Now For the Great British Debate

As someone who was always a very staunch no, I am delighted that Scotland has voted to stay in the union. Yet do not believe for a second that this means that questions and issues raised during the campaign will be ignored until the next referendum. I say next referendum as if nothing changes then another referendum will be inevitable, as will a yes result. The referendum has invigorated people, and the demand for change is far too great for politicians across the United Kingdom to ignore. We need a “Great British Debate” on how to reform our country, a debate which involves every part of the country and every political party small or large, not just the big three and the SNP. We must find a way to make British democracy more representative by replacing First Past the Post. We need to federalise the United Kingdom with defined, and equal powers for the parliaments created, including regional parliaments for England. This is the greatest opportunity we have had since the end of WWII to radically reform Britain. Let’s do it.

A new method of voting for MPs

In the 2010 General Election, the Tories won 36.4% of the vote and 47.1% of the seats, labour won 29% of the vote and 39% of the seats, whilst the Liberal Democrats won 23% of the vote yet only 8% of the seats! This is clearly not particularly democratic, but the 2010 General Election was one of the most representative elections we have had! For example; in 2005 Labour won 35.2% of the vote and 55.2% of the seats!

I do not support full proportional representation for a couple of reasons; I believe that it is important to have local representatives that are elected locally, which cannot be done under proportional representation. I also believe that when selecting a government you need to have a balance between democracy and effective government. Having proportional representation frequently leads to reduced government efficiency due to more coalitions of many different parties forming. It also eradicates any chance that independents or regionalist parties will get elected. I believe the best way to balance the interests of democracy with effective government is the d’Hondt method. This is the way we send MEPs to the European Parliament.

I propose merging constituencies into ‘mega constituencies’, which would send around 4 MPs to parliament each. This would mean that you maintain a local representative, have a more democratic system without causing coalitions of half a dozen parties.

Giving votes to 16 and 17 year olds

Another important step forward in democracy would be to give 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote, as they received in the referendum. It is supported by the Liberal Democrats (who had it in their 2010 manifesto) and the Labour Party (Miliband announced the policy during last year’s Labour Party Conference) but opposed by the Conservatives. As a country we have decided that at 16 you are mature enough to leave school, raise a family and join the military. Surely that means we have decided already that they are mature enough to vote.

House of Lords Reform

It is time to get rid of the remaining hereditary peers in the House of Lords altogether, along with the Church of England Bishops. It is also time to make the chamber at least partially elected, to reflect the views of the people of the country. The reason why I do not want a wholly elected House of Lords is because I believe that it can be beneficial to the country to have people who are in Parliament because of their expertise, rather than their electability. Technocracy in moderation is a good thing. Quite what proportion of the House should be elected is up for debate, but I believe it should be no lower than 1/3. However, I do not want the House of Lords to have the power to veto laws, as at the end of the day it should be only the people’s representatives that decide whether or not a law should pass.

Federalising the United Kingdom

This will be the hardest part of the whole process and will require a lot of hard work from every part and party of the United Kingdom. I completely agree with Ed Miliband that we should have a constitutional convention within the United Kingdom some time after next year’s election. Each of the new parliaments should have the same defined powers along a similar line to the states that make up the USA. A great debate should occur over what powers these new parliaments should have. How can they raise taxes or spend money? Should they control their own education systems? What about the NHS and benefits? Since this debate is only just beginning, I do not know exactly where my opinions are just yet. Once I decide on a point of view, I will be sure to inform you!

So involve yourself in the Great British Debate, read up about the different possibilities, write to your local representatives at every level and make sure to change this country for the better!

Scotland Says No! - Now For Change

Scotland has said no thanks to becoming an independent country, 44.7% voted yes whilst 55.3% voted no on a turnout of 84.59%! This isthe highest turnout since universal suffrage was introduced in 1918. The highest turnout was in East Dunbartonshire at 91%, whereas the lowest was in Glasgow, where only 75% of people voted. For comparison, elections to the Scottish Parliament have never had higher turnout than 59% (1999). Of the 32 councils, only North Lanarkshire, Glasgow, West Dunbartonshire and Dundee voted yes. Here is a table of how each council voted, ranked by margin of victory for no.

	Yes	No	Margin for No
Orkney	32.8	67.2	34.4
Scottish Borders	33.44	66.56	33.12
Dumfries & Galloway	34.33	65.67	31.34
Shetland	36.29	63.71	27.42
East Renfrewshire	36.81	63.19	26.38
East Lothian	38.28	61.72	23.44
East Dunbartonshire	38.8	61.2	22.4
Aberdeenshire	39.64	60.36	20.72
Perth & Kinross	39.81	60.19	20.38
Edinburgh	39.81	60.19	20.38
Stirling	40.23	59.77	19.54
Aberdeen City	41.39	58.61	17.22
Argyll & Bute	41.48	58.52	17.04
South Ayrshire	42.13	57.87	15.74
Moray	42.44	57.56	15.12
Angus	43.68	56.32	12.64
Midlothian	43.7	56.3	12.6
West Lothian	44.32	55.18	10.86
Fife	44.95	55.05	10.1
South Lanarkshire	45.33	54.67	9.34
Clackmannanshire	46.2	53.8	7.6
Falkirk	46.53	53.47	6.94
Comhairle nan Eilean Siar	46.58	53.42	6.84
Highland	47.08	52.92	5.84
Renfrewshire	47.19	52.81	5.62
East Ayrshire	47.22	52.78	5.56
North Ayrshire	48.99	51.01	2.02
Inverclyde	49.92	50.08	0.16
North Lanarkshire	51.07	48.93	-2.14
Glasgow	53.49	46.51	-6.98
West Dunbartonshire	53.09	46.04	-7.05
Dundee	57.35	42.65	-14.7

Source: BBC

Following the loss in the referendum, Alex Salmond has decided to resign as First Minister of Scotland. I find this rather peculiar, at the beginning of the campaign everyone expected the result to be a resounding no. It was Salmond and the SNP that gave independence a real chance of winning. Nationalists will miss him greatly, and although I don’t like him, he is without a doubt a very able politician. 

On my opinion on what do to next read the post "Now For the Great British Debate"

For polling on how different groups voted in the referendum click here.

Vote NO on Scottish Independence

This Thursday millions of Scots will go to the polls to vote on whether or not Scotland should be an independent country. Until a couple of weeks ago it looked like the no campaign was cruising to an easy victory, as polls consistently showed it holding double digit leads over the yes camp. Then came the news that really electrified the race, a YouGov poll showed that when you excluded ‘don’t knows’, yes had 51% of the vote! Although the lead was within the margin of error, the fact that the yes campaign was even close shocked everyone.

What has been stunning to watch over the course of the campaign is how the economic establishment on both the left and the right have rallied to behind the no campaign. Big businesses have revealed contingency plans to move their headquarters from Scotland to England if independence is achieved, including RBS. At the same time prominent left-wing economist Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed titled “Scots, what the heck?” over the ludicrous economics of an independent Scotland. After all, Scottish stocks lost over £2 billion in value and the pound plummeted 1% against the dollar after the news of the poll broke. All that damage was done in less than a day and by one poll; imagine how damaging actual independence would do! One of the key problems for an independent Scotland is what currency it should use. The fact that the economy of Scotland is so well integrated with the rest of the UK means that introducing a new currency would be difficult. Yet sharing sterling comes with obvious problems, as the Eurozone has shown. A monetary union without a political union has negative implications for both the rich and the poor parts. The best option for Scotland is to remain within the union.

One of the great successes of the yes campaign has been to take on an anti-establishment image that appeals to many Scots, particularly the working class. This image is helped by the fact that the establishment has overwhelmingly backed the no campaign. Yet if people really think that an independent Scotland, led by Alex Salmond, will be any less cowed by the establishment, then I think they are foolish.

The key issue of this campaign is about the North Sea oil and gas reserves. Nationalists love point out that since the majority of the reserves are Scottish (96% of current oil production and 47% of current gasproduction), then an independent Scotland would easily be able to finance a new country of 5 million people. This point sounds reasonable, but it is more problematic when you scrutinise it, even for a bit. Production has fallen 40% in the past decade, if it keeps falling at the current rate then Scotland will run out of oil before 2030! Improved technology means that some reserves that were previously not economically viable, may become viable, basing a major irreversible decision on what might happen is far too much of a gamble. Basing your yes vote on the revenue from North Sea oil is not a good idea considering the permanence of the vote and the temporary nature of North Sea oil.

There are some valid points in favour of independence; since Scotland is more left-wing than Britain as a whole, an independent Scotland would elect more left-wing governments. Yet there are other claims which I feel are a bit ridiculous, one of which is the claim that you should vote for independence to save the NHS, or to give Scotland its own voice on the international stage. The first preys on the coalition’s much hated Health and Social Care law that reforms the NHS in England and Wales. When the nationalists make that point, they seem to conveniently forget that Scotland already has control over the NHS. So Scotland’s NHS is safe, it’s the NHS in England and Wales that is at risk. By leaving the union, you make the Scottish NHS no safer, but jeopardise the NHS for the 55 million people who live in England and Wales. The problem I have with the second point is less with validity and more with what people may think that the point implies. Although Scotland would have its own voice, it would be a very quiet one in comparison to Britain’s. In terms of influence, Scotland would be a lot better off as part of the UK. The UK is a member of the G20, G8, and a permanent member of the UNSC. It is inarguably one of the most influential countries on the planet. If the Scottish want to have influence on the world stage, they are far better off within the union.

When Scotland decides this Thursday, the vote will be close and will have ramifications around the world. If Scotland achieves independence, it will embolden separatists around the world. Perhaps this is the beginning of the “Great Splintering”, when wealthy western nations break up. So who will be next? Will it be Quebec breaking up with Canada, Catalonia with Spain, Flanders with Belgium, or perhaps the Po River Valley will say ciao to Italy!

Scots, when you go to the polls on Thursday, please give an emphatic NO THANKS to independence. 

How the World Should Deal With Israel

Israel has one again defied international law, and violated the rights of Palestinians by grabbing over 400 hectares (988 acres) of land in the West Bank. Israel made no attempt to justify its actions, it simply declared the land “state land”, and that was basically it. It is the biggest land grab in over 30 years and it comes just after Israel and Gaza reach an agreement to end 50 days of bloodshed that left almost 1,500 Gazancivilians dead!

The continued existence and expansion of the settlements is in direct violation of international law, specifically UNSC (United Nations Security Council) resolution 446. So how can we prevent further Israeli land grabbing in the West Bank? A military attack by other countries is clearly out of the question as that would result in a massive death toll on both sides. For the Palestinians, attacking Israel is a terrible idea considering how strong Israel’s military is and how weak their own military is! I feel that this means that the only option is to pursue diplomacy and peaceful protests. Here are a list of things we should do:

1.       Continue to work within the UN for diplomatic resolutions

2.       Boycott Israel (don’t buy Israeli products)

3.       Pressure your government to sanction Israel

4.       Peacefully protest in the West Bank/Israel

1. One of the most effective ways of doing diplomacy in the modern world is through the UN. It can be used as a mediator in disputes, condemns human rights violations, and membership of the organisation is the most commonly accepted definition of a country. Unfortunately there is a major stumbling block at the UN: America. The US is a permanent member of the UNSC, which means that it can veto any resolution that the council votes on. This means that going through the Security Council would be very difficult for Palestine, due to America’s unconditional support for Israel. It also means that Palestine is unlikely to become a full UN member anytime soon, as the process to become a full member requires a Security Council resolution.  

2. A boycott of Israeli products would be a great step, as hurting a country’s economy is one of the best ways you can make its leaders more amiable to a peace deal. The sanctions on South Africa were a major reason for the Apartheid state collapsing. As an individual it can be quite difficult to find out where all your products originate. So what you should do instead is try and pressure companies into no longer stocking products that are from Israel. If you are in the UK visit www.boycottisrael.org.uk for more information on how to boycott Israel.

3. Arguably the best thing you can do, if you live outside Palestine, is to put pressure on your government to take a stance against Israel. Whether that comes in the form of sanctions or an arms embargo, it would be hugely beneficial to the Palestinian cause, especially if your country is powerful. If you live in America this will be more difficult, as it is the most pro-Israeli western nation. Yet being a pro-Palestinian voice can do a lot of good, and change only happens when people demand it! The countries in which you can do the most good are ones with a pro-Israeli government and an anti-Israeli populace. Which countries fall under that category? Well every Western nation, apart from the US. Britain is arguably the easiest target, as of the EU countries polled, Britain had the most negative view of Israel (72% of Britons had an unfavourable view). Considering that the UK is one of the most powerful countries in the world, and has one of the largest economies, having the UK on the side of Palestinians would be a blow to Israel. So what are you waiting for? Write to, or call your MP/representative and get things going!

4. Peacefully protesting your oppressors is not an easy thing to do, and it takes a lot of courage, but it is the best way to win. Part of the reason for the success of Martin Luther King and the civil rights protesters in America in the 50’s and 60’s, other than the obvious morality of their cause, was the images of peaceful protesters getting violently beaten by police officers. Protest by getting Palestinians to enter settlements or march on cities like Jerusalem. Whatever you do, do not attack Israel. Violence rarely succeeds when you’re being oppressed. Every time Hamas fires a rocket into Israeli territory, or a bomb goes off in Tel Aviv, it gives Israel a justification to attack. They always lose the moral high ground with the disproportionate counter attacks. According to a YouGov poll, 62% of Britons believe that Israel committed war crimes in the recent Gaza conflict. Despite this, it allows Israel defenders to ignore the hardships of the Palestinians, because Hamas is also targeting Israel.

Using peaceful solutions will not be easy, and it will not be quick, but as you have the moral high ground, you will win.