Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?Sabotage Times, We can't Concentrate so Why Should You?


England's Future Without Scotland Is A Tory Nightmare

by Emma Flowers
4 September 2014 18 Comments

Parting would be sweet sorrow for the both of us, but please grab this chance to rid yourself of a shameful and spiteful system.

Due to a technicality, I will not get to vote in the referendum on Scottish Independence. OK, not being Scottish and not living in Scotland means it is, on balance, probably right that I don’t get a say. I am well used to that- not getting a say; I currently reside in England, in the constituency of Witney, where the current local MP- of whom you may be aware,  has a majority of something approaching a million ( I may have exaggerated  there, but it is quite a few). Therefore, people like me who regularly troop down to a polling station, are handed a ballot paper by a middle- aged man in beige crimplene trousers, to  cast our vote, are wasting our time, because the result is a foregone conclusion.

In the interest of balance of course, this is also true in constituencies with a huge Labour majority.”Yawn, its another whine on about electoral reform”, I can almost hear you say. With our existing system, every General Election results in someone, for whom the vast majority of the electorate has not voted, standing up and claiming that they have a mandate from the British people. Last time, that “mandate” was 24% of the total electorate, or 36% of those who, like me, actually bothered to vote. So, as we continue to expound the wonderful virtues of democracy around the world, despising dictators and corrupt regimes as we do, we all seem content to allow someone who was not supported by three quarters of the eligible population to lead us.

No, none of that scrupulous, every vote counts nonsense for us. We are just about, it seems, getting over our eternal gratitude for being allowed to express an opinion at all by our Lords and Masters, to quibble about small things like democracy.

What does this have to do with Scotland? Well, in 2010, a resounding majority of Scottish voters, 90%, did not support a Conservative government- even more than the supine and downtrodden English. The big difference is that, on 18th September, they get a chance to right these ridiculous and undemocratic wrongs. You would think it is a bit of a no-brainer wouldn’t you? The chance to tell  a Government that only 10% of you want, what they can do with their social inequality, their single-minded kow-towing to corporate greed and unregulated markets, and to get the chance to govern yourselves? You would think so, but the signs are that most (and, on this occasion only, it will be a truly democratic decision), it looks like Scotland will vote to keep the Status Quo. We all know where Status Quo takes us don’t we….Down, Down, deeper ‘n’ down…..endlessly and with mind-numbing repetition.

More…

“Hamas Should Not Be Condemned For Executing Informers”

Why Boris Johnson Should Never Be PM

Apparently, this has less to do with wanting to continue to share the love with Dave and his Eton Trifles, but because research has shown that Scots might be £500 a year worse off under independence.  That’s 500 Scottish Pounds to you Alex. Now, 500 quid is not to be sneezed at- wealthy Investment Banker types are regularly doing that very thing after snorting a Monkey’s worth (so I am told of course). It can make the difference between Micawber-esque happiness or misery for many; but surely it is a price worth paying to have your own say, to make your own mistakes- to actually have the opportunity for your vote to count? I know that I am contrary enough, and perennially pissed off enough with the mustn’t grumble-ness of the English electorate to advocate a radical decision. Yes, you smug  24% who actually voted for this mean-spirited, greed-driven axis of privilege we are saddled with- and are increasingly likely to be so again in 2015.

I have always thought the Scots to be more radical, and certainly more non- conformist than their English counterparts. They also know money; Scotland is the true financial centre of the UK; a place where, historically, insurance companies grew organically by helping ordinary people plan their futures- all a direct contrast to the self- serving and increasingly irrelevant to the rest of us, money island that the City of London has become. Time then, to show that radical side, rather than the financial probity for which you became known.

We would miss Scotland, the poor and underprivileged of England would miss them particularly, for the nightmare vision of a reduced UK would be perma-Tory rule, at least until we reach a point where the have nots outnumber the selfishly  must keeps. It would also dramatically increase the chances of a vote to leave the EU in 2017. Imperfect though the EU is, it remains the best buffer to the removal of basic human rights and fairness for many. The Scots, as I understand, would prefer to stay in the EU, so why risk that too?

Parting therefore, would indeed be sweet sorrow for us south of the border; but please grab this chance to rid yourselves of a shameful and spiteful system. Surely, that has to be worth 500 Scottish currency units?

If you like it, Pass it on

image descriptionCOMMENTS

Harry 11:23 am, 4-Sep-2014

I'm an exile in Nottingham and it'd be a YES from me, given the chance. One correction, however. It appears that the common belief that a Scotland-free UK would doom the remainder to permanent Tory rule is not true, given past electoral figures. http://wingsoverscotland.com/we-dont-need-your-pity/

Ross Allan 1:48 pm, 4-Sep-2014

The 67 years since the end of World War 2 have seen 18 General Elections to the Westminster Parliament, with the following outcomes: 1945 Labour govt (Attlee) ———————————— Labour majority: 146 Labour majority without any Scottish MPs in Parliament: 143 NO CHANGE WITHOUT SCOTTISH MPS 1950 Labour govt (Attlee) ———————————— Labour majority: 5 Without Scottish MPs: 2 NO CHANGE 1951 Conservative govt (Churchill/Eden) ——————————————————– Conservative majority: 17 Without Scottish MPs: 16 NO CHANGE 1955 Conservative govt (Eden/Macmillan) ——————————————————– Conservative majority: 60 Without Scottish MPs: 61 NO CHANGE 1959 Conservative govt (Macmillan/Douglas-Home) ———————————————————————— Conservative majority: 100 Without Scottish MPs: 109 NO CHANGE 1964 Labour govt (Wilson) ———————————— Labour majority: 4 Without Scottish MPs: -11 CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY OF 1 (Con 280, Lab 274, Lib 5) 1966 Labour govt (Wilson) ———————————— Labour majority: 98 Without Scottish MPs: 77 NO CHANGE 1970 Conservative govt (Heath) ——————————————– Conservative majority: 30 Without Scottish MPs: 55 NO CHANGE 1974 Minority Labour govt (Wilson) ———————————————— Labour majority: -33 Without Scottish MPs: -42 POSSIBLE CHANGE – LABOUR MINORITY TO CONSERVATIVE MINORITY (Without Scots: Con 276, Lab 261, Lib 11, Others 16) 1974b Labour govt (Wilson/Callaghan) —————————————————– Labour majority: 3 Without Scottish MPs: -8 CHANGE: LABOUR MAJORITY TO LABOUR MINORITY (Lab 278 Con 261 Lib 10 others 15) 1979 Conservative govt (Thatcher) ———————————————— Conservative majority: 43 Without Scottish MPs: 70 NO CHANGE 1983 Conservative govt (Thatcher) ———————————————— Conservative majority: 144 Without Scottish MPs: 174 NO CHANGE 1987 Conservative govt (Thatcher/Major) —————————————————— Conservative majority: 102 Without Scottish MPs: 154 NO CHANGE 1992 Conservative govt (Major) ——————————————— Conservative majority: 21 Without Scottish MPs: 71 NO CHANGE 1997 Labour govt (Blair) ———————————– Labour majority: 179 Without Scottish MPs: 139 NO CHANGE 2001 Labour govt (Blair) ———————————– Labour majority: 167 Without Scottish MPs: 129 NO CHANGE 2005 Labour govt (Blair/Brown) ——————————————– Labour majority: 66 Without Scottish MPs: 43 NO CHANGE 2010 Coalition govt (Cameron) —————————————— Conservative majority: -38 Without Scottish MPs: 19 CHANGE: CON-LIB COALITION TO CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY - on ONE occasion (1964) Scottish MPs have turned what would have been a Conservative government into a Labour one. The Tory majority without Scottish votes would have been just one MP (280 vs 279), and as such useless in practice. The Labour government, with an almost equally feeble majority of 4, lasted just 18 months and a Tory one would probably have collapsed even faster. - on ONE occasion (the second of the two 1974 elections) Scottish MPs gave Labour a wafer-thin majority (319 vs 316) they wouldn’t have had from the rest of the UK alone, although they’d still have been the largest party and able to command a majority in a pact with the Liberals, as they eventually did in reality. - and on ONE occasion (2010) the presence of Scottish MPs has deprived the Conservatives of an outright majority, although the Conservatives ended up in control of the government anyway in coalition with the Lib Dems when Labour refused to co-operate with other parties in a “rainbow alliance”. - which means that for 65 of the last 67 years, Scottish MPs as an entity have had no practical influence over the composition of the UK government.

Harry 2:40 pm, 4-Sep-2014

Exactly my point. Thanks, Ross.

Calum 3:55 pm, 4-Sep-2014

A year ago I would have said there would be no chance of a YES vote, now though, it will be extremely close. I wouldn't be at all surprised if YES is voted in.

Soupastar 4:07 pm, 4-Sep-2014

A Tory nightmare? Oh, I see: You mean that it would be a nightmare for English people that are not fans of the Tories. You don't mean that an independent Scotland would be really bad news for the Tories, i.e. a 'Tory nightmare'. Got ya. I'm with you now. Could you try to be less ambiguous with your headings in the future. Thanks, luv.

Jack 7:31 pm, 4-Sep-2014

Less Labour MPs.. what is not to like?

Harry 8:08 pm, 4-Sep-2014

Fewer Labour MPs. See what the Tories have done to our education system? Sigh...

Jack 8:33 pm, 4-Sep-2014

Fewer is good too :-D

Jack 8:40 pm, 4-Sep-2014

Amazing how one grammatical mistake can be indicitive of a failing eduction system (under the tories of course) and yet a steady stream of brutality by muslims can't possibly be considered to be indicitive of a global threat. LOL!!

Harry 8:59 pm, 4-Sep-2014

It isn't, Jack. In my case I was joking. In your case you were serious!

Jack 9:01 pm, 4-Sep-2014

You need to work on your humour, 'arry it fell flat.

Jack 9:07 pm, 4-Sep-2014

Besides, if you were joking then you must not really believe education standards are falling?

Harry 12:05 am, 5-Sep-2014

Oh they are, Jack, and while Grove has really fucked it up, we can't saddle him with all the blame. New Labour were equally appalling.

Jack 7:58 pm, 5-Sep-2014

Oh so now it *is* failing? And how do you know this 'arry? Is it because you've noticed a trend? :-D

Harry 8:35 pm, 5-Sep-2014

Yeah, I think the illiteracy epidemic is a pretty reliable indicator.

Jack 10:27 pm, 5-Sep-2014

LOL! Right, so some nebulous 'arry defined "illiteracy epidemic" is evidence of a trend of an education system falling apart but verifable and repeated gang-rape, torture, honour-killing, stonings, beheadings, suicide bombings and violence *world wide* still isn't indicitive of an Islamist threat to the world? LOL!

Harry 11:13 am, 6-Sep-2014

Wow, that sort of non-sequential logic is almost admirable! Jack: King of the Non Sequitur.

Harry 1:34 pm, 6-Sep-2014

Also worth pointing out that the UK's illiteracy epidemic isn't some 'arry-defined' invention but a fact. Something even the staunchly Tory Daily Mail can't avoid recognising http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2122007/Illiterate-Britain-One-adults-struggling-read-write-t-use-chequebook.html

Leave a comment

1