Skip to main content

Scotland 'no' is too negative.

I am in two minds about Scotland's Independence from the UK. On the one hand I can understand why they would wish to break free from Westminster. The politics of Scotland is a far different landscape than that represented in London - they don't get the governments they vote for. They have been out of sorts with the Tory party for some time. Independence from Westminster is attractive - a fresh start, a new politics shaping their own destiny. There are a lot of good reasons to say 'yes' to  independence. But I would like them to say 'no'. I would like Scotland to stay part of the United Kingdom and my reason is simple. It is because I believe that as part of the United Kingdom Scotland can help us change the geopolitics of the country and of Westminster. It is a somewhat selfish reason - I want Scotland to stay and help prevent continuous Tory-led government from Westminster. Also I am proud of the Scottish contribution to our culture.

The problem with the 'No' vote campaign in Scotland's referendum is that it has been far too negative. Simply telling the voters what they would 'lose' with Independence isn't going to work. Better to tell them what is gained by Scotland moving forward in the Union. It would also be better to tell the Scots how we feel which is that on the whole we don't want to lose them. We must say if you stay we will change.

When we talk about devolution and change in the distribution of political power, our politicians rarely address the problems of England.  But England needs a solution too. In one sense England is over-represented in Westminster but in many other ways it is poorly represented. Britain needs a new political settlement and whether the Scottish people vote to stay in or out of the UK it is time we considered the shape of that reform. We cannot simply go on as before. The Scotland referendum should be a starting point to major political reform for the United Kingdom.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …