Bill Roache & John Bird, an Unnecessary Stooshie.

I am a little disappointed by the response of some people to Bill Roache's remarks in his interview on New Zealand television. It is obvious, that Roaches's grasp of reincarnation and karma is flawed  but the reactions of people like Annie Brown in the Daily Record and of Dr John Bird  of NAPAC  who called the belief in reincarnation "hippy, dippy" could almost be considered racist. Reincarnation and karma have been central to Indian belief for several thousand years. For people like John Bird to ridicule a belief that was old before Abraham was born is, frankly, insulting. John Bird may think he has the right to speak for people abused during childhood, but I certainly never agreed that he could speak for me, and when he abuses my beliefs he abuses me. It is good that there are organisations helping adult abuse survivors more, but I, for one, would never consider turning to NAPAC, based on the attitudes of its leadership.

I always find it amusing how readily people reject reincarnation while accepting the belief that one man's death could buy all of humanity absolution for all their sins,  honestly,  which is the more implausible? Under the law of karma we are each responsible for our own actions and thoughts. Each of us brings about the circumstances of our birth, from which point we start creating new karma in a new life. We come with lessons to learn, but there is no predetermination of how we must learn those lessons, nothing is inevitable. Under the law of karma we are each responsible for our actions  and that includes abusers, there are no excuses and noone else to blame. I am in no way to blame for some of the things that happened to me, however I am, as an adult, entirely responsible for how I relate to my past.

The biggest problem with karma and reincarnation are people like Bill Roache who pontificate from their half formed understanding and allow others equally lacking in understanding, like Bird, to retaliate. Don't get me wrong, John Bird is right to stand up for the abused, but he should check his facts and think before speaking, as it is I see little to choose between his stupidity and Bill Roaches's, two silly men who think their opinions matter. Bill Roaches's opinions are easily dismissed, after all what is he? Just an actor in a soap opera, but John Bird is apparently a teacher, his opinions are far more dangerous.

One thing Bill Roache got almost right was the need to forgive abusers, however the only person who can forgive an abuser is the one they abused. It is the "Sunflower" dilemma, the one who was abused cannot forgive another's abuser, nor can society forgive an abuser. Only the victim of abuse has the right to forgive and until they can forgive they will continue to be a victim. We forgive not to exonerate abusers, but to liberate ourselves!

Where Now For Scotland?

The campaign for a free democratic Scotland has begun, but it must be remembered that the SNP’s vision is not the only one, and that the future of an independent Scotland will be determined by the people of Scotland, not by the SNP. I am very much of the opinion that, while the SNP is right to push for independence, its vision is flawed and those considering voting “No” because they don’t like the SNP should consider voting “YES” to freedom so that they can actively determine the freedom of Scotland.

The “No” campaign who want to keep us under the control of the English Parliament and their allies in Europe, who wish to exploit our resources, are adamant that we will not be automatically accepted into the European Union. The SNP, somewhat embarrassingly, are desperate to exchange Westminster’s rule for Brussels. The question of whether we want to apply to be in Europe should be put, after Independence, to the Scottish people. Countries outside Europe do not necessarily have to fade away and there is no reason why we cannot thrive as the Scandinavians have.

When we are free of both Europe and the UK we can close our fishing grounds to Europe, like Iceland. We can allow our fisherman, whose attitude to maintaining fish stocks ecologically is responsible and based on a realistic, on the spot assessment of the situation, to fish responsibly. Without the depredations of European factory fishing fleets our fish stocks will be safer. It will also be for us to determine how our resources are used, England is gloating that they have drained much of our oil stocks, we need freedom to preserve what we have and develop future resources for the good of Scotland and not to subsidise a spendthrift UK government. I suggest that one of the first actions of a free Scotland should be to take into public ownership all energy resources and supply to stop further foreign profiteering. Under English rule we have lost our engineering, shipbuilding, steel and coal industries, if we are to have an industrial future we need to be free of Westminster. The hatred of Scotland that led Margaret Thatcher’s government to allow the destruction of our industries, use us as a testing ground for unpopular policies like the Poll tax, and destroy the most effective Regional administration in Europe is symptomatic of the Conservative party’s attitude to scotland over the last couple of hundred years; as long as we are under an English parliament we will have to endure the vicious anti Scottish racism of so many of its politicians.

England says we could not keep the pound. As a sovereign nation we will be able to call our currency what we like and determine its value against other currencies. I would suggest that a free Scottish Government might lower the value of the pound to boost Scottish Exports. As well as devaluation might we not also lower our business rates and taxes to well below the European averages to encourage businesses to use Scotland as a convenient offshore base of operations.

We will need to put some investment into our two major airports and into shipping, however as we can see being an appendage of England is of no advantage to us. Westminster is determined to build high speed rail links within England, and equally determined not to extend them to Scotland. We have ports, we have airports, we can trade directly with Europe without the long drag through England. As a free independent nation we will have control of our own imports and exports and will be able to impose or lift such restrictions as we find expedient, without restriction from Brussels and London.

The “No” campaign and their English masters say that Scotland could not afford its own armed forces. I think more to the point is that we cannot afford the UK’s armed forces. We are paying Scottish taxes to feed the vanity of Westminster politicians determined to send troops, many of them Scottish, to wage unnecessary wars overseas. Even when not at war the bulk of defense spending is in the southeast of England, we derive little benefit from a UK military. There are alternatives to a standing army that may well be explored, country after country has won its freedom by the military action of armed civilians. Were we to replace our standing army with volunteer militias and extend a cadet force into every place of learning, Scotland would become a country ungovernable by an invader. As a free and independent country our military airbases and our deep water facilities will be for us to dispose of as we choose. It is common practise for countries to establish overseas bases in friendly countries. As a free independent country we will lease our bases to whomever we chose and there are plenty of countries who would welcome the opportunity to access air bases on the edge of Europe or deep ports on the North  Atlantic.

It is argued that we must “cut our coat according to our cloth”. I think we must accept that we may have to restrict our public spending, but it will be our cloth and it is ourselves will be cutting it rather than having cuts forced upon us by the English. Of course, no longer being part of Europe we will have no obligation to provide benefits for non citizens which will reduce immigration and its costs as European economic migrants will rarely venture north of Carlisle. We will then be able like Australia and Canada to restrict immigration only to people we need to boost our human resources.

What about the Queen? The SNP are determined that she should remain head of state, but a free Scotland can choose to be a republic. It is reasonable to assume we will remain in the Commonwealth, particularly if the English oppose it, and the Queen is head of the Commonwealth, however it will be for the people of a free and independent Scotland to determine our political structures and to choose our head of state. Personally, despite being a republican, I’d sooner the Queen than President Salmond.

A “YES” vote will give us the freedom to determine our own future and, yes, make our own mistakes. A “no” vote will condemn us to continued government from a foreign country and to have their mistakes and incompetence inflicted upon us. I do not think accusing the “No” campaign of being traitors accomplishes anything of value, they believe that protecting the interests of English business and finance is important and they are entitled to their opinion, just as we are, but we do not need to stoop to their level of petty vilification. If we are to build a free and independent Scotland it must be a country where people are free and accepted for who they are along with their right to think as they choose. We have a right to build a country where are standards of behaviour are higher, our values cleaner and our aspirations purer, we do not have to accept the increasingly grubby and materialist standards of our southern neighbour. We can regain our freedom, let us also regain our dignity.

Bring Back Conscription

I think it's time they brought back conscription in the interest of world peace. I know you're thinking it's never brought peace in the past do why would it now? That's because out wasn't done right. Instead of conscription just for working class kids I'd extend out to all kids without opt outs and that would include the children of politicians. It's always been too easy for politicians to send other peoples kids off to die while keeping theirs safe at home, like George Bush senior putting Dubya into the National Guard rather than risk him in Vietnam. Tony Blair was happy to send kids to die in Afghanistan while sending Leo to college; if there had been any chance of Leo going to war does anyone think Cherie would have let Tony start one? I know there are exceptions, the Queen seems happy enough to send Prince Harry to war, there again if he were my son Off be tempted to send him to Afghanistan. The old guard of our political parties claim not enough women come forward as candidates, I think that might change if they thought their kids were likely to be cannon fodder.

Of course sending kids to war isn't our politicians' only double standard in the matter. How come if the Americans or British invade a country the people who try and defend their homes are terrorists, whereas the soldiers flying pilotless drones against women and children are heroes? Why do we call the French Resistance heroes and the Taliban terrorists? A final interesting thought on conscription, all the Native Americans who fought in the World Wars of the Twentieth Century could die for their country, but they could not be citizens.

Labour And The Politics Of Treachery

There was a time when Trades Unions were proscribed by law, workers were not allowed to meet together to discuss their conditions and to do agree to work together for better conditions could lead to transportation to Australia. In order for Trades Unions to bring about change they had no choice, but to break the law; so break the law they did and change followed. Since the end of the Nineteenth Century we have made enormous gains, we have universal suffrage, and the Unions have, or at least had, a parliamentary party to protect their interests.

Over many years the Labour Party delivered real benefits for working people, National Insurance  a National Health Service, and various employment protections. However the extreme right wing government of Margaret Thatcher and now David Cameron's Neo-Thatcherism, have shown us how fragile our hard won rights really are. The Labour Party, rather than being the parliamentary wing of the Trades Union movement, has become part of the political elite, led by men who have never held a job outside politics. The Labour Party has for too long taken the loyalty of the Unions for granted while actively undermining the ability of unions to defend themselves. Increasingly, particularly during the New Labour years the parliamentary party has failed to support workers' rights, instead accepting the Conservative postulate that the unions had to have their activities limited by law. Unfortunately the unions have been more or less hypnotised into believing they need to be acceptable to the upper classes in order to progress. Needless to say the erosion of legal protections for workers, the weakening of the unions and dangerously high unemployment, has led to a fall in union membership, which in turn further undermines the ability of unions to protect their members.

It is obvious that to continue to allow the erosion of workers rights will not only allow the divide between rich and poor to increase even further, but lead to the demise of the unions, leaving workers without any protection. The unions became strong by standing up for the workers despite the law, and they won rights and improvements in working conditions by doing so. If the unions want to be able to protect their members, and turn back the tide of Conservative attacks on the living and working conditions of ordinary people, they must cut their ties with the current Labour Party and refuse to be bound by unjust laws. The Labour Movement grew as it resisted injustice and rejected unjust laws. If the Unions are to stop the erosion of employment rights, they must once more put Justice before the law. Our forebears didn't get the vote, the right to combine, and all our other freedoms by obeying the law and waiting for a benevolent government to give them to them, they took them! They broke laws, they were attacked, imprisoned, deported and they won. We must follow their example or else deserve to be slaves.

Hands Off My Bus Pass!

Alan Roden, the Daily Mail's Scottish Political Editor complains that over sixties are using their free bus passes to travel in and out of work. This year I turn sixty and I will use my pass to travel to work. However before people throw up their hands in horror perhaps a little comparison may be in order. 

I claim no benefits and earn a little over £14,000pa, I pay all my own expenses and also provide a home for my daughter and her children. An MSP earns over £57,000, an MP earns over £65,000 on top of this they get expenses including travel. Now to add insult to injury they are calling for a thirty-two percent pay rise, mine was below inflation. I might be more inclined to believe we were all bearing our share of austerity if MP's pay rises were pegged to one percent and they payed their own expenses, but no, they live in comfort off my sweat and that of many like me. In the meantime my savings have all been used to meet expenses. It is small wonder that the idea of the extermination of the political and banking classes is looking increasingly attractive.

It might also be taken in account that as long as we can travel there is a possibility of our visiting shops and spending the money the free pass affords us, to remove the pass contributes further to recession.

I suspect the salary of a Political Editor is substantial, but at least they have a proper job;  the majority of our parliamentarians are free loaders and it's about time we kicked them out and replaced Parliament with a system of political governance answerable to ordinary people and representative of ordinary people. We look at MPs, bankers and tax dodgers and wonder who will be the first of us to take up arms against the sea of corruption that has become endemic at the top of society and end it.

Death and Success

At the end of a year of bereavements I have been thinking about death, and hand in hand with death what any person’s life means. There is a story that an old man once when asked if his life was a failure, responded, “I haven’t finished yet!”. In NLP we say that, “There is no failure, only unforeseen outcomes.” How do we evaluate a life? Some yogis and Zen masters apparently try to depart the world leaving no trace of ever having been here, but I don’t believe any of us can avoid leaving footsteps in the sand,

From the moment we are conceived we start impacting the lives of those around us. We may think we have done very little, but by virtue of living we fill many roles. I am a husband, son, grandson, brother, father, grandfather, worker etc. and I have been many things, trades unionist, trainer, massage therapist, telephone manager, so many roles over so many years. I am not one man and I relate to my world in so many ways and impact it in so many ways, many of which are entirely unintentional. My world impacts me differently in my different roles. I am not sure what success is really, but when my granddaughter makes me howl with laughter, and lifts my whole day, is that not success, and is that not enough? Who can say anyone is a failure, we do not know enough about anyone to say.

I think it might be fair to say for most of us our impact on the world is not always positive or, rather, that not everyone perceives us positively. Most of us are an amalgam of positive and negative with the balance generally on the positive. There are some like Jimmy Saville who did so much good he was revered as some kind of a saint ,until details of his abuse of young people was revealed and he was reviled as a devil. Most of us are not composed of such extremes but each of us is a mixture of light and dark. It is also true that different people have different positives, thus a politician may be seen as a saviour by some and an oppressor by others because of the same actions.

And who is it that defines what is success? An actor may leave behind both a glittering career and a string of broken marriages, is he a success or a failure? What matters more, what we have or who we are? Who is the greater success, the person who overcomes severe disability to lead a normal life or the winner of a TV talent show who goes on to compete in I’m a Celebrity? What is it that gives our lives meaning?

I believe that any life that positively impacts the lives of others is a success, however great or slight that impact. Some people like Anthony Nolan have changed the world merely by having lived, and Stephen Lawrence by having died. By any measure of our shallow contemporary world, Jesus (topical reference for December!) was, when he died, an abject failure; although personally I consider anyone with twelve friends a success. There is a story that one character on being asked whether he had any spare change responded, “I don’t know, I’m not dead yet”. So how can anyone be called a failure until they have finished? If even then sometimes, like Oskar Schindler it may be some time after we’ve gone before we are recognised. Best not to assume anyone is a failure, you don’t know what may yet come to light. Best not to consider yourself a failure, you do not know the impact you have had on everyone. Better still just live your life to the utmost and let it go without worrying about man made concepts like success.

Does Scotland really benefit from Britain?

Unionists never tire of telling us that the union with England has been of disproportionate benefit to Scotland, in fact only a small proportion of the Scottish people benefitted from the Union.

Prior to the Union of the Crowns much of the country operated a clan system wherein although the Clan Chief led and protected the clan he did not own all the land upon which they lived, the idea of privatising common land came from England. It is entirely thanks to the Union that land ownership was concentrated in the hands of an elite. It is entirely thanks to the Union that much of the population of the Highlands were driven from their homes to emigrate, or to live in slums in the industrial cities of the lowlands. It was the Union that led almost to the destruction of the Scot's Gaelic language and culture. The ordinary people did not benefit from the union, the Union with England has actively sought to damage Scottish culture and undermine Scottish identity and national pride.

The benefits of living in Scotland do not come from its connection with England. In Scotland at the Reformation John Knox ensured that village schools were set up across Scotland, whereas the English only passed an act to educate the children of the working classes in 1870. It is well known that life expectancy in Glasgow is shorter than elsewhere in the UK another legacy of the Union and that the slums of Glasgow were cleared and its citizens paid a living wage owes nothing to the English, but to the actions of Scottish Trades Unionists like James Maxton, John MacLean, Manny Shinwell, Davy Kirkwood and Willie Gallacher and the thousands prepared to strike for a living wage. When the Clydeside workers did strike the English government response was to send armed troops into George Square. The Union with England has perpetuated poverty and the destruction of individual liberties.

Strathclyde Regional Council made great progress in raising the condition of people in the West of Scotland from the mid 1970s and through the eighties, it used its size and purchasing power to make economies of scale and to impose agreements on contractors to protect working conditions. However it committed two cardinal sins of being both effective and run by the Labour Party so the Conservative government in London abolished it. That it represented an alternative power base is illustrated by the threat of dissolution giving rise to serious consideration of the possibility of UDI by certain parties. The Union  with England has actively denied the Scottish people the right to determine their own futures or run their own lives.

Many countries have used subsidies to support indiginous industries, whereas the UK government allowed the destruction of the Scottish shipbuilding, engineering and coal industries by cheaper imports of foreign goods, primarily to undermine Trades Unionism and employment rights. Importing foreign goods produced by exploited workers not only damages our workers but perpetuates injustice overseas. Now such employment rights as remain are under threat from Conservative legislation in Westminster that will remove Employment tribunal from many workers. The Union with England has damaged human rights in Scotland

The claim is often made that Scotland attracts excessive public spending, but the whole of Scotland received £53 billion of public spending in 2011 compared with £80 billion for London and £64 billion for the South East of England, this doesn't include defense spending of which the majority goes to the south of England. An independant Scotland might not have the defence budget of the UK, but its total budget could be spent at home, supporting Scottish industry. An independent Scotland s threatened by Unionists with the withdrawal of military support by the UK, what they forget is that an independent Scotland could license its deep water facilities, air bases etc to whomever it wished, and there are nations that would be delighted to pay for facilities on the Atlantic coast of Europe. The Union with England does not defend Scotland it merely prevents Scotland from making its own beneficial alliances.

Freed from England, Scotland will probably begin with a reduced income and things may be difficult initially. However a free Scotland will be able to make its own trade agreements, offer its own incentives to foreign investors, be allowed to develop its own industries and establish its own alliances without having to put the interests of English investors before the needs of Scottish workers!