Day 5007: Goddammit, We're BRITISH!

Tuesday:


OK, nobody needs a fluffy elephant wading into the debate that Scotland is having over her future. Where do fluffy elephants even come from, anyway? I'm as British as a Tikka Masala! I don't feel English. English is small. British is about being part of something bigger!

But this referendum looks like ending in a dead heat and that's going to leave a lot of people unhappy. 50% plus 1 vote for staying is not going to settle the question for a generation; but equally it's no mandate for a brave new nation to cast itself upon fortune's ocean.

The campaign that started out so well appears, at least from a safe distance, to have degenerated into a lot of anger and name-calling and egg-throwing.

I suppose I should not be surprised that the arguments about dividing the country have proved divisive.

I want to see a world where there are fewer borders between people, not more. That's why I'm in favour of the European Union as well as the British one. The more we share, the lighter our burdens – only working together will help solve problems like climate change and energy shortages, or protect workers' rights or defend us from the threat of violent extremism.

And I am quite sure that Scotland can be, as "Yes" keep telling us, a perfectly successful small country.

But why be adequately successful as small country when you can be outstandingly successful as a BIG one?

People want the positive case for the United Kingdom, but Better Together did start with a positive case, saying: "look at all the benefits of being in Great Britain: a stable currency; membership of the EU; and NATO; jobs, trade and travel; sport; the BBC; the Queen!"

And Mr Salmon replied: "Oh but we will keep all of those things."

"No you won't."

"Now you're just being negative!"

"But here's why we can't keep all those things."

"Now you're bullying and scaremongering!"

Faced with that sort of thing, it's difficult to see how the "No" campaign could go any other way.

Meanwhile, the "Yes" campaign has been one of "nothing will change and everything will be better!"

If nothing is going to change, why do you want independence?

Obviously, it's the very BEST possible chance for the Scots Nats, when the Tories have ruined their reputation by their government in the Eighties destroying industry and jobs, and Labour have ruined their reputation by their government in the Noughties destroying the economy and Iraq, and we Lib Dems have ruined our reputation by the government in Coalition because… the Tories.

And it's so EASY for an independence movement to play the "let's walk away from all the troubles" card, rather than the harder – but right – thing to do of all mucking in together, sharing the pain to make it less. It's the nasty side of nationalism, that it's all about putting the blame – and the pain – on someone else. It's funny how "we only want our fair share" always means "more for us" and never for the other feller. Telling people that they are being shafted by the wicked rich "other" is an old, old lie. It's been "the Jews". Or "the Chinese". Or "the Poles". Or "the Asylum Seekers". Or "the Europeans". Today it's "the English".

It isn't the fault of the Englanders – or even of our pie-faced loon of a Prime Monster – that people in Scotland are having a hard time. By and large, the English are having a hard time too. As are the Welsh, and the Irish and gee look, everyone everywhere in Europe and beyond.

Only together was Europe able to save Greece. Only together were the British able to save those banks with "of Scotland" in their names. Together we weathered a terrible storm.

Personally, I think if Scotlanders do vote to go their own way, we in the rest of the UK certainly should share the pound, and the BBC, keep open the borders, and lobby the EU to continue Scotland's membership… we should look out for our friends and families, like good neighbours, as we did for Ireland recently when their banks got into trouble too… but I also think that will be a really hard sell to the 90% of UK voters left in the country, and I don't see any political party being able to stand on a "let's play nice with Scotland" platform.

That's the hard political reality that airy promises about a "yes" vote "forcing" Mr Balloon and Mr Oboe to the negotiations will run up against. And just how well-inclined do you think they'll be if you force them to the negotiating table? Might they not decide to play hard-ball with Scotland just to look good in the run up to a tricky general election?

But on the other fluffy foot, the voices of the people of Scotland have at least been heard enough to see the Westminster Parties scrambling to offer a new political settlement in recognition of the justifiable claim of a right to self-determination.

For far too long Westminster governments – Labour as well as Tories – have centralised more and more power to London, not just hoarding power away from the Scots, but also enfeebling the great cities of Northern England, disenfranchising whole regions from the Kingdom of Cornwall to the Empire of Yorkshire, and treating all four nations of our nation – yes, England too – with little or no respect at all. No wonder the peasants are revolting!

But now, both sides are asking the voters to make up their minds based on promises of what will happen, rather than on a concrete plan. Which is why I'm thinking, whatever side wins (unless it's unexpectedly decisive, and the polls don't point that way) both sides need to think very hard about a second referendum (I hear the groans already) in eighteen months' time to agree the outcome.

I say eighteen months because that is the timeframe for exit negotiations set out by the "Yes" campaign, and they should then put the outcome of those negotiations to the vote. If they've fulfilled their promises about the currency, the EU membership and the Queen then they'll have no problems. If they've got the best deal they can, short of that, they should still let the people decide based on what they'll actually be getting, rather than Mr Alec Salmon's slippery promises.

But by the same lights, if Better Together prevail – and I hope they do – we should hold a constitutional convention for Scotland, in which the "devo max" powers that have been promised by all the Unionist parties will be decided with the people and at the end of that process they can have a say on whether they have done enough to keep the United Kingdom's promise and to keep the United Kingdoms united.

And why stop at Scotland, when we should be doing the same for England and Wales and Northern Ireland, Cornwall and Yorkshire, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Bristol…

Break the stranglehold of Westminster and set out a path to reform Europe, reconnect people to their regions and to the nation and to the EU by handing power back and making the institutions more democratic and accountable.

Let the cry go up: Home Rule for all!

It's catchy and it might just keep us together.

Day 4695: Millennium’s Doctor Who 50th Anniversary Top Trunks #13: JAMES ROBERT McCRIMMON

Friday:

Age: Messed with by the Time Lords
Stories: 58
Awesomeness: World Shaper. Yes, that is a big one! Creag an tuire!
Cuddles: Samantha Briggs, Victoria, Zoe, the Doctor mostly…
AKA: Joe Sugden, our hero Frazer Hines

Day 3621 (again): Happy Saint Andrew's Day – Have a Scotland Bill and Some Real McCoy

Tuesday:


It is the feast day of Mr Saint Andrew, Patron Saint of Scotland on account of what was left of him allegedly being smuggled there from Constantinople and buried in, appropriately enough, St Andrews. He was done in by the Romans – not the ONLY Andrew to be crucified on this day – on an X-shaped cross, hence the Scottish saltire-shaped flag.

Meanwhile, here is Auntie Caron on the Lib Dem WIN for Scotland in the Scotland Bill.

And here is the ONLY Dr Woo from Scotland (hush your mockney mouth Mr Dr David), the amazing Mr Dr Sylv, keeping shtum about his secret role in "The Hobbit" (he's playing Radagast the Brown; don't tell anyone) but making a big noise about hoping to return to the series for the Fiftieth Anniversay in 2013 for "The Eight Living and some CGI revenants Eleven Doctors".

(Though, personally, I suspect it will be EASIER to get Mr Billy, Mr Pat and Mr Jon to appear than it will be to get Dr Eccythump back in the TARDIS!)

I do hope Mr Dr Sylv DOES get to appear in the Anniversary adventure. It would be – forgive me – ACE!


And a Happy Mr Saint Andrew's Day, to all of you at home!
.

Day 3157: C.I.A: Compassion In America

Monday:


"This isn't about JUSTICE; it's about COMPASSION. It's not SUPPOSED to make SENSE."*


Let's be clear about one thing: regardless of any doubts about whether he actually did it or not, the release of the man convicted of exploding flight Pan-Am 103 was nothing to do with JUSTICE.

"Justice" seems to mean "people getting what they deserve". You don't need to believe in Mr God to recognise that in THIS world that's QUITE DIFFICULT to achieve.

No one, for example, "deserves" to be exploded. But there's NO WAY of setting it right again; you cannot ever have true "justice".

People in Americaland think that the Pan-Am bomber Mr Addledbastard al Megrahi, ought to have died in his prison cell. Or perhaps Americans are now SO convinced of the EVIL of the NHS that they consider it an intolerable MERCY to spare a person dying of cancer from British healthcare.

Whatever. President Barry O, Secretary of State Hillary-Billary, FBI Director Robert Mueller-Lite have all protested that letting him go was a VERY BAD THING to do.

And they are all WRONG.

They are wrong for TWO reasons: first, because what they want is VENGEANCE not JUSTICE. "You hurt us so we are going to hurt you, and hurt you WORSE". Americaland thinks of itself as the New Roman Empire (just look at all the marble they used building their Capital, or even their Capitol) and Rome was BUILT on vengeance (and marble), vengeance beyond all reason (and quite a lot of marble). If a citizen of Rome was harmed, the Roman legions turned up and OBLITERATED YOUR COUNTRY. A LOT of people think like that, and not just Americans – it's hard not to, it seems to be wired into you monkey people at an evolutionary level – but Americaland has the power to DO IT, and they DO.


And the second reason is because if there WAS any "justice" then Americaland (and I'm aware the Great Britain is not much better) would not hog a quarter of the World's resources nor cause a quarter of the World's pollution.

And then we end up with MORE revelations about the CIA practicing torture on people. Gee, the CIA turned out to be EVIL – who would have thought? But does ANYONE expect "justice" properly to be served? Are we going to see Mr Darth Cheney or Mr Donald Rums-failed even standing TRIAL let alone facing punishment for what they made happen? Is anyone going to send a cruise missile down one of THEIR chimneys? After all, that's the way America deals with torturers, isn't it?

It is the INjustice of Americaland's vast inherited wealth, and the obsessive aggression that they use to defend it, and the double standards by which they are seen judge themselves that breeds a World full of people who WANT to explode aeroplanes!



So what IS this thing called "justice"? It's sort of like "fairness" and it's sort of like "moral rightness" (whatever THAT means).

What sort of things should it be MADE of?

Restitution – giving people back what they have had taken away?

Retribution – punishing people for breaking the law whether because you believe doing badness means they deserve to receive badness or, more practically, as a disincentive against doing it again?

Rehabilitation – to make it so that bad people become good people?

(And this is all getting like 80's Dr Woo Dalek stories – you know: "Remembrance of the Revelation of the Resurrection of the Renaissance of the Retaliation of the Religion of the Daleks".)

But as I say, you cannot give someone their life BACK, so how can there be proper restitution?

The Iranians might say – MIGHT say – that the Americans blew one airliner out of the sky and had one blown out of the sky in return. An eye for an eye; an aeroplane for an aeroplane? Is THAT "justice"? Or is that TWO WRONGS making something very NOT RIGHT indeed?

So if you cannot make restitution, what about retribution?

Well, for retribution to be "just" then it has to be proportionate: the old mantra (or Gilbert & Sullivan song) "let the punishment fit the crime". But again, when a crime is SO awful, how can one person be expected to BEAR any punishment that would be "proportionate"?

So when the former Monkey-in-Chief's Ambassador of Evil, Mr Roger Bolt-thru-neck, whinges that Mr al Megrahi "only served two weeks for each person who died" you have to point out the bloody-minded STUPIDITY of his remark: what does he want? Mr al Megrahi to serve a LIFETIME for each person who died? How are you going to do THAT, then? Even if you want to KILL him, what GOOD will it do? Do you want to execute him two-hundred-and-seventy times? Will that bring a single person back?

So much for retribution, how about rehabilitation then?

Well, Mr al Megrahi is hardly likely to do it again, is he? But that's not really the point. Surely, the REAL rehabilitation is that of LIBYA. And doesn't that seem to have WORKED?

By accepting compensation, or two-point-seven billion dollars worth of "blood money", paid to the families of the victims, America and Britain accepted that we and Libya could move on. Compensation isn't about putting a crude value on someone's life; it's about drawing a line under a vendetta, ending the feud, preventing FUTURE violence and grief.

Listen to the WISE WORDS of Mr Stephen of the Glenn, who seems to have come TERRIFYINGLY close to being EXPLODED himself on several occasions!

"A nation that shows compassion finds it easier to look past the past; one that holds grudges finds it harder to let it go."

Americaland, in spite of having so little history – or perhaps BECAUSE they have so little history – just can't let it go.


So, where in this scheme of "justice" should COMPASSION fit in? Well, the answer is nowhere! SERIOUSLY, theries of justice SAY that justice has to trump compassion. Because "compassion" is giving someone something that they DON'T deserve. It is sympathy for a person in pain REGARDLESS of how deserving they are.

Compassion is about US being better people, not about the goodness or wickedness of the person on the receiving end.

Is it regrettable that people take advantage of that kindness to stage some kind of Hero's Welcome? Yes, of course it is – but that makes THEM bad people, not us. It means that the people who agreed to keep things LOW KEY are the ones who broke their promises, not the people who only did a good thing.

Is it regrettable that people sometimes people DO make behind-the-scenes deals for trade or whatever in exchange for releasing a prisoner? (Not that that DID happen here; not that that DID happen to let President Billary-Hillary rescue those journalists from North Korea; not that that DID happen to get that American nutter who swam out to Aung San Suu Kyi's house out of Burma.) Yes, because it's sordid and it undermines our trust in the people we elect to make these decisions on compassionate grounds.



Justice is usually portrayed as a LADY with a sword to indicate the FORCE of the LAW, a set of scales to indicate WEIGHING up the EVIDENCE and a blindfold to indicate IMPARTIALITY. What we usually end up with is an overburdened blind lady waving a large letter-opener about. As a METAPHOR for a justice system that seems to flail about inflicting stabbing pains on people at random, that's actually depressingly accurate.

But if we can't HAVE justice, then we have to make a choice between vengeance and compassion.

And we should choose compassion.




*Yes, I am misquoting Uncle Enyos from Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but the point still stands.



.

Day 2873: What's That Coming Over the (Benny) Hill…er…Loch?

Wednesday:


Thanks to the The Today Programme, we learn that it is 75 years since the first photo was caught of Mr Jim McNaughty Nessie, the Famous Monster of Loch Nessie.

Now, thanks to HootTube we have this EXCLUSIVE new footage…




...terrifying!

Day 2737: Wendy Gets Her Independence

Sunday:


Ms Wendy "Douglas in a Wig" Alexander is forced to resign over what is, in all fairness, a teensy-weensy irregularity in her fundraising.

"It's not FAIR!" she says, claiming that the Scottish Nasty Party were just using her misdemeanour as an excuse to keep causing a fuss.

Well, there may be some truth in that, but in resigning, unfortunate and unfair you may think it to be, you put your hands up to it, Ms Wendy.

Three candidates will contest the leadership after Mr "What A" Charlie Gordon – the man who actually asked for the £950 donation that brought Ms Wendy down – failed to secure enough nonimations.

At the same time, Mr Frown faces another by-election as Mr David Marshall, the MP for Glasgow East, quits "on health grounds".

Since they used to wheel MPs through the lobbies even if they were on their death beds, this is a TOUCH suspicious… and rumours soon spread that Mr Marshall was days away from being outed as the Labour's Derek Conway.

With unseemly (and, as it turns out, ill-judged) haste, the Labour set the date for 24th July, the earliest they can manage.


Also in the news… the Conservatories come up with their latest answer to the West Loathing question.

Mr Fatty Clarke's commission has come back and said that Mr Balloon's English Votes for Ingsoc Laws proposal would break up the United Kingdom, so they propose only limiting MPs' voting rights during committee stages. This is a BARKING MAD idea that will STILL create second-class MPs and is even more complicated to administer.

Day 2418: Is Scottish Independence Any of Our Business?

Wednesday


In Scotland, the Scottish Nasty Party (prop. Mr Alex Salmon) has plans for independence, or at least plans to ask the one-third of Scots who want independence and the two-thirds who don't to get out and vote in a referendum on the subject.

Scottish Liberal Democrats have joined other opposition parties in saying that this would be a waste of time and money. In a further statement Mr Nicol “and dime” Stephen reminded people that the Liberal Democrats have invited the Scottish Nasties and everyone else to join in a new Constitutional Convention to work out together how to improve the devolution settlement.

This has prompted much debate among my friends on the Liberal Democrat Voice and Mr Jonathan over at Liberal England, has said: "whatever you think of the SNP or independence, if the only way the Union can be maintained is by denying the Scottish people a vote on the subject, then it really must be in trouble," which seems to have rather got Mr James's goat.

"Scottish Lib Dems don’t need Perfidious Albion butting in," he retorted.


Well, taking my life in my fluffy feet by crossing Mr James, I think people of Albion have EVERY RIGHT to butt in where the settlement of the Union is concerned. We are a part of this Union TOO!

If two people were in a marriage, you would not expect to say: "he's thinking about getting a divorce. This is his decision; he doesn't want her butting in!"

I know that, over the years, there has been FAR TOO MUCH of England shouting and Scotland having to listen – especially when the Conservatories were last in power. Nevertheless, that is NOT a good reason for Scotland (or anyone) now to say that England should get no say any more.

Telling England to "butt out" is why there are bits of England that are starting to stand in the corner muttering shiftily!

Entirely too much of the problem is that England is – and increasingly FEELS – left out of the constitutional settlement. Be it British devolution OR European Union, too many people have started to believe that things are just being IMPOSED upon them, when they have no say in the matter. This is DANGEROUS – it allows UNPLEASANT elements like the British Nasty Party to creep out of the shadows and gain support by BLAMING people for things instead of offering real solutions.

Mr Balloon's SELF-INTERESTED desires to turn the Conservatories into an English Nasty Party… or even a Home Counties Nasty Party, and his support for English Votes for Ingsoc Laws [aka E.V.I.L.] only go to make the matter WORSE.

It may be that we need to let the people of England speak, get things off their chests as it were. A referendum on Europe is a SURE FIRE LOSER for any Government, and for ANYONE pro-European, at the moment. But we may need to take that ON THE CHIN as the penalty for not having kept people feeling INVOLVED in the three decades since the last one.

Referendums are not always the answer. Mr Salmon is no WET FISH. He knows that a Scottish referendum on independence is NOT about getting people involved; he just wants an excuse to BANG ON about his hobby-horse for a while without having to get involved in anything difficult like actually RUNNING Scotland.

Like most people (if polls are to be believed) I think that both England AND Scotland are better off together and both would suffer if we went our separate ways. Scottish prudence and invention and English tenacity and eccentricity (with a dollop of Welsh passion and a lot of Irish HARD WORK) are the elements that came together to create the Industrial Revolution and the basis of most of what we call CIVILISATION today. Why should we chuck that all away?

What we need though is a proper FEDERAL structure that gives an equal voice and a fair standing to EVERYONE.


In fairness to Mr James, his article goes on to be a rather more TEMPERATE call for people actually to read the Scottish Liberals' statement and support the idea of a renewed Constitutional Convention.


Meanwhile, the Labour leader Mr McConnell has quit…

…in order to become High Commissioner to Malawi!

Which, frankly, is better than the deal Lord Blairimort got when HE quit as the Labour leader.