So that was
it. Our great day for democracy finally came and duly went and we are
exactly where we were. Which is where? Exactly where we were on 17th
September, drifting aimlessly and rudderless, sextant and compass
stolen by pirates, aboard the good ship Union with impending mutiny
on the bridge and decks, under satellite navigation by the same
gated elite who have fleeced us for so long we now consider organised
kleptomania and government under instruction from financiers, arms
dealers and other Nosferatu types as the natural order of things.
There is no other way, apparently. Dismal defeatism has colonised a
space once reserved for political will.
Rather than
let them draw breath, perhaps it's time to buttonhole some of those
who ran the campaign to save the uk - which along with britain,
westminster and downing street, I now decline to capitalise - and
ask them to justify and argue for the future they have settled upon.
Many feel very uncertain about it.
After all,
theirs was a positive campaign, we were told, despite the fairly
obvious conflict between this claim and observable reality. Positive
about what? When was this? It would be comforting to know what plans
they have and the signs so far are not encouraging. Cameron, Miliband
and the rest are risking their upper cases, too.
Scrutinising
their every word and deed seems entirely reasonable. The more they
vacillate and dissemble on their last minute vows – not actually
promises, because none was in a position to promise anything - the
more they should be pressed. As victors they should surely have an
idea about what happens next?
Since the
off, the Yes campaign was subjected to intense and often vitriolic
scrutiny, the bulk of this based on doom-laden conjecture, conflation
of separate issues, lazy assumption and when this approach didn't
work, outright threats, as if their own promised obstructionism
somehow constituted an argument. We were told quite clearly that
currency, banking and pensions would be issues because they would see
to it. Their corporate handlers and hired thugs make it their
business to know where we live.
Now that the
union has been granted a stay of execution, it is surely permissible
to explore the post-referendum landscape with the same vigour. We
have no need to resort to name-calling, warnings and spiteful
invective. We have, or have at least been sort of but not quite
promised something, which could mean anything, so we should have
evidence in front of our eyes with no need to jump up and down and
shout as wildly as the No campaign. They certainly claimed to know
what would happen next right up to the day before the vote.
It's not as
if 45% of the electorate is an insignificant number of potential
subversives to have lurking in a british colony and as it sounds as
if they have more than a few in England – where they have as much
right as anyone to a capitalised noun - I expect they realise this.
It'll be interesting watching them navigate with an election next
year. They won't get away with all that cross-party co-operation
nonsense when the big prize is at stake. There are too many mutually
incompatible groupings in England for them to indulge in any
lovey-dovey stuff. There will be collateral damage and casualties
aplenty. Somebody will have to lose out. Pacifying 53 million in
England might involve, heaven forfend, 5 million Scots taking the
hit. The London press can easily tickle the erogenous zones of
millions in England who quite clearly want to punish what they see
and we have now democratically conceded is a dependent vassal state.
Those who
opposed independence were possessed by uncertainty and existential
panic, i.e., precisely what Westminster wanted, so that's very
patriotic of them, but we now have the choice of Ed Miliband, David
Cameron, Boris Johnson or God forbid - though He's been very tolerant
of late – Nigel Farage at the levers of power. The other fellow,
clegg, lost all capital long ago. He barely deserves a name. The
future after independence was too uncertain, they say. The same
“they” don't know what's happening next week and don't even
appear to have a plan other to ensure that property prices stay
“buoyant” - i.e. unaffordable to most.
Any of these
men – always men – could be running the country, possibly with
aid of political ballast in the form of their flexible friends –
for instance our very own Westminster representative, John, the 3rd
Viscount Thurso. I know he doesn't currently use his title, but it's
only in cold storage, not actually relinquished and it's always good
to remind people of their social rank. The sum of his initial
commitment was publicly setting aside an inherited ego-trip while
keeping the rest of the considerable trimmings. However, shortening a
silly and pretentious name hardly constitutes heartfelt political
sacrifice.
In a modern
democracy, this is an abomination. The british, however, if nobody
else, always seem relaxed with this kind of thing, even if they can't
explain why. Rule by a wealth and a connected elite is the only
certainty in the uk today.
With the
union now affirmed like never before – so it is presently believed
by some – there can surely be no reason not to dwell on the fact
that our sitting representative in westminster was born custom-made
for the job; title, money, Eton and a castle for goodness sake. The
parliamentary seat came almost by default in counties with folk
memories of a (brief but well publicised) bygone age of true liberal
representation in the North and West. Those who voted for this can't
plausibly complain about very much now. No matter. The 40% of the
Highland vote who voted Yes are still united and come May will be
quite sufficient for him to be allowed redeploy his title, which I'm
sure he will as “John Who?
On the 18th
September, we were given the choice between something different and
more of the same. Most plumped for the latter and so are presumably
happy with the shape of things today. The chances are they are over
60 – those under this age voted Yes, the youth – the future - by
3:1. Those for whom the future amounts to a few decades at most had
no need to think too far ahead and hysterical threats concerning
their pensions – little more, I believe, despite many poor
disguises pontificating about fairness, justice and opportunity for
all – persuaded them to stick with what they know. Fair enough, but
their decision was more risk-prone than any Yes vote. It will seem
petty and selfish to their children and grandchildren. Oh well, at
least they got shot of that ghastly Salmond cove – or did they?
The oil of
which they speak, which seems to be important and unimportant in the
same breath in London – which is still a capital city so can keep
the dignity of a capital initial - will run out a lot more quickly in
a country 12 times the size of Scotland, particularly if the income
is spent in advance. What are they going to do then? Presumably they
have a Plan B as rigorous as the one they demanded of Yes Scotland.
Austerity
mania and the social detritus it leaves in its wake, increasing
inequality, gross over-rewarding in boardrooms, the very withdrawal
from Europe we were threatened with, simplistic market economic
brutalism and nasty, ugly, illegal wars inhabit the comfort zone
sought by the socialist leaning people of Scotland. We meekly
acquiesced to all this with the world watching. Disappointing doesn't
begin to describe it; it's embarrassing.
Scotland
will, ironically given the noise made, get the government it voted
for regardless of the result in May 2015. Welcome to the best of both
worlds and the alternatives to the uncertainties of independence.
