Showing posts with label westminster. Show all posts
Showing posts with label westminster. Show all posts

Monday, 14 October 2013

Yes Scotland: a 16 year old writes...

Saying Yes to Scottish Independence: An opportunity for social justice.

16 year old Michael Scott, who will vote in next year's Independence referendum, writes about why he will vote YES.

Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation - Alasdair Gray[1]

Do you want the chance to create a better Scotland? In the 2014 referendum on independence you’ll get that opportunity. Given the choice, I for one will be saying yes. Too many important matters are still controlled, and I would argue controlled badly, by Westminster. The democratic deficit and the ever-growing chasm between the values of the MPs in London and the people of Scotland are now impossible to ignore. Independence offers the possibility of a different political road; the case for change is strong.


First and foremost there is a lack of democracy for Scottish voters within the current political union. Over the last 30 years we have been governed, more often than not, by a political party which the majority of people didn’t vote for. In the most recent general election, only 11% of those eligible to vote in Scotland voted for the Conservative Party and only 23% voted for the Conservatives and Liberals combined[2]. The House of Commons’ report, on the 2010 general election results, notes the “complete detachment”2(p14) of Scotland from political trends in England and Wales. This political detachment is both determined by and reflected in the different socioeconomic values displayed by Westminster and Holyrood.

A number of important matters of government are already devolved including education and health and where we have had the power to make our own decisions we have chosen radically different policies. A good example of this is the difference between the management of the NHS in Scotland compared with what is happening to the NHS in England following the introduction of the new Health and Social Care Act. While the former Scottish Secretary of State for Health has categorically stated her opposition to private sector involvement in healthcare[3], the new English health act has sown the seeds of privatisation within the NHS in England[4]. Similarly in education there is a distinct difference in attitudes towards undergraduate tuition fees between the two governments. On the one hand, First Minister Alex Salmond has been unequivocal in his opposition to fees stating “The rocks will melt with the sun before I allow tuition fees to be imposed on Scottish students”[5] while on the other hand the Coalition government has allowed universities in the rest of the UK to charge fees of up to £9000 a year.[6]

Unfortunately however, under devolution a number of significant matters are still controlled by Westminster including the economy, welfare, and defence. Although Scotland has a traditional commitment to centre left political parties2, lack of control over these important areas means that substantial parts of our society can be determined by policies that the majority of the population are unlikely to agree with. For example, it is hard to imagine the combination of swingeing cuts to the welfare budget affecting the most vulnerable in our society[7] and reduction of the top rate of tax for high earners[8] being popular with the majority of Scottish voters. Similarly it has been estimated that 73% of Scots are opposed to government plans to renew Trident. And yet, these decisions and other important matters are imposed on us by a government which less than a quarter of the eligible Scottish electorate has voted for.


Finally, I would like to allay some of the main fears surrounding independence. The three main arguments against Scottish Independence seem to consist of us being too small, too stupid and too poor to stand on our own two feet.[9] Let me tackle each of these in turn. First, as to being too small, we don’t have to look too far afield to see many small countries prospering. A prime example of this would be Norway, which, like Scotland, has a population of about 5 million and off shore oil. However, unlike Scotland, Norway has complete control of the revenue of its oil resource and as a result has been able to use the accumulated surplus (approx £368bn) as a pension fund.[10] Another example of a small economy thriving is that of Iceland, which, with a population of just over 300,000, is bucking the European trend in terms of economic recovery from the financial crisis.[11]

 Secondly with respect to being too inexperienced to run our own affairs I’d argue that we already run many important national matters from Holyrood successfully including health, education and justice.

 Thirdly, as to us being too poor, a recent New Statesman article stated “not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation”[12] The author of this article goes on to point out that although Scots represent just 8.4% of the UK’s total population they contribute 9.4% to its tax revenues which is equivalent to an extra £1000 for every person in Scotland relative to the contribution of others in the UK.

 An argument against Scottish Independence with which I do have sympathy is that it will ultimately decrease the chance of achieving a more socially democratic society on a UK wide basis. In the short-term I appreciate that the loss of Scottish voters may result in an increased proportion of right wing political representatives in the UK parliament. However, in the longer term I hope that having a neighbouring, flourishing, social democratic society may more powerfully change political attitudes across the rest of the UK than we have been able to do in recent years.

In conclusion, I would argue that fear of change is the only thing holding us back. Some change however, is good; and if we work as if we are in the early days of a better nation then this change will be for the good and the opportunity to create a more socially just society will be realised.




REFERENCES

[1] Gray A. Work as if you live in the early days of a better nation. Herald Scotland. May 5 2007. http://www.heraldscotland.com/work-as-if-you-live-in-the-early-days-of-a-better-nation-1.827519 (accessed 15 September 2012).


[2] Electoral Reform Society. The UK General Election 2010: In depth. House of Commons. 2010.


[3] Torrance D. Scottish Health Secretary: England will end NHS as we know it. The Guardian. March 22 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/healthcare-network/2011/mar/22/scottish-health-secretary-england-ending-nhs (accessed 15 September 2012)


[4] Campbell D. BMA's new leader: 'There's no evidence that a part-privatised NHS runs better'. The Guardian. August 31 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/aug/31/bma-leader-nhs-privatisation (accessed 15 September 2012)


[5] BBC News. SNP Conference: Salmond in free education pledge. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-12711509 (accessed 15 September 2012)


[6] BBC News. Students face tuition fees rising to £9000. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11677862 (accessed 15 September 2012)


[7] UN urged to monitor welfare cuts. The HeraldScotland. September 21 2012. http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/un-urged-to-monitor-welfare-cuts.18934095 (accessed 21 September 2012)


[8] Stewart H. Budget 2012: 50p tax rate scrapped and allowance raised. The Guardian. March 21 2012 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/21/budget-2012-50p-tax-rate-scrapped-allowances (accessed 15 September 2012)


[9]Scottish Independence: It’ll Cost You. The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/21552564 (accessed 21 September 2012)


[10]Wikipedia. The Government Pension Fund of Norway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway (accessed 21 September 2012)


[11] Lyall S. A Bruised Iceland Heals Amid Europe’s Malaise. New York Times. July 12 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/world/europe/icelands-economy-is-mending-amid-europes-malaise.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed 21 September 2012).


[12] Maxwell J. Enough of The Scottish subsidy myth. The New Statesman. November 06 2011. http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/11/scotland-12288-union-public (accessed 21 September 2012).

Saturday, 12 October 2013

Sign the petition...

To Ed Miliband, leader of UK Labour Party:

Present Emergency Motion in Parliament to Abolish the Bedroom Tax - NOW, not after 2015!

Sign HERE via @change

Tuesday, 18 May 2010

No to 55% - the Scottish situation

Previous posts on this HERE and HERE

Information on the 66% rule in Scotland:
  • The 66% dissolution rule is standard across many parliaments. For many it is considered a high amount and is designed to provide stability. It is considered 'constitutionally safer' to have a two thirds requirement.
  • The decision to create the two-thirds rule was taken at Westminster during the formation of the Scotland act, 1998. It was enacted by the then Labour Government and would not have been debated in the Scottish parliament as it was not yet reconvened.

Further information can be found in some of the debates during the passage of the Scotland Bill, in the House of Commons, but primarily, in a grouping of amendments on the issue of elections to the Scottish Parliament, in the House of Lords:

Commons Committee Stage 28 January 1998 Col 460 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmhansrd/vo980128/debtext/80128-25.htm

Lords Committee Stage 8 July 1998 Col 1342 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980708/text/80708-03.htm#80708-03_head2

Lords Committee Stage 8 July 1998 Col 1351 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980708/text/80708-12.htm#80708-12_head0

Lords Committee Stage 8 July 1998 Col 1354 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo980708/text/80708-27.htm, particularly the exchange between Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and Lord Steel of Aikwood

Lords Reporting Stage 22 October 1998 Col 1640 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldhansrd/vo981022/text/81022-21.htm, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on amendment 32

1997 White Paper that preceded the Scotland Bill: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/government/devolution/scpa-00.asp - although the only mention there is this: 9.4 The Scottish Parliament may be dissolved before the 4 years is up with the agreement of at least two thirds of MSPs, or if the Parliament fails to agree on the appointment of a First Minister.

Sunday, 16 May 2010

Left Banker on the Austerity measures of ConDemNation

The Butchers Coalition - An Economic Agreement for Severe Austerity by the Left Banker HERE

More HERE

SSP welcomes the New Prime Minister to the scottish Parliament - see HERE

Friday, 14 May 2010

Gleichschaltung - an update

Update on THIS ARTICLE - please read -

The Scottish Situation

I am concerned that the Con/Dem coalition are using the Scottish experience - ie. the 66% requirement of members supporting dissolution - out of context.

One Tory commentator on BBC News 24 this morning has stated that this 66% was brought in by the "Labour Party" last year. This, first of all, does not ring true, as any documentation I have managed to find seems to go back at least until 2001 and if it was only introduced last year, it would have been the SNP Government who would have done so.

This use of the Scottish requirement for 66% seems to be the only defence the ConDem coalition are using that will ensure continuance of a Tory minority Government if the Liberals walk away from any agreement. I feel any misinformation should be countered - and I feel it is imperative that MSP's explain the thinking behind 66% in Scotland. (It has to be remembered the Scottish Government elections are STV and have a term of only four years - so the ground is quite different from the 5 year term first past the post system in Westminster).

This is at the very least, an attack on the integrity of our Devolved Parliament.

If the 66% was debated and discussed cross party - and it was cross party agreement that had it implimented, then it differs greatly from this proposal of 55% by the Tories and Lib Dems in Westminster.

In effect this 55% will mean that regardless of the coalition, and regardless of a plethora of no-confidence motions the Tories will remain in power for five years and ensure the Scottish budget is decided by a tiny minority only representative of 15 % of the Scottish voting public.

I have not yet been able to find the debates/discussions that led to this figure of 66%.

I will update as I find more information on the Scottish situation.

Friday, 16 April 2010

Help put socialist policies on the agenda...

The Scottish Socialist Party will be standing in 10 seats across Scotland at the general election on Thursday 6th May.
Aberdeen North - Ewan Robertson
Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East - Willie O'Neil
Dundee East - Angela Gorrie
Edinburgh South West - Colin Fox
Glasgow Central - James Nesbitt
Glasgow East - Frances Curran
Glasgow North East - Kevin McVey
Livingston - Ally Hendry
Paisley and Renfrewshire North - Chris Rollo
Paisley and Renfrewshire South - Jimmy Kerr.


The SSP general election campaign will offer a real alternative to the policies of the party’s of big business at the election, and put socialist policies firmly on the agenda in Scotland at the General Election.

The Scottish Socialist Party is standing in the General Election on a programme of resistance and defiance of Westminster cuts, emergency action against youth unemployment;
an end the war in Afghanistan, & an independent Socialist Scotland.



All SSP candidates are committed to taking only a workers wage, and are opposed to the obscene expenses and salaries of Westminster MPs.



The SSP stands firmly on the principal of Workers MP on a Workers wage.



The general election campaign places a massive financial pressure on the shoulders of the SSP both at local & national level to raise the funds needed to finance our general election campaign.



I am appealing to all members/friends & supporters of the Scottish Socialist Party directly to make a pledge or donation to the General Election Campaign Fund, to help the party raise the necessary funds to fight our General Election campaign.



You can make a pledge /donation to the general election campaign fund, in the following ways.

1. At your local SSP Branch meeting or directly to your branch organiser or branch treasurer.



2. Send a cheque made out to the Scottish Socialist Party Election Fund to the party's national office @ 93 Hope Street Glasgow.



3. Text me on 07811265388 & let me know the details of your pledge /donation and I will make arrangements to get it collected.



4. E-mail me @ jimmcvicar.scottishsocialistparty@hotmail.com & let me know the details of your pledge /donation and I will make arrangements to get it collected.



I appreciate it is a difficult time financially for comrades ,but every penny & pound is vital for the party's election campaign to be successful and every pledge /donation is appreciated and will go directly to finance the General Election Campaign.



If you have already made a pledge or donation to the SSP Election l fund, thanks your contribution is much appreciated by the party.



Thanks for your support.
Jim McVicar.

SSP National Treasurer.




The Scottish Socialist Party can only accept donations to the general election campaign fund from UK registered voters.

Wednesday, 17 June 2009

Scottish Socialist Party to stand candidate in Glasgow North East by-election

A well-attended meeting of Scottish Socialist Party members last night voted to stand a candidate in the forthcoming Glasgow North East Westminster by-election, triggered by the resignation of Michael Martin.

SSP Regional Secretary Richie Venton today said:

“The Scottish Socialist Party has consistently fought elections since our formation nearly 11 years ago. We are determined to give the people of Glasgow North East a socialist alternative to all the parties of greed and profiteering.

“With daily bulletins on the stench of greed and corruption rising from Westminster, we will stand a socialist candidate pledged to remain on a skilled worker’s wage, nothing more, to stay in touch with working class people who suffer some of the worst levels of poverty in Europe.

“With New Labour and the Tories competing in an obscene auction of job losses, pay cuts and the slaughter of public services, the SSP will demand a 10 per cent wealth tax on the millionaires to help fund jobs and services.

“We will demand the Scottish government stand up for Scotland, mobilise the Scottish people and defy £500m of Westminster public sector cuts, instead of playing pass-the-blame at the expense of workers’ jobs and community services.

“With Glasgow Labour council ripping the hearts out of several local communities through closure of schools and nurseries, and the SNP government standing silent in the shadows whilst class sizes increase and education worsens, the SSP will demand class sizes of 20 or less for all age-groups, and investment in local community schools, as part of our vision of an independent socialist Scotland that puts kids before cash, people before profit.”

For more information contact Richie Venton on 07828 278 093

richieventon@hotmail.com