For several years I’ve been finding that there really is no political party I can support – note, not “I would like” but “none I can”. Several times I’ve desperately looked through a list of Scottish political parties trying to find one that even vaguely suitable to see whether I could join. But not one is suitable.
So, I wrote down a list of my “red lines” which I wouldn’t cross if I joined another party:-
-
Scottish Based
The party must be based in Scotland. After my experience in UKIP and seeing the way Scottish labour was destroyed by its “branch office” status and how the Tories are a complete failure because they are run by and for England, it would be a waste of time joining another “branch office” party. -
Free Health & Education
I stood down from the Green party because they would not support local hospitals. I believe that healthcare and education, which primarily supports the young and old who cannot earn the money they need to purchase these service, must be largely free at the point of delivery. The absolute red line is that if you have an illness which means you cannot work, then healthcare must be free. But where possible people ought to be responsible for their own health – particularly working people, so I’m not in principle against charging for prescriptions.
Likewise, under 18 education should be free (but that doesn’t mean cheap and where possible controlled by parents and not politicians). However, I’m not in principle against adults who gain from education paying for that education. It’s only what works best for society. -
Scottish Independence (against dogmatic views either way)
Where possible people should have self government. But that applies as much to EU membership as UK membership or even local councils being dictated to by Edinburgh.
So, I have a pragmatic view of Scottish Independence: any political group whether a council or nation has to work with other similar groups. The best form of co-operation may be a formal union. But it may not. There is no hard and fast rule or principle governing what is or is not the appropriate relationship between peoples and the appropriate working relationships are likely to change over time.
So I want to see a pragmatic view on Scottish independence – in other words it should be up to individuals to decide and I don’t want to be party of a party telling me how to vote. Indeed, in my view, the whole dogmatic focus of the SNP and Tory focussing so much on this one issue is why so many issues of such importance to Scotland get ignored. -
Democratic
Democracy means giving power to ordinary people. OK, elections, aren’t a panacea (they can be bought or fixed by large interest groups) nor are they the only way to give ordinary people power; but any party I belong to must be democratic which means free and fair election of officials and for example yearly AGMs (unlike UKIP Scotland).
-
Pro-business, engineering and enterprise
The party must support business, it must be for cutting red tape.
-
Energy
Energy is key to a vibrant economy. We need secure and cheap supplies and decisions on energy should be taken by those with knowledge of the economic impacts of energy policy and based firmly on the evidence (i.e. not on speculation and failed theories from academics who are as clueless about the science behind climate as they are about the economy).
-
Equality & Political correctness
I’m fed up of political correctness. Equality does not mean treated everyone the same but instead giving equal respect for who we are and giving equal protection under the law. Just as we treat children differently from adults and adults differently from the elderly, so for example men and women have different needs and any party I join would respect that (and not pander to the politically correct bigots like the BBC).
That’s it
So, why’s it so difficult to find a party?
Centralised government isn’t an impediment to most of the things you want, it’s the fine print that messes neat plans up and makes people think they’re not cared for.
eg Health care is free for the elderly under all current parties. That’s not the problem. The problem is where do you stop? There are all kinds of life saving drugs and treatments that have varying success. As you reach a certain point the treatments increase exponentially. For the elderly, sometimes the best thing for them is not to go to hospital but then there’s no care available to make them moderately safe and cared for at home eg you can’t be given anything but oral antibiotics or a fluid drip anywhere but in hospital and once inside they will keep you for a set time, whereupon you deteriorate because there’s not enough people to look after your other needs. Many of the missed appointments are the elderly, either forgetting or being unable to attend, sometimes because they’re already in hospital but there’s no system to alert other parts of the NHS. Dementia is a timebomb for the NHS, they have no idea how to look after the increasing number of cases. They have rules about not restraining people so they have to keep retrieving the poor souls when they do wander, or worse fall onto concrete floors. Or, more likely they keep them sedated in bed which means they suffer lung problems, muscle wastage and bed sores. They then lose the ability walk and go to the toilet so they deteriorate that way too and the nurses are too busy to see to that which means they get infections, which in turn increases their dementia symptoms. They can’t feed the poor souls because they neither have the time nor the decent food but at the same time they refuse to let families care for their relatives because they a) aren’t trained and b) might be too demanding and get in the way. Those patients become bed blockers because they’re not well enough to leave but their conditions are near impossible to treat. We’re not even offered the chance to pay for anything better, because others wouldn’t be able to have the same. And absolutely everything is documented in a pointless record of deterioration and time wasting.
None of that is done (or not done) because nobody cares or that loads of money hasn’t been thrown at the problem but because it’s a bottomless pit of need. As a society we haven’t said ‘what is the limit and what do we do when we’ve reached it?’ If certain drugs and treatments unavailable then people need to know not to expect them for themselves or their loved ones, not fobbed off with ‘I’ll speak to the doctor’ who never turns up.
Few would expect there to be a blank cheque for treatments but we’ve never been asked to consider the comparative cost of a C section and a normal birth. We never get asked if we’d ok that C section if it meant that a cancer operation was delayed or a sick child had to wait an extra day to see a GP. Do we make GPs available for every little childhood sniffle (which might be serious) or do we have home visits for the terminally ill (which are serious but probably fruitless)?
The flaw in politics is it’s all about making promises about what will be done (maybe) but almost nothing about what won’t or can’t be done.
Good point. Yes there are limits, but I’m not sure how to make that a red line. The important thing is that the costs are far lower with UK healthcare than US and like the global warming scam, the big money wants to increase the amount we pay them for healthcare.
That red line is where all the differences lie between each political party (bonkers greens excepted). Nobody in mainstream UK politics really wants to privatise the NHS. Common sense says that it must be cheaper under public control but it has the potential to swell much higher because of the differences between how private and publicly funded organisations work. The mindset of the people are different.
Consider that new hospital in Glasgow
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3075600/Visitors-1billion-super-hospital-getting-stuck-lifts-no-buttons-inside.html
While I have no doubt they needed the hospital, did they need one so fancy? Clearly somebody got so carried away with the concept they forgot that value for money was imortant. They forgot that ‘cutting edge’ is often full of bugs and unforseen problems. Look at any region and you find schemes like this where money is spent on fancy ideas rather than burning need. eg my own hospital set up a dementia section of the hospital with street scenes from the 70s and memory boxes on room doors. Aww, very sweet, but useless because none of those things matter when you get bad enough to need them. Who needs items on a door to remind you it’s your room if they keep you sedated so you don’t walk through the door in the first place? Ask any relative of someone going through dementia and they’ll tell you the number one thing they need is information. What to expect, what you can do and even when to let go. My Dad was diagnosed with dementia while he was relatively normal but at no point during the months of appointments and repeated, pointless memory tests did they say ‘you should get your affairs in order’ or ‘give up driving now’ or ‘scale back your internet use’. The time with NHS staff was there for him but of no use whatsoever.
Everybody knows that the NHS is short of money but at the same time wasting huge amounts of it. How do we change that?
I think that we need to take each branch of goverment and set up teams of users and practitioners and say ‘forget what and how we do things now. If we were developing this from the ground up, what would we do?’ Certainly if they asked patients and staff what they really wanted from a hospital, breath taking architecture and buttonless lifts would not feature.
I didn’t think my viewpoint was that radical, which is why I can’t believe it’s so difficult to find a political party which I can support.
Why is it that anyone to the right of Gandhi in Scotland seems to have this dogmatic view on scrapping the NHS, unionism, independence, etc.
My biggest bugbear is that I’ve seen how the branch office party structure of UKIP, Tory, Labour, etc., means that the policies they focus on, usually have no relevance to Scotland.
So, e.g. UKIP – yapping on endlessly about immigration — BORING!!! Yes, if you live in the SE of England where all the Scottish money is pumping up their economy – yes immigration is a problem. But in Scotland we still large amounts of emigration.
Likewise “landfill tax”: in England they’ve got more rubbish than holes. In Scotland, the landscape is full of holes with far fewer people to fill them. So, Scottish development is halted because England is running out of holes??
Then we’ve got fuel taxes. In England where it’s warmer, this is less of an issue – but in Scotland, with our cold-damp climate.
Then we’ve got the birdmincers – SE England has low winds so is a very poor place to put birdmincers. Scotland, has higher winds, but relies on Tourists who come to view are scenic birdmincer free environment.
It’s not that the right in Scotland does not agree in principle on pretty much the same things as the right in England, but that the different economies, culture, landscape, geography — mean that the focus of policy and balance between policies is different. Also – the issues the electorate focus on in Scotland are not always the same as England (is that never the same??)
TinyCO2 – just been thinking about your comments and to be honest a party of the centre right would just naturally be pro-business and pro-NHS (to limits) and basically “common sense”.
The big problem I have is that so many big and small parties are dogmatic about Scottish Independence. At the next referendum, like most people, I’m going to have to make up my mind. So, I just cannot support a party that puts as its key policy being dogmatic either pro- or anti- independence.
On the other hand, perhaps the best way to keep the Union together would be to have a strong party of the right in Scotland willing to stand up for the Scottish economy in the same way the Tories stand up for the London economy.
In light of your comments, I’ve cut this down to the real essentials and have decided that the best way forward is to start a face book group so that there’s a place where we might get a conversation going:
Scotland’s Right
Can I suggest a new blog as well as (or instead of) Facebook, a separate page for each policy area (e.g. energy, environment, etc), as well as blog posts for more general things?
What we need is spread the word, get people involved and get the conversation going. A blog would be an excellent way to do that but it needs good articles from a range of contributors – which in turn needs people to be involved.
I see you are already blogging. Would you be willing to help?
Areas within Scotland or England should not be governed from London.
– As areas should largely govern themselves
But neither should areas with in the Highlands and Islands be governed from Glasgow and Edinburgh.
To me there are no real countries called Scotland or England, they are just theoretical concepts ..championing them can lead to racism.
The Swiss regions have very local government. eg employment benefit is paid out of local taxes .. so starting a housing estate or encouraging a local factory does effect your local taxes. And if you see your neighbours sitting on the dole or fiddling taxes ..you know that YOU are paying for it.
I’d be happy to contribute, though I’m not Scottish, but was planning to do something similar if Ed/Nicola had won the recent UK election. The UK needs non-toxic centre-right parties.
I’m with anng and climanrecon, don’t like facebook, not on facebook. Sorry.
Taking some of the things you high lighted.
LANDFILL TAX. This isn’t an English tax, this is an EU tax. It’s an environmental hoop to be jumped through and is meant to try and reduce the use of new materials and promote recycling. Most EU countries decided to burn their waste, which was considered an acceptable way of reusing waste and limiting the stuff sent to landfill. Would the UK do the same? NO, we decided to recycle ‘properly’. As you say, there’s no shortage of holes in the ground.
FUEL TAX. Well sure, it’s not unreasonable to make things easier for people in cold places to heat their homes but the tax is part of Scotland’s income. Governments of any colour tend to like taxes of one sort or another. I don’t know if it applies to gas and heating oil but many things are cheaper the further away from London you go. Cheaper prices equals lower tax. Of course there are the up and coming green taxes too.
Which brings us to WINDMILLS. Since AGW and its crappy solutions are cross border obsessions you can’t blame the English for this one. The SNP are behind the green blob all the way and is doing more to eradicate nuclear and coal than England. It’s against fracking and has plans to sell wind power to England all the way, even after a possible split. As we know, AGW roadblocks aren’t just home grown, many come from the EU.
The UK is in the uncomfortable position of being between the US litigious society and the EU nanny so we are sinking under the weight of rules and regs developed to satisfy the two. So when we’re suffering from some policy or other, it’s very hard to know where it came from. One of UKIPs key ideas is that we ditch the EU but it will only help if our own legal system doesn’t fit us up with the same or even more onerous ad vexatious laws. I have little hope on that front.
Now Scotland could start with a clean slate but even in Scotland there are countless people who are possessive of their bit of UK red tape. As every strand is interconnected, then untangling it and returning to sanity government would be very hard. Sensible people would actively work against resolving problems because in the short to medium term things would have to get a lot harder. Maybe if issues were nationally debated we might get an answer, or a workable alternative. People might feel the result was the will of the people, rather than the machinations of a few Eton toffs, even if we aren’t happy with the final outcome.
And finally IMMIGRATION the other obsession of UKIP. The influx of people is both a benefit and a headache. It drives down wages (positive and negative), increases competition, makes products cheaper but it also makes benefits more expensive, puts pressure on schools and the NHS. But most troublesome, it adds a new bunch of rule breakers to be dealt with. Suddenly there have to be rules to stop behaviour the Brits never engaged in. People get special attention just by arriving. Queues be damned. London gains more cash, simply by attracting more people. So while immigration might seem a long way away, believe me, you’re paying for it. I’m not sure what we do about it, but ignoring it has been disaterous.
We’ve been leery of having devolved government because it rarely works here. It tends to be just another layer of bureaucracy. Spending more money and making more petty rules. It might work if they have clear areas of responsibility that aren’t driven by the EU or Westminster or local councils, but just about every area of life and business is already over managed as it is.
Mike have you seen Understanding the Scottish Landslide
Posted on May 9, 2015 by Euan Mearns ?
a couple of commenters say REoil and gas “perhaps UK(minus) should encourage the Orkneys and Shetlands to secede from Scotland? I note from the map that the tide of SNP didn’t reach their shores.”
http://euanmearns.com/understanding-the-scottish-landslide
.a blank comment to activate following
As you say not only is it morally right, but it is economically right to have government at the lowest level that is efficient.
Thanks for the link.
I remember when I first read opinion polls pointing to a large number of SNP MPs – my thoughts were “that’s surprising” and then “it will be a reaction to the referendum” and I really didn’t see it as a big deal “serves them right” might also have crossed my mind.
The idea in that blog that it is somehow linked to the Iraq war is bizarre. Firstly the timing doesn’t fit because the effect would have happened long ago and secondly, I too was pretty annoyed with Blair, but it’s not something I think about any longer.
The best explanation I heard was from someone who said “the parties down south weren’t interested in the referendum until they thought they were going to lose the vote. Then they all turned up in droves, made all kinds of knee jerk promises – and then went home again after which the press and politicians went back to their old ways of ignoring Scotland.
On the one hand, the SNP campaign enthused a lot of people into action who were mild SNP voters. On the other hand, the sudden collapse of interest in Scotland after the campaign upset a lot of those who voted no.
What I think upset most people is the way the English politicians looked as if they couldn’t care (probably intending to suggest that England is doing Scotland a favour by allowing us in the Union). Then they totally switched like a lover on heat who wanted one thing – then it was wang bang thank you mam and they left having screwed us with some vague promises to “call sometime”.
In other words, I can’t see any policy driving this vote. Instead what I see is that having given Scotland the kind of media coverage that is normally exclusively reserved for those “south of the Oxbridge line” – the return to the usual appalling lack of media coverage or political interest in Scotland afterwards was all the bigger let down.