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

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic,  particularly in reducing stress.  But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved?   We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so?  New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.  Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain.  It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits.  Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being .  So far, so good.  We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy.  We kno