Insidious legislation

ScotsSubrosa posts on what she terms an insidious piece of legislation which is being imposed by the Scottish Parliament. Whereas previously any event to which the public were admitted and where entry was free required no licence, now the Scottish government's Criminal Justice and Licencing (Scotland) Act 2010 - which comes into force on 1 April requires a licence for any event, be it free or paid admittance.

In England another piece of insidious legislation is the Workplace Parking Levy (England) Regulations 2009 which came into force on 1 October 2009. Much was made by the Coalition about the intended actions of some councils to impose them, with the BBC reporting that a spokesman for Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said they should look at other kinds of charges instead. One would have thought that if Pickles found such a charge invidious then why not revoke the legislation - yet as late as December 2011 the Department of Transport published a document in which it is stated:

"Local Authorities will now have to ensure business interests are properly considered as part of any future proposed Workplace Parking Levy scheme. They must show they have properly and effectively consulted local businesses, have addressed any proper concerns raised and secured support from the local business community."

What both these examples of insidious legislation show is that the sooner the public learn about the benefits of direct democracy and 'referism', the better their lives, the greater their freedom. Sadly for the people of the UK, loss of sovereignty and the resultant loss of freedom seem not to be a cause for concern, yet that is what is happening to us under our system of representative democracy - aka, elected dictatorship or democratised dictatorship (either term is correct). What Salmond is imposing on Scotland is exactly what Cameron is imposing on the remainder of the UK because, unfettered by the people's disinterest in what is being done in their name, that is what men do: seek and usurp power - and once power is gained, it is never relinquished without much bloodshed.


Just saying.......................

Hannan still doesn't 'get it'!

Daniel Hannan in his latest Telegraph blogpost writes on the question of the Scottish referendum in which he promotes what he considers 'localism'. One sentence immediately stands out and this is where Hannan writes that: "Our disputes are political – often fabricated by politicians" to which one has to ask what disputes have not been fabricated by politicians, be that international or domestic? As to Hannan then maintaining that those disputes can be solved politically - has he not learnt that old adage that when in a hole one stops digging?


Daniel Hannan (together with Douglas Carswell) is 'big' on direct democracy, in fact they have written quite a few pamphlets on the subject, whilst also publishing their 'tome', one entitled "The Plan". Unfortunately these two politicians disprove the theory that if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Nowhere in "The Plan" is there any mention of the possible reduction of the number of MPs through adoption of direct democracy and the whole tome is basically to bring about a return to the status of 'pre-1972', with a few crumbs thrown to the electorate, while leaving MPs 'in charge'. Incidentally the comment from 'Salmondnet' (surely not Alex in disguise?) shows he has no idea of what direct democracy means - and his comment is probably indicative of the general intellectual level of the majority of commenters on the Daily Telegraph - but I digress.....

What this entire question of independence - and any referendum - for Scotland boils down to is a battle between two politicians; one attempting to increase his own personal power base and the other attempting to ensure there is no decrease in his own personal power base. While these two potential despots play their games there is only one loser - the people of the United Kingdom.

That all politicians are but careerists can but bring forth the cry of Henry II who (paraphrasing) asked who will rid us of these turbulent priests who require but one thing - total control of those they are meant to serve?

The 'Guardian' of political rule

An editorial in the Guardian caught my eye in which they raise the point that the move by Alex Salmond for Scottish independence, if successful, may well cause Wales and Northern Ireland to seek the same conditions - a point already raised days ago on this blog.  That the editorial does not expand on the idea suggested is, I suppospposing e, only to be expected when considering the Guardian is part of the MSM. What, for example, would be the numbers of representatives in this Federal upper house?


The editorial's suggestion is based on a continuance of 'representative democracy', a system that is surely passed its "sell-by date". The fact the editorial does not even attempt to question what other systems of democracy are available, ones which might break the yoke of 'democratised dictatorship' under which we are presently 'enslaved', is indicative of the relationship twixt politicians and the media, thus giving the impression that both politicians and media are indeed 'all in it together' in order to maintain the status quo. That the positions adopted by Alex Salmond and David Cameron in this argument are those purely to cement their own personal ability to exercise their hands on the levers of power dictatorship is one that would appear to have escaped the attention of the MSM.


That there is an alternative system of democracy available, one which would halve the number of MPs, disband both MSPs in Scotland and AMs in Wales, while returning power to those that matter, namely the people, is not even hinted at. After all, are not we supposed to be cutting our deficit? Should not all ways to accomplish that not be considered? Silly question really, I suppose.

Alex, you can't be serious!

Alex Salmond, writing in the Independent on the subject of Scottish independence:

".......we no longer risk the prospect of politicians trampling on the democratic will of the people..."

Considering recent history, that statement has to be one of the most inaccurate ever made. 

From ill-thought out ideas for electoral gain......

......flows problem after problem after problem.

When Tony Blair, in the 1997 general election promised devolution to Scotland and Wales, it was without doubt done to gain electoral advantage and, it could be argued being the advocate of EU membership that he was, it also allowed him to further the division of the United Kingdom as a nation thus fulfilling the aims of the EU where the creation of 'regions' was concerned.

With devolution all Blair did was to fan the flames, especially in Scotland, of independence from 'Westminster' - a policy which, in common with most policies drawn up by politicians, was not 'thought through'. This failure could be said to be part of the process by which politicians perpetuate their own requirement to exist in the first place, one that allows them to continue on the basis there is a need for them to 'correct' their past errors.

Any fool with only one brain cell could have foreseen that the situation we now have with what one may call the 'Scottish Problem', would arise.  It was also obvious that it would result in the present position wherein we now have the political elite flying round in the manner of the proverbial 'blue-arsed' fly attempting to maintain the 'status quo' - aka the continuance of 'central rule' encapsulated in which is their own individual power.

It has been noted that Alex Salmond may well include a third 'option' in his required referendum, one which would permit Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom, on certain conditions as yet not specified (to my knowledge). The fact that this entire 'devolution' question could have been resolved far easier - and more amicably - by means of the introduction of Direct Democracy across the United Kingdom is becoming more and more undeniable. That our politicians did not consider this is obvious as the old phrase comes to mind, namely do turkeys vote for Christmas - in other words, would politicians vote for their own demise where the exercise of power is concerned?

When will politicians learn not to open a 'Pandora's Box' without realising what it contains? A rhetorical question as whilst politicians are allowed to continue with their 'elected dictatorship' - aka representative democracy - that realisation will never dawn. It is with a view to changing the status quo, to stir debate on the type of democracy under which we wish to live, that the site talkconstitution.net has been created wherein an attempt to resolve the problems caused through continual political usurpation of power by politicians is being discussed.

If, like me, you consider this question of democracy - and the ramifications thereof - to be one of importance, then do please get over there, register and get involved!

It is, after all, the future of us all that is up for discussion.