The referendum result is the loss of a chance to dispute the hegemony of the neo-con corporate elite in the international world. My heart is still bursting with pride that 45% of Scots – a people devoid of political autonomy for three hundred years – had the nerve, intellect and will to see through the avalanche of propaganda from the entire mainstream media, political establishment, banking sector and corporate world. I met numerous voters who had received letters from their employers – including Diageo, BP, RNS and many others – telling them to vote No or their job was in danger. I met the old lady in Dundee who was told by the Labour Party that independent Scotland would flood the country with immigrants, and a Romanian building worker in Edinburgh who had been told by the Labour Party that Independent Scotland would deport all East Europeans.
Yesterday the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express and Daily Mirror in Scotland all had precisely the same full page photo on their front cover – not a startling news snap, but an arty concoction of male silhouettes and union and Scottish flags. The Mirror had photoshopped it to remove the blue from the union jack, but it was the same distinctive photo. There could be no more stark example of the fake diversity of the mainstream media.
Just as the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties have been startlingly shown up as precisely the same creatures of corporate masters offering no policy differences whatsoever, merely a false tribalism. As they partied together at Better Together last night – the only party in the whole of Scotland, at which everybody present lives very, very well at taxpayers’ expense – it was impossible to tell which brand of Tory was which.
Keeping the popular momentum going, keeping all those wonderful people I met and spoke to engaged in trying to engineer a different society, is going to be a hard struggle. But we always knew that. The goal of independence must remain as a powerful unifying factor.
Through media onslaught people were convinced that a No vote was a vote for Devo Max. Actually after a fortnight of pontificating it will fall off the news agenda of the mainstream. Nothing significant will happen. The Westminster view is that we can have any powers we want at our glorified council in Scotland as long as we still don’t get the revenue from oil or whisky – and still provide cannon fodder for neo-con wars abroad, house Trident and are subject to draconian Westminster imposed attacks on civil liberties.
Anyway the dress rehearsal is over. At the next referendum – which is only five years away, after the UK has voted to leave the EU – we will not be putting forward Salmond’s Independence Lite, (I am not criticising, he carried it superhumanly far). We will be proposing a fully independent Scottish Republic, out of NATO, with its own currency, sweeping land reform to give Scotland’s land back to its people, nationalisation of railways and public utilities, a genuine minimum wage you can live on, a humane benefits system and strict regulation and controls on banks and bankers.
I am eating an excellent lunch and looking forward to it.
You were up against fascists – UK catamites of a fascist US Empire that uses the methods of the Nazis, including illegal war, torture to death, genocide and the disappearance of 27,000 Muslims – on brown people abroad. Stealing an election is in the nicking sweets category for such people.
Well said and too true, too painful for our submissive, conditioned minds to understand, to throw away.
The genocide will continue.
Nouri al-Maliki was told by the CIA, step down or fall down; the consequence of revoking the presence of US
terroristsmiltary in Iraq and selling out to Russia. Like most of us Maliki poured out his troubled heart to an Iraqi doctor – thank-you.I am thus mindful the US maneuver, the ISIS curveball in Iraq is prologue to the removal of Assad in Syria to restore a US puppet submissive to Israel and American Middle East strategy.
This regardless of the killing fields least in the minds of those liars and shysters Scotland voted to preserve.
“Not much you can do about it.” Don’t bet on it. Stealing my photograph breaks copyright law. The comments misrepresent my opinion (libel). There are options open to me with recourse to the law. I would like Craig, or the mods, to look into this. Perhaps somebody might like to confess!
————·´`·.¸¸.¸¸.··.¸¸Node 20 Sep, 2014 – 12:08 pm
“gravatar” that was the word I was looking for.
‘As someone who many years ago used to be a member of the Campaign for the North a group which was looking for devolution to the North of England – I would be all in favour of 3/4 devolved parliaments for the English regions, together with parliaments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.’
When I posted yesterday I wrote that the incongruities of devolution would guarantee that the Scottish independence issue would need to be re-visted within 20 years at the latest. The half baked ‘solution’ suggested here by Res Diss confirms that judgment. Like many liberals, he conflates a resolution of the West Lothian question with ‘de-centralisation’- the latter is a desirable outcome in itself, but it doesn’t address the West Lothian question, it just obscures it.
Cameron’s ‘solution’ of English votes for English laws is part stop gap, and part a cynical party political ploy to put Millipede on the back foot. At some point, a genuine English parliament will need to be established as a counterweight to the Scottish parliament- and it wouldn’t have to sit all the time in London. Westminster could then be reduced to around 350/400 MPs, with a mandate to legislate and discuss matters of UK wide importance- foreign relations (including relations with NATO, the EU and the Commonwealth), defence, borders and immigration, and macroeconomic management. The Lords, which is now simply a a vehicle for patronage, could be abolished in this scenario.
The ‘Constitutional Convention’ idea being floated by NuLab is just an attempt to kick the West Lothian question into the long grass. Instead of that, a simple Yes/No referendum on establishing an English parliament could be added to the ballot paper for all English constituencies for the May 2015 general election. Anything short of that is just playing silly buggers by a punch drunk and out of touch coterie of Westminster troughers.
“Probably too late for a petition like this but shows that all is not well:”
While I can see a point in banning all political demonstrations a law banning people with just one political belief would be discriminatory and lead to yet more civil discontent and unrest.
The solution is simple. Police the marches, anybody who is violent or even intimidating get them in front of the courts, any racist or sectarian incitement get them in front of the courts and hand out some very long prison sentences.
If you start banning political expression from just one political group, no matter how odious, you are starting down a very dangerous path. One day they might start making laws just covering other political groups, say anti nuclear protesters or animal rights activists.
Nobody should be afraid to walk the streets in this day and age, we have laws already to make our streets safe, they should be being enforced and like all laws should apply to all equally.
“Federalism proper would IMO require accepting that Yorkshire (+/- the Northeast), the East and West Midlands, the Northwest and Cornwall (+/- Devon), have individual identities, cultures and needs, as do the Highlands and Lowlands, and, I venture to suggest. N and S Wales. ”
But don’t we have that already in the form of councils? I agree they could be given more powers`and even a different structure but I don’t see any need to be creating anything new.
Like many liberals, he conflates a resolution of the West Lothian question with ‘de-centralisation’- the latter is a desirable outcome in itself, but it doesn’t address the West Lothian question, it just obscures it.
I question that. If numerical equivalence exists between the devolved regions, London does not greatly outweigh Scotland – similar populations – and can be voted down by two or more regions when it tries to assert its special needs inappropriately. I’d go for slightly smaller regions, personally, but politics is the art of the possible.
@Mark
We all know that this has been their objective for many years, and we all knew that their were only two forces on Earth that could stop them. This was debated in a conversation between Jacques Chirac and John Simpson as they were walking around London some time in late 2002. At that time, Chirac was optimistic that Europe would stand firm against US aggression against Iraq. Thanks to Blair, bit-by-bit Europe has capitulated. Will Putin now have to leave Syria to a Coke&Pepsi fate?
But don’t we have that already in the form of councils? I agree they could be given more powers`and even a different structure but I don’t see any need to be creating anything new.
Fair point. I’d be happy to build a more formal structure on what we already have. But I think considerable adjustment of existing council boundaries is implied, and Westminster itself would simply be the GLC (or even North London Assembly) HQ. Another bonus – MP’s expenses claims could be expected to decline sharply. I’m thinking the Lords could be abolished completely. It’s no longer capable of considered and dispassionate scrutiny or blocking bad legislation, if it ever really was – look what’s been gatting past it since Blair – it’s simply a status symbol for party donors to buy. Shred it.
@OldMark
At the moment I think a lot of people vote primarily for themselves, someone who has a manual job in an industrial area will vote Labour.
I think if people had a separate choice of electing someone to represent them on an international level we could well see a Westminster more inclined towards humanitarian values.
Blair wasn’t too concerned about causing a humanitarian disaster in Iraq, he knew the people of South Shields were going to vote for him anyway. If the people of South Shields could vote for one leader to safeguard their jobs and a separate one to decide who the air force drops bombs on things might have been different.
I think we need some sort of second chamber as a safeguard but I don’t believe going down the American route is the best solution. Some sort of random selection, similar to jury service selection would be my preferred method.
I think we need some sort of second chamber as a safeguard but I don’t believe going down the American route is the best solution.
Agree.
..some sort of random selection, similar to jury service selection would be my preferred method.
I disagree, on the grounds that a randomly selected member of the public cannot be expected to make informed decisions on matters which may be well outside his personal knowledge.
(It’s slightly different in a jury trial, because the procedure involves putting black-and white options to a jury which has had the issues explained to it)
I’d suggest a small panel of lawyers, elected and paid by each regional body, to scrutinise its own legislation, perhaps in conjunction with the regional police force and human rights groups – the lawyers would be seconded to the periodic UK assembly to perform the same function.
The main problem with Parliamentary legislation over at least the last 20 years has been the sheer volume of bad law. Also duplicated law -eg, there has never been any need to treat terrorist crimes as anything other than criminal offences, for which the old law is pefectly adequate. Though I hate to give more money to lawyers, no other approach seems relevant. Whether you’d regard the UK scrutiny committee as an upper chamber or not, it would certainly not be a subsidiary one.
“I’d suggest a small panel of lawyers, elected and paid by each regional body, to scrutinise its own legislation, perhaps in conjunction with the regional police force and human rights groups – the lawyers would be seconded to the periodic UK assembly to perform the same function.”
The experts would be there, not elected, career civil servants who would know the ropes. Not so much lawyers as clerk to the courts. The randomly selected Lords would be advised and make informed decisions but the final decision would be theirs. They would have the power of veto and only the power of veto.
Historic but interesting for the record.
It may have happened in Florida, but could vote-rigging really happen here? It could and it has, says Nick Davies, thanks to ‘granny-farming’, the ‘Tipp-Ex trick’ and a nifty new piece of election legislation
Nick Davies
The Guardian, Wednesday 9 May 2001
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/may/09/election2001.comment1
Profile – Nick Davies is the bestselling author of Flat Earth News, on falsehood and distortion in the media, and a former Journalist of the Year.
The experts would be there, not elected, career civil servants who would know the ropes. Not so much lawyers as clerk to the courts. The randomly selected Lords would be advised and make informed decisions but the final decision would be theirs. They would have the power of veto and only the power of veto.
Hmmm. Haven’t you ever hit a major obstacle getting an idea across to a randomly-selected commentator on this blog? I know I have. 🙂
I agree on a power of veto only.
I think the civil servant setup needs work. And might only be possible in the case of the UK assembly, not the regional ones – too expensive, and we’ve seen what some exorbitantly-paid Executive Officers can get up to.
Thank God I don’t have to design it all, anyway. The triumvirate of globalist parties will never devolve power to that extent, and I’ll probably be in my box before anything is permitted to change.
Thanks for the discussion, though, Fred. Very civilised, I thought.
The really odd thing about the referendum result is that the YES constituencies recorded a substantially lower percentage turnout, in the 70s, way below the national average.
What can we deduce from that? Anybody??
@ Leslie: “The dream of independence is over. The EU will kill it. Already it is moving to no admission for breakaways state for 10 years or so. This will be extended to 30 years or more. The solitary wilderness calls. It was now or never. You just got never!”
That shouldn’t be a problem. People either want independence or they don’t. Any region of Europe currently part of a larger member State (Catalonia and Spain spring to mind for some reason) which separates from that member state and are chucked out or denied membership of the E.U. would then be independent – or at least as independent as anybody ever is: the absolute condition doesn’t exist. Separation from a given member state while remaining part of the E.U. isn’t independence and it is a mystery to me why anybody thinks that it is. Even the author of this blog now suggests a separate currency for a separate Scotland. It’s a pity somebody didn’t point the wisdom – or at least the consistency – of that idea out to the ‘economist’ Alex Salmond some time ago. It would have saved him some considerable derision from the more alert among the population.
A devolution, especially in England, that has not got a referendum/choice on a faitr voting system as a precondition is only empowering those party politicians who have shown, at least in Norfolk, that wasting our money is easy and free from regress.
Anybody can make mistakes, but to compound it, herer in England they are promoted and moved sideways or up, never axed as bad examples or blacklisted as not to be employed in public local Government.
here in England, as well as in Scotland, its OK for gender fascists such as freemasons to rule over all and sundry, that has to change, no person with split loyalties to secret societies, so easily controlled by our MI’s, hallo boys, should set foot into a town hall.
Devolution of sparse powers and the creation of another top heavy regional government stacked with party political stooges, will create more administrative nightmares and confusion.
Central macroeconomic functions of Government can be done by appointed reps from the regions, we need no House of Lords or even Parliament to discuss foreign policy, these functions can be devolved as well.
@ Ba’al Zevul
You said “I think the civil servant setup needs work. And might only be possible in the case of the UK assembly, not the regional ones – too expensive, and we’ve seen what some exorbitantly-paid Executive Officers can get up to.”
yes, and here lies the crux to the future. We need civil servants who are also businessmen, officers nationally and employed locally are currently devoid of much of this knowledge as the civil service structure is rigid, it has no mechanism to update itself and evolve as business Government evolves, something very close to ex MP john Garretts heart just before he died.
If civil servants and public officers cannot be held to account, then a mechanismn should weed them out, taxpayers can’t afford this waste and inefficiency anymore, nor do they deserve to be led by the nose by minority party’s poopers who think they deserve to run the roost because they always have.
if only
http://scottishdemocraticalliance.org/229-a-failure-of-strategy-a-look-back-at-why-yes-scotland-lost-the-referendum
Fred (The Viking)
20 Sep, 2014 – 12:37 pm
“While I can see a point in banning all political demonstrations a law banning people with just one political belief would be discriminatory and lead to yet more civil discontent and unrest.”
———————————————-
Fred, this is not about banning political demonstrations. It’s about preventing the Orange Order and their British Nationalist thugs from causing disorder, by deliberately marching through areas in Scotland that supported the YES campaign, in order to antagonise and provoke violence.
The same practice is carried out in Northern Ireland when the Orange Order marches through Catholic areas for no other reason than to antagonise.
From “Ruth”
“Resident Dissident,
Please answer my question.” Etc, etc, etc
_____________________
That really made me laugh. From the same Troll who owes me at least half a dozen answers to various questions!
Unverschaemt!
Flower:
You raised the thought that first-past-the post is still the logical way to do it IF the devolved representatives aren’t members of national political parties, beholden to those dogmas and doctrines in order in order even to enter the race. Or at least if the election process is a level playing field for independents and party hacks alike. Proportional representation demands that party affiliations are made in advance, in order to divide the count between the parties, and its effect is to minimise individual points-of-view. Or so it seems to me.
We need civil servants who are also businessmen,
No. We need civil servants who are not businessmen, to whom businessmen have no access, and whose impartiality is beyond doubt. Business men will be well represented – inevitably – in the legislative body. The civil service input is administrative, While its special skills need to be businesslike, there cannot be a direct line between business and the implementation of democratically determined law and policy. Corruption is inevitable if that happens. Similarly, the revolving doors between business, the civil service, military and government, need to be walled up. Tough one. Needs addressing.
“Some sort of random selection, similar to jury service selection would be my preferred method.”
That’s interesting Fred. Where did you come up with that? 🙂
@OldMark
“The ‘Constitutional Convention’ idea being floated by NuLab is just an attempt to kick the West Lothian question into the long grass. Instead of that, a simple Yes/No referendum on establishing an English parliament could be added to the ballot paper for all English constituencies for the May 2015 general election.”
I think I made it clear in my comments to Habba, that like you I believed that it would be right to segregate the English Parliaments from those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. And also like you I agree that the proposals as a major constitutional change should be put to the electorate either through referenda or general elections – where I differ is in the view that there should be a single English parliament – the interests of the parts of England are quite different, and as to being a counterweight to the Scottish parliament I think you will find that there are more people in the North of England than there are in Scotland.
BTW Mary I have no idea whatsoever why my avatar changed – perhaps it is to do with my Great Great Aunt having married into a Jewish family, whom I’m sure has links to the Rothschilds.
This, depressing though it is, is well worth a look:
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10204763346824452
The full video can be found here on youtube too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXJk2ZodaNw
Educated opinions?
‘BTW Mary I have no idea whatsoever why my avatar changed – perhaps it is to do with my Great Great Aunt having married into a Jewish family, whom I’m sure has links to the Rothschilds.’
Don’t be silly or disingenuous RD. We know how and why gravatars change.
Resident Dissident
““The ‘Constitutional Convention’ idea being floated by NuLab is just an attempt to kick the West Lothian question into the long grass.”
_________________
Yes, that’s absolutely correct.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think we agree about the need to get the West Lothian question out of the way (=eliminated) once and for all, but I’m doubtful about your idea of having regional Parliaments rather than an “all-England” Parliament; at first sight that might give rise to an impossibly cumbersome and complicated structure. As someone said on here (I think), local govt structures (possibly enhanced and/or further amalgamated?) are sufficient; matters should be kept as simple as possible.
We need get to the rallies ; keep energised
I commented on this already on Facebook. I was concerned to recognise how difficult it might be to sell this radical agenda to wee old ladies in Edinburgh tea shops , to the extent that I may not have properly expressed my support for it. These are A1 proposals for a radical Scotland. Best wishes.
Green energy, fair wages and parity in earnings for each gender. Montessori Schooling and apprenticeships
“We need civil servants who are also businessmen,
No. We need civil servants who are not businessmen, to whom businessmen have no access, and whose impartiality is beyond doubt. Business men will be well represented – inevitably – in the legislative body. The civil service input is administrative, While its special skills need to be businesslike, there cannot be a direct line between business and the implementation of democratically determined law and policy. Corruption is inevitable if that happens. Similarly, the revolving doors between business, the civil service, military and government, need to be walled up. Tough one. Needs addressing.”
Surely to be impartial you would have to have an equal knowledge to that of industry and business, how elser could one create a fitting policy/regulatory framework?
tough one indeed and accountability is at the heart of it. You can’t possibly be accountable if your own premise is backward and from the 1970’s, commerce sadly is part and parcle of local Government, dare I say NORSE….