Alistair….Darling….Please can we make it up?

This article was taken (with permission of course) from http://auldacquaintance.wordpress.com/ .

Alistair..Darling…Please can we make it up ..We were wrong, we really shouldn’t have fallen out of Love with you, and we want to try and make things work…Can we try again please? Pretty please? Hugs and kisses….Scotland xox

And so it was, that Alistair Darling former Chancellor of the Exchequer for the failed Labour UK Government woke up from the LSD inspired dream,(it was rather old currency) in which he had got rather excited, and arose to his full height shouting ” Oh Yes, YES, YES!!” Before belatedly correcting himself and muttering “I mean Oh no, no no”

“But that was rather a good dream” thought Alistair..”I think I can use that for my Blether Together Speech”.

And so it came to pass that Alistair found himself delivering his speech in East Lothian last night, roundly encouraged by three separate groups of Independence supporters who had donned Saltires and We Love London Government T.Shirts, especially for the occasion(At least that is what Alistair thought the T.Shirts said, his eyesight like his mental faculties are not quite as sharp as he thought them once to be)

Greatly encouraged by this rousing reception,Darling.Alistair proceeded to deliver his speech in the form of an Aria in the key of B.Flat.

He didn’t quite begin with the words “I had a Dream” which is possibly just as well, as some music critics would have been commenting that he had a delusion..and the arrangement was rather stilted and flat,but we have to give him half marks for effort,although I do believe that Alistair thought it rather good himself, but lets not be churlish and disappoint him..We think you are wonderful Darling..More More More..Please!

However lets get on with some of the content of his dream speech.

His keynote speech claimed An independent Scotland that kept the pound as its currency will “slowly and surely” return to political union with the rest of the UK, that independence would mean the loss of all British culture to Scotland and would lead to relatives of Scots in other parts of the UK becoming foreigners.

Ahhahaha Alistair…Ever the comedian.
British Culture? Oh my goodness, what on earth is British Culture? It’s a conundrum right? How can we lose something which nobody knows what it is, and doesn’t even exist. There are many cultures and sub cultures in this geographical area we call the British Isles, but nothing that we can describe as British Culture. We Have Scots Culture, English Culture, Irish Culture, and Welsh Cultures, with all their quite separate traditions, and I know you and your best buddy(joke) Big Gordy have tried your best to make Scotland North Britain,and call us North British, but Scots Culture is one of the most recognisable cultures on the planet. Why would we want to even try and reinvent ourselves as something undefinable?
As for my niece in Bristol, are you honestly trying to say she will be a foreigner to me, should we go our separate ways? Indeed my Cousin John in Australia is already a foreigner to me, because he lives outwith the Uk? How and when did this happen??

Ally carried on though, warming to his theme. British music will no longer be ours.

Eh? Whit? I can no longer buy any JLS or Jedward CD’s and don’t have to associate myself with The Brits awards? Yes..Yes..Yes an Independence Bonus I had never thought of. A damnable downside though is that we get to be represented In the Eurovision Song Contest.
Ahh well..Only partly true I am afraid. There is nothing to stop my children buying whatever they like.They already buy musical junk from around the world..I swear I heard somebody playing the Cheeky Girls the other day, and they are from Transylvania and more terrifying than Dracula musically.
Goodness knows..We might be forced to have a proper music industry in Scotland, and our youngsters not having to go to London to be recognised. That is Bad, right?

Further more Alistair warbled on, like a demented canary, by saying “British sporting success will be someone else’s to celebrate”

I really have no idea what Alistair was dreaming here, it is rather obscure in a technicolour sort of way. By removing ourselves from the Union, we are no longer British? We no longer live on the British Isles? We are to be banished from Britishdom? No longer are our Celtic Cousins in Ireland, Wales and Cornwall related to us?
Goodness gracious me..
We will have to make do with calling Andy Murray, Scottish, and he can’t be called British when he wins anymore? We are barred from cheering our neighbours in these Isles on? We will be forced to have a Scottish Olympic squad, like Ireland does?
How awfully terrible a prospect is that? It hardly bears thinking about.

But he is a trooper is our Darling, Darling. And so he carried on..

With regards to SNP plans for Scotland to keep sterling if the country voted to leave the UK in the 2014 referendum,with Scotland part of a “sterling zone” with the rest of Britain.

He had this to say:
“There’s two things about a currency union. One is you have to ask the other lot if they want to go into it and nobody has and nobody plans to. But the second thing is this, with a currency union, as you see in Europe, you have to submit your budget to somebody else for approval.

“So if the idea of independence is you can go your own way, what is point of getting yourself into the situation where you actually have to submit your budget to someone else, who will not let you go too far away from wherever they want to be in order to preserve the currency?”

In short..Alistair feels that Scotland will have no say in the currency union. Funny thing is, I never thought we had any say just now? We have no representation or say in the Bank of Englands Board, which is disestablished from the British Government, and an Independent body.
The Bank of England,which we do actually have a share in, it was established by a Scot too! Independently sets rates, and it is up to the Government currently, to frame its own economic policies. Often to disastrous effect! Ozzy Osbournes long distant relation Gideon is making a right pigs ear with his austerity measures. However, he is merely following in the great traditions of Gordy Brown who put an end to Boom and Bust, by making us Bust. And of course Ally Darling himself, who promised us all greater cutbacks than dear old Maggie had only dreamed of.
An independent Scotland, would have representation on that Bank Board, and we would have a say in setting the rates. Our own Government would then decide it’s own economic framework within that. for example, the current Scottish Governments appeals to Gideon, to create capital investment projects and stimulate growth, but are falling on deaf ears, would become reality in an Independent Scottish Government setting its own policies and making decisions.

Another slight thing the dear old Darling has forgotten about…The Republic of Ireland shared the pound and Sterling right up to 1979..Funny that.

Other things Darling loquaciously garbled were:

“If Scotland stays in the UK, it would benefit from the being part of the “largest and oldest single market” while the financial services industry would continue to have a single regulatory regime”

A market which restricts us to Westminster rules of trade, and doesn’t allow us to set our own corporation tax rates, to further attract Global investment in Scotland at competitive levels. And tied to a Financial Services Industry which nearly put us all in the grubber because of Brown disastrous handling of regulation. Sounds a good deal to me Ally.

“An independent Scotland would not have the global influence of the UK”, Mr Darling said. “Britain is “very influential in the world”, he added. “We’re shareholders in the International Monetary Fund. We’re on the United Nations Security Council. We’re major shareholders in the World Bank”

Yes..And??

A Union takes more than just one partner. If that partnership is dissolved, Each takes away their own share of ALL assets. Thereby our shares are divided..and Scotland retains its own shares in these establishments.

He continued on in his joyful merry way, by saying “Within the European Union (EU), it is the “big countries that have the influence and call the shots”
“We now find out that far from having legal advice that we would be guaranteed membership, no such advice exists at all. Frankly that’s not good enough. I’m pretty sure that Europe would not say to Scotland, ‘push off we don’t want to know you’. But if you apply or your entry is in any way questioned, there would be strings attached. More uncertainty.”

It’s a funny old thing, Alistair dear boy, but is Westminster not threatening to isolate the UK from Europe? And our European partners try to avoid us at all costs, and keep us out of the loop because of this Westminster Governments behaviour, while routinely giving Scottish MEP’s a very warm reception,and even an ovation or two.
Scotlands representation in the European parliament is 6 MEP’s, on Independence that increases to 12-14 MEPs, double our current representation, and decreasing the rUKs at the same time. It is a rather funny way for us to have less influence, is it not?
As far as current ability to speak is concerned, our voice is not easily heard, particularly in Fishing, where we in Scotland have the largest White Fish Fleet in Europe, but the British Government refuses to allow our fisheries minister to enter into quota negotiations..Damaging us badly. That’s a Union Dividend? Cool.

As for European membership…You obviously are as out of touch as your pal Gordy, who rarely turns up at Westminster these days, while he is away earning a nice wad doing turns at talking to anyone in the world who is daft enough to listen to him.
But in case you didn’t notice? Prof Avery a European High Commissioner told Westminster recently that Scots have been Citizens of Europe for forty years, and there is no mechanism for turfing us out!
Not that they would want to anyway…But good news! rUK get to not have to reapply either, under the same rules…

And finally the dear old Darling finished his Aria, by doing a somersault…Wow…really Impressive! We didn’t expect that.

He had begun by singing, if you recall

“An independent Scotland that kept the pound as its currency will “slowly and surely” return to political union with the rest of the UK”

and he ended with

There would be “no going back” if people voted for independence. He said: “They only have to win once. Once that has happened there is no opportunity for second thoughts.”

Wonderful! Bravo Bravo! More More!
To rapturous Applause in his own head, he took a bow and exited the stage.
What a Man!

Ally Darling then contently made his way home to dream again, and to play his favourite British Song, by the North Britisher Frankie Miller..

Darlin’
I’m feeling pretty lonesome
I’d call you on the phone some
but I don’t have a dime
darlin’
you’re so far behind me
tomorrow’s gonna find me
further down the line.

Takin’ me some paper
pencil in my hand
I’m gonna write.

Darlin’
you know I feel the cold nights
thinking of the old nights
spent along with you.

Darlin’
the tear is in my eye now
knowing I can try now
to make it back to you.

Darlin’
love you more than ever
wish we were together
darlin’ of mine.

Sweet Dreams Ally Darling

Note 1: Thanks to Andrew Haddow for finding this..Blows Darlings ludicrous Foreigner statements clear out of the water!!
UK Gov…Republic of Ireland legislation 1949

Note: LSD stands either for Old Sterling Currency..Pounds, Shillings, and pennies….But may also be a hallucinogenic banned substance

#Budget2012 Not a radical bone in our bodies.

[Firstly, I would like to apologise for the delay in uploading this to the blog. However, this piece is just as relevant now as it was a month ago when Ross wrote it]

“The independence of America, considered merely as a separation from England, would have been a matter but of little importance, had it not been accompanied by a revolution in the principles and practice of governments.  She made a stand, not for herself only, but for the world, and looked beyond the advantages herself could receive.  Even the Hessian, though hired to fight against her, may live to bless his defeat; and England, condemning the viciousness of its government, rejoice in its miscarriage.”

-          Tom Paine, Rights of Man (1792)

Few SNP policy positions annoy me as much as the pro-monarchy stance.  What little enthusiasm that institution can inspire.  Standing firmly in the republican camp, I struggle to understand why some people don’t instinctively cringe when they see ‘a royal’ on TV or in a newspaper.  To illustrate the point, take the royal wedding last year.  What a self-indulging, silly little charade the whole thing was, propped up by the rest of us gawking, curious subjects.  It was a proud display of Sycophant Britain, the BBC leading the way in kiss-arse broadcasting.  We’ll no doubt soon see more of the same, as ‘her majesty’ prepares for another milestone year.

The SNP’s reluctance to not only distance, but remove, itself from this dimension of British politics and society is significant.  Whether it’s a deliberate act to gather and sustain wider support, or the genuine feelings of the party top brass, it’s a position that earns little respect.  To me it undermines some of the social democratic rhetoric that the party surrounds itself with.  It might even betray a slight conservative vein that runs through the party.

However, none of its policy positions are more important than the adherence to a neoliberal economic framework.  If the absence of republicanism undermines the social democratic mantra, then this engineers to blow it out of the water.  The corporation tax rate of an independent Scotland, for example, will remain a curiosity for anyone with an interest in what kind of country this is going to be.  Further, if the word ‘billionaire’ is ever to become a pejorative, then Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch hardly seem the type that a social democratic government should be entertaining.  The Government has put up little challenge to the neoliberal model – a model which has come to dominate entirely the political and economic discourse since the 1990s.  And courting big business has arguably been a hallmark of the SNP’s modern success.

I’m being too harsh on the Nationalists (you still have my vote, don’t worry).  This engulfs the UK left as well.

Take the budget announcement a few weeks back for example.  The adherence (the conformity) to this orthodox economics was proudly on display.  Profoundly so, I thought.  You could sense the complete lack of any meaningful challenge.  Everybody was playing the same game.  There was humming and hawing, smiling and frowning, nodding and outrage at the Chancellor’s economic orchestra: a spending lever here, a tax break there.  The neoclassical train ride: which way best to economic growth?

All aboard!  Everyone in the Commons, it seems, is a macroeconomic genius.  That’s good.  That’s excellent news.  I’m glad we’re in safe hands.  But what did that wee red briefcase mean?  Actually, come to think of it, what does economics mean?  It seems that economics and neoliberalism have become almost interchangeable; in meaning and in practice.  Given that the main parties are often accused of policy convergence (measured in Rizla paper thickness these days), you’d be forgiven for thinking that a genuine alternative to neoliberalism would be given at least some political consideration.

But only four years after the crash of financial markets the world over, this already seems unlikely.  Isn’t it amazing that fundamental change (or even just a challenge) to the economic system isn’t even remotely near the political agenda?  You sometimes hear the obliged - and reluctant - nip and tuck from the power holders: ‘tax the bankers, change their bonuses’.  A change to the bonus structure of bankers?  That isn’t an economic remedy; it’s political homeopathy.  A drop in the ocean compared to the larger problem.  It feels like an administered dose of Marx’s proverbial opium; charlatan talk designed to pacify and placate.  Nothing will change at the foundations.

A recent interview with the Green MSP Patrick Harvie however revealed some intriguing alternative thinking within the political arena.  If the mainstream pro-independence camp (I’ll exclude any Scottish fascists out there) can be broadly divided in two - let’s call the first the ‘nationalist vision’, and the second the ‘pragmatic left’ - then it is the latter that is generating the most appealing vision of an independent country.  Independence as a pragmatic tool for challenging the economic conventional wisdom is about as radical as it gets in British politics.  A move for the SNP from the first stance to the second would help provide Scotland with a broad base for a genuinely social democratic future.

Any such change though remains unlikely.  Because it is unorthodox it is impractical.  As Harvie points out, “The SNP cannot hope to make Scotland both a model for a low carbon economy and a rapidly growing Celtic tiger – the two are mutually exclusive.”  Where is this kind of rejection from the mainstream political left?  Greens aside, where are the politicians talking about the larger picture?  Overpopulation, depopulation, genuine environmentalism, an unsustainable global economic framework: these are going to be huge issues going forward.  What can the way we perceive economics and challenge orthodoxies possibly have to say about just such issues?  It is precisely because these issues are hard to hear that means we should be talking about them.

They should be the remit of the political left, but instead we see a First Minister chasing the rich and powerful, and hear a Labour Leader relentlessly uttering the phrase ‘jobs and growth’.  I may be an idealist, but I’m not an idiot.  I appreciate the immense difficulty in trying to articulate an alternative economic agenda - and then actually realise it.  But what’s the point in the left if it’s not going to be idealistic?  Labour and the SNP should be showing some radical thinking on this front.  Instead we see the same agenda of neoliberalism; hear the same rhetoric of neoclassical economics.  Why can’t they be a bit more imaginative?  Changing an economic system is an immeasurably difficult task.  But the abandonment of that ideal is truly diminishing the political arena.  It is lamentable that the main parties shy away from the debate on economic change.  And as admirable as the Green position is, it is the bigger parties that are capable of taking such notions and grinding them through the cogs of democratic government.

Where does independence come in?  Its greatest potential, Harvie concludes, lies in pragmatism: “I have very little interest in flags and identity and 300 years of grudge and grievance – that’s not what it’s all about”.  These are wise words, coming yet again, from an increasingly alienated party of the UK left.  [I’d be lying if I said that national identity is a complete irrelevance in my own support for independence, but fully appreciate the reason, logic and value of his argument.]  We shouldn’t feel empathy with politicians who see economic growth as something we’re destined (or is it doomed?) to chase.  The world can do better.  The biggest challenge facing economics today is sustainability.  And like renewable energy, an independent Scotland should try and find a way to lead in that respect, however great the challenge.

If cutting the state from 60 million people to 5 million makes radical social democratic change that bit easier, then it is to be welcomed.  Might it even increase the likelihood of incorporating aspects of green/feminist/alternative economics into public discourse?  Admittedly, that’s a very hard proposition to make.  But the alternative of chasing economic growth inevitably leads in only one direction.

By the end of the budget, one important question had been answered (if further clarification was needed).  Has the case for economic heterodoxy been completely abandoned by the mainstream political left?

Sadly the answer to that is that it seems so.  Who then is left to call for that revolution in the principles and practices of government?  And will Scotland ever answer it?  For once, it would be nice to see the mainstream centre-left in this country taking the radical approach – by advocating (or more realistically reconsidering) both republicanism, and more importantly, an alternative economic agenda.

And whilst [as Tom Paine would have argued] independence in itself is of little importance, social democratic Scotland would get off to a nice start by swiftly arranging the first, and then articulating and incorporating the second.

Of course, the SNP and Labour - being Scotland’s political big dogs with the burden of governmental experience - shouldn’t be wasting their time with such lofty ideals.  There are far more important things to do.

Carry on with our lives.  All aboard.  Jobs and Growth.

Ross Croall, @croall89

The Importance of Being Rational

The Importance of Being Rational

Rationality is something that isn’t always that easy to achieve. I suppose, deep down, it isn’t a characteristic that has come ‘hand-in-hand’ without some form of resistance through our evolutionary history. And arguably its true value is still underappreciated in society. The same is true with consistency. How many times in your life have you found yourself contradicting something that you argued for strongly not 24 hours earlier?

It can be difficult to be both rational and consistent with what you say. Crucially however, that says nothing of their importance.

A few weeks ago I ‘tweeted’ some stuff about David Cameron, and about more general topics relating to Westminster and the independence debate. The first of these was an expression that the PM, and indeed the Conservative Party at large, lack the democratic mandate to govern in Scotland. That’s contentious and debateable, purely on the grounds of current democratic setup and legality. But the sentiment I stand by. And I think it’s a rational one. If you go with the General Election votes from 2010, then the Conservatives do not represent the Scottish electorate, or to elaborate one step further, the Scottish nation.

That however doesn’t mean that that view is inflexible and the correct one. Everyone should be perfectly willing to change their views and opinions when reason proves them wrong. Accepting when you’re wrong isn’t a weakness; it’s a strength, to borrow a motto of Alex Ferguson’s making.

I’ll guess what you are thinking. That humility hasn’t always been one of Fergie’s strong suits. But the principlein what he was saying I think is true. There’s reason and rationality behind it.

Another of the remarks that I posted on Twitter I immediately sensed with regret as the send button was pushed: “I relish the day when those fucking CLOWNS from Westminster come up to campaign‘NO to Independence’. Think you’re out of touch down south? Cross the border.” Nonsense. How can you talk rationality when you’re actingirrational? It was crass and made me look stupid. Where’s the rationality? Or the sensibility? Nowhere to be found I’ll answer. At the verybest it was just populist [if you’re a nationalist that is] drivel. A classmate – a Labour Party member –immediately and rightly pounced upon it, and there was little point defending a statement that I knew in my heart I had made wrongly.

But I know I’m not the only nationalist online spouting crap. And I know it’s not only nationalists that do so either.

Recently there was an article in The Spectator from Fraser Nelson. It was about hedging bets on or against Alex Salmond ‘winning’ the independence debate. Whilst reading through it there was one line- it was wedged in there amongst several others - that popped out at me (and Gerry Hassan has picked up on it too): ‘Scotland would be far worse off outside the Union.’ [My emphasis]. What does he mean by that? Democratically? In foreign policy or defence terms? Most likely he meant economically: in terms of revenue streams and spending power. Perhaps he meant all of them. But how could he know that? Economics isn’t a hard science. He might be right, or he might be wrong. I don’t know. But surely neither can he - at least not to such a strong and steadfast degree? We nationalists and Nationalists would obviously argue for the viability of Scotland ‘going’independent, but I don’t think I would – or could – argue the absolutely certainty of its success, regardless of how that success was framed. At the very least you could not ‘guarantee’ it in ‘economic’ terms.

Today the Scottish Sun has broken the story that the Labour MP Tom Harris has been made to apologise for posting a video on YouTube – a clip from Downfall (a 2004 film about Hitler’s final days in power) subtitled with some supposed comedic remarks from the SNP ‘top-brass’and ‘inner party’ members. The article also states that the Labour MP has lost (whether voluntary or forced) his new role of ‘media advisor’ of the party. The ‘faux-offence’, as a nationalist friend has righty labelled it, which met the video’s release was, I’ll argue, unreasonable. The video I didn’t find funny, but you need to doubt the extent to which people genuinely found it offensive. Collective outrage can be a dangerous thing. The same article did however highlight another perspective - that the widow of a concentration camp survivor found the video abhorrent. That’s reasonable, and it’s rational considering the personal connection. For most of the rest of us, I believe it was disingenuous, shrouded in overtly political point scoring.

As with many things in the social sciences, there isn’t a clear right or wrong answer. The truth often lies in the shades of the intermediary. Maybe joking about the Nazi Party is unacceptable, in which case I’m as guilty as Tom, and maybe it’s something that we should be outlawing as aggressively as sectarianism. But I just can’t feel supportive of that. I firmly believe the principle of laughter in the face of adversity.

Here’s what I’d argue.

Next time you’re standing on a shoreline somewhere, take a look down at the complexity etched onto the faces of the rocks below you, or the sheer multitude of sand-grains upon which you stand. Then take a look at the horizon and try to imagine not only the stupendous size of the planet that we call home, but the scope for variation in the life that lives here. I would doubt it’s truly comprehensible. We are now a species of some 7,000,000,000 (seven billion!!) souls, each one completely unique. Imagine the variation in history and upbringing that every single one of us has had. Imagine the differences in opinion that we all hold; the vast - or indeed slight - difference in values, and in the sentiments that we attach to those values. Everyone has their own story. The chances of any two being the same are profoundly remote. The chances that they will clash and collide are intensely high.

That we are even bound by and functioning as a society can sometimes come as surprise. That me and you and Tom might differ on this issue and others is not the core point here. The main point is that no one deserves a level of punishment that does not fit the crime. To publicly apologize for that YouTube video? - ‘Laugh out loud!’ comes to mind.

If you apply that to Scottish politics then of course not everyone will be in agreement. In essence this is what irks about the Tom Harris affair. When you think about the obvious differences in personality across our country, that one person should suffer for, what in my opinion, is so slightan offence, is both unjust and undeserving. The video wasn’t a political statement about the SNP being far-right; it was a satire of the party. If you really pushed him, would Mr Harris genuinely equate the Nationalists with the National Socialists? The video was made in jest and why, as a society, we haven’t taken it that way I’m struggling to fully understand. It’s not a stance that we should endorse, and it exemplifies reductions in levels of tolerance, liberalism and even more fundamentally, in humour. Self-degradation can be endearing, and being able to laugh at ourselves is (or was?) supposedly a national trait in this country.

Surely that’s why you’d rather a have a friend that was modest and funny - belittling and confident enough to see and take it as such - than one who was full of ego and who took themselves too seriously.

I don’t know the first thing about Tom Harris as a person. As a politician he absolutely does not represent my views, but on this issue I stand shoulder-to-shoulder with him.

I think that this ‘offence-taking’should stop. It is often irrational and almost always inconsistent. I wouldn’t consider myself a ‘bad guy’, but I’ve certainly done things in my life that haven’t been nice, and that I haven’t been proud of. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Even as an atheist you have to admire the reason and rationality in those words. But can they breed consistency? Let’s hope so. For me to lambast Tom Harris for that video, or for me to even criticise it, would require a parachute to get down from what would be a very high horse. I’m not going to crucify someone for such a small mistake. If you could even call it that, is another question.

There is perhaps something unhealthy in expecting our public figures to be ‘whiter than white’. No human being I know is. Why should a politician defy the rules of human nature? We learn from our mistakes.

There’s no hiding from the fact that the debate on our country’s future has proven to be extremely divisive -and it shows no signs of abating. But we could all learn from the wise words of Carl Sagan when he compared the more petty trials and tribulations of human beings to the enormity of everything else around us - our interconnectedness and our vulnerability. He said that ‘it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one and other.’

And that must surely be an important foundation upon which to proceed.

How can you talk rationality when you’re actingirrational? You can’t. And one of those will have to change if this‘Proper Debate’ is to be had. Rationality and consistency aren’t achievable. Not one-hundred-per-cent; not all the time. But it’s something that we should be striving for.

Ross Croall, @croall89