The Labour Party must Privatise.

The Labour Party is a good political party. To most people they promise social justice, fairness, and offer aspirations to the poor and unfortunate to rise up the ranks of capitalism, whilst offering at least some form of decent life to most.

I think this is highlighted by the fact the Tories have to try so hard to look like they'd protect the NHS, if the Tories were trusted over this one institution its unlikely that Labour would have won in 2005 (then again Blair may have been removed, and overall party policy would be different due to the different political reality) after Iraq. Of course its not just the NHS, but in terms of winning votes - the NHS is universal (the same reason for the child benefit U-turn took place as it was for everyone, whereas cutting disability benefits only affect a minority) and Labour is trusted with it, seen as a party who would do just about anything to ensure a good health system.

The one place they fall down here though is that little sting thats been in Labour's side since denationalisation. The Unions. In the past it made sense for Labour to be so Union orientated, after all they wanted massive nationalisation of national production. The Union's in the end were the building blocks for this, a way into the thrones of power without winning a parliament (they got influence) and a way for them to get a better representative understanding of working classes across the UK.

Today however the Unions are seen very much as unfair, out-of-touch, money grabbers. In the same way Labour supporters see the Tories as not just pro-business, but pro-wealth at the expense of others, many see Labour as the same, not just pro-Union, but pro-wealth within the Union.

Since Labour's reforms after the war, the Unions have been difficult for Labour, they either fight them - and due to their internal power over Labour this adds problems, no longer are the unions a way to power for Labour, but a form of power over them - or are seen as being in their pockets. Not a great situation when at the same time they look to be hurting the unrepresented workers who face high taxes and soldiers who don't get paid anywhere near what should be seen as fair, or even given the protection they require.

(On a side not I think we need a Minister of Personnel, whose job it is to represent military personnel specifically and be in charge of the budgeting for their pay, injuries and family compensations - as oppose to the MoD who have proven themselves grossly incompetent in this area - and are often a bureaucracy to battle as oppose to represent them)

The underlying feeling of Tony Blair's government is that it was corrupt to both businessmen and public sector unions to some degree. Beyond Iraq and Immigration this was a main part of the criticism of his government. Leaving most ordinary people feeling well...a bit left out. But of course it was all go on infrastructure, health, education, benefits and just the overall feeling of being an increasingly progressive society.

When Gordon Brown turned up - suddenly the ordinary people flocked back to the party. Support rose massively, that miserable Scottish chancellor is all about left wing politics, right? He'll give us something! The ordinary people cried. Sadly it was not to be. Brown dithered over an election, I'm not really sure why but it was too late to call one at all by the end of the year. The recession had come, and with it Labour's entire economic policy collapsed as everyone realised it was all based on debt. A pyramid of debt seemed to be under every success story. They were dead - or should have been...

End of the day the Tories failed to win an election. One incompetent war, an illegal and mass-opposed war, an economic downturn and an incredibly disliked leader. Of course without Scotland the Conservatives would have a majority, but it wouldn't be on the level of Blair's rise to power in the middle of economic and world prosperity.

Labour were trusted enough by a core voter. People want a social-democracy, they believe in those less off to get help. They just understand the impact of the deficit and that the government needs sizing down drastically.

If Labour want to survive the next election they need to (well get a new leader, but I think that is a bit obvious) move their eyes from internalised focus on public sector worker to the private sector worker. I mean it can't only be me that scoff's at the argument that the private sector get crap pension plans, and so the public sector should too, can I? No of course not. Right now were seeing managers pay increasing, whilst many in the private sector continue on less hours a week, no increases in pay and very little job security.

Labour need to stop rabbiting on about 'good capitalism' and press for things like 'better private sector pensions'. Call for cuts to some civil servants pay, number, hours, and pensions whilst calling for significant increases in pay for Social Workers, in order to get the best people for a highly demanded job.

Demand cross sector pension schemes, so that a public sector employee is paying into the same pot as a private sector employee. Embrace the private sector and call for unity between them and the public sector. Sure it'll mostly be negative, with widespread cuts and not much positives, but significantly they will be reaching across the workforce and bringing them together as Labour once did.

I could go into a lot more. But the simple fact is Labour MUST become about private sector workers. Not pro-business to boost the public sector. This is a message they've been wrong on for a long time now, only other issues have helped them stay strong. Tory policy to all workers, and in fact people should be strongly questioned. Their policies that are against social fairness should be torn apart.

Labour must change to become the party of 'Labour' not 'Public Sector Labour Only'. Arguments about how unfair it is to be like the private sector will only wipe out the support for them from the private sector.

But it so easily could.

"Go Independent? We'll Nuke You."

2012 started with the sudden realisation that the independence debate was now, and David Cameron was going to be involved. It would be fought on the basis of the positivity of the Union, Westminster would lead the say - cutting though SNP bullshit.

I think the U-turn in attitudes may only be second to those of the coalitions health care reforms, and increasingly their welfare reforms (thankfully).

The Daily Record holds an article today claiming that the Tories were going to force Scotland to pay billions for the removal of Trident and other nuclear bases if she became independent. For what is hardly a Nationalist breeding ground, The Daily Record is certainly taking the Scottish side of the argument over the increasing aggression coming out of Westminster.

MISSING!!
Scottish Liberal Democrats

The key word is 'Tory' not government - Tory - we seem to have two governments in Westminster, the slightly daft one led by Michael Moore (but certainly one I'd feel happy to negotiate the referendum with, and Salmond certainly should pull Moore closer) and one led by Gideon George Osborne - who shocked many when all this started by claiming to be the one who would lead the Unionist camp for the government (most of the concern was 'doesn't he have an economy to run?') and has gone from disaster to well...nuclear war it seems. The message is clear, go Independent and you'll either pay to move the nuclear materials, or be left with them. In my last post I pointed out that two states should be able to work to best benefit themselves. As a consequence the UK and Scotland should be better off. So as a consequence, it is true Scotland may have to pay towards clean up North of the border, but not the movement of Nuclear resources, for the sole reason - they want them.

A question that must be asked is, with independence will the UK accept its just better for them to foot the bill, or will they really refuse - spending more on replacing the resources whilst leaving Scotland with unwanted Nuclear waste/materials.

Now obviously there will likely be legal issues here (MoD owns the land, but the right to keep nuclear materials here is issued by the government - so they would be forced to deal with the issue by a Scottish Government (I suspect)) but it adds to an increasing feeling that many in England seem to be well...rather aggressive in their calls for the Union to be retained even to their own detriment.

More evidence of the anti-Scottish sentiment is growing, branded everywhere with the term 'Tory':

"Scottish referendum: Tory warning over electoral roll" is just another article that is seeing the Conservatives thinking they are in government alone and have seemingly been infiltrated by SNP spies (on a side note, SNP need to drop the 'your helping us Cameron' line, its getting cheap)

Now personally I think Scotland should have an active military, and in fact have its own Nuclear deterrent (but certainly not what is at the moment 'the United States extend arm of defence' - also known as 'somewhere else to nuke') but the growing aggression against Scotland's bid to stand on its own two feet

What is it the Tories want from Scotland? All this to stop what they see as a fat benefits claimant from going off to work - no, theres much more to it, and this highlights it rather well to be honest. Another disastrous policy at Scottish Independence from the Tories here...what is it?

"All they care about when it comes to Scotland is their current defence set-up."

A fair point to be honest. Yet it makes their supposedly socialist intentions all the more laughable. They complained about the 'uncertainty' for business and yet provided no evidence of any such kind. So we've all known that its uncertainty about Westminster spending on infrastructure they are worried about (again a fair point, but one they won't mention as Salmond would likely say their stealing taxes by not spending), and specifically - Trident.

Any announcement on Trident will not take place before a vote on Scottish Independence, but a No vote will see it renewed. No matter the state of the economy.

An Irrational Country

So whats this blog for? Well rather specifically its to look at all the bollocks surrounding the Scottish Referendum and hopefully call it what it is.

Unionists/Nationalists - all playing a fiddle. One which Scotland most certainly isn't wanting to dance to.

Further Devolution is really the only answers to the Scottish problem. Personally I'd advocate independence based on the idea that all the supposed 'positives' from the Union COULD be achieved as two separate independent states.

There is of course a serious issue that makes this a bit of a no-no. And that is unfortunately the irrational mind.

As independent nations Scotland and the UK would rationally/logically agree to joint policies. Anyone doubting this should look to the British-Irish Council meetings, this is of course a meeting not just for financial discussions but must more importantly political discussions. The same would apply to Scotland. We'd work together with all our allies (over the next decade - UK-Irish relations are going to be increasingly close and connected, the main reason for this is the simple geography and a group effort to stop the violence and intolerance that's kept us apart for quite some time) and work together to strengthen ourselves, together.

Kingdoms United by Democracy and the aim of government to benefit its citizens to its best of ability.

As Alex Salmond says - we'd be the best of mates.

So what's wrong with this image? Its the logical conclusion for two non-aggressive (to one another) to act, so surely it'll take place? Wrong.

Westminster's involvement in the referendum has set off a chain of reactions. Before the UK was happily ignorant of actual UK politics, nodding and agreeing with a few announcements then ignoring the U-turns that follow. It was all very polite. Suddenly minds are directed at an issue that is not dictated but in all truth decided by the people. And for some reason...non-Scots feel left out.

The idea of people not living in Scotland (for thats all a 'Scot' is) having a vote in any referendum because (cue, childish whine) 'It affects them', is gaining traction. The BBC in all is gorgeous glory (I'd love the BBC to be cross border by the way - but for reasons am to discuss, this will not happen) has looked to what people in...well lets be honest with the terminology - 'England' think. And increasingly they think, they should have a say.

As one caller to Radio 4 suggested - Scotland is prime real-estate, and Scots should be told where to go if they want to snatch it from the glutinous hands of those down south.

Its all a bit ugly, and far from majority politics. However Westminster isn't ridden by majority, but minority.

These extreme views dictate as one Londoner put to the BBC - 'Let them feel what it is to be alone'.

The English don't really understand this issue. They don't get it. They haven't paid attention to Scottish politics beyond what they 'don't get' and what they 'do get'. For them this is an insult. Independence? Go fuck yourself! Its why all that Bannockburn bollocks gained traction, they see this nationalism as romanticism, but its moved on, in the same way that German nationalism was formed by romanticism it soon became a national movement based on economics and a common politics. The same is now happening in Scotland. 

The anti-Scottish feeling seems to be increasing, which cries of subsidies and oil running out - with a hint of national stereotyping that goes beyond the jovial humour we usually share. Its all becoming rather uncomfortable.

If there is a yes to independence this will not change. The logical way forward is for Scotland to join the pound, paying the national debt at a similar rate to England and making some spending constraints as the Euro as proved necessary. Yet that is a big-no it seems from many in down south. If you want independence you become independent. 

With Westminster governed by minority politics, its uncomfortably true that like the NO to the EU that achieved literally - nothing (as all of Cameron's government has done is well...zero so far). Scotland will be told NO. Or at least the UK will seek to monopolise through its border and relationships exactly how an independent Scotland should function.

An example shall be made, out of those foolish Scots who so clearly hate the Union. Who are not nice or lovely people in anyway. We can already see this happening, Scots are not people - their a  thing up North which sucks the life out of the UK, a fly to swat.

For much of the Scottish independence movement there has been popular concern about what it would mean to the rest of the UK. The horrors of leaving them to the Tories has already been shouted, and many Scots - including this rational mind - wish we could press for good governance, competence, liberalism (where are the LibDems key social policies by the way? Hardly costs any money, do they?), and for a socialism that is based on giving people a better life, not just in Scotland but the whole of the UK.

Sadly a Blair administration proved us that it just wasn't possible, too many below our borders simply don't seem to care. Yet trickles of light appear, the Lords sticking the governments disgusting welfare reforms up their arse was nice to see (but seriously where were the Lib Dems on this?! Where was Labour!?)

Scotland wants a better UK. England...doesn't, whether by political design (minority governments) or by popular choice - the UK will never reach its best.

The one positive is that an independent Scotland would not use the weakest in society for political games (see Tom Harris getting told clearly to 'Fuck off back to Blair') and they will get some stability in their lives.

But we can't kid ourselves. An independent Scotland will not be Britain's friend. Instead it will be seen as a betrayer and as someone who deserves anything coming to them.

Nick Clegg called SNP 'extreme' - I don't think he really realises just how extreme these so called 'Unionists' are and just how much his parties roots have become rotten and twisted just to settle in their earth for a few years.