New-Right

Greece

2012-02-17T08:48:00.000Z

Following previous major bailouts, and future ones, it can only be right for Greece to postpone its elections till the current government installs expected austerity reforms

Duties and Obligations

May say that we (as good Europeans) should have let the Greek state go under, suffer a major national bankruptcy. They (europhobes) claim that this would be the best interest for both Greece, Europe and the UK. Isn't it time that we started to challenge that utter stupidity head on?

Let me start with duties, as a member of the European Union. Now I know that the concept of duties and responsibilities to play by the rules of the club isn't popular with the little englander 'imperial Britian' types...

Yet rules and duties there are. And at the heart of the European Union is the ideal of solidarity it is built around. This translates into the duty to help ensure stability across the entire European Union (even continent). After all, instability ultimately undermines all of us, and in a supranational world we need a supranational organisation which serves our states. So the first duty as good Europeans is solidarity.

And we have a duty of solidarity vis-a-vis Greece. But don't pretend that it is really just Greece we are talking about! Behind Greece stands Italy, Spain, Brussels, France and the UK ... not forgetting Ireland and Portugal ... so our duty to ensure a stable and continuing Greece in the eurozone is actually to our own benefit.

Duty to work for stability, for economic and social progress shouldn't be dismissed. Any worthy citizen of any European country ought to stand up behind our European duty of supranational solidarity. Solidarity with our fellow workers, fellow teachers, fellow entrepreneurs - our fellow HUMAN BEINGS! So point one: the duty of Solidarity.

The next may be less palatable, but nonetheless important. Obligations. And yes we have plenty of them to meet.

One of the current government (you remember them, the one no one voted for) obligations is to ensure UK national interests are promoted ahead of any petty ideology. In this it means the coalition has an obligation to do all it can to ensure a stable Greece, and one continuing in the eurozone.

Why? Because if Greece goes under, so does all the nations aforementioned. And that is most obviously not in the UK national interest, given our trade dependence on EU countries to consume our manufacturing exports!

So in all of that it is clear, Greece must also live up to its duties and obligations. Part of that means that they should postpone having their elections until the current government has implemented the demands of the EU/IMF. Our duties and obligations as good Europeans must come before any nationalist or class interest. After all, our European Union will ensure both of their absolute abolition to ensure our internationalist aspirations are met.

Economic stimulus please

2012-02-14T08:54:00.000Z

In the face of global meltdown, our govt wants to cut spending ...

The eurozone crises, the harsh domestic austerity and the coalition, time for us to join the dots

The coalition's economic credibility has taken a further pummelling today as the UK credit worthiness is threatened with a downgrade. At the heart of the reason for this is predominantly UK government policy, which has slowed and weakened the domestic economy.

Eurozone

Many coalition loyalists will no doubt point out that the crises in the eurozone, unforeseeable, has been the real reason for the UK economic slowdown. And while they are right that it is a chief factor, they are wrong in seeing this as removing blame from the coalition.

When the eurozone crises hit, one after the other, the coalition line was typically populist - 'no money for Europe'. Tripe then and still tripe now. But what coalition refusal to aid the eurozone, coupled with the disastrous use of the UK veto of the now-called fiscal compact has done is help to undermine our own consumer base.

And the best of it is, the coalition hasn't denied UK dependence on a strong eurozone as a precusor for any success in their austerity here at home. This is because they know that the UK needs strong manufacturing exports to drive forward short to medium term growth in the economy. Yet with the eurozone suffering internal chaos, they aren't buying in such large quantities as we had hitherto now put paid that they would.

But all along this line of reasoning (not denied by the coalition) is their mad refusal to actually DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT! They accept the eurozone crises are all serving to undermine the UK hopes of recovery, but due to pathetic and puerile Tory europhobia refuse to actually act. Act by helping the eurozone via withholding their veto ... or giving out financial aid to struggling debt-ridden eurozone countries (No, it wouldn't 'set a precedent' at all, we've already done this for Ireland)

Coalition Cuts

Now we come to the domestic cuts agenda. One word: stupid.

Statistics show economic confidence among consumers at among the lowest since even 2008 when the debt crisis first hit us. Yet with weak-to-non-existent consumer confidence in the economy, now the coalition believes is the time to institute major public sector cuts and state spending reductions.

Smart? No, of course it isn't.

At times of weak consumer spending (or spending capacity, households are all debt ridden too you know) it falls to the state to uphold demand in the wider economy. That is surely rule 1 in dealing with economic recessions or downturns? But the coalition, due to political self interest, need to push on with seriously damaging economic cuts.

At the end of the say, with the UK triple A credit rating threatened with downgrading - this is just further proof that the coalition policies are weakening rather than strengthening the economy.

It is easy to condemn Russia

2012-02-11T08:29:00.000Z

The crisis on Syria has made it all too easy to blame Russia, turn it into the phantom bad guy of international diplomacy

Western regime change

Russia vetoed the security council resolution because they argued it was tantamount to western styled regime change in the region. The Kremlin has a point, a damn good one.

Recent history in the middle east would serve to reinforce any Russian suspicion of western, US-led, regime change. Afghanistan, Iraq all provide evidence of the direction of recent transatlantic polity.

So, if we analyse this Russian objection deeper, we may see some logic behind it. Logic not tantamount to gross rejection of human rights. The Kremlin seems to be taking a view that stability is better to ethno-religious civil war. This is a fair starting point, but also, Russia itself is under siege. Protesters in the Russian streets threaten their own internal domestic harmony. And the Kremlin has a history of going into 'lock down' when under threat from factors outside of its control.

This is the initial point. But deeper still - we must ask the question of who should be doing the change? In Syria, in the middle east (or anywhere) we must ask ourselves who it is who has the responsibility to change a county. I will cite Slavoj Zizek who argued for bottom-up asymmetrical revolution. That is, the people themselves have the ability, power and drive to change any situation so long as they want it. This being recognised (Egypt, Libya as proof) is it really helpful or justifiable for western secular democracies to impose their 'aid' on the revolutions in the Arab world?

Or, as Russia argues, is our interference just another example of western complicity in neo-imperialism; where we 'help' in order to superimpose our values, our culture and our approaches on other peoples and cultures?

England Manager: the inside track

2012-02-10T00:02:00.002Z

This just has to be what really happened behind the scenes

The Falklands

2012-02-08T19:59:00.005Z

I will keep this brief, direct and simple.

1. The Falkland islanders have the right to self determination

2. They have determined, repeatedly, their wish to remain British

3. They are thus British overseas territories, for so long as they themselves choose.

4. There is nothing to talk about, Argentina can go fuck off.

That is all.

60 years of TLC

2012-02-07T10:25:00.000Z

60 years, and many more to come

The Jubilee message from Her Majesty, the Queen

Today, as I mark 60 years as your Queen, I am writing to thank you for the wonderful support and encouragement that you have given to me and Prince Philip over these years and to tell you how deeply moved we have been to receive so many kind messages about the Diamond Jubilee.

In this special year, as I dedicate myself anew to your service, I hope we will all be reminded of the power of togetherness and the convening strength of family, friendship and good neighbourliness, examples of which I have been fortunate to see throughout my reign and which my family and I look forward to seeing in many forms as we travel throughout the United Kingdom and the wider Commonwealth.

I hope also that this Jubilee year will be a time to give thanks for the great advances that have been made since 1952 and to look forward to the future with clear head and warm heart as we join together in our celebrations.

I send my sincere good wishes to you all.

ELIZABETH R.

Ask yourself, how many politicians could ever hope to be as popular, unifying and consistent as Her Majesty? She represents an institution which remains as central to English, and Scots identity as ever. Since the days of the Kings of Scots, and English Kings of England, the institution she sits over continues to imbue the best of our traditions and community.

Long live the Queen, long may she reign.

Letter from a Civil War slave to his master

2012-02-04T19:32:00.000Z

150 years on, the dignified rebuttle of the free-man to his former owner has come to light (my thanks to the Telegraph for publishing this in full)

Sir: I got your letter, and was glad to find that you had not forgotten Jourdon, and that you wanted me to come back and live with you again, promising to do better for me than anybody else can. I have often felt uneasy about you. I thought the Yankees would have hung you long before this, for harboring Rebs they found at your house. I suppose they never heard about your going to Colonel Martin’s to kill the Union soldier that was left by his company in their stable.

Although you shot at me twice before I left you, I did not want to hear of your being hurt, and am glad you are still living. It would do me good to go back to the dear old home again, and see Miss Mary and Miss Martha and Allen, Esther, Green, and Lee. Give my love to them all, and tell them I hope we will meet in the better world, if not in this. I would have gone back to see you all when I was working in the Nashville Hospital, but one of the neighbors told me that Henry intended to shoot me if he ever got a chance.

I want to know particularly what the good chance is you propose to give me. I am doing tolerably well here. I get twenty-five dollars a month, with victuals and clothing; have a comfortable home for Mandy, the folks call her Mrs. Anderson, and the children Milly, Jane, and Grundy go to school and are learning well. The teacher says Grundy has a head for a preacher. They go to Sunday school, and Mandy and me attend church regularly. We are kindly treated. Sometimes we overhear others saying, “Them colored people were slaves” down in Tennessee.

The children feel hurt when they hear such remarks; but I tell them it was no disgrace in Tennessee to belong to Colonel Anderson. Many darkeys would have been proud, as I used to be, to call you master

Now if you will write and say what wages you will give me, I will be better able to decide whether it would be to my advantage to move back again.

As to my freedom, which you say I can have, there is nothing to be gained on that score, as I got my free papers in 1864 from the Provost-Marshal-General of the Department of Nashville. Mandy says she would be afraid to go back without some proof that you were disposed to treat us justly and kindly; and we have concluded to test your sincerity by asking you to send us our wages for the time we served you. This will make us forget and forgive old scores, and rely on your justice and friendship in the future. I served you faithfully for thirty-two years, and Mandy twenty years. At twenty-five dollars a month for me, and two dollars a week for Mandy, our earnings would amount to eleven thousand six hundred and eighty dollars. Add to this the interest for the time our wages have been kept back, and deduct what you paid for our clothing, and three doctor’s visits to me, and pulling a tooth for Mandy, and the balance will show what we are in justice entitled to. Please send the money by Adams’s Express, in care of V. Winters, Esq., Dayton, Ohio. If you fail to pay us for faithful labors in the past, we can have little faith in your promises in the future. We trust the good Maker has opened your eyes to the wrongs which you and your fathers have done to me and my fathers, in making us toil for you for generations without recompense. Here I draw my wages every Saturday night; but in Tennessee there was never any pay-day for the negroes any more than for the horses and cows. Surely there will be a day of reckoning for those who defraud the laborer of his hire.

In answering this letter, please state if there would be any safety for my Milly and Jane, who are now grown up, and both good-looking girls. You know how it was with poor Matilda and Catherine. I would rather stay here and starve and die, if it come to that than have my girls brought to shame by the violence and wickedness of their young masters. You will also please state if there has been any schools opened for the colored children in your neighborhood. The great desire of my life now is to give my children an education, and have them form virtuous habits.

Say howdy to George Carter, and thank him for taking the pistol from you when you were shooting at me.

From your old servant, Jourdon Anderson.

Euro-Flags for Footie?

2012-02-02T19:04:00.001Z

I'm currently downed in work, and projects so my blogging has been slightly negligent. This isn't soon to change, so instead - where is a BBC story which had me laughing

"The European Parliament has voted to back a call for national sports teams to wear the EU flag on their shirts.

It also endorsed a plan for the EU flag to be flown at major international sporting events in Europe, but neither of the measures would be compulsory.

Both ideas are contained in a report that also urges action against doping, hooliganism, match-fixing and shady deals by players' agents.

The recommendations will now be considered by the European Commission.

The vote was passed by 550 votes to 73, with seven abstentions.

British Conservative MEPs voiced concern that the new measures might offend loyal fans and interfere with professional sport.

'Artificial European identity'

Emma McClarkin, the party's spokesperson on sport and culture in the European Parliament, said the EU flag proposal was "outrageous and unnecessary".

"Sport has a special place in my country, and our national teams form a key part of our identities and heritage," she told the parliament.

"The EU cannot impose an artificial European identity on us by forcing our athletes to wear its emblem."

The party objected when Speaker Martin Schulz refused to allow MEPs to vote on individual clauses in the report "in the interests of efficiency".

Irish Fianna Fail MEP Liam Aylward said the dispute over the EU flag should not overshadow the report's other provisions.

He commended the report as a "strong framework to create a European sports policy that is based on social inclusion and enhancing sport in Europe"."

Gay Marriage: a guest view

2012-01-26T21:29:00.000Z

A guest post by a member of Conservative Future Stirling, and a personal friend of mine - Alan Grant

The debate surrounding same-sex marriage usually takes the following form. The proposer, in this case those supporting same-sex marriage begin by stating that they feel that same-sex couples deserve to be allowed to get married. There is usually a brief pause and then the no side open up a series of arguments surrounding around outdated notions of what the contract of marriage is and what it does all the while sprinkling a little bit of whichever bronze-age creation myth in which they happen to have been brought up with some straight up bigotry and voila, the debate is half over. The next stage usually involves the yes side demonstrating at length (which, when dealing with the kind of argument they are faced with is admittedly not too long) just how ridiculous the no campaign is, after which each side packs up it's things and goes home. However, if we on the yes side (in case you hadn't guessed) are going to be adults about this issue, we cannot continue to rely on the no campaign offering us it's flabby underdeveloped torso into which to plunge our dagger. We have to argue on the merits of our case and prove to people not just why they should not back the no campaign but show them, categorically, why society would be better of with same-sex nuptials.

It is my humble suggestion that they yes campaign needs to focus on our two strongest arguments, in absence of an accepted political cliche, I suggest, for what it may be worth, to call them the argument from social justice and stability and the argument from prosperity.

The first of these, to the best of my knowledge, newly entitled arguments centres around, as the name would suggest, social justice and stability. The social justice aspect is fairly simple; how can a society which has decided that not only is homosexuality a form of legal sexual activity but is also a form of love and ought to be treated as equal to heterosexual love, allow for the mechanisms in place to enshrine and protect that love to be different depending on the sexual equipment of the parties to it? The answer is, it cannot. Either love is love or it is not, history (particularly modern American history) is fraught with situations which show that 'separate but equal' is never properly equal and there is no reason to suspect this of changing in recent times. In terms of stability, the argument is a little more complex. It is very difficult to argue that marriage is not good for society; when two people find love and wish to spend their lives together in a relationship which protects them (and continues to do so should the marriage fail, divorce being one of the more brilliant solutions to human problems in as much as it protects both parties indiscriminately) they generally become more productive members of society. Their actions promote positive societal values such as, fidelity, trust, love and companionship as well as providing stable homes for the raising of children. What could be more beneficial to the stability of society than allowing the maximum number of people the opportunity to enter into agreements which allow for these things? Simply put, legalising same-sex marriages would strengthen the institution of marriage and extend it's beneficial impact on society to it's maximum potential.

Even though the argument from social stability and justice out to be enough in itself to successfully garner a yes answer from anyone it is always advisable, when engaged in debate, to have reinforcements available, just in case your interlocutor is of a particularly callous economically minded nature. In the event of such an occasion I suggest using the argument from prosperity to seal the deal. With the exception of a few militant anarchists and left-wingers there are very few people who would be so brazen as to argue that prosperity and economic growth are bad for society. Add to this the fact that most married couples have one income more than and roughly the same expenses as a single person and the conclusion is obvious, married people tend to be more productive (in the strict profit/loss sense of the word). This leads us to the conclusion that married people are more productive, presumably as a result of the security of their union, amongst other factors. Therefore, it would seem impossible to argue that the act of opening up the facility to increase the amount of disposable income within the economy to the maximum extent would not serve as an for economic growth. If you add to this the fact that married couples tend to be savers (an excellent factor of economic stimulus) as well as the marriage industry itself being larger than most would believe, there seems to be no viable economic case against same-sex marriage.

If after presenting the two arguments above a yes campaigner still finds themselves up against a brick wall of bigoted opposition then I suggest only this. Remind your opponent that they are not talking about arbitrary fishing policy, or the finer points of the budget or about a new strategy of defence. This debate surrounds normal people, who are in love and just want a chance to have all the happiness which is the option of heterosexual people, they do not have to like it, they do not even have to privately approve of it but they ought not to stand in the way of love. The world we live in is barren and seemingly hopeless enough so how can they justify standing in the way of two people who just want to be happy together?

Closing this argument is a task which I never find particularly easy so I will take my lead from Keith Olbermann, formally of MSNBC and now of Current TV. He ended his passionate plea on the subject of Proposition 8 in California with these words from Omar Khayyam, and I propose to do the same, 'So I be written in the book of love, I do not care about that book above, erase my name or write it as you will, so I be written in the book of love'.

Council Tax Freeze: SNP & Cameron in agreement?

2012-01-23T23:06:00.000Z

"There is a first time for everything", as the saying goes, but can this ever really include Unionist and Separatist?

Answer: 'Yes'

The question I pose is false. It is deliberately foolish. Why? Because the issues which bind aren't actually so polarising! The SNP leader, Alex IV (snicker) isn't so silly as to pretend Scots and English, Unionist and Separatist, are really so different. This is why he (brilliantly, from a debating tactical view) talks up 'indie light'; or 'social union'.

And as Unionists we must learn to appreciate this. Salmond is educating the Neanderthals of the SNP backwoods this, as we Unionists need to do the same. Both middle grounds suffer from the same problem: the differences are grossly exaggerated!

The council tax debate in England offers the perfect example for a sad git like yours truly to flag up this point of closeness and similarity.

Question: should we freeze the council tax?

Answer: 'Yes' (small print: if you give a fuck about the hard pressed breadline families, and are SNP or Coalition)

How does this policy agreement challenge views ahead of the independence referendum?

I ask an honest question. Because as a Scot, a centre-rightist, and a socially conservative (yet economically Keynesian) voter, I find the cross-party narratives a total distraction from the proper debate of; 'SHOULD Scotland be independent?'). Isn't it time to accept, as James Madison said, that political parties serve to undermine the rational debate about a nations future?

Issues over posturing

2012-01-20T23:45:00.000Z

Tory MPs are threatening to revolt over the possibility of the coalition legalising 'Gay Marriage' (so it is reported, some may just call it marriage). But is it really impossible to allow equality and rights of conscience?

The blogs are awash with reaction and counter reaction to the issue of 'gay rights' and 'the fabric of society'. Some are outright furious at the notion that conservative minded MPs might oppose 'gay marriage'. Musa Okwonga even goes so far as to accuse these said representatives of being "worse than homophobic". But isn't it time to question if treating this as a partisan issue is really conducive?

It is an unfortunate, maybe even grotesque, aspect of British political culture that treats the great issues of the day as partisan affairs. In Westminster Palace, the seat of modern parliamentarianism for the world, great statesmen pluck and croon as peacocks do. Yet all the while the issues become secondary to officialdoms wants. 'Issues' are replaced with 'on message'. 'Views' are dropped in favour of 'the line' which needs most pushed if it is to reach the public mindset.

And where, my fellow countrymen has this state of affairs got us? Mistrusted politicians, a modern malaise at the heart of our vital democratic system. Our demos is being let down. And this issue of 'gay marriage' is further evidence that the fault rests with the stand-off nature of British political life.

James Madison of the United States fundamentally opposed parties. For the very reason that compromise, unity and reform agreed by all are lost if you have tribes. Tribes, hell bent on securing power 'for their' people. For 'their' nation. It is divisive.

Gay marriage as an issue again represents and proves this to be true. For there is an obvious compromise to be held up.

Gay marriage is legalised, with the proviso that it is voluntary rather than compulsory. This proviso enables the gay community to secure their 'equality' in the final symbolic institution. Yet it also allows those with a fundamental moral objection - like certain Christian churches - to decline to offer the service.

Reform should be unifying, it must unite rather than divide. One Nation - not a patchwork of 'tribes'. Conservative, Labour, Liberal, Nationalist even -- we are all still one nation. We are all still Scots, or English, or Welsh or even British. Identity must not be clouded by anything so petty as cheap political polarisation.

What is so empowering about female nudity?

2012-01-19T19:19:00.000Z

The online reaction against the banning of an Iranian actress from her homeland over a nudity photo-shoot has stirred up the issue of female empowerment. But isn't it time to ask ourselves, what it is precisely about the fairer sex we are really trying to empower?

Male-driven 'equality'

We can all be feminists if we wish, this is a democratic right. But when you have male dominated politics driving forward the 'women's rights' movement across Europe; we need to stop and take check.

No one claims, least of all me, that only women should talk about female rights. Absolutely not. Yet, isn't it fair for one to argue that we must take check of the very real importance of prioritising female views before acting?

To illustrate what I am getting at, let us take a newly growing trend across western Europe. In France we have the burka banned, by a parliament and a President which is heavily male dominated. What they are basically saying is that women must be empowered, by outlawing their right to cover up. Am I the only one who can see the male hand at work here? Can this logic really be viewed as in the interests of females, and their equal rights agenda?

The whole point behind female equality is the notion that society changes, to treat them as rational, logical thinking individuals. Handing them the same rights, responsibilities and citizenship as men have enjoyed.

Good. I agree with that. But just how can we square that admirable goal by the recent spate of legislative action? Exhibit A, France passing laws telling women just what to wear. #

Surely it is clear that it does the very opposite for women and the great cause of treating them equally to men if we; via male-dominated institutions; issue them with dress codes. The message is so ridiculously chauvinistic!

The message sent is clear: 'Women of the world, you are equal, free thinking individuals. But you can't choose what to wear! We need to free you, so here is your dress code!!'

FARCE.

So let us stop a moment. When faced with extreme examples of female rights clashing against established bigotries (like the recent Iran case); stop. Think. React.

But for pities sake, there is nothing empowering for women by preventing them from choosing to cover themselves up.

Holyrood ‘has no power to hold vote on independence’

2012-01-17T23:27:00.000Z

HM Queen Elizabeth of Scots

Tell us all something we don't know

It is splashed across the news headlines, both in print and on the e-papers. But precisely what is the news in the 'revelation' that the Scotland Act didn't devolve constitutional powers to Holyrood?

What this represents is positioning. Positioning by both camps on the constitutional argument.

The SNP want to flag up some kind of synthetic Scots popular outrage at the apparent revelation that Holyrood isn't somehow the sovereign parliament of the Scotland. Meanwhile the Unionist hard-liners desire to utilise the legal fact (that all constitutional auspices are reserved for Westminster) to highlight their Westminster Parliamentary supremacy.

On the latter faction, you can't blame them. Apparently London MPs (Scots, Welsh, NI, English) have suddenly woken up this new year to realise the polls have 39/40% of Scots touting for total separation. They are spooked, they see the end of the supremacy for the parliament they serve. They realise precisely how much history was invested in securing that sovereignty across these isles. Their ancestors in the green seats fought civil wars, oversaw royal executions and even a revolution in 1688. They crushed a couple of Jacobite uprisings from Ireland to Scotland. They are, to be blunt, realising they need to find the fight to crush another challenge to their hard-won historical supremacy down in London, UK.

On the former, the SNP. Can you blame them? On a role, and optimistically sitting on 39/40% in support for separation. They have crushed SLAB twice in a row now (and seen off every single Unionist Holyrood Party leader!). They have got it in their heads that by deliberately ignoring the legal constraints; and our rule of law; they can muster up enough anti-Westminster anger to carry them that extra 10-12% to holding a prospective majority for separatism.

Yet, both factions are wrong. Wrong in their tactics, and wrong in their goals.

Devo Max

This blogger will now register his unequivocal support for devo-max. It represents the true majority of Scots opinion. More than this, it is the sensible solution for carrying forward a sustainable settlement for Scots, and Scotland. A settlement navigating an evidence-based approach between the polar extremes of fundamentalist Unionism and Braveheart separatism.

It is time to put Scotland first. So let us have an immediate yes/no on the separatist question. If Scotland votes 'no', then let us proceed to pushing, as One Nation; one united Scotland for full devolutionary powers within our United Kingdom.

But first things are first. Let us kill nationalism stone dead. Yes/No. Let right prevail.

The economics of independence

2012-01-15T10:53:00.000Z

If Scotland votes for independence, wouldn't it become just a mini-version of the Eurozone crisis?

One has to admire the sheer Chutzpah of Mr Salmond. He has constantly outmanoeuvred PM David Cameron on the core issues of process regarding the referendum. But let us now cut to the case, and talk issues.

If an independent Scotland does form, it would either be apart of the Sterling zone, or the eurozone. Therefore, while it may severe its ties politically with London; it would still be hugely inhibited.

After all, Scotland under this SNP vision would be one unable to set its own interest rates, tax rates or spending policies. This is precisely the argument that is being engaged in the eurozone at the moment, "If you have a single currency area [for sterling] you come back to having an economic if not a political union [with London]."

Therefore one may be right to ask 'what is the point' of the SNP goal of separation? Especially at a time of immense global uncertainties.

And there are other , perhaps more practical alternatives, to separation (yet still, curious economic dependence abroad). Devolution can be enhanced, so that Scotland secures fiscal autonomy - but within the coherent framework of Union.

There are more tangible benefits of a Scotland retaining the Union, but campaigning for full fiscal autonomy. Then there is outright devo-max (which presumably would see the additional gain of unique Scots representation on the monetary policy committee).

Let me finish by quoting Alistair Darling directly:

"So you go through all the trauma and expense of leaving the union, only to come back and discover that because you want to be part of this common currency you are back to where you were. I just don't see the sense of that."

More evidence that the majority is for Union against Separation

The issues should we what we all get onto discussing. After all, it is the issues where the SNP are weakest. Their economic agenda is, as we can already picture, flawed.

And their defence and security policies are comical (governed as they currently are by the Nats very own Admiral Angus, of Westminster).

Time for the debate. Time to save our Union from the separatists.

Time to Deal

2012-01-12T14:56:00.001Z

The most up to date figures I could find

Alex and Dave have had their public spat, but it is time everyone sits down to do a deal; for Scots and their right to settle the question themselves

Doing the deal

Alex Salmond has postured, and drawn up his 'red lines', as has the coalition government. Now it is time for both parties, and Labour, to sit down and discuss.

First point of agreement: no one wants Holyrood to hold a vote that will end up being legally challenged. No one wants to have a referendum held up in the courts, and no one wants to have a decisive result second guessed.

Solution: Westminster 'section 30's and temporarily hands the powers over to Holyrood. This will ensure that Holyrood's poll (which has an overwhelming public mandate to be held) is 'copper bottomed'. I believe that this is something that everyone can agree to.

This is where it gets more complicated.

The SNP say they want 16 and 17 year olds to vote. The LibDems are being totally hypocritical on this (they oppose this for the referendum, but Clegg last election said he wanted 16/17 year olds to 'have the vote). The Tories and Labour want it for 18+, as per all general and European elections.

Someone will have to compromise. Here is a thought, could the SNP give up on the 16/17 voters in return for getting the section 30 powers? I think so... but it still isn't as simple as that ...

There is the question of wording, and who oversees the vote.

Let me also comment on wording. The coalition, Labour, and SNP say their preference is for a straight question. Fine. A Yes or No it is. The SNP can stop flagging up devo max and just get past this (they are the only ones talking about it, out of the 4 main parties).

Who oversees the vote? Electoral Commission seems obvious. So why is Salmond in a huff about this idea? He wants a 'Scottish Electoral Commission' to oversee a vote. However, let me quote Alan Cochrane, "Alex Salmond cannae expect to have the poll run by 3 of his pals". He'd be right.

Until the SNP can proffer forward one good reason for why the Electoral Commission cannot run this poll, Westminster must insist on this point. Gods, George Reid (one of the modern Nationalist founding fathers) is on the Commission. So why are they so opposed to this? What is the SNP angle? Time they answered this question. It isn't unreasonable of me, as a voter, to be insisting on an independent body with a proven track record, to oversee this vote.

But enough of my ranting. Simple point to end on, one we can ALL agree on. The political parties need to settle the referendum issue together. SNP, Conservative, Labour and LibDem together need to agree a common referendum process.

After all, I want to start talking about the issues, I for one am utterly bored of process questions!

Not helpful

2012-01-09T10:10:00.002Z

Not helpful. That is my view of the actions of the various Unionist party leaders to date.
.
'No platform'
.
First comes Johann Lamont. Her idea for seeing off the SNP and preserve the union is to pick a fight with the Tories. Her first comments on the issue of separation were, typically, draft. She immediately outlined a 'no platform' policy with the Tories.

Way to go Lamont! Beat the SNP by arguing about Tories...

Seems Labour still don't understand precisely how the lost the last Holyrood election ... as they bang on endlessly (typically) about Tories. I call it missing the point, spectacularly.
.
Cameron
.
Then we come to Call-me-Dave. His idea of preserving the union, is to destroy one of our strongest arguments. Up until now, I could argue that Scotland is enhanced in the European stage by being part of the union. Now that Cameron has isolated Britain in Europe, this argument is gone.

Thanks Dave, real helpful.

And now we hear that London, Westminster, is thinking of forcing the Scottish government to hold it earlier than the date promised during the election? Super, that will help too ... idiots.

C+ for Kim Jong-Un

2012-01-04T15:15:00.002Z

The fashions of dictators have been dissected since time immemorial. But Women's Wear Daily have been the first out the pens, giving the 'Great Successor' his first marks

Gaddafi's absurd outfits long attracted criticism and adulation from across the fashion spectrum. So the idea that despots and their fashion senses are placed scrutiny shouldn't come as a surprise.

But until now, I for one failed to appreciate just how absurdly serious the whole process is taken. For WWD, they even issue grades to despots for fashion outfits. Accordingly, they are the first to publish their own take on the Great Successor.

He is a rotund man, they note, who reminds them Violet Beauregarde in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory . A slightly tapered trouser leg would help "elongate his silhouette". He wears his jacket sleeves too long, but they noted the mourning black colour is slimming and the "structured, well-fitted shoulder helps enhance his dictatorial presence."

I for one find this fascinating. These kinds of insights helps one really appreciate just how you can generate the cult of persona around individuals. Ultimately it is all about how one is perceived. And WWD have illustrated just how a despot can utilise wardrobe-care to actually enhance the impression.
And no laughing out there. This is serious. Hitler deliberately adopted a moustache which would compliment his austere fast for militaristic getups. Stalin? Uncle Joe took great care in being seen in many ways. His military outfits were different for every poster. In some, he wore a bold white, shining out under mottos uttering 'trust in the uncle' and so forth. Other times, he wore browns, and darker shades to promote the idea that he was a working man - not some Prince or Tzar - but an ordinary dusty looking man.

And it isn't all foreign either. In the UK Harold Wilson paid a great deal of care for what he was seen wearing too. Pipe, dusty 'grandfatherly' blazer ... it all smacked of ' man next door'.

So, I'm actually fascinated when the likes of WWD pay this kind of attention to the outfits of despots. It actually explains a great deal of their magic (all smoke and mirrors really).

For today, indeed this whole week - Kim Jong Un is their 'man of the week' ...

Changing culture of fashion?

2011-12-31T19:26:00.000Z

Imogen Fox, in a Guardian piece makes an interesting argument about changing times at the top of the fashion industry

Anyone ever seen Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada? Well if you haven't go add it to your 'to do' list asap. However, the film itself is an excellent demonstration of exactly the kind of 'culture' in the industry that Ms Fox argues is heading out.

The racist ranting which ended John Galliano's career is clearly a case of delicious karma. And the new faces in the industry are changing. There is a good case to make for the idea that Devil Wears Prada culture is heading out. We now see 'creative geniuses' who not only seem less deliberately extrovert, but also more, well, fallible.

Characters like Galliano, or Christian Lacroix are gone. The former due to a stress and booze-fuelled racist tirade, the latter due to the (horrific) commercialisation of the art aspect of the fashion industry.

Can we say the era of the mad hatter, but untouchable creative genius is over? Perhaps yes, but I for one won't be so quick to celebrate this fact.

After all, the shut down of the House of Lacroix indicates better than anything just what will happen if we allow commercialisation of the arts to continue apace. Yes geniuses like Streep's character do exist still in the industry; and yes, they are volatile and often not as infallible as they seem. But without them, and their abilities with extreme working conditions - all we have left is frankly Heather Mills and a legion of mediocrity.

------------------
p.s. Happy new year to one and all, I will be heading off to the Jools Holland Hootnany tonight. Let us keep our fingers crossed for a merrier 2012 (not bloody likely, I realise)

Breaking up Britain

2011-12-23T10:20:00.000Z

As an X'mas gift to all you cybernats bedevilling the blogosphere, I thought I'd spend time focusing on Mary Dejevsky's article on Scots independence for the Independent

"Maybe the referendum will not take place for whatever reason; or maybe, if it does, a majority of Scottish voters will vote No. Or maybe they will prefer the lesser variant that could be on offer: a separation of the economies, while the Union is retained. But do not rely on that. When someone such as Sir Gus, whose 30-plus years ascending the ladder of the Civil Service have bred circumspection of an extreme kind, hints at a possible break-up of the UK, it is time to sit up and take stock of the evidence."

This is a fascinating starting point. And Dejevsky has a point, in so far that the unionist parties really haven't appreciated the full reality of our current position. In 3 years time, there shall be a referendum (ignore the issue of 'wording' for now, suffice, there is going to be one). Yet the main unionist parties seem currently content to sit reaffirming their devotion to the union, and secretly praying this Christmas for nothing to really happen.

Sir Gus parting warning may be something that will go down into the history ledgers for the 'United Kingdom: A History of dead states'. Personally, I most reverently hope not. But his warning is stark, and the unionist parties leaderships respectively really aren't living up to the challenge they are facing.

Devolution has a logical conclusion, and that is separation. If the policy, initiated by Tony Blair early in his first term, was intended to draw the sting of resurgent nationalism, it seems rather to have had the opposite effect. Scotland and, latterly, Wales have gained a taste for difference that may not, at least in Scotland's case, be satisfied by remaining inside the UK.

Yet perhaps Ms Dejevsky goes too far on this point. Devolution does not necessary have the single endpoint of independence. If it had, why then were the SNP campaigning years back alongside the Tories to block it? The reality is that in this great constitutional game of mice and men, nothing can be taken for granted (Perhaps that is why unionists should make more of their 'uncertainty' argument). Devolution may lead to a federalisation of the UK, or it may lead to full fiscal autonomy or even 'devo-max'. The point is, this isn't as linear a destiny for Scots and Scotland as Nationalists prefer to make out.

If anything, devolution may even stifle the longer term demand for independence. After all, during her analysis Ms Dejevsky seems to have forgotten about one critical element: the voters. How the canny Scots will vote when faced with tax hikes to sustain nordic-spending priorities (currently insulated from the marketplace realities by the Union) remains to be seen. I'd cite a recent poll on this subject. It found that if the SNP could prove that independence would make their families "£500 better off" you have just shy of 50% for independence. But, if the reverse is seen to be the truth, you have 60%+ in favour of one of the Unionist options (status quo or devo-max). So cybernats and their eager cohorts really need to start making more of the economics for independence (and no one dare bloody mention 'Scotlands oil' that horse is well and truly flogged!)

Over the past 15 years, Scotland has become ever more distinct from the rest of Great Britain. On all sorts of policies, from health through welfare, schools, and university fees, it is spinning off at a remarkable speed in pursuit of something that looks more akin to the so-called Nordic model.

Perhaps the sentiments of that quote will resonate with many. Yet, I'd contend that as soon as Scots politicians and public taxpayers actually have to raise the money they spend (rather than just throwing the money around), these 'distinctive' policies will rapidly coalesce to the English example. Call it the 'Tory argument for independence', but the fact remains, if Scotland had to pay for its spending priorities itself, it would soon become a tiger economy leading the way in deregulation and tax cuts for corporations. Is that really the kind of country you want to end up as - an Ireland?

All I'll finish with is, the SNP and their intellectual backers are taking far too much for granted. They underestimate the practicalities of the ordinary Scots voter, and they are wrong about the linearity from which they see history.

Oh, and before I sign off - here was a nice pro-EU message from Ms Dejevsky (you remember the EU, euro etc, the dog the SNP refuse to let bark- alongside their non-existent defence agenda)

that it would make sense for an independent Scotland to join the euro.

At least on this final note, we can agree. An independent Scotland, were it to happen, should join the euro and integrate into the beating heart of our bold and eternal European Ideal.

Couples, careers & the gender rebellion

2011-12-18T17:23:00.000Z

Can they play 'piggy in the middle with 'Call-me-Dave' on social policy?

Social policy remains the single greatest divider inside British politics, and it presents progressives with residual hope entering a new year

Midterm blues ... for who?

A whole spate of polling evidence has come forth, a stark warning that Cameron may be regarded as "aloof" and "arrogant"; but he is still the best man in the room. No party rival has thus far come close to laying a finger of all-too-smarmy Call-me-Dave.

With Tories now running ahead of Labour on polling averages(1), there remains serious questions to be answered. Not least of them, why are Labour the ones suffering - apparently - the midterm blues?

And the LibDems, well they can really only celebrate the fact that if a snap GE were ever held, they'd still manage to scrape a 3rd. Just scrape in with 23MPs.

Policy opportunities

Yet if we stop to take stalk, this hasn't been a 'good year' for Cammie (he is at risk of losing the northern half of his Kingdom). And there is one policy area where he, personally, is acutely vulnerable. Not his party, but him, the one they can't lay a finger on: social policy.

This is going to be the bridgehead which pulls the Tories back below the symbolic 40%, and builds LibDem and Labour up somewhat.

How so?

Cameron has suffered among his worst defeats in social policy (or directly related) issues over the last 19 months. Big Society, his personal theme for power, gone. Already surrendered to the progressives in opposition(2) Furthermore, on social welfare reforms, he is losing ground among the public. Yes, a majority still say 'hard medicine needed' or 'catch the welfare cheats' (and so forth) BUT ... the polling data and mood from the street seems to suggest a rising scepticism as to the true Tory motivations. Put it simply: the public are slowly beginning to see beyond the seemingly hereditary Anglo-Saxon mistrust of welfarism and question the peoples doing the implementing.

Add to it, Nick Clegg has fired an olive-branch to Labour, on core social policy. He has come out saying that he would "never" (strong word for a politico to use, even nowadays) continence supporting a Tory vision for marriage.

If Labour are smart enough, they could work closely with LibDem backbenchers to prevent Cameron or the Tories from achieving their (absurd, as they currently stand) marriage tax cuts.

And finally, on social policy - it is now factual to say that the 'Tory' vision of 'marriage' for many of their backbenchers is out of touch.

If LibDems and Labour can compel Cameron to explain precisely what he means by his 'vaguely Christian' comments, and 'marriage subsidy' -- it will cause him very real pain. Either from his own righter-than-Thatcher backbenchers, or from the more in-touch forces of progressivity in UK politics.

Let me finish then with a question. 'Can you trust the Tories on social issues?' No...thought not!

___________________________________________

(1) see UK Polling Report running average

(2) no, that doesn't necessarily imply I view 'the Labour Party' as now somehow 'progressive'

Suicidal: Labour elect Lamont

2011-12-17T13:30:00.000Z

Can she beat King Alex off his Holyrood throne?

The Turkeys' voted for Christmas with Scottish Labour electing Lamont to be leader

"Scotland's party once again"

Johann Lamont has won the Scottish Labour leadership, beating off her challengers. May I say to her, well done - and I wish you all the best in leading the main opposition party. Yet what is her platform within the party? And what can we deduce from that power-base?

First, Johann Lamont was the GMB candidate. That is, she is the trades union choice. Deductions? To begin, it means she didn't the job by promising to change policies. Indeed the opposite is the case. Lamont in her campaign material places emphasis on the hows to communicate more clearly. There was precious little in her materials talking about Labour actively changing policy direction north of the wall...for that (perhaps more serious change) there was Ken MacIntosh...

With a trades union for your power-base, and all your rhetoric about ... well ... rhetoric - don't expect this new Labour leader to change much.

At the end of the day, Labour have made, like the Tories, the biggest mistake of their political lives. Like Ruth, Johann represents a grass-roots response to the all-conquering worm. Like the Scots Tories, until they elect leaders who will change policy, change their direction - all that will happen is denial as Scotland slowly slips into the separatist agenda.

Obituary: Christopher Hitchens

2011-12-16T09:43:00.000Z

Academic, critic, intellectual Christopher Hitchens has passed on according to Vanity Fair magazine, from cancer aged 62

A British born intellectual and academic, of the greatest ability, he passed on after a complication from the cancer he was fighting.

Leaving behind him his children, and wife, he deserves a special note of recognition.

Being an Oxford graduate, he nevertheless spent a life railing against the system which produced him. Of the Trotskyite left, he combined his own personal politics with a staunch literary career. The world will surely be less vibrant without him in it.

Accordingly, Vanity summarised best:

There will never be another like Christopher

And most certainly there won't. On a personal note, I always found Christopher Hitchens someone capable of motivating large numbers. If you could describe Hitchens, during public speaking, it is possible to see him as some kind of Pericles. Orator, with an impressive capacity to crystallize even the most obscure academic references as something relatable.

An atheist in his own life, he faced death with a cool demeanour of the great minds, saying "the prospect of death makes me sober".

My heart goes out to his friends and family, and to the internationale of citizens who have lost a staunch advocate for true social justice.

Mr Europe speaks out

2011-12-11T20:53:00.001Z

Clegg has finally found his bridge-head to recovery

Nick Clegg has seen a dire first 19 months in office as the first Liberal to see elected office in over 60 years. First came tuition fees backlash - one entirely of his party's own making. Then came various other minor scuffles which has seen him being painted as either an unwitting stooge of Cameron, or at worst a complicit. Camerclegg stands as the crypt where more than half LibDem polling support rests buried under.

That said, is Europe to be his redemption?

Opinion on the outcome of the EU effective veto is still up in the air, especially given that all party leaders are assuming it will strengthen their stand with the public. Someone will be in for a nasty shock.

Clegg is one of the most patriotic, and proud Europeans of the current political age. He holds diverse European genes, can speak multiple European languages. In short, he is 'Mr Europe'. Thus, his spin of the veto-crisis presided over by Cameron can re-energise his grass-roots standing, or cripple it permanently.

Andrew Marr performance

In light of this context, one has to conclude that Clegg has really shown his mettle. On Andrew Marr's show, Clegg came across as the more measured, thoughtful and rational of the two coalition leaders.

His calmly pointing out that while the veto-issuing had reduced UK ability to protect the City (rebuking the Cameron official line nicely) as astute, and polite. But he went on to point out, like it was common-sense to everyone except Cameron, that there was more to protect than the City of London.

He even implied that Cameron has threatened manufacturing jobs, and non-financial related employment badly by his isolating the UK off from the rest of the entire EU. That means Clegg is aiming directly for 3m workers in the UK, and their employers. He wants them to see Clegg - himself - as their best bet for protecting their interests rather than an increasingly europhobic and irrational Tory Party.

Yet finally, and the cherry on the cake - he explained how his alternative and more consensual approach might have done more to protect Cameron's much-loved 'Internal Market' in the EU...

All in all it was smooth and statesmanlike work. But he never stopped there, he pushed on by implying that he personally could have got a better deal ... or indeed any kind of deal at all. Why? Because, unlike Cameron, Clegg is actually well respected in Paris and Berlin.

The ending impression? Here is a man about to make Europe the issue which can potentially detoxify his mistakes over the last 19 months. And frankly, good on him. Sometimes honesty really is the best medicine. This is the first time when I can with honesty and credibility claim that Clegg appeared truly Statesmanlike.

Isolated UK

2011-12-09T11:00:00.000Z

Cameron wielded the British veto on any renegotiation of the Lisbon Treaty, on the spurious grounds that it was in our national interest.

Our PM has successfully isolated the UK from any future decisions regarding the eurozone, our most important bilateral trading partner. Why? In order to shield the city of London bankers from facing a transaction tax of 0.05% (which could raise £20bn for the UK to spend), and to prevent our bankers from having to maintain higher capital assets.

How strange, I thought that our PM was defending our national interest?

After all what we urgently need right now is for banks to hold higher capital assets before going off on another gambling session like the last thirteen years.

Then of course there is Cameron's motivation. His real reason for surrendering our seat at the top table of a now inevitable two-tier Europe. His back-bench haters.

The backbenches of the parliamentary Tory party is up to its necks in euro-hating, banker loving, child-kissing opportunists. Apparently they, and his City paymasters mean more to Cameron than our natural national interest. Which is, and always will be in Europe, at the heart of Europe - always.

The Bride of Corinthe

2011-12-07T01:01:00.000Z

I found myself analysing one of Goethe's poems today, The Bride of Corinthe.

(1) Once a stranger youth to Corinth came,
Who in Athens lived, but hoped that he
From a certain townsman there might claim,
As his father's friend, kind courtesy.

(2) Son and daughter, they
Had been wont to say
Should thereafter bride and bridegroom be.
But can he that boon so highly prized,
Save tis dearly bought, now hope to get?
They are Christians and have been baptized,
He and all of his are heathens yet.

(3) For a newborn creed,
Like some loathsome weed,
Love and truth to root out oft will threat.
Father, daughter, all had gone to rest,
And the mother only watches late;
She receives with courtesy the guest,
And conducts him to the room of state.

(4) Wine and food are brought,
Ere by him besought;
Bidding him good night, she leaves him straight.
But he feels no relish now, in truth,
For the dainties so profusely spread;
Meat and drink forgets the wearied youth,
And, still dress'd, he lays him on the bed.

(5) Scarce are closed his eyes,
When a form in-hies
Through the open door with silent tread.
By his glimmering lamp discerns he now
How, in veil and garment white array'd,
With a black and gold band round her brow,
Glides into the room a bashful maid.

(6) But she, at his sight,
Lifts her hand so white,
And appears as though full sore afraid.
"Am I," cries she, "such a stranger here,
That the guest's approach they could not name?
Ah, they keep me in my cloister drear,
Well nigh feel I vanquish'd by my shame.

(7) On thy soft couch now
Slumber calmly thou!
I'll return as swiftly as I came."
"Stay, thou fairest maiden!" cries the boy,
Starting from his couch with eager haste:
"Here are Ceres', Bacchus' gifts of joy;
Amor bringest thou, with beauty grac'd!

(8) Thou art pale with fear!
Loved one let us here
Prove the raptures the Immortals taste."
"Draw not nigh, O Youth! afar remain!
Rapture now can never smile on me;
For the fatal step, alas! is ta'en,
Through my mother's sick-bed phantasy.

(9) Cured, she made this oath:
'Youth and nature both
Shall henceforth to Heav'n devoted be.'
"From the house, so silent now, are driven
All the gods who reign'd supreme of yore;
One Invisible now rules in heaven,
On the cross a Saviour they adore.

(10) Victims slay they here,
Neither lamb nor steer,
But the altars reek with human gore."
And he lists, and ev'ry word he weighs,
While his eager soul drinks in each sound:
"Can it be that now before my gaze
Stands my loved one on this silent ground?

(11) Pledge to me thy troth!
Through our father's oath:
With Heav'ns blessing will our love be crown'd."
"Kindly youth, I never can be thine!
'Tis my sister they intend for thee.
When I in the silent cloister pine,
Ah, within her arms remember me!

(12) Thee alone I love,
While love's pangs I prove;
Soon the earth will veil my misery."
"No! for by this glowing flame I swear,
Hymen hath himself propitious shown:
Let us to my fathers house repair,
And thoult find that joy is not yet flown,

(13) Sweetest, here then stay,
And without delay
Hold we now our wedding feast alone!"
Then exchange they tokens of their truth;
She gives him a golden chain to wear,
And a silver chalice would the youth
Give her in return of beauty rare.

(14) "That is not for me;
Yet I beg of thee,
One lock only give me of thy hair."
Now the ghostly hour of midnight knell'd,
And she seem'd right joyous at the sign;
To her pallid lips the cup she held,
But she drank of nought but blood-red wine.

(15) For to taste the bread
There before them spread,
Nought he spoke could make the maid incline.
To the youth the goblet then she brought,--
He too quaff'd with eager joy the bowl.
Love to crown the silent feast he sought,
Ah! full love-sick was the stripling's soul.

(16) From his prayer she shrinks,
Till at length he sinks
On the bed and weeps without control.
And she comes, and lays her near the boy:
"How I grieve to see thee sorrowing so!
If thou think'st to clasp my form with joy,
Thou must learn this secret sad to know;

(17) Yes! the maid, whom thou
Call'st thy loved one now,
Is as cold as ice, though white as snow."
Then he clasps her madly in his arm,
While love's youthful might pervades his frame:
"Thou might'st hope, when with me, to grow warm,
E'en if from the grave thy spirit came!

(18) Breath for breath, and kiss!
Overflow of bliss!
Dost not thou, like me, feel passion's flame?"
Love still closer rivets now their lips,
Tears they mingle with their rapture blest,
From his mouth the flame she wildly sips,
Each is with the other's thought possess'd.

(19) His hot ardour's flood
Warms her chilly blood,
But no heart is beating in her breast.
In her care to see that nought went wrong,
Now the mother happen'd to draw near;
At the door long hearkens she, full long,
Wond'ring at the sounds that greet her ear.

(20) Tones of joy and sadness,
And love's blissful madness,
As of bride and bridegroom they appear,
From the door she will not now remove
'Till she gains full certainty of this;
And with anger hears she vows of love,
Soft caressing words of mutual bliss.

(21) "Hush! the cock's loud strain!
But thoult come again,
When the night returns!"--then kiss on kiss.
Then her wrath the mother cannot hold,
But unfastens straight the lock with ease
"In this house are girls become so bold,
As to seek e'en strangers' lusts to please?"

(22) By her lamp's clear glow
Looks she in,--and oh!
Sight of horror!--'tis her child she sees.
Fain the youth would, in his first alarm,
With the veil that o'er her had been spread,
With the carpet, shield his love from harm;
But she casts them from her, void of dread,

(23) And with spirit's strength,
In its spectre length,
Lifts her figure slowly from the bed.
"Mother! mother!"--Thus her wan lips say:
"May not I one night of rapture share?
From the warm couch am I chased away?
Do I waken only to despair?

(24) It contents not thee
To have driven me
An untimely shroud of death to wear?
"But from out my coffin's prison-bounds
By a wond'rous fate I'm forced to rove,
While the blessings and the chaunting sounds
That your priests delight in, useless prove.

(25) Water, salt, are vain
Fervent youth to chain,
Ah, e'en Earth can never cool down love!
"When that infant vow of love was spoken,
Venus' radiant temple smiled on both.
Mother! thou that promise since hast broken,
Fetter'd by a strange, deceitful oath.

(26) Gods, though, hearken ne'er,
Should a mother swear
To deny her daughter's plighted troth.
From my grave to wander I am forc'd,
Still to seek The Good's long-sever'd link,
Still to love the bridegroom I have lost,
And the life-blood of his heart to drink;

(27) When his race is run,
I must hasten on,
And the young must 'neath my vengeance sink,
"Beauteous youth! no longer mayst thou live;
Here must shrivel up thy form so fair;
Did not I to thee a token give,
Taking in return this lock of hair?

(28) View it to thy sorrow!
Grey thoult be to-morrow,
Only to grow brown again when there.
"Mother, to this final prayer give ear!
Let a funeral pile be straightway dress'd;
Open then my cell so sad and drear,
That the flames may give the lovers rest!

(29) When ascends the fire
From the glowing pyre,
To the gods of old we'll hasten, blest."

Why? Well for a start this poem represents the FIRST poem (or short story) in Germanic Gothic tradition to feature a female vampire, and a male victim (though obv the female vampire can be seen to be a victim herself, of her parents desires for her, of the religion she is forced to give up etc).

The time period for this poem is, at best guess, around 300 AD or so, given the slow turn to Christianity around Corinth at that time. The poem's lifeblood seems to be the war between two opposing theologies which meets in two families. The family of the Bride (Juliet, if you will), has embraced Christianity; while the family of the bride-groom has remained faithful to the old gods, including Venus -- Goddess of Love. The troth was plighted (marriage promise) exchanged under the old religion -- and the maiden refuses to turn her back on the promise made by the two sets of parents.

It is not only the vows of Theology that is being broken in this poem; the bounds of guest visits are being broken as well when young female vampire daughter of the house attacks, and apparently is prepared to kill, the young male guest. He is owed safety and honor within the house. He receives a vampire love/wife, and death. Uncool.

The characters here are unnamed. The roster contains: the young man who has come visiting to meet the fiancé he was betrothed to as an infant. the young woman: his fiance who is also the vampire. The Mother who greets him, and who has recently buried her daughter (and failed to mention it?). Priests who chant and pray through the nights.

Summary

The set is staged and the location established in stanza one by the young mans arrival at the home in Corinth on a visit from his home in Athens. He is hoping to claim a favor (his bride! she is quite a favor!) from his father's friend.

Stanza two: Upon his arrival the narrator lets us know that the new religion of Christianity has been embraced by his fiancé's family. Under the tenets of both religions, they will now be pulling different directions. The male is set up as open to the possibility of having a different woman by the question: can a person appreciate what comes easy? his fiancé is coming easy, with no work on his part to win her.

Stanza three: When he arrives he discovers that the house has retired for the night, and he will have to wait to meet his fiancé. The mother greets him and leads him to a guest chamber.

Stanza four: The young man is served food and drinks by ignores it, going to bed instead.

Stanza five: As soon as he lays down and closes his eyes a young "maid" enters. She is wearing a veil to hide her features, and dressed in white. She has a black and gold headband and moves in a glide, without discernable steps.

Stanza six: This maid that has arrived has very white hands. She declares that she is hurt at not having been introduced to the guest upon his arrival. She interprets this as the family being embarrassed by her.

Stanza seven: She offers to leave him alone, and he asks her to stay. He has fallen in love with her because she is so beautiful. (Although she is never shown removing her veil!)

Stanza eight:8. She appears to be pale with fear as he approaches for sex "the raptures the Immortals taste." She backs off telling him not to approach, she can't do it -- for she has already been "raptured" by her mother's "sick-bed phantasy?" (Huh?) My best guess is that her mother's fantasy is Christianity, and the "rapture" being reborn into both Christianity and death."

Stanza nine: Her mother has been cured from worshipping the wrong gods, and since has sworn that since she herself was spared, everyone in the house would devote themselves to heaven. All other God's have given place to the Savior and his cross.

Stanza ten: His unnamed visitor tells him the family now no longer sacrifice lamb or steer, but instead perform human sacrifice here. (My guess: she is talking about the Eucharist -- the body and the blood of the sacrament.) He listens but all he is thinking about is how to get into her pants. Is she his betrothed; he wonders?

Stanza eleven: Marry me!" he says. Our fathers youthful promise was that we would marry. Heaven will bless our marriage. She tells him "I can't marry you -- you are for my sister. When you are diddling her, remember me.

Stanza twelve: He declares "I love only you. I will kill myself if I can't have you!"(classic male cry -- I will die if you don't come across?) To which she answers, you don't have to die; Hymen says we can be together -- come with me.

Stanza thirteen: They exchange wedding vows on the spot; she gives him a golden chain, and he gives her a silver chalice. (Silver is a pure metal, often anathema to supernatural creatures.)

Stanza fourteen: She tells him she can't accept the chalice, and asks for a lock of his hair. It chimes midnight right after she says this, and she is really happy about it. She holds the cup of wine to her "pallid" lips, but drinks none of the wine within. (More shade of the Eucharist.)

Chapter fifteen: She won't eat the bread either. (Bread = Christ's body) He does drink from the chalice when she brings it to him. He is love-sick (read HORNY) and will do anything she asks.

Stanza sixteen: She shrinks away from his prayer, and he falls on the bed weeping at her rejection. She comes near him and apologizes for rejecting his pass. She offers to tell him her "sad" secret.

Stanza seventeen: She tells him that she is "cold as ice, although white as snow." He clasps her in his arms to try to warm her. "Even if her spirit came from the grave," he is certain that his body's heat will warm her.

Stanza eighteen: He tries to make her passionate by kissing her repeatedly, and she sips the flame from his mouth. (Odd phrasing)

Stanza nineteen: His passion finally manages to warm her, but she has no heart-beat!(!!!!) While she is quite careful to not get caught or noticed by anyone passing the room, still it happens. The mother walks by, and hears the sounds coming from inside.

Stanza twenty: The mother hears sounds of joy, sadness, and bliss. They are entwined as bride and bridegroom. She won't leave the door until she knows what is going on.

Stanza twenty-one: The girl hears the "cock's loud strain" (day's announcer), and tells him she will return the next night. At this point the mother finally enters -- who is this maid whoring with her guest?

Stanza twenty-two: The mother is horrified to see her own daughter -- and her daughter refuses to hide her face (brazen).

Stanza twenty-three: The girl lifts herself slowly from the bed -- "spirits strength?" In spite of the passionate kisses, she still has "wan" lips. She gets in her mother's face asking if she isn't entitled to at least ones night "passion?"

Stanza twenty-four: heavy vampire imagery here! She continues berating her mom: Hey mom, aren't you content at having forced me to wear the "shroud of death? I have busted out of my 'COFFIN,' and "by a wond'rous[sic] fate I am 'FORCED' to rove while the "blessing and the chauntings sound" The priests' words are useless!

Stanza twenty-five: She blames her mother for attempting to separate them from the vow of love sworn under a different theology when they were infants -- and water and salt -- even earth itself can't separate them.

Stanza twenty-six: "gods, though, don't listen to what a mother does to separate a promised joining "plighted troth". She is forced to leave her GRAVE to find and love her bridegroom. And to DRINK HIS BLOOD from his heart.

Stanza twenty-seven: When he dies, she must move on to other victims, who will also sink under her vengeance -- she is going to "SHRIVEL UP THY FORM SO FAIR -- she has exchanged tokens with him, and has a lock of his hair. (Witchcraft uses these locks -- early DNA?)

Stanza twenty-eight: He should be sorry when he sees it, he will be gray "tomorrow" and then it will return to brown later? She further instructs her mother to open her GRAVE, and the two of them (she and her lover) will BURN - and have rest!

Stanza twenty-nine: Short stanza, only three lines. -- (the poem began with a four line stanza) When they have burned together, they will return to their old gods, blessed

Who says the USA is "culture-less"

2011-12-04T00:11:00.000Z

A friend of mine said to me tonight in one of my favourite wine-bars that the 'USA is culture-less', to my response, 'says who?'

A field of genius

Yes folks, I am tired of the politics of the day, so this is one of infrequent art posts. A heads-up to go screaming for the exists.

But, as I say, a field of genius. The USA is a land of strong literary tradition, and capable legendary writers. It really is only a combination of European (and British) snobbery and US anti-elitism which prevents this becoming more widely known.

What would life be without the likes of Pulitzer-prize winner Robert Frost?

"Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice."

I ask you, what would the literary world be without his brilliantly casual illustration of Dante's 32 canto? ... in which the worst offenders of hell, the traitors, are submerged, while in a fiery hell, up to their necks in ice: "a lake so bound with ice, / It did not look like water, but like a glass ... right clear / I saw, where sinners are preserved in ice."

So let us not pretend that the USA has given us all culturally little. Need I go on to the Mask of the Red Death? Edgar Allan Poe?

Come on folks, lets stop the anti-US cultural snobbery please. From a of culture without the borders, a true Globalist.

Why I back Newt

2011-11-28T21:24:00.000Z

The man to beat Obama?

Mitt Romey is the man to beat to take the GOP forward into the Whitehouse, but Newt Gingrich is New-Right's own choice

Newt

Romney has seen numerous challengers to his lead in the GOP selection process rise and fall. First came Michelle Bachmann, then the man-from-texas, and finally Herman Cain. Each of them has fallen - or begun to fall - into the wayside, as Romney continues to survive as the front-runner.
Along the way a man called Newt saw his campaign all but collapse, and his team leave. Newt himself went on a holiday...

So what has changed to turn this ex-GOP big-hitter into the new Lazarus?

Experience
Newt Gingrich has a solid political record of delivering. Albeit clouded during the Clinton vs Congress episode all those years ago. The point is, Newt understands how politics is fought in the highest tier of US party games.
A man who has been there, and a man with a record. It counts, especially when the US core conservatives up and down the Republic desperately want No-Drama out of the big white house.

Credibility
Unlike other 'anyone-but-Mitt' candidates, Newt has credibility. Not just from his experience in the past, but also his ability to actually think on his feet. It may sound like a basic prerequisite, but it has proven to be the bane of the previous anyone-but-Mitt challengers.

Besides, Newt has a functioning brain which can offer an alternative vision for the GOP, one which isn't sure-fire guaranteed to sent all those independent-voting Americans back into the arms of the socialists...sorry Democrats!

History
He has history. Some of it negative, some of it good. But the point is, he has a profile, and he has depth.

Voters, no matter what the pollsters say, yearn for political candidates who they can relate to. Newt can be related to. Whether it be his history with marriage, or his no-nonsense discourse. Main thing, voters don't see him as just another managerial-type candidate.

He seems real, he is real.

Mitt Romney cannot energise the GOP grassroots into going that extra mile to turn out at the polls. The Democrats cannot be permitted to retain the Presidency, following their foreign-policy failures and economic weakness.
Newt seems to be the only viable alternative to Mitt 'Socialised Healthcare' Romney. Besides, he is also a man with a plan.

Pensions reform and the disabled

2011-11-23T10:59:00.001Z

Campaigners in Scotland are fearful that many disabled on benefits are suicidal over coalition policy to get more people back into work

Getting more people off of benefits and into productive work is something all of us can support. The division is caused by what your method is to achieve that.

And coalition policy seems to be withdrawing benefits, and pushing (that seems to be the correct descriptive) benefit recipients into part-time work. Part time work. After all, according to coalition policy, 'work will be considered work', even if it isn't a long term source of employment. Add to that the serious upheaval which can be caused to those on the breadline by transferring them from stable benefit-sourced income they can count on, to hapazard part-time (sometimes bank register) work... no wonder many in Scotland fear for their ability to pay next years bills.

The real crux of the issue for me however, is the total failure of the coalition to join the dots. Benefits reform cannot happen in isolation to all other factors.

To adequately reform benefits, you first need to get your macroeconomics right. And the coalition hasn't. They are cutting public sector spending in the economy just when consumer confidence and spending power is dropping to an all time low. That is known in the business as stupid.
On top of that, their policy toward our major export market - the eurozone - seems to be 'pretend it isn;t our problem'...mainly because Cameron et al are in hoc to the ignorant europhobes on his own backbenches.

Under these circumstances one can ask: what jobs are they expecting these legions of so-called benefitistas to move into? There aren't any jobs! None that would provide stable, long term employment for those in need of security to keep paying that mortgage. And then there are the costs of living ... school uniforms ... and for the disabled, we're talking their very ability to remain independent.

Still think we need to rush into this absurd pensions reform right now?

But don't worry Scotland, all our MSPs need to do is pass an act which refuses to allow Westmidden to legislate in this are of devolved polity. Sorted.
Just wish we could say the same for the poor sods in England, who have no protection from the barbarism of the coalition pensions and economic agenda...

"Corrosively" anti-English?

2011-11-20T23:13:00.000Z

Scots law is independent of English law. I'd like to keep it that way.

The Sunday Herald leads with the stunning comments from Lord Hope, deputy President of the Supreme Court. Are his comments hitting a nail on the head, or simply a political-legal assault on the Holyrood government, and High Court?

Politics and Justice

The exercise of justice ought not be a political affair. Indeed one would seek to ensure it was always the opposite, by removing the daily cycle of politics, and electoral processes from the courts. The persons of justice and law ought to be learned, meritocratic. So I find it hard to square Lord Hopes' intervention with this goal I'd prefer to see realised.

And his comments were political. When he defends the role of the Supreme Court (his employer), as it interferes in Scots criminal cases via the back-door access of interpreting European human rights legislation, it can't be anything other than political.

Paul McBride QC is correct in his interventions in recent hours:

"While I have the greatest respect for Lord Hope, I cannot accept for a moment that there is a corrosive anti-English sentiment in Scotland's courts"

If you, as I do, take this view yourself - then we must face the question. Why would Lord Hope make such a statement. I for one don't seriously believe for a second that Lord Hope can be that out of touch of modern Scotland that he'd believe any of this hogwash.

Detecting his real motivation, all we need to do is check out his intervention wording.

Lord Hope said, "You may think that the suggestion that the Supreme Court has been regularly interfering has been somewhat exaggerated".
Spot what he did there? That is a veiled attack on the Holyrood government. After all, it was Kenny MacAskil who 'suggested' that the Supreme Court was interfering. (I happened to agree with him at the time, they were - and I still think this too).
Question: why is an (unelected) Law Lord (based in London, England) making statements attempting to contradict the set view of our Scottish government (and majority of Holyrood MSPs too)? Might it have something to do with the fact that the Supreme Court is his paymaster? Might it be that he wants to have some semblance of relevance, as a Scots law jurist, in what would otherwise be a strictly English law court?

Heaven forbid that I may wish to speculate about the motivations of his Noble Lordship!

All I know is this: the High Court, in Edinburgh, has been and should continue to be the only court able to act as final ruling for Scots criminal cases. And yes, this should extend to matters involving the interpretation of human rights rulings and legislation vis-a-vis Scots criminal case-law. For the Supremes like Lord Hope to seek to use what is clearly a legislative loophole, to extend their tentacles into our Scots law. It is intolerable. And it rather diminishes my respect for his noble Lordship.

Racism and world football (soccer)

2011-11-18T09:30:00.001Z

World Footie has a poor record on equality-related topics, much like global sport in general. Just how can the West continue to tolerate the blatant anti-equality relating attitudes so prevalent in world sport?

Sporting attitudes

While one would never single out one particular sport, we should start with what is dominating the sports news-cycle. And Sepp Blatter has really placed global sport in the spotlight, again. This time it was his cavalier attitude regarding racism in their sport. Blatter argued that any accusations of racism could be settled with "a handshake". Naturally enough we have seen the general outpouring as a result.

Yet the problem is that none should be surprised. It wasn't that long ago that Gareth Williams, the Wesh ruggers player, came out as gay -- and exposed the shocking discriminatory thinking in sport relating to gay rights. So everyone with half a brain must have known that that sort of 1950s perceptions extended beyond rugby, and well into other forms of professional sport like football.

Williams coming out revealed just how inhibited he felt working in professional sport, and being gay. So much so that he felt unable to 'come out'. Quickly the experts and academics explained that - statistically - there had to be many more gay players feeling totally unable to come out publicly. Questions became raised on the issue. Now, hopefully the same can happen to football vis-a-vis racism. Equally, lets hope that no one sees it in the 'footie only' perception filters.

At the end of the day, when all is said and done; our societal progress to generate progress on equality-relating thinking is still capable of being undermined. Youngster may be told in school about the importance to tolerate and accept - but its an indeterminate struggle. Enlightened notions taught in school can die a death if theatres of role-models like sport continues to expel a distinctly 1950s Britain attitude.
And it does. 'Gay-boys' 'Blacks', 'Women at home' all seem to remain all too acceptable topics in sport. Believe me, living as I do in Glasgow. Sporting culture tends to be macho, and frankly absurd at times. An absurdity caused by the complete failure of our society to make any impression in the avenue of ideas.

To put it simply, discrimination continues to flourish in sport. Blatter's complacency simply shows just how true this sadly is. Much like Williams coming out did last year.

There needs to be more work done to tackle the macho, and discriminatory thinking which continues to pervade sports.

Sport is for all of us, not just the white beer guzzling men in flat-caps -- who have a problem with blacks, gays and outspoken women.

Sing us a Song

2011-11-13T21:10:00.002Z

Sing us a song, said the piano man. But just what does it mean for us here in Britain, if the SNP fail to explain the details of their referendum?
.
"Billy, I believe this is killing me"
.
Is the smile running away from your face? It is for me. But then, when it comes to referendums, I am always totally impatient. I prefer to see them as the ordeal that they are, as well as the affront to parliamentary democracy which they are.

Yet, let us all be fair. If the SNP play their cards close to their chests - does it really mean anything?

I am a Unionist, a strongly pro-devo max one as it happens. But I can function, pretty well as it happens, if the Independence (or Separatist, as you chose) plebiscite doesn't happen now. Or even isn't spelt out for the next couple of years. And I for one am pretty sure Scotland is the same.

Impatience yes, but let us not as Unionists pretend that Scotland will somehow be harmed if Alex doesn't explain his piano concerto ahead of the performance (Bannockburn anniversary anyone?).
.
Talking Scotland down
.
It does happen to be an over-used political tactic of the assailed. But it is still a relevant debate point.

When my fellow Unionists, like Chancellor Ozzy, say that the possibility of an Independence plebiscite (however loathed) may happen - as somehow undermining external investment in Scotland. It is pure trivia.

Sorry, but it is. When one appreciates that Scotland controls 2/3 of EU raw oil and gas domestic output, and has its other new tech industries - there is no way in heck a businessman would avoid investing because of a likely referendum in 3 years time (maybe 4). After all, what alternatives is there?

Check out the EU information pages. Scotland is, putting it mildly, a strategic centre in the energy industry of tomorrow (and today). Plus, I can't see tourism being hurt by talk of independence (or Separation, take your pick). Now ... Westminster cuts on the other hand ...

Europe at the crossroads

2011-11-10T23:53:00.001Z

Europe and the future direction it takes is at the crossroads. On the one hand there is the ideal which built up the edifice of peace out of the ashes of war and genocide. On the other, is conflict and petty nationalism

Disclaimer: Stark. The choices facing us all are indeed this stark. I am a devout pro-European, and I make no apology. This marks out the tenor and tone of all that is to follow. If you can't open your ears to listen, then please, read no further.

When one thinks of the critics of the European Ideal currently, one is reminded of story Pyramus and Thisbe. In it Pyramus mistakenly believed Thisbe had perished, and killed himself - falling on his own sword. In fact she wasn't dead, but in his melodramatic act, killed her by forcing her suicide.
If one listens to the Europhobes, this tale should stand out. The John Redwoods, and the Nadine Dorres in parliament who find so much to be melodramatic about are at risk of doing a Pyramus, and falling on their swords. They spend so much of their waking hours attacking the European Ideal that when they believe it to be dead, and gone, they will find that their political life is over.

If one considers them all for a moment, you can quickly see through them. So much of their criticisms are either flawed or simply diversionary tactics to distract. We must all ensure that we think, unlike Pyramus, before acting recklessly.

I'd like to point out some relevant facts at this point.

Britain is economically struggling. Why is that? No, don't listen to the puerile bile of the Tory backwoodsmen. It isn't due to that pesky Eurozone and the fickle ideal backing it up intellectually. Its really due to their insistence on adhering to Blatcherite economics. The economics of cutting expenditure during recessions (even when this undermines, rather than strengthens demand in the economy).
It is due to the coalition slashing infrastructure projects across the regions. Just take a look at the region agencies which were abolished, and the ones new organisations replacing them. The new organisations aim to fulfil the same role as the previous ones, only their budgets are less than half of the Labour-created ones outgoing.

Thus, before anyone is too eager for the Eurozone masters and Eurocrats to fall on their swords, just remember; much of the allegations that its all their fault we fail to see growth is nonsense. Many of the problems in our domestic economic performance is due to economic decisions taken at home, by the coalition government.

The lets talk about ramifications. If one listened to the likes of Bill Cash et al in parliament, one could be forgiven for thinking that if only the Eurozone didn't exist - there would be no problem. Oh, how the English garden would be smelling of those home-counties roses again!
Yet this too is nonsense. Don't be so quick off the mark my EU friends and plunge yourselves into your swords. Our Thisbe isn't dead. Not really.
Europe, its ideal, and all its stands for does live on. And it marches on too.

The tagline that I think best sums up what being a pro-EU is all about is simple:

Europe, United in Diversity

Yes there are problems. Not least the issues of transparency. But isn't this a universal challenge to all organisations, governments and parliaments? Our own English garden isn't quite such a charming little vision on transparency issues either. MPs expenses anyone?

So let us work to reform our Ideal, and not chuck it out. Thisbe isn't dead, and if we destroy the EU and the intellectual ideals it stands for - "United in Diversity", then we all will find ourselves rather like the erstwhile lady, and chucking ourselves onto our swords. And a Europe with a collapsed eurozone, with economic meltdown and socio-political fragmentation isn't anything worth hoping for. Even if the Europhobes do.

Good Luck, and Good Night

2011-11-04T22:14:00.000Z

Ruth Davidson has one the Scottish Tory leadership contest, and I wish her the best of luck

Good Luck

Ruth has a tough battle on her hands. She comes to the leadership, for the first time as leader of the entire party north of the border.
On the one hand, she has to try and heal a bitterly divided party; after a harsh leadership contest. Then she has to try and set out her agenda that can appeal to all of us who voted for reform - with Murdo. Can Ruth really take, what seems like to entirely opposed magnets, and put the genie back in the bottle?

Good Night

But no, lets not pretend she can. Ruth, to be honest, will make an excellent leader. But just not of a party that I voted to be part of. In this leadership contest, I voted to end the Heath merger. I voted for the Scots centre-right to be masters in their own house again. I wanted our new force, lead by Murdo Fraser, to seek alliances with the 'Conservative Party' rather than be owned by that - distinct - political force.

Can Ruth really, as the 'Conservative Party' candidate reconcile those of us who are passionate 'Devolutionists' with her traditionalist vision?

Forgive me Ruth, or any of her supporters. But the plain answer is no, for me at least.

When it comes down to it, I voted for something so different for the movement which I love; that it is no longer credible to follow loyally under Ruth. She seems opposed to the very essence of what I openly campaigned for within the party. Whereas I sought fiscal autonomist principles, coupled with a new sense of policy independence from Westminster Tories; she offered the absolute opposite.

Am I the only Murdo fan tonight who can see that this puts people like me in an impossible position?

Thus I come to do it: a future under Murdo, and reform is gone. The party majority wanted a continuation of a 'stagnation' policy. Fine. But I on principle cannot remain apart of that wasteful non-vision. The time has come to irrevocably and permanently renounce my wish or desire to be in the 'Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party'.
For me, that party, led by Ruth, is the obstacle to the renewal of a genuinely appealing and popular Scottish centre-right. I thus will now undertake to stand neutral, and this blog will no longer be a 'Scottish Tory' blog.
Rather, it will be a Scottish Independent conservative blog ... if that isn't too much of a mouthful.

Regret? A little. But when I stop to think about it, I realise that there are a heck lot more of us 'Independent conservative' Scots, without a political home than were ever members of that dying party.

Closing 50% of Brent libraries? Welcome to the Big Society

2011-10-31T22:28:00.001Z

Half of a communities libraries are closing, and the economy is nearing double-dip. Childhood absolute poverty is on the rise, and incomes across the field are suffering a real terms cut. But don't worry, Cammie et al have reintroduced the British Empire medal.
.
Six of the London Boroughs libraries are closing, and thousands have as a result signed petitions to lobby Jeremy Hunt into intervening to put a stop to it.
12,000 signatures have been gathered on a petition, and delivered to Hunts offices - with numerous school children all coming along.
.
You know what I always say? Judge a society by the state of its priorities. We will fork out for wars around the Arab world; proudly playing lil-empire again. We can fish out money for aircraft carriers destined not to ever see a single RAF jet. Then of course we can pay for all the jobless our daft economic strategy relegates to the welfare cues. But please God don't ask our coalition to fish money to maintain our ailing libraries network!
.
Can I ask my readers out there, where are the priorities?
.
Half of a London boroughs libraries are closing. But not only this basic principle; where everyone should have equal access to reading material (good for education you know) - it is more ethical than even that.
Did you know the borough in question has among the worst levels of child poverty?
.
Yep, in one of the poorest hit areas of London, Brent, in the North-West, they are shutting down the libraries.
.
According to the Observer, more than 11,000 children in Brent are classified as officially living in 'poverty'. That is, absolute poverty. That means going hungry, or cold, or without properly fitting shoes.
.
Starting to get the picture? Feeling my outrage too?
.
The March 11th Observer headline read:

'Thousands of Brent children in severe poverty'

Yet they are closing a vital public service. Possibly a central tool in a land of deprived kids. The question is, what will Jeremy Cunt ... sorry, Hunt will do. Want my wager? Feck all, unless the headlines get too bad. All these basket cases really give a shit about is their poll ratings after their euro-kicking.

Priories. This what it comes down to. Pure and simple. Want to talk about EU membership?! What?! When 11,000 kids in one part of North-Western London are starving, cold and absolute in their poverty? And now it seems without books?
And my political friends wonder why I've left the Conservative & Unionist Party.

Maybe they should look in that mirror and decide what they are voting for, supporting and campaigning for. And what price-tag this 'Big Society' will come with for the next generation.

Tory addictions

2011-10-28T00:44:00.000+01:00

The Guardian columnist Martin Kettle points out that the Tory addiction could cost the centre-right the next General Election.

A question of 'in touch'

Knock on your neighbours door. Not now, this is an incredibly anti-social hour! But talk to them at some point, next opportunity. And when you do, let the conversation drift onto current affairs. When it does, I would put money on the truth being that their No1 priority is not a referendum on European Union membership.

The number of children in absolute poverty is rising, shockingly. Inflation is topping 5% (RPI measure), and the cost of living is pushing many households into a time of very real domestic austerity. Unemployment, especially for my age group, means the young face long term unemployment. Want to talk about Europe? No.

Essentially this is Martin Kettles case in the article. He would be right, frankly Europe is a Tory rightwingers obsession which is at best irrelevant to the lives the majority of normal subjects of Her Majesty faces. At worst, it is wilful ignorance of their plight.

So when one hears Tory Euro-rebels bash on about 'what their constituents want', maybe they might start to talk about the pace and scale of British austerity, rather than in-or-out referendums? Wouldn't that be more receptive on the doorsteps of hard pressed voters?

But the Euro-Rebels have shown a worrying sign for the future. Yes they lost in this case, but they may be emboldened in the longer term. Face facts, when you are a Tory MP in the position of, say Jacob Reese-Mogg; you don't care about talking of poverty. Why? Because he has to face a fellow Tory for selection to what will replace his constituency, when the boundary changes are implemented.
And that is the story for a handful of Tory 2010 intakers. So these new boys on the block will be preoccupied with one thing - 'How to secure selection by the grass roots?'. Answer? Bleat on about Europe.

So I'd certainly agree that the Euro-problems are a harbinger of what is to come. There will be a handful of Tory MPs interested in one thing, being as grass-roots nutter rightwing as they can. They will thus constantly flame the Euro-fire for the Tories facing the next General Election.
This Euro-nonsense of 'in or out' won't go away, because these out of touch backwoodsmen won't let it go away. They personally can't afford to.

And recent events teach us that a self-interested politician when threatened with eviction from the Big Brother House (sorry, Westminster) will go to nearly any lengths to protect their own interests.

Europe, more than any issue, will lose the Tories the next General Election to either another hung parliament or a Labour majority. That means one thing - disaster for Britain.

Huffing & Puffing

2011-10-25T22:12:00.000+01:00

The cohorts of the Tory fringe-right stood up; asserting that they would blow our House down. So they huffed, and they puffed, and still our House remains standing. What can we learn from the Tory Euro-rebellion?

The rebellion is over, and we now know that 82 Tory MPs rebelled against their party whip - just under half of them. It represents the biggest challenge to the coalition to date, and the end of any credit Cameron et al have with their Tory backwoodsmen. What what can we actually learn from the Great Euro Rebellion? And more importantly, is it anything we didn't already know or deduce for ourselves?

Polly Toynebee has produced a formidably accurate and powerful analysis in this area today. In her Guardian column, Toynebee argued that no - in fact it confirms rather than reveals information.

"This Tory rebellion tells us nothing we didn't already know"

Personally I'd entirely agree with this conclusion. Not least as it is common knowledge that today, Tory MPs are selected primarily for their europhobia by their grassroots organisations.
So, when we see 50 of the newly arrived Tory MPs rebelling only 18 months into their own party being in power; it should come to may as no surprise at all.

Gone, sadly, are the days when the Tories had Ken Clarkes and Michael Hesseltines fighting against the europhobic canker. They stood bravely, and lost.

And of course 80% of the press are firmly eurosceptic, pushing myths and lies by the truckloads. Size of bananas, jelly shape, bell ringing, they exist by the sickening buckets load on the pages of the scaremongering press spreads.

Never mind, it seems, that barely 7% of our primary government legislation actually derives from the EU; they are governing us we are told. The Murdoch media empire firmly fans the flames of europhobia with their concurrent lies and untruths.

We also heard the usual concofany about the chance to be 'like Norway'.

Why on earth would we wish that upon ourselves?! Norway sits outwit the EU, and has to effectively 'pay for access'. They have a higher uptake rate on European Union legislation than we do now, they don't get to sit in on the meetings and summits where these rules are drawn up. Not only that, they have to pay money just for the privilege of being in the free trade area.
Naturally, we heard some sane voices, even from the Tory rank and file on this point. They Tory MP for North Dorset, Robert Walter who spoke beautifully about the Pro-EU vision and ideal. He moved many, and won praise from all sides of the House. Yet even he was shouted at, and derided by the swivel-eyed Europhobics. They foamed at the mouth, but the far-right backwoodsmen were sent packing.

Then there is the issue of the referendum. We are told that most people "want one". But then, you show me a time when the electorate ever said they didn't want one? Surely an e-petition where 100,000 peeps happened to click 'agree' on is a pathetic way to front the debate?
Thatcher, and Atlee had it right when they called referenda the instrument of dictators and despots.

But if we must have them, let the state fund both sides fairly and equally - and as Toynbee explains - exlude private funding like Ashcrofts from skewing the debate.

Let me conclude, again with Ms Toynbee.

"This is a fine distraction from the real cause of our worsening economic crisis, this governments extreme austerity choking demand."

What in five years?

2011-10-24T00:29:00.000+01:00

Scots separation is against the momentum of our time, and it goes against the mood music of our European generation.

The headline is bold, attention-grabbing, "In five years' time, the Union will be no more". The heart flutters in the beating chest of the nationalist reader; it stops in the Unionist. Fear, optimism, uncertainty, disbelief. Has it really come to this, one is almost compelled to mutter allowed. Then sober consideration, thought, and ironic chuckle. Just another piece of well written speculative journalism.

These where all what first went through my mind before reading his piece. All in one instant, one fleeting flicker of a second. Then I read it.

Mood music

McKennas' case is heavily dependent on the dual thrusts of, firstly, SNP preparation. Second, of momentum.

Well on the first point of his case; prophetic vision of doom of this, United Kingdom is exaggerated. Does the SNP have superior resources in place, than the Unionist parties? On the initial face of it, perhaps. You have a Labour leader in Ed Miliband who can't be bothered learning the names of his northern candidates. You have a Scots Tory Party eagerly debating whether or not to dissolve their own London-link. Then you have the Liberal Democrats, who are still recovering from an electoral hammering from last Holyrood.

One must admit that it, on the face of it, does not look bright. Then we investigate further. Opinion polls consistently show a clear Scots voter preference for devolution-max. Then there is the reality that the Unionist parties south of the border have already begun discussions concerning creating a united front. Preparations are already taking place in the Unionist ranks too.

As for the second point, momentum, it is hard to deny the SNP have momentum. And I am not going to. Yet, let us realise something else, the Scots vote for an SNP majority last Holyrood does not translate into a Scots vote for separation. Far from it, only the complacent and arrogant among the separatist ranks would presume that it does.
The SNP have control over the political landscape up here in Scotland, granted. But on the critical question of support to tare up this United Kingdom - they still fail to show a tangibly consistent support outwit their core 1/3.

A preferred solution

Scotland is subsidising England. This is true. Scotland is increasingly ignored by London, this is the popular feeling. So what is our solution? To tare up a union more successful than even the Habsburgs? Of course not, it is to seek a compromise.

Scotland wants, and has a right to, significantly greater controls over its own resources and its own tax desires. The Scots people clearly want an end to this abject status-quo, this no-mans' land of Calman.

Full fiscal autonomy, or even more - outright devolution-max.

On the first option (my own preference), it would see Scotland gain its own fiscal freedoms. It would be capable of taking loans in its own right. It would gain control over domestic tax and spending. But there would still be monetary union with England, and a common bonds system at the UK level. This is as I understand this proposal.

The other, Devo-Max goes even further. It would see full fiscal freedoms (as per fiscal autonomy), but it would also see Scots bonds, and a Scottish seat at the UK monetary policy committee. It would see oil revenues secured in its entirety by Scotland, with only a modest Scots contribution to the UK government paying for its share of foreign and defence policy.

Surely either of these solutions makes more sense than separation? The Europe of tomorrow is supranational, it is overcoming the question of borders and lines on the map. So why, oh why do we wish to create a border at Gretna green? Scots separation is against the momentum of our time, and it goes against the mood music of our European generation.

If we must face down the SNP, let us Unionists thus articulate the positive case for either fiscal autonomy or devo-max. One thing is sure, the status quo is no longer tenable.

A question of referendums

2011-10-22T10:24:00.001+01:00

Who would have thought it?, all this economic crisis going on and all some people want to talk about is holding plebiscites.

The Conservative Party wants to talk about Europe. Yep, this seems to be the backbenchers of the Tory Party's biggest priority. Not the eurozone crisis, not the SNP threat to the Union, not apparently our stagnating economy. Nope, it is back to the future with the Tories 1995 style.

Anyone care to join me in a little reminisce?

We have a Tory government (okay, LibDems too), in power and drowning in scandal. We have a major question vis-a-vis the future direction of the EU. We have a Tory Party falling out over Europe. Am I the only one who thinks this is absurd?

Fact 1 folks: much of this Tory Euroscepticism is frankly English. What I mean is, Euroscepticism has become a major sign of English national identity. Scotland, Wales have all rediscovered their own identities in recent times, but England seems to be struggling to do likewise. But Euroscepticism is a very English impulse. It corresponds to the historic English antipathy to do with anything 'continental'. It is thus uniquely placed as a political topic to represent and function as a bridge-head for a modern form of English nationalism.

Fact 2: Europe is a certainty. The European Ideal has become a force of nature in our domestic political lives, and one that ought be welcomed. Workers rights? Thank the EU social acquis for pushing governments hard. Power over global conglomerates? Thank the EU for providing the transnational policy mechanisms for regulating (effectively) these capitalist functionaries. One could go on, but my point is made. Europe, and our postwar ideal is progressive, it is desirable and it is a fact of political life. Live with it, and try to reform it, not pretend it can be dumped.

Fact 3. A waste of time. Why is a proposed referendum on in our out of the EU even an issue? We have surely bigger issues to fry? Eurozone crisis anyone? Hello, millions of worried voters calling their MPs... is there intelligent life on planet Westminster?...

Just a couple of issues I really (really) wanted to get off my chest this grey Glasgow morning.

North-South divide grows

2011-10-20T12:52:00.002+01:00

New data is showing that Scots are still dying earlier than the English, is it time to examine more than just lifestyle?
.
Anyone remember Jack McConnell unravelling his strategy to get Scots kids to change an increasingly unhealthy lifestyle? His campaign consisted of television adverts about healthy living, and billboard posters. Did it work? Predictably no. These types of 'healthy living' media strategies invariably don't.
.
If we take a gander at recent figures, its shows that the UK has a worsening north-south divide. According to a Scotsman report on the subject,
.
"Statistics released by the Office for National Statistics and the Register General for Scotland disclosed that children born in the south of England statistically have a longer life ahead of them than those brought up in Scotland or the north of England."
.
Thus all the years of media awareness has had little to no impact at all. After all it is a sad thing that I can now type that the life expectancy gap between a Scot and an Englishman has grown wider - not smaller.
.
Is it time therefore to focus on other options?
.
A new strategy
.
What is required is a new strategy, where media awareness campaigns continues, but in a complimentary function rather than a vanguard function.
That is to say, the primary thrust comes from education reform. It really is all about education you know.
.
If a kid grows up in a sink estate eating nothing but fish and chips is it a surprise that a mere media awareness campaign doesn't have any impact? What is required is offering help to parents on cookery, and healthy living - while getting kids more active at schools.
.
So, let us see more time spent on PSE (physical and social education). Accompanied with real government support programs for parents around the country; especially the more deprived communities. The state needs to be more active in supporting the hardest pressed families to make the most of what they have, not simply lecturing them to eat more fruit via a billboard poster!
.
So what does this mean in terms of the political parties?
.
The SNP have pledged to increase the time spent in schools participating in PSE, which is good. However there remains little in the way of a concerted and nationwide push on learning and support for families.
.
A soft policy & social learning based paradigm can be much much more effective than conditionality policies and media awareness offensives. Though naturally every aspect of policy type has its own role to play, we just need a new policy emphasis.

Lets talk defence

2011-10-19T15:01:00.002+01:00

Sir Richard Dannatt has published an article in the Scotsman saying that 'building an army from scratch is near impossible' for an independent Scotland

Scaremongering isn't helpful

Dannatt has come out to tell us Scots that fielding our own military would be "difficult, verging on completely impossible". But isn't this a rather reckless, and generalising statement?

First things first, the type of armed force a nation would field depends on the international role it would seek to play. Thus, an Independent Scotland could, easily, field a coherent defence policy if its international role was to align to a neutralist foreign policy. One free from NATO, and free from foreign interventions. Or, an Independent Scotland would still construct a coherent defence picture, and still seek to play a role via NATO (if it so chose). If we think about it, the basic defence infrastructure is already here, and would still be here if we became independent.

A vote for independence wouldn't see a retreating English army bulldosing the airbases built in the North East. Nor would it see the eradication of all the Royal Navy port infrastructure either. My point is, even without the physical presence of the British Army, an independent Scotland could have access to their defence footprint they leave behind; in the form of airbases, naval infrastructure and so forth. Indeed, the only 'difficult' part about defence policy for an independent Scotland would be around the issue already mentioned, of what type of foreign policy we wish to pursue. A more neutralist one would demand a much much smaller navy, army and airforce. That said, one still keeping Scotland signed up to NATO would demand one capable of participating in limited foreign operations. But even in this scenario, Scotland's defence requirements would hardly be "verging on the impossible". Last time I checked, Estonia, Romania et al all managed successfully to participate in NATO without having to see their domestic budges being swallowed up by enormous defence spending.

Positive Unionism is

That all said, we Unionists must still ensure we are able to reject the Nationalist call for separation. And let us be frank, the way to do it isn't to pretend that Scotland would be at the mercy of some foreign Atilla if we don't have the merciful protection of an English-dominated army!

Instead let us highlight that the SNP haven't actually made up their mind as to what type of post independence army they would like to see. We have their Right Hon Admiral Angus, their Defence Spokesperson (based at Westminster...) arguing that an independent Scotland would keep their aircraft carrier contracts. But why? Salmond tells us that his movement would never sign up to NATO, so why have such an aggressive military weapon such as aircraft carriers?

Such questions, the SNP are unable to answer. This is not because Scotland can't fund its own defences (we can, and theoretically could), but because they Nats realise it won't go down well in their heartlands that their vision wouldn't require such high defence presence around Scotland.
The SNP seek a neutralist, almost isolationist approach, echoes of Scandinavia, in their vision for defence in the post Independence scenario. But what they hide is the fact that this choice means death for the defence spending-dependent communities around Scotland.

Thus let us Unionists highlight the real flaws in the SNP arguments around defence, and not talk down our Scottish capacities. Because the fact remains, we Scots can afford to defend ourselves post independence if we so choose. The result however would mean devastation for many communities around the land needing the higher-level spending that a British state undertakes to lavish on defence.

Lets face it: the SNP vision for defence in an Independent Scotland simply doesn't require UK-level defence spending. And Admiral Angus knows it.

Independence and economic trust

2011-10-16T23:55:00.001+01:00

The Independent on Sunday has revealed some fascinating polling statistics, which convinces me of the relevance of a direct link between public trust in Unionist parties economic credibility, and support for separation

IoS poll

Before explaining my pet theory, here are the raw polling numbers:

Q: UK POLL: Scotland should be an Independent country, do you agree?
Yes - 39% (+6)
No - 38% (-4)

Q: Scotland-only: Scotland should be an Independent country, do you agree?
Yes - 49% (+11)
No - 37% (-9)

Q: I trust David Cameron & George Osborne to make the right decisions about the economy:
Agree - 30% (-1)
Disagree - 49% (-1)

Q: I trust Ed Miliband & Ed Balls to make the right decisions about the economy:
Agree - 18% (-)
Disagree - 55% (+1)

First up, on Qs 1 & 2, its changes since May, and on the last two questions, changes since August. That said, its also worth noting that the answers for economic trust are UK wide numbers (and could well vary from region to region). That all said, can we say, suggest maybe only, that there is a tangible link between the percentage trust in the main two Unionist parties economic abilities; and the percentage support for independence?

Perhaps it is reading too much into these numbers, but there could well be a link to be had. If it is the case, then it is clear that the upsurge in Scottish (and UK, wide) support for Scottish separation is primarily motivated by economic concerns.

1. Scottish voters don't trust the coalition with their economic future. So, they turn to the SNP suggestion of either devo-max or outright independence.
2. You have English & Welsh voters, who continue to (wrongly) belief that Scotland is somehow 'subsidised' by them; so they too support Scots independence
3. Neither the Labour or Tory front benches are able to convince Scots voters to trust them on the economy, so it pushes them lock, stop & barrel into the SNP

It isn't all that unbelievable is it? And if it is the case, the SNP and the cybernats out there tonight will be whooping with churlish delight at the lack of support for Lab & Tory economic strategies (such as there is two, that is).

Where does that leave the Unionists? Well, in dire straights. The evidence suggests that the best way to save the Union is to convince Scots that Westminster-led cuts are desirable for them and their economic future. May I be blunt? FAT CHANCE.

A split in the Scots centre-right is inevitable

2011-10-14T12:26:00.001+01:00

Such are the differences between the Murdo camp and the Ruth Davidson camp, that no matter who wins; there is a good chance that there will be two centre-right parties after Nov 4th
.
Murdo Camp
.
I am unashamedly a fan of Mr Murdo Fraser. He has long been at the vanguard of the Scots Tory pro-devolution. In this campaign he has came out for a maximum devolution stance. Furthermore, he thinks that if it is to survive, a new centre-Right party must advocate the prudent and responsible use of the taxation powers coming Holyrood's way in the current Scotland Bill. To date, Murdo has gained strong support from most of the Holyrood MSPs in the party.

To be frank, Murdo is saying that devolution is the only game in town for Unionists now. And he is seeking to create a truly Scottish centre-right party; able to be unionist within the new devolutionary politics. As Alan Cochrane summed up, Murdo is saying that the party must "either adapt or die", and this does seem the reality to me.

Ruth Davidson

It would not be unfair to label Ruth as the 'Westminster' and 'Heirarchy' candidate. She is standing on an unashamedly pro-status quo ticket. She is arguing that what is needed is not a new brand, a new centre-right movement, and a more pro-devolution stance; just better campaign tactics.

Can I be frank and polite? Well here goes ... IT HAS ALL BEEN TRIED BEFORE! And it has never worked out. In fact, Ruth's recipe seems to be to carry on, much as before. No amount of internal reorganisations and improved campaign styles can compensate from the main central failures in the Scots right of centre movement:

1. Its still fundamentally anti-devolution (Which is totally daft)
2. It remains run from Westminster (currently, Goldie has only authority over MSPs...)
3. Its in hoc to the hierarchies and little factions within the structure of the 'Scots Tory' Party

Only a year-zeroing can enable us truly conservative, and right of centre Scots voters and campaigners to role back the social-democratic tide in Scotland.

This all said however, the divisions between the two camps remain too large a gulf to overcome; post election. No matter who wins, the pro-devolutionists in the movement will no longer allow ourselves to be held back by regressive anti-devolutionist mentalities. Nor will be squander the opportunity to make the Scots centre-right the pro-fiscal autonomy party. Either way, there is likely to be two political parties on the centre-right in the coming elections...

Rising unemployment, falling demand - still no Plan B

2011-10-12T19:21:00.002+01:00

For the doubters, Scots can afford Full Fiscal Autonomy[1]

Unemployment figures are up in the UK, reaching a 17 year high. But with the coalition now well settled in power, can we really believe the Tory blame game?
.
Rising unemployment & falling demand
.
When you are faced with falling demand in an economy, a rise in unemployment ought to come as no surprise. But what would the most sensible economic plan be to restore a more desirable state of affairs?

Well, if we ask the Tory led coalition, we will rapidly find their solution; as they call it; is to cut public spending. Yep, at a time of anaemic growth figures, and an absence of bank lending; these twits seek to cut the only able spender in town. And that is exactly what the state represents at times like this - the only institution capable of borrowing and spending the necessary sums required to uphold demand in the wider economy.
Lets make this simple, so even the 'Conservatives' can understand it. If we have falling consumer spending on the high street, and the private sector isn't growing fast enough to mop up the sackings in the public sector; what is the solution? A) ignore it, and pray to the Gods of 'the market' to save us, B) SLOW DOWN REDUCTIONS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR? Hmm ... what do we all think?

Yes, even I must admit, the answer is pretty bleeding obvious. There must be a shift from high-octane spending reductions in the public sector, and a move toward slowing the pace down. After all, I'd sooner have a worker with spending power in a public sector job than sitting on the job seeker. Let us not forget that if we pay a public sector worker wages, they return that money via consumer spending and taxation!

However we all still exist in a dark netherworld where there is simply no Plan B at Westminster. With the absence of Full Fiscal Autonomy here at home in Scotland, one feels rather like one lives in the surrealist world of Marebito.

Well ... there is clearly only one solution, campaign for full fiscal autonomy for Holyrood - so we don't ever have to suffer the idiosyncratic attitudes of the so-called 'Conservatives'.

-----
[1] Figures from Argyll News

Demanding demand, the key to growth

2011-10-09T14:29:00.001+01:00

'Tory Cuts' can be said to be undermining demand in the real economy

While our Prime Minister urges all of us to get more positive about the economy, surely he's missed the vital flagstones undermining our growth?

1. Demand

The first flagstone under which our economy is stagnating; risking a Japanese-style "lost decade" is demand. Or more specifically, the absence of it.

Growth risks being washed away if demand falls in the wider economy. And we have seen over the last nine months an effective washing-away of the economic growth hitherto so seen on the home front.
Yet, what could be the explanations for this stagnation? The Prime Minister, and the Conservative Party says its all down to global circumstances, like the eurozone debt crisis. (Ironically, they protested in opposition that UK growth back then wasn't subject to the prevailing global circumstances!). And being fair, it is indeed fair to say that instability in core UK export markets, like the eurozone, is contributing to the loss of growth in our economy. Everyone with a fair mind concedes this point. Yet, it doesn't vindicate the Tories at all, indeed, it does the opposite.

Who retains borrowing and spending power during tough times? Answer: the state. Thus, when consumers stop spending, banks slow down lending and firms stop investing in new projects - it falls to the state to artificially maintain demand across the swathes of the economy.
The Tory-led government has apparently failed to realise this. Their aggressive cuts agenda has acted to remove the state-function of maintaining demand in the wider economy. The net-result has been a decline in growth prospects, as domestic markets are rocked by the prevailing global instability.

But don't worry, Cammie et al tells us all that all we need is to be positive... "always look on the bright side of life" (okay, maybe Cameron didn't say that, but he may as well have).

2. Tax simplification

The next flagstone is the existence of a highly complicated tax code. It is a simple economic fact that the more complicated a tax code, the less competitive an economy becomes. And currently, the UK has one of the longest tax codes in the entire world.

What has the Tory-led government done about this? Precious little in concrete policy terms. While one is duty-bound to welcome the implementation of the 'one in one out' rule for new regulations; it doesn't go far enough. All this policy has done is to maintain the current status quo, and not add more problems to it. It isn't a policy agenda for aggressively reforming an uncompetitive UK tax code. In fact it has done the opposite, it has led to the Tory-led government sitting on its tax-code laurels.

3. Tax competitiveness

The Eire enjoys a corporation tax of 12.5%. Northern Ireland is likely to soon have the same rate, once tax varying powers are devolved. Maybe even Scotland could adopt similar low rates of business tax, if fiscal autonomy becomes a reality (and it might, if the SNP hold a multi-option plebiscite). But the Tory-led government in London, England, insists on corporation tax rates well over 20%. Even by the end of this parliament, Osborne will have cut the corporation tax rate down from 24% to 20%.

It is simple stuff to understand that the more competitive, and low, your business rates are, the more global business you will locate into the UK. But the current government has failed to heed this message, and thus does nothing.

To this blogger, these seem like the key three flagstones. Until this 'Conservative' led government actually moves on these economic fronts; with rigour and radicalism; we shall see perhaps double-dip economic recession. Maybe even a British lost decade, following in Japan's example. This isn't tolerable or acceptable. It is time for this government to either adopt new economic strategies, or simply get out of the way of those who will.

Seeking A New-Right

2011-10-08T15:54:00.001+01:00

It has come to my attention that the mainstream 'Conservative' movement in Scotland, and the wider UK is no longer fit for purpose. It is time for those of us of a truly conservative disposition to seek A New-Right
.
Ethics and structures
.
When one heard our Prime Minister speak to the 'party faithful' at the Manchester conference, it occurred to me that he was not conservative. Pushing beyond particular policies, and issues, that one may instinctively 'feel' to be 'conservative'; lets talk guiding (and over arching) political philosophy.

Cameron, and the Conservative mainstream talk often about 'liberating' the 'individual' from the oppressive hands of an often overweening 'state'. Yet, by the very nature of this outlook they cannot describe themselves as philosophically 'conservative' (notice, the small 'c' there).
After all, to my understanding, a real conservative digs their foundation-thoughts on the grid and mortar of Aristotelian ethical structures. This demands a belief in the teleological structure regarding the role of man in society. To break that down for you all, the Aristotelian teleological structure contends that mankind has a 'common' version of how to lead 'the good life'. The 'good life' being the best way to lead a life, to fulfil the fullest potential, and to be capable of contributing at a humans peak ability.

Thus it follows this simple three stage process:

1. Man as he is >>>>> 2. Virtues (by which one lives ones life) >>>>> 3. Man as he could be

Simple? Well agree or disagree, this basic teleological structure is the true base of the truly conservative mind. Why? Because rests in direct opposition to 'enlightenment' thinking, which attempts to lob off the third box' and pretend that we can all fulfil our own version of 'the good life'.

And if one compares what Mr Cameron and the Tories call for, they can see that they are inherently the product of the enlightenment thinkers! These so-called conservatives call for the small state, of laissez-faire practices and of the absolute integrity of the free market. Are they so stupid as to not realise that these 'values' are the product of liberal thinkers seeking to free the individual from the Aristotelian teleological structure?!

Mills and Hume sought to role back the state and develop free markets in a (totally flawed) attempt to enable the state to become a neutral arbiter between individuals; all seeking to lead their own vision of that 'good life'.

So one can quickly see, if not fully understand perhaps, that the modern day Conservative Party isn't bound to Christian ethical traditions (as Christianity pursues an Aristotelian teleological structure). Nor indeed can it claim to seek to 'conserve' a traditional outlook, as it simply echoes centuries of liberal thought.

Put simply, the modern day 'Conservative Party' is as much a product of the enlightenment thinking as socialism, communism, liberalism or social democracy (the list goes on). It cannot be conservative, it doesn't display the basic ethical structural prerequisite conditions.
.
A crisis of modernity
.
People often talk today of there being a distinct malaise in our modern life. That we are treated to cynical manipulation by politicians, and there is no sense of community. These people would be totally and 100% correct.
We do live in a world of manipulation, and cynical PR activities by professional 'representatives (who they represent in parliament is anyone's guess!). Why? The enlightenment falsehood that we can all pursue our own individual vision of our very own assumed 'good life'. What it leads to is the extremism of individualism which has destroyed our common community spirit, values and ethics. Cameron can keep his pathetic 'Big Society', what we need is a wholesale rethinking of how we view the individual within our wider society!

The 'Big Society' is little more than a recipe for Thatcherism with a miniaturised 'social awareness' stapled on the side. All that can lead to is the rampant, valueless, community-destroying outcomes so obvious in the 1980s. It, and the party propagating that vision, cannot but only add to our peculiarly modern malaise.

What we need is to rethink our ethics and structures, and if we do so, we can quickly realise that the modern day 'Conservative' movement in the UK is nothing of the sort. It is a pathetic, empty, vessel of failed enlightenment notions of the individual in society.

It is time for us all to seek A New-Right. One built on truly conservative philosophical foundations - Aristotelian ethical foundations.

No rest for the baby-boomers

2011-10-05T09:03:00.000+01:00

Nick Hurd, Coalition minister, has called for baby-boomer's to work for charity (i.e. nothing) when they retire after a lifetime of work ...

We all support volunteerism. Indeed it is a valued and vital aspect in the maintenance of a strong 'third sector'. It is admirable, it is noble and it is in the finest traditions of our Christian ethics.

Personally, I can't picture an old 66 year old wandering into Marie Curie and explaining as his rationale for volunteering 'Nick Hurd told me I ought to'. So when I hear junior Tory minister Nick Hurd telling the baby-boomer's that they really ought to volunteer instead of playing golf, I tend to scoff at the twerp.

Yet, it doesn't just reveal his tendency to whistle in the wind, it also reveals a worrying disconnect at the top of the Tory Party. Mr Nick Hurd clearly believes that the legions of the retired stop work, and play golf. So secure and well provided are they, that they have the time to volunteer, and work for nothing. Am I the only one seeing this nonsense? Last time I checked, my old Grandfather was still working, and he is 77!

What time does he have to work for nothing in volunteerism? What kind of financial security does he have that he can spend days playing golf at St. Andrews?

The long and short of it is that he, and millions like him simply don't. But the very fact that the Tories seem to think that he, and the millions like him can afford to work for nothing after retirement reveals their own disconnect about how the other half lives.

Nick Hurd's speech was aimed at the upper-middle class 'little Englander' brigade of the Tory home-counties. They may have the financial security to retire to the golf-course; but the millions of retirees desperately need that second job. Anyone checked the state pension lately? I bet little Nick Hurd, MP, couldn't afford to live on that, volunteer, and not need that retirement (paid) job!

Saying one thing, and doing the opposite: Tory Conference 2011

2011-10-03T11:25:00.001+01:00

Osborne tells Conference that "solving the eurozone crisis" is his biggest priority, yet Tory MEPs vote against or abstain on the key votes in the EU parliament aimed at giving solution. Is this yet another example of a Party saying one thing, and doing the exact opposite? And if so, why?
.

Serious about the euro-crisis, so he talks about council tax freezes...

The Chancellor has made it his mission this conference to convince us all that saving the eurozone, so vital to our own economic well-being, is his priority. That he takes it seriously, and the term 'europragmatist' has even been coined at this conference; in an attempt to distance him from the absurdities of the Eurosceptics.
But, unfortunately for the over 500m citizens living directly in the single currency, Osborne and his Tory compatriots are not walking the walk.

It is revealing that the Tory MEPs have voted against the FTT and have abstained on key votes which will enhance the Euro Stability Fund. Not only that, but Cameron has come out saying he'd oppose eurobonds for Euro-area member-states; despite the absurdities of the status quo.
After all, how can we have a single currency and single monetary policy yet have every single eurozone member trapse to the bond markets separately?

But don't worry, Osborne tells us that "We're all in this together". Yeh, all the way to a EU-wide default, a Japan-style lost decade and the end of the geopolitical stability the European Ideal has given birth to.

Am I the only one getting really hacked off by this party leadership saying one thing, and typically doing the opposite?

Well hung, with few surprises

2011-10-02T09:13:00.001+01:00

There is no reason for a Tory swagger, nor a Labour smugness as we enter the final stages of the conference season
.
Fairness and policy
.
Banking profits are up 136%[1] since the financial crisis began. The richest 10% are doing fine, with the top 1% shooting up.[2] All the while living standards have fallen 7%[3].

Also in the trends, women are increasingly leaving work, and returning to the home. Something which isn't surprising if one considers the costs involved in childcare.

So these are the immediate issues in the 'fairness' dynamic that both major parties have attempted to address in conference season. The Tories solution is to increase the 'right to buy' discount (England & Wales only), but with the caveat that a new home is build for every one sold. Then there is Labour, who ignored policy altogether, even the self-serving gifts to their own grassroots. Red Ed gave us a lecture on 'good' business and 'bad' business...this from a man whose first 15 years of working life can be summed up in one sentence, 'Labour Party employee'...

So, frankly, neither party is really offering anything substantial. Tory, busy revitalising a policy which will keep their rightwing happy (and helps keep the coalition going). Labour, a utopian speech which is totally light on actual policy content. Does either one give you a shot in the arm? Does either one make you believe that these fairness questions will be turned around? No? Well ... that makes two of us then.

---
References:

[1] Time Magazine, Sept 27th 2011
[2] Guardian Newspaper, Poly Tonybee, 01/10/11
[3] ibid

München mag Dich: my time at the Oktoberfest

2011-09-29T19:45:00.002+01:00

Me (middle), with dad and elder bro

"Munich welcomes you", claimed the city's motto, and by golly the citizens of Freistaat Bayern really do. Makes me want to be a German frankly, awesome people.
.
Well, as promised, an account of my trip to Bavaria's October festival. Where to start?
.
For openers, it was a four day trip, organised between myself, my old man and my elder brother. We went for the drink ... and well ... some of us enjoyed it all the way to A&E (but I'll come back to that one!)
.
A brief list of the breweries & beers who enjoyed my own custom over the four days:
.

Augustiner
Dunkler
Paulanier
Helles (from Augustiner)
Berliner Weisse
Dunkler Bock
Weizenbier (not really to my taste, 'weizen' means 'wheat' and 'weisse' means 'white' .. and I don't tend to like white beers)

Ones I either didn't get the chance to try (or don't remember drinking) include such great names as:

Eisbock (A Pale beer)
Marzen (another pale one, malty so one I really missed not getting my taste buds into)
Rauchbier (usually dark, and smoky, so another one I really missed not getting a chance to try)

But all in all, a successful trip. We didn't just drink, myself and my daddiekins went to Dachau. A real trip down memory lane for him, as dad had been there before when my age. It was important for me too, given it gave the opportunity to contextualise what one reads about; but with the benefit of actually touching the mortar and crematoria.

The only questionable moments when in Dachau arose firstly, with the bus driver taking us there. He seemed to find his comment "its happy hour" thoroughly funny. Then there was that American who decided to eat a packed lunch beside the mass-grave and gas chamber.

...apart from that ... it was an important day well spent.

We proceeded to enjoy beers later that day in the Marienplatz, and eating some famous Snitzel. Watching the men in their lederhosen and Bundhosen (the longer version), I realised that Bavaria was excellent. And the women in their own national outfit (sorry, I am unsure what their national costume is called) ... well ... as tasty as the beers frankly.

All in all, very good. Managed a little too much drinking however on the third day, when I drank so much over the course of the morning through afternoon that by 1035pm I was hospitalised. Not proud of that, but all 22 year olds are entirely entitled to a moment of madness. And I don't apologise.

Needless to say, 4 days wasn't enough. But, I shall surely return eventually. Before a revisit however is a need to visit Austria. There is something dominating and frankly magnificent inherent in Germanic culture. Bold, vivid, patriotic and so very welcoming. Bavarians really are thoroughly lovely folks.

EU financial tax is sound and workable

2011-09-28T23:13:00.002+01:00

The Coalition has sprung to the rhetoric of splendid isolationism as the EU commission proposes a new tax on financial transactions. But is this just another example of rancid Eurosceptics ideology coming before the interests of the European citizenry?
.
Facing the facts
.
When the EU Commission proposed the new tax on financial transactions, the howl of puerile and misplaced patriotism came up from what Claude Reins would call, "the usual suspects".

Up popped our typically foreseeable list of 'close advisers' or 'friends' to the Prime Minister; leaking the 'news' that our PM will 'fight this all the way'. Apparently he means this so much that he leaks it out, rather than say it in front of a camera. (Preserving deniability perhaps?)

Well...Claude Reins in Casablanca, did realise the error of his ways, and switched tac near the end...

Let me hit you with some facts. Fact one, the argument being put up by the bankers, that this is unaffordable, is nonsense. Since the financial crash (that they helped engineer remember), their profits are up 136%. Then in comes the second argument they've been deploying. They say that "times are tough". Yes, they are, but when their lending is down 9%, and their profits are up 136% ... who is to blame for this hardship? Families struggling to secure that short-term loan to hold over till the next pay-check arrives... or the budding entrepreneur needing liquidity to create a new source of employment. They all need the bankers to stop paying out bonuses to themselves, at lend that 136% profit.

So, baring this in mind, is it really all that 'absurd' for the EU Commission to try and introduce a new tax which will make them do what they are too greedy to do voluntarily?

I stand up proudly for this proposal. It is affordable, and it is morally right. It is right to ensure that Euro-governance seeks to secure the right contribution from the bankers. The citizens of Europe expect government to do more to ensure that they do contribute to our General Well-being. Surely it is time for the mechanisms of power to work in the interest of the many, to provide a secure and stable Euro-environment for all?
.
Up comes the howl
.
What does it matter to us if there is a stable economic environment for us, in the EU? Well, given that 40% of all UK exports head to the EU right now (that is more than all our trade with BRIC countries combined by the way), it makes perfect logical and rational sense. If Osborne really meant "we're all in this together", I hope he is capable of applying this same logic on a more global scale. Sadly, not. Osborne, like much of the typical legion of the Tory right is incapable of seeing anything outside of our own borders as mattering.

Oh, and lets not forget that that UK export growth is all that is stopping the Coalition Cuts from decimating off what little growth we still have!

Stand by the EU Commission on this one folks, it is rational and logical. Besides, it is a matter of equity & justice. You don't want to listen to the bankers do you?

Tory leadership

2011-09-23T11:17:00.000+01:00

With the closing date for nominations looming, it is time to analyse the three currently declared, in field, and focus on why this blog supports Murdo Fraser for leadership

Ruth Davidson MSP, Glasgow

Ruth Davidson, Murdo Fraser and Jackson Carlaw - these are the three declared runners. But what to make of them? What is the pre-leadership election battle feel of them, and their positions?

Lets start with the newbie (if that is a fair way of introduction), Ruth Davidson. Personally, having met her on more than one occasion, I find her to be thoroughly charming. Clear, concise, young and also a 'moderniser'. She has a stronger record on supporting LGBT equality issues, and can fairly be described as a 'Cameronite'.

What does that latter phrase mean? 'Cameroniser'? Well, that can generally be taken as meaning 'metropolitain' Tory; as opposed to the traditional 'home counties' type. So, not necessarily a bad thing. However, for me, Ruth lacks something as she enters this campaign, namely a single policy which encapsulates the direction of change that she aims for.
And I do feel that symbolic policy is something important in a leadership campaign, as it more than anything pushes beyond the cheap and easy words and into the realm of actual policy divisions. In short, leading a direction of travel which won't necessarily win you support from all sides, but indicates your own flavour. As yet, I have seen no one policy which can be said, in perhaps overly PR mentality, to capture that said flavour of leadership direction.

Jackson Carlaw, MSP West Scot regional list

Next up is Jackson Carlaw. A man that I haven't ever met, which isn't surprising really - as he represents the rightwing of the party in this election battle.

A known Thatcherite quality, and long-term ambitious personality. He has however been recently burnt by the failure to take Eastwood in last years Holyrood GE. This indicates perhaps an inability to capture the votes from outside of our own core voters. The point is indeed a fair one - if he can't secure the independents, liberals etc in Eastwood, a relatively wealthy corner of Scotland; what chance is their of him achieving this on a national picture?

Personally, he is another unknown quality in terms of policy direction. To me, he is like Ruth in the sense that he is lacking that policy example which captures his direction of change; in the practical sense. He can however count on Glasgow Conservative voters of the west coast however, a slice of the Scottish Tory membership that Ruth Davidson will surely be trying hard to steal off of him. Besides, he is rancidly euro-sceptic, which means I would never contemplate voting for him ever.

Murdo Fraser, MSP for Mid-Scotland & Fife

Finally there is Murdo. Yes, I have already come out strongly for his leadership bid. Why?

Firstly, he is the only candidate who can clearly and unequivocally claim to have a bold reforming zeal. He as went into this leadership advocating the total shake-up of the status-quo of the internal party. Name, changing, logo changing, but more deeply this change is transcending into actual policy changes. He advocates fiscal autonomy for Scotland (he will need to clarify his position on whether this includes oil or not), he is taking an unashamedly pro-devolution platform. And may this pro-devolution Scottish Conservative welcome this refreshing change in air at the top of our party.
But more deeply still, he wants us Scottish Tories to actually run our own house. That is to say, he wishes us to be run from Edinburgh, rather than London as an independent party. Surely in the era of a separate, and diverse body politic in Scotland this is entirely sensible?

Murdo also meets in practical terms with my desire for a party in favour of family values, equality rights, fair taxation and a euro-friendly air in a strongly pro-devolutionary context. While I can't really count on the pro-eu part, the fact that he is meeting my own desire for the rest does make him my man for the leadership. Besides, he can count on the entire East-coast party members vote, which makes him incredibly hard to beat.

No one can honestly deny, he is also the only one of the candidates that has any name-face recognition! I'm going to put a poll up to reinforce this point, because I bet that a minority of my readers; who are all deeply political and well-read folk (naturally!) wouldn't know the other two candidates.

'Tories say' ... slander?

2011-09-21T21:01:00.001+01:00

Just a heads up on a new wordpress blog that has come up, one that I think should be pointed out.

http://torysay.wordpress.com/, is the address. Basically it proposes to accurately quote some of the things that young Scottish Conservatives say. Whether the alleged quotations on the site are accurate or slander remains to be seen; but it is home to some remarkable, absurd, and deeply worrying posts.

It should be highlighted, not least because if any of the quotations are untrue - they should be highlighted, and such slander subject to public prosecution against those involved in organising this site.

Party leaders as we enter conference season

2011-09-18T19:44:00.000+01:00

Cameron coming out the best as we enter the party conference season, according to latest polling statistics
.
Willing to take tough long term decisions
.
65% David Cameron
40% Ed Miliband
35% Nick Clegg
.
Competent and capable
.
54% David Cameron
39% Ed Miliband
33% Nick Clegg
.
Which party leader would make the best PM
.
54% David Cameron
34% Ed Miliband
12% Nick Clegg
.
'I am more favourably inclined to the leader, than the party'
.
David Cameron/Conservatives +3
Ed Miliband/Labour -26
Nick Clegg/LibDems -12
.
Which leader responded better to summer riots?
.
David Cameron 34%
Ed Miliband 14%
Nick Clegg 4%
.
'What comes into your mind as you think of:
.
David Cameron: 'Determined, Competent, Ruthless, Bull in a China shop
Ed Miliband: 'Out of his depth', 'Weird', 'Lucky', Boy doing a man's job
Nick Clegg: 'Weak, Calculating, Indecisive' Puppet
.
Despite all of these positive numbers, the same Telegraph poll shows that Cameron's Conservatives are continuing to fail to appeal to women, and Labour maintain a lead on education & health. These are significant problems long term for No10. to overcome.
.
For full information please click here.

Desperately sad news

2011-09-16T18:25:00.000+01:00

In what can only be concluded as constituting honestly sad news, the fourth; and last; lost miner has been confirmed dead. His body was recovered at the bottom of the main mine shaft 90m under the crust of the earth. Yet the families surely won't be on their own as the communities rally round

One is often reminded of George Orwell's 'Road to Wigan Peer' when confronted by situations like this. Back then, these kind of terrible accidents happened more often, and his commentary was a rude awakening to the comfortable middle-class socialists of the time. Yet, one of his more substantive points must be borne in mind at moments like this, that these mining communities are very close-knit. These families most assuredly will not be left on their own to confront the long days of grief ahead them.

The Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan also focused on this theme, saying, "I remember from my boyhood the odd tragic accident. But these are close-knit communities, and the families will have support".

It is all too often a tragic divine injustice; nonetheless; that the working class communities such as this one in South Wales have to suffer a disproportionate share of pain and suffering. Yet, it is in their "spirit of solidarity" - as Orwell put it, that these families can and will find some solace.

Nothing can replace the loved ones lost, but the mere fact that three escaped miners lended their hands to the rescue effort speaks volumes about our society. And I can tell you one thing - in South Wales tonight, it is far from broken. It is strong enough to rally round each other, and offer the very same comfort and support so true of these communities at the time of Road to Wigan Peer.

Naturally, it goes without saying, these communities enjoy my complete sympathies. As does the families directly involved.

One Dynamic Nation

2011-09-13T10:28:00.000+01:00

Cllr Meikle

Councillor David Meikle

Scottish Conservatives, Glasgow City Council

I am delighted Dean has invited me to write an article for this blog. I want to use this opportunity to introduce readers to a new organisation, albeit the campaign aims are anything but new, which I hope you can support.

I am actively involved with the setting up of a non-profit organisation called One Dynamic Nation which once established will campaign against Scotland leaving the United Kingdom and for the advancement of pro-Union affiliations. We aim to officially launch on 30 September.

As I said the campaign aims are not new but One Dynamic Nation is being established because we are concerned with the progress now being made towards independence for Scotland. In light of the recent Scottish Parliament election results we fear there is a very real danger of Scotland drifting towards a break-up of the Union.

From our point of view there is no coherent voice championing a preservation of the UK so we believe we must mount a positive campaign. There is no point waiting until the date of the referendum is announced. We believe we must start now and a people-powered, grassroots campaign is needed.

Already we have the backing of prominent businessmen, politicians and other high profile individuals, so we therefore hope you can support the campaign.

To give you some information, One Dynamic Nation will be based in Glasgow and managed by volunteers. However we aim to run a UK wide campaign. We will utilise the web, social media and traditional forms of campaigning such as a petition and opinion poll.

One Dynamic Nation will not be affiliated to any political party and will be open to anyone to support free of charge on the condition they agree with the campaign aims. There will also be the opportunity to join (membership fee applicable) and become actively involved with full voting rights. One Dynamic Nation will receive no public money and instead solicit donations and other forms of support such as volunteering from members of the public.

When we start our campaign our Mission Statement will be quite simple yet hugely important:

"We believe in the United Kingdom of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We believe each country within this union is unique and contributes its distinct cultural blend equally to our nation. We believe each part of this union brings strength, diversity and drive to the whole nation. We are One Dynamic Nation and we will campaign to save our Union.”

If you agree with this and you are interested in becoming actively involved then get in touch. You can contact One Dynamic Nation:

Email info@onedynamicnation.org.uk

Website www.onedynamicnation.org.uk (launches 30 September)

Facebook www.facebook.com/onedynamicnation
Twitter @1dynamicnation

Thank you for your support and we look forward to hearing from you

Abortion advice & counselling

2011-09-12T19:34:00.000+01:00

The Dorries amendment may have sparked off the abortion debate nationwide, but has the majority actually paused to consider her proposal?

Conflict or not conflict?

To understand Nadine Dorries position clearly, and fairly, let me put it in a simple question and answer format:

Q: Should abortion providers be able to give advice to women questioning whether or not to terminate?
A: No, this can be seen legitimately as a clear conflict of interest between the need for independent and neutral advice and the economic-ethical agenda of the providers.

Simple eh? Well, not, sadly. Since the amendment was proposed, hysteria erupted from the forces of the 'old consensus' on this issue. The old consensus consisting of the Diane Abbot 'right to choice' hardliners (that is, 24 weekers) and the liberal (metropolitan) Tories; of the Oliver Letwin school.
They oppose any change to the existing status quo vis-a-vis abortion. Even to the point of acknowledging this apparent conflict of interest, but refusing to alter it.

The rationale for their position is fear. Fear that the opponents of abortion are utilising 'American-Style' tactics. Perhaps there is a legitimacy in their fear, yet, regardless of it; they ought to consider an amendment purely on its individual merits.

Besides, doesn't the ethical code of Conservative traditionalists, anti-abortion Christian groups and evangelists have a right to be heard too? They do, it is essential to our Rousseaunian conceptualisation of popular sovereignty that they do. That aside, it isn't really the point of this amendment is it?

This amendment on the face of it purports to do something imminently sensible, and end a potentially devastating conflict of interest. (Devastating for the women going through this tough choice; remember them anyone?)

Thus, while acknowledging the wider abortion debate context, I shall support Dorries amendment, especially since on its own merits, as a purely technical matter - it is a sensible and important change. One set to ensure women exposed to making this choice are given entirely independent and impartial advice. The needs of these young women comes before all politico-ethical debates on the grander scale. Lest we be ensuring a tyranny of the majority by accident.

Palestinian statehood?

2011-09-10T12:54:00.000+01:00

President Abbas has made clear that as of 19th September, he will be applying for UN recognition of statehood. But will this provoke a harsh Israeli response?
.
Security Council vetoes
.
No doubt the Palestinians would find a positive, and even eager reception to their imminent request for statehood in the General Assembly. However it is another matter to get it through the Security Council.
.
On the one hand, the US has already said that it will veto any such proposal. Second, Israel has warned that the request may escalate 'violence' in the disputed territories. So what is to be gained for the Palestinian Authorities by making such a request?
.
According to President Abbas, the request would both secure greater international recognition for their claim to statehood, and also help push Israel into negotiating based on the original 1967 borders. He told the Independent recently that even lesser 'non-state' membership of the UN would be worthwhile attempting to get. Not least, Abbas says, that it would enable Palestinians to launch criminal cases against Israel at he International Criminal Courts;
.
"The Israelis continue attacking the Palestinians everywhere and the international community says don't go to the ICC... We don't want to go to the ICC for nothing. Tell the Israelis not to attack the Palestinians, and we will not go there"
.
But again, doesn't all of this run the risk of real escalation of tensions in the region? President Obama certainly thinks so, which is probably why he is insisting on vetoing any Palestinian request for UN membership.
.

Yet there is a part of me which suspects that this process may be just what is needed to compel both sides into real negotiations. The Israelis on the one hand, in order to prevent any eventual ICC proceedings against it, and the Palestinians, to finally secure their popular sovereignty.
.
And ultimately that is the root point of the matter - popular sovereignty. Call me a Rousseaunian if you like, but it cannot any longer be ignored by the International Community that the Palestinian general will is calling for self determination - free of Israel, Jordan and all other nations.
.
Can this move by Abbas finally put the rocket-boosters under the Israelis, and get real negotiations going? Will the move force the US to veto, despite a clear endorsement by the UN General Assembly?

Who knows, all that is certain is this: nothing is going to stop the Palestinian people & and their leadership from pursuing their objective of self determination. And at the end of the day, isn't that what the UN is there for? To listen and act on clear expressions of the popular sovereignty?

A new party for a new Scotland

2011-09-03T22:21:00.002+01:00

Murdo has my full support in his bid to create a new centre-right party by disbanding the current Scottish Conservative & Unionist one ... we need a Scottish centre-right alternative
.
"A New Party for a New Scotland"
.
Murdo Fraser is the favourite to succeed auntie bella, and he has long been known for his radical pro-devolution views. But supporting fiscal autonomy as a Scottish Tory is one thing, to seek to break the party off from the English Tories however ... that is decisively new. And it is something that I totally, 100% support. Go on Murdo!
.
Guess that is my views made plain then! But seriously, it is time to reconsider the party merger, a rather grubby hangover from the Heath era.
.

No name for the new party has been decided, but when he formally launches his leadership campaign in Edinburgh on Monday, Mr Fraser will unveil the slogan: “A new party for a new Scotland.” He said: “If I am elected as leader of the party, I will turn it into a new and stronger party for Scotland.

“A new party. A winning party with new supporters from all walks of life.

“A new belief in devolution. A new approach to policy-making. A new name.

“But, most importantly, a new positive message about the benefits of staying in and strengthening our United Kingdom. A new party. A new unionism. A new dawn.” But winding up in Scotland would raise significant questions over the party’s ability to remain committed to unionism with no arm north of the Border.

All I know is that our PM, the erstwhile Mr Cameron has said nothing, and doesn't seem to be bothered at the prospect at being the first (ever) PM not to have any Scottish seats.

... GO ON MURDO!

Harris and the Labour leadership contest

2011-08-23T21:32:00.001+01:00

'Scottish' Labour badly need to find a new leader capable of defining what their party is 'for', in a context where your average leftwing socialist and democrat seems to instinctively vote SNP

A dire field, a chaotic PLP

When the SNP not only smashed all opposition last May; but also the political system; questions were suddenly buzzing -- 'what does this mean for the Union?'. But to answer that question, the real focus needs to be on the health (or lack thereof) of the Labour movement in Scotland.

Ever since Heath and his assault on the 'red Clydeside', the vital unionist party in Scotland hasn't been the official 'Unionist' party led by successive Tory leaders. The real pillar in the unionist temple has been Labour. So long as they dominated Scotland by keeping the Tories out; the union was seen as safe and secure.
But with devolution they scored a disastrous own-goal. Motivated partly out of egoism, and a mistaken understanding of why Scots voted for them, the introduced Holyrood and the devolutionary agenda.

Since then, Scots realised they didn't know 'why' they voted for the Labour Party in many parts of the country. 'To keep the Tories out?', no, since devolution removed the danger of being dominated by a largely-English based Tory government. So why?

I believe that this is central to why the SNP have been gaining ground, not just on access to power, or in key voting demographics -- but on the separatist movement. It is because for the union to be healthy, we, ironically, need 'Scottish' Labour to be capable of keeping the SNP at bay on the left.

Enter Harris and the current Labour leadership contest. My key question is this: does Harris understand & realise all of this? If he wants to become the Labour leader who restored declining party fortunes he urgently needs to find a 'reason-for-being' for the Labour party within the new devolution politics. Put it simply, the old formula of 'vote for us to keep the Tories out' just doesn't cut ice anymore.

My central worry isn't just that he as a Westminster-parachute job... its that this means he won't 'get it'. His time spent in Westminster has presumably exposed him the to stupid and dangerous arrogance of the Scottish Westminster Labour bloc. They continue to be able to peddle the line 'keep the Tories out' (and in doing so, keep the threat of separatism at bay) -- since in a Westminster context this remains relevant. But will Harris realise that this isn't a Westminster context up here in Scotland's own devolutionary landscape? That is the multi-million dollar question waiting to be answered.

An abysmal field. At the final analysis Harris is the lead man in this contest. Who is he up against? Baker? Johann Lamont? Ken MacIntosh? The only name in that list that could even be considered plausable leadership material is MacIntosh ... but even then ... the phrase 'grasping at straws' does force itself to the foreground. What the unionist movement needs, ahead of Alex Salmonds fixed separatist plebicite is a strong, capable, electable, visionary Labour leader capable of realising the new political landscape of devolution.

Sadly for the erstwhile stagnating Labour movement (if not actively declining) I just don't see that figure. No one seems to be in command of that aura of historic providence...sad too from the unionist perspective...

Time to recognise the liberal delusions

2011-08-20T22:51:00.000+01:00

Someone lived above that shop ...

If the UK riots inform us of anything, it should be to see through the 'grandiose lie' inherent within liberal attempts to rewrite history
.
The public know better
.
The intellectual and political leaders of the left have really lost touch with the reality of our lives with the latest a-historical nonsense concerning the riots. In their words; the language of the leftist liberals; they are attempting to 'alter conciousness'. I however recognise this as 'shout until your grandiose 'truth' becomes the accepted one.

According to the leftist-liberals, what we saw during the riots was a bubbling over of the oppressed masses. There was the 'underclass' fighting back against the bankers bonuses, Westminster corruption and the oh-so-evil Conservative Party.

Apart from the sheer stupidity of such a position, it is frankly insulting to the intelligence of the many. Where do these liberals get off on ignoring the destruction of private property? Don't they care that the affected weren't bankers, politicians -- no the cars, shops and homes that were destroyed by the rioting scum were ordinary folks. Single mothers were forced onto the street, the police lost wholesale control of most of London. When will these leftists learn that sometimes, just sometimes, the public doesn't want nor is interested in their nonsensical pseudo-intellectual baloney about 'disenfranchised youth' etc?

To quote Janet Daly;
.
"The moral equivalence that they wanted to establish between looters and arsonists on the one hand, and the perpetrators of any other kind of bad behaviour you can think of on the other, was rooted in ideological, not theological, orthodoxy. The rioting gangs could not simply be what they seemed – what they so obviously were – because that would be a devastating victory for the judgment of popular opinion over the fantasies of liberalism"

Fuel Prices spiralling

2011-08-16T22:26:00.002+01:00

Burke taught that society is the natural state of nature, but what if corporatism and a lack of true market competition leads to ruthless exploitation; set to undermine such said state of nature?
.
Fuel and the cost of warmth
.
Warmth should be one of the most basic assets in a modern and developed 'post industrial society'. Whether it be pensioners having spent their lives as honest and upright Christians or young and hopeful newly weds ... the right to warmth is taken as a given. But we seem to be through the looking glass, as the price to stay warm in the evenings continues to rise. And rise well above what inflation might honestly require it to.

Npower, it seems, is going to rise prices by 16% (shocking). Now, given that this rise is well more than what inflation will otherwise dictate this year (or projected to, in the coming 4 years) - there is another motive here. Npower will almost certainly point to numerous reasons for this (from the cost of transmission losses to the cost of exchange rates); but nothing really satisfies me. To raise prices by 16% you need a damn good rationale for doing so! Not only will such a move place thousands into not relative but real fuel poverty; it rocks the stability of British society. When Cameron talks about fighting our 'Broken Society', he needs to realise that it takes more than tough criminal sentencing ... it needs justice. Real justice, like access to a warm house in the nights. Times are tough, and with rising consumer demand always comes the need to raise prices to stabilise demand. But government is here to preserve justice; and I put it that until injustices like this are sorted - our 'Big Society' will continue to be a pipe-dream.

Let us face it, Npower makes this price hike; the other companies in England & Wales will follow. This in itself is a damning indictment of the so-called free market for energy! Where is the price-competition? Nowhere, mark my words, as the other energy firms will play a game of 'follow the leader'.

What we need is either a genuine free-market for energy where there is real price competition, or state ownership of energy sector. Given that I regard the former as unachievable, one must support the latter.

All I know is this: a 'Big Society' needs more than strong law enforcement, it needs basic justice.

"The Whites have become black"

2011-08-13T16:38:00.002+01:00

Dr Starkey has never shirked away from the controversial, but his latest comments on a BBC Newsnight discussion do interest me
.
"Whites the new black"
.
It was always inevitable that following the spontaneous rioting across England, that we'd be faced with the academic aftermath. Countless 'experts' all chiming in with their own conceptualisational view aimed at giving answer to 'why?'
.
If one asks the police chiefs, one gets the uniformal answer, 'the youth doesn't fear the police' (love how we 'youth' are all treated as a singular homogeneous blob, rather than individuals). Yet if we ask academics like Starkey; we get more volatile (but sophisticated) explanations.
Dr Starkey has claimed that the 'chavs' behind the violence had been exposed to a nihilistic culture. One which has been more commonly associated with black gangster groups; "A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic, gangster culture has become the fashion."
.
Now agree or disagree with the choice of language, but this blogger does believe there is an element of truth in what the needlessly controversial Dr says. There is an underclass of wannabe gangsters, all youthful who seem to treat the Tottenham violence as a kind of 'shopping with violence' rather than wanton criminality.
.
Yes there are more dimensions to the explanation; like where were the parents. But the possibility that a legion of socially disenfranchised youth have been negatively influenced by the concept of glamorous gangster-culture (of the Grand Theft Auto variety) must surely be accepted.

Places to visit: 1. Loch Awe

2011-08-10T09:33:00.001+01:00

The shadow warrior, Sir William Wallace

I thought I'd post something non-political, so why not discuss places in bonnie Scotland I'd love to visit sometime?
.
1. Loch Awe
.
Ever been to Loch Awe? I haven't but it is one of the places in Scotland I really need to go and visit. As a place it is drenched in history, being the scene where William Wallace took on Edward Longshanks Irish mercenaries. A loch blessed with plenty to see, it has a mass of ruined castles. Shivering monuments to the old clan systems. Or if that isn't your bag (it is certainly mine), there is the famous Loch Awe trout fishing (I also like fishing).

Plenty of paintings and art work is associated with the loch history like the Shadow Warrior; keeping guard as he fought for Scots freedom. You will all probably recognise it from somewhere, its reasonably well known. In the painting, the legendary Sir William Wallace sits, the shadow figure, contemplating tactics above the Pass of Brander, loch Awe.

So there is bags of Scottish cultural heritage which draws me to the place. Has anyone been? If so perhaps that is something you can comment about, I'd be interested to hear.

But anyway, going to the loch will have to wait, maybe till next year, as this September myself, my brother and the old man are off to the Munich Beer festival (that's another thing I happen to like doing).

People Power?

2011-08-09T18:30:00.000+01:00

E-petitions. To be hailed as a key platform in empowering he electorate.The Prime Minister has said that "any petition with a million signatories will allow members of the public to table a bill that could be debated & voted on by MPs". People power, right?

No. Check out the website, and you will find it is clumsily put together, poorly designed in the extreme and hardly an upgrade of the previous Labour one. Almost as quickly as this e-petition site was launched, we could check and see the usual topics taking the lead. From chucking out the immigrants to the restoration of hanging, the e-petition website has become a tool, a kind of bridgehead for the mad, bad and dangerous in our society. While I may support the notion of capital punishment holding a place in our society (Mills, Hagel supported it), the problem isn't always the topic being driven by such petition-systems; its the medium and those utilising it as a resource.

E-petition models aren't encouraging the great unwashed to engage in our democratic life and institutions; rather it is popularising hysteria. Anyone remember the e-petition calling for Gordon Brown to be replaced as PM by Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkson? That one got over 50,000 signatories. Do we really wish to compel parliament to debate and vote on tripe like that? I'd hope not, but with tools like this one that Cameron has launched, every crank can get his voice heard.

Catherine Bennett of the Observer wrote on Sunday that the e-petitions website "reads like a sociopaths blueprint for utopia" She isn't far off.

Some may argue that the e-petitions website is really a tool for engaging the many in the political life of the nation; but they are wrong. The world represented on the e-petitions site is one where there would be no speed limits, precious few foreigners and plenty of regular public hangings. Pustulatingly dark.

Let me try and show you the kind of nutters who are likely to use such a service as this.

The Sun years back when Rebecca Brooks was in charge managed to muster 1.5 million signatories demanding that "ALL social workers go to work on the baby P case". These are the kinds of people you are empowering with schemes like this one ... clearly thought up in some think tank somewhere. The single mothers, the poor white inner city kids, these folk won't be sitting for hours on the internet carefully crafting electronic petitions. They are too busy getting by on subsistence wages and working to feed their kids to spent their time on sites like this one!

If we really want to get these types of people more engaged, why not get the parties to debate the value or not of guaranteed incomes...or invest time and effort in rejuvenation of the abandoned Glasgow housing estates.

Tory dissent

2011-08-08T09:40:00.002+01:00

London riots, growth being downgraded and now real dissent within the parliamentary Conservative party (PCP)
.
Ideological struggle
.
All of us will have our own reasons for disliking the coalition. Whether it be the failure to cut the tax burden, or the lack of a 'growth' strategy for our economy. But as a moderate Conservative, I can tell you I find the injection of LibDem influence into Tory politics fascinating and thoroughly worthwhile.

Take an example, at the coming party conference a bunch of young turk Tories from the 2010 intake will be proposing their own 'true' Tory manifesto. All of them are backbenchers, almost all of them are under 40 years old & they are easily described as 'Thatcherite'.
Are we finally seeing a return of Conservative ideological backbiting? The historic Tory left against the fanaticism of the Thatcherite 'new right'? I certainly hope so.

Sound disloyal? That is probably because it is. Yet the PCP badly needs a little bit of disloyalty.

If the likes of Priti Patel, Kwasi Kwarteng et al all push the coalition for more distinctly 'Thatcherite' policies of the new right; then this shall have the beneficial (if unintended) result of drawing out more Tory moderates. After all, I get the real impression that the majority of the Conservative Party are really more moderate in policy and ideology than they let on to their constituency nutters...

I will make no bones about it, this clash between left and right within the Tory Party has been coming ever since Cameron took the leadership. He has spent his time in charge avoiding philosophical discourse, clamping down on anything 'old hat' and pushing down a PR-driven path.

Now the party can finally discuss where and in what direction it wishes to go down. Cameron may wish us Tories to go more leftwing, but everything he has done has been to appease the nutter right within the party. Let us have the likes of Patel et al come at us; and let us dismiss their Thatcherite nonsense in open debate. Only then can we go forward.

To Big top Fail?

2011-08-06T09:37:00.001+01:00

With the downgrading of US credit, has the concept of 'too big to fail' finally been exhausted?
.
If we live in any era, today it is the era of irresponsibility. For the last 30 years an economic consensus has evolved which can best be summed up by New Labours 'iron chancellor'. Brown famously said, "no more boom and bust", and this best represents the mentality of a generation.

The idea that certain individuals, firms or even nation-states are 'too big to fail' with the prevailing economic climate was clearly a widely held belief. When Brown said those famous lines, 'no more boom and bust', clearly the idea was that the land of plenty had arrived - all thanks to big business et al.

Naturally the stupidity of that said mentality is blatant or all to see now.First there came Lehman Bros, then came the global economic crash. The millions earned through stock manipulations and dodgy loans came back to bite. All of those who made their millions, believing like Brown did, that the inevitable downturn would never arrive, failed. These money-men can best be represented by folk like Bernie Madoff.

Of course the chain in this line had been though to have accumulated with Greek, Irish, Portuguese insolvency problems. But today it has taken yet another turn. The USA, the so-called 'leader of the free world' has lost its AAA credit rating.

When even the USA isn't viewed by the markets as 100% reliable; hasn't the time arrived when we must question the logic of 'too big to fail'?

EU still moving too slowly

2011-08-04T17:41:00.004+01:00

Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has called for member-states to speed up their ratification procedures of the new bailout model. While he is right to do so, doesn't this raise questions about where we wish our new Europe to go?
.
Complications post-Lisbon
.
All of you know that I am a passionate Europeanist, federalist and idealist for our Continent; yet only a fool would seek to pretend there are no problems inside the European Union. Yes, there is the debt crisis (perhaps more accurately crises), yes there is the issue of a lame-duck French President (for Sarkozy will assuredly lose power), and then yes, there is the issue of the rise of a pretty rancidly euro-sceptic British leadership. But all of these problems that the Union is lurching from, like a sick and drunken wretch, are symptoms of a more fundamental malaise.

Surely the time has come for all of us to ask fundamental and searching questions about ourselves and what we desire from Europe. I'll place a bet that what we all wish is continued peace (from the historic threat of European war), economic growth, commerce and prosperity. (Duh). But now comes the hard part. Especially for those who have spent many twilight hours hating the whole ideal of a united Europe.

If it is preventing future financial crises, then its a more integrated Europe we need. If it is to prevent the return of the dark days of petty tariff and protectionism, then it is a more integrated Europe. At the crux of all of our current problems rests the defining issue of my generation of young adults. Do we accept that the 'nation-state' isn't the all-powerful chess-piece in global politics? And if so, are we prepared to undertake the reforms of EU institutions to provide us with a new (and more tangible) 'trident'; with which to influence and control the mega-firms which dominate our Brave New World?

I'd say at present no. No, we are not yet in a position where the general will of our society is ready or willing to accept the reforms. Yes, a majority of us Brits desire to remain inside the EU (because we realise supranational challenges requires supranational policy solutions) --- but at the same time, institute the changes to make the EU practical? No. That is still too radical, too far beyond the pale of our common preferences.

So back when we had the opportunity for a Constitutional Treaty, we backtracked and settled with Lisbon. And that watered-down train-wreck of a compromise-treaty has failed. It failed to equip the EU institutions with the powers necessary to prevent the EU-wide financial crisis. It failed to simplify the ratification procedures for major treaty changes.. and the result is here for all to see.
Barroso today basically pleading with member-states to speed up their ratifications so that the EU can finally exert its powers to solving the crisis flaming up in Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and maybe even France and Brussels (if things go much further).

Am I the only one to question this state of affairs? Why create and pay for our EU, our supranational institution if at the same time we fail to provide it with the means to carrying out the functions we desire it to?
.
Equally, there will assuredly be those of you whose solution is 'let the Babylonian EU crumble'. But please ignore such deranged rantings.

There is no going back to a time previous to European integration. And why would we wish that anyway?

The time has come to ask ourselves some searching questions: given that the general will in our society accepts the need for the EU ... can we finally as Brits take the final step and say lets hand Brussels the means to fulfilling their obligations? Please?

Guest Post: Andrew Philbin (Convenor of SNP students Stirling)

2011-07-30T10:48:00.000+01:00

As an avowed socialist I briefly considered launching straight into a fight between left and right. However, given that I’m sure there’ll be plenty time for such niggling arguments to come, I thought I’d kick off with something topical and slightly less adversarial.

The accusations, allegations and inquiries into the child abuse scandal by Church officials in Ireland have heaped even greater pressure on an already embattled Vatican. Yet from this low point there is a chance for both Ireland and the Roman Catholic Church to emerge stronger.

The Taoiseach’s stunning verbal assault on the Vatican represents an historic low for relations between the two and a humiliating dilemma for how the Vatican is to face up to sovereign powers and interact with a changing modern world.

Enda Kenny was speaking at the opening of a special sitting of the Dail to debate the findings of the Cloyne Inquiry into child sex abuse by Irish priests and its cover-up by officials higher up the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

The Taoiseach’s speech was aggressive, blunt and calculated. In it, he accused the Vatican of being a “dysfunctional, elite hierarchy…determined to frustrate investigations” and of adopting a “calculated withering position” to accusations of abuse and described the Church’s actions as the “polar opposite of radicalism, humility and compassion the Roman Catholic Church was founded upon.”

Such a public humiliation has been a long time coming for the Vatican. All the more so that such an attack has come from a Catholic Head of State, from a nation not only generally perceived as a friend of the Church, but as one of the bastions of Catholicism worldwide. Indeed, the arrogance of the Holy See in its dealings with Ireland over this and its embattled attitude towards change and criticism brings stark and unwelcome comparisons to the Reformation and the Church’s failure to recognise its own shortcomings, highlighted and emphasised not by its detractors, but by its own adherents and supporters.

Yet for as much as Enda Kenny deserves much praise for such a brave stance, it is difficult not to wonder whether his hand was already dealt for him on the matter. Certainly events over the past year have not been kind on the Irish Republic; the economic crisis took them from being the “Celtic Tiger”, the envy of Europe to the impoverished beggar, left broken and gratefully accepting the EU’s condescending charity. Irish pride has been left stained and its people humiliated by the actions of its politicians and it was from this maelstrom of pain and anger that Kenny found himself catapulted into office. There can be no doubt that the Taoiseach recognises the very raw emotions which demanded change and brought his party to power and knows his electorate will stand for nothing less than for him to come out fighting in any confrontation. Kenny cannot allow Ireland to be perceived as submissive to the world at large, and after expressing his intentions over the bailout, the Church has unwittingly and naively intercepted the full brunt of Enda Kenny’s political mandate.

Yet it would be wrong to only congratulate Kenny for understanding his electorate, nor to only attack the Vatican’s foreign policy. Kenny deserves credit not only for having the audacity to call the church up on its shortcomings, but also for ensuring the focus of the debate does not deviate from the reality of the atrocity that has occurred. In his speech Kenny left no room for ambiguity and clearly defined the crimes of the church as the rape, physical and mental torture of some of Ireland’s most vulnerable by its most trusted and revered.

Yet from such dark times, both Ireland and the Vatican can emerge stronger. For Ireland and its PM, the time has now come for actions at least equal to its leader’s powerful rhetoric. Having so fundamentally denounced the church, the time has now come for Kenny to pursue justice for the victims by trying and prosecuting not only those guilty of rape and torture, but of those higher officials in the Irish Catholic Church who permitted the continuation of such awful crimes. Failure to do so would make him into just the latest talking head to badly let down the Irish people.

For the church, progress and salvation are harder to find, but perhaps now is finally the time for the Vatican to practice what it has long preached; the Roman Catholic Church should profess its sincerest apologies for its actions and plead meekly and humbly for forgiveness from its congregation. Internally, the work needed is clear; the time for acceptance of crimes such as the rape and torture of vulnerable children must stop. Those found guilty must be defrocked and handed over to the secular authorities immediately. For sure, there is more action and reformation that must happen if the church is learn and grow, and perhaps even survive, from this scandal. The scale and direction of those changes is at the discretion of those within the Vatican however.

How to lose friends and alienate people -messaging call-me-Dave

2011-07-24T13:35:00.001+01:00

The economic threat posed by the eurozone collapse provides room for sobering thought. The debt contagion to financial markets would, no doubt, stretch market elasticity to breaking point. And spell heart-break for the millions of Europeans (ourselves especially) as they are pulled under the liquidity waterline. Yet in the mist of all this, team-Cameron seeks to place ideological sycophancy before national and European self-interest
.
Mood Music
.
Yesterdays Financial Times (July 23) had a column by Political editor George Parker, one which demands a patriotic response from a sober-in-thought Europeanist. Among the (fascinating) discourse offered by Mr Parker, he questions why Cameron has been getting "cold feet" over his "EU Stance". Apparently the suggestions in his item runs along the lines that Cameron should 'Carry On Regardless' pushing his agenda.

An agenda characterised earlier this week with the strange mood music from call-me-Dave's office, pledging (cast iron, no doubt) to "use any treaty change" to promote the eurosceptic-rights' ideological agenda.

Now, far be it for me, a loyal Scottish Conservative of long standing service to offer up a dissenting opinion to our glorious leader!Yet I; surely; am not alone in finding myself a trifle astonished by the foolishness of the coalitions mood music? To strive to "use" the crisis is astonishing enough disregard for the potential consequences for millions of people who would be affected. But to then row back on the said mood music - captured in the Telegraph's 'Waterloo' cartoon - after having stirred up a hornets nest on the Tory rabid-right... Well that is simply a staggering example of incompetent political manoeuvring.