Love’s Labour’s Lost…

In the early hours of Friday morning Scotland was waking to the news that the SNP had made a historic clean sweep (almost) of Scottish seats. For the next five years there will be fifty-six SNP members of parliament, barring any by-elections. The SNP’s near whitewash sends the strongest possible message, to those in power at Westminster, that Scotland will no longer play second fiddle, no longer be guinea pigs for unpopular policies and no longer be accused of being “subsidy junkies”. We are, after all, better together are we not? Surely those who fought the break-up of the Union will be pleased that Scotland has a party representing them in parliament. A party that will ensure that Scotland gets a fairer deal, a party that will fight cuts to the NHS, cuts to benefits for the disabled, and a party that will seek to end the Conservatives crippling austerity measures.

There are those who are already blaming the Scottish electorate for giving Britain another Tory Government. But what they fail to take into consideration is that, in the past, Scotland has traditionally voted Labour and still ended up with the Tories in charge. In fact had Labour taken all of the available seats in Scotland, it would not have made a blind bit of difference to the result. Furthermore, if you add the seats that the Conservatives did not win, it comes to 319 which is not enough for a majority. Labour lost to the Tories because they failed to convince the electorate that they were “of the people”. To give Ed Miliband credit, he did try and appeal to the masses as a likeable, average bloke. However, you cannot fake being something you are not. Miliband should have owned up to his privileged background instead of trying to hide it.

The fate of Labour in Scotland had long been predicted, and Jim Murphy’s shouting routine didn’t endear him to the Labour voters lost during last years independence referendum. In fact, Murphy seemed to be fighting a losing battle having to use the desperate tactic of making SNP supporters look like angry thugs, something that much of the media did well to promote. But all of that is over, and Scotland is facing the backlash for having the temerity to dare challenge the status quo. Labour might have clawed back some seats had their campaign been focused more on their own policies instead of one of fear. We were treated to public pronouncements that a vote for the SNP would lead to a Tory Government. Scotland, in effect, was being lined up as the scapegoat for Labour’s many shortcomings.

Scottish Labour collapsed because they moved away from their founding principles. This is not to say that Labour Councillors, working on the frontline in some of the most deprived areas in Scotland, are part of the problem. If anything, they actually represent a brighter future for Scottish Labour. By working with those most affected by austerity, they can bring that invaluable experience to the policy makers to ensure that the vulnerable are looked after. Hopefully it will be these people who come through to steer Scottish Labour back to their origins of looking after people first, instead of being career, self-interested politicians.

Labour lost it, they did this…

Peace and love fellow human.

Independence Referendum – Blanket Boycotts Are Not The Answer

Let us face the facts, the majority of the Scottish electorate, fifty-five percent, voted against Scotland becoming an independent country. That is the result and we can do nothing but accept it as fact. However, we do not need to forget it, or let go of the dream of one day being an independent nation. Based on nothing more than my conversations with no voters, the reasons for voting no includes, fears over economy, defence, currency, border control and bloody Doctor Who. Furthermore, the notion that voters were turned from voting yes by the image painted by politicians and the media that the SNP and its members as nasty, angry nationalists was put forward, while the same press ignored nationalistic sentiment from the no side. This helped create an environment in which fear was a massive factor in deciding which way to vote. As a by-product, anyone associated with the yes side were lumped together as a single frame of mind and ideal. The truth is, that the yes campaign transcended many different sections of society, with most sharing nothing in common with the SNP, other than their desire for constitutional change through Scottish independence.

The “vow”, not worth the paper it was printed in.

The scare stories, which were designed to frighten people to vote no, came from all angles. We had media reports telling us that the oil was running out, and that Scotland could not survive without the financial aid of Westminster. We were billed as subsidy junkies, looking for handouts from a benevolent master. “Please sir can I have some more”. However, as it looked like Scotland might vote for independence, up stepped the leaders of the UK to promise us less than what independence would deliver. The press played a massive part in project fear, giving us daily doses of doom and armageddon should we choose wrongly. Out of all the publications in the UK only The Sunday Herald supported a yes vote. Every other newspaper and media outlet refused to officially announce itself one way or the other, however, their leanings were obvious and punctuated by anti-independence announcements from businesses.

The big four supermarkets threatened to raise their prices if Scotland voted yes. How this could be seen as anything other than a bluff is beyond me. It would have been impossible for them to increase the costs of essentials without losing a large bulk of their customer base. Yes and no voters would have been driven off in their masses. A boycott of every single business that supported maintaining the union is simply impractical. However, boycotts do have their place and should be used where their impact will be felt the greatest. It would be hard for people, already struggling, to shop elsewhere, every penny counts. Believe it or not, these places offer the best value for money. It’s all well and good having principles, but if you can’t feed your family, or yourself then, what’s the point.

Threats to hike prices seemed to work for some voters.

Furthermore, it would also be difficult to hurt the media with any boycott. Print media’s circulation has dropped dramatically over the years due to the rise of smartphones and tablets. The biggest source of any newspaper’s wealth, in print or on the internet, is through advertising. Given this fact it would be hard to see how a boycott would affect income. Refusing to buy a particular publication will have less of an impact than previously as most people get their news online. I’m sure there will be those among you who like the feel of the paper between their fingers, but by and large this is not the case. RBS and Clydesdale were among the Scottish banks which threatened job cuts in the event of a yes vote. However, it would also be difficult to change bank accounts to a different provider considering most of us are living off of our overdraft and simply do not have the funds to close the account.

The businesses which would be most affected by any boycott are those that rely on a regular subscription fee, for example, Sky and Virgin Media both came out against independence, both have considerable reach, in terms of viewership, and both depend on regular subscription fees. It would be rather easy to cancel your subscription to these services and find an alternative supplier. You can get most TV programs on catch-up services and freeview is also available. Plus, boycotting Virgin should be the norm, given the amount of tax avoided via an immoral, yet legal loophole.

A private tax collecting company.

Another effective boycott could be done against the biggest offender of the independence referendum. The BBC licence fee brings in nearly £4 billion a year. This television tax helps pay over inflated wages to its stars and directors. I would strongly urge everyone reading this to cancel your subscription to this outdated form of tax on the poor. If a representative from TV Licensing appears at your door, remember that they are a private company and in no way affiliated with the law. Do not speak to them, you are not obliged to answer any questions, you do not have to give them any information and any information they do get will only help them to legally enter your premises to check if you have a television capable of receiving a live signal. Remember that laptops and smartphones also require a licence to watch live television. You do not need a licence to watch catch-up. The licence is completely unnecessary and can be legally avoided. If you would like to officially be free of harassment from this private company then you can follow the advice printed in The Telegraph on how to avoid the fee, which can be found by clicking here.

Peace and love fellow human.

 

UKIP Rally in Glasgow – Location Unknown

UKIP are planning to hold a rally in Glasgow on September 12, just six days before the referendum. David Coburn, UKIP’s only Scottish MEP, will be joined by party leader, Nigel Farage. The purpose of the rally is to drive home the idea that the UK is one single united country.

David Coburn, Scottish MEP for UKIP.

The location of the rally will be kept under wraps until the day of the event. Something, which I believe is counter-productive to the aims of any rally. The purpose of a rally should be to invite potential supporters.

In this case that would be the undecided Scottish voters and unsure Yes voters. With a core of committed supporters spreading their message, UKIP should aim to convince those on the fence that maintaining the Union is the correct course of action.

If, however, it is only UKIP supporters and members who are aware of the location, it means that the number of attendees will be lower than you would expect at a rally of this nature. As many undecided voters should be aware of this rally as possible if UKIP want it to have any meaningful impact.

UKIP’s apprehension to reveal the exact location is based on security fears. This is due to recent history of UKIP activity in Scotland. Nigel Farage last year was practically chased from Edinburgh while on the campaign trail, eventually having to be escorted by the police.

The public have the right to protest anything they do not agree with, however, it should be done in a democratic fashion. It should not be an angry mob as it only gives the Better Together camp ammunition to attack the majority of the peaceful, positive Yes camp.

UKIP presence in Scotland, particularly as Pro-Union campaigners, may backfire for the Better Together campaign. There seems a real fear that UKIP may turn potential no voters to vote yes. It is my opinion that most citizens of Scotland, yes and no voters, are turned off by many of UKIP’s policies. For this reason its a thanks but no thanks from the Better Together on UKIP’s referendum involvement.

Thanks but no thanks to UKIP.

The Yes camp believe that the UKIP rally could put a dent in the No camp’s chances of winning the referendum. A Better Together spokesman has already officially came out against UKIP’s involvement stating – “UKIP have no part to play in our campaign.”

I will be attending the upcoming rally in order to bring you a detailed account of the event.

Stay tuned.

Peace and love fellow human.

The RIC Rally #GlasgowTakeover

Today I attended a Radical Independence Campaign (RIC) rally in Glasgow. Supporters of Scottish Independence were scheduled to meet at the top of Buchanan Street at 12pm with an expected turnout of 1000 people. The aim of the rally was to take over Glasgow and turn the city into a hub of information, stalls, outreach, and engagement for independence. With just a few days left until the registration deadline (September 2) the RIC pushed the importance of registering to vote and even provided the necessary forms. At just after noon, the attendees were organised on the steps of the Royal Concert Hall for the waiting press to snap their pictures. At this point a crowd began to mill around speaking to each other and taking pictures of the event.

Enthusiastic Yes activists then split up into three groups. Setting up stalls on Buchanan Street, Argyle Street and Sauchiehall Street with leaflets, flyers, and voter registration forms in hand. The streets were awash with throngs of shoppers who had gathered around the information stalls to debate with the campaigners.

RIC created a carnival atmosphere with friendly activists ready to answer any questions. The streets of Glasgow were buzzing with enthusiasm, not for Alex Salmond, the SNP, or any anti-English sentiment but for the desire for social change within Scotland.

Making an impassioned and articulate speech, Falkirk born novelist and playwright, Alan Bissett, made a strong case for Scottish Independence. Highlighting the need for social change, Bissett claimed that generations of past Scots have been denied the right to self-determination. Furthermore, that the referendum was the best chance that Scotland has ever had to take power from the ruling Westminster elite.

Bissett placed emphasis on the power being in Scotland’s hands and the uncertainty that the future holds. He also admitted that the future was full of risks, but that he would rather Scotland be in full control when facing those risks.

Full control would enable Scotland to have power over the renationalisation of the railway industry and Royal Mail, the axing of the bedroom tax, and the dismantling of the Trident Missile System.

Outlining how he thinks Scotland would be viewed in the event of a no vote, Bissett Claims that the ruling elites would not allow us this opportunity again. He then compares any thoughts of a future referendum for Scottish independence to Catalonia’s fight for independence from Spain. The Spanish Government continually refusing a referendum for the Catalans.

As a happy coincidence, Labour for Independence had set up a stall in the shadow of the statue of Donald Dewar, Scotland’s inaugural First Minister. However, they were keen to inform me that they had been campaigning from that spot for the past two weekends.

Labour for Independence are a grass roots campaign set up by Labour supporters and Labour party members who are unhappy at what Labour has become. Labour for Independence campaigner, Paul Patterson, stated;

“We are about making Labour a party for the people. It’s about getting back to the soul of Labour, what it started it out as. An independent Scotland gives us that opportunity.”

I also spoke to Alex Bell, chairman of Labour for Independence, to get a feel for who they are and why they support independence. Alex spoke about the loss of Labour principles, which he believes were sacrificed at the dawn of Tony Blair’s NuLabour. Alex firmly hopes that the Independence Referendum gives Labour for Independence the platform to bring the Labour party back to its founding values.

They envision a return to social and welfare policies designed to benefit of those who need it most. They aim to restore the confidence that working people once had in Labour.

Labour for Independence also believe that the independence campaign has given the disenfranchised a voice. Those who do not feel represented by Westminster now have the chance to make a change and have their say. This, according to Bell, explains the marked increase in voter registration in Scotland.

Peace and love fellow human.

The Second Live Television Independence Debate Analysis.

Fresh from their ice bucket challenge, First Minister Alex Salmond, and Better Together leader, Alistair Darling, locked horns in the second live television debate at the Kelvingrove Museum in Glasgow’s West End.

The first debate saw fifty-six per cent of 500 Scots polled voting Darling as the victor. This was due to Alex Salmond’s inability to answer what his plan B for currency would be in the event of Westminster refusing a currency union with Scotland. On this occasion Salmond was better prepared, unleashing not one but three alternatives to a currency union.

Setting out his currency plans, the First Minister argued that the most sensible option for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be a currency union. However, other options were laid out, such as a fixed rate Scottish pound attached to the pound Sterling and a flexible currency similar to Sweden and Norway.

Nonetheless, Alex Salmond reiterated that “no one can stop us using the pound Sterling; it is an internationally tradable currency.” This point was later confirmed by Alistair Darling when he stated “Scotland cannot be stopped from using the pound.”

Darling’s opening statement focused on the points won in the last debate. His relentless pursuing of Salmond’s plan B on currency and more promises that “no thanks will not mean no change”, were not followed up by any clear plan of action. With Darling’s Labour party currently out of power, it is hard to see how the former Chancellor of the Exchequer could deliver on any promises of further devolution for Scotland.

The debate turned from currency to oil with Salmond keen to underline that regardless of the varied estimates of how much oil is left “it cannot be regarded as anything other than a substantial asset for the people of Scotland.” Darling hit back by saying “you are promising all sorts of things on the basis of a source of revenue that is very volatile.” Salmond claimed that independent estimates say that the oil is good until at least 2050.

Next was the NHS with Darling accusing Salmond of scaremongering. This claim was met with derision from the crowd, and a bemused chuckle from Salmond.

The First Minister pointed out that Darling’s own Labour party believe that Tory policy is going down the road of privatisation.

Salmond also argued that fears of a private NHS in Scotland would be quashed by a Yes vote. He claims that financial control, as well as operational control would mean that the NHS would be protected from privatisation.

From the bedroom tax to the naval base at Faslane, which currently houses the Trident Missile system, both Darling and Salmond engaged in a shouting match to win each point. However, underneath the squabbling and bickering, Salmond made some salient points which should put peoples mind at ease.

Firstly, he claimed that the Scottish Government have spent £50 million compensating those affected by the bedroom tax. Furthermore, that there would never have been such a tax had Scotland controlled its own affairs.

Secondly, he argues that in the event of Trident moving south and taking jobs with it that “our policy is to have Faslane as the headquarter base of the Scottish Defence Force, which will create a large number of jobs.” The transition time for the removal of Trident would be five and half years, something which Salmond claims is an adequate time frame.

In that time Scotland could begin to build up its own defence force, creating jobs in the process.

In a poll of 500 Scots conducted in the aftermath of the debate by the Guardian website, Alex Salmond was deemed the winner this time taking seventy-one per cent of the votes.

This result speaks more to the performance of both men rather than the substance of their arguments. Salmond delivered a polished presentation, even engaging the crowd by stepping from behind his podium in a gesture which suggests ‘I’m one of you.’

Darling, on the other hand, delivered a nervy opening statement, which was followed by question after question on the currency. His inability to let go of the point made him look like he was grasping at straws. His argument was less linear and less coherent than Salmond’s.

Peace and love fellow human.