Letters / Voters saw the truth
Well, as it turns out, the hoped-for respite from post-Independence political jockeying and claptrap of all flavours didn’t last even as long as a single day; so that was a bit of a disappointment to me.
I see that some are still blaming ‘evil Westminster’ for the way things have turned out regarding Scottish Independence, but I have to ask: isn’t Alex Salmond the true author of the present situation?
I mean, he had seven years as First Minister, and 42 years as a member of the SNP, and yet somehow failed during all that time to create the financial and political mechanisms required – most notably that of a useable and valid replacement currency for the GBP – that were needed to bring any possibility of success without undue risk to the idea of Scottish Independence.
Isn’t it possible instead that enough voters saw the truth in time – that his proposals were hollow and unworkable, and that the only way to avoid financial and political catastrophe in the short term was to vote ‘No’ in all but four of 32 Scottish constituencies, including Orkney and Shetland? Because that’s how it looks to me.
Isn’t it also true that Cameron’s alleged ‘panic giveaways’ have actually been in the pipeline for more than a year; and that only their presentation pre-vote in a bit of a panicky way has led to the accelerated introduction of the same rules for ruling England that Salmond has demanded for Scotland? Why is that not just? And why is it just that Scotland should be receiving free HNS prescriptions and free higher education, when the rest of the country’s students are facing an eventual accrued burden of debt that increases by – what is it, £9,000 a year – and that some of them may never manage to pay off?
And isn’t it also true that the Barnett Formula was a quick fix that was only intended to last for a couple of years (according to its creator), but somehow (due to lazy thinking on the part of successive governments of both political colours) has now lasted nearly 40 – and is now being seriously criticised and deprecated (if not actually reviled) by its creator, Lord Barnett?
There’s no point in citing more reasons than these, I don’t think, because they all amount to the same thing: that the SNP and the ‘Yes’ camp are declining to take ownership of the idea that Salmond’s pipe dream could have wrecked Scotland for good, and was only prevented from doing so by an alert and determined electorate, who turned out in almost unprecedented numbers to see that what they thought to be the right thing was done.
The destruction otherwise of Scotland would have been no consolation at all to the voters who expected it to happen, based on the nonsense being pumped out by the smug politicians and the opinions polls in an attempt to dismay people and so tilt the vote.
As it was, I should imagine that a fair chunk of the voting populace ignored the destabilising clamour of the gutter Press and the various opinions polls anyway, turned instead in good time to the true statement of affairs (the betting odds presented at the online bookies’ websites regarding the likely success of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ alike); placed their bets, and then all cleaned-up handsomely when the ‘No’ vote romped home several lengths ahead. I suppose the Americans would call that a ‘double whammy’ – they got the desired political result, and got paid as well.
Let’s look now at the next proposition that we’re being told is a certainty – that of a federal UK at some time in the near future.
My question is ‘why do we need federalisation, in a place the size of the UK?’ In fact, why do we already have about six times as many politicians and bureaucrats as we really need here to conduct business anyway?
Isn’t this idea simply another ploy on the part of politicians, to justify their continued existence while increasing the size of their parasitic empires?
And – the most important question of all: how are we going to pay for all of this extra unnecessary mechanism of government? Through increased taxation? Through ‘savings’ that effectively cripple the ways in which this country can do business?
How will it be done, Mr Carmichael? You thought of this idea and decided to promote it – so now, I call on you to explain and justify it.
The one change I feel that we all badly need to see nailed firmly and permanently in place is one of legal accountability. The fact that politicians can dream up insane ideas that harass us, tax us increasingly heavily, and can actually threaten our continued existence both as people and as a country, is something that I find to be odious and questionable in the extreme in a ‘free’ democracy.
The fact that a leading politician can risk putting an entire country on the rocks, financially, politically and socially, and then absolve himself from having to face the consequences of the mess he’s made by simply resigning his office and walking away to enjoy a well-upholstered retirement is completely unacceptable to me, whatever the political Party and whatever the issue.
What needs to happen in future is that all politicians’ assets – namely money, property in this country and abroad, investments, pension rights, and anything held in overseas accounts that the taxman hasn’t been told about yet – need to be held effectively in escrow, so that should their bids for power fail, they stand to be stripped of every single asset.
That would include the car they thought they were going to drive home in – if they fail; they can either scrounge a lift, take the bus, or walk.
That’s the only way that things can ever be forced to change for the better in this country – and I hope to see it included as a ‘plank’ in someone’s Election Manifesto, well before the next General Election
Philip Andrews
Unst
Become a supporter of Shetland News
Shetland News is asking its many readers to consider start paying for their dose of the latest local news delivered straight to their PC, tablet or mobile phone.
Journalism comes at a price and because that price is not being paid in today’s rapidly changing media world, most publishers - national and local - struggle financially despite very healthy audience figures.
Most online publishers have started charging for access to their websites, others have chosen a different route. Shetland News currently has over 600 supporters who are all making small voluntary financial contributions. All funds go towards covering our cost and improving the service further.
Your contribution will ensure Shetland News can: -
- Bring you the headlines as they happen;
- Stay editorially independent;
- Give a voice to the community;
- Grow site traffic further;
- Research and publish more in-depth news, including more Shetland Lives features.
If you appreciate what we do and feel strongly about impartial local journalism, then please become a supporter of Shetland News by either making a single payment or monthly subscription.
Support us from as little as £3 per month – it only takes a minute to sign up. Thank you.
Already a supporter? Sign in to hide this message.
