Yesterday, former PM Gordon Brown told
us that during the pandemic, “At times Britain has looked like a
dysfunctional state”. It’s not exactly a penetrating analysis, especially for
those of us who tend to the view that something which looks like a duck, walks
like a duck, and quacks like a duck probably is a duck. The idea that something
which looks dysfunctional might actually be dysfunctional doesn’t
seem to have crossed his mind. The suggestion that the problem is merely one of
appearances is just another indication of the difficulty unionists have with taking
any actions likely to advance their cause – they simply don’t see the need for
anything beyond a bit of spin and propaganda.
Meanwhile the third occupant of the post
since he departed it has been having a
little local difficulty with staffing the unit which he created to promote
the union, having seen the departure of two heads within a fortnight. There was
speculation that the unit had been scrapped completely, to be replaced by a small
cabinet committee consisting of the PM himself, the Secretaries of State for
Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland and a few other randomly selected cabinet
ministers. However, reports of the unit’s death have, it seems, been
exaggerated, and the new cabinet committee will instead oversee and guide the
unit’s work. The fact that the PM is taking such a deep personal interest in
the issue is good news for independentistas, and not just because of his
own extreme unpopularity in Scotland. No, it’s more that we can expect Johnson
to apply his usual degree of diligence to the question, which means that we can
be confident that the committee is unlikely to meet. Ever. We know how much he dislikes
attending meetings even if there’s a national
emergency in progress and if through some unhappy accident it does happen to
meet, he’ll probably have more pressing business elsewhere anyway. Like overseeing the
important government task of taking photographs
of dogs. Or giving Covid a sporting chance of spreading
more widely across the UK.
With Brown and Johnson in charge of the
case for the union, we hardly need an independence movement at all.
Posts
4 comments:
HMG in England has been highly successful of breaking away from an oppressive political Union in Europe and they are now setting up a committee to maintain a much more oppressive Union.
Come on, you got to admire the chutzpah.
"...an oppressive political Union in Europe..." Oppressive? What have you been on, Spirit?
I am surprised that the supremacist cliques that run the UK ever wanted to leave the EU unless, of course, they felt denied sufficient access to the levers of power within that EU. There is much about the EU that is oppressive or about to become so unless someone manages to roll back its centralist tendencies. Its urge to pal up with globalist corporates is also very telling. A case of rules and regulations fixed by big boys to make sure that the little people conform and know their place.
Very much like what we have in our relationship with Westminster. That is why I remain in the dark as to why so many nationalists want to be subjected to the rules of Brussels yet see some need to get away from Westminster. They are all cut from the same fabric of power regardless of location. Not yet a case of NewWorldOrder but these are the sort of people who will be in the mix if that ever comes into being.
Dafis,
"There is much about the EU that is oppressive or about to become so unless someone manages to roll back its centralist tendencies." The problem that I have with this comment and others along similar lines is that it assumes that 'The EU' has some sort of existence above and outside of the member states. It really does not, it is the servant, rather than the master, of the member states. To the extent that the Commission sometimes appears to be dictating to member states, that is because those member states have given it the power to do so, not because they are subordinate to it.
"Very much like what we have in our relationship with Westminster. That is why I remain in the dark as to why so many nationalists want to be subjected to the rules of Brussels yet see some need to get away from Westminster." I think it's more to do with recognising that there are advantages to sharing and pooling resources and sovereignty on a voluntary basis. There are downsides as well, of course - the question is twofold: what is the balance between the pros and cons, and to what extent do the members have a say in the decisions? I don't want Wales to be 'subjected to the rules of Brussels', any more than I want Carmarthenshire to be 'subjected to the rules of Cardiff'. What I do want is for rules to be made fairly and collectively. I have never argued that the EU is perfect, far from it. But it isn't an ogre setdting out to dominate, merely an imperfect method of exercising the collective will of most of the continent.
Post a Comment