Where's the alternative?

 WHO'S ANYBODY?

So we're to have a new First Minister in a few weeks from now.  Maybe that's something that was needed.  Although it feel more like the SNP government has been in power for too long. They are running out of ideas, and have serious issues over competence, corruption and honesty. So it would be good to have someone else to vote for, to usher in a more complete change that might bring in real improvements after the next Holyrood election. But who  is that alternative?

Twitter in these Muskian times seems flooded with right wing nutjobs.  And diehard unionists.  Often the same people.  My feed covered in them, unsolicited and largely unwelcome, like a dog crapping on your dinner.  Yes, I could simply block, or see only people I've chosen to follow, but there's something to be said for 'know your enemy', so it's worth persevering and seeing what the people who are causing the problems are saying.

And it gives the opportunity to ask questions.  There's a particular kind of right wing unionist who persistently whines and whinges about the SNP government, and makes constant personal attacks on the outgoing First Minister.  Mysogyny is never far away.  I've taken to asking them what seems like the obvious question - Who is the credible electoral alternative we should be voting for?

And the answer is always the same - Anybody.  When I point out that I've never seen the Anybody Party on any ballot paper their replies become more vague, or they vanish or block.  Most liukely because even they know there isn't a proper alternative.  Only Labour can oust the SNP as a government.  The Tories might like to pretend they could, but Scotland sees through them.  And if greater competence, less corruption and more honesty are the attributes being looked for, then their Westminster record shows them to be ten times worse than anything the SNP have done, without even the latter's humanity.

Which leaves Starmer's party.  Because much as I have some liking for Sarwar, he is still going to have to do the party line from London.  Which is avowedly unionist, doesn't commit to trying to reverse brexshit, and seems increasingly dostant from anything recognisable as socialism.  So what's the point of Labour?  To replace the nasty party in England for sure, but what can they offer this country?  I wait to be wooed.

In the meantime we can only wait to see who the new FM will be, and what they offer.  Sadly, it doesn't really have to be much to be better than the other lot.

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.

I can't get angry any more. But that can change.

CAN ANYBODY FIND MY RAGE FOR ME?

We recently watched the BBC documentary about the rise (and fall and rise again) of Rupert, the man the great Dennis Potter name his pancreatic cancer after.  Barbara was near incandescent about the malign influence that twisted the outcomes of so many what-should-have-been exercises in democracy, notably in 2016 (I know everyone's saying 2020 is the worst year, but, at least for the UK, I'd still plump for four years ago in terms of doing long term damage).

And she's been fuming about Doris' raft of peerages yesterday.  His brother.  A thick cricketer who thinks (?) England is an island.  Ruth the Mooth, a woman we know holds many opinions because she's changed them so regularly.  A broad cross section of the population.  Well, the rich, corrupt and talentless bit of the population.  And, and so good to see that those rumours of Russian interference were totally unfounded.

Oh, nearly forgot - there's an actual fascist in the list as well.  And why not, she doesn't even stand out from the rest of the shitshow.

But I can't get angry.  I can't even find it in me to be mildly surprised.  The UK has a PM who's a pathological liar and was even shown to have lied to parliament but didn't resign.  A housing minister who's openly corrupt.  A Home Secretary who was previously sacked from government for risking state security.  I could go on, but what's the point?  Once we were all forced to accept The Fairy Tale of Barnard Castle there's no scenario ridiculous enough to seem far fetched any more.  The Looking Glass is receding in the mirror.  In a year from now they'll be convincing the faithful that food shortages were what they voted for and this is what 'sovereignty' (or whatever) looks like.  But hey, blue passports, eh?

If I am going to get worked up then it looks like the source will be closer to home.  My relative passivity in the face of the above correlates with my increasing confidence that the UK is coming to an end and Scotland will be independent soon.  (Apologies to readers in England and Wales but you'll have to find your own lifeboat.)  Brexshit and Covid and an incompetent posh boy charlatan of a PM are coming together in a perfect storm.  And it now seems the only obstacle that could intervene is... the SNP?

So very many of us now want Indy to happen, want it soon so we can escape the iceberg Doris and co are hubristically steering towards, see it as the only real answer.  But does the SNP leadership?  Joanna Cherry has been the most prominent, and smart, voice in the party pushing for alternatives to a never-happen S30, and now she looks to have been sabotaged.  That won't quieten her in any way I'm sure, but it has set he warning lights off.  Nicola's done a good job this year - but if she starts faltering on the path to our final destination I might just locate that misplaced anger.

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.

Popeseye, Porn and Politics

THE BIG QUESTION

Q : What do all these people have in common?

A top chef selecting beef for his steak menu

A porn director casting his male lead

Me thinking about the Westminster parliament I'd like to see on 13 December

A : We all want them well hung.

In around four and half decades of taking an interest in politics there has never been so poor a choice to be the UK prime minister.  Our democracy is such that I have often found myself voting for the least worst option, but this feels more like selecting which leg to have amputated.  Thank goodness I made the move back to Scotland, where we have much better alternatives.

Clearly Corbyn is the lesser of the two plagues on offer, but he's looked less and less inspiring, more and more unstable, as the last few weeks have unfolded.  The accusations of racism and financial incompetence in his party may have some grounds in truth, albeit to nothing like the extent being broadcast in multi coloured lights by the right wing media, but they are nothing compared to Islamophobia, xenophobia and deficit-doubling death-dealing austerity of their opponents.

So what's the best outcome we (well, I at least) can hope for on Friday morning?  A tory majority would be disastrous,a Labour one seemingly impossible.  So the best possible outcome for Scotland, and maybe for the rest of the UK too, is a hung parliament, with fifty plus SNP MPs holding the balance of power.  (I'm tempted to say forty nine just so the world is spared this horrific sight which would do old Nessie no good at all.)  England gets to avoid the brexshit that will destroy it's economy, and we get another chance to get ourselves out of the broken UK.  And this time we need to grab it.

Roll on Friday morning....

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.

Vote Yes for democracy

YES, PLEASE

No big surprise, given the stubborn intransigence of May, that the Scottish Government announce plans to have IndyRef2.  They've tried everything possible to come to some kind of compromise agreement, with Westminster refusing to budge from their one track minded position.  What happens in the next few weeks will be fascinating for anyone with an interest in politics.  Article 50 and Section 30 providing the centrepiece.

As the First Minister made clear the circumstances of 2014 have changed radically.  A decisive vote to remain in the UK has been followed by a far more convincing majority to stay in the EU.  Which union takes precedence?  That isn't really the question.  More to the point, what does Scotland want it's future to look like?  And maybe even more importantly, what might we want to avoid?

It's obvious that the May government isn't going to listen to our elected representatives, so there's a convincing argument in that alone.  Do we want to be a country with a voice or not?  But I think it's how May treats the UK as a whole, at least over the Brexit fiasco, that's the more greatest long term worry and a sign of the UK becoming a deeply unpleasant state.

Democracy is built on the separation of powers to provide checks and balances, to prevent the emergence of dictatorship.  Executive, legislature and judiciary must be able to prevent each other having too much power.  Even if the actual structure in place is less than perfect, the principle they embody is an essential one.  So it's not encouraging to see the executive, the May government, challenge the right of the judiciary to ensure that the rule of law is maintained, as happened when they challenged the High Court decision that parliament must be involved in invoking Article 50.  And have subsequently gone on to override the spirit of the ruling, which was endorsed by the Supreme Court, by introducing a laughably inadequate bill that attempts to sideline the legislature in the Brexit process.  Aided by a spineless Labour Party leadership who have provided no real opposition in this matter.

May, in attempting to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, is acting like a wannabe dictator (shades of Trump).  If that path continues, and there seems little sign of it being blocked, it provides, for me, the most compelling reason to vote Yes.  Bring it on.

By-election fall out might be for the best?

THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS?

It was English by-election day yesterday, not just in the two Westminster seats that have received ll the coverage today, but also in three council seats.  And the results in all five may be an indicator that the disastrous far right politics of 2016 are slowly being rejected.

The clearest indicator of that was in Stoke where Labour held on to their seat despite promises from ukip of an upsurge in their fortunes.  This was a constituency that voted heavily to Leave in June.  This result may be an indication that many of the voters there are starting to realise how badly they were conned by the Leave campaigns lies and hate-mongering.  Ukip thought they had this, so much so that they chose their own toxic leader as Candidate.  It's good to see he's had as much success as his frog faced predecessor, although he's got a long way to go to catch up on Fuhrage's seven failures....

Ukip are struggling for money, having had to pay back the EU after misspending public funds, and their membership numbers have fallen.  Add in the internal feuding that was so apparent and it's possible this recent failure is one more step towards the fascist party's death spiral.  Politics is best rid of them.

On the face of it the result in Copeland looks to be anti-progressive, with a historic win for the governing party.  But it might just be part of a much needed jolt for Labour.  I like Corbyn.  He's got many excellent policies, has tried hard to bring a kinder face to political discourse, and appears to be a fundamentally decent person, the very opposite of the Tory leadership.  But.  There's too much evidence showing that he's a terrible, indeed ineffectual, people manager.  And that's been fatal to Labour's ability to be an effective opposition, with the membership of the shadow cabinet changing like socks.  Worse still has been his dereliction of duty in failing to do enough to oppose May's attempts to railroad though disastrous constitutional change.  His failure to properly oppose the tyrannical Brexit bill is a betrayal of Remain voters who deserve effective representation in parliament, something that's been left to the numerically handicapped SNP and Lib Dems.

So a Tory win looks bad, but if it's a step on the road to having a more effective Labour party it could turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

In the three council elections the Tories held on to one, but lost the other two to the Lib Dems.  Not just narrowly, but on a massive swing.  Maybe there were local issues that caused this, but I can only hope it's another sign of the appallingly name Bregret that is becoming mentioned more frequently, and that public opinion is steadily moving decisively against leaving the EU.

That would be good for England and, selflessly, I applaud that.  Even if it may actually be a step back for Scottish independence....

What have you been told about the Scottish election England?

DEAR ENGLISH FRIENDS,

I wonder what you made of the general election results coming down from north of the border on Friday morning?  If you've been taking your news from the mainstream media, including, most shamefully, the BBC, you may have been left with two images - Dire Disaster for the SNP, Total Triumph for the Tories.  Is that how it's been portrayed to you?  If so, here's a few facts that might help paint a clearer picture.

But to begin with I best clear up a couple of potentially confusing points about the Scottish political scene.  Firstly, the voting system used for Holyrood.  We get to cast two votes.  The first, for the 73 single member constituencies, uses the identical system to that employed to elect Westminster MPs.  The remainder of the 129 MSPs are elected through eight regions using a list system.  In the first vote you go for the person, in the second it's the party.

Calculating the regional results involves some complicated arithmetic using the D'Hondt method.  I'm not going to try and explain it in detail, check the above link if you want to know more.  But the primary consequence is that the more successful a party is in winning constituency seats, the less it's chance of taking seats in the regions.  This system was chosen for two reasons.  It gives minority parties (which, at the time, included the SNP) a greater chance of representation than the hugely unfair Westminster system.  And secondly, it makes it highly improbable that any single party could win an overall majority in parliament.  This 'safeguard' was included just in case the SNP increased their support to the point where they might become the government, thus, supposedly, avoiding the possibility of there ever being a majority of the parliament in favour of independence.

And if you think that sounds a bit paranoid have a look at this clip of Malcolm Bruce saying exactly that at Westminster.

Which brings me to my second 'need to know' point.  This constitutional arrangement assumed that there would only ever be the one pro-independence party, the SNP.  But that was before Indyref and the rise of the popular Yes Movement.  In 2016 we had at least three other pro-indy parties in the election.  So don't make the common error of assuming that the SNP and the Yes Movement are the same thing.  (An easy mistake to make of course, even the SNP seem to be guilty of it at times....)  There are Yes voters, like myself, who do not consider themselves to be nationalists.  Equally there have been many people voting SNP in past two years who are yet to be convinced of the merits of full separation, but now see the Nats as the natural party of the centre left in Scottish politics.

In 2011 the SNP broke the system.  They got that absolute majority they were never intended to get.  But that only came on the back of the perfect storm, having few enough consituency wins for them to have some success in the regions.  The result gave them 53 constituency MSPs and13 from the regions, a total well clear of the 65 needed for outright majority.  This time round they were actually more successful - and suffered for it as the system did what it was designed to do.  59 constituencies returned an SNP candidate, so in five of the regions there wasn't really a cat in hell's chance of them getting any list MSPs, despite having a substantially larger number of votes than other parties.  The results from the Glasgow region show what I mean.

Overall the SNP increased the number of votes they received nationally, and polled about 46% in the constituency vote, 42% in the regions.  In the end they were just a few hundred votes short of getting the two extra seats needed for the magic 65.  But that had never seemed likely in the first place.  This was an administration chasing it's third term in office after all.

The SNP are, once again, to form the government.  They remain by far the most popular party in the country, but will now have to adopt a more consensual style, seeking agreement from at least one other party each time they want to legislate.  This sounds like a positive to me.  And it certainly doesn't sound like any kind of disaster.

As for that Tory triumph....  They took 22.0% of the constituency vote.  Marginally behind, yes behind, the 22.6% Labour got.  They did do better in the regions, but still only just made it to 23% (with Labour on 19%, not all that far behind).  In seat numbers the Conservatives won that battle 31 to 24, but the underlying figures show the real difference to be far less than that.  And both parties put together fall well behind the SNP's totals, whether measured in votes or seats.  Some triumph.

Looking back over recent decades, in Westminster elections the Tories have usually polled at around 15%, always under the 20 mark.  In the previous Holyrood election, in 2011, they were barely scraping the 14%.  So 22% does represent a substantial increase.  But it hasn't been at the expense of the SNP.  Instead this increase has more to do with Labour passing them - going the wrong way.  And here it's worth looking at the Tory campaign.

There were two key elements.  The first was to try and pretend not to be Tory.  Much of their campaign literature seems to have avoided much use of the word 'Conservative'.  In it's stead we were being asked to elect Ruth Davidson of the Ruth Davidson party.  No matter what the media might like to tell you, 'Conservative' remains a toxic word with much of the Scottish electorate.

Secondly, it was Wee Ruthie : Tank Commander (sorry, I know most of you won't get the joke, but it still makes me laugh) who wanted to make independence, and the possibility of a second Indyref, an issue in this election.  Backed up of course, by her chums at the BBC et al.  No matter how many times Sturgeon repeated that there were no plans to push for one, and that there would have to be a material change in circumstances for that to happen, Davidson wanted it to be the defining issue.

And it worked, to an extent.  It needn't have been the case, but the faultline in Scotland's political landscape is the fracture between Yes and No.  What's interesting is how that split appears to be aligning itself, more and more, with the traditional fissure between left and right.  Being pro-UK becomes ever more a right wing choice, and vice versa.  The Tories have made themselves the de facto party of No.  Not for nothing are they The Conservative and Unionist party.

But here's the thing.  There is a hard core of Scottish unionist voters who believe that remaining a part of the UK is essential to Scotland's future.  They are never, ever, going to vote SNP.  Or, probably, for any other pro-indy party.  I'd imagine that includes pretty much all of the people who voted Tory, and a percentage of those for Labour and the LibDems (remember them?).  That figure looks to be somewhere around the 30% mark.

On the other hand, there's a hard core of Nationalists who will vote Yes whatever the circumstances, and have a tribal allegiance to the SNP.  That one's harder to calculate, but, for the sake of argument, let's say that's about 30% as well.  (Personally I suspect it's higher, but that might just be my confirmation bias....)

And in the middle.... those who could fall either way, depending on events.

That looks to place a limit on the Tory 'comeback'.  They could still grow their vote, maybe get somewhere around that 30%, but it's hard to imagine, in the medium term, the seismic shift needed to see them in government here.  Especially when the Cameron regime is proving itself to be worse than even those of Thatcher.

Meanwhile the SNP are still sitting pretty.  They only need one party to support them at any one time and they have a majority.  Their most natural ally would appear to be the Greens (and I really, really, really hope they work closely with Andy Wightman on land reform!), but that won't work every time.  Personally I'd have liked to see an SNP/Green coalition, adding some much needed radicalism to Nat caution, but with only two votes needed each time I can see why that's not an option.

The one party they must not work with is Wee Ruthie's.  Not that I think she would.  The Tory leader is defining herself as the anti-Nicola, and has no place to go beyond that.  When the SNP worked with the Tories in 2007 it was through pragmatism, and predates both the arrival of Cameron and Indyref.  The latter changed the Scottish scene dramatically.  Working with Tories would be hugely damaging to Nicola - and vice versa.

That leaves two parties.  If I was Willie Rennie I'd be pimping my team at the government, offering to be of help in passing various bits of legislation.  It looks to be the once chance the LibDems have of gaining some relevance outside of their heartlands and rehabilitating them as a serious player.

The biggest question though is - Whither Labour?  Not so long ago the dominant force in the country, they are now the third party and in disarray.  They came up with some decent policies, not least on tax, but it all felt a bit half hearted.  There were even some noises about having second thoughts on Trident and maybe allowing a free vote on independence.  If Kezia had declared for Corbyn there might have been a chance, but it all came across as a bit too Blairite, and that's part of their problem.  It's a bit too close to Tory.

So they are going to have to decide which way to turn.  Work with Ruthie, thus perpetuating the 'Red Tories' label, to oppose the government?

Or look to cooperate with Bute House on progressive legislation, aiming to get back some of that centre left ground?  And, in the process, maybe acknowledging formally that there are still some Labour supporters who might well be considering independence as the best option.

This isn't an easy choice, with hatred of both Tories and the SNP being visceral within sections of the party.  Plus there's the bigger problem - it isn't necessarily their choice to make.  Previous leader Johann Lamont complained that her London masters treated Scottish Labour like a "branch office".  That might be fine for the Tories, their raison d'être even, but for Labour, and to a lesser extent the LibDems, it's becoming a drag anchor.  Will Corbyn and co have the sense to give Kez the freedom required?

Of course I write all this from my own biased standpoint.  I voted SNP/Green (for reasons I outlined in an earlier post) and am, overall, pleased with the outcome of the election.  There is still a pro-Indy majority of MSPs (I bet your English media forgot to mention that bit) and the SNP's more extreme tendencies will be curbed.  There's an outside chance we may see some more radical policies implemented than appeared in the SNP's rather managerial manifesto.

And that's important, to people like me, if the case for independence is ever to be made successfully.  With the new powers available to them, the government need to demonstrate why Scotland can be not just different, but better than the UK.  Green influence on environmental policy will be crucial in this.  Meanwhile the leader of the opposition is going to have to keep defending the cruelty and incompetence of Cameron's cronies, a brush she may regret being tarred with.  Plus we have this daft EU referendum to come, the fallout from which is uncertain.

The Daily Fail and their ilk seem to think that Friday's results have made Indy less likely.  I wouldn't be so sure about that.....

Regards,

Blyth

(If this has helped you get a clearer picture of what's going on up here please share it with your friends.  We're getting a bit fed up with being misrepresented!)

Be proud Scotland

PROUD OF MY COUNTRY

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

I know, I know, quotes shorn of their context have little value, and Johnson didn't actually mean what that brief sentence conveys when employed as a generalisation.  Nonetheless I'm sticking with it as a useful introductory peg on which to hang this post.

I don't trust patriots.  I don't trust anyone who says they are proud of their country without providing any specific reason for doing so.  I don't trust anyone who regurgitates the mantra, 'my country, right or wrong'.  That's an abdication of responsibility, a mindless refusal to exercise the critical faculties.  How can anyone be 'proud' of taking part in illegal wars, or implementing policies that kill disabled people?  Unthinking loyalty should have no place in a civilised society.

But sometimes your country, collectively, does do something you can feel pride in being a part of.  And one such moment occurred this morning.

Everyone will have had some aspect of the general election results that they are unhappy about.  Whether it's the SNP failure to get an absolute majority, Labour bemoaning the loss of so many seats, or the frustration of the Greens in not getting to the double figures some polls predicted.  But there was one element of the results that (almost) the whole country can get behind and feel proud of.

Despite all their loud mouthed predictions to the contrary, ukip didn't come close to winning a single seat at Holyrood.  The Scots have not fallen prey to the politics of fear, hatred and bigotry promoted by those far right numpties, the toxicity that has so badly infected the politics and social fabric of England.  We have to continue to guard against it, but for now this brand of extremism is a non starter in the nation.  And why shouldn't we all be proud of that?

But Wales - what have you done?  Neil the fraudster Hamilton?  Really??  Be ashamed, Wales, feel very ashamed.

Choices, choices - the General Election looms

JUST A FEW DAYS TO GO

The SNP is massively flawed, both as a party and as a government.  There are times when their instinct to centralise and control, as evidenced in the creation of Police Scotland or the much derided 'guardian for every child' policy, is disturbingly reminiscent of some of the worst aspects of the later years of the New Labour governments at Westminster.  With new powers coming to Holyrood this was an opportunity for the party to show off its progressive credentials, but the response to this in their manifesto is timid at best, especially on tax.  They have become a managerial government, largely competent, but lacking flair or imagination.

And yet.  All the polls are indicating that the government will be returned with an increased majority, backing up their huge success last year when they won all but three of Scotland's seats in London, with just over 50% of the votes cast - a far, far stronger mandate than that 'won' by the Tories.  The party itself attracts massive popular support, with membership greatly outstripping that of any other party (indeed they are the third largest in the UK, and by some margin), and there is a fanatical element (often the so-called 'cybernats') that can become overly aggressive at times.  Why is a party, which on paper should be struggling to keep the bandwagon rolling, looking such a dead cert to continue?  And can I find any reason to vote for them?

I have almost always voted tactically.  Having lived most of my adult life in England I found myself living in constituencies where I felt it my public duty to put my X in the spot where it was most likely to prevent a Conservative winning the seat.  And often that's the thing about democracy, you can find yourself voting not for the party that best reflects your views, but the least worst option available.  It's not the party you're voting for, but voting against the less palatable choices.

So what are the choices in this general election?  What are my choices?  As I've already stated, I have no truck with the Torykip world view.  Greed and selfishness are not a basis for public policy, and the Scottish Conservatives have shown no convincing signs of distancing themselves from the disastrous Cameron regime.  Any party whose policies kill disabled people is not getting my vote.

Oh, and ukip are ever more of a joke in this country.  Led by the buffoon who is a national embarrassment (how did anyone think Coburn would be a suitable representative for Scotland in Brussels?) and apparently having their own little civil war in the last few days of electioneering, they play to the worst aspects of the human psyche.  May they all rot.

Then there's Labour.  No longer able to count upon the loyalty of thousands no matter how incompetent, they are suddenly struggling to hang on to their position as second party.  Which is a shame.  Unlike the SNP they are proposing to do something a bit more radical with the new tax powers, and are making some noises about opposing Trident.  Plus they have taken a stronger stance than the government against any fracking taking place in the country.  All three policies feature on my personal list of things I'd like to see.

But I have two problems with Scottish Labour at the moment (apart from them just not being Corbynite enough for my taste).  Locally their choice of candidate in my constituency is a huge negative.  The popular, and effective, incumbent MSP is retiring, his replacement an establishment figure who has been prominent in many of Edinburgh Council's greatest failures (and there have been a few).  Nationally, much as Dugdale appears to be a very nice and very genuine person, she does little to impart confidence.  She does not make for a convincing potential First Minister.

There's an irony here.  Wee Ruthie does demonstrate some of the leadership qualities Kezia lacks - but her polices are, well, shite.  But if the Tories did become the second party it might actually be no bad thing.  Scotland needs an effective leader of the opposition, something sadly lacking in recent years.

Then there's the LibDems.  Remember them?  If Kezia appears to be a weak leader, what can you say about Willie Rennie?  Is it even worth bothering?

That just leaves the Greens, and a few minority parties.  In the constituency vote none of them really has much chance of winning, certainly not in this area.  But at regional level it's a different matter.

For all that RISE have some very attractive ideas, I feel at the moment that the Scottish Greens best represent my own views.  Strong on the environment, radical on tax and with an attitude to independence that matches my pragmatism.  I'm a Yes voter, but not a nationalist by instinct.  And in Patrick Harvie they have the most effective leading politician in the country, someone I have great respect for.

In an ideal world I'd like to see a SNP/Green coalition in power, with Patrick and co giving Nicola's cabinet the progressive kick they need.  That seems an unlikely outcome, but a strong Green presence in Holyrood would be to Scotland's benefit.  I'll be voting SNP in the constituency, even if I have to hold my nose a bit to do so.  But my list votes goes to the Greens, and that one comes with conviction.

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.

When Scotland is better than England....

THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I HAVE TO LOVE SCOTLAND

Regular readers will know that I voted Yes in the Independence Referendum last September. Not that I'm a nationalist, but it seemed like the only route open to the possibility of a more socially just society, an aspiration that Westminster seems a million miles away from. I'd be perfectly happy to change my mind and stay with the UK if something significantly changed for the better. Were Labour to come to their senses, return to their roots and choose Jeremy Corbyn as the next leader then there might be some hope. But how likely is that?

Which is a long winded way of saying that I have no truck with the Scottish good/English bad mantras of the more extreme elements of the SNP. My argument is with the UK political establishment, not the English. But there are some moments when it's hard not to conclude that we not only do things a bit differently up here, but sometimes a bit better as well.  And yesterday morning on Twitter was definitely one of those moments.

Katie McGarvey tweeted :

Thinking of finally joining a party in run up to Scottish elections to help campaign properly. Heart says Green, head says SNP. 😩 #help

It's hard to imagine what happened next taking place in England.

Within minutes she had a response from our First Minister saying "I accept I might be a bit biased...but I hope I can persuade you to make it @theSNP". Somewhat bemused by this, Katie decided to be cheeky and see if the Greens' Patrick Harvie could make her a better offer. Free chocolate maybe? (Fair Trade, of course!). Patrick swiftly replied that he'd been known to turn up at branch meetings with a cake and maybe that would do?

That precipitated an exchange that ended up with yet another Holyrood party leader joining in the cake debate, and Nicola complaining that her well known lack of kitchen skills were being mocked. You can see the tweets in this article in the Herald, and The Scotsman joined in the fun as well.

OK, it would be naive not to recognise that high profile politicians have staff handling their social media accounts for them, so it may not have all been the actual leaders themselves. Ms Sturgeon is a busy individual. All the same they will at least be responsible for setting the tone of their communications.

But can you imagine any of the Westminster party leaders (and I include Angus Robertson in this) doing something similar?  Can you imagine their image makers allowing such a thing to happen?  I can't.  

It's perhaps no coincidence tha,t of our five main party leaders, only one is of the traditional white, straight male variety.  And he, the LibDem leader, is probably the least likely to be seen behaving in the above manner.  Even the leader of the Scottish Tories, much as I disagree with her policies, is  often likeable and funny.  And, perhaps bizarrely, the Scottish leader of ukip is gay, albeit a total moron....

The referendum shook up the whole country and created a much more politically conscious nation.  We had a General Election result that was a shock, even for the winners.  And Nicola was the only party leader to emerge from the TV debates with positive approval ratings, with many in England wishing they could vote for her and her party.  Politics is different in Scotland.  And sometimes a lot more human than anything we see coming from London.