The United Kingdom

Benedict Brogan, Daily Telegraph op-ed piece for tomorrow, writes that Cameron won't save the Union by descending into the gutter - to which one has to respond that Brogan won't save journalism by following the same plan.


What we have here, as in so much that Brogan supposedly composes, is but another "Big-up-Cameron" piece and if this is the best that he can offer one can but suggest that he follows his own advice, namely indulging in lengthy periods of silence.


Does not each of the LibLabCon indulge in 'soft nationalism' - until such time as the choice has to be made twixt EU membership and that of their country? In respect of Scotland, 'soft nationalism' has been on the agenda since 1968 when Edward Heath raised the matter at the Conservative conference. Of course, had our politicians not indulged in what amounts to sectarianism coupled with their pursuit of power; had they adopted the principle of direct democracy, the problems of today, where Scotland is concerned and where Northern Ireland and Wales are also concerned, albeit to a lesser extent at present, none of the present problems regarding nationalism would exist.


On that last point I am reminded of a quotation by Benedict Anderson (this Benedict seemed to know what he wrote about) who said:

"I propose the following definition of the nation: it is an imagined political community-and imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign. It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.... Communities are to be distinguished, not by their falsity/genuineness, but by the style in which they are imagined.... Finally, [the nation] is imagined as a community, because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately, it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willing to die for such limited imaginings."

Did we, as a United Kingdom, not fight wars to preserve that Kingdom, that Nation? Is it not politicians that have, for their own purposes, attempted to create divisions that do not, in reality, exist? On a wider front, is it not politicians who for their own purposes have created the European Union and in so doing created divisions, through their policy of regionalisation, within each Member State?


Yes, we are English, or Scottish, or Welsh, or Northern Irish - we can, understandably, trumpet our individuality - but at the end of the day we are and can be a United Kingdom, one that could exist quite harmoniously under a system of direct democracy - whilst allowing each nation its own 'identity'.


Don't let politicians, for their own nefarious reasons, split our United Kingdom! Please?


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

Bite the bullet, politicians

John Curtice, the Independent, writes on the option of 'devo-max' where the Scotland is concerned:

"The cause of the controversy is "devolution max" – the idea that Scotland should become responsible for nearly all her own domestic affairs, but still be part of the UK, with defence and foreign affairs remaining the responsibility of Westminster. Such a step would represent a huge change to the current devolution settlement, with important ramifications for the rest of the UK. But it would keep the Union together – and the UK's nuclear weapons in the Clyde."

Were 'devo-max' to be granted it would have important consequences for the United Kingdom as it would not be long before Wales and Northern Ireland were clamouring for similar treatment. It is not illogical to believe that Cameron and the rest of the political elite will not agree to this for one reason; namely because it would dilute quite considerably their hold on power and also inflict a massive dent to their self-importance.

The question of Scotland's wish for a referendum seems to me to be a perfect opportunity for a discussion to be held about the current system of democracy. Needless to say, were such a discussion to be held it would be one between the political parties which we can rest assured will not feature any consultation with the people.

More democratised dictatorship...............

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.

Scottish Independence and other, related, questions

There seems to be a difference of opinion developing in that there are calls for only those in Scotland having a vote on the issue, against the argument that everyone in the United Kingdom should be able to vote.

A letter in today's Daily Telegraph sums up the dilemma succinctly:

"SIR – Some have suggested that everyone in the United Kingdom should have a vote on Scottish independence. I don’t fancy having to deal with a similar argument when we have had enough of the EU.

Brian Gilbert
Hampton, Middlesex"

What follows is purely conjecture, however were Scotland to vote for full independence and left the United Kingdom, what would the remainder of the present United Kingdom be called? It can't be given the name Britain as that is England, Scotland and Wales and it will be recalled the full name of the United Kingdom is United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


Also consider, if Scotland were to subsequently apply for membership of the European Union, it would have to accept the euro as its currency and would also be forced to accept membership of the Schengen area. Because of this - and I believe I am correct - it would then be necessary for England to set up external border and passport checks at the new frontier.


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

A personal Sunday post

A few years ago when I was on my first "Malt Cruise", we called at the isle of Iona, visiting the Abbey. In the shop the skipper of the boat I was on purchased a cd, purely on a whim and not having heard its contents. The cd was called "Legends" and featured Steve McDonald, of whom none in the party had heard.

From the album, two tracks, the first: "Far Away", from youtube; and the second, "The Narrow Line" which I am unable to find on youtube, can be accessed from the link below, player opening in pop-up window. The lyrics of the second are important for all of us........ (Don't let the 'intro' deter you, please)

The Narrow Line