Scotland, Independence, Defence implications – and another matter.

In September this year the Defence Committee published its Sixth Report on the Defence Implications of Possible Scottish Independence – a fascinating read for those with the time to so do.

The Conclusion of this report contain a very damning charge where the education of the public are concerned, especially on matters of great importance (although obviously the degree of importance should not matter). From the Conclusion:

The people of Scotland and the rest of the UK deserve to be presented with as full a picture as possible of the implications of Scottish independence for their future defence and security. To date, the information published by both the Scottish Government and UK Government falls far short of requirements.

Let us take that assertion by the Defence Committee that the people of this country deserve to be presented with as full a picture as possible – and let us apply that assertion to other matters.

Do not we, the people, deserve to be presented with as full a picture on our membership of the European Union? In which case one has to ask why this is not happening. Why will not our political elite admit that full membership of the European Union is not necessary to access the Single Market – and why will not they acknowledge that the Norway Option exists? As is shown in this paper, Norway by no means is a ‘fax-democracy and has just as much voice in the formation of legislation as the EU.

If we, the people, are to have a Review of the balance of Competences where the European Union is concerned – I refer to that being produced by William Hague – do not we, the people, deserve a fair review and not the biased effort so far provided?

If we, the people, have to suffer the present system of ‘faux-democracy’ under which we are governed; should not we, the people, have the right to demand that political parties stick to manifesto commitments? Take for example the promise of ‘recall’ of MPs. In the ‘Coalition – a programme for government’, were we not promised (page 27): We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents. What in fact resulted was a system in which fellow Parliamentarians of the accused would have the final decision – something not mentioned in the manifesto. While on this subject, think back to the last Government and their proposals in respect of the smoking ban and pubs – that which resulted was entirely different to that which had been proposed.

I have been accused – in the nicest possible manner – by commenters that I apologise far too much; but I must so do again for mounting my current hobby horse. The foregoing is not democracy!

Where a system exists in which, during a fixed term, a government can pass any law it likes, against which the people have no method of rejection; when a government can practice censorship, to whatever degree, then the result can only produce tyranny.

To their everlasting shame, the people of the UK appear resigned to waving goodbye to democracy and seem content to accept tyranny.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

8 Responses

  1. john in cheshire says:

    David, virtually no one I speak to is interested; in the EU other than to grumble about abstract dissatisfaction; about immigration other than to say there are too many non-English speakers everywhere; about corruption in public life, other than to say ‘it shouldn’t be allowed’. And so on. I think we, collectively, think that although things aren’t quite as pleasant as they might be, life will continue on into the future much as it has been, for them/us, in the past. Unfortunately, I suspect that only when a massive hiatus in the norm is experienced by a large number of us, will there be a clamour for change; a return to normal life.

    • Flyinthesky says:

      ‘it shouldn’t be allowed’ “what’s the government going to do”, we’ve been carefully conditioned to rely on the government to address every occurrence usually voiced be a vociferous minority not representative of majority view.
      I would stick my neck out and say if we had “actual democracy” 95% of the problems we face wouldn’t exist.

      • Flyinthesky says:

        N.B. The government(s) have given away competances like confetti, what they don’t want to tell us, the reality, is they are now powerless to do anything about it.

    • david says:

      And what pray is there about our lives that the EU does not affect? There is little difference twixt ‘democracy a la EU’ and democracy ‘a la UK’ – is there? Where is there democracy viz-a-viz the 6 Demands?

      You need to make the case!

      I completely endorse the comments following yours from Flyinthesky – take them onboard when talking to people!

    • Flyinthesky says:

      John, if I may be so familiar, no one, by intent, has grasped the reality. Often cited as 9th or 10th in the order of priority of things that need addressing or indeed rectifying the eu is actually in pole position.
      Cue mantra: AKA life rule 1: Almost every problem we face as a nation, from dustbins to national security, has an eu component preventing it’s satisfactory resolution.
      This is closely followed by life rule 2: Beware of expert opinion as the principal beneficiary (FUD) is often the expert.
      We have been successfully deprogrammed from being self determining and aware and short of a monumental poke in the eye, they’re careful of avoiding that, Nothing is about to change.

  2. Flyinthesky says:

    Our democratic system, rofl, has been carefully nornalised. People have lost sight of what democracy actually is.
    What people fail to realise is democracy, however unpalatable it may seem on occasion, is polulism. The irrefutable is if it’s not populistic it “isn’t” democracy.

    Populism: populistic views that the government agrees with is democracy in action, populistic view that the government doesn’t agree with is discarded as mob rule. This it what passes for democracy here, in most areas the cake and halfpenny can’t be had but they’ve managed it.

  3. IanG says:

    You do realize that an argument can be made that if Scotland votes for independence then England may no longer be a member of the EU. The argument is that the member is the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If Scotland leaves then the UK, that is the member, ceases to exist and a new application for the UK of E,W & NI will have to be made. It is interesting that no legal opinion from the EU exists for the continued membership of an “independent” Scotland.

  4. Flyinthesky says:

    Nice sentiments Mr G, The issue will be raised within the constraints of rubber rules eu and will be dismissed in almost the same breath. Clause 326 subsection (a) amendment 12 will have it covered under the rights of autonomy of regions to be self determining within the constraints of eu legislation, the abstract reality. Nice thought though.

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012