and wrap its arms around the most comprehensive voter demographic identification system in these islands, quite possibly anywhere, those favouring home rule still managed to swing a 3:1 victory.
3:1 is a quite incredible result in any democracy for any question.
2014 will see Scotland in a potentially simpler place for nationalist aspirations as the party holding the core tenet of Scotland’s restoration is now the democratically elected party of government. Couple this to Westminster’s knowledge that it lost heavily in 1997 under a several month old popular Labour administration that Scots had voted for in substantial numbers. Consider next that 2014 will see a vote taken after four years of Con-Dem austerity forced upon Scots by a party with a severe democratic deficit and the convergence of fault lines appears nearly complete for destruction of the Union cause.
Round off the argument with the knowledge that Holyrood and Westminster are now diametrically opposed governments with fundamentally different core values. The first is socially democratic and the latter is capitalistic, avaricious and appears determined to undermine the social structures of these islands.
The government of Scotland is still very much aware that 2014 will be a harder sell because now its autonomy and not devolution that is sought. None are presently proposing Westminster’s hard sell of a perceived UK safety blanket be maintained after any “yes” vote.
Conversely 2014 will also see an easier sell by the Scottish government due to the utter lack of any political mandate in Scotland by the present UK government and the four years plus of austerity. Between the two areas it’s reasonable to expect a near balance with what happened in 1997.
Holyrood has a right to be optimistic, and to project that optimism. Based upon historical trends the cause of Scotland restoring her rightful place in the world is a simple game of numbers. That numbers game was only helped by a recent poll which did something other’s had not. It asked if Scots, knowing that they’d be better off would then vote for independence.
The significance of this wasn’t what was portrayed by the media, that of mean spirited, penny pinching rapacious Scots. It was far more reasonable to view it as another type of question, one which asked “If you knew the financial scare stories were rubbish, would you vote for independence”. The “ayes” had it by almost 2:1.
2:1, oddly that’s about the same as 1997’s vote for tax raising powers. The same percentages still wish to reap our own harvest and ring our own till.
In the last year or so Westminster has finally been acknowledging that Scotland isn’t “too poor”, although that argument still gets regularly trotted out. By referendum time it should be well buried. It will take the full two years to deprogram many Scots and for some, sadly, a lifetime may not be enough.
If our elected government’s motion is to pass, it must have somewhere above 1.2 million Scots endorsing it. At a low estimate there are already 1 million plus who will literally crawl to the polls to give that affirmation. Even when allowing for a population rise since 1997 that puts the proposal only 250,000 votes shy of passing.
Working with these numbers it’s possible to acknowledge that the hard core unionists now account for some 20% of the vote, the vast majority of them will show up to the poll. Effectively this means there may be somewhere over 750,000 “no” votes are in Cameron’s swag bag.
These union focused minds can be considered closed to argument; they can also be taken as already having been identified by the “yes” campaign. It can be acknowledged resources are unlikely to be wasted trying to convert them.
This means there are some 2.2 million “open” votes. The Holyrood has only to get 12% of these to the poll as a “Yes” vote and it should see its motion passed. It will take work to achieve the desired result but careful consideration says it really must be Edinburgh’s referendum to lose, not Westminster’s referendum to win.
It’s important to realise that it is not 12% of the electorate which the Scottish government needs to convert from a “no”, just 12% that need to show up, most if not all who might be inclined to vote yes anyway. Expect double or triple number that to be duly identified and ferried to the poll if required.
Add to these numbers the typical demographic where the highest support for independence is found. These are the more moderate earners who typically don’t see the high pay/bonus culture union rewards that those with elevated incomes do. Consider also they are often not hard targets of the pollsters, and the real situation may be even more skewed towards supporting the Scottish government motion than it first appears.
Westminster’s present policies are also dramatically enlarging the demographic from which independence is drawing much of its support; no change is expected in that trend before the poll.
Nothing is certain, and even a week can be a long time in politics, but Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and the rest of the incumbents at Holyrood certainly seem to have good reason for the optimism being evidenced.
Now, well now it’s our turn to support the government we elected in realizing one of its key policies. If only half of the individuals convinced of the benefits of their government’s motion converts or firms up just one additional vote, and if just half of them make it to the poll then Holyrood has every reason to be confident.
Take a neighbour.
This attempt to subvert democracy has a potential to call into question any possible outcome involving a vote against the Scottish government’s proposed question.
If the comment is factual, and we’ve no reason to believe it isn’t, why are the supporters of the Union giving Holyrood a cast iron reason to call down any failure to pass their primary motion; independence. What has unionists panicking at this very early stage and how is it that they appear to be already expecting to lose?
We understand that David Cameron basically threw in the towel last weekend with his “in or out” ultimatum; with the appetite for increased enfranchisement and democracy that’s self-evident in Scotland, the UK PM’s action has no other interpretation. This followed by the blatant slight of Alex Salmond by the BBC over an appearance before the Calcutta Cup, the Union is destroying its own cause.
Let us be very clear, “Do you agree Scotland should be an independent country” is a question being asked by a sitting government of its electorate and it’s there because we asked for it. Democracy in action has been a rarity in this Scotland, and the taste is rather pleasing when a democratic deficit has been the norm.
Incidentally, another interesting point for those who argue semantics about Holyrood being a Scottish Executive is the wording of the 1997 poll “I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament”. A Scottish parliament is what was voted on by the electorate. It was the will of the people, it was democracy; anything else is confabulation.
The 1997 referendum also used the word “agree”, to find fault with that terminology now would be ludicrous. It is Westminster’s nit picking its own electoral commission’s approved phraseology, period.
The thoughts engendered by the tweet and Cameron’s actions required looking at the polls again, but looking at them in a different light. It’s been an interesting 2012 so far. Barely a month in and the polls for the independence referendum are showing a reasonable surge for the yes campaign.
It’s not the surge that’s so important, or the polls, but who will actually turn out and vote. Who will that 60% to 70% of the populace represent? For if they’re primarily independence supporters, Westminster’s position is justifiably in trouble.
This may be what lies behind Salmond’s confident smile.
Polling for independence around the time of last year’s Holyrood elections had support for a full restoration of Scotland’s rights in the low 30% area. From there it took a little spike after the election and has now settled into a slow upwards creep.
January 2012 saw the anticipated flurry of polls around the time of the announcement of the consultation document. While most show independence neck and neck with unionism, in some cases it is actually nudging slightly ahead for the first time in years.
Since the advent of approval for a parliament at Holyrood there has been a significant fluctuation in independence support, a Scotsman ICM poll on June 5th 1998 showed 52% in favour with only 41% against and 7% undecided. These heady heights were balanced by another poll, the Telegraph’s Yougov survey on March 1st 2010 showing support for Holyrood’s motion down to 27%.
The low support poll was a potential aberration, it was taken in the middle of a Westminster election and it was done by Yougov who have a distinct track record of inaccuracy in Scots polling numbers, so much so, that they’ve actually had to acknowledge their errors themselves.
Working on the fact that the low Yougov result in 2010 is a reasonably pessimistic estimate of the bottom end of hard core independence support and that hard core support will walk through Hades itself to cast a ballot, the Scottish government can conservatively expect some 25% of the electorate to endorse its motion for independence.
We know there are about 4 million voters in Scotland.
It’s reasonable to estimate using polling and prior referendum results, which about 25% or 1 million are hard core nationalists upon whom Scotland can count to actually vote for her march to restoration.
In 1997 we know that 74.3% believed there should be a Scottish parliament and that 63.5% of those who turned out thought it should have tax raising powers. Both are almost 10% above where many polls had the numbers. We also know that almost 26% didn’t like the idea of a Scottish parliament at all, let’s call these 26% the hard core unionists of 1997.
An interesting poll that’s not been done, perhaps because our mainstream media wouldn’t like the result, is one asking the 1997 referendum questions of those who have become eligible to vote since then. It would certainly help identify the hard core “no” vote.
It is a reasonable hypothesis based upon polling demographics, that if the same questions were to be posed today the relative numbers would be over 80/20. With many of our younger generation who have known nothing other than Holyrood shaping their lives not being able to conceive of life without a Scottish parliament. We may therefore have a hard core 20% no vote.
In 1997 there was a turnout approaching 2.4 million, it’s reasonable to postulate we’ll see the same again, perhaps a hundred thousand more with our population increase.
Based upon 1997 data, on a referendum taken before the SNP had fully begun embrace social media and wrap its arms around the most comprehensive voter demographic identification system in these islands, quite possibly anywhere, those favouring home rule still managed to swing a 3:1 victory.
3:1 is a quite incredible result in any democracy for any question.
2014 will see Scotland in a potentially simpler place for nationalist aspirations as the party holding the core tenet of Scotland’s restoration is now the democratically elected party of government. Couple this to Westminster’s knowledge that it lost heavily in 1997 under a several month old popular Labour administration that Scots had voted for in substantial numbers. Consider next that 2014 will see a vote taken after four years of Con-Dem austerity forced upon Scots by a party with a severe democratic deficit and the convergence of fault lines appears nearly complete for destruction of the Union cause.
Round off the argument with the knowledge that Holyrood and Westminster are now diametrically opposed governments with fundamentally different core values. The first is socially democratic and the latter is capitalistic, avaricious and appears determined to undermine the social structures of these islands.
The government of Scotland is still very much aware that 2014 will be a harder sell because now its autonomy and not devolution that is sought. None are presently proposing Westminster’s hard sell of a perceived UK safety blanket be maintained after any “yes” vote.
Conversely 2014 will also see an easier sell by the Scottish government due to the utter lack of any political mandate in Scotland by the present UK government and the four years plus of austerity. Between the two areas it’s reasonable to expect a near balance with what happened in 1997.
Holyrood has a right to be optimistic, and to project that optimism. Based upon historical trends the cause of Scotland restoring her rightful place in the world is a simple game of numbers. That numbers game was only helped by a recent poll which did something other’s had not. It asked if Scots, knowing that they’d be better off would then vote for independence.
The significance of this wasn’t what was portrayed by the media, that of mean spirited, penny pinching rapacious Scots. It was far more reasonable to view it as another type of question, one which asked “If you knew the financial scare stories were rubbish, would you vote for independence”. The “ayes” had it by almost 2:1.
2:1, oddly that’s about the same as 1997’s vote for tax raising powers. The same percentages still wish to reap our own harvest and ring our own till.
In the last year or so Westminster has finally been acknowledging that Scotland isn’t “too poor”, although that argument still gets regularly trotted out. By referendum time it should be well buried. It will take the full two years to deprogram many Scots and for some, sadly, a lifetime may not be enough.
If our elected government’s motion is to pass, it must have somewhere above 1.2 million Scots endorsing it. At a low estimate there are already 1 million plus who will literally crawl to the polls to give that affirmation. Even when allowing for a population rise since 1997 that puts the proposal only 250,000 votes shy of passing.
Working with these numbers it’s possible to acknowledge that the hard core unionists now account for some 20% of the vote, the vast majority of them will show up to the poll. Effectively this means there may be somewhere over 750,000 “no” votes are in Cameron’s swag bag.
These union focused minds can be considered closed to argument; they can also be taken as already having been identified by the “yes” campaign. It can be acknowledged resources are unlikely to be wasted trying to convert them.
This means there are some 2.2 million “open” votes. The Holyrood has only to get 12% of these to the poll as a “Yes” vote and it should see its motion passed. It will take work to achieve the desired result but careful consideration says it really must be Edinburgh’s referendum to lose, not Westminster’s referendum to win.
It’s important to realise that it is not 12% of the electorate which the Scottish government needs to convert from a “no”, just 12% that need to show up, most if not all who might be inclined to vote yes anyway. Expect double or triple number that to be duly identified and ferried to the poll if required.
Add to these numbers the typical demographic where the highest support for independence is found. These are the more moderate earners who typically don’t see the high pay/bonus culture union rewards that those with elevated incomes do. Consider also they are often not hard targets of the pollsters, and the real situation may be even more skewed towards supporting the Scottish government motion than it first appears.
Westminster’s present policies are also dramatically enlarging the demographic from which independence is drawing much of its support; no change is expected in that trend before the poll.
Nothing is certain, and even a week can be a long time in politics, but Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and the rest of the incumbents at Holyrood certainly seem to have good reason for the optimism being evidenced.
Now, well now it’s our turn to support the government we elected in realizing one of its key policies. If only half of the individuals convinced of the benefits of their government’s motion converts or firms up just one additional vote, and if just half of them make it to the poll then Holyrood has every reason to be confident.
Take a neighbour.
Thursday, 2 February 2012
Politics of Fear
“I’m a feartie.
And I’m going to project that fear onto you, people of Scotland.”
This is Westminster’s foundation towards winning a referendum and binding a sovereign people.
Fear.
The Westminster fear is that there aren’t enough gullible Scots to bite; there never have been as the Home Rule petition with its 2 million signatures in 1952 showed and the “Yes” responses in the 1979 and 1997 referendums confirmed.
This is why fear is now palpable in Westminster, fear for its very existence, its authority and its standing in our world. Fear that it will become the global laughing stock which that babbling cauldron so richly deserves to be.
Fear is based either in ignorance or as a result of real danger, often mortal. Fear frequently causes acts of irrationality or real desperation. The fear emanating from Westminster since May 5th 2011 has been quite palpable – not acute point of causing paralysis, but well into the realm where we have observed several acts of desperation.
The latest of these acts was another attempt to disenfranchise the Scots yet again, an attempt by George Foulkes to “outlaw” a devo max question. All informed individuals are aware that as the debate about our nation’s future progresses the potential need for this question may well reduce to the point of irrelevance, but just in case it doesn’t that door of democracy shouldn’t be closed.
January’s affirmation of the claim of right in Holyrood certainly appears to have altered the dynamics of the devo max question. Within 48 hours of the declaration David Cameron took the option off the table. Cameron probably did this because he then knew that it was also now a vote for independence, although only fiscal independence. He also knew, and truly may have feared, that the Scots might wake up to the fact that devo max was no longer “his gift”, but Scotland’s right.
Westminster believes it will lose a devo max option. This creates fear of imminent demise, and that fear begets rash acts. The removal of devo max from the ballot was such a rash act, because David Cameron is gambling that he still has enough time to recover from this blatant disrespect and perhaps squeeze a “no” vote from the Scottish electorate. Confabulation, scaremongering and disinformation will be the Westminster stance for the next two years.
George Foulkes backing up Cameron was a rash act, engendered by the now very real fear of loss of a place at Westminster’s cash laden trough, cash laden because we’re forced to fill it.
In the final analysis the questions, manner, wording and number are now up to the Scots. We will decide. Cameron acknowledged this with his “in or out”; he didn’t say there couldn’t be extra questions, just that he wouldn’t agree to them. The difference in tone was noteworthy. The essence of the UK announcement was “without Scotland’s resources, we don’t want Scotland”.
If we as a nation choose to have a third question or a thirtieth on the ballot paper, we will put it there. We have affirmed again it is our sovereign right to act as we will. The only thing that should prevent Scots from placing a third option on the ballot is our own sovereign will, or lack of need. Fear should never enter the equation.
We have a right to require an amended Union. Westminster has a right to accept or terminate the Union. We have a right to set a timeframe for Westminster’s response.
The fundamental logic is as linear as it is simple.
In 1707 a treaty was created where two sovereign nations unified their parliaments. This was done by what was at the time recognized as the representative will of the respective peoples.
Article three of that treaty created a single parliament. It effectively robbed the Scots and the English of a sovereign parliamentary voice. That newly created parliament had no authority over the Union Treaty unless given leave to amend it in certain specific articles. In other specific articles it was banned from amendment options. Some sections were left open.
With the independent parliaments of Scotland and England suspended, or adjourned, the majority of the treaty could not be changed. This situation lasted for almost three centuries; it was why Westminster lived in fear of Scotland ever having a functional democratic voice, a parliament, because it would have control over the Treaty of Union where Westminster did not.
In 1997 there was a referendum in Scotland; almost 75% of Scots supported the question “I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament”. It was not an executive, it was a parliament, and it should have tax raising powers.
Westminster’s politicians and the Union machine went into overdrive to convince Scots again that they were too “wee, stupid and poor” to achieve this. The fear campaign failed. It took two years to bring forward a relatively toothless legislative body with a voting system designed to keep Westminster parties, the proponents of Union, firmly in charge.
Proportional voting, with three London based parties combining to split Scotland’s vote and prevent any parliamentary declaration of sovereignty seemed designed for Westminster success. This system would take a perfect storm of political mishaps to converge, simultaneously, for there to be any upset to Westminster’s status quo.
“Reserved powers” became an illusory reality. Westminster couldn’t stop the annulment of article three of the treaty of Union at the option of the Scots in 1997. Article three read simply “III. That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same parliament, to be stiled the parliament of Great Britain”.
The illusory reality aspect, we’re no longer under the Parliament of Great Britain, but a successor, that’s notable as it inherited the powers, however there’s now no longer one parliament, there’s two of significance to this issue. Westminster’s problem is that one has control over the Treaty of Union where the other doesn’t. The hard reality is that Holyrood as a Scots parliament has control over the aspects of the Union treaty which Westminster does not.
The second aspect to the illusion is that “reserved” only had meaning as long as Holyrood allowed it, as we’re now so ably demonstrating. In reality there is no reserved because Holyrood now controls the 1707 treaty. London knew this in 1997. It was the reason for the shenanigans whereby Westminster forced a voting system on Scotland that she herself would and will not accept.
Since 1999 and Winnie Ewing’s carefully chosen opening address we have had our destiny in our own hands. Since that date we have had control of the Treaty of Union again, with all the fear engendering aspects of reality this situation holds for Westminster.
Since May 5th 2011 we have had a government who might be willing to use these powers. That is why Alex Salmond rightly informed London that its days of diktat were over. He chose his words carefully and came from a position of knowledge and strength. Salmond was right to a point, because Westminster can still dictate if we go to a poll and give it the authority, but he’s effectively stopped it grabbing back power without a poll.
This means that because “reserved” is now a useless illusion Scots can impose a new reality. If we choose to place devo max, FFA or any other verbiage on the ballot, and it passes for implementation, then that is how we choose to amend the Treaty of Union.
It is no longer Westminster’s gift, it is Westminster’s choice to accept or reject Scotland’s terms.
Should Westminster reject the terms Scotland places before her, and she will if it is anything less than an incorporating monetary union where London keeps control of Scotland’s wealth, its independence anyway. In this case it is simply independence created by reaction rather than chosen by action.
Holyrood doesn’t, and can’t simply declare a unilateral position on the constitution; because that’s not the premise we elected our government on. We elected them to play by the rules as they exist until we have our say in a referendum as promised.
The affirmation of the Claim of Right puts that shackle as firmly around Holyrood as it does around Westminster. That affirmation puts everything back into the domain of the individual Scot, a domain it should never have been removed from in the first place.
In a basic sense, we’ve been marching towards a point since 1952 where anything except a “no” vote means the marriage is over. Devo max in any incarnation is an offer of a new marriage but with a “pre-nup” on Scotland’s terms. As these yet unspecified terms have already been summarily dismissed as unacceptable by Westminster, there will be no new marriage.
As we walk to that poll we should remember that the future is never certain, and that if our choices on the day are limited, we will understand those limits are engineered by Westminster’s fears.
We also know that we should not fear, because that will influence our decision. We should not fear because our adversary wishes us to. We should not fear from a position of ignorance or lack of knowledge. We should not fear because it will give another the opportunity to exploit us.
We should not fear, we should walk forward with knowledge, for in knowledge lies the certainty of the right decision, not the panic or haste of the wrong one.
As we walk to the poll in 2014, we will leave the fear behind; we will leave the fear in London.
And I’m going to project that fear onto you, people of Scotland.”
This is Westminster’s foundation towards winning a referendum and binding a sovereign people.
Fear.
The Westminster fear is that there aren’t enough gullible Scots to bite; there never have been as the Home Rule petition with its 2 million signatures in 1952 showed and the “Yes” responses in the 1979 and 1997 referendums confirmed.
This is why fear is now palpable in Westminster, fear for its very existence, its authority and its standing in our world. Fear that it will become the global laughing stock which that babbling cauldron so richly deserves to be.
Fear is based either in ignorance or as a result of real danger, often mortal. Fear frequently causes acts of irrationality or real desperation. The fear emanating from Westminster since May 5th 2011 has been quite palpable – not acute point of causing paralysis, but well into the realm where we have observed several acts of desperation.
The latest of these acts was another attempt to disenfranchise the Scots yet again, an attempt by George Foulkes to “outlaw” a devo max question. All informed individuals are aware that as the debate about our nation’s future progresses the potential need for this question may well reduce to the point of irrelevance, but just in case it doesn’t that door of democracy shouldn’t be closed.
January’s affirmation of the claim of right in Holyrood certainly appears to have altered the dynamics of the devo max question. Within 48 hours of the declaration David Cameron took the option off the table. Cameron probably did this because he then knew that it was also now a vote for independence, although only fiscal independence. He also knew, and truly may have feared, that the Scots might wake up to the fact that devo max was no longer “his gift”, but Scotland’s right.
Westminster believes it will lose a devo max option. This creates fear of imminent demise, and that fear begets rash acts. The removal of devo max from the ballot was such a rash act, because David Cameron is gambling that he still has enough time to recover from this blatant disrespect and perhaps squeeze a “no” vote from the Scottish electorate. Confabulation, scaremongering and disinformation will be the Westminster stance for the next two years.
George Foulkes backing up Cameron was a rash act, engendered by the now very real fear of loss of a place at Westminster’s cash laden trough, cash laden because we’re forced to fill it.
In the final analysis the questions, manner, wording and number are now up to the Scots. We will decide. Cameron acknowledged this with his “in or out”; he didn’t say there couldn’t be extra questions, just that he wouldn’t agree to them. The difference in tone was noteworthy. The essence of the UK announcement was “without Scotland’s resources, we don’t want Scotland”.
If we as a nation choose to have a third question or a thirtieth on the ballot paper, we will put it there. We have affirmed again it is our sovereign right to act as we will. The only thing that should prevent Scots from placing a third option on the ballot is our own sovereign will, or lack of need. Fear should never enter the equation.
We have a right to require an amended Union. Westminster has a right to accept or terminate the Union. We have a right to set a timeframe for Westminster’s response.
The fundamental logic is as linear as it is simple.
In 1707 a treaty was created where two sovereign nations unified their parliaments. This was done by what was at the time recognized as the representative will of the respective peoples.
Article three of that treaty created a single parliament. It effectively robbed the Scots and the English of a sovereign parliamentary voice. That newly created parliament had no authority over the Union Treaty unless given leave to amend it in certain specific articles. In other specific articles it was banned from amendment options. Some sections were left open.
With the independent parliaments of Scotland and England suspended, or adjourned, the majority of the treaty could not be changed. This situation lasted for almost three centuries; it was why Westminster lived in fear of Scotland ever having a functional democratic voice, a parliament, because it would have control over the Treaty of Union where Westminster did not.
In 1997 there was a referendum in Scotland; almost 75% of Scots supported the question “I agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament”. It was not an executive, it was a parliament, and it should have tax raising powers.
Westminster’s politicians and the Union machine went into overdrive to convince Scots again that they were too “wee, stupid and poor” to achieve this. The fear campaign failed. It took two years to bring forward a relatively toothless legislative body with a voting system designed to keep Westminster parties, the proponents of Union, firmly in charge.
Proportional voting, with three London based parties combining to split Scotland’s vote and prevent any parliamentary declaration of sovereignty seemed designed for Westminster success. This system would take a perfect storm of political mishaps to converge, simultaneously, for there to be any upset to Westminster’s status quo.
“Reserved powers” became an illusory reality. Westminster couldn’t stop the annulment of article three of the treaty of Union at the option of the Scots in 1997. Article three read simply “III. That the United Kingdom of Great Britain be represented by one and the same parliament, to be stiled the parliament of Great Britain”.
The illusory reality aspect, we’re no longer under the Parliament of Great Britain, but a successor, that’s notable as it inherited the powers, however there’s now no longer one parliament, there’s two of significance to this issue. Westminster’s problem is that one has control over the Treaty of Union where the other doesn’t. The hard reality is that Holyrood as a Scots parliament has control over the aspects of the Union treaty which Westminster does not.
The second aspect to the illusion is that “reserved” only had meaning as long as Holyrood allowed it, as we’re now so ably demonstrating. In reality there is no reserved because Holyrood now controls the 1707 treaty. London knew this in 1997. It was the reason for the shenanigans whereby Westminster forced a voting system on Scotland that she herself would and will not accept.
Since 1999 and Winnie Ewing’s carefully chosen opening address we have had our destiny in our own hands. Since that date we have had control of the Treaty of Union again, with all the fear engendering aspects of reality this situation holds for Westminster.
Since May 5th 2011 we have had a government who might be willing to use these powers. That is why Alex Salmond rightly informed London that its days of diktat were over. He chose his words carefully and came from a position of knowledge and strength. Salmond was right to a point, because Westminster can still dictate if we go to a poll and give it the authority, but he’s effectively stopped it grabbing back power without a poll.
This means that because “reserved” is now a useless illusion Scots can impose a new reality. If we choose to place devo max, FFA or any other verbiage on the ballot, and it passes for implementation, then that is how we choose to amend the Treaty of Union.
It is no longer Westminster’s gift, it is Westminster’s choice to accept or reject Scotland’s terms.
Should Westminster reject the terms Scotland places before her, and she will if it is anything less than an incorporating monetary union where London keeps control of Scotland’s wealth, its independence anyway. In this case it is simply independence created by reaction rather than chosen by action.
Holyrood doesn’t, and can’t simply declare a unilateral position on the constitution; because that’s not the premise we elected our government on. We elected them to play by the rules as they exist until we have our say in a referendum as promised.
The affirmation of the Claim of Right puts that shackle as firmly around Holyrood as it does around Westminster. That affirmation puts everything back into the domain of the individual Scot, a domain it should never have been removed from in the first place.
In a basic sense, we’ve been marching towards a point since 1952 where anything except a “no” vote means the marriage is over. Devo max in any incarnation is an offer of a new marriage but with a “pre-nup” on Scotland’s terms. As these yet unspecified terms have already been summarily dismissed as unacceptable by Westminster, there will be no new marriage.
As we walk to that poll we should remember that the future is never certain, and that if our choices on the day are limited, we will understand those limits are engineered by Westminster’s fears.
We also know that we should not fear, because that will influence our decision. We should not fear because our adversary wishes us to. We should not fear from a position of ignorance or lack of knowledge. We should not fear because it will give another the opportunity to exploit us.
We should not fear, we should walk forward with knowledge, for in knowledge lies the certainty of the right decision, not the panic or haste of the wrong one.
As we walk to the poll in 2014, we will leave the fear behind; we will leave the fear in London.
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
Straight from the horse’s mouth, or what Mr. Ed really said in Glasgow.
Ed Miliband was in Glasgow on the 30th of January, supposedly outlining the Labour case for keeping Scotland in the Union. Between Ed currently being in charge of Labour party policy at UK level, and this event being the first major case made for the Union by a UK party leader since the referendum announcement, we waited with bated breath for the Positive Case.
Finally, Labour UK with its presentation of The Positive Case. Furthermore, what tantalising details could Labour Scotland add? The tension across the nation was (almost) palpable.
Mr. Miliband started out with calls over curbing executive pay. You know, employees sitting on company boards and deciding their managers or owners compensation packages. This policy could only be described as a relocation incentive package for any business owner. To be able to know who should be paid what, those employees would require full access to the books in order to know what can be afforded, and which company is going to reveal this sort of ammunition to mere plebeians? This is an unenforceable waffle-policy that is designed to make the uneducated feel good. The original Mr. Ed at least had horse-sense.
The Glasgow speech then rolled over into the area of more responsible capitalism. Since it was Labour, his party, who were the major driving-force behind dismantling protective legislation, subverting the monopolies commission in order to create super-banks, and were the proponents of “light touch regulation”, it was most interesting to hear Mr. Miliband try this overtly hypocritical angle. Significantly, the detail on how "responsible capitalism" was to be achieved was missing. That’d be more waffling then.
Red Ed then marched into the Union, pounding the message that we stand or fall by our ability to work together. That is why he is making the case for Scotland to stay in the UK, he says. After centuries of failure from Westminster, what was specifically lacking in his oratory was precisely how this would suddenly change, and how Scotland would now surprisingly benefit by remaining within this malfunctioning union and “working together”.
Ms. Lamont’s boss did say he came to Scotland with "humility" because of Labour's performance in the Scottish elections last year. He showed his humility alright, by attempting to legitimise his right to be involved in Scotland’s referendum debate because of his father’s military record during WWII, claiming “He fought in the Navy and served off the Forth of Firth. He did not come to England; he came to Britain”.
Whether the error was by Ed or The Guardian is immaterial. Either way it was another anecdotal example of Londoner’s just not bothering to learn or understand the nuances of Scotland's language.
However, what Ed didn’t reveal was what his father, a refugee from Nazism in Europe, really thought of the England. An excerpt from his diary dated 1940 states, “The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world .... England first. This slogan is taken for granted by the English people as a whole. To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation.” Prophetic words from Mr M snr.? Link
It is certainly arguable we Scots are almost the last bastion of that now dead empire, and that our inclusive Scottish nationalism may well be utter anathema to its relation south of the Tweed.
The next thundering statement from Mr. Ed was stunning, only because it was so blatantly obvious, “If Scotland separates, all people living in the four nations of the UK will be affected”. What wasn’t clarified for any listener was how it would impact the individuals concerned – or if indeed, the impact might be more limited to the political classes. The tone and context of delivery inferred England, Wales and Northern Ireland couldn’t make it without Scotland, and consequently we should voluntarily submit our nation to ongoing exploitation.
Subsequent to Thursday’s affirmation of the Claim of Right at Holyrood, there was little option available to him but to agree that the people of Scotland should decide the timing of the referendum. He didn’t disappoint. Whilst he is now singing from the same hymn sheet as his arch ally David Cameron, he was a little more diplomatic about the referendum question(s) saying simply, it “should” and not “must” be based upon "one clear question". This One Clear Question approach affirms and confirms that without unfettered control of Scotland’s resources, Westminster simply doesn’t want to deal with the Scots.
Ed confirmed the basis of that argument as he continued by stating he does not want Scotland to stay in the UK because he thinks it is too weak to flourish on its own.
At last. Something of substance from the Labour leader; Scotland is a strong country and will, in his opinion, succeed as an independent nation. Perhaps the Positive Case for the Union was about to begin to unfold.
However, what followed was a bit of a let-down: “I support Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, not because I think Scotland is too poor or too weak to break away. But for a profoundly different reason: Because I believe that Scotland as part of the United Kingdom is better for the working people of Scotland, and better for the working people of the United Kingdom as a whole”.
Oh, dear, what we have here is totally contradictory hogwash. Scotland is acknowledged as being in surplus. Ed Miliband even acknowledges we’re strong enough to succeed, yet he says Scots and then English, Welsh and N. Irish are better together, especially the working class. Definitely something is missing in this argument, because the working class create the wealth of a nation. And here is the Labour leader telling us that Scotland’s working class will be better off if they give a ton of their hard earned wealth away to support the folks in other countries.
It is undoubted that Scotland will help her neighbours after independence, as we have done in the past. It’s just that in future it will be called what it really is, “foreign aid”. However, we’ll decide when, what or how much we can afford, although it is likely to be more limited than in the past. That is, until our own areas of incredible child poverty and deprivation, which were engineered under the Union, are cared for.
Continuing his speech, the Labour leader said, “The real divide in the UK is not between Scotland and England but between the haves and the have-nots. Here Mr. Miliband appears to miss the fact that it was under Labour that this great gulf, which had been narrowing, saw a very dramatic re-opening. It also appeared to create no embarrassment to the erstwhile champion of the red rose that here was a “have” being utterly condescending to the “have nots” whose support he was bent on gathering. Irony obviously escapes Mr. Ed.
Ms. Lamont’s star import then proceeded to wax lyrical about the history of “social justice” in “this country”. Again the irony was lost that he, one of the elite, was speaking of social justice in a city where the life expectancy can often be less than that of the Palestinian West Bank population. He also chose to blissfully ignore the fact that during the last decade his party had set in motion the dismantling of “social Britain”. Not the Tories, they are merely continuing the process begun by Labour.
He then reminded us it was a Scotsman, Keir Hardie, who founded the Labour party one hundred and twelve years ago. Importantly, Ed omitted to inform us that one of Hardie’s main goals was home rule for Scotland.
Going on to reference the Equal Pay Act and the minimum wage as “British achievements”, he appeared to be implying that an independent Scotland couldn’t implement its own “living wage” policy. However, the “British Achievement” of the current minimum wage which doesn’t allow the recipient any escape from the poverty trap, can’t in reality be expected solve many of society’s woes.
As leader of the party who dismantled much of the UK legal safeguards to prevent rampant capitalism running amok, Ed Miliband espoused that building responsible capitalism is "the true project for social justice in our United Kingdom". He may be incapable of recognising it, but this was irony incarnate, and he appears to have a talent for it.
The remainder of Ed’s speech continued in waffle feel-good mode without any single item of hard backed verifiable substance. Tackling climate change was one aspect where he did refer to a need for cooperation. All that sprang to mind was “fine Ed, catch up”.
One interesting and fairly important question from an individual in the audience came later, “Is there any economic data about what might happen to Scotland post-independence?” It’s an unambiguous question, fairly asked. You would expect Miliband being leader of a Whitehall party to be in the perfect position to know exactly what Scotland contributes, i.e. her net balance sheet. In spite of this, it was answered by Johann Lamont, saying the question illustrated an important issue. Her response continued in a stunning fashion stating that when people pose questions like this they are accused of "talking down Scotland". Ms. Lamont, how is asking about Scotland’s accounts “talking down” the nation? Or was this a question too far? Would the truth have proven to be so utterly harmful to the Unionist cause as to be fatal?
The only word that can describe today’s Glasgow utterances from one of Westminster’s key politicians is – vacuous.
From his Scottish leader, it was far, far worse.
Finally, Labour UK with its presentation of The Positive Case. Furthermore, what tantalising details could Labour Scotland add? The tension across the nation was (almost) palpable.
Mr. Miliband started out with calls over curbing executive pay. You know, employees sitting on company boards and deciding their managers or owners compensation packages. This policy could only be described as a relocation incentive package for any business owner. To be able to know who should be paid what, those employees would require full access to the books in order to know what can be afforded, and which company is going to reveal this sort of ammunition to mere plebeians? This is an unenforceable waffle-policy that is designed to make the uneducated feel good. The original Mr. Ed at least had horse-sense.
The Glasgow speech then rolled over into the area of more responsible capitalism. Since it was Labour, his party, who were the major driving-force behind dismantling protective legislation, subverting the monopolies commission in order to create super-banks, and were the proponents of “light touch regulation”, it was most interesting to hear Mr. Miliband try this overtly hypocritical angle. Significantly, the detail on how "responsible capitalism" was to be achieved was missing. That’d be more waffling then.
Red Ed then marched into the Union, pounding the message that we stand or fall by our ability to work together. That is why he is making the case for Scotland to stay in the UK, he says. After centuries of failure from Westminster, what was specifically lacking in his oratory was precisely how this would suddenly change, and how Scotland would now surprisingly benefit by remaining within this malfunctioning union and “working together”.
Ms. Lamont’s boss did say he came to Scotland with "humility" because of Labour's performance in the Scottish elections last year. He showed his humility alright, by attempting to legitimise his right to be involved in Scotland’s referendum debate because of his father’s military record during WWII, claiming “He fought in the Navy and served off the Forth of Firth. He did not come to England; he came to Britain”.
Whether the error was by Ed or The Guardian is immaterial. Either way it was another anecdotal example of Londoner’s just not bothering to learn or understand the nuances of Scotland's language.
However, what Ed didn’t reveal was what his father, a refugee from Nazism in Europe, really thought of the England. An excerpt from his diary dated 1940 states, “The Englishman is a rabid nationalist. They are perhaps the most nationalist people in the world .... England first. This slogan is taken for granted by the English people as a whole. To lose their empire would be the worst possible humiliation.” Prophetic words from Mr M snr.? Link
It is certainly arguable we Scots are almost the last bastion of that now dead empire, and that our inclusive Scottish nationalism may well be utter anathema to its relation south of the Tweed.
The next thundering statement from Mr. Ed was stunning, only because it was so blatantly obvious, “If Scotland separates, all people living in the four nations of the UK will be affected”. What wasn’t clarified for any listener was how it would impact the individuals concerned – or if indeed, the impact might be more limited to the political classes. The tone and context of delivery inferred England, Wales and Northern Ireland couldn’t make it without Scotland, and consequently we should voluntarily submit our nation to ongoing exploitation.
Subsequent to Thursday’s affirmation of the Claim of Right at Holyrood, there was little option available to him but to agree that the people of Scotland should decide the timing of the referendum. He didn’t disappoint. Whilst he is now singing from the same hymn sheet as his arch ally David Cameron, he was a little more diplomatic about the referendum question(s) saying simply, it “should” and not “must” be based upon "one clear question". This One Clear Question approach affirms and confirms that without unfettered control of Scotland’s resources, Westminster simply doesn’t want to deal with the Scots.
Ed confirmed the basis of that argument as he continued by stating he does not want Scotland to stay in the UK because he thinks it is too weak to flourish on its own.
At last. Something of substance from the Labour leader; Scotland is a strong country and will, in his opinion, succeed as an independent nation. Perhaps the Positive Case for the Union was about to begin to unfold.
However, what followed was a bit of a let-down: “I support Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, not because I think Scotland is too poor or too weak to break away. But for a profoundly different reason: Because I believe that Scotland as part of the United Kingdom is better for the working people of Scotland, and better for the working people of the United Kingdom as a whole”.
Oh, dear, what we have here is totally contradictory hogwash. Scotland is acknowledged as being in surplus. Ed Miliband even acknowledges we’re strong enough to succeed, yet he says Scots and then English, Welsh and N. Irish are better together, especially the working class. Definitely something is missing in this argument, because the working class create the wealth of a nation. And here is the Labour leader telling us that Scotland’s working class will be better off if they give a ton of their hard earned wealth away to support the folks in other countries.
It is undoubted that Scotland will help her neighbours after independence, as we have done in the past. It’s just that in future it will be called what it really is, “foreign aid”. However, we’ll decide when, what or how much we can afford, although it is likely to be more limited than in the past. That is, until our own areas of incredible child poverty and deprivation, which were engineered under the Union, are cared for.
Continuing his speech, the Labour leader said, “The real divide in the UK is not between Scotland and England but between the haves and the have-nots. Here Mr. Miliband appears to miss the fact that it was under Labour that this great gulf, which had been narrowing, saw a very dramatic re-opening. It also appeared to create no embarrassment to the erstwhile champion of the red rose that here was a “have” being utterly condescending to the “have nots” whose support he was bent on gathering. Irony obviously escapes Mr. Ed.
Ms. Lamont’s star import then proceeded to wax lyrical about the history of “social justice” in “this country”. Again the irony was lost that he, one of the elite, was speaking of social justice in a city where the life expectancy can often be less than that of the Palestinian West Bank population. He also chose to blissfully ignore the fact that during the last decade his party had set in motion the dismantling of “social Britain”. Not the Tories, they are merely continuing the process begun by Labour.
He then reminded us it was a Scotsman, Keir Hardie, who founded the Labour party one hundred and twelve years ago. Importantly, Ed omitted to inform us that one of Hardie’s main goals was home rule for Scotland.
Going on to reference the Equal Pay Act and the minimum wage as “British achievements”, he appeared to be implying that an independent Scotland couldn’t implement its own “living wage” policy. However, the “British Achievement” of the current minimum wage which doesn’t allow the recipient any escape from the poverty trap, can’t in reality be expected solve many of society’s woes.
As leader of the party who dismantled much of the UK legal safeguards to prevent rampant capitalism running amok, Ed Miliband espoused that building responsible capitalism is "the true project for social justice in our United Kingdom". He may be incapable of recognising it, but this was irony incarnate, and he appears to have a talent for it.
The remainder of Ed’s speech continued in waffle feel-good mode without any single item of hard backed verifiable substance. Tackling climate change was one aspect where he did refer to a need for cooperation. All that sprang to mind was “fine Ed, catch up”.
One interesting and fairly important question from an individual in the audience came later, “Is there any economic data about what might happen to Scotland post-independence?” It’s an unambiguous question, fairly asked. You would expect Miliband being leader of a Whitehall party to be in the perfect position to know exactly what Scotland contributes, i.e. her net balance sheet. In spite of this, it was answered by Johann Lamont, saying the question illustrated an important issue. Her response continued in a stunning fashion stating that when people pose questions like this they are accused of "talking down Scotland". Ms. Lamont, how is asking about Scotland’s accounts “talking down” the nation? Or was this a question too far? Would the truth have proven to be so utterly harmful to the Unionist cause as to be fatal?
The only word that can describe today’s Glasgow utterances from one of Westminster’s key politicians is – vacuous.
From his Scottish leader, it was far, far worse.
Sunday, 29 January 2012
January 28th 2012 – Cameron tacitly acknowledges the Union is dead.
At least the Union he was elected to lead is dead. Furthermore, it was only one day after any assertion of Westminster’s sovereignty over the people of Scotland was essentially vetoed by the fully representative parliament of Scotland - Holyrood.
Thursday the 26th of January, at around five past three in the afternoon, heralded what was potentially the most masterful stroke of politics ever seen in these Islands, and almost nobody noticed. Nobody except perhaps Holyrood and Westminster, and neither was sending out the town criers, although for completely different reasons. While Alex Salmond was in Edinburgh Castle, Nicola Sturgeon changed the face of the independence debate.
Most of us were too enthralled by the ongoing “busy wee period” in Scots politics. Between Tankerness tanking on the Beeb, Nicola giving a strong showing, no identifiable positive case for the Union and Alex Salmond delivering masterly oratories at the Hugo Young, in Holyrood and in the great hall of Edinburgh castle, our attention was diverted.
Amid these speeches, the First Minister had an “audience” with Jeremy Paxman which couldn’t have gone better as an independence recruiting tool if had it been stage managed by Angus Robertson. Discussing other interviews, there was also Willy Hague tossing out nonsense about the usage of British Embassies. We later discovered that charges for Embassy services are levelled against Scots organisations, but not UK/English ones.
A short re-cap of the week had the Sovereign Scots leading the Westminster Wastrels by at least 6-0 before the masterful stroke at Holyrood. It took place as daylight waned on Burns' Night. In its rawest form, that Holyrood parliamentary home run requested all MSP’s to pledge to uphold the centuries old Claim of Right.
The Claim of Right fundamentally declares that ordinary Scots citizens are sovereign; not their representatives, parliament or any monarchy. Either each individual MSP goes on record acknowledging they are simply the voice of the electorate, or they state quite publically that the voice of those they represent isn’t worth squat.
The lead in to passing the motion was significant: “All we ask today is that other members of this chamber affirm or reaffirm a principle that many of them, or their fellow party members, were proud to uphold when Scotland’s Claim of Right was then signed in 1989.
“The Declaration of Arbroath famously states that if a Scots ruler were to act against the nation’s interests, the people would “drive him out as.. a subverter of his own rights and ours.”
“Presiding Officer, that basic principle of democracy and popular sovereignty is far more true today. The best guarantee of the integrity of this referendum is the certain knowledge that the people of Scotland, using the ballot box, would be merciless in driving out anyone who tried to conduct it unfairly”.
As the motion passed it formed a chain from 1320 to 2012. It also encompassed the previous parliamentary affirmation in 1689 and the unofficial but no less poignant voice of a disenfranchised people in 1989.
The claim of right is fundamentally entrenched in Scotland. On Thursday the reconvened parliament of Scotland at Holyrood effectively affirmed and averred that Westminster has no binding sovereignty over the Scots.
Such a parliamentary reaffirmation of sovereignty has uncountable and highly interesting future ramifications. Basically, it’s Holyrood exercising its democratic right and informing all and sundry that the only power they have over Scots is what Scots elect to lend through the ballot box and it’s only a loan.
This was Holyrood informing Westminster it must now essentially trample democracy to illegitamise the referendum. Holyrood effectively ensured the field of play will now focus upon Edinburgh, not London. The timing was impeccable in that it was fundamentally an unspoken yet de-facto expression of independence; after three centuries the Scottish people will not be denied due process in expressing their sovereign wishes.
The UN charter is very clear on sovereign rights, it’s a fundamental tenet.
We know The Claim of Right is now re-entrenched, but how Westminster would view the action and where the “legitimacy” discussions on the referendum would go from here were anyone’s guess. The SNP preference would have simultaneous acts putting it beyond doubt, but don’t regard it as a requirement.
We know that constitutional specialist Prof. David Walker opined that Holyrood, irrespective of the means of creation, as a reconvened Scots parliament would have a substantial authority in law to alter, amend or strike the Treaty of Union in total, or by article as it saw fit. This is a power that the Union parliament in Westminster apparently lacks as such authority was not delegated to it except by name in certain articles of the Union Treaty. In effect it will be a largely one sided negotiation.
The Telegraph’s article citing “MoD sources” that Royal Navy chiefs have decided Westminster’s nuclear “deterrent” will stay on the Clyde, regardless of any referendum was something of an anti-climax after the Holyrood motion. It made it initially appear that Westminster would attempt to ignore the Claim of Right.
The nuclear deterrent issue did make it at least 8-0 for the Sovereign Scots in just one week.
The devo max debate then began to get underway with “Civic Scotland” setting forth its intentions, with Monday, 30th of January being mooted as the kick-off day.
David Cameron was faced with Hobson’s choice. Kill the devo max debate and formally proclaim Westminster’s position, or be seen to endorse it through lack of opposition. After the euro-veto Holyrood was close to betting on a sure thing as to which way the UK PM would eventually jump, and he didn’t fail the Scottish government.
Within hours of the Civic Scotland announcement, David Cameron had told Scotland “No” – it’s a take it or leave it offer, “in or out” as far as Westminster’s concerned.
Score keeping became rather irrelevant with that press release.
What was most pertinent in the Cameron statement and what bypassed many was that for the first time the message was a simple one, "Nobody is pretending that we can make people stay in the Union.”
The legality aspect wasn’t mentioned after the restatement of sovereignty, it’s now a simple “in or out” and it’s Scotland’s choice.
Fundamentally the battle is now being joined for Scotland’s resources.
Do not expect Alex Salmond to acquiesce and rule out devo max or FFA, there is still substantial advantage to be had from that argument. A principle benefit for the SNP is that it will move the opposition to fighting two fronts. It will also make the Scots themselves look much more closely at the arguments with the strong probability that when they are examined in light of day the short steps from “No” to “FFA” then “Yes” will allow many more Scots to embrace the bright future that beckons.
As a strategy it can only be argued as masterful on the nationalist part – drop a few hints, let the Unionists grab the ball and run for touch just to have the captain of the team tell them they’re not allowed to play.
Westminster has now reaffirmed on several occasions that she doesn’t want devo-max or FFA on the ballot because they are only too well aware that without a controlling fiscal union, there is no union at all. This is the first time they’ve acknowledged it plainly, and without strings.
In essence David Cameron has told Scotland, simply, clearly, succinctly and almost in words of one syllable “you contribute mightily to Westminster’s balance sheet, and without that unfettered contribution we have no need for you”
There really is no other clear interpretation.
That the PM has drawn the line in the sand at such an early stage may be the only thing that caught Alex Salmond by surprise. Moreover, judging by Ruth Davidson’s reaction she was also certainly blindsided.
Scotland’s first minister could be in no doubt whatsoever that this announcement would come eventually. He’s a canny enough political operator to know that no matter what Cameron’s own preferences, he’d never be able to sell devo max or FFA to Westminster’s back benchers.
The euro rebellion would have been but a fleabite for Cameron. Accepting FFA in Scotland would require re-writing the constitution, or perhaps more actually just writing a constitution for the UK, as now we’d be in a Union that is unarguably voluntary and federal in global eyes. Wales, Northern Ireland and England would rightly also demand the status Scotland is accorded in such a Union.
Westminster as it now exists will be an anachronism.
No matter how the issue is viewed, history is likely to recognise Saturday, January 28th 2012 as the day the UK died. It is the day the Prime Minister of the now dis-United Kingdom acknowledged by his actions a federal solution wasn’t a winnable situation for Westminster and fragmentation was preferable. By ruling out additional powers beyond the anaemic Scotland Bill, fragmentation is virtually assured.
Cameron also killed Devo max or FFA because it has an aspect about which there is a myth requiring dispelled; the myth that it is Westminster’s gift. It can be that, but only if we Scots choose to make it so. David Cameron could not take the chance that Alex Salmond would remove devo max from his control.
Devo-max becomes a viable option for any constituent nation in the current UK governmental union, as long as all who vote in that manner are aware that it is a demand and not a request of Westminster.
It is no different than accepting a marriage with a cast iron pre-nuptial agreement. Either the agreement is accepted or there is no marriage. The proposal would then be for Westminster to accept in a given timeframe.
Devo max or FFA must mean “We’re going with our own fiscal policy, but we’d like a federal union on defense and foreign policy, where we both have right of veto”. Scotland puts in a default response time for agreement, or its goodbye anyway.
For anyone who was looking, the First Minister gave the Prime Minister his default timeframe: sometime before the 2016 Holyrood elections, about a year after the referendum vote it needs to be all ironed out. The Con-Dems must agree to Scotland’s requirements for ongoing Union before the deadline, or the vote will simply default to independence.
Perhaps Alex Salmond wasn’t that surprised by David Cameron’s reaction, after all he did put him into a place where options are severely limited and the only action is reaction.
Sovereignty of the people, check and mate to Holyrood.
Thursday the 26th of January, at around five past three in the afternoon, heralded what was potentially the most masterful stroke of politics ever seen in these Islands, and almost nobody noticed. Nobody except perhaps Holyrood and Westminster, and neither was sending out the town criers, although for completely different reasons. While Alex Salmond was in Edinburgh Castle, Nicola Sturgeon changed the face of the independence debate.
Most of us were too enthralled by the ongoing “busy wee period” in Scots politics. Between Tankerness tanking on the Beeb, Nicola giving a strong showing, no identifiable positive case for the Union and Alex Salmond delivering masterly oratories at the Hugo Young, in Holyrood and in the great hall of Edinburgh castle, our attention was diverted.
Amid these speeches, the First Minister had an “audience” with Jeremy Paxman which couldn’t have gone better as an independence recruiting tool if had it been stage managed by Angus Robertson. Discussing other interviews, there was also Willy Hague tossing out nonsense about the usage of British Embassies. We later discovered that charges for Embassy services are levelled against Scots organisations, but not UK/English ones.
A short re-cap of the week had the Sovereign Scots leading the Westminster Wastrels by at least 6-0 before the masterful stroke at Holyrood. It took place as daylight waned on Burns' Night. In its rawest form, that Holyrood parliamentary home run requested all MSP’s to pledge to uphold the centuries old Claim of Right.
The Claim of Right fundamentally declares that ordinary Scots citizens are sovereign; not their representatives, parliament or any monarchy. Either each individual MSP goes on record acknowledging they are simply the voice of the electorate, or they state quite publically that the voice of those they represent isn’t worth squat.
The lead in to passing the motion was significant: “All we ask today is that other members of this chamber affirm or reaffirm a principle that many of them, or their fellow party members, were proud to uphold when Scotland’s Claim of Right was then signed in 1989.
“The Declaration of Arbroath famously states that if a Scots ruler were to act against the nation’s interests, the people would “drive him out as.. a subverter of his own rights and ours.”
“Presiding Officer, that basic principle of democracy and popular sovereignty is far more true today. The best guarantee of the integrity of this referendum is the certain knowledge that the people of Scotland, using the ballot box, would be merciless in driving out anyone who tried to conduct it unfairly”.
As the motion passed it formed a chain from 1320 to 2012. It also encompassed the previous parliamentary affirmation in 1689 and the unofficial but no less poignant voice of a disenfranchised people in 1989.
The claim of right is fundamentally entrenched in Scotland. On Thursday the reconvened parliament of Scotland at Holyrood effectively affirmed and averred that Westminster has no binding sovereignty over the Scots.
Such a parliamentary reaffirmation of sovereignty has uncountable and highly interesting future ramifications. Basically, it’s Holyrood exercising its democratic right and informing all and sundry that the only power they have over Scots is what Scots elect to lend through the ballot box and it’s only a loan.
This was Holyrood informing Westminster it must now essentially trample democracy to illegitamise the referendum. Holyrood effectively ensured the field of play will now focus upon Edinburgh, not London. The timing was impeccable in that it was fundamentally an unspoken yet de-facto expression of independence; after three centuries the Scottish people will not be denied due process in expressing their sovereign wishes.
The UN charter is very clear on sovereign rights, it’s a fundamental tenet.
We know The Claim of Right is now re-entrenched, but how Westminster would view the action and where the “legitimacy” discussions on the referendum would go from here were anyone’s guess. The SNP preference would have simultaneous acts putting it beyond doubt, but don’t regard it as a requirement.
We know that constitutional specialist Prof. David Walker opined that Holyrood, irrespective of the means of creation, as a reconvened Scots parliament would have a substantial authority in law to alter, amend or strike the Treaty of Union in total, or by article as it saw fit. This is a power that the Union parliament in Westminster apparently lacks as such authority was not delegated to it except by name in certain articles of the Union Treaty. In effect it will be a largely one sided negotiation.
The Telegraph’s article citing “MoD sources” that Royal Navy chiefs have decided Westminster’s nuclear “deterrent” will stay on the Clyde, regardless of any referendum was something of an anti-climax after the Holyrood motion. It made it initially appear that Westminster would attempt to ignore the Claim of Right.
The nuclear deterrent issue did make it at least 8-0 for the Sovereign Scots in just one week.
The devo max debate then began to get underway with “Civic Scotland” setting forth its intentions, with Monday, 30th of January being mooted as the kick-off day.
David Cameron was faced with Hobson’s choice. Kill the devo max debate and formally proclaim Westminster’s position, or be seen to endorse it through lack of opposition. After the euro-veto Holyrood was close to betting on a sure thing as to which way the UK PM would eventually jump, and he didn’t fail the Scottish government.
Within hours of the Civic Scotland announcement, David Cameron had told Scotland “No” – it’s a take it or leave it offer, “in or out” as far as Westminster’s concerned.
Score keeping became rather irrelevant with that press release.
What was most pertinent in the Cameron statement and what bypassed many was that for the first time the message was a simple one, "Nobody is pretending that we can make people stay in the Union.”
The legality aspect wasn’t mentioned after the restatement of sovereignty, it’s now a simple “in or out” and it’s Scotland’s choice.
Fundamentally the battle is now being joined for Scotland’s resources.
Do not expect Alex Salmond to acquiesce and rule out devo max or FFA, there is still substantial advantage to be had from that argument. A principle benefit for the SNP is that it will move the opposition to fighting two fronts. It will also make the Scots themselves look much more closely at the arguments with the strong probability that when they are examined in light of day the short steps from “No” to “FFA” then “Yes” will allow many more Scots to embrace the bright future that beckons.
As a strategy it can only be argued as masterful on the nationalist part – drop a few hints, let the Unionists grab the ball and run for touch just to have the captain of the team tell them they’re not allowed to play.
Westminster has now reaffirmed on several occasions that she doesn’t want devo-max or FFA on the ballot because they are only too well aware that without a controlling fiscal union, there is no union at all. This is the first time they’ve acknowledged it plainly, and without strings.
In essence David Cameron has told Scotland, simply, clearly, succinctly and almost in words of one syllable “you contribute mightily to Westminster’s balance sheet, and without that unfettered contribution we have no need for you”
There really is no other clear interpretation.
That the PM has drawn the line in the sand at such an early stage may be the only thing that caught Alex Salmond by surprise. Moreover, judging by Ruth Davidson’s reaction she was also certainly blindsided.
Scotland’s first minister could be in no doubt whatsoever that this announcement would come eventually. He’s a canny enough political operator to know that no matter what Cameron’s own preferences, he’d never be able to sell devo max or FFA to Westminster’s back benchers.
The euro rebellion would have been but a fleabite for Cameron. Accepting FFA in Scotland would require re-writing the constitution, or perhaps more actually just writing a constitution for the UK, as now we’d be in a Union that is unarguably voluntary and federal in global eyes. Wales, Northern Ireland and England would rightly also demand the status Scotland is accorded in such a Union.
Westminster as it now exists will be an anachronism.
No matter how the issue is viewed, history is likely to recognise Saturday, January 28th 2012 as the day the UK died. It is the day the Prime Minister of the now dis-United Kingdom acknowledged by his actions a federal solution wasn’t a winnable situation for Westminster and fragmentation was preferable. By ruling out additional powers beyond the anaemic Scotland Bill, fragmentation is virtually assured.
Cameron also killed Devo max or FFA because it has an aspect about which there is a myth requiring dispelled; the myth that it is Westminster’s gift. It can be that, but only if we Scots choose to make it so. David Cameron could not take the chance that Alex Salmond would remove devo max from his control.
Devo-max becomes a viable option for any constituent nation in the current UK governmental union, as long as all who vote in that manner are aware that it is a demand and not a request of Westminster.
It is no different than accepting a marriage with a cast iron pre-nuptial agreement. Either the agreement is accepted or there is no marriage. The proposal would then be for Westminster to accept in a given timeframe.
Devo max or FFA must mean “We’re going with our own fiscal policy, but we’d like a federal union on defense and foreign policy, where we both have right of veto”. Scotland puts in a default response time for agreement, or its goodbye anyway.
For anyone who was looking, the First Minister gave the Prime Minister his default timeframe: sometime before the 2016 Holyrood elections, about a year after the referendum vote it needs to be all ironed out. The Con-Dems must agree to Scotland’s requirements for ongoing Union before the deadline, or the vote will simply default to independence.
Perhaps Alex Salmond wasn’t that surprised by David Cameron’s reaction, after all he did put him into a place where options are severely limited and the only action is reaction.
Sovereignty of the people, check and mate to Holyrood.
Saturday, 28 January 2012
A United Kingdom and Northern Ireland wide referendum.
An issue raising its head again, but being somewhat downplayed in the media, was a proposal for a fully UK wide independence referendum. A referendum across four nations instead of just being limited to Scotland is being mooted at both Westminster and elsewhere.
Commons backbenchers are threatening action while lords are tabling Scotland Bill amendments; all appear clamouring for this franchise expansion.
Although inconceivable it will be allowed, any advocate of democracy must accept this as a superlative suggestion.
England, Wales and Northern Ireland all deserve to have their individual voices heard as to their preference of the status of this current Union and their places within it. Do they want out, more devolution or in England’s case any devolution, or are they simply content with the status quo.
The question of “Englishness” is in part achieving a higher profile recently after Westminster was warned by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) that it faces a backlash in its Home Counties and shires because it is ignoring “Englishness”.
The IPPR report simply confirms the findings in other polls taken over the last few years that “Englishness” now far outstrips “Britishness” in the way our cousins south of the border view themselves.
THE UK government dilemma from the expanded franchise referendum is basic; until now Westminster has successfully denied the English a representative democracy at national level but is now seeing that perceived right of denial in jeopardy. This arises from both media fed perceptions and Union scaremongering emanating as a consequence of the debate about Scotland’s, and thereby the UK’s, constitutional future.
When this is coupled to Cameron’s own Euro sceptic back benchers, a group flushed with success after forcing the PM to play their veto card, the tide of English democracy may ultimately be hard to deny.
Scots should encourage this voice which we can be certain Westminster will try to silence.
We can work towards and hope for an expansion of democracy in England. It is to everyone’s benefit that Westminster’s suppressive tendencies fail.
A rebel group led by Stone MP Bill Cash and reportedly supported by fellow euro sceptics John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin, appear to be readying to launch an all-party group on “preserving the United Kingdom”. This focus group is reportedly arising from widespread anger, particularly on the Tory back-benches, that the referendum will be limited to people living north of the Border.
What’s interesting is that the United Kingdom itself is under no present threat, just the Union of Parliaments, something we might all do well to remember.
Mr Cash said the new group at Westminster aiming to save the Union would look in detail at issues such as defence, the economy, North Sea oil and energy, as well as international treaties. The principle point in this statement is that Westminster is now beginning to either understand or perhaps simply acknowledge it is in actuality dealing with international treaty law.
These backbenchers have already been somewhat pre-empted by the House of Lords where efforts like that of former Labour chief whip Baroness Taylor of Bolton, born in Motherwell, inserted an amendment to the Scotland Bill calling for expat Scots to get the vote. She is not the first and will undoubtedly not be last to seek to expand the enfranchisement of the referendum.
International law and Scots opinion is reasonably clear on this point, she doesn’t have a hope. At least she won’t be able to expand the franchise with regard to Scotland’s vote, but she can certainly call for one in England.
Then there was the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg who had to publicly slap down his own party’s deputy leader at the time of the IPPR report entitled “The Dog that Finally Barked”, after Simon Hughes also called for English devolution.
Possibly the most significant yet underreported aspect of the IPPR paper is that support in England for the constitutional status quo has fallen to just one in four of the electorate.
That figure needs highlighted; just one in four in England want the status quo, but 75% are being denied any input whatsoever. David Cameron is effectively disenfranchising 75% of our English neighbours; over 30 million voters are being denied democracy.
Why are we Scots not seeking to engage this massive suppressed support for constitutional change?
The upper level concern over the possibility of a divided Union tactic by the SNP was additionally highlighted when Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former Scottish Secretary and Edinburgh Pentlands MP dismissed the idea of a UK-wide vote as “absurd” confirming “it should be a vote for people in Scotland only.”
Former Liberal leader and Holyrood presiding officer Lord Steel is also on record that Westminster politicians should keep out of the independence debate. Cameron and the Scottish Office are others singing from the “Scotland only” hymn sheet.
There’s a very clear division at Westminster, primarily between party leaders and backbenchers with backbenchers appearing to have the backing of the electorate. Scotland should exploit this in an attempt to benefit the English people.
Party leaders at Westminster are certainly trying to walk the only narrow path that gives them any possible hope at all in maintenance of the status quo. However, as Richard Wyn Jones, professor of politics at Cardiff University and co-author of the IPPR report argued, attempts to promote Britishness by former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, as well as by Mr Cameron, had failed.
With self-evident failure of the “Britishness” experiment, the current Holyrood stance can appear to be somewhat baffling to an unbiased external observer. While the Scottish government’s view that it is “Scotland’s referendum” is completely accurate it appears rather inappropriate for Holyrood to be setting aside the fact that three other nations also have a stake in the UK government.
It may be of far greater benefit to the Scottish Government, which has full autonomy and complete restoration of sovereign rights as its primary goal, to also at least peripherally engage an area that Westminster’s leadership is determined to avoid. Especially as Holyrood already appears to have willing foot-soldiers amongst Cameron’s back benchers, go for an expansion of the referendum franchise.
Let Scotland have her poll, but let England also have one, independent of the Scots. Perhaps Westminster would expand the franchise to the other nations who were not signatories to article 3 of the 1707 treaty but who will be undeniably impacted by events.
That each impacted nation should vote is without doubt the right and proper thing to do. It is called democracy.
Holyrood should argue for all those impacted to have a voice, to be enfranchised. Each nation should be given the options, autonomy, devolution max (constitutionally define) or the status quo. Let the entire peoples of these islands who are presently bound to Westminster make a choice.
Each land should decide for its own nation – again, it’s called democracy.
Westminster will be firm in its determination to prevent this; the powers in London are very well aware they can’t fight and win four simultaneous battles in four nations, all of which have every appearance of requiring separate and frequently contradictory messages from the current establishment.
Westminster politicians knows they can’t broadcast “subsidy junkie” to one populace while hoping the other so-called subsiding nation won’t hear it and will still vote to keep up fictitious subsidies. Human nature is simply not that benevolent, such contradictory message will fail.
With four nations involved perhaps each one will have a reasonable opportunity for a fairer, less biased debate.
Westminster knows the individual peoples may just wake up and smell the coffee, and all it would take is another scandal at just the wrong moment to make any one nation decide that enough is enough. London is well aware it will take only one nation to demand change through democratic means to end its perceived right of diktat.
It would mean 2015 dawning with only those preferring London rule voting for a new parliamentary union, under probably new federal rules. Westminster knows even the English regions might start demanding devolution after that.
London is rightly terrified of an expanded franchise.
Commons backbenchers are threatening action while lords are tabling Scotland Bill amendments; all appear clamouring for this franchise expansion.
Although inconceivable it will be allowed, any advocate of democracy must accept this as a superlative suggestion.
England, Wales and Northern Ireland all deserve to have their individual voices heard as to their preference of the status of this current Union and their places within it. Do they want out, more devolution or in England’s case any devolution, or are they simply content with the status quo.
The question of “Englishness” is in part achieving a higher profile recently after Westminster was warned by the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) that it faces a backlash in its Home Counties and shires because it is ignoring “Englishness”.
The IPPR report simply confirms the findings in other polls taken over the last few years that “Englishness” now far outstrips “Britishness” in the way our cousins south of the border view themselves.
THE UK government dilemma from the expanded franchise referendum is basic; until now Westminster has successfully denied the English a representative democracy at national level but is now seeing that perceived right of denial in jeopardy. This arises from both media fed perceptions and Union scaremongering emanating as a consequence of the debate about Scotland’s, and thereby the UK’s, constitutional future.
When this is coupled to Cameron’s own Euro sceptic back benchers, a group flushed with success after forcing the PM to play their veto card, the tide of English democracy may ultimately be hard to deny.
Scots should encourage this voice which we can be certain Westminster will try to silence.
We can work towards and hope for an expansion of democracy in England. It is to everyone’s benefit that Westminster’s suppressive tendencies fail.
A rebel group led by Stone MP Bill Cash and reportedly supported by fellow euro sceptics John Redwood and Bernard Jenkin, appear to be readying to launch an all-party group on “preserving the United Kingdom”. This focus group is reportedly arising from widespread anger, particularly on the Tory back-benches, that the referendum will be limited to people living north of the Border.
What’s interesting is that the United Kingdom itself is under no present threat, just the Union of Parliaments, something we might all do well to remember.
Mr Cash said the new group at Westminster aiming to save the Union would look in detail at issues such as defence, the economy, North Sea oil and energy, as well as international treaties. The principle point in this statement is that Westminster is now beginning to either understand or perhaps simply acknowledge it is in actuality dealing with international treaty law.
These backbenchers have already been somewhat pre-empted by the House of Lords where efforts like that of former Labour chief whip Baroness Taylor of Bolton, born in Motherwell, inserted an amendment to the Scotland Bill calling for expat Scots to get the vote. She is not the first and will undoubtedly not be last to seek to expand the enfranchisement of the referendum.
International law and Scots opinion is reasonably clear on this point, she doesn’t have a hope. At least she won’t be able to expand the franchise with regard to Scotland’s vote, but she can certainly call for one in England.
Then there was the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg who had to publicly slap down his own party’s deputy leader at the time of the IPPR report entitled “The Dog that Finally Barked”, after Simon Hughes also called for English devolution.
Possibly the most significant yet underreported aspect of the IPPR paper is that support in England for the constitutional status quo has fallen to just one in four of the electorate.
That figure needs highlighted; just one in four in England want the status quo, but 75% are being denied any input whatsoever. David Cameron is effectively disenfranchising 75% of our English neighbours; over 30 million voters are being denied democracy.
Why are we Scots not seeking to engage this massive suppressed support for constitutional change?
The upper level concern over the possibility of a divided Union tactic by the SNP was additionally highlighted when Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former Scottish Secretary and Edinburgh Pentlands MP dismissed the idea of a UK-wide vote as “absurd” confirming “it should be a vote for people in Scotland only.”
Former Liberal leader and Holyrood presiding officer Lord Steel is also on record that Westminster politicians should keep out of the independence debate. Cameron and the Scottish Office are others singing from the “Scotland only” hymn sheet.
There’s a very clear division at Westminster, primarily between party leaders and backbenchers with backbenchers appearing to have the backing of the electorate. Scotland should exploit this in an attempt to benefit the English people.
Party leaders at Westminster are certainly trying to walk the only narrow path that gives them any possible hope at all in maintenance of the status quo. However, as Richard Wyn Jones, professor of politics at Cardiff University and co-author of the IPPR report argued, attempts to promote Britishness by former Labour prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, as well as by Mr Cameron, had failed.
With self-evident failure of the “Britishness” experiment, the current Holyrood stance can appear to be somewhat baffling to an unbiased external observer. While the Scottish government’s view that it is “Scotland’s referendum” is completely accurate it appears rather inappropriate for Holyrood to be setting aside the fact that three other nations also have a stake in the UK government.
It may be of far greater benefit to the Scottish Government, which has full autonomy and complete restoration of sovereign rights as its primary goal, to also at least peripherally engage an area that Westminster’s leadership is determined to avoid. Especially as Holyrood already appears to have willing foot-soldiers amongst Cameron’s back benchers, go for an expansion of the referendum franchise.
Let Scotland have her poll, but let England also have one, independent of the Scots. Perhaps Westminster would expand the franchise to the other nations who were not signatories to article 3 of the 1707 treaty but who will be undeniably impacted by events.
That each impacted nation should vote is without doubt the right and proper thing to do. It is called democracy.
Holyrood should argue for all those impacted to have a voice, to be enfranchised. Each nation should be given the options, autonomy, devolution max (constitutionally define) or the status quo. Let the entire peoples of these islands who are presently bound to Westminster make a choice.
Each land should decide for its own nation – again, it’s called democracy.
Westminster will be firm in its determination to prevent this; the powers in London are very well aware they can’t fight and win four simultaneous battles in four nations, all of which have every appearance of requiring separate and frequently contradictory messages from the current establishment.
Westminster politicians knows they can’t broadcast “subsidy junkie” to one populace while hoping the other so-called subsiding nation won’t hear it and will still vote to keep up fictitious subsidies. Human nature is simply not that benevolent, such contradictory message will fail.
With four nations involved perhaps each one will have a reasonable opportunity for a fairer, less biased debate.
Westminster knows the individual peoples may just wake up and smell the coffee, and all it would take is another scandal at just the wrong moment to make any one nation decide that enough is enough. London is well aware it will take only one nation to demand change through democratic means to end its perceived right of diktat.
It would mean 2015 dawning with only those preferring London rule voting for a new parliamentary union, under probably new federal rules. Westminster knows even the English regions might start demanding devolution after that.
London is rightly terrified of an expanded franchise.
Friday, 20 January 2012
In defence of the [Scottish] realm.
There has been much hysteria and scaremongering in the mainstream media the over future “defense” of Scotland recently. Combine that with the waffling utterances emanating from Westminster about who pays to relocate various military establishments, principally Trident, and the strong rhetoric from Holyrood about who pays for clean up after MOD abuses of our land and there are some potentially interesting situations brewing.
It is interesting because the division of assets between diverging nation states is now reasonably clearly laid out in international law. This is a fact which is also is clearly being ignored by Scotland’s mainstream media, who seem to prefer scare tactic headlines.
The disintegration of totalitarian USSR and the restoration of the peripheral states gave us some relatively clear examples of how the process should work. Scotland’s mainstream media again obtains a failing grade for not even bothering to look into such situations.
In simple plain English, and although there can be literally thousands of articles in a final treaty of settlement it fundamentally works like this. Assets of the original nation state devolve to becoming assets of the new states.
Who then gets what is generally determined by the geographical location of the asset. So in its most basic terms Scotland keeps Holyrood and England keeps Westminster, they’re both well within the geographic boundaries of the restored states. Land boundaries remain static, sea boundaries are by agreement or international convention.
Horse trading comes into play with such items as debt and foreign held assets. It is by no means a legal or moral requirement for a nation restored to sovereignty to assume any debt; Ireland leaving the UK being but one example of this principle in action.
Although an argument exists for assets and debts to be divided up based upon territorial area, the norm is for these items to be divided up by relative population. Scotland could expect around 8.3% of extraterritorial assets to accrue to its national ledger.
The more interesting part is when an asset is in one resurrected nation state and remains the desire of the other resurrected nation state. In the present case in point, Trident.
The simplest resolution to this issue is for the UK government to move these weapons prior to the vote and effectively resolve the issue. Holyrood would rightly demand the sites restored to virgin territory, acceptable civilian or military use as required to suit Scots purposes.
That Westminster can’t afford to either move Trident or buy aircraft for two new aircraft carriers is self evident, so Trident will stay where it is and Scotland can expect a massive bargaining chip in the upcoming talks. In fact Westminster projects being so broke by the time these aircraft carriers are commissioned it won’t be able to afford the diesel or the crew to run one of them, so it’s being sold.
The restoration of the aforementioned European states showed us clearly that it is incumbent on the state which wishes retention of items such as this to fund the relocation and new installation costs of any repatriated items.
Basically if Westminster wants Trident, Westminster pays for it. If Westminster were to refuse to accept such a precedent it would then be up to Holyrood to decide the disposition of the weapons.
A likely outcome in such a scenario is that Westminster will “repatriate” Trident to a newly created deepwater port in England and pay for the clean-up and value of the system as a condition of handover. Most likely that payment would be in exchange for any voluntarily assumed debt load by Scotland. Westminster could take an alternative viewpoint and scrap the idea of having an independent nuclear deterrent. Holyrood could then flog it off.
In reality Westminster scrapping its deterrent is unlikely in the extreme as that body appears to place a premium on having a reasonably permanent and often vocal stance in many of the world’s top councils.
The consequential loss of the nuclear capability and its associated expenses might substantially enhance life in England, Wales and N. Ireland, but this rarely appears to enter into London’s equations, especially when there’s pre-independence option to bill the entire replacement cost against Scotland’s budget.
It now becomes time to look at the overall UK defense budget; Whitehall data puts it at £43.6 billion in 2011.
Based upon population, Scotland should have seen around £3.62 billion in current defense spending.
Scots should clearly understand that although their nation’s defense contribution to Whitehall is about £3.62 billion, the defense spend in Scotland is reducing in both actual and real terms. According to the UK parliaments strategic defense review document, it dropped by 68% over 6 years. In 2008 it was down around £1.57 billion.
Scotland therefore effectively subsidizes the rest of the UK defense budget by over 2 billion a year.
This a situation where there is no room for argument; London the SE of England, which enjoys a massive defense overspend is certainly financially stronger, by using Scotland’s money.
This effectively means, by Westminster’s published data, an independent Scotland could maintain defense spending as it stood before the current reductions and base closures. Scots could pocket over £2 billion to invest into infrastructure, social programs or reduced taxation.
A nation of 5 million can do a lot with an extra £2 billion. In one year that could pay for the new Forth Bridge, buy out a lot of Labour’s PFI debt and build a couple of new schools or hospitals. What we’d do in year two with this independence dividend would also be up to us.
In reality there would still be a Scottish Defense Force, and the First Minister has recently intimated the SDF would likely now maintain one air base, one naval base and one land force. But what would that really mean and what’s it likely to cost our newly restored nation state?
Professor Malcolm Chalmers, research director at London-based Royal United Services Institute, an independent military think-tank, gave us an idea as he quoted a £2.2bn price tag for an SDF. The number is reasonably in line with other non nuclear estimates and has now seen use in national media.
Research indicates the £2.2 billion proposed budget, would get everything the First Minister referred to, and substantially more. This would be an increase in real terms on UK under-spend of £500 million each year, available for direct injection into the Scottish economy.
It also appears enough to ensure a world class rapid deployment land force with specialist divisions for highly technical missions, several air sea rescue stations, and an ability to reverse the Westminster coastguard cuts.
In addition we might choose to look at resurrecting our military shipbuilding for vessels designed to protect our oil and fishing interests, also making these ships available for export. Although we might have one central naval port, like Portsmouth in England, there would be secondary bases.
We also had a situation where Westminster’s defence secretary Desmond Hammond said, the thought of Scotland’s remaining three regiments forming the spine of a new land SDF was ”laughable” and that no one can “break off a little bit” of the UK’s armed forces and hand it to Scotland.
Actually Mr Hammond, That’s pretty much what happened right across Europe over the last two decades as states restored their sovereignty.
Professor Chalmers’s figure of £2.2 billion, as an estimated requirement for Scotland’s security needs still represents a significant under spend against what we now send to London for “defense”.
The extra £1.4 billion plus, currently going to London would also remain in Scotland in some fashion, either in our own pockets or put to the use of the common weal.
A simple summary could describe the current situation like this; in an independent Scotland to match today’s Whitehall defense contribution we could if we choose increase our national defense spending within Scotland by close to 50%.
Once we have done this and obtained better equipped, paid and trained Scottish forces we could take the remaining money that would have gone south and by using Holyrood’s published 2012 budget we could double our national spending in housing, sport, marine and fisheries, transport projects and ferry services.
After that with a somewhat nonchalant shrug we could give every person in Scotland a £100 tax rebate and spend what’s left on a heck of an independence party.
Defense, it’s a massive independence dividend.
It is interesting because the division of assets between diverging nation states is now reasonably clearly laid out in international law. This is a fact which is also is clearly being ignored by Scotland’s mainstream media, who seem to prefer scare tactic headlines.
The disintegration of totalitarian USSR and the restoration of the peripheral states gave us some relatively clear examples of how the process should work. Scotland’s mainstream media again obtains a failing grade for not even bothering to look into such situations.
In simple plain English, and although there can be literally thousands of articles in a final treaty of settlement it fundamentally works like this. Assets of the original nation state devolve to becoming assets of the new states.
Who then gets what is generally determined by the geographical location of the asset. So in its most basic terms Scotland keeps Holyrood and England keeps Westminster, they’re both well within the geographic boundaries of the restored states. Land boundaries remain static, sea boundaries are by agreement or international convention.
Horse trading comes into play with such items as debt and foreign held assets. It is by no means a legal or moral requirement for a nation restored to sovereignty to assume any debt; Ireland leaving the UK being but one example of this principle in action.
Although an argument exists for assets and debts to be divided up based upon territorial area, the norm is for these items to be divided up by relative population. Scotland could expect around 8.3% of extraterritorial assets to accrue to its national ledger.
The more interesting part is when an asset is in one resurrected nation state and remains the desire of the other resurrected nation state. In the present case in point, Trident.
The simplest resolution to this issue is for the UK government to move these weapons prior to the vote and effectively resolve the issue. Holyrood would rightly demand the sites restored to virgin territory, acceptable civilian or military use as required to suit Scots purposes.
That Westminster can’t afford to either move Trident or buy aircraft for two new aircraft carriers is self evident, so Trident will stay where it is and Scotland can expect a massive bargaining chip in the upcoming talks. In fact Westminster projects being so broke by the time these aircraft carriers are commissioned it won’t be able to afford the diesel or the crew to run one of them, so it’s being sold.
The restoration of the aforementioned European states showed us clearly that it is incumbent on the state which wishes retention of items such as this to fund the relocation and new installation costs of any repatriated items.
Basically if Westminster wants Trident, Westminster pays for it. If Westminster were to refuse to accept such a precedent it would then be up to Holyrood to decide the disposition of the weapons.
A likely outcome in such a scenario is that Westminster will “repatriate” Trident to a newly created deepwater port in England and pay for the clean-up and value of the system as a condition of handover. Most likely that payment would be in exchange for any voluntarily assumed debt load by Scotland. Westminster could take an alternative viewpoint and scrap the idea of having an independent nuclear deterrent. Holyrood could then flog it off.
In reality Westminster scrapping its deterrent is unlikely in the extreme as that body appears to place a premium on having a reasonably permanent and often vocal stance in many of the world’s top councils.
The consequential loss of the nuclear capability and its associated expenses might substantially enhance life in England, Wales and N. Ireland, but this rarely appears to enter into London’s equations, especially when there’s pre-independence option to bill the entire replacement cost against Scotland’s budget.
It now becomes time to look at the overall UK defense budget; Whitehall data puts it at £43.6 billion in 2011.
Based upon population, Scotland should have seen around £3.62 billion in current defense spending.
Scots should clearly understand that although their nation’s defense contribution to Whitehall is about £3.62 billion, the defense spend in Scotland is reducing in both actual and real terms. According to the UK parliaments strategic defense review document, it dropped by 68% over 6 years. In 2008 it was down around £1.57 billion.
Scotland therefore effectively subsidizes the rest of the UK defense budget by over 2 billion a year.
This a situation where there is no room for argument; London the SE of England, which enjoys a massive defense overspend is certainly financially stronger, by using Scotland’s money.
This effectively means, by Westminster’s published data, an independent Scotland could maintain defense spending as it stood before the current reductions and base closures. Scots could pocket over £2 billion to invest into infrastructure, social programs or reduced taxation.
A nation of 5 million can do a lot with an extra £2 billion. In one year that could pay for the new Forth Bridge, buy out a lot of Labour’s PFI debt and build a couple of new schools or hospitals. What we’d do in year two with this independence dividend would also be up to us.
In reality there would still be a Scottish Defense Force, and the First Minister has recently intimated the SDF would likely now maintain one air base, one naval base and one land force. But what would that really mean and what’s it likely to cost our newly restored nation state?
Professor Malcolm Chalmers, research director at London-based Royal United Services Institute, an independent military think-tank, gave us an idea as he quoted a £2.2bn price tag for an SDF. The number is reasonably in line with other non nuclear estimates and has now seen use in national media.
Research indicates the £2.2 billion proposed budget, would get everything the First Minister referred to, and substantially more. This would be an increase in real terms on UK under-spend of £500 million each year, available for direct injection into the Scottish economy.
It also appears enough to ensure a world class rapid deployment land force with specialist divisions for highly technical missions, several air sea rescue stations, and an ability to reverse the Westminster coastguard cuts.
In addition we might choose to look at resurrecting our military shipbuilding for vessels designed to protect our oil and fishing interests, also making these ships available for export. Although we might have one central naval port, like Portsmouth in England, there would be secondary bases.
We also had a situation where Westminster’s defence secretary Desmond Hammond said, the thought of Scotland’s remaining three regiments forming the spine of a new land SDF was ”laughable” and that no one can “break off a little bit” of the UK’s armed forces and hand it to Scotland.
Actually Mr Hammond, That’s pretty much what happened right across Europe over the last two decades as states restored their sovereignty.
Professor Chalmers’s figure of £2.2 billion, as an estimated requirement for Scotland’s security needs still represents a significant under spend against what we now send to London for “defense”.
The extra £1.4 billion plus, currently going to London would also remain in Scotland in some fashion, either in our own pockets or put to the use of the common weal.
A simple summary could describe the current situation like this; in an independent Scotland to match today’s Whitehall defense contribution we could if we choose increase our national defense spending within Scotland by close to 50%.
Once we have done this and obtained better equipped, paid and trained Scottish forces we could take the remaining money that would have gone south and by using Holyrood’s published 2012 budget we could double our national spending in housing, sport, marine and fisheries, transport projects and ferry services.
After that with a somewhat nonchalant shrug we could give every person in Scotland a £100 tax rebate and spend what’s left on a heck of an independence party.
Defense, it’s a massive independence dividend.
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Nae Limits
Far be it for me to Blaw My AinTrumpet, but pass all the spare brass instrumentage lying around please...for here I go!
I was on Newsnet Scotland one evening last week, perusing the latest stories - don't remember which one it was - but someone had put a wee poem in the comments section. I liked it and several others commented on how good they thought it was.
It immediately struck me it would make a great wee song. So I left a message in the comments for the author to contact me via this blog if they were interested. Just proves the anonymity of these threads.. cuz right up until they contacted me, I thought SHE was a HE!
Anyway, long story short, after too-ing and fro-ing with lyrics between myself and Margaret Todd .... this is the result. I don't know if the tune's original, it is probably an amalgamation of every wee folk song we've ever heard over the years, but the lyrics are entirely original.
I hope you enjoy Nae Limits, for we are only limited by the restrictions we permit others to put upon us.
For Scotland, NAE LIMITS!
Nae limits he said, nae limits at a'
Fae the weans in their pram, tae yer canty auld Maw
We'll hae nae mair limits in this land o' oors
For when we vote AYE we'll tak a' the poo'ers
We’ll nourish oor weans in the way that we ought
An' cherish the auld wi' them wantin' for nought
Oor poorly an lame can a’ bide an no fleg
We’ll fend fur them a’, an’ they’ll no hae tae beg
Wae courage we’ll build up oor country fae scratch
Ither nations will seek oot oor standards tae match
Tae oor freins an oor kin wur hauns we'll haud wide
This land will prosper, an we’ll dae it wae pride
Weel, this is the way oor nation will be
Staunin tall oan oor feet, an’ no bent at the knee
When ower oor heids’ the Saltire she goes
They'll be mony that's greetin' or blawin their nose
Nae limits, Nae limits, Nae limits we'll shout
So them that wad swither are left in nae doubt
Wi the sweat oan oor broo an' stripped tae oor semmits
We'll shout wi' wan voice FOR SCOTLAND NAE LIMITS
I was on Newsnet Scotland one evening last week, perusing the latest stories - don't remember which one it was - but someone had put a wee poem in the comments section. I liked it and several others commented on how good they thought it was.
It immediately struck me it would make a great wee song. So I left a message in the comments for the author to contact me via this blog if they were interested. Just proves the anonymity of these threads.. cuz right up until they contacted me, I thought SHE was a HE!
Anyway, long story short, after too-ing and fro-ing with lyrics between myself and Margaret Todd .... this is the result. I don't know if the tune's original, it is probably an amalgamation of every wee folk song we've ever heard over the years, but the lyrics are entirely original.
I hope you enjoy Nae Limits, for we are only limited by the restrictions we permit others to put upon us.
For Scotland, NAE LIMITS!
Nae limits he said, nae limits at a'
Fae the weans in their pram, tae yer canty auld Maw
We'll hae nae mair limits in this land o' oors
For when we vote AYE we'll tak a' the poo'ers
We’ll nourish oor weans in the way that we ought
An' cherish the auld wi' them wantin' for nought
Oor poorly an lame can a’ bide an no fleg
We’ll fend fur them a’, an’ they’ll no hae tae beg
Wae courage we’ll build up oor country fae scratch
Ither nations will seek oot oor standards tae match
Tae oor freins an oor kin wur hauns we'll haud wide
This land will prosper, an we’ll dae it wae pride
Weel, this is the way oor nation will be
Staunin tall oan oor feet, an’ no bent at the knee
When ower oor heids’ the Saltire she goes
They'll be mony that's greetin' or blawin their nose
Nae limits, Nae limits, Nae limits we'll shout
So them that wad swither are left in nae doubt
Wi the sweat oan oor broo an' stripped tae oor semmits
We'll shout wi' wan voice FOR SCOTLAND NAE LIMITS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)