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 ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

When Finance Drives Destruction

Tackling climate change means stopping the funding of rainforest destruction, says a significant study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund.  The UK's financial services have provided directly over £8.7 billion to 167 different traders, processors, and buyers of forest-risk commodities (cocoa, rubber, timber, soy, beef, palm oil, pulp & paper) from 2013 to 2021.   With direct and indirect investment,  the figure rises to a staggering £200 bn.  Whilst not all that investment is in destructive projects,  the study concludes there is little transparency on the risk.  Finance is the oil in the economic machine.  But it also drives decisions. We all know the importance of money. We borrow to invest. So much depends on it, such as company pensions.  Do we really know what our pension pots are doing? We invest for the future. But what kind of future? Is all investment good?  Much investment is bad. Investment drives the nature of our economy. It drives our decisions as individuals,