Back to Political Basics. One: The Environment

In the last couple of years, I have been taking a break from active politics. Unfortunately in life, politics does not return the favour. Predictably, following the hardest possible Brexit introduced by the Conservatives, people in the UK are getting poorer and standards, of regulations, of political ethics and accountability, and of living are getting lower and lower. 

This blog however is not intended to indulge in party politics. Sitting back and viewing the current field, I don’t think any of the UK’s political parties have covered themselves in glory recently. So, I am going to ask the big question: what should we be campaigning about? Both the global and UK contexts will be considered. 

This was meant to be a single blog post but, having started, I realise that it is going to be part of a series. There is too many areas to cover.  The aim though is to focus attention on the things that are the root issues. That is not to say that other things do not matter but in themselves are part of the bigger picture. For instance, when it comes to tackling poverty, education, healthcare, and housing are all part of the issue and solution. 

All the challenges that we face are interdependent but let’s start though with the environment. Without a healthy environment, it will be difficult to sustain human life and civilisation. You may ask why I don't lead with the rise of CO2. It is vital to reduce and reverse CO2 output but again, there is no simple solutions. Each section of these blogs will have this global problem interwoven with the issues being addressed. 

This year has seen the birth of the eighth billion person to be alive on this planet. As many has pointed out and for a long time, the human population of the planet continues to grow. The driving force for this is not increasing birth rates but the elderly lasting longer. None of this is controversial, go and look it up. So if we are as a global society are to preserve the health of the planet, and ultimately our societies and ourselves, biodiversity has to be cherished and the trend in species extinction to be reversed. While there is understandably a lot of focus on the melting ice sheets and warming of the Arctic and Antarctic, the causes are to be found elsewhere. 

1. We must conserve the world’s forests. The major woodlands of the boreal and tropics are both major carbon syncs and the focus of biodiversity on the continents. They continue to be cut down globally. This must stop. In the British Isles, we have over the centuries all but destroyed our natural woodlands, resulting in some of the poorest biodiversity in Europe. There is talk of re-wilding projects and these should go ahead, at all scales. Whether it is the use of micro forests in urban parklands or the replanting of upland woods, long scalped by sheep grazing and grouse moors, these are necessary to returning these islands to environmental health. 

2. Perhaps even more importantly, the global oceans are in deep trouble. Seventy percent of the world’s surface is covered by water and the oceans average a depth of five kilometres. As such, it is a far more important carbon sync than any forest on land, but still is less well understood. Of the global fisheries that have been studied, six percent are under-fished, sixty percent are fished to the maximum limits of sustainability, and the remaining thirty four percent are over-fished. There are studies suggesting that bottom fishing is disturbing carbon sedimentation, releasing CO2 back into the environment. What is worse, few seem to be asking the question how much fossil fuel is the global fishing fleet burning while fishing? For us in the UK, the relatively shallow waters of the North Sea and adjacent Atlantic are an important nursery for many species.

Both woodland and oceans are important carbon syncs and centres of biodiversity. With the UK being an island nation it is vital that we play a major part in regional conservation. Ironically enough, this means further restricting industrial fishing in the surrounding seas. Of the seventy six marine protected areas designated by the UK government, only four of them are currently protected from bottom trawling and dredging. Therefore it can be concluded that the other seventy two marine protected areas are in name only. 

I use the term ironic because the fishing industry was used as a political touchstone to justify Brexit. Sorry about this folks but Brexit probably means, along with restricting our ability to export UK seafood, that the necessary expansion of marine reserves will, in the short term at least, mean even more restrictions on the fishing industry than currently exist. The resetting of our fisheries will ultimately mean more healthy and sustainable fisheries in the longer term and a healthier planet. 

Jo Cox: One Year On.

It was at the start of the EU Edinburgh Rally - Leading not Leaving  on June 16th that Willie Rennie, the event’s chairperson, read out a statement that Jo Cox MP had been attacked in the street.  None of us knew at that time, 2:00pm, that Jo had already died of her wounds.  The pro-EU rally went on but it was not reported on.  I knew as soon as switched on a radio afterwards and they were still talking about her that Jo must be dead. 

It was a shocking attack.  As soon as reports came out that her attacker (who is not worthy of mentioning by name) was into organisations such as The National Alliance, I knew he was a neo-Nazi and that Jo’s murder was a political assassination.  I said so too, for I know The National Alliance.  I was told to shut up, that one should not speculate, that the person may have been mentally ill, but I knew.  He wasn’t ill, he was a Nazi.

How did I know? The leader of The National Alliance was one William Pierce. He used to write weekly news letters, extolling the superiority of the white race and besmirching others. His main target (since he was American) were black people, Mexicans and Latin Americans.  In the 1990s, I came across the online chat room while doing my first degree in Wales. Being blonde and blue-eyed, I took special objection to Pierce's loathsome views and argued vehemently with the racist bastard.

After Jo’s murderer was convicted and the facts were out, he was indeed proved to be acting upon ideology and not through any form of madness.  He is a terrorist who killed in order to advance the tenants of Nazism. 

This year, I went to a Jo Cox get-together for candidates in the general election.  Will such events help take the bitterness out of political campaigning?  I really hope so. I did not know Jo Cox personally but from what I hear she was a wonderful woman who stood up against injustice, although one must always be aware of the perils of hierography of the dead.  It may be enough though that the civic memory of Jo Cox lives on through such events.  It is a reminder that we have far more in common than whatever divides us and, no matter the disagreement, violence is never the answer.

Jo Cox died on June 16th, 2016.  My fiftieth birthday. I think through Jo and the coincidence of the date, the memory of what she has come to stand for will never leave me.

UK Politics, 2016.

A lot of people will be glad to see the end of 2016 and in the political sphere, it was indeed a bad year to be a liberal.  I am going to take this opportunity to get a lot off my chest so buckle up dear reader.

Where to start?  Brexit seems a “good” place.  There is a lot of lessons for the political establishment here.  For many, dislike of immigration was the main factor.  Listening to those who voted to leave however, I do not think that the central message was one of hatred.  It was a cry of desperation: the feeling that politicians do not listen to them and that the issues that matter most are not being addressed.  Instead of addressing these issues though, the blame was shifted on to the EU - the “unelected bureaucrats” who allegedly dictate our lives.  The lie was cynically sold to those people who are least informed of the issues.  The state of UK democracy is not the fault of the EU but rather of ourselves.  Westminster has a rotten voting system and local democracy in the form of town and county councils have been hollowed out systematically since the 1970s.  Leaving the European Union will not address any of this.  It comes down to decision-making on the local level and having the resources necessary so that local needs can be answered.  Leaving the EU will only worsen our economy for the foreseeable future.  One possible explanation put forward is based upon economic psychology.  It is claimed that is better for some to see everybody poorer rather than to see some better off.  Personally, I hope this is not the case as for my own personal politics is to encourage people to positive action, while understanding we all have negative passions too.  

What is the game plan of those who led the Brexit campaign?  It varies, depending upon which end of the political extreme one is on.  We currently have a very right wing government in office, led by Theresa May.  Make no mistake: these people are both social and economic extremists.  Even Farage himself mused upon the possibility of rejoining the Conservative Party, as they now occupy UKIP ground.  In order to appear more central, there has been an accommodation in the press of the Far Right.  This is evidenced not only by the continued presence of Farage, but Marine Le Pen of the Front National has been making several appearances on the BBC.  My antenna first twitched when on the World at One (BBC Radio 4) Le Pen was introduced as a “right wing” politician.  Note, not extreme right as in previous years.  Later on she and her nationalist right party featured on Newsnight (BBC 2) and The Marr Show (BBC1).  We have to import fascists for it is impossible to go further right than UKIP and the current government without stepping into Britain First, one of whose members murdered Labour’s Jo Cox MP on June 16th, 2016.

The far economic right agenda is starting to surface.  It had to start with the repeal of a lot of the previous legislation laid down by Liberal Democrats while part of the Coalition.  During the summer recess of 2015, the Cameron government cut the majority of support to the renewable industries and weakened the framework set up to strictly regulate fracking in (onshore) England.  Previously no exploitation would have been allowed under national parks and similarly protected areas - such as Sherwood Forest.  Now it is just about the location of well sites.  Deviated and horizontal well technology is now allowed to drill under areas previously off limits.  Since the Brexit vote, a lot of effort is going into deregulation.  Large corporations are looking at London in the hope of benefitting from an extreme low-tax regime, without having to go to all the fuss of setting up shell companies in far-flung tax havens.  Working rights, already weakened in negotiations with UK governments, will be further attacked.  Farmers who supported Brexit will be looking to grow GM crops and import US-style animal husbandry practices in order to boost profits.  Basically, the whole of the UK is to become a giant deregulated Free-Trade Zone, even more extreme than what exists currently in the USA.  The Right will be looking keenly at the moves taken by President Elect (at the time of writing) Trump, along with the Republican Congress and Senate. 

Enough of the Right, what of the Left?  Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn (remember him?) has been mute on holding this government to account on Brexit.  In fact, a lot of Labour spokespeople have been making very supportive noises on limiting future immigration.  Some say that this is Labour running scared of their own electorate and pandering to the prejudice on display.  I cannot help but wonder if there is a deeper motive in play.  It is pretty clear that Corbyn is no fan of the EU and in this he follows in the Bennite tradition.  The idea being is that the EU is primarily a regulated trading zone with large corporations being the major beneficiaries.  Since a sincere and dedicated socialist is against capitalism, one must also be against the EU.  There is more.  Corbyn and his Momentum acolytes must know the Conservative plans for the economy.  Why are they not vocally opposing them now?  One wonders if the reason is because they have read their Marx, and that in order for true socialism to come about, capitalism must be allowed to go to the worst possible extremes.  Only then will us proletariat rise up and overthrow our masters.  Overall, the EU has been quite successful in curbing the worst excesses and allowing many citizens to have reasonable lives.  It is a stumbling block on the way to the Marxist paradise.  The Conservatives on the other hand are offering the path to corporate excess and thus to the inevitable people’s revolution. Only speculation one understands, but otherwise there is no accounting for the silence of Labour leadership.

What of UKIP?  The whole point of the referendum was for the Conservative party to address the schism within their own ranks: UKIP is a renegade party created by former Conservatives after all.  This they have done, even at the cost of pulling the UK out of Europe (Brexit means Brexit) and dividing the nation pretty well down the middle. Seldom British history has a prime minister laid down the future of an entire nation for the sake of his own party, but this is what the Conservatives under David Cameron has done. Since the vote went the way of Leave, there is little point in UKIP existing any more. Sure, they might have a revival if the Conservatives do not deliver but at the time of writing, UKIP has won and the membership might as well return to the mothership that is the Conservative Party. 
As UKIP is reabsorbed however, one may find that some choose to go their own way.  Look out for “independent” candidates, using the language of the US ALT Right; offering to “Drain the Swamp” near you.  In previous years they would have wondered off and joined the National Front or the BNP.  They are still the same old fascists and racists, just using a new label.

 With all this madness going on, the SNP up here in Scotland must think that things are going rather well.  In May they won their third term in government, albeit as an minority this time around.  The problem is with the SNP is that they are a pressure group for independence rather than a political party with thought-through and costed policies.  Yet again in 2016, we had the farce of the delayed publication of the party manifestos.  In 2011, the other parties realised that for their own manifesto, the SNP shamelessly cut-and-paste policies into their own manifesto and simply increases the pledges.  For example, after an in-depth report from a party committee, in their manifesto the Liberal Democrats might pledge to build 40,000 houses in Scotland over the five years of a parliamentary term.  The SNP leadership think “Oh, that’s shiny, we’ll have that” and ups their pledge to 50,000 for good measure.  It is not just the Liberal Democrat manifesto that is pillaged in this way: the SNP does it to all the other parties.  This time around Labour held out and were last to publish with only days left before the vote.  This could not have helped with postal voting and may have contributed towards their third place.  By representing themselves as Unionists rather than Tories, the Conservatives came second.  On the street and doorstep, one could not even make out any sign of Conservative logos or name tags: the print used was so small.  During the election Ruth Davidson successfully de-branded themselves as Conservatives and even now distances herself from her Westminster colleagues by this week restating her EU-Remainer sympathies.

None of this really matters to the SNP.  The only policy they have is independence and the only method of government they do is the centralisation of power to Holyrood.  This year’s bill on forestry will not devolve power to local communities but instead takes power from the Forestry Commission and gives it to government ministers.  The SNP will continue to concentrate all policing in the hands of government by absorbing Scottish-based British Transport Police into the already discredited Police Scotland.  They shamelessly use the language of the progressive left while practicing economic right-wing policies.  Look out for the predicted cut in air transport duty, due to be delivered in 2018.  This isn’t based upon any progressive or green policies but rather at the demand of Gordon Dewar, the chief executive of Edinburgh Airport.  The SNP has not altered the burden of income tax so it weighs heavier on the better off.  All they have done in not pass on the Conservative tax cut to higher earners made by the Westminster government.  When it comes to renewable energy, the Scottish government has passed on the Westminster cuts to small-scale generators and now their emphasis is on large-scale projects, just as it in the south.  Our hospitals and care services continues to be cut, as does our education services.  Right now that they are claiming in an online meme that the NHS is thriving outside England, at a time when both hospital and care services continue to be cut here in Edinburgh and Dundee has problem filling vacant positions.  This is a new definition of thriving.  What really gets me is not just that the problems exist, it is the constant denial that there are any problems at all.  Things will inevitably worsen while the Executive continues to deny that there is problems in public and the main thing they demand of their membership (and even MPs and MSPs) is unquestioning faith rather than intelligent criticism.  As a society we cannot continue to hang time while the party in charge waits for its opportunity to hold a second referendum.  Problems we all face need addressing now, otherwise the nation’s future prospects will worsen, whatever capital city is ultimately in charge.

What of my own beloved party, the Liberal Democrats?  As Paddy Ashdown graphically put it (after dining upon his own hat following the 2015 election), politically we were “roadkill”.  Slowly though we are less roadkill and more on the road to recovery.  Safe to say the party did not enjoy power.  Better being in power though - after all we were able to deliver seventy percent of our manifesto commitments and beat down the excesses we warned you all about with the Conservatives and are now all-too-evident.  Freed from the shackles of Westminster coalition (which incidentally I did highlight in a pre-election blog post in 2010), a weight has been lifted off our shoulders and the old campaigning mojo is back.  This is evident by performances in the 2016 Scottish elections, winning two seats (thanks to teams led by Willie Rennie and Alex Cole-Halmilton) directly from the SNP and avoiding the predicted wipeout.  Further evidence is the net gain of 28 council seats in by-elections across the UK.  The cherry on the (still admittedly small but growing) pie is the victory at Richmond Park, with Sarah Olney overthrowing a massive Conservative majority.  Yes, Goldsmith was standing as an independent and yes, the Greens showed true generosity in standing aside in the fight.  Goldsmith was supported by the Conservatives and UKIP also stood aside to give him a better chance.  A win is a win and it shows that liberalism is not forgotten.  Indeed, liberalism is proving to be the only effective antidote against extremism and popularism.  I have faith in people, but only when they also have the facts.  That is one reason why power is best delivered locally and not centralised in either Edinburgh or London.  Democracy is also too valuable to be bought by corporations following what is effectively a constitutional coup by the economic far right.

I remain both a liberal and a Remainer.  Brexit has given us Liberal Democrats not only a further reason to exist but have provided us with a mission that the public can easily understand.  I don’t respect the outcome of the referendum.  When we had our debate over Scottish independence, the time taken allowed everybody a rounded view before the vote.  Two years felt long: it was long but it proved necessary.  Three months is nothing.  In fact it was just six weeks up here in Scotland, owing to the Scottish Parliament elections being held in May.  When I wrote my blog giving the reasons I was voting No, I made the commitment that whatever the outcome, I would honour it.  We never had that kind of debate over Brexit, it was rushed and frankly was only ever held to settle the schism in the Conservative Party.  Internal party reasons to hold the referendum of such huge consequence are is the worst possible motive and we need a second referendum.  Not so the correct result can be achieved - although obviously I do hope for a different outcome - it is so that a public decision can be reached with all the options and facts being explored.  A rushed, railroaded decision is worse than no decision at all.  The alternative to another referendum would be a general election.  On that, I would be very happy to see the Liberal Democrats stand as the party dedicated to remain within the European Union.  As part of a genuinely progressive coalition, it might even be possible to overturn Brexit and thwart the extreme right.

Fake News and the Age of Cynicism.

We live in an age where knowledge has never been so widely or cheaply available.  The results are all around us: the computer device you are reading this on, the artificial fabric which keeps most of us warm either in the house or on the street, the car or bus that most take to work.  All fruits of knowledge and the labour of teams of experts who wrought this knowledge into material goods.  Knowing and doing is how most people earn their living.

There is one area of life however where knowledge seems to be unwelcome and that is the public sphere.  Especially in Anglo-Saxon society, it can be considered rude to show off one’s education outside an academic or applied setting.  On one level this is fine: it is an attempt to put others’ at ease who, through whatever circumstances, may not have shared in the advantages of a good education.  In another way, it is also a defence against any bad feeling that may result from excessing erudition.  “Know-it-all”,“too clever by half” or “too clever for his own good” are peculiarly British insults for those deemed boorish or precocious thought the use of too many big words.

It seems though that this suspicion of knowledge and those who possess some (for long gone is the age when anybody can claim to know everything), has moved into a new higher level.  This did not come about by accident but instead has been long in the making.  

The media have had a long history of skewing the news to fit their particular agenda.  When it comes to newspapers that has been long accepted as people are free to purchase the news that appeals to their own sensibility.  As for state-run media, the free-to-air stuff where most people get their daily news, it is more dangerous.  If the facts are tailored to fit the government view, this will work while the the media outlets are still relatively limited.  In the age of the Internet though, that is no longer the case.

Obviously the Internet changed everything and what the world is seen since is a constant struggle for control.  Some nations like China have been particularly heavy-handed with the setting up of the Great Firewall.  Others like Russia have more relied upon monitoring of internal consumers and  that for the majority of the population, English is still not widely spoken or read.

What happens though in the West?  It is impossible to suppress the news completely.  Facts can be challenged and checked.  So the answer is to attack the facts themselves.  This is not a competition between facts so that a path ahead can be mapped out based upon some reason, but rather the undermining of facts by downright contradiction, making it less possible to see reason at all.  

Contradiction and outright lying in politics has of course a long history.  It’s theoretical basis is outlined in the beginning of Plato’s Republic: rulers occasionally have to lie to the population, concealing a current truth in order to bring about a beneficial outcome.  

What happens though when the desired outcome is not beneficial to most, but rather to a narrow clique?  In order for this to be achieved, the last thing that most people should be told is the truth. Instead people will have their prejudices pandered to.  Something going wrong?  It cannot be Our fault can it?  We are wonderful!  It must be Their fault.  It doesn’t really matter who They are, as long as there is a recognisable difference.  The point is that it is Them that are holding Us back.  There might be too many of Them here.  Their culture does not fit with Our culture and ways.  They are a burden on society.  If it wasn’t for Their rules, we would be free to do everything better.   Even worse, the Elite is on Their side!  Elites cite Facts in order to bamboozle ordinary folk like You and Me.  Unless You are one of those who go around citing Facts?  Are You an Expert?  In which case You are a member of the Elite and thus either one of Them or, even worse, a traitor to the rest of Us.

I am not even going to pick a side here to attack.  There are so many to choose from nowadays.  Once political debate is reduced to the Them versus Us, facts and reason no longer matter.  The people who buy into whoever version of this are lost to both.  Instead their opinion is putty in the hands of whoever feeds them dialogue.  It is not even news.  It does not even have to be a version of reality because the motives of anybody who contradicts the dialogue must be acting from the worst of motives.  People have been trained to be cynical.

I will leave you with a suggestion.  If you automatically dismiss everything said by somebody you identify as an opponent.  If you are in the habit of branding certain parties as evil.  If you object to certain people simply by their presence. If you call for freedom from dictatorship without having any clear idea or knowing solid examples of what form that oppression takes.  If you only use facts to further your cause. 

If any one or more of these points rings a bell with you, ask yourself these questions:

Who is doing the thinking for me?  

What do they hope to achieve?  

Why am I not getting the all the facts so I can make up my own mind?

Then go and get those facts and be careful of those who would have you disbelieve that it is possible to do so.  The Internet is here: use it well.

This Week: The Highs and Very Lows

This week has seen some of the best and worst of people and politics.

My own week started on Leith Links, campaigning with the Edinburgh North, East and Leith Liberal Democrats.  Given that the EU referendum is coming up, we decided to put our efforts into supporting the Remain campaign.  Always the party with the greatest enthusiasm for the European Union, I found it a real pleasure engaging people on the subject.

Even those who didn't want to know the Libdems (I know, hard to believe!) were usually willing to talk on Europe.  My approach was straightforward.  Those who were undecided were offered, and glad to accept, information on the matter.  We had brochures, leaflets and we're glad to answer questions.   People who had already decided to vote to stay were offered rather tasteful lapel badges with stickers and balloons for the children.

It was those who intended to vote for Brexit that were really engaged.  I always asked "Why?"   Now some would not be talked to, offering a stream of thoughts as they departed.  Most did stop and explain their reasoning.  The amount of misinformation about the EU is rather scary.   One person was not even aware that the European Parliament was elected and was seriously surprised that the next election for the Parliament would be in 2018, after they had missed the 2014 elections.   Others had to be reassured that the UK did have full control of non-EU immigration. One person raised the question of anti-social behaviour (littering) by some young Eastern Europeans, to which I countered "That is against the law so why aren't we applying own own laws?"  Countering minor nuisances like this doesn't depend upon the nationality of those causing it.

The result was that over half of those who had claimed to be solid No voters went away with a different point of view.  It was a good result and shows the value of real facts and direct conversation.

The next morning was the start of the lows.  News of a mass shooting came through from Orlando.  There had already been the murder of promising young singer, 22-year-old Christine Grimmie,  in the same town, earlier in the week.  It seems a perverse coincidence that there would be another incident there so soon.  As the details arose throughout the day, the full horror became clear.  The biggest mass killing by a single shooter on US soil was a homophobic hate crime.  From my viewpoint, LGBT+ rights are simply human rights.  I know that the gunman, whose name frankly should be forgotten, claimed to act in the name of ISIS but, giving the previous involvement that the murderer had with the Pulse club, perhaps that was just to give some self-justification for the atrocity he had decided to commit.

America, I don't think the root cause of the problem is the amount of guns in society, although that is a massive factor.  Rather it is the general attitude toward the value of human life.  It took two mass killings in the UK, thirteen in Australia, before guns were banned in the respective nations, with widespread public support.  It seems to us abroad, despite the continuation of the phenomena, despite the anguish of the parents and relatives of the dead, the attachment to firearms continue.  Perhaps since the right to bear arms was as part of a trained militia, that the only legal weapons should be flintlock muskets and civil war pistols.  Seriously though, military grade weapons have no purpose in civilian hands.  I remember that assault-grade weapons, such as a BAR, used to be sold with only three-round magazines for civilian collectors.  The only reason one can see to change that was to sell more weapons and bullets.  An AR-15 comes with a 30-round magazine as standard.
It might be naive to suggest a total ban but a handgun is more than enough for those who feel the need for personal protection.  Taking military grade weapons off the open market would finally signal a change in American attitudes.  Even that is too much for the NRA, arms dealers and their cronies in the Congress and Senate.   In my opinion, any society that does not value human life is the last society that should have open access to firearms.

From horrors like the massacre at the Pulse Nightclub, sometimes beauty comes forth.  Such beauty was the reaction.  Vigils were held across the world and I would like to thank the Edinburgh branch of Inclusive Networks for organising Wednesday's event, held in St.Andrew's Square.  The event was open to all and people of all ages and genders attended in large numbers, despite the unpleasant and dreich weather.  Two choirs, Loud&Proud and Edinburgh's Gay Men's Chorus, sang wonderfully and there were speeches from politicians and non-politicians alike.  The most moving part was the reading of the names.  Stalin was right: numbers are just a statistic.  Hearing the names, hearing how young and how much life would have been ahead of the fallen, that for me was important.  I turned fifty this week so in a position to fully appreciate how much life, how many futures, were taken.  For many LGBT+ people the massacre was also a violation of a haven: an area where one could relax and just be oneself in a safe and supportive environment.  It is a shame that such places are still necessary but, despite what has been achieved over the last fifty years, it is so.  We are still not in a society where neither the life not dignity of every individual is respected by all.

The following day (which was my birthday anniversary) I attended the afternoon's political rally held by the IN campaign.  This rally was symbolically very important because of its cross-party nature.  Chaired by Scottish Libdem leader Willie Rennie: Greens, Conservatives, SNP, Labour and Liberal Democrats were all represented by senior party figures.  For Labour it was Scottish party leader Kezia Dugdale and for the Liberal Democrats it was Nick Clegg.  Whatever views you may have about Nick (mine are mixed), he is a brilliant speaker.  Sitting next to me was a lady from the SNP who breathed a none-too-subtle "Oh my God" when Nick was a little way into his speech.  By the end she was clapping enthusiastically.

More importantly though, while all five parties want to see different outcomes from the European Union, we are all united in wanting to see it work and Britain to be an important member and leader in Europe.

I am immodest enough to note my own question was well received.  A few days before the "Official Information About the Referendum" leaflet from Vote Leave came through my letterbox.  Noting in my preamble it had ended up in the bottom of my canary's cage, I asked how best to challenge the misinformation held within it.  One example is that it stated that Turkey is set up to join the EU.  This is a lie: Turkey is nowhere near fulfilling the criteria for EU membership despite decades of negotiation.  More disturbingly, the leaflet notes the positions of Syria and Iraq in relation to Turkey.  This is beyond EU debate: it is nothing less than an appeal to xenophobia and I asked, with a week to go, how best to fight this aspect.  I appreciate Willie giving me the opportunity to put the question, which was well-answered by Nick.

At the start of the event, Willie Rennie informed the hall that there had been an attack on Jo Cox MP, to considerable shock and dismay.  None of us knew that by that time she had already died of her wounds, leaving a husband and two small children.  It was only in the late afternoon, tuning into PM and hearing Jo Cox's maiden speech being broadcast, that I knew then she was dead.

I didn't know Jo Cox but have no reason to disbelieve any of the tributes being made of her.  I am sure had she lived, that she would have made a great contribution to public life.  What shook me was the violence and manner of her death.  Members of parliament (and we now have several parliaments across the UK) come from the public and are at their best when serving the public.  They have to be available and approachable, which of course leaves them vulnerable.  When it comes to security, I think it should be up to each member of parliament to speak with the police and make the arrangements that they feel most comfortable with.   What should not happen is that members of parliament are cut off from the open access that is currently afforded.

I have stood for parliament a few times now and have yet to be elected.  Perhaps it will never happen, who knows.  It should be noted that most people who stand are aware that that they will not be elected.  We stand in order to propagate and promote the ideas, to lay the groundwork for party success in the future.  That may involve personal success but nothing is guaranteed.  If we were doing it for personal gain, we would be idiots.  There are some exceptions of course, especially when a given party is at its zenith of fortune, but on the whole what I say stands.  The vast majority of candidates do it for love and a wish to serve, not for money and certainly not for the glory.

When out on the hustings, in street, on the doorstep, one is vulnerable.  I have been pretty lucky: never having suffered personal abuse nor intimidation.  Most people are very nice; regardless of what they may think of one's personality or politics.   My fortune should not be taken for granted.   I personally know two candidates, standing in the 2016 elections here in Scotland, one of which who suffered intimidation after an otherwise civil hustings, and another who had to undergo the humiliation of racial abuse as the spoiled ballets  were being shown to all candidates.  The former was a woman and of course the latter comes from a BAME background.  Both cases are an outrage and I am aware that perhaps one reason I have not had similar experiences is because being white, male, straight and solidly-built (okay, a bit fat), such abuse does not come my way.  I have unearned privilege but I am aware of this and working for a society where such humiliations are not heaped upon other heads.

Listening to the news this evening, it was stated that the killer of Jo Cox was, during the 1990s, involved with the US Neo-Nazi group The National Alliance.  Now I remember this bunch.  They were the real-deal, full-fat Aryan white supremacists.  While at university, by accident I discovered the group online and, being blonde and blue-eyed, I felt it incumbent upon myself to disagree with these bastards.  If Jo's murderer was indeed involved with this group and paid real money for their publications, I find it extremely easy to believe that, unless he had undergone a Damascene conversion in the years since, that he would be a supporter of today's Britain First.  In their own way they are just as vile and nasty as The National Alliance was then.

I started this week in campaigning mode for the Vote Remain and Scotland Stronger in Europe teams.  It didn't turn out that way.  This week is a ghastly, horrible, reminder that as a society we may feel that we have come far from how things were in my youth.  In reality we haven't.  The demons of hatred, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny are still with us.  Their chains have become loosened, resulting in the deaths of many.

It is up to every single one of us to continue the fight against hatred, in all its forms.  We do not win by hating back.  Hatred is defeated through knowledge, wisdom and love.  Love is love.

State of Play

I haven't blogged politics since the election and for obvious reasons: it was a terrible, awful night for the Liberal Democrats.  This was not a personal shock: my aim in the election was to save the party's deposit for Edinburgh North and Leith and in this, I too failed.  It was therefore back to the day job on the Monday, but not before congratulating Deirdre Brock, the winning candidate from the SNP, on her victory.  Among the candidates ourselves in the constituency, there was little or no viciousness on a personal level.  While mine was indeed an uphill fight, I actually enjoyed bringing it to the SNP strongholds.  In terms of fighting injustice, warfare and poverty, there is much common ground.  It is just how we get there, especially the direction of our future in Scotland, that parts us.  My opposition to nationalism remains unaltered: it is a divisive philosophy.  We now have much more autonomy and if that evolves into independence, it should be allowed to naturally.  I want to see a Britain far more decentralised, democratic and accountable locally.  Scotland could be leading the way within the UK with such a model.  Instead, the issue of independence is being constantly forced by the SNP, often using the kind of negativity against others that they is all-to-ready to scream over when it is directed at themselves.  The SNP do not represent a change in the tone of politics that are practiced in the UK: just a continuation by other means.

My day job rushed at me upon my return and the result was I spend the next couple of months on a Russian vessel in the north-east Pacific Ocean.  In truth, I was too busy for much time to reflect.  Communications were also rather patchy and so it was that I went into a kind of political purdah.

Safe to say that, upon my return, the Conservatives are now to be seen in there true colours: nasty, small-minded, intolerant and indifferent to those in need.  One had hoped that Cameron was a bigger, more decent person, but his rhetoric over the "swarms" of immigrants proved otherwise.  It is clear that the word "refugee" has now fallen out of the media's dictionary.  Let me remind them of the definition:

Refugee: a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.

Yes, there are others but the bulk of the people are coming from war zones and are fleeing conflict.  They have often done that instead of picking up a gun and fighting, in which case the media would be giving them other labels: militia, fighter, terrorist, ISIS.  Most of these people don't want to be here: they want to be at home and at peace.  They cannot be while the Middle East continues to be flooded with weapons and equipment.  Anybody suggesting banning arms exports to the entire region?  Didn't think so.

From one kind of destruction to another: the Labour leadership race.  I have been unfortunate enough to hear Andy "business-as-usual" Burnham on the BBC lately.  That guy seems to represent all that is worst in New Labour.  In case one needs a reminder, here is what I wrote about New Labour during the Clash of the Millibands, the last time Labour was choosing a leader:

New Labour was effectively a post-modern response to politics, agreeing with the likes of Francis Fukuyama who had proclaimed the End of History, the victory of capitalism and the never-ending reign of globalisation.  Blair and Brown modelled themselves rulers of this Brave New World, post-modernisers to the core.  History was reduced to a series of rival dialogues, each of equal or no value and therefore tradition meant nothing.  The unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom, built up for 300 years after the Glorious Revolution, based upon earlier civil wars and the Magna Carta, were worthless in the 21st. Century.  Civil rights were meaningless and the power of the Courts eroded.  Hence New Labour’s love of identity cards and the super-databases behind them; they agreed with Sir Humphrey that in order to decide what the government needed to know, they needed to know everything.   The process of government suffered likewise, with Cabinet meetings reduced to listening to the Word of the Dear Leader and real policy being decided on the sofa with an inner cabal.  Senior civil servants were replaced with political appointments, advisors ensuring that the civil service remained “on message”.  While Paris glittered after its spring clean, London got the Millennium Dome.  Gold, that old-fashioned economic mainstay was sold off at under $400 an ounce.  Social mobility actually decreased during the thirteen years of Labour.  But worst of all was the Labour leadership’s willingness to follow the USA into bloody and illegal wars.  Labour became like Ibsen’s Peer Gynt, who after drinking the troll’s brew grew to be like an onion: all layers and no heart; a being so empty of morality that not even the Devil wanted his worthless soul.

Harsh words but since the take over of the party by Blair and Brown, Labour turned away from socialism which, as far as my simple brain understands it, was the whole point.  Burnham comes across as a totally vacuous individual: addicted to soundbites and policies by polling.  Yvette Cooper is a lot more solid and substantial individual but of course she too is closely connected with the New Labour project.

So we come to Jeremy Corbyn, who seems to be a sincere and pleasant old lefty.  There is nothing wrong with that: collectively the left are the best critics of existing systems.  It is just that more often than not, the suggested fixes bring worse outcomes.  The point is though that in order for Britain, or any other western democracy, to function properly, a good, decent and sincere left wing is needed.  I think Corbyn represents that and while I would not vote for many of his policies, one can see why others will.  I would say to Labour, whoever wins, that they should now be sincere about getting rid of the first-past-the-post voting system.  If AV is good enough to select your leader, why can't the rest of us use it to vote for our representatives at Westminster?

The Liberal Democrats had our own leadership elections are Nick Clegg resigned.  Tim Farron represents a shift away from the economic right and looks more to the social liberal traditions.  I wish Tim well and he has my support.  I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Nick though.  When he came up to Aberdeen, seeking to be leader of the party, he told us that he would get us into government within two elections.  He delivered it in one.

After that, of course, we screwed it up with the bloody tuition fees fiasco.  The Liberal Democrats did a lot of decent things in government but the electorate, with justification, punished us for breaking our word.  Eight MPs were the outcome but I am wryly amused to be reading so many obituaries for the party.  Liberalism represents a series of ideas that if one subscribes to them, one becomes a liberal: not a socialist nor a conservative nor even a nationalist.  The people who joined us after the election know this and Tim is the right person to get our values back out there.  Sure, he flew straight into hostile flak about his religious beliefs.  Liberals though do not dictate how others live nor what religious beliefs they should or should not hold.  It is all about bringing out the best in the individual while accepting that none of us are perfect.

In short, liberals live-and-let-live.

What Now?

There are so many “What Nows” that, like Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction, one can be easily answer another point when the question is put.  Let’s just take stock and first ask “What just happened?”

Thursday was nerve-wracking for all of us who cared, either way.  There seems to be most of us, as 84% of the Scottish electorate turned out to vote.  Safe to say, in terms of numbers that is the highest figure one can expect in modern day politics: everybody who ever intended to vote in this nation did so on Thursday.  It means therefore that the result is valid and credible.  After two years of campaigning by Yes, the campaign to stay in the Union won.  The result may have been despite some of the Better Together efforts: one cannot say that Alistair Darling was an inspired leader.  From Labour, Jim Murphy and that grand old bruiser Gordon Brown came good.  From the Libdems, Alistair Carmichael and Jo Swinson shone brightest.  For Yes, Nicola Sturgeon and Patrick Harvie should be acknowledged    On both sides though, it was thousands of grass-root activists that were the real stars.  When the Yes campaigners had the feather banners, balloons and badges, there were a lot on the No side too, no posters in their windows or badges for their lapels, just quietly going door-to-door, sliding leaflets through letterboxes.  On both sides, it is those new to the realities of political campaigning that should be honoured most highly.

Of great interest though is is those who, when asked, answered “I don’t know.”  Now, I am sure that at the outset of the campaign, that was a viable option.  On the day of the referendum though, it is clear that the Don’t Knows mainly voted No.  Although it could never be proven, I suspect for this campaign at least, “I don’t know” really meant “I’m not telling you.”

Although there were highly publicised instances of companies threatening to head south upon a Yes vote, dismissed by the SNP as moving a brass plate on the door, there were others not reported that would have had a huge impact on jobs across Scotland.  Their preparations were share-price sensitive hence the media silence, but one preparing for immediate departure, a major UK utility company, would have had a profound effect on Scottish homes and businesses.  Many owners of small and medium businesses linked to financial services and IT were also preparing to move south.  Most of us, including myself, did not at the time realise how rapidly some businesses were prepared to leave Scotland.  Although the result was a profound disappointment for many, in economic terms we had an extremely narrow squeak.  

What now?  The first thing is new powers for Scotland.  This has to be decided as a matter of priority and I urge all interested parties and individuals to make their voices heard.  It cannot be agreed around a table in London and handed down.  The three main Westminster parties disagree as to the level of autonomy to be ceded: the Scottish Government needs to be a party to negotiations as well.  It should not just be left to politicians though: bodies such as the CBI, research councils and trade unions, will have views and should be heard.  This may slow matters down a bit but it is necessary to get it right, whoever is in power in Westminster.  It should certainly be all in place by the end of 2015, before the Scottish parliamentary elections the following year.  Gordon Brown has came out with a very rapid timetable: it sounds great but I have no idea how he came up with it.  If we just spent two years fighting over independence, we can take a year sorting out the actual future of our nation.

Out of all the Westminster parties, the Labour proposals are the most modest.  In 2012, the Liberal Democrats came out with a manifesto for Scotland which is effectively one of self-rule within the United Kingdom.  The key points, with a link to the full version can be viewed here.  Whatever is finally agreed though, it has to come first and not be linked to reform within the rest of the United Kingdom.  Hardly fair, might be your response, but if you have not been living in Scotland for the past few years, you haven’t been through a two-year independence referendum campaign.  In its way, the trauma has been intense.  All of Scotland is united in this one thing: we expect reform.  The other night I was speaking to some of the most ardent supporters of the No campaign and all of us agreed that we would review our support of the Union if the promises made are not delivered upon.  Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Milliband, you have been told.  Take it seriously.

As an aside, before we get objections about levels of spending per head of population in Scotland compared to England, just remember that we have one third of the landmass of mainland Britain with less than one tenth of the population.  We do not have the economies of scale enjoyed by many parts of England, especially in the South East.  The Highlands and Islands are especially awkward in demanding luxuries like roads, hospitals and schools, despite not having the density of population that, apparently in the eyes of some, discounts their worth as citizens of the United Kingdom.

What follows for England?  As made clear above, David Cameron’s attempt to link change for Scotland with change for the rest of the United Kingdom at the same time should be utterly rejected.  Change is necessary though, not least because it is fair.  Why should Scotland have more democracy and have government closer to the people than the English?  I am disturbed for this scheme of English MPs only voting on English affairs in the House of Commons.  The parliament represents the whole of the UK and every MP should have equal weight.  Besides, what are English affairs?  Say the discussion is on health, for an example: an area devolved in Scotland so should be a no brainer for England.  In reality though, the NHS is only devolved in terms of priority of national spending on services.  The research and academic components are firmly UK-wide issues.  The same can indeed be said for universities: while some in England resent Scottish undergraduates not having the pay for tuition, the systems are totally integrated for post-graduate and higher research.  Another instance would be strategic transport: the planning of further airport capacity and H2S high-speed rail ultimately affects all of us.  

One simply cannot say “this area is for England, so MPs from other parts of the UK have no right of say.”  Each issue would have to be looked at case-by-case.  While some maybe easily agreed upon by the party whips, others would not.  It would not be a system: it would be chaos.

  

What is to be done?  The obvious solution is that England needs to devolve powers away from Westminster and into the regions.  It is up to themselves whether that means a new national parliament or regional assemblies but what is clear is that the state quo is no longer tenable.  Such a process of reform may have a the similar effect of reviving political debate among the wider public as the referendum did here.  A system of first and second class MPs is not viable: the Westminster Parliament should remain the ultimate sovereign body for the United Kingdom with equality for its members.

What now for Scottish politics?  The first thing that the SNP has to accept is that they lost the vote.  Naturally though, they are not accepting the democratic outcome.  Despite claiming that Yes was not the SNP, that it was a broad coalition and a grassroots organisation throughout the campaign, on the Friday they immediately set up a new organisation called 45, officially in order to carry on the fight for independence.  Their party membership has ballooned: putting on 20,000 over the weekend.  I cannot blame the SNP from wanting to preserve the campaigning organisation that arose during the referendum campaign, but to tell these new members that a new referendum can be recalled and won in the short term is simply a lie.  Even the name, 45 (the percentage who voted Yes), is a misrepresentation.  I personally know many Yes voters and while some are firm SNP supporters, other Yes voters are far from their camp politically and have very different visions for the future of Scotland.  This division within Yes was hidden in order to present a united front but I will predict that non-nationalist members of the coalition will not continue with the fight for Scottish independence because, unlike the SNP, that is not at the heart of their politics.  They will instead attempt to see their politics take root through existing avenues, of which there are now many and more to come.  Even the cracks in the SNP are beginning to show with MSP John Wilson resigning from the SNP, citing differences with leadership and policy. 

What I ask new members of 45, many new to politics, is while I genuinely welcome your entry into political involvement, the question for you is what do you want?  Yes, I know that you want independence for Scotland but what then?  A change of government is not an end in itself: it is a means to an end, usually a better life for citizens.  How are the changes you wish for going to better the lives of Scottish citizens?  Much of the reason why Yes lost was that they were unable to convincingly answer this question during the campaign.  The question has not gone away.

What is clear though is that forty-five percent of the Scottish electorate that did vote Yes, for whatever reason, have one thing in common: they have lost faith in current UK politics.  That is a matter of upmost seriousness.

It will be an interesting couple of years ahead for us all.

Why a Liberal? Why not something else?

I'm not a Conservative owing to its cynical view of humanity and refusal to engage with the better nature of people.

I'm not a Socialist because although collective action does have a role in society, the movement quickly dissolves into competing factions in its struggle to replace one elite with another.

I'm not a Nationalist because although there is a lot to be grateful for in growing up in a particular place, the place should not be romanticised and set up above all other places. That is the politics of Us and not Them.

I'm not a Green because although care of the Earth is vital, it isn't at the centre of everything. We are in politics to serve people first, but it would be irresponsible not to care for the planet too.

I'm a Liberal because I have a belief that the state is here to serve the individual, the family and caring for people who are not able to care for themselves; to encourage behaviour beneficial to wider society, while acknowledging that some human drives are destructive and selfish but allowing for those instincts too. 

In short, liberalism accepts people as they are, rather than what some might wish others to be.

Female Representation and Quotas.

Kay Adams, BBC Radio Scotland

It was the Call Kaye show on Radio Scotland that got me thinking.  The episode on 8^th March, International Woman’s Day (or as I like to call it to tease Mrs V., International Female Comrades’ Day) and the topic was quotas for the FTSE 100 companies when it came to female representation, should they have quotas in the boardroom?  Apparently in Norway they have introduced a forty percent quota for board-level female representation, with companies simply having to obey the law.  This compares with the current situation - fifteen percent of directors of FTSE100 companies are woman.

Hold on, I thought to myself.  We Liberal Democrats are not exactly shining when it comes to women representation in Westminster.  In the parliament prior to 2010, fifteen percent of our MPs were female but in 2010 this fell to twelve percent.  Part of this is undoubtedly an artefact of the rotten voting system: our percentage of the overall vote rose but the total number of our MPs actually fell from 63 down to 57.   Even allowing for this, the figures are not good.  The party is addressing the issue with a new Leadership scheme which is special training not only for women but for all minorities in the party.  As a middle-aged white guy I naturally do not qualify to take part so there is already positive discrimination taking place.  The key question though is “is it enough?”  I think the answer is “no”.

I forget who the guests were on the radio show but these learned ladies reckoned that at the current rates it would take seventy years for parity of representation to be reached.  I am certain that we all agree that is nowhere near good enough.  The Norwegian scheme was criticised for been too much too soon.  In order to conform to the law, it was alleged that some companies had to create previously non-existing posts, effectively as window dressing.  One problem that they identified that there currently is not enough women currently in middle-management.   It seems to me that both politics and business have a shared problem.

My suggestion therefore is this.  Instead of having a radical jump towards quotas, introduce them in stages.  For instance, if among publically-listed companies the average board representation is fifteen percent, the first step should be to twenty five percent.  After five years that increases to thirty five percent and at ten years up to the maximum of forty five percent – actually higher than the Norwegian total and it would give time to large companies to recruit and train the necessary numbers of females for the right posts.  Here’s the rub though – political parties but most especially the Liberal Democrats should be doing the same.  If legislation was introduced before the 2015 election, we would have effective parity of representation by 2025, both in the boardroom and in parliament.

Liberal Democrats will be seen to be practicing what we preach and, it could be said, this turkey is voting for Christmas.  Or as I prefer, trying to make life fairer for all.