Cameron up for a one-to-one – just not with Ed

Now we know why David Cameron won’t debate one-to-one with Ed Miliband: because he does not meet the necessary criterion of being the other viable candidate for Prime Minister. Oh no, according to Dave at PMQs today, that mantle belongs to er…Alex Salmond. Confused?

Apparently Labour has given up on the prospect of winning a majority and therefore it is Alex Salmond who is the alternative to Mr. Cameron. Yes, that vile loathsome Scot who is hell bent on bringing about the end of the world – sorry the union.

Grant Schapps, in his usual slippery-cum-village idiot guise, ventured that it would be Alex Salmond calling the shots from within the cabinet.

Well there we have it. Never mind that Alex Salmond is not even an MP yet; nor that Nicola Sturgeon is the leader of the SNP; nor even that the SNP could not possibly muster a 10% contingent in the commons. What is important is that there is a folk devil to frighten middle England into voting Tory. Lyton Crosby has decided that Salmond fits the bill. The collateral damage of pernicious animosity will, I suspect, persist long after Crosby is a footnote of electoral history.

Cynical Cameron propels the SNP juggernaut

First past the post is a rotten electoral system; on the 7^th of May voters in Scotland have an opportunity to unleash it as a broadside against a rotten establishment. The cosy club of the ruling elite at Westminster could face an insurrection unprecedented in modern times. For this reason alone - even if like me, you are not a nationalist - a vote for the SNP constitutes real power to effect change.

David Cameron’s farcical and pathetic nodding dog obedience to Lynton Crosby (Australian election guru) is just the latest episode in an unedifying torrent of arrogant contempt for the electorate. To listen to his sanctimonious admonition of Gordon Brown five years ago for stalling on TV debates only to perform a brazen volte-face has plunged political class cynicism to new depths.

If you don’t want a Labour branch office MP towing the party line to maintain the establishment dogma then there is a real chance to rock the boat. A powerful voice through a nexus of anti-establishment MPs at Westminster would provide the erstwhile unthinkable prospect of a serious debate on nuclear weapons to name one example. To vote SNP in May would not trigger another referendum but it would herald a seismic shift in the corridors of power that seems so detached from most of us.   

Odious Rifkind encapsulates the arrogance of a rotten establishment

For a grandee of the establishment, losing an election is but a minor inconvenience. Malcolm Rifkind was ejected from Edinburgh Pentlands in 1997 only to resurface – shock horror - at Kensington and Chelsea in 2005. Poor old Malcolm wasn’t the only high profile politician to be handed a quick return after the pesky electorate dared to reject a pillar of the establishment. Michael Portillo was granted the same courtesy in 1999 – also Kensington and Chelsea – after the Blair landslide took a heavy toll on the tory ‘big beasts’.

After being caught prostituting himself and his enviable contact list to a bogus Chinese firm, there appears no shred of contrition. Indeed what do we plebs expect ‘professionals’ such as the venerable “Sir” Malcolm to do when paid a paltry £60k? It’s actually closer to £70k ++ but that would weaken the question-begging premise that such a salary would not attract ‘businessman’ and ‘professionals’. Who says that we want or necessarily need our parliament stuffed with rapacious city types who are only attracted by the bottom line?

The idea of public service seems to be lost on Rifkind. Perhaps he’s not aware that highly educated graduates work for causes that transcend remuneration? Teacher: Circa £30k; Senior heart surgeon (NHS): circa £100k. Yes, Rifkind’s private earnings took him well beyond that of somebody at the top of their profession conducting open-heart surgery. MPs are supposed to represent us. The average UK salary is £26k – which is itself positively skewed by stratospheric salaries at the top – while the person who sits in the middle of UK earners with half below and half above earns £21k. An MP’s salary – I suspect – would sound very attractive to millions of us. If £67k is not enough for “Sir” Malcolm, let him retire to some tax haven to enjoy a mutual moan with any other member of the business and professional elite who feels undervalued or over taxed by the derisory British State.

The establishment is in desperate need of a shake up and an accelerated departure of the self-congratulatory nexus of egotists can’t come soon enough.

We're not quite ready

Well there we have it: an amazing campaign and spectacle of political participation has ended in Scotland voting to stay in the UK. I don't mind admitting that I feel somewhat deflated and a wee bit sad too. One of my reasons for voting yes was because I thought it would enhance our relationship with England - where so many great friends and family live and come from. I worry that Nigel Farage - already this morning talking about reducing Scottish funding - might have rubbed the lamp of a slightly hostile and more fractious neighbour; I hope I'm wrong. I think this referendum took place perhaps 15 years too early. Those who witnessed the war, the stoic 50s, the UK's imperial world standing and revere the monarchy and tradition were never likely to vote to abolish what they were brought up to admire and respect. The demographics will be different a generation later and only 1 in 10 no voters need to change their minds. I hope that if the question is asked again - when I have more than a few grey hairs - then it would advocate a republic; who knows, maybe the UK will be one by then anyway? Thanks to everyone for some great debates and when is all said and done, I think this referendum has been an exemplar of democracy - a great turn out and every single vote counted.

Desperate scrambling for a grubby bribe should seal the deal

I will vote yes. I’ve just watched Kevin Bridges on BBC1 and his joke about a lottery to choose a Scottish royal family was utterly brilliant in illuminating the absurdity of hereditary privilege. There should always be time for comedy.

Over on the news, I hear the establishment is about to go nuclear – and while David Cameron is visiting an elderly woman at Balmoral too. With a new poll showing a majority favoring independence for the first time, the No campaign might actually offer some ‘serious devolution’. No wonder Darling struggled so much to name any powers that would be transferred: The establishment planned on as few as they could get away with. The contempt that the ruling elite holds us in is abundantly clear: Throw the jocks enough scraps to keep them quiet. Sadly for them, such late desperation is too revealing. I suspect many of those who may have trusted those in power may be thinking again.

Some of the right wing media scare stories have become comical. This week the Daily Telegraph ran headlines proclaiming the bankers’ concerns about an independent Scotland; us damn mutinous scots might have an adverse affect on bonuses in the city. How selfish of us. Meanwhile, over on the Guardian, two great articles by George Monbiot and Simon Jenkins articulate the positive case for an independent Scotland.

An opportunity to build a new country: I think it’s time to seize the moment.

Salmond under the Darling knife

Surgical incision without anesthetic made for painful viewing last night. Quite why Alex Salmond thought he could continue to shrug off legitimate questions about what currency an independent Scotland might use by amateurish obfuscation and selective quotation is utterly baffling. Monotone Darling adopted the novel idea of assuming the role of an inquisitive 8 year old and it worked. As the groans turned to jeers, the former chancellor cleverly offered child like simplicity and the process of elimination to entice the First Minister to answer the question that we would all like to know the answer to; he skillfully exposed the Achilles heel of the yes campaign.

Jeremy Bentham coined the phrase ‘nonsense upon stilts’ to describe rhetoric on natural rights; Alastair Darling has substituted ‘nonsense’ for ‘stupidity’ to describe currency union without political union. Economic competence matters and if ‘stupidity on stilts’ sticks then the odds on a yes vote will lengthen further than 4/1 which they fell to in the aftermath of Salmond’s stuttering and stumbling.

When given his chance to rise from under the surgeon’s knife, Salmond’s response suggested that anesthetic might actually have been used after all. He chose to cross-examine Darling on an Andy Burnham joke about driving on the right and the probability of attacks from outer space. Darling couldn’t believe his luck as he scored the open goal and sarcastically ridiculed the First Minister’s lack of humor. Isn't it supposed to be Salmond who is the smug and glib political heavyweight? On the evidence of last night he has lost weight both literally and metaphorically. I’d better get down to the bookies.  

Not enough information?

As the commonwealth games draw to a close, the final push from either side of the Scottish independence campaign will be unleashed and, make no mistake, it will get pretty messy. Already I’ve heard of disagreement between family, friends and work colleagues causing angst. I would urge everyone to hold his or her nerve and persevere. Rational argument and iteration is surely conducive to arriving at a decision that each of us is happy with. Who is correct will perhaps never be known because we won’t have the opportunity to try each scenario out and compare them. 

Over the past couple of months, I’ve heard more interesting arguments. A respected financial journalist told me that independence would be a disaster because of the capital flight that he believes would ensue in the event of a yes vote. The prospect of Scottish sovereignty over North Sea oil reserves being in question has also been brought to my attention. Each argument has been carefully researched with their respective proponents displaying impressive vigour and knowledge. In my experience the most common utterance though is that there is ‘not enough information’.

If you desire all the facts in order to conclude what will happen whether Scotland votes yes or no, then I think you are perfectly entitled to make this complaint but you will probably remain disappointed. The dearth of certainty highlights the crux of the referendum: nobody actually knows very much at all. Will Scotland continue to use the pound? Will all oil companies shut up shop? Will a tin of baked beans cost 2p more in Tesco? Will house prices crash 20%? Will we be £1100 better or worse off? I don’t know and I very much doubt that anybody else does either, at least not for sure anyway.

I think both sides have run a pretty cynical campaign. As I’ve said before, I think the SNP argument has been ruinously denigrated by their (presumably) pre-meditated decision to tip toe around some of the most emotive issues. The nationalist argument venerates our confidence to become a nation state and take control of our economy. Yet, perplexingly, Salmond et al think that it's a good idea to abdicate responsibility for the monetary tenet of marcoeconomic policy. Moreover, fiscal policy is restrained when one is not in control of monetary policy as has been brutally demonstrated in the Eurozone. The twin planks of fiscal and monetary policy need to operate symbiotically to be effective and sustainable.

I’ve accepted that there is not much good information to go on and that both sides peddle their own propaganda. I will not be voting on whether I think that hedge funds pull the plug on certain Scottish investments nor whether a fledgling Scottish state meets the requirements of the United Nations Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to have territorial and economic rights in the North Sea recognized. I am going to vote on which option I think offers the greatest prospect of building a better society over future generations.

I have touched on many of these issues in this blog. What I do know are my own beliefs. I think nuclear weapons are a crazy waste of money; I don’t think that a largely hereditary elite should rule us; I don’t think children’s prospects should be afflicted by who their parents happen to be; I would like to see greater equality and humanity in our society. 

I am open to changing my mind but at the moment I’m inclined to vote yes because I think the probability of achieving the aspirations that I value would be enhanced. Even if my lifetime only yields the plugging of the democratic deficit and the eradication of weapons of insanity, that would be enough for me to hope that future generations can flourish. I don’t think that an egalitarian utopia will be created overnight but I’d rather have a go then reminisce on what might have been. Enjoy the debate and remember that every vote – unlike at Westminster elections - does count on the 18^th of September.