A post in the Edinburgh Eye suggested that independence is only real when a country has complete control of its currency. Greece is an obvious example of what is meant. The author goes on to say that the SNP stance at the referendum of insisting on sharing the UK pound was not campaigning for independence. This I agree with. In fact I said it on my blog, The SNP presumes too much…, back in the middle of 2014. I also made the point that the SNP would not have an inherent right to form a government after independence nor to dictate the terms. The YES voters who campaigned outwith the auspices of the SNP were much more visionary, looking to create a better society truly throwing off the shackles of Westminster.
It is therefore with some dismay that I read further in the Edinburgh Eye post to discover that he had voted NO. If many people voted that way because the SNP were too timid in their campaign it is a tragedy. To want independence and yet to vote against it because of one political party’s stance is frankly awful. What was he thinking to achieve?
Let’s hope that next time people accept the vision of a great nation able to look after its people.
Admittedly ScotvScotl does not exactly roll off the tongue.
Having instituted a degree of self government to NI, Scotland and Wales the Westminster government has in effect set the hare running towards much fuller self determination. This has consequences for the remaining nation, England. So naturally there is a demand for something of the same.
Cameron and his cronies are not strategic thinkers. Say anything to get out of a jam is more their way. So Evel was born on the back of the chaos of the September Scottish referendum along with a mishmash of “promises” and a vow.
However if at Westminster English MPs have some sort of overlordship of English only laws, is there not a two way street? In the interest of justice for all the constituent parts of the UK, Scottish MPs should also have some privileges in deciding Scottish only laws.
Is this going to happen? Of course not because the Tories and Labour in Westminster have a colonial mindset when it comes to Scotland.
For many years we have been fed the line that the paucity of MPs actually visible in the HoC chamber is because they are all so frantically busy elsewhere looking after the concerns of their constituents. As the blog Ripped Off Briton points out the vast majority of MPs sit for safe seats and as their official voting record shows that 36% average do even not turn up to vote, are we being fed a line of misinformation?
I don’t know anybody who has ever consulted their MP. As a volunteer for a party a long time ago, I don’t recall any frantic MP surgeries or concern over the constituents’ problems. The new SNP MPs are managing to spend a lot of time in the Chamber. As newbies might they not be finding the burden of all their other duties too time consuming to also sit for long hours listening to the debates or are they exploding the myth?
It seems more and more as if this Tory government makes policy as a reaction to any current environment.
The EU referendum was David Cameron’s answer to UKIP but the consequences of that promise have landed the UK in yet another confrontation with the EU and probably months if not years of distractions.
£12bn of cuts is a figured plucked from the air to look good in a manifesto and yet the IFS has stated (reported in the Guardian)
The cuts that the government announces later this year in next month’s Budget and the following Spending Review may turn out to be deliverable. But they certainly will not feel like is just 1% being taken out of each area of spending, nor will it require merely “£13 billion from departmental savings” as the Conservative manifesto described. While not inaccurate, these numbers give a misleading impression of what departmental spending in many areas will look like if the manifesto commitment to eliminate the deficit by 2018–19, largely through spending cuts, while not cutting spending in many areas, is to be met.
But we also hear that George Osborne is keen to sell RBS at a £13bn discount.
Where is the consistency?