Daily Archives: March 2, 2016


Standing for Independence

I have not heard anybody, anywhere, argue in public or on the media the case for Scottish Independence for six months (except for me). I have not heard any elected representative of the SNP argue the case for Independence for… well since Autumn 2014.

It is not surprising the increase in the polls of support for Independence has stalled, as nobody is putting the argument. The trouble with leaving the matter aside until support becomes overwhelming, is that if you leave the matter aside support never will become overwhelming.

img001

I am therefore considering standing as an Independent in the Scottish parliamentary elections, purely to put the full-on case for Independence. There are plenty of other people who can argue about the minutiae of the glorified council at the bottom of Holyrood Road. The SNP has explicitly stated it wants the votes of unionists as well as nationalists in this election. I don’t.

I want to give people who want to express their desire immediately to be shot of the corrupt and warmongering British state, a chance to say so unequivocally at the ballot box once again.

This is a question of principle. It is not undertaken with any expectation of being elected. I would stand in North East Scotland on the regional list ballot. The question is, were I to do this, are there people out there who would help me?

View with comments

Clinton Politics Made Simple

Oxfam recently published that 62 people own as much as half the populationof the entire world. The entire pitch of the Clinton campaign is that this is absolutely fine, provided half of them are black and the appropriate proportions from ethnic minorities.

Identity politics have become well and truly established as the antidote to demands for social progress and for an end to the massive growth in wealth inequality. This is essentially an American development, although the idea that the purpose of feminism is for Emma Watson to get $12 million a film has caught on with at least some British people, and is the whole basis of the political stance of the modern all-American Guardian.

Hillary summed up the psychological trick of the faux egalitarianism in a simple sentence:
“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow … will that end racism? Will that end sexism? Will that end discrimination against the LGBT community?”. It is brilliant rhetoric, a masterpiece of sophistry. Of course breaking up the banks will not directly end these other evils. But neither would ending those things end the appalling level of wealth inequality. It comes directly back to my opening question of whether multi-billionaires are OK as long as they are appropriately representative of black, female and LGBT.

The truth of the matter is that almost everybody who campaigns against wealth inequality is also strongly against racial, gender, religious and sexual inequality. But many of those who focus on identity politics not only have no concern for general equality, but are primarily concerned with the ability of themselves and those like them to propel themselves into the ranks of the elite.

View with comments