There's no idiot quite like a far right idiot

 It was said, back in 2014, that supporters of Scottish Independence were acting as Putin's useful idiots.  That his aim was to do anything he could to destabilise the two most significant opponents he faced in Europe - The EU and NATO.  Breaking up the UK would be a step along the road to damaging both.  And the subsequent move of Alex Salmond to appear on the Russian propaganda TV channel suggests there may well have been links - although also having the arch unionist Galloway on there suggests Putin will take advantage of any disruptive influences he can find. 

In 2014 Putin's aims, if such they were, failed. But in 2016 he struck gold. His main weapon of choice in undermining western democracy is the political far right (so Indy may be seen as an aberration). The full extent of Russian interference may never be known, but Putin must have been delighted to see a fellow anti-democratic narcissist enter the White House, and for one of the larger states of Europe to try and destabilise the EU with a messy divorce.

Fortunately his success in the US was short lived - can you imagine having a Putin admirer running the US right now? Biden is far from being the perfect president, but he is so, so much better an option than Trump. But the UK has compounded it's gift to Putin by electing a hard right government of incompetents, who have become a laughing stock internationally. Yes, we have a Foreign Secretary who gets confused between the Black Sea and the Baltic (can you imagine the feeding frenzy of the UK's right wing media had Dianne Abbott or Nicola Sturgeon said something similarly stupid?), and a PM knee deep in Russian corruption and money laundering.

Putin will continue to use whatever means to further his destabilisation aims. He has made little headway in Europe's big hitter, Germany, but the French presidential election was a big test of resistance. Quite how a country that suffered so much under fascist occupation can now opt to vote in such large numbers for one of Hitler's successors is beyond me, but Le Pen was far too close to taking control of one of Europe's big hitters.  Macron, as in the US, is far from perfect but he's still better than the fascist option.

There are stories emerging that Putin may have overplayed his hand domestically in invading his democratic neighbour, and it might yet end badly for him. Should he go the subsequent power vacuum will be messy, but maybe a friendlier Russia will come out the other side. Until he is gone there will be Russian agencies trying to influence Western politics to their own ends. In 2014 that may have included breaking up the UK. In 2022 that would be pointless. Putin has had his success and the UK has neutered itself, becoming something of a joke state. The far right might not have come directly to power, but their continuing influence on tory policy, and the vile attitudes of many of their MPs, ensures the UK is globally irrelevant.

All of which leave Scottish Independence as a more attractive, and necessary, option than ever. Putin's useful idiots are the fanatical brexshiteers, howling at the EU moon. If they don't care about the possibility of reigniting war in Ireland they're not going to care much about some Eastern Europeans, are they? The break up of the UK could now be seen as a positive anti-Putin action, helping the further decline of a state where the government has embroiled itself in Russian money. Bring it on.

Change would be good - but not for the worse

 THE LEAST WORST OPTION

I would like to see an end to SNP government.  The party has been in power for too long, and is now looking and sounding stale, with too many stories of corruption and incompetence surfacing.  But.  If there was an election tomorrow I'd still be voting for them.  Why?

Two main reasons.  The first is obvious.  If, as I do, you believe in the benefits of Scotland becoming independent from the UK, and the increasing urgency of doing so, then the SNP are still the only really credible electoral show in town.  I might prefer to vote Green, but doing so might just lose a constituency seat to a unionist, so it isn't worth the risk.  They can have my list vote, my local authority vote, but for seats in either parliament there are bigger stakes.  (Of course if we had the much fairer Single Transferable Vote system in place for parliamentary seats, as we do at council level, it would be a different story, making it much easier to vote for exactly who you want.)  Alba have yet to show any real campaigning strength, so they can't be considered yet.

The second reason concerns those bigger stakes.  For more than four decades I have despised the Tories and what they do to ordinary people, and have always voted tactically to try to keep them out.  In the constituencies I lived in down south that meant Lib Dem.  Here we have other options.  But is there a realistic option to the SNP?

No party is perfect, no party has policies with which anyone, even party members, agrees 100%.  So we vote for the best fit for our priorities.  Often that means voting for the least worst option, rather than the best.  And this is what it comes down to.  The SNP might not be the party it once was, but is there a better option?  

I've asked unionists on Twitter (that well know source of rational opinion...) what the credible alternative Scottish Government is.  Answers, if given, tend to be vague, coy.  These are mostly right wingers,    Outside of the right wing bubble, the Tories remain what they've been since Thatcher's time - the most divisive and disliked party in the country.  The branch manager, and the Borders MP who is allegedly Secretary of State for Scotland, are ciphers, devoid of any bite or ideas.  And hamstrung by the failure, nepotism and general malfeasance of their masters.  Labour might have their best national leader in some time (they've been through enough of them in the past few years), but are also hamstrung by their London bosses.  What sort of Labour Party is it than can contemplate expelling the great Ken Loach?  As for the Lib Dems... choosing a vile misogynist who seems to be trying out-evil the Tories seems like a route to oblivion.

The SNP commitment to Indy can reasonably called into doubt, but for now they remain the most likely vehicle.  But even if that major issue were discounted, I can't see who would actually do a better job.  The least worst option remains the only choice.

Hope in the thaw

 

OLD GAMMON OR NEW EGGS?

The crows nest, silhouetted against the pale blue above the horizon, still sits firmly perched amid the uppermost branches of the tree before me, a few shrivelled brown leaves clinging to a pretence of a life, no buds yet apparent.  The nest is silent testimony to the industry and construction skills of the birds who built it, and who return year after year to renew their family.  Their time will come.

If I look down I see more green than white now.  There was a moderate snowfall a couple of days ago, covering the graveyard in brightness, setting the gravestones into sharp relief, making them more real and a stronger reminder of the life events behind those monuments to death.  It rained yesterday, the resultant slush then turned into a treacherous low-coefficient topography.  Today only sunshine which, despite the chilled air, steadily removes the watery blanket, only a few stubborn patches of shade putting up a fight.  It's a beautiful day, a day to walk and breathe and enjoy.

It's the First of January.  An arbitrary human marker in the natural flow of the seasons.  A marker of plans and promises, a time of recounting and foretelling.  But who dares make predictions for 2021 after the indecipherable potage that was 2020?  There are few certainties, but that does not mean that we are without hope.  Last night marked the end of one dark saga, our ties to the EU finally snapped after years of lies and bigotry and uncertainty.  The full implications of the Gammon Curtain will be made plain in the coming months.  

But the leaves will return to the naked branches I look out on, the green will flourish and the cemetery adopt it's summer character for yet another cycle of planetary movement.  Diamonds might be forever, but winter, and the gammonist regime, are not.  This was not a direction Scotland chose, but, like the crows, we can rebuild our nest and give birth to something new. 

 The crows will be with us again, there will be eggs, and new life and hungry mouths poking skywards.  They do not need other birds to tell them what to do.  

Imagine

LOUISA WHO?

"All meaningful and lasting change starts first in your imagination and then works its way out. Imagination is more important than knowledge." Albert Einstein

It's been more than five weeks now since the name was revealed, a name now well established in the media, widely recognised by the public.  And still there are unionists, invariably tories,  bleating on social media that the NHS Louisa Jordan, the temporary hospital set up in Glasgow in response to the Covid-19 crisis, should be referred to as the NHS Nightingale.  So it can then be confused with all the NHS Nightingales down south maybe?

They object to the Scottish Government not following the 'lead' set by the government in London to have all seven of their similar institutions called exactly the same thing, identified only by location.  In part that's because they're the sort of people who will blindly, knee jerkingly, criticise anything their own elected government does, right or wrong.  They can't help themselves.  And in doing so are they revealing one underlying trait that determines their unionism - a severe lack of imagination?

I had never heard of Louisa Jordan before the announcement.  Most people hadn't.  Which is, surely, a good thing - ?  Everybody has heard of Florence Nightingale.  But how many other historic names from nursing can you come up with immediately?  Edith Cavell?  Emmm...?  These temporary medical facilities are being opened in response to a situation that sees many, many people shut away in their homes for weeks on end, with no idea of how long it may continue for.  Anything, no matter how small, that makes us think, provides learning opportunities, creates a bit of interest, is to be welcomed, encouraged.

In the bigger picture it's not important what these hospitals are called.  But in a shrunken world where the micro is taking on greater significance, calling all these institutions by the same name is a missed opportunity, a failure of imagination, an apparent fear of difference.  Why aren't those in England having the sense to follow Scotland's lead and giving them names that reflect their local connections, and bring an obscure historical name to prominence?  Why isn't the Exeter hospital being named after Elsie Knocker?  (And no, I'm not making her up, check out the link!)  She'd bring a smile to a few faces, I'm sure.

Criticise the choice of Ms Jordan as a name and you criticise imagination and difference.  (As if right wingers ever showed any hostility to anybody they don't see as the same as themselves...)  And imagination is the key to change.

And it's change they fear most.  They are desperate to defend vested interests - big landowners, the media, the wealthy, the 'safe' middle classes - with no thought given to the possibility of making life better for those less fortunate. If the system changes they might be relative losers, and they can't stomach that. It's  selfishness - most don't want to change a set up from which they benefit.

Hence the attacks on anything the Scottish Government do, no matter how trivial the reasons to try and justify them.  Hence the constant attacks on the SNP, and Greens, and the wider Yes Movement, because Scottish Independence threatens the cosiness of their world.

But the Covid-19 crisis has further highlighted the iniquities and weaknesses of what is now the 'old normal'.  It's a normal we can't return to, and we have to make sure that the new one is better for more people, that the growing inequality gap is reversed and that empathy has greater prominence in our society.  Let Ms Jordan's name be a symbol for change, for difference, for better.

Coming home politically

HOME IS WHERE THE VOTE IS

The first time I got to exercise my democratic right to vote was the second general election of 1974, which gave Harold Wilson the majority he'd lacked first time around in February.  Edinburgh, and Scotland as a whole, had a very different political makeup then than it does now.  Much like England there was a split between the Tories and Labour, odd pockets of Liberal adherence, and the SNP were an almost unknown minority party.  At the time I lived in the west of the city and the constituency vote was largely split between blue and yellow, Labour a poor third.  The winner, not who I voted for, was Lord James Douglas-Hamilton - it won't be hard to guess which party he represented....

My last vote in Scotland before moving south was the 1979 devolution referendum. I voted Yes.  The losing side again.  By then my political convictions had evolved into positions that I still largely adhere to today.  Chief amongst them that the Conservative party was clearly devoted to furthering the interests of the wealthy at the expense of the mass of the people and it was a civic duty to do whatever I could to prevent them from gaining power.  That's a viewpoint that the current UK political farrago reinforces to the nth degree.

Then I spent 35 years in England, the first 10 in Hampshire, the remainder in Southport.  In each case I found myself back in that Edinburgh West scenario, the majority vote split between Tory and Liberal (later LibDem), with Labour nowhere in the running.  Based on the aforementioned conviction I found myself voting Lib most of the time, sometimes Labour in local elections if it looked like they had a chance. Tactical voting was the order of the day.

It wasn't always comfortable.  While most of the people I worked with tended towards progressive views like myself. the community didn't.  It was "interesting" living in what was largely a naval town at the time of the  wholly unnecessary Falklands/Malvinas conflict...

All of which is by way of explaining why life in Leith and North Edinburgh, where I've now lived for over four years, is such a homecoming.  Not just because it means a return to the city of my birth, but because, finally, I feel politically at home.  For the first time I can vote with conviction, knowing there's a good chance of my choice winning.  That feels good.

So we've got an SNP MP, an SNP constituency MSP, and our list MSPs include a couple of Greens, including the great Andy Wightman.  Leith and Leith Walk were, after the last council elections, the only Tory-free wards in the city.  And, in the disastrous EU referendum, this constituency recorded the highest Remain vote in the country, and the highest of any in the UK outside London.   It's diverse, lively and has a high proportion of young people (not me, obviously) which makes it, mostly, a tolerant and thoughtful place to live. 

There's one minor dark spot in all this.  My first vote after returning was in IndyRef.  This area, like the city as a whole, voted No.  But there's plenty of opportunity to ensure that changes next time round.  Which might be very soon.  Here's hoping.

Of Salmond and Corbyn

POLITICS FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND POLITICS

I'm back to having a rant again, this time about two aspects of current political discourse which are really getting my goat.

Yes, Alex Salmond did, quite clearly, say that last year's Indy Referendum was a 'once in a lifetime opportunity'.  A fact which gets trotted out by unionists again and again as evidence that there should be no further reference to the matter for at least twenty five years, and that Salmond and other SNP leaders suggesting a further Indyref appears inevitable within a much shorter timescale shows them out to be the most pernicious of liars and totally untrustworthy.

How many of those same people have been quick to condemn David Cameron for stating that there will be no Indyref before 2020, despite Ruth Davidson saying, in the run up to GE2015, that she had consulted with her Westminster leader and could say categorically that the possibility of a future referendum would not be ruled out at any point?  Do I here shouts of "liar, liar" from those self same unionists?  Apparently not.

It turns out that politicians, whenever they are seeking our votes, will often indulge in a practice known as 'hyperbole'.  Leading to, post ballot, another phenomena known as 'broken promises'.  Apparently politicians, and not just from the SNP, have been found exaggerating a wee bit, or even telling outright porkies, just to convince us to vote the way they'd like us to.  Who knew, eh?

So maybe it's best if people try not to draw too deep an inference from a single sentence uttered up by a single politician on one particular single occasion. Because if that's how you gather evidence to back up your opinions then there's a fair chance that you'll end up sounding like a complete arse.

And on to rant part two, again focusing on a phrase that seems to be doing the rounds of all those with a singular fixation. In this case, on the electoral chances of one Jeremy Corbyn. The man who has been the surprise hit of the Labour leadership campaign, despite having been included either to demonstrate the breadth of opinion within the party, or as a token to keep the more left thinking elements in their place.

But Corbyn and his supporters haven't read the carefully prepared neoliberal script that was supposed to anoint the coming of the second Blair. Far from being the token entry he has suddenly become the bookies favourite to win, and the Red Tory faction of the party are furious. "Corbyn is unelectable" they say, appearing to forget that he's looking a strong possibility to win this thing they're having called an election....

But no, this time they mean he couldn't lead the party majority in a Westminster election, because he's too 'left wing' for the electorate. And here's the bit that inspired this rant. "Look what happened in '83" they'll say - that proves it. Really?   So '83, '83, '83 is being trotted out everywhere.

If a week is a long time in politics what does that make three decades? The world is a very different place to the one that saw off Michael Foot.  Who, even five years ago, would have predicted the rise of Syriza and Podemos?  Who, less than twelve months ago, would have predicted the landslide SNP victory in May which returned the 56 MPs who appear to be having to act as the opposition in Westminster, since Labour have all but given up?

The SNP campaigned on anti-austerity platform, similar to Mr Corbyn, and did very. very well out of it, thank you very much. To the point where there were many voters in England wished they had the chance to vote for the party. And let's not forget who was the star of the party leaders' debates, and the only one of the bunch to have positive personal approval ratings going into the election. One Nicola Sturgeon of course.  OK, so Jeremy may lack the First Minister's charisma, but much of the public would warm to a conviction politician who knows what direction he wanst to take and speaks up on behalf of the oppressed classes.

If Corbyn is genuinely unelectable it isn't because of his policies. A huge proportion of the population support rail renationalisation for instance. No, the real enemy he would be fighting isn't voter opinion as such. It's the ways in which that opinion will be twisted against him by an almost entirely right wing press. I couldn't put it any better than Frankie Boyle does : "It’s worth remembering that in the press, public opinion is often used interchangeably with media opinion, as if the public was somehow much the same as a group of radically right wing billionaire sociopaths."

You can see it happening already. Even the Guardian feels a need to mention that Corbyn has been seen wearing a 'Lenin Cap'. Wasn't that the same cap the Beatles wore on an early album cover? Why isn't it a Beatles cap? Or, more to the point, what's his bloody cap, whatever shape it might be, got to do with his politics? Nothing is the answer, so why does it get a mention? Because sneaking in words like Lenin or Marx, however inappropriate the context, is the media version of going "look out or the bogeyman will get you" and hoping the children are scared into being good. Except that we're supposed to be the children....

If Jeremy Corbyn is considered unelectable, as they put it, doesn't that highlight the most serious flaw in our political process? The main stream media is the greatest democratic deficit we face. In Scotland that's been partially overcome through the development of online news and opinion sources that cover a wider spectrum of views. England could do with much the same.

Turns out this rant had three targets to go for!

EVEL is the enemy of Democracy

NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION

A phrase which first gained prominence during the American revolution which led to the creation of the USA and remains extremely relevant today.  It is one of the fundamental principles of representative democracy, and any attempt to undermine it should be resisted as undemocratic.

If a citizen is required to pay tax to the state then the state must return the compliment by giving that citizen a vote to choose their representative in the legislative process.  And that representative must have the right to comment and vote upon all measures which determine how the citizen's money will be spent.  Simple enough, eh?

Which is why the Westminster government's proposals for English Votes for English Laws, aka EVEL, is fundamentally undemocratic.

It's not as if I have any objection to votes on strictly England-related matters being restricted to English representatives.  That seems fair, sensible, and points the way towards a fully federalised UK.  Or it should do, but that's not what EVEL proposes.

And it's interesting to see that while there is much in the mainstream media about the 'disgraceful' behaviour of the SNP in deciding to vote against the repeal of fox hunting in England, now postponed by a Tory government lacking the courage to risk an embarrassing defeat, there is no comparable anguish expressed when English MPs vote down SNP proposals for greater powers to be added to the Scotland Bill.  Even though the SNP, with 50% of the national vote at the General Election, has a much stronger democratic mandate that the Tories and their 35%....

EVEL proponents like to compare the proposals with the situation in the Scottish parliament.  English MPs are unable to vote at Holyrood, but Scottish MPs can vote at Westminster.  At a simplistic level this sounds a vaguely convincing argument, ignoring the fact that this isn't just a comparison between apples and pears, more like matching a fruit against a JCB.  And therein lies the problem.

English MPs do have a say on which laws can be passed in Scotland.  They are part of the process that decided what powers, and budget, Holyrood is able to exercise.  But once that decision has been made those powers and that money are devolved to the control of Holyrood.  It is a comparable process to the central government block grant handed to local authorities.  And nobody is saying that Westminster representatives should have a say in the running of a county council or London Borough, are they?

For EVEL to become properly democratic it requires a similar arrangement.  An allocated sum of money, and the relevant powers, devolved to a body responsible for administering them.  In other words, an English Parliament.  Failure to do so means that, even where the legislation concerned only has direct impact on England, it is UK taxpayers money that is being spent.  And if that's the case then my opening statement, that fundamental democratic principle, is being trampled over.  Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs MUST have the right to vote on these matters if the monies involved come from their constituents taxes.

Whether or not this fact is owned up to, it's likely that the current EVEL idea will collapse through it's own incompetence.  Westminster legislation is a jumble of laws which apply not just to different countries within the union, but different combinations of countries as well.  Good luck sorting that lot out in a hurry....

There are only workable two answers to the West Lothian Question.  A fully federal UK.  Or a break up of the UK.  If the Tory government prefer the latter, but aren't prepared to admit it, then EVEL might well be the best way to achieve it.

The proposals are unfair to Scotland.  They're unfair to England.  And, worst of all, they are wholly undemocratic.  The coming months are a challenge to some of the most basic principles of how we seek to run our society.