The Three Amigos Ride to Scotland 120


Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. Just typing the names is depressing. As part of their long matured and carefully prepared campaign plan (founded 9 September 2014) they are coming together to Scotland tomorrow to campaign. In a brilliant twist, they will all come on the same day but not appear together. This will prevent the public from noticing that they all represent precisely the same interests.

Nobody in Scotland feels the slightest warmth towards these people, except for those paid hacks whose income depends upon their feeling such warmth (and there are too many of those, but still only a few hundred). One thing I can guarantee is that this rush of “superstars” will not meet my challenge of seeing 300 Better Together supporters in the same place.

The truth is of course, that if the range of potential political policy alignments lay on a two dimensional scale from 1 to 100, then Cameron, Clegg and Miliband occupy the range from 82 to 84. They offer no actual policy choice to voters.

They all support austerity budgets
They all support benefit cuts
They all support tuition fees
They all support Trident missiles
They all support continued NHS privatisation
They all support bank bail-outs
They all support detention without trial for “terrorist suspects”
They all support more bombings in Iraq (and are planning to launch British raids there before 18 September to ramp up jingoism – you read it here first)
They all oppose rail nationalisation
They all oppose free prescriptions
They all oppose free personal care
They all oppose rent controls
They all oppose bankers bonus cuts
They all oppose legalisation of cannabis

The areas on which the three amigos differ are infinitesimal and contrived. They actually represent the same paymasters and vested interests.

It is hilarious that after a campaign of hammering away at the fact that nobody can guarantee every last detail of what will happen in a an independent Scotland, the Three Amigos are now trying to convince us we should vote No in exchange for some powers, which nobody has the slightest idea what they will be, except they will not include Scotland being allocated any of its oil revenue.

Meantime Gordon Brown, the man whose banking liberalisation almost crashed the world, and who then gave 60,000 pounds from every family in Britain straight to the bankers as a gift, is undertaking another invited audience only tour of Scotland. He has secured a commitment to debate new powers after a No vote; a debate in which Brown has opposed powers for Scotland his entire political career. The Brown suggestions consist of an increased right to vary income tax, but only upwards, and with extra revenue balanced by cuts in the amount of Scotland’s own revenue which London hands back to Edinburgh. Scotland might also be able to vary slightly the rate of housing benefit and attendance allowance (only).

The idea that the popular exuberance at taking sovereignty back into the people, can be swept away by the three amigos and Brown’s “offer”, is ludicrous. Nevertheless the BBC, Guardian and other paid unionist hacks are pushing this unpalatable mess down the throats of voters in the hope something might work. It won’t.


120 thoughts on “The Three Amigos Ride to Scotland

1 2 3 4
  • AAMVN

    It all looks more and more like a bad divorce – the abusive husband [England] has finally realized that the battered wife [Scotland] means business when she threatens to leave and starts making all kinds of grandiose but vague promises – “I’ll change – it won’t be like it was – I really mean it this time….” yeah, right…

  • To collect the sheep when they're dispersed and drive them forward when they are assembled.

    1) who are the paymasters of the 3 amigos?

    2) does Gordon Brown with his financial liberalism dressed up as socialism not hold a clue as to the future of an independent Scotland, i.e. superficially left wing.

    Anyway wishing you well with your campaigning.

  • To collect the sheep when they're dispersed and drive them forward when they are assembled.

    For those who believe in the Shock Doctrine then a yes vote could be very interesting.

    Those who believe in the Shock Doctrine include some on the left who believe they have detected its operation and those on the right who believe that nothing other than an almighty shock can bring change. What changes do they have in mind? The deconstruction of the welfare state for example.

    Just a foolish thought. Hopefully wrong.

  • To collect the sheep when they're dispersed and drive them forward when they are assembled.

    why did cameron agree to a referendum?

    why did cameron agree to 2014 rather than 2013?

    why did cameron agree to yes = leave rather than yes = no?

    why did cameron agree to extend franchise to 16 & 17 year olds?

    Is he just a great chap or a chump?

    We are heading to a yes vote and a legal shock, but why?

  • To collect the sheep when they're dispersed and drive them forward when they are assembled.

    why did cameron agree to yes = leave rather than yes = stay

    Foolish mistake there.

  • YouKnowMyName

    Meanwhile news just in, the National Council of Scotland[*] on Television and Radio Broadcasting has banned yesterday the following channels “BBC1 London, BBC2 England, BBC1 Scotland, BBC2 Scotland, First Channel, World Network, RTR-Planeta, NTV-Mir, Russia 24, TVCI, Russia 1, NTV, TNT, Petersburg 5, Star, REN TV, RBC TV, LifeNews, Russia Today and History”.

    [*} oops, I think I mean Ukraine instead of Scotland – for the Scottish ban on the BBC – come back in ten days! meanwhile, for UA, surely they banned all these way before the NATO defeat!?

    meanwhile, meanwhile, on BBC Radio 4 in 3 minutes John Major will be saying “I told you so” about the unwiseness of allowing Caledonia any option to vote, he could see the union unravelling two decades ago – but did anyone listen?

  • Ba'al Zevul (For Scotland)

    why did cameron agree to yes = leave rather than yes = stay

    Foolish mistake there.

    Excellent point. And now we know why Cameron left PR for prime ministering.

  • Mary

    The ZBC stooges are looking doomy. Is it sub zero in Edinburgh? Esler is wearing a scarf and overcoat.

    Norman Smith made me LOL. ‘They are making a sacrifice to put aside all their differences to make this last concerted attempt to pull things round to keep the union together’.

    His twitter is also a LOL
    https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS

  • Roderick Russell

    Re Canspeccy’s comment – “Now all the parties are bought and blackmailed by the same financial interests, which means that you can safely throw the rascals out without upsetting the ship of state. It’ll be the same in an independent Scotland.”

    It doesn’t need to be. One of the arguments for smaller States is that the democracy is nearer to the people and, consequently, more difficult to subvert. When one adds in the oil money, Scotland has a real chance to both increase its standard of living and the quality of its democracy. Take a look at two very different small democratic models – Switzerland or Norway – both of which are doing very well for their own people.

    As Craig writes, the London establishment gave the City a subsidy that cost every family 60,000. The truth is that normal UK citizens have been subsidizing establishment oligarchs, before and since, in many different ways for years. The London Establishment has no interest in the people of Scotland except as milk cows. Scotland with a yes vote at least has a chance to get rid of their very corrupting influence and to re-establish some real democracy.

  • Ba'al Zevul (For Scotland)

    As for the feebleness of the “No” campaign, that makes perfectly good sense if you assume the intention is for the “Yes” to succeed, which is surely the case: break up the powerful nation states the better to subordinate the pieces to the control of the undemocratic international institutions with which you are so enamored.

    Disagree. The UK has manifested its total compliance with the globalist philosophy since early Blair (even Thatcher was a patriot rather than an internationalist). It has furthered the agenda by positioning itself ambiguously halfway between Europe and the US, suppressing socialism and generally drifting away from any egalitarian ambitions.

    It kisses the arse of the markets while marginalising the requirements of its people.

    (Today we learned that adequate capacity in our electricity supply, degraded due to power station closures, will have to wait for years until the (global) power corps graciously decide to invest in new plant – having failed to make plans to replace the old stock before the end of its life. The same story may be told of most of our privatised essential infrastructure)

    Certainly iScotland will have to make concessions to the way things are in terms of global markets. I hope its leaders have the wit to resist the globalising philosophy, and I think they will, as Scotland is intrinsically far more egalitarian* than England, and less inclined to reward failure because failure is wearing a smart suit. As an individual unit, doing things its own way

    There is no opportunity within the UK to counter the malign effects on our polity of international accountants who want to ‘monetise’ every breath we take**.

    An independent Scotland offers a fresh start, and perhaps a model for other UK regions currently placed on the economic back burner.

    *personal opinion, based on having lived there for a long time.

    **and destroy our language, too.

  • Mary

    Smoothface is even allowing Fairhead, the new chair of the BBC Trust, to keep her roles at HSBC and Pearson going. Mind you Jowell allowed Patten to do the same. Here are his interests.

    1: Directorships
    Non-executive Director, Russell Reynolds Associates Inc (company research)

    2: Remunerated employment, office, profession etc.
    Member, European Advisory Board, Bridgepoint (private equity group)
    Member, EDF Stakeholder Advisory Panel (electricity)
    Occasional income from writing and speaking engagements
    Member, International Advisory Board of BP (energy)
    Adviser, Hutchison Europe (telecomms, property, transport)

    10: Non-financial interests (b)
    Chancellor, Oxford University

    10: Non-financial interests (e)
    International Adviser, Praemium Imperiale, Japan Art Association
    Co-chair, India-UK Roundtable
    Co-Chair, British Council Italy-UK Annual Conference
    Trustee, the Tablet Journal

    ~~

    Bridgepoint have a considerable interest in NHS privatisation. His fellow director there, Alan Milburn, has demonstrated that very effectively over the years. Do you remember the latter continually resigning from the government ‘to spend more time with his family’ and then returning? No irony but he is chair of the commission that recently reported on social mobility and child poverty. Hypocrites all.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/social-mobility-and-child-poverty-commission

    Shephard is an arch Zionist supporter incidentally.

    See ‘But where the pressure from the pro-Israeli lobby has been most intense has been on media organisations felt to be out of line. Among those groups in Britain are the Conservative Friends of Israel, which invites senior journalists to lunches at the House of Commons. For those working for organisations perceived as being biased against Israel these can be uncomfortable affairs.

    One member is the Conservative MP Gillian Shephard, who is at pains to explain the sense of persecution that Israelis and the wider Jewish community feel at the hands of the media.

    ‘Let’s not forget that Israel feels under siege. And it literally is. That is what drives the feeling of ultra-sensitivity. They feel that there is bias and there is a conspiracy against them. There is a perception that Israelis are portrayed as instigating the problems and that the historical context of the threat against Israel is forgotten. There is a feeling too that Israel – which is a tiny island of democracy amid much less democratic neighbours – never gets enough credit for what it has achieved.’

    It is a view that is not confined to London. In New York, with its large Jewish constituency, questioning Israeli policy in the press is considered close to, if not actually, anti-Semitism and all that entails. Thomas L Friedman, the celebrated New York Times columnist who writes regularly about the Middle East, is in no doubt why it has become such a difficult place to report.’

    LOL http://www.radioislam.org/historia/zionism/haras_journlst_obsrvr.html

  • Bill Oldroyd

    It seems clear to me that Scottish devolution will be strongly advantageous to the wealthy. Scotland will have to work hard to avoid becoming a state captured by big business, finance and the self interest on the wealthy. There are many powerful people in Edinburgh with exactly the same attitudes as those found in the City of London.

    Having two, once closely integrated countries broken apart will create multiple opportunities to fiddle taxes and avoid making one’s fair contribution to society as one country is played off against the other. Ultimately only the wealthy will benefit and the poor in both England and Scotland will suffer.

    Though to be honest that’s more or less the situation in the UK at present, but it just might get worse, a lot worse.

  • Je

    OT but the Guardian has a piece by Gove complaining about the boycot of Israel and doesn’t allow comments on it.

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/09/gove-against-boycotting-israeli-goods-gaza-conflict

    Having complained about the Holocaust being taken in vain by those comparing Israeli actions to the NAZIs Gove does it himself by saying “the Nazi campaign against Jewish goods ended with a campaign against Jewish lives”. Boycotting Israeli goods is not the same as boycotting Jewish goods.

    And is 100% more plausible to comparing bombing thousands of people to NAZI actions than refusing to buy goods from the perpetrators.

  • Ba'al Zevul (For Scotland)

    Having two, once closely integrated countries broken apart will create multiple opportunities to fiddle taxes and avoid making one’s fair contribution to society as one country is played off against the other. Ultimately only the wealthy will benefit and the poor in both England and Scotland will suffer.

    There’s obviously something in that. But what I suspect the London regime is really terrified of is that Scotland will lower its tax rates to, say, Gibraltar’s levels, creating a tax haven just north of Berwick. If the IOM can do it, so can iScotland. To which the megapunters will happily pay their taxes in order not to pay the rUK’s higher rates. I predict much higher efficiency from the iScots Revenue…

  • Moniker

    Peacewisher – seconded! If there is going to be a closing of the borders, just after those three have gone north would be a *great* moment to do it.

    🙁

    🙂

    Can I still come and visit sometimes?

  • Ba'al Zevul (For Scotland)

    Also O/T
    Je-

    More pertinently, every Israeli campaign against Gaza goods (in or out) has so far ended with a campaign against Gazan lives. Difference being, it’s cyclical.

    Gove is a POS.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella) !

    “But in any case, it is disappointing to find that the debate on Scottish independence goes on virtually without mention of how government of an independent Scotland will in any way differ from, or be better than, that of the UK.”
    _________________

    CanSpeccy makes an excellent point here.

    The debate, at least on here, seems to be confined to declarations of faith and unspoken promises.

    As an example of this we see Craig’s list (in his lead-in post) of 14 policy areas for which he sees no differences between the three main UK parties. Now, one must assume that Craig disapproves of all of those policies; and it seems to flow from that that those policies would be radically changed – if not reversed – if only there were to be an independent Scotland.

    Perhaps they – or some of them – should be changed. But would they be?

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella) !

    “why did cameron agree to yes = leave rather than yes = stay

    Foolish mistake there.”
    _______________

    Another excellent question, given the subtleties of phrasing referendum questions.

    But I suspect you don’t really think it was a mistake?

  • Ba'al Zevul (For Scotland)

    All these people claim to speak for the Scot. All these people claim they know what the Scot thinks and what and who the Scot likes.

    I live here, all I know are the facts.

    Time you developed an imagination, then. Some of us – even non-Scots – can speak, from personal experience, gained over decades, for areas other than a Caithness croft. Kindly remember, your opinion is as worthless as anyone else’s here, and moderate your omniscience.

    And…facts? *looks at link* So what?

  • craig Post author

    How can anybody know what policies an independent Scotland will pursue? Nobody has the right to say what those policies will be, as it will be for the people of Scotland to decide. Which will be a very refreshing change.

    We can however see from the lack of support for the Tories and from the levels of support for the Greens and SSP and Radical Independence and Commonweal, that there is very likely to be a more socially inclusive politics than enjoyed in England.

    Of course there are establishment figures looking to impose establishment rule. Our job is to stop them. The Scots people are currently more politically mobilised than any society on earth. The 1% certainly won’t be stopped within the UK. We really don’t need useless “socialists” who have achieved absolutely nothing in England these last thirty years telling us we can’t achieve anything in Scotland so we had better not try.

  • Abe Rene

    I regret to say that if a clear majority in Scotland are now for Yes, this is liable to be too little, too late.

    If I were a Yes campaigner, I would use Craig’s list as a means of making a case for Scotland as an independent, libertarian, nuclear-free social democracy. But in that case I would face squarely the issue of a Scottish currency and say Yes, Scotland may have alower standard of living for a while, but it will be worth it because of Scottish Nationalism – that is, if I really believed in it. I would then say that we might indeed have a lower standard of living for a while, but it will be worth it. Salmond’s clinging to the idea of using pounds sterling even after independence has always seemed to me to compromise the integrity of his stance.

    Still, perhaps the currency issue will result in the No camp winning – by poiting out that the Yes camp fear a lowering of the standard of living in an independent Scotland without a currency union with rUK, which they haven’t the honesty to admit. 🙂

    Perhaps that point will be part of the three amigos’ speech. Let’s wait and see.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella) !

    Roderick Russell

    “Take a look at two very different small democratic models – Switzerland or Norway – both of which are doing very well for their own people.”
    __________________-

    Switzerland and Norway are often brought out as models, presumably because they have a roughly equivalent population, are prosperous (now – 100 years ago they were rather less so..) and enjoy (relative) social peace founded to a large extent on that prosperity.

    But I can’t help wondering if your position isn’t another example of what I called – in a previous post – an “act of faith”.

  • nevermind, Scotland will be free

    ‘HMtQ isn’t getting drawn in, and one understands one would wish to retain one’s holiday hame at Balmora’

    Well, this morning, we in Norfolk were told by the BBC that although she can’t comment officialy…… drumroll fanfares….. she is concerned about the upcoming vote…….

    Talk of the HMtQ not being hauled out to comment were just preparing us for these underhand let it be known’s, what a farce this establishment is, not only have they got many skeletons to hide, Hallo Ms Woolf, how’s the City of London corporation? they also don’t like it up them.

    The Queen is not allowed to comment that is parlaiments prertogative now, any comments would/could be seen as unconstitutional, trying to wrestle powers back from parliament, would it not?

    well said on policies Craig, they have to be hammered out, shaped and implemented in mutuality. I expect that the three amigo’s will go all cold after the Yes vote, no more care and concern for the Scottish people at all and making Parliamentary space for Independence discussions and debate will be seen as disruting/holding up the important business of the ongoing privatisation of the health service. One would not jeopardise one’s nest egg to talk about Independence now would one?

  • Trader

    The Scots shouldn’t delude themselves that independence will end well for themselves, anyway it’s purely academic, the no vote will carry the day, sadly the resentment many of them feel towards the ‘south’ will not end any time soon.

    Scottish Independence YES Vote Panic – Scotland Committing Suicide and Terminating the UK?
    Politics / UK Politics
    Sep 07, 2014 – 03:55 AM GMT

    By: Nadeem_Walayat

    There is PANIC in the air as the NO Campaigns 20% opinion poll lead at the start of 2014 has now completely evaporated as the YES campaign edges into the lead with just 12 days to go, with the latest opinion poll that for the first time putting the YES vote on 51%, against 49% NO (YouGov for the Sunday Times) will likely prompt a mini panic on Monday morning as the forex and financial markets further discount the increasing risks of a YES Vote that will likely prompt UK politicians to further bend over backwards to accommodate Scotland costing UK tax payers many more billions per year.

    Whether the 300 year old United Kingdom lives or dies will be determined by as few as 4.5% of the British electorate on September 18th as only the people of Scotland, some 9% of the UK electorate have been afforded the luxury of deciding what happens to the United Island of Great Britain, and that if the tunnel visional nationalist have their way they would succeed in setting in motion its termination starting the morning of 19th of September when the world that Brit’s have know for centuries starts to unravel.

    Scottish Independence Impact on the UK Economy

    Scotland ripping itself apart form the United Kingdom would be a twin edged sword for the UK because on the one hand the UK would no longer be burdened by having to to annually bribe the Scots with ever larger amounts of net subsidies where the annual block grant currently stands at £32 billion per year that helps bridge the gap between Scottish socialist government deficit spending and tax revenues. Against which there would be the loss of North Sea oil revenues that currently generate about £7 billion in tax revenue per year and therefore a net subsidy (bribe) to Scotland to stay in the Union of £25 billion per year before tax adjustments (income, corporation, vat etc.) that brings the net annual subsidy to Scotland down to £9 billion a year.

    Whilst an £9 billion annual loss in revenues would devastate the £160 billion Scottish economy resulting in deep spending cuts and economy killing tax hikes to fill budgetary void. However, the saving to the UK of £9 billion per year would be more than offset by the loss of international investment as the UK becomes a far more riskier entity to invest in, park funds with and to do business with, potentially resulting in the annual loss of revenues of as much as over £100 billion per year. That is the real price of Scottish Independence and explains why Scotland can so easily blackmail the UK into paying a net £9 billion annual subsidy.

    http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article47228.html

1 2 3 4

Comments are closed.