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.