This blog is severely hampered by flu. I hate flu. In a globe-trotting life I have had a number of illnesses that became life threatening – peritonitis, typhoid, cholera, cerebral malaria, pulmonary embolism, pulmonary hypertension (thankfully misdiagnosed) severe arrhythmia. I was once declared dead and awoken by a cockroach eating my nostril as I lay naked on a corpse trolley in Kaduna. I refuse to die because of the thought of the people – Jack Straw, Islam Karimov, Alisher Usmanov, Tony Blair, John Reid etc – whose day I know would be momentarily brightened by news of my demise. But for sustained misery and feeling really, really awful and uncomfortable, a week with the flu, while not nearly as dangerous, is pretty well as unpleasant, at least to me.
As I lie in a sweaty bed, my thought are perhaps unsurprisingly not happy and light. I am paying keen attention to all the proposals for how to move forward the Independence movement after that check, and am struck by all the calls to reach out to No voters and bring them in.
I have no idea how to reach out to No voters because I find the majority of them stupid beyond my understanding. This is not because they desired an end result different to that I desired. That is a perfectly legitimate choice. It is because, by voting No, they are going to get an end result which is not what they wanted at all, and that was very obvious. Asking me to reach out to these unbelievably thick people is like asking me to go for a drive with someone who, against my advice, drove the wrong way down a motorway, causing a lot of people to get hurt as a result.
Through their No vote they are going to get five more years of Tory rule – which most of them absolutely did not want. And it is going to be Tory rule that lurches further and further to the right. It seems no proposition was too right wing to be applauded to the rafters by the Tory Conference.
Tax cuts for the rich. Benefit cuts for the poor. Openly declared government in the interests of multinational corporations. Censorship of the internet and severe restrictions on freedom of speech. The government intercepting all communications. Even more detention without trial. Permanent war in the Middle East. Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights and in consequence the Council of Europe – the first country to leave the body set up in 1946 to prevent the rise again in Europe of just the sort of proto-fascist measures the Tories wish to impose. To be followed by leaving the European Union.
All of these are direct consequences for Scotland of the No vote. This is much more profound than the entirely predictable and immediate dishonouring of the pledges on Devo-Max by Cameron, Clegg, Miliband and Brown. Brown’s call for a petition to request him to work for what he assured the electorate was already “a done deal” is beyond contempt. It should do for his reputation what the tuition fee betrayal did for Nick Clegg.
Frankly I have no interest in any devolution measures that do not give Scotland control of its oil and whisky revenues, and those are not on offer. But there were people who voted No – 23% of No voters them according to Ashcroft – because they wanted the promised pretend “powers”. Well, you are not going to get those either.
Mostly, of course, those stupid No voters acted under the crass assumption, against all modern precedent, that the opposition could win a general election from a position of just 2 per cent ahead, eight months out. And the even more incredible belief that the Labour Party was still in some significant way different from the Conservative Party.
The consequences of what is coming will fall disproportionately on the poor, with even greater escalation of the UK’s astonishing wealth gap. There will be still more damage to the social fabric that Scots hold dear.
Now there are hard-hearted right wingers in Scotland, in the Tory Party and the leadership of the Labour Party, who wanted everything that is coming in terms of neo-con policy prescription. Those No voters who are wealthy and successful and want to get ahead further on the backs of the poor, made the correct intellectual choice to achieve their ends. They are deeply unpleasant sociopaths, but they are not stupid.
But those No voters who voted No because they believed a fair and caring society was achievable within the present structures of the UK, are so stupid I am astonished that their cerebral cortex can transmit a signal that sparks respiration. They are probably not capable of ever noticing their error.
I am not going to reach out to you, No voter. You are either evil, or quite extraordinarily thick. You will forever be a long way beneath my notice. This will be the last thought I ever give you. To quote a great line from Casablanca:
Peter Lorre: You despise me, don’t you Rick?
Humphrey Bogart: If I gave you any thought, I probably would.
Habakuk “The following shows me at least that you are merely a provocateur (and probably also a sock puppet):
Now sling your hook and stop trying to cause trouble.”
A the true personality of Habba is exposed. Only his views are RIGHT any others will NOT be tolerated.
Why are you asking him, J Coleman?
“Since when did it become ‘racist’ to ask what ethnic group a person comes from? Me, I am Scottish and have no qualms about saying so.”
What you or I are has no relevance to the issues being discussed. The only factor of relevance is if someone is resident in Scotland.
Unless you are racist of course.
Look at the Westminster Empire. Panicking until they’d got their No vote, they then immediately commit the entire UK, backed by Scotland with the nuclear missiles, to another endless war:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/26/isis-iraq-uk-air-strikes-commons-vote-david-cameron
I am disgusted beyond words at the 524 MPs who voted for this.
Fred You have explained very well your NEGATIVE reasons for voting AGAINST the SNP. But surely you had POSITIVE political, economic, and/or cultural reasons FOR voting NO and condemning your fellow countrymen to the ongoing fiasco which is the UK?
Get well soon Craig.
Fred, The No voters are Scotland. They are, if you accept that the vote was not rigged.
A lot of people have come forward to say that their ballot papers had no unique number or a bar code on the back as was required by law.
This suggests that the original ballot papers were filled in by the “riggers” and the ballot boxes later switched so that the legal ballot papers are now in place with an illegal no vote.
To Craig, some of the No voters that you are calling stupid could well have been Yes voters and had their ballots switched. There are many possibilities to consider before labelling people.
“Why are you asking him, J Coleman?”
Because he is obviously English and his views are coloured by that fact. And don’t tell me that that is racist. If he were standing in front of me I would know what he is and take note of that when considering his views.
Clark
“I am disgusted beyond words at the 524 MPs who voted for this.”
Let’s keep some perspective here, Clark. We have a half-dozen RAF Tornados bombing the odd Toyota pick-up truck. The rules of engagement are clearly very strict, hence the fact that most missions result in no bombs being deployed.
Now, are you disgusted by the actions of ISIS, torturing, raping, beheading and crucifying their way across the Middle East? I think most of the world is agreed that this death cult needs to be destroyed for the future security of the region and the rest of us.
“Fred, The No voters are Scotland. They are, if you accept that the vote was not rigged.
A lot of people have come forward to say that their ballot papers had no unique number or a bar code on the back as was required by law.”
As I have said many times ballot rigging is a very serious offence and anyone with any evidence should go to the police. If any ballot papers were not compliant with the law then those who printed and issued them should be taken to task about it.
For myself I consider that as the outcome of the referendum was pretty much as expected, matched the evidence of polls taken both before and after people voted and my own preferred method the odds offered at the bookies then I don’t see why there would be any suspicion of ballot rigging.
http://www.panarabiaenquirer.com/wordpress/british-government-allow-scots-voted-yes-create-new-independent-country-palestine/
Sorry you’re not well Craig, but hope you can get to the TV.
Not to be missed… Brian May from an astronomers conference in the Canary Islands on how the current crop of politicians are really messing things up:
http://rt.com/shows/worlds-apart-oksana-boyko/193248-queen-legendary-band-borders
Full programme shown at 3.30 pm this afternoon.
Nigel,I would disagree with you that No voting Scots are a purely Scottish phenomenon. I just read, this morning, an excellent article entitled “Useful Idiots” by John Hamer, which I would like to share with you. I would appreciate your thoughts on it http://chrisspivey.org/useful-idiots/
Llornamac-So, you disagree about the purely Scots phenomenon? So-tell me, what OTHER country had you in mind when you wrote this? And please cite individual examples which you had witnessed please.
Secondly, my thoughts on the article are:
I am aged 70, don’t consider myself particularly intelligent, never having received more than simple school qualifications. Yet, I have voted SNP since I was old enough, my gut instinct being that any nation which allows other nations to make decisions for them, will somehow end in tears. (and this was long before oil and gas assets were discovered.)
Precisely these things have come to pass, the tears are now flowing copiously!
My point being , that, if I can come to these conclusions, regardless of outside media trying to influence me otherwise, why can’t other Scots, supposedly intelligent, reach similar conclusions?
Why have they no mind of their own?
This is the puzzlement…………
Anon1
5 Oct, 2014 – 11:07 am
“The ECHR long ago surpassed its original purpose and has become, in the words of one academic, “A ravening monster that, without the slightest legitimacy, overrules scores of national laws and regulations”.
And which “academic” was that Anon1?
Why do you not reference your quotes? You’re getting like Habbabkuk.
Do you agree with your academic person that the ECHR hasn’t the slightest legitimacy?
“Why have they no mind of their own?”
I think the point is that they have.
You have your opinions based on your judgements and other people have theirs.
This is how democracy works, everyone is entitled to form their own opinions and make their own choices.
When one section of society starts declaring their own opinions the only valid opinions and deciding this gives them the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else is when democracy collapses.
Democracy has no interest in what is intelligent or good. It is merely concerned with a net outcome. And those two were not the only criteria that Scots needed to contemplate in forming their voting preferences.
However, describing No voters as being either evil or thick is to describe an Indpendent Scotland of being significanly evil and/or thick. If true, it doesn’t present an appealing new case for independence.
By your standards Craig, I’m not sure you’re thinking clearly.
You must be ill 😉
The Yes/No vote was a vote about Scottish independence.
The General election is a vote about national government.
It’s two different sets of issues, leading to one X in a box each time.
& voting No in the first doesn’t make you an idiot – that would be the Westminster politician [any party, any nationality] who doesn’t believe that the whole of Scotland is committed to the referendum promises being taken seriously & delivered as promised.
Whichever side of the independence vote you stood on, the fastest way to unify Scots is for an englishman to renege on a promise.
& were that to happen, we’ll see another independence vote, in far less than a generation.
& who would believe Westminster’s promises then?
Yes. P Coleman, Fred is originally from England just as I’m an immigrant to England.
That he calls you a racist and uses ‘fuck off cunt’ to express his feelings has more to do with his upbringing, education and derelictions, most likely before he ran away, unless his current occupation demands it.
He could easilty live off the propaganda fervour he displays here, a little advertising here and there pays for the chickens to cluck.
Fred likes playing the righteous Unionist and it would not be a surprise to me if he works for BAE.
sorry, J Coleman.
“Yes. P Coleman, Fred is originally from England just as I’m an immigrant to England.
That he calls you a racist and uses ‘fuck off cunt’ to express his feelings has more to do with his upbringing, education and derelictions, most likely before he ran away, unless his current occupation demands it.
He could easilty live off the propaganda fervour he displays here, a little advertising here and there pays for the chickens to cluck.
Fred likes playing the righteous Unionist and it would not be a surprise to me if he works for BAE.”
Here is a perfect example of Nationalist bullying and intimidation.
I have debated the issues raised without making personal comments against other posters except in reply to personal insults directed at me. I know other people here are neither born nor resident in Scotland yet have not used that against them.
Yet the Nationalists insist on debating me not the issues, this is why I oppose Nationalism and why I reply to personal attacks with flames.
If you want a civilised debate debate the issues, if you attack me personally you will get a flame war.
Doug
“Do you agree with your academic person that the ECHR hasn’t the slightest legitimacy?”
If I post the following:
“The ECHR long ago surpassed its original purpose and has become, in the words of one academic, “A ravening monster that, without the slightest legitimacy, overrules scores of national laws and regulations”.
Then it would appear that, yes, I agree with that.
what is wrong with the ECHR Anon£1?
It held the police to account, ruling that indiscriminate retention of fingerprints and |DNA failed to balance public and private interest, as ‘disrporpotinate interference out of place in a democratic society.
It safeguarded childrens right before that of social services who failed to protect them and had a resposibility to deal with their accounts of abuse, tat they have to be com[pensated a breach of article 3 and 13.
It upheld the case of Smith and \Grady vs. UK who were dismissed from the forces for being homosexual, breaching article 8 and 14, the right for respect and privcy.
Local Government was held over a barrel for their indiscrimanate use of CCTV. then there is the case Hillingdon council vs. Neary, which made it clear to each and every public officer that they cannot apprehend people against the wishes of their family members, whether autistic or not.
So whatever your beef with the ECHR, you have not made any case here.
@Fred
5 Oct, 2014 – 11:43 am
I do not flame, call names, chuck about ad hominem fallacies and insults and I really wish everyone on this blog would refrain from doing so too as we are here discussing some of the most serious issues facing society today (or trying to).
Like Craig, I am gutted by the outcome of Scotland’s indyref and genuinely puzzled by some of the apparent anachronisms in the voting. The result for nan Eilean Siar is particularly disturbing and I have yet to see any rational explanation for it. I have a niggling suspicion that maybe something untoward has happened with the ballot, the reported lack of unique identification marks on the ballot papers is disturbing, if true.
Fred, you say you don’t agree with nationalism in any form, but you appear to be conflating two very different types of ideologies under the banner of nationalism. There is a world of difference between the type of nationalism that calls for self determination of small colonised nations and communities such as Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Cornwall, Britanny, Catalonia, Euzkadi, Quebec, Palestine and the strident, supremacist ‘nationalism’ of the BNP and UKIP.
I would also avoid classifying Islamism and Zionism as forms of nationalism. They are something totally different again.
Meanwhile, the tories, the nastiest party in the vilest government in living history is straining at the leash to become even more vile if that was even possible with a full frontal assault on Human Rights and social welfare, another dreadful war and continuing possession of weapons of mass destruction and EU exit among others. If they succeed, it will in no small part be due to those in Scotland who voted no in 2014.
Surely even you, Fred, could not imagine that this would be a desirable outcome, would you?
“Here is a perfect example of Nationalist bullying and intimidation.”
You regard a fictitional description of yourself as bullying intimidation, but you can’t see what the NO vote did during their last week of campaigning, a case of deliberate blindness, Fred?
As for nationalist, do you re4ally think that an Independent Scotland would be ruled by one party alone when you are priviledged to have a proportional voting system?
How much do you really understand of the advantages you reap from your Scottish retreat. Shake of your FPTP hat and feel the breeze of proportionallity, a fair voting system, you are not living in England anymore.
I have read the article and the comments with interest.
There are lots of reasons people vote the way they do – sometimes just following the herd, sometimes because of a sense of personal grievance for whatever reason, but often from consideration of the facts as they know them, i.e. as they are presented to them by the major channels of communication. A properly functioning democracy can only work if voters are adequately informed of the relevant facts and therein lies the problem. There are certain phenomena in nature that are overwhelming – a surging ocean, a forest wildfire, and …. the inflamed mass mind. Gustave Le Bon first wrote about the behaviour of crowds. Edward Bernays exploited this knowledge most effectively and called it propaganda, advertisng, and public relations. And, of course, Joseph Goebbels became a past-master in this art. Germans are a civilised, well-educated people, neither thick nor sociopathic, but they fell for the charm of Goebbels. Labour, and the country, fell for the lies of the silver-tongued Tony Blair and neither have recovered from them yet.
So, what conclusions can we draw? A relatively small, but significant, majority fell for the arguments put out by the mainstream media (the “presstitute” as Paul J Roberts aptly refers to them), and to politicians of most major parties. Somehow we have to find ways of using the social media to overcome the lies of politicians and their presstitute echo-chambers by exposing these lies even more vigorously than has been done so far, and by presenting irrefutable arguments for change. Our masters want us all ‘to cringe’ in fear – fear of the ‘created enemy’, the permanent war, and the need to obey our leader (POTUS). This is the very time for courage, and courage can be as contagious as fear. We must prove it so.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/04/tory-wreckers-out-destroy-human-rights
‘The case of the Human Rights Act belies the stories Conservatives tell themselves. They call themselves individualists but want more power for the state. They call themselves unionists but threaten the union. They call themselves democrats but land more blows on the enfeebled liberal world. They boast of their common sense and call themselves pragmatists but destroy with reckless insouciance. They are a danger to themselves and everyone who votes for them.’
.. to say nothing of everyone who doesn’t vote for them!!
.
Fred you write: “Here is a perfect example of Nationalist bullying and intimidation.”
But Fred, “Nevermind’s post was perfectly reasonable. There was no hint of any bullying and intimidation,” merely his opinion about you, and how you conduct yourself here. You may not LIKE his opinion but that is just too bad. As you keep reminding everyone we live in a democracy.
“You regard a fictitional description of yourself as bullying intimidation,”
Yes, I do, I regard any attempt to turn the discussion round to be about me not that subject at hand to be bullying and intimidation and I will respond with flames.
To expand on what I wrote at 11.16 …..
‘NO’ voters are not bad and they are not thick. Just like me, they voted for what they believed was best, based on their understanding of the world. The difference is how we arrived at our understanding, that is, where we got our information from.
Without a shred of proof, I confidently assert that on average, ‘NO’ voters relied on the mainstream media much more than ‘YES’ voters. This is probably for a variety of reasons: upbringing, peer group influences, time restrictions, psychological make up, etc.
My 91-year old mother voted ‘NO’ and I unbiasedly assure you, Craig, she has all her marbles and is a living saint. She formed her world view in a different era and despite spending several hours a day surfing on her Kindle Fire, she still believes that the UK is fundamentally on the side of the good guys.
You’re going to piss off a lot of potential allies, Craig, if you insist on telling them their mother is stupid and evil.
“Like Craig, I am gutted by the outcome of Scotland’s indyref and genuinely puzzled by some of the apparent anachronisms in the voting. The result for nan Eilean Siar is particularly disturbing and I have yet to see any rational explanation for it. I have a niggling suspicion that maybe something untoward has happened with the ballot, the reported lack of unique identification marks on the ballot papers is disturbing, if true.”
If there is doubt there should be a full and independent investigation. If they are in any doubt the Scottish government should call for one.
To just assume there was voter fraud on the basis of rumours and to just assume there was only one side responsible for it is not reasonable. Either have an investigation or accept the outcome.