The Scary Rise of the SNP

In a meteoric change of electoral scenery, all but 3 seats in Scotland are now represented by the Scottish National Party, who have wasted no time in demanding new separatist powers and threatening to demand for a further independence referendum. Will the new Westminster Government meet their demands, or ignore them completely as an irrelevance to the electoral arithmetic of the new parliament?  I'm not sure, but I'm concerned.  So I wrote to my newly re-elected MP about it.

Dear Mr Goodwill

Please allow me to congratulate you on re-election.  I think you know from previous correspondence that there are many matters on which we cannot agree, but on the crucial matter of the economy, I think the Coalition of the last parliamentary term did a respectable job.

I am writing to you now with a major concern about Scottish devolution in the new parliamentary term.

Provisional autopsy results from pre-election opinion polls suggest that many of the electorate decided on their way to the polling booth how they would cast their vote, and that a leading concern was about what deal the Labour party might make with the SNP.  So I think I'm probably right in thinking that my concern over what concessions the coming Conservative government will make to the stratospherically strengthened SNP will make in this parliament and even in the coming weeks.

I have always considered my country to be the United Kingdom; and that England, Scotland and Wales are 'countries' only in a  historical sense.  So the SNP's rise, the independence referendum and feelings made manifest in the referendum campaign, and the close result of the referendum came as a bombshell to me.  Scotland and Scottish people are dear to me, and I was much disturbed to discover the vehement passion in Scotland against rUK as represented by their demon "Westminster".

But I have to say that we're either one country, or we're not.  If we are one, then we must get equal treatment.  I rather regret the promises made by the three party leaders in the closing days of the referendum campaign, and the idea that they may extract further benefits and autonomy from rUK is unacceptable to me... to the extent that if it happened, I would campaign for Scottish Independence myself, and help to dig a channel freeing them from rUK so they could drift off into the deep Atlantic!

I agree with Cameron's stated position that in exchange for "devo-max" we must have a re-alignment of rights and benefits for rUK.  Certainly this must mean no Scottish voting in Westminster on issues of devolved power: so far as that could weaken Scots' position and be abused by the Westminster government, it is the price of their own separatist demands.  I would go further: I think it's time to review the Barnett formula and stop favourable financial settlements to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.  Let's have equality in all things and spread resources equally across the UK.  No more powers and preferential treatment to Scotland!  And no "Northern Assembly in England" (we have quite enough government already!!).

What is your view, my elected representative?  Can you assure me that there will be no bowing to the vocal demands of the SNP, whatever their threats; no further devolution than what's already been (inadvisedly) promised, and a realignment of democratic and fiscal equality?

Kind regards

Letter to Liam Byrne, about his "afraid there is no money" note.

After the 2010 General Election, the incoming Chief Secretary to the Treasury found a note on his desk from his predecessor, Liam Byrne, saying "Dear Chief Secretary, I'm afraid there is no money.  Kind regards - and good luck! Liam".  After it has been used unceasingly for the last five years as witness to the dire state of the British public finances, Byrne has now revealed that he has burnt with shame every day since writing it.  However, while surprising in its candour, I feel he did a great public service in shaking the public into understanding the seriousness of their country's plight, so I wrote to tell him so, and that could even have helped his party rebuild trust had they grasped the opportunity.  (Copied, of course, to the Labour Front Bench team,)

Dear Liam Byrne

I read your regret about the infamous note. I just want to say that whatever your own regrets and party's inconvenience, I think it was a great help to the public in understanding the true gravity of the situation, the imperative of austerity.

Before the 2010 election, your own party said it would legislate to half the deficit within 1 parliament, following which it voted against every austerity measure, Ed Balls announcing he would spend his way out of recession. This is what compounded the Labour party's deficit in trust for spending their way recklessly through the good years.

Your party leader, the week before the election said that he didn't regret overspending because it had paid for hospitals and schools. The dreadful truth is that it hadn't even done that... the PPPs for hospitals lumber the country and the NHS with astronomical payments for decades in the future.

The country needed a wake-up call to highlight the severity of the situation, and your note was a genuine public service, whatever it's motivation.

Your party lost the "long campaign" in 5 years of denial and promoting reckless policies, compounding its earlier culpability, and that's why I couldn't vote Labour and why your party was massacred in the polls. Had it been plain about its own mistakes, attempted to proportionalise it with debt caused by the banking crisis, showed the country the truth about the debt instead of joining the multi-party conspiracy to confuse it in the public's mind with the current account deficit, your note could conceivably have helped Labour too.

I hope the coming five years will be characterised by honesty and transparency on public finances, rather than taking the public for mugs. Only that will help me to believe that Labour may be trusted, has a credible plan, believe it can be afforded, and perhaps persuade me to vote Labour in 2020.

By the way, in 2015 I didn't vote at all. I couldn't vote for Labour because of economic incompetence. I couldn't vote Tory because we risk exiting the EU under their lead. And I was fully intending voting LibDem right up to the point where Nick Clegg announced his red lines and I was stunned to find refusing to support an in/out referendum was not among them. It was at that point when I revisited whether anything could persuade me that Labour may be responsible with the economy, and heard Miliband affirm he had no regrets over overspending.

I hope these observations are useful.

Kind regards

Election Post Mortem (from a Lib-Dem non-voter)

The election results were very disappointing, but I console myself that they had an element of justice.

LibDems were punished for the tuition fee débacle

I agree that punishment at the ballot box is the only way to deal with the tuition fee lie: to the end it was not acknowledged that LibDems had a choice in the matter, compounding the lie with Clegg's "rock and hard place" and Cable's 'achieved a better outcome' comments.  So Cable was ousted, and Clegg remains to deal with the consequences - no escape for him.

However, my own decision was that there are not enough alternatives to change my vote because of it, but I can't forgive without perceiving remorse for the deception rather than irritation at the consequence.

Meanwhile in Labour...

There were other satisfying manifestations of justice aside from Lib-Dems: yay-hey... Ed Balls had spouted complete bollocks about the economy for five years, and his constituency made him pay for it.  In the end it's comparable with the Clegg/Cable story: Labour opposed every coalition saving to fix the economic disaster of their own making.  Miliband ended-up saying Labour hadn't overspent, Balls demanded they spend more.  The electorate saw through it: Balls got his comeuppance and Miliband is left to face the music.  Fair-dos.

But LibDems were great in government!

I felt that in government, LibDems did an awesome job with the economy and moderating tory extremes.  I tried to persuade everyone I knew of reasons for supporting LibDem, until the week before the election, when Nick Clegg laid out his red lines.

Lib-Dems de-robed themselves of EU support

The red-lines didn't include opposing an EU in/out referendum, and that means the LibDems would prop-up the Tories a scheme resulting in our exit of the EU.  I was stunned by that.  The one thing I would have bet my shirt on is that Lib-Dems would support EU Membership in any way possible.

Even the end result is better than that, where a handful of LibDems are free from the shackles of coalition.

Do I misunderstand Clegg's position?

Clegg said that he would campaign for us staying in the EU.  First of all, that's worth nothing: the Lib-Dems are hopeless at campaigning.  They accepted Cameron's proposal for 'the wrong kind of' Proportional Representation, and had lost the referendum without anybody realising they had made any case for it!

What wasn't assessed is that the Tories are not a single party on Europe: half of them are much more closely aligned with UKIP.  Whatever deal Cameron makes with the EU, whether or not he recommends an "In" vote, half of his party will campaign for "Out".

Justice Served... with a heavy heart

And that is why I didn't vote at all in the election.  My conscience is at least clear that I haven't voted for a party which would help BRExit.