Party to an Independent Scotland?

PARTY RENEWAL

I was sorry to see the result of the Independence Referendum last September.  For reasons which will be obvious to anyone who has previously read my thoughts on the subject.  But also from more of a political anorak perspective.  Because something we didn't get to see was how the political parties in Scotland would have had to change to match the new landscape they inhabited.

Of the five main parties only the Greens might have had little shape shifting to do.  They are already, for ideological, and probably financial, reasons, a highly devolved organisation.  The Scottish Greens are already a distinct entity from the party in England.  They supported a Yes vote, and are very clear about the place they occupy on the political spectrum. Why would they see any reason to change?

Whereas the three old, established parties would be facing significant upheaval.  Joanne Lamont famously said that Labour HQ in London treated the Scottish party as nothing more than a 'branch office'.  The Tories and Lib Dems are similarly encumbered with a structure that sees them taking most of their policy and tone from down south.  So if Independence had been the outcome what would they have been facing in their futures?

Labour were once the dominant party in Scotland and still appeared to have a loyal following, despite many of their old supporters voting Yes in their heartland of Glasgow. This would surely have convinced the local leadership, now freed from the constraints place on them by the neoliberalism of New Labour to embrace the new country and take a leading role in building up the institutions required. They might even have looked to a new leader who was untainted by their recent past in Westminster.

A No vote was the result though, and Scottish Labour appear to be paying a heavy price for working so closely with the Tories in Better Together. Just how much damage has been done to them will be fully apparent in two weeks time.  Their current leader is very much out of the Blairite mould and struggling to achieve any popularity.

But if there had been a Yes?  Labour would have had the opportunity to seize back the left wing ground on which the SNP, and to a lesser degree the Greens, are soundly beating them.  They might have made the kind of transformation which would return them to looking like the natural party of government they have been in the past.

For the Tories the repositioning exercise would have been more difficult still.  Should they have accepted the result as permanent, ditched their southern links, and looked to establish themselves as the party of the right in the new country?  Or clung to the past and sought to become the rallying point for disgruntled unionists?  Perhaps even returning to their old name of the Conservative and Unionist Party?  A dangerous tactic when the U word has such strong associations with the problems of Northern Ireland - the last thing an independent Scotland would need is anything which sparks off sectarianism.

As for the Lib Dems..... No, sorry, I just can't bring myself to care.  In time I suppose they might have staged a recovery to represent the old liberal tradition, but it's hard not to see them as an irrelevance in the current climate.

Finally, the SNP.  Triumphant on the back of the Indyref result, they would surely be confident of playing a major political role in the future.  Except - what would they now stand for?  A party which was built around a single purpose, to bring about independence from the UK, would have to question it's very reason for existing and ponder what exactly it was now going to represent. They would have had the hardest job of the lot in adapting.

That was then of course.  Since September the SNP has quadrupled in membership and emerged as a major player in UK politics.  It has every chance of becoming the third largest party in Westminster and becoming a significant voice in the running of the state.  When independence does come (and I am convinced that it's definitely a case of 'when' and not 'if') does this strengthening of the party make it's transition any easier?

It certainly wouldn't vanish overnight.  With such a strong membership base, an established national infrastructure, and the most charismatic and competent politician in the country, it is bound to remain a significant force.  How could it be otherwise?  But it will still have the problem of working out what kind of party it now becomes, and what values it represents.  Especially if the revitalised Labour is able to reclaim it's left wing credentials.

Around the time of the referendum a lot of people in Scotland voiced fears that an SNP government in the new country would be a frightening prospect.  I thought then, and continue to think, that that was one of the least likely outcomes.  By the time full independence arrived (which was always going to take much longer than the over optimistic eighteen months suggesteded) the political landscape of the country would have moved on, the parties would be jostling to find their own standpoints, and the voters would have a wider range of choices than they do now - and would choose differently.

When independence does come, whenever that is, the months and years after the result are going to be fascinating for anyone with any interest in the mechanics of politics and government.

A Grand Day Out?

ANOTHER DREAM IS REALISED

I have no idea how many times in the past thirty five years I must have driven that section of the A702 which runs from the M74 (and, way back when, the A74) to the outskirts of my home city of Edinburgh.  Hundreds certainly.  It's an interesting road to drive.  Some fine long straights where overtaking is possible, some twisty sections, lots of ups and downs and some great views - especially when there's snow on the ground.

There's only one town of any size, Biggar, where we've stopped a few times to eat.  Every Hogmanay they build up an immense bonfire in the main square, which must be some sight once lit, although I've only ever seen the before and after scenarios.  Otherwise there are a couple of villages that are a bit more than just a cluster of houses, but most are of the 'blink and you'll miss it' variety.  Any stops we've made in them in the past have reflected a need to clean up cat sick or poo....

West Linton is an exception in that the main road effectively bypasses the village itself.  You see the garage and hotel, but most of the place is hidden down the hill.  Pointing that way is a tourist sign saying "Historic Conservation Village", so we've often said we should pay it a visit one day.  Today was the day.

Visiting IKEA meant we were already on the southern edge of the city.  We returned some items that hadn't quite worked out as we hoped, and I went in search of those traces of my human spirit which deserted me last time around.  It's not really a place of undiluted joy, is it?

West Linton is only about ten miles further on.  We followed the sign down the hill and drove along the main street.  Hmm, a tourist attraction without a car park, that's interesting.  In the end we stopped on a road overlooking a park which sat on the bank of a small river.  Picturesque.  And had a walk around, looking for the excitement.  Or something.

This is Main Street where, as you can see, it all happens.

There's a book shop, always a promising sign of cultural life.  It was closed.

The window informs us the opening hours are between two and five.  Obviously more than long enough for anyone needing to choose their reading matter.

Part of the window display looks like this.

They must get a lot of horse riders moseying on in to town looking for the route to the deep south.

There are a few pretty buildings.

That'll explain the Conservation bit then.

There's a village clock tower too.

Very economical of them to only have clock faces on two sides, facing the main road.  Maybe people on the other side never cared about being late?

See, the bank, how pretty it looks.

See, the bank, how closed it is....

Even the bus is there more often.

You wouldn't want to miss one though.

But they have had a famous resident, no wonder that 'Historic' moniker applies.

No, I've never heard of him either.

The church and churchyard are very attractive, well kept, a credit to the village.

And they certainly make sure their war memorial is well flowered.

After this frenzy of enlightenment we needed something to eat and drink.  The Bistro looked a bit too formal for a snack.  The Deli not appealing enough to supply the components of a decent picnic.  The Hotel was back up the hill and we couldn't be bothered looking.  Which left The Olde Toll Tea House.  At least that gave us a chance to sit in the sun, overlooking the park.

The service was, erm, of village variety.  He asked me twice what I wanted and still something different (but similar) turned up.  I didn't have the heart to point it out, I think I might have hurt his feelings.

And Barbara's latte arrived in an unusual choice of mup, or was it a cug?

But the day wasn't wasted.  There was some genuine entertainment on hand.  This dog was funny.

What does anyone actually do here?  I think we may be city people....

The real creators of wealth

SO WHO EXACTLY ARE THESE 'WEALTH CREATORS'?

General Election day 2015 gets ever closer and the lies and rhetoric are being ramped up on all sides.  Not least from the right wing, who are desperate to keep power and wealth and privilege in the grasp of those who already hold it and dread any attempts to create a fairer society.  They seem unable to grasp the inherent evil of a system where, in the sixth wealthiest economy on the planet, children are born into poverty and people have to resort to begging or foodbanks simply to stay alive.

On the right much is made of the need to reduce the national debt, to 'pay our way' in the world, to shrink the welfare state which radically changed Britain for the better after the Second World War.  Without any recognition that the greed and perverted money worship which brought about the 2008 crisis is still with us.  If they genuinely wanted us to 'pay our way' they'd be clamouring for all the unpaid legitimate tax to be collected and the perpetrators to be charged with theft.  But supposed 'benefit scroungers' are much softer targets....

Instead we're supposed to be grateful to the so-called 'wealth creators', despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary.  So maybe it's time to dispel a few myths, for the blood suckers who refuse to pay their way (in a tax system which, even were it to be enforced, still asks for nothing like the payments which these people should be making if they were really wanting to contribute to society) to be revealed for what they are.

Because too often the wealth being created is all going one way, into the pockets of the employers and board members, with an inadequate share being 'handed down' (sic) to the workers in their businesses and the public purse to which they owe so much.  Because nobody creates a business on their own, it's something we ALL help with, and therefore deserve to share in the success of.

So to anyone who claims they did it all by themselves let me pose a few questions.

Did you ever receive any publicly funded education?  Pretty hard not to, because even private schools are heavily funded by the taxpayer.  So you owe us.

Were you born in the NHS?  Ever receive any free treatment?  You owe us.

Have any of your colleagues or employees received a publicly funded education or had NHS care?  You owe us.

Do you and your business ever use public funded and maintained roads?  For commuting, or delivery of raw materials, or product distribution?  You owe us.

Do you heat and light your business premises?  You might pay your bill to a private company, but they could do nothing without the underlying national infrastructure which the government regulates and ensures compliance with standards and compatibility.  Even if you bring in oil to met all your fuel requirements it would have to be delivered via public roads, so you still owe us.

If there's an accident or emergency at your business would you not call 999?  Or does your non-reliance on the taxpayer mean that if I come to your place and set it alight or steal all your stock then you wouldn't want to burden the taxpayer funded emergency services?  Do let me know....

And, finally, how did you learn to do what you did to build up this business?  Could you have done it without being literate or numerate?  Could you have done it without having a reservoir of knowledge and skills you acquired in childhood?  Could you have done it without your colleagues and employees and suppliers and even your customers being literate and numerate and knowledgeable?  Because it's the acquisition of those skills and abilities that are the key to a functioning society, to an intelligent workforce, to  discriminating consumers, to well run public services and, yes, to creating the circumstances which allow people to create successful businesses.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's hear it for the true 'wealth creators' in our society - teachers, and all forms of educators.  And look forward to a day when they are properly recognised as such and given the status they deserve.

Julie and the 7 leaders - debate, not Disney

DID IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE?

From The Skeptic's Dictionary :

"Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs."

Viewers will have watched the ITV leaders through their own variant of the above.  We all do it, hearing what we want to hear and ignoring the facts that don't fit our picture of the world.  Which goes to explain the confusing poll findings in the aftermath of the event.  One said Cameron won, another Milliband, yet another said Sturgeon.  All the parties spokespersons are claiming some kind of triumph for their representative, and rubbishing the others.  There isn't much in the way of dispassionate analysis, with even once respected elements of the press demonstrating their prejudices - take a bow Daily Telegraph.

With the hype out of the way there appears to be a general consensus that Nicola Sturgeon gave the strongest performance, but that there were few stand out moments and the event probably didn't change many views.  Yesterday I had a go at predicting who might shine, or fail, so how right or wrong did I get it?

I had thought Leanne Wood might be the one to shine.  She certainly put up an impressive performance, and was excellent when putting Farage in his place, but her concentration on Welsh-only issues will have sent many viewers to sleep.  Her focus has to be on maximising the number of seats Plaid can win at home, and recognising that she is unlikely to have any major role in forming the next UK government.  She did exactly what she needed to and will have won support from the left in England.  And my Twitter timeline is unanimous in judging Wood a clear winner of the 'loveliest voice to listen to' contest.

Natalie Bennett was more impressive than I'd feared, but remains a weak TV performer.  She had mastery of her facts and figures, yet lacks that element in her personality which would fully convey the passion and belief she has for her parties vision.  It was good to see someone with a totally different, and much more imaginative, agenda to all the others being given this platform.  The Greens time will come, but it is not here yet.  The conservative nature of most makes radical change a slow progress.

I had lumped Farage in with the other three, but he certainly managed to stand out as different to all of the other six.  There were four areas in which he diverged radically from the pattern.  Firstly, he was the only one to come up with an idea so vile and lacking in humanity that the audience clapped to hear him put down.  Refusing to treat immigrants with HIV is the kind of hateful nonsense we've come to expect from ukip and will have helped convince many that they are not a party any decent human being could support.  Fair play to Leanne Wood for being the one to tell him he should have been ashamed of himself for such an utterance.

Secondly, he was the only one who managed to blame one thing for every problem, no matter how unrelated.  If I could stand to watch/listen to the man again I might try to count how many times he used the word 'immigration'.  But I see no reason to put myself through such pain.  His was clearly the most simple minded approach of them all, a dog whistle to the unthinking faithful.

Thirdly, he was the only one to throw his toys out of the pram, and frequently tried to shout over one of the others when they were speaking.  Mind you, he does have form when it comes to childishness!  Oh, and finally, the other six leaders were definitely sober.

And why was he allowed to get away, unchallenged, with the two most obviously blatant lies of the night?  "Most of our laws are made blah blah blah."  And Two billion pounds of 'health tourism'?  Both have been disproved over and over, yet he continues to repeat this nonsense.

Who has been training Milliband in media presentation skills?  Swiss Tony?  That 'look straight into the camera' stuff was just plain creepy at times and gave Ed the smarmy car salesman look.  Which was a pity because he didn't perform badly at all, just very predictably.  He was in a tricky position, outflanked to the left by the three progressive parties, pandering to the right but seeking to distinguish himself from the others.  I felt he managed to pull it off most of the time, and was at his best reminding Clegg that he will be judged on his record in government.

Poor Nick.  Once the star of the show, he now has the look of the also ran.  He remains a strong performer on the small screen though.  His voice and demeanour are engaging, relaxed, personable.  I still can't remember much of what he said though.  His chance has gone, with all those broken promises, and there's little he can do to regain any credibility.

Cameron looked more relaxed than I'd expected him to, but was uncomfortable when receiving the sharp edge of Sturgeon's tongue.  As with Ed he said nothing that couldn't have been predicted, avoided controversy, only pitched into the fight where he felt it safe to do so.  There was the usual tedious Tory harping on about what a mess they'd been left by Labour (without a word about his mates, the bankers) which always shows him up to be a whining bully.  But overall Shiny Dave did what he needed to.

Which leaves Nicola.  Readers will think this is where my confirmation bias shows up again.  In my heart I would like to have seen Natalie B emerge as the star of the night.  My instinct told me it would be Leanne .  But Ms Sturgeon was definitely in top spot, if not by as clear a margin as Clegg managed in 2010.  Unlike Wood her message was largely aimed at English voters.  Whilst acknowledging that the interests of Scotland would remain her top priority, she clearly set out how SNP influence on a Labour government could be of benefit to the whole UK.  This will have done a lot to counteract the Tory/English media fear campaign directed against her party.  Twitter seems to be indicating that a lot of folk in England would vote for Sturgeon if given the chance.

So I'd say that Nicola did herself the most good (and doing so may just have helped Ed), Farage the most self-harm, with the others pretty much as you were.

Helped Ed?  When the Tories are building up an SNP success as a bonus for themselves?  I wonder if, reassured that SNP support might lead to a more socially just Labour administration, some Old Labour voters who had turned Green might now reconsider and give their old party another chance?  It will be interesting to see if there is any evidence for that theory in the next week or so.

One thing I definitely did get right.  The three women were a tidal wave of freshness falling on the stale beach of the old boys club the other four represent.  They were more respectful, clearer thinking, more honest, offered genuine alternatives to austerity and were a clear match for the rest.  It was also good to see this alliance of progressive thinking supporting one another in the debate.  There is a way forward.  One day....

Does the ITV leaders debate offer something new?

ALL ABOUT THE WOMEN?

I write this an hour or so before the seven way party leaders debate takes place, to be shown on ITV.  It's the only time this will happen, before this General Election, and very different from anything ever seen before in the UK (although relatively commonplace in Scandanavia).  Will it have any influence over the outcome of the voting process?  With such a close result forecast, and indications that this will be a very different looking Westminster assembly to those gone by, I think the answer has to be a resounding Maybe.

Back in 2010, when the first televised leaders debates took place, there were only three men involved.  And one quite clearly showed he had a stronger TV personality than the others.  The 'I agree with Nick' movement which followed gave the Liberal Democrats their largest number of seats in decades and propelled them into the current coalition.  There was a lot more to it than that of course, but most commentators reckoned that the success of Clegg on the screen was a significant factor.

So who is most likely to be the new 'Nick'?  Well, not Clegg himself, because his stint as Deputy PM has lost him all credibility.  He'll still come across well, no doubt, but his record of the past five years will throw a damp towel over any fireworks he tries to launch tonight.

And the same can be said of the other men standing alongside him.  The four posh boys have been in the media incessantly and are largely known quantities.  Although there are some differences between their parties, there are more similarities.  All wish to continue to pursue the austerity agenda, to one degree or other.  All are happy to waste billions of pounds on a Trident replacement.  Labour will offer a little more social justice than will Torykip, and the LibDems will offer.... I don't really know and I'm not sure many people care.  Farage will bang on about the non issues of immigration and the EU because that's all he knows.  None of them will offer us anything new, imaginative or visionary.  Just more of the same.  And see where that's got us.  This is Daily Fail politics.

So we have to look to the three women to offer something new, something which will get people talking and create a buzz of expectation.  Do any of them have that ability?

The Greens do offer a genuine alternative to the same old same old.  They do show imagination in wanting to tackle the problems, not just the symptoms.  They recognise that the capitalism we have is broken and does not serve us, the citizens of the UK, well.  But.  Natalie Bennett has not proved to be a strong performer in front of the cameras.  She's certainly intelligent and on top of her brief, but lacks the spark required to shine on screen.  If only the wonderful Caroline Lucas or Patrick Harvie were there in her stead.

Nicola Sturgeon leads the party which all recent polling has indicated could hold the balance of power on May 8th.  Although long established as a leading force in Scottish politics she was largely unknown in England.  Recent media attention, and her own decision to make some speeches down south, both situations which have emerged in response to those polls, have made her a bit better known to the English.  But I think some will still be surprised by her skills.  She comes across extremely well on TV and will know exactly what it is she wants to achieve from this appearance.  The message that the SNP, if allied to a Labour government, will push the latter towards a more left wing agenda, will be well received by Labour supporters, and some of their MPs, who feel the party has drifted too far to the right.  There are a lot of red rose backbenchers who'd happily vote against Trident, or in favour of higher taxes.

Which leaves me with one contender.  Leanne Wood remains almost unknown outside Wales.  From what I've seen of her she comes across extremely well, and has a number of similarities Sturgeon - a confident speaker who will come into this knowing exactly what she wants to get out of it.  She will have the element of surprise on her side, coming into this as an unfamiliar face and voice.  My money's on Leanne to be the new 'Nick' (but without the subsequent acts of betrayal....)

All three of these women are the antithesis of the four dull lookalikes they'll be standing up to tonight.  Different backgrounds, different policies, different world views.  Far more in touch with reality beyond the Westminster bubble and the London centric focus that weighs us down.  I look forward to seeing them do their stuff.

The most obvious target for 'austerity'

THE BIGGEST WASTE OF THEM ALL

If you've spent any time working in government, or just taken a keen in interest in the spending of Whitehall departments, you'll be aware that one above all others is a bye word for wasting money, mostly because of regular procurement failures.  The euphemistically named Ministry of Defence has effectively thrown away billions of pounds of taxpayers money, but public criticism of it is rare.  How often do you see articles like this?  The Establishment is at pains not to have this major failing pointed out.  Especially when the economic buzz word of the moment is 'austerity'.

Why do I say euphemistically?  In recent decades I haven't seen our military having to do much in the way of actual defending.  They have, however, taken part in more than their fair share of invading and occupying.  If the UK continues to act in the way it does it might be better to revert to the much more honest pre 1960s title, The War Office.  Or, better still, maybe just do what it says on the tin and act as a defence force?

With public spending being drastically cut it's inevitable that the military should take a share of the burden, and there have been the usual right wing moans about numbers of soldiers being cut.  Indeed ukip (who else?!) have stated that if they ever had any actual power (fortunately a highly unlikely scenario) they would increase the war budget, to more than 2% of GDP, despite being proclaimed haters of 'the big state'.  But then most of their ideas are on the mad side so it's no surprise.

The UK is already one of the biggest spenders when it comes to the military.   It's interesting that of all the post-imperial Europeans states only Britain and France cling to pretensions to be some kind of 'world power'.  Perhaps this ego trip attitude comes from still having permanent seats on the UN Security Council?  Or is it simply an inability to let go of the past and recognise how the modern world operates?  Whatever the reasons this emphasis on military power looks completely out of step with the actual needs of our society.

In fact the MoD could, should, be contributing vastly more to the savings in government that we are constantly told are necessary.  And there are two obvious ways of doing so.  The first is hardly worth dwelling on, for the multifarious benefits of scrapping the nonsense that is Trident have already been well documented.  Clinging on to this vestige of imperial power makes the UK look more pathetic than strong.  And how strange that someone like ukip, who constantly moan about the mythical controls the EU exert over us, are happy to have our most destructive weaponry held at the beck and call of the USA.  At least we have a say in how the EU is run....

My second idea is one that isn't given a lot of thought at the moment, but feels like an obvious step.  If we are to take the sensible step of slimming down to a purely defensive role then we should be scrapping the arcane distinctions between army, navy and air force and rolling the lot into one UK Defence Force.  Much of that procurement waste mentioned above comes from unnecessary competition between the heads of the service.  Each is concerned with their own prestige and pushes the need for the latest 'must have' tank/plane/ship, with little concern for the bigger picture.  Streamlining the command chain would get rid of these little battles, concentrate minds more fully on strategic defence needs, and make a few expensive generals et al redundant.

As a bonus, scrapping these links with the imperialist past may help speed a culture change which helps as to look forwards, not back.  The military we need now is not one which looks to a history of conquest and occupation.

Emily doesn't like visitors

WHEN YOUR FRIENDS TAKE UP WRITING TIME

I am in the habit of writing every day. Correction. I have an addiction which means I must write every day. It's somehow become an essential part of my day. Not that everything I write then goes on to be read by anyone, that's not really the point. But sometimes I'll pass it on to my wife to have a look at, and some of it ends up on this blog. When I feel there's something I want to say.

In our home the time when I go of to write, whatever time of day that might be, I am then 'being Emily'. The origins of which form a long story I won't go into on this occasion, but suffice to say it doesn't involve me dressing up in any way....

This week we have a couple of old friends staying with us for six days. They're a couple who share so many of the same interests we have that we always have a good time with them, much of it involving, art galleries, live music, theatre, cinema etc., and they will even be attending their first ever ice hockey match with us on Sunday. So it's great to see them again and we'll have fun. My only problem is, Emily doesn't like them being here.

I enjoy playing the host, making people feel at home, making their stay comfortable. This morning I took them tea in bed, tonight I made a truly excellent (sorry, but it's true) chicken curry. We've been to a couple of galleries, a music shop from which we all emerged with the odd CD or two, done some sightseeing, and sampled some of each other's music choices. Good times. But when does the writing bug get satisfied? In the end my compulsion to type is greater than my sense of duty to our guests. So they are all in one room watching a DVD, whilst I am in solitary next door, battering away at the keyboard. Emily demands it and she can not be denied. I'm sure they'll understand (or I'm just confirming their opinion that I'm a bit cracked).

As John Lennon said.... Imagine

WORSHIPPING A FALSE GOD

I don't watch BBC's Question Time too often.  It mostly infuriates so what's the point?  The panel is invariably packed out with right wingers and you can almost guarantee that the audience will contain a ukip plant (by which I do indeed mean an unthinking vegetable) who'll try to drag in the irrelevance of immigration no matter what the subject.  But occasionally there is someone invited who is not just a decent human being, but also clear thinking and articulate.  Step forward Armando Ianucci who stood out as a voice of reason in one recent episode.

So it's no great surprise to find him writing this piece in the Guardian and getting right to the heart of what's currently wrong with our society.   It's all about the money.

As Ianucci points out we are being conned into believing that the most important aspect of our lives is money, the economy, business, banking - call it what you will for these are all sides of the same coin (sorry....).  How have we got ourselves into the position where the needs of real people, the great majority of people, are considered secondary in importance to something that doesn't actually exist?

Now saying that money isn't real isn't very fashionable, is it?  It goes against everything we're told by politicians, the mass media, business representatives.  Or, to put it another way, by all the people who have power over the rest of us and are getting richer and richer.  But money is only a social construct.  It's an abstract.  People can exist without money, but the reverse does not apply.

Consider an apocalypse scenario in which organised society has broken down.  What advantage does the rich person have over the poor one?  None at all, for money, wealth, is only of value within a particular ordered structure.  And if we want to rid ourselves of this curious god then it's the structures, and the culture underlying them, that need to be changed.

The so called 'laws of market' are not like the laws of physics.  The later are immutable, the former were made by human beings and can be amended, unmade, reconstructed as we see fit.  If there is the understanding and will to do so.

Of course anyone who challenges the orthodoxy of the Establishment will be derided, because it's the Establishment that sets the rules, that frames the questions which shape the answers to be allowed.  There is no room for diversion, let alone imagination or vision, as Natalie Bennett was made all too aware of recently.

There is no easy answer to this, other than the insidious power of thought and desire for change.  If there is ever to be another way of doing things it will take many years to get there, although a start can be made by reversing the disastrous policies, and associated greed, of what in the UK we usually call Thatcherism.  In other countries we have seen the rise of Syriza and Podemos.  In the UK there are only the Greens, and to a lesser extent the SNP and Plaid Cymru, who provide a mainstream challenge to the prevailing doctrines, with movements like UKUncut and Occupy showing that the desire exists, but in a form which is not yet ready to create a mass movement.

It's a plus to have a public figure like Inanucci speak out in terms which object to the way things are, and point out that it need not be this way.  Societal and cultural change  is never going to be easy - turning a supertanker would appear to have the agility of a ferret in comparison.  But that's not the same as impossible.

What Ed won't be doing

AND FOR HIS NEXT TRICK....

Word is that Ed Milliband has turned down the starring role in the next Star Wars movie, and is refusing to be considered as Daniel Craig's replacement as Bond.  He's also flatly denied that he will be the new senior presenter on Top Gear or be dong a centrefold for Penthouse.

Possibly.

Any of these things might be true since, in the real world Mr M has said he won't, under any circumstances, be accepting something else that was never offered to him.  Namely, a coalition with the SNP.  Nicola Sturgeon had already clearly stated that under her leadership the party will not take any action which supports another Tory government.  And that any support for a Labour administration would be on a confidence and supply basis, and not formal coalition.  So Ed's stating that something which was never going to happen isn't going to happen isn't all that meaningful.  But it does, once more, pander to the right wing media.  And makes him look even more pathetic in the eyes of Scots (although in the eyes of this Scot he remains by far the less worse choice for PM when matched against Cameron).

Sturgeon is too canny an operator to be drawn into the Westminster government as an active partner - she's seen what that did to the Lib Dems.  And her vision is already looking well beyond what happens in May '15, to the Holyrood elections next year.  She wants an even more convincing majority in the Scottish Parliament than she has at the moment.

Which should also reassure left leaning English voters who fear an SNP volte face which would see them support a Tory government in return for major concessions in devolved powers.  Some point out the previous SNP minority government used Tory support to get it's programme through, but that was in very different circumstances.  Then the aim was to gain power and use it to demonstrate competence.  Which led on to the 2011 majority result.  Any association with the Tories would put this at risk, for the Conservatives remain a toxic name to most Scots.

If the current levels of SNP support hold up until 7 May they could well end up being the third largest party at Westminster and, whether the English establishment and media like it or not, have a major role in determining who forms the next UK government.  That would be the same establishment and media that wanted Scotland to remain in the union, yet now don't want Scotland to be able to choose their own representatives, or have some say in the running of that UK state we are still a part of (for now).

You can't have it both ways guys....

Did I just agree with Nigel Farage?!

 A BIT OF IRONY GOES A LONG WAY

Yesterday I posted my thoughts on the Jeremy Clarkson farrago and ended it with a quick dig at another pompous posh boy, Nigel Farage.  So I had to laugh this morning when I read that the ukip Dear Leader was being quoted on the same subject and that his views were not far off those I'd already expressed.  Ha ha.  I suppose it had to happen one day, that I actually find myself in agreement with a man I'd normally be the polar opposite of.

So well done Nigel for coming out with a bit of that famed common sense.  Although I hope nobody thinks this will entirely change my view of the man.  I still think he's an odious, racist, blustering, fear-mongering, tax avoiding, self important, pandering to the rich, proto-fascist, anti-democratic, grade A dickhead who’s a menace to civilised values and a poor excuse for a human being..

But it’s good to have sense of perspective sometimes, eh?