It is freedom that counts ...
The recent elections which ended up providing the Scottish National Party with a majority of seats in Scotland indicates a dissatisfaction with the mismanagement and general disconnect of the Labour party in Scotland and even more so the almost complete lack of relevance of the Conservative party.
One of the unfortunate outcomes of a poorly planned devolution for Scotland as well as Northern Ireland and Wales, has been a general disappointment on the part of the electorate. This has arisen from the fact that devolution has not resulted in a more effective or relevant reflection of the preferences of the people but simply a tighter control over local power by poltiical parties. Devolution is supposed to be about devolving authority to the people. Political party machines have prevented this by seeing devolution as a means of concentrating their regional power. 
Tam |
Under this devolutionary model, Scottish MPs helped force through legislation onto the population of England, which the English did not want; a clear example of the corruption which arises from party interests. An outstanding Scottish politician, Tam Dalyell, raised this unfair possibility almost 30 years ago. No political party addressed his ethical and moral question with appropriate seriousness so the issue was never resolved. Indeed, if Members of Parliament acutally represented their constituencies rather than remain enslaved and intellectually shackled by their political parties it is unimaginable that they would have participated in such a cynical abuse of power. At least the SNP moved to not participate in such corruption at Westminster. Angus MacNeil MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, tabled a motion in the House of Commons calling for Scottish MPs only to vote on matters effecting Scotland.
There is no doubt that Scotland has produced in Sir Menzies Campbell and Alex Salmond two politicians who were consistent in their opposition to the Iraqi invasion based upon a comprehensive moral and ethical approach to humanity and which has now been preceived to represent more closely the will of the people and which the Westminster party cabal ignored at the time.
Stranger than fiction
The strange reflexes arising from the devolutionary mess have included people seeing the solution as the establishment of an English Parliament probably leading to a break up of the United Kingdom. It is paradoxical that the party who took a principled stand in favour of the interests of the English were the SNP by not voting on English issues. On the other hand the SNP are a political party who wish to see Scotland become a separate country once again. This turn of events is the predictable outcome of the mishandling of the interests of the people of Scotland by the Labour party. Devolution was seen as a means to create a Labour fiefdom out of Scotland and to weaken the SNP at the same time. A degree of bribery entered into the equation by the Chancellor topping up the Barnett formula allocations so as to channel funds through the Labour dominated Scottish Parliament. Indeed, the massive mismanagement and overspend on the Scottish Parliamentary building cost the Scottish taxpayers nothing, it was all paid for by the Barnett allocation. This mishandling of money clearly did not stop there and in the end the Labour party's behaviour proved to be too much. Bribery doesn't work especially when managed by incompetents. 
Gordon |
One of the few occasions Gordon Brown broke cover before becoming Prime Minister was exactly to warn that if the SNP headed for independence the Barnett money and the North Sea oil money could not both benefit Scotland. This was a misread by Gordon Brown, who like many politicians believed that the Scots sole purpose in reflecting on politics is to assess their potential monetary benefits. For Scotland and its people there are far more important issues at stake.
The Scottish Mafia?
The mishandling of the devolutionary structure focused attention on the disproportionate number of Scottish politicians in Westminster and, in particular in the Labour government. This has given rise to some talking in terms of a Scottish Mafia. But historically, the Labour party, as many seem to forget, was largely a Scottish project from the start so having more Scots is only a natural outcome of political evolution. On the other hand, it so happens that some of the most outstanding and able politicians who are not in the Labour party come from Scotland and they are not bent on corrupting the system but rather in cleaning it up. If one might venture a general opinion Campbell, MacNeil and Salmond don't transmit the impression that they are intellectually fettered by their political parties and they all tend to speak their minds. Dalyell was a rare breed, an independent member of the Labour party and largely shunned by the party as a result and this reflected badly upon the Labour party and not on Tam Dalyell.
The murky labyrinth
The success of the SNP seems to herald an interest in a drive towards independence for Scotland. This movement has risen on a tide of what is esentially bad behaviour of political parties throughout the United Kingdom, and including Scotland, who have placed, for too long, their own interests and power over those of the people. It is important to emphasise that political parties, contrary to Presdient Abraham Lincoln's belief, seemed to have learned the knack of discriminating against the interests of all of the people all of the time. There is of course a need to have faith in the character of those who represent a party. On this score the Liberal Democrats and the SNP are outstanding. But political parties are enormous labyrinths which speak in the name of "membership" but a core group use the platform, thus-gained, to follow their own instincts and interests in an attempt to gain, control and manipulate power. As parties appear to be likely to gain power more adhere to their ranks and the more difficult it is to control the party. The greater corruption of political parties comes from the influence of unelected party officials over elected members of parliament. This vector undermines freedom.
Tendencies towards political party corruption
In a sense the choice facing the people of Scotland seems to be between a continuation of the Union arrangement and a very poor devolutionary model or moving to a position of independence in the greater European Union. But these are not the only options, and this is fortunate since both are very unattractive. The current Union arrangement is well known but has been ruined by a half-baked structure fashioned to favour political parties. The European option for an independent Scotland has, however, more drawbacks than potential benefits. This is because Scotland will end up as a country in the ranks of those countries with populations less than that of Bulgaria's 7 million. This collection of countries who have absolutely no voting power and are gaining less, because of enlargement, in terms of hand-outs. The most serious aspect of being a small country in Europe has become apparent since the last two enlargements of the Union. This is the rampant corruption of their political parties as a direct result of cash diplomacy. This is manipulated by the larger European member states as well in some cases, non-European states. This is a significant and real threat to the individual freedom of the people of the country for political parties become even less prone to respond to the preferences of the electorate.
Judicial arbitrariness
Besides this fateful Balkanization of Scotland resulting from the corruption of political parties there is a far more serious issue. Again, this is something which has only become apparent during the last two hurried enlargements of the European Union. This is that now some 37% of European Court judges (European Court of Justice and European Court of the First Instance) are now from countries whose former regimes we typefied by a lack of judicial independence within those one-party states. Even although these countries now enjoy "member state" status their political instincts remain intact operating under parties which have been rebranded with words like "democratic" or "socialist". The European Legal system has become seriously flawed and increasingly prone to put out politically-biased decisions in the case of govermment as well as personal appeals. There is, in these courts, no concept of legal decisions being beyond a reasonable doubt. Juries are unheard of and decisions are taken on the basis of a majority vote of a small panel of judges. The balance of national origin of such panels is crucial but beyond the control of mere mortals.
Why, one has to ask, does Scotland wish to risk the freedom of the people of Scotland by casting the country's prospects adrift in a rudderless raft trying to negotiate its future development in such a corrupt swamp?
This is a statement of facts concerning the serious decadence of the political apects of the European Union. On the other hand, the European common or single market continues to bring benefits. People need to be wary of those politicians who are so keen to misrepresent the economic benefits as being the outcome of the political aspects of the European Union.
Fortunately we don't have to listen to the parties - there are more options
Fortunately the options open to the people of Scotland are not just the "more of the same" of the Unionists or a "starry vision of everlasting benefits" resulting from the "Naive Realists" such as the SNP, pushing for independence. There are other far more robust options which can underpin our freedom. But these depend upon the willingness of the people of Scotland to assess to what degree a more open relationship between the people, in all of the nations of the United Kingdom, and governance can dispel many of the distortions and corruption created by our own political parties. This is not a plea for people to abandon the options currently presented but more an appeal to plain common sense. We must review all of the options and not just swallow the two unappealing dietary options offered by the political parties whose main motivation is to safeguard their own limited interests. What is at stake here cannot be decided in terms of the relative benefits to specific political parties but rather the relative status of our individual freedom now and for future generations. Political parties simply cannot be relied upon to either understand or respect this imperative. We as a people need to take up the responsibility of ensuring that freedom is safeguarded by insisting that all options be reviewed and compared in an open and transparent manner.
|
|
|
|
