Did the SNP Throw Glasgow NE?

So now we’ve had two Scottish by-elections in twelve months with suspected electoral fraud. And, if true, both perpetrated by the same party running the government of the United Kingdom.



It appears that Glasgow’s Labour-controlled Council added nearly 2,500 new voters to the electoral role in October alone. In addition, over 6,000 applications for postal votes were received. Postal votes are one of the easiest ways to commit electoral fraud in Britain.

It gets worse. From The Scotsman:

It emerged last night that police were called to two polling stations, St Dennis's and Alexandra Parade, yesterday, after voters arriving to cast their ballot were told their names had already been crossed off. The ballot boxes were handed over to the police, but the disputed ballots were still counted last night. Officials at Glasgow City Council said only three ballot papers were involved.

If things are as bad as they seem, Glasgow NE may turn out to be another Glenrothes, surely the most single minded act of political will in history. In case you have forgotten: a year ago, and with no assistance from any political party activists whatsoever, the good people of Glenrothes painstakingly filled out nearly 6,000 postal voting forms in the privacy of their own homes before carefully mailing them at their nearest letter box personally. The post office then conscientiously delivered them by normal mail to be counted on election day in the counting room. And, rather than reflecting the same spread of votes for all the parties reflected at the polling stations, every single one of them was for Labour.

Imagine that.

Humbled by the unanimity of the Glenrothes postal voters’ rejection, the SNP chose not to make a legal challenge at the time, thereby avoiding the accusation of sour grapes.

Or it may have been because the marked-up electoral register from the by-election went mysteriously ‘missing’ and, lacking a record of who had actually voted, it would have taken too long to prove what had happened and by which time nobody would have cared. Over a year since the by-election, it has still not been reconstructed.

The point is this: the SNP suspected Labour of massive electoral fraud at Glenrothes, but the hard evidence went missing.

Fast forward six months to May this year. The Commons Speaker Michael Martin resigns for expenses irregularities, and Glasgow is due another by-election. Having already proved that they could unseat Labour in Glasgow East in 2008, the SNP could afford to lose it. There was less to be gained from winning such a by-election at all costs, six months out from a UK general election in which Labour are facing annihilation. With Gordon Brown expected to hang on for as long as possible, an SNP victory would not have brought this day one second closer.

Think about it. In the coming UK election, the head of Scottish Labour – the present UK Government – will be removed from its shoulders regardless of how many seats the SNP wins at Westminster in May. After the election, UK Labour will be an irrelevance, regardless of how many seats it has on the opposition benches.

And regardless of whether London is ‘dancing to a Scottish jig’ or ‘hung by a Scottish rope’ after May 2010 – even if the SNP wins every single Scottish seat in Westminster – Scotland would still be no nearer getting its referendum over the line. In fact, if the SNP starts calling the shots in a hung Tory government, the present constitutional arrangement may well start to look remarkably beneficial for Scotland.

Which might make it preferable for many to independence.

So, what am I saying? That the SNP deliberately threw the Glasgow NE by-election?

No. But they did certainly did not throw everything at it.

Until independence, the SNP main game will be the referendum. It needs four things for it to succeed: a Holyrood budget to fund it, the parliament to allow it to happen, a cleaned-up electoral system for a fair run at it and, of course, the political will of the Scottish people to vote for it.

When the Glasgow NE By-election was called, SNP was faced with a dilemma: fight Labour tooth and nail for several grueling months for a by-election that changes nothing, or put up a high profile candidate with enough credibility to once more draw out Labour’s suspected electoral fraud machine, which would be mobilised to make damn sure Labour did not lose its second safest seat.

The SNP strategists knew Labour would fight dirty. A hard-won by-election would have sapped the SNP of funds with no return on investment other than being one voice louder on Westminster’s opposition benches for the next six months. In the event, Salmond chose to keep his powder dry for the referendum, running a by-the-numbers by-election and saving party funds for when it mattered. David Kerr was the bait and Labour took it.

Whole.

Kerr should feel no sense of shame or failure for how he performed. He may even be aware of why he was running. He is certainly no fool.

In the event, Labour won by 8,111 votes over the SNP’s 4,120. The irony being that electoral fraud – if indeed it was committed – was unnecessary, and Labour might have still won had they chosen to campaign cleanly. Or, at least, by only telling outright lies and utter fabrications about the SNP record in Glasgow.

So what was the point of all this?

The Scottish Government desperately wants to clean up the Scottish electoral system before the referendum on independence. However long it takes. With the evidence now gathered from possibly the second fraudulent by-election in twelve months, steps can now be taken to neutralise Labour’s suspected electoral fraud machine in Scotland.

Unless another marked-up electoral register going missing.

What the Irish Result Means for Scotland & England

With the YES vote in Ireland and European Union integration back to full steam ahead, we are quite possibly living through the last days of UK sovereignty. Interestingly enough though, during these momentous times many UK nationalists can still be heard to argue that even though the UK should be independent from the EU, that Scotland should not from the UK.

The irony of this should not be lost on Scots.

England’s Future in the EU
The UK nationalist argument is that on the one hand Scottish nationalism is narrow-minded, parochial and a recent construction of the SNP, but that UK nationalism is ancient and noble and somehow the way things ought to be, despite it being entirely a creation of the years since 1707. The key to understanding this thinking is that most anti-EU UK nationalist arguments are in fact borrowed from Tory ideas of Englishness, and that almost all the UK’s anti-EU groups are also English. Englishmen are in effect trying to intellectualise what is in reality a visceral aversion to their absorption of English national identity into the EU international soup.




What will the Lisbon Treaty mean for the UK as it stands? If you want an idea of what will happen if Project EU is completed, look no further than Scotland’s history within the UK. The parallels with the UK's coming absorption into the EU collective are striking.

For some time before Union happened for Scotland, there was a loose form of union in place (regal Union in 1603). This generated much conflict with England, and serious doubts from both nations about whether to take it further. Then Scotland suffered from a financial disaster that almost bankrupted the country - the fallout of the failed Darien Expeditions in the late 1690s.

Sound familiar?

Eventually, after much heated debate and venting of spleens, England offered to compensate Scotland in return for incorporating union. The Scottish common people were utterly against it. Then a massive English campaign of pamphlets and propaganda was launched to get it over the line.

Sound familiar?

Daniel Defoe was an English agent in Scotland at the time and a key player. England spent big to bribe Scotland's political elites and, in the end, most of those who were against it changed their minds. Scotland was sold out and the Scottish parliament voted itself out of existence.

Full incorporating Union was then finally enacted, without a referendum, and against the wishes of the Scottish people. How do we know this was the case? The result was rioting in the streets of several Scottish cities.

Scotland’s sovereignty was lost but her national identity persisted stubbornly throughout the Union, during which time her political elites and much of her population threw their weight behind the British Imperial project which, as many Englishmen will admit, was heavily influenced by the Scots. In the 300 years since, Scotland was transformed beyond recognition as hundreds of thousands of Scots scattered themselves across the Empire as soldiers, governors, settlers and merchants. She entered the Union with a fifth of England’s population, and is threatening to leave with barely a tenth.

Her people helped found and populate many of the nations that grew out of the Empire. Conversely, most of her land at home is today under foreign ownership. That is the nature of junior partnership in an empire.

What does this mean for England? Her population stands today at 51.7 million, barely more than a tenth of the population of Europe. With this in mind, the question on the lips of many Englishmen is this: once we have lost our sovereignty, will our island location be enough to preserve what’s left of England’s national identity in a teaming sea of 499 million Europeans, or is our population destined for dilution and depletion as the English are scattered throughout Europe, and European migrants pour in?


Scotland and the EU
In Scotland, many Scots may be sorely tempted to say, “see how you like your own medicine”, but for us the baton change from Westminster to Brussels would be fairly straightforward. It will be something for which 300 years of union with England has prepared us. In reality, we are already part of the EU labour market, while receiving none of the benefits of direct membership. But will full membership of the EU be the best arrangement for an ‘independent’ Scotland?

Will it be a case of ‘out of the frying pan, into the fire’?

Personally, after independence I would prefer a transition period of about twenty years to get our house in order and enter Europe on our own terms - if ever, instead of joining as an oil-rich-but-penniless escapee from the financial basket case that is Britain today. Norway’s associate membership via the EEA and EFTA has allowed it to opt into European programs on its own terms, and – through its massive oil revenues – to build a $400billion sovereign fund, giving it one of the hardest currencies in the world (as the UK Govt predicted 35 years ago would happen in Scotland after independence) instead of propping up the Euro.

This is probably the best path for Scotland.

Unfortunately, from where we stand I don’t think EEA membership is something that can be sold to a cautious Scottish public, in whose collective mind the act of breaking away from London will be difficult enough, and for whom the idea of Brussels acts as a safety net. In other words, if we want to get Scottish independence over the line, the SNP policy of independence-in-Europe is the most likely way it will succeed.

Independence-in-Europe has long been SNP policy, and although I’ve recently had my reservations, I now realise that these will only play into the hands of those who wish to keep Scotland in the UK. Make no mistake: for those Scots unsure of independence, cold feet about the EU will not lead them to choose the alternative model of EEA/EFTA-style of Norwegian nationhood.

It will keep us locked in this godforsaken Union.

Europe may have its problems but, as the expenses scandal has clearly shown, these issues are dwarfed by the systemic venality of Westminster and Whitehall. And the suggestion of Tony Blair as EU president should be seen for what it is: a distraction. Removing the corrupting influence of London’s tentacles from Scotland should remain our top priority and can only be a Good Thing.

If the last few weeks of Irish referendum coverage have taught us anything, it’s that most EU scaremongering in the UK has been by disaffected English Tories and the English Tory media, watching as the last vestiges of their national identity – dressed up as the UK – disappear.

That same UK sovereignty has allowed the British parliament to control Scotland since 1707 and, not to put too fine a point on it, the game is up.

So it’s important for Scots not to be taken in by English Tory protests at the loss of UK nationality to the EU. As part of the UK, Scots have no nationality to lose. We already lost that three hundred years ago, and now it's time to take it back.

Norway offers us the model, but even direct membership of the EU is more than what we've got now, which is nothing.

Dictatus Peterae – Idle Musings of a Megalomaniac

Newly leaked from my Westminster source is what seems to be a scented page of lilac paper torn from the personal diary of a government minister. The text is in Latin and in the florid, bold hand of one with complete confidence of his power and influence. Labour Party sources have denied its authenticity, while demanding how it came to be in the public domain.


A contact at Edinburgh University has offered the following translation:


It is hereby decreed:

I. That the Labour Party was founded by God alone.

II. That Baron Mandelson of Foy and Hartlepool alone can with right be called universal.

III. That He alone can depose or reinstate ministers and diplomats.

IV. That, in a committee His representative, even if a lower grade, is above all other ministers, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.

V. That He may depose the absent.

VI. That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by Him.

VII. That for Him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws.

VIII. That He alone may use the Prime Ministerial insignia.

IX. That of He alone shall all ministers kiss the feet.

X. That His name alone shall be spoken in the ministries and committees.

XI. That this is the only name in the world.

XII. That it may be permitted to Him to depose Prime Ministers.

XIII. That He may be permitted to transfer ministers and diplomats if need be.

XIV. That He has power to ordain a minister of any portfolio He may wish.

XV. That He who is ordained by Him may preside over another ministry, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any minister.

XVI. That no election shall be called a general one without His order.

XVII. That no law shall be considered passed without His authority.

XVIII. That a sentence passed by Him may be retracted by no one; and that He himself, alone of all, may retract it.

XIX. That He himself may be judged by no one.

XX. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to His holy chair.

XXI. That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every ministry.

XXII. That the Labour Party has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.

XXIII. That His Holiness is undoubtedly made a saint by his merits.

XXIV. That, by His command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.

XXV. That He may depose and reinstate ministers without assembling the cabinet.

XXVI. That he who is not at peace with Him shall not be considered for any public office.

XXVII. That He may absolve subjects from their fealty to other power-brokers.




OK, SO WHAT IS THIS?

My Edinburgh University contact tells me that this as a corrupted version of Dictatus Papae, a document supposedly written by Pope Gregory VII (Hildebrand) in 1075. It wasn’t made public at the time, and it has been argued by scholars that rather than just the idle scribblings of a power-hungry pope, it was in fact the church’s wish-list for absolute power. At very least it gives a good idea of just how powerful the medieval Christian Church either saw itself, or planned to become.

For those who seek to defend democracy in Britain in the early 21st century, the truly chilling aspect of this discovery is how little has been changed for this journal entry, if indeed it is authentic, which is yet to be verified.

The Calamari Commission: Full of holes

Here is what the UK Government’s Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution might have said if it were not window dressing for the vested interests of the UK of GB and NI.





The following summaries of its main points are from this excellent summary in the Times.

Calman Commission On Income Tax:

“The commission recommends a 10p cut in all income tax rates in Scotland, with a corresponding reduction in the annual block grant from the Treasury. Holyrood would be free to levy part or all of the 10p rate, or even levy more. The Scottish government would have to make a “tax decision” in terms of the size of its budget. If it levied less than the 10p rate, it would in effect cut its own budget. If it levied more, it could spend more on public services.”

Here is a better idea:

After a successful referendum on independence, the Scottish Government should take control of ALL its tax revenue raising abilities. The Scottish government should then make tax decisions based on what is good for the country.

Just as every other country does.

On Oil:

“While the devolution of North Sea oil revenues is feasible, oil is a finite resource and volatile in price. Basing the Scottish budget on oil prices would be a big risk and for this reason the devolution of oil and gas tax receipts was rejected.”

What a truly breathtaking piece of condescension. Ironic on so many levels. We'll pass. How about:

While the continued appropriation of North Sea oil revenues by the UK is feasible, oil is a finite resource and volatile in price. Basing the British budget on oil prices has been shown to be a big risk and for this reason the direct payment of all oil and gas tax receipts to Scotland is the preferred model.

On the Barnett formula:

“The population-based Barnett formula should stay until a new needs-based mechanism for the whole of the UK is introduced.”

A 'needs-based mechanism' has already been proposed - for the needs of the people of Scotland:

The population-based Barnett formula should be scrapped and Scotland should declare itself independent and free of interference from London.

On other powers:

“Holyrood should have control over airgun laws and the power to set drink-driving and speed limits and run Scottish elections. Scottish ministers should also appoint a Scotland representative to the BBC Trust.”

The following wording would have made much more sense:

Holyrood should have control over all Scotland's laws and have the power to set any limit on antisocial behaviour it chooses. The Government of an independent Scotland should create its own broadcasting corporation.

On handing back powers to Westminster:

“The commission says that Westminster should set laws on charities, food content and labelling and the regulation of health professionals for the whole of the UK, along with legislation on the winding up of companies.”

Charities? Westminster has purloined Scotland's lottery money for the London Olympics, money earmarked for Scottish charities. Food content? Under the free market policies of the British government we got mad cow disease. Health policies? The Scottish health system is leaving behind the English system with every passing month.

It all seems very messy. There is an easier way:

Holyrood should have control over all Scotland's laws.

On strengthening relations:

“Co-operation should be strengthened between Holyrood and Westminster. Ministers from Holyrood should appear routinely before committees in Westminster and vice versa.”

Co-operation is a wonderful concept. Here is a much better idea:

After three centuries of incorporation into the United Kingdom as a minor partner without a voice of its own, direct diplomatic relations should be re-established between Scotland and the other nations of the world. Ministers from Holyrood should co-operate with ministers from other nations on a routine basis at bilateral, committee and summit level.

Just as every other country does.

UPDATE

Top economists add voice to claims Calman tax plan could hit economy