Sandy Wilkie sent a letter to the National yesterday in which he purported to be taking an ecumenical tone, talking about #OneScotland. In the same letter however Wilkie lets the mask slip;
"Perhaps [the First Minister] has enough on her plate trying to assimilate the 45ers whose strong views were unleashed by her predecessor; unleashed without any thought as to the genie being let out of that particular bottle?"
Who are these dread democrats? Hatred and fear of popular politics is most notably associated with the right, and indeed is the foundational conerstone of conservative politics. If Wilkie is the "left leaning idealist who believes in a federal UK solution" he confesses himself to be one would think this cohort of Scots who want democracy instead of remote Whitehall rule are not very far from Wilkie's position? If not, why not? The repeated wild animal metaphors the young Labour activist uses rather give the game away.
I am not remotely an idealist, but as an internationalist and a socialist, I could only vote YES, campaign for YES, and repudiate the reactionary British state - one of the most venal and imperialistic polities ever created. My response to the referendum result was to stick an A2 YES poster in the window, because of what this rebellion represents - a left wing rejection of imperialism, chauvinism, backwardness and Tory reaction. The formal technical arrangements by which Scots get to opt out of the far right consensus that characterises the three Tory parties at Westminster is far less consequential to me than simply that we do, and at the very earliest opportunity, taking control of our natural resources to establish some form of social democratic commonwealth.
Nevertheless the federalist who wants to 'leash' fellow Scottish democrats goes on to qualify his support for "federalism" but invoking the Smith Commission and the need he sees not to suggest it does not go far enough. This is a body designed to deliver a rehashed Calman Commission, and a settlement so far from Home Rule (defined as the same as Dominion Status within the British Empire) and federalism as to be palpably ridiculous. This prompts questions about how deep his ostensible federalism runs, because the Smith Commission is a mandate for continued unitary British state and the absolute sovereignty of Whitehall in fiscal and social security affairs, which brings us to his next point. He claims we need to be "taking active responsibility for making things better," yet he refuses to trouble himself with taking responsibility for the contradictions of his position.
For many of us the democracy rebellion - for that's what it remains - is not an academic exercise, as it appears it is for our "federalist" who somehow mananged to reconcile his beliefs with working a 22 hour shift for the campaign against democracy on polling day. In communities blighted by Whitehall rule this rebellion *remains* a zero sum game. In August of this year my residents association held an emergency local meeting in response to the escalating humanitarian crisis in our community. Large numbers of us aren't eating. The local foodbank was set up following poverty stricken residents needing to steal food from the big Tesco to survive. At the time of the August meeting we had data to show that during May 623 people around our estate had to rely on food parcels to eat. Over 60% of our community went on to vote YES. One month after the right's pyhrric victory in October 623 had become over 1000 relying on food parcels to eat. This horror continues to escalate. When will Wilkie, the man who hails from the party which caused this crisis, take some responsibility?
Perhaps because our "federalist" qualifies his left wing credentials by saying he's an "idealist" we maybe need to inject some empiricism. The British state is starving poor Scots because of conditionality in the benefits system, introduced by James Purnell in 2009 under the last UK Labour government, who was advised by one Blair McDougall at the time. The system of sanctions and work capability assessments introduced by McDougall and Purnell were found by the SCVO to be not just the primary cause of food poverty but (together with Westminster's labour market regulation: another thing we don't get to 'take responsibility for') the almost exclusive cause of it. Currently DWP targets state that 5% of all welfare recipients must be sanctioned every two weeks, regardless of circumstance, so the 'conditionality' merely matches the target, as was always intended. This conditionality (the sanctions regime) is *designed* to starve people in communities like mine, with the only conceiveable aim being to 'discipline' the labour market. This labour market discipline (and the low wage economy it precipitates) is why there is cross party consensus among the Tory parties of power at Westminster, because this is the point of ideological unity. This is what the NO campaign was about enforcing in Scotland, so our 'left-leaning federalist' would absolutely *have* to be an idealist to fail to interface with this. Let me spell it out to Wilkie because he seems too interested in his own idealism to understand the reason we remain in rebellion: the British state is currently starving 2% of Scots as an act of *cross party consensus,* which will be exacerbated by whoever wins the next UK election; there is only one way in which this will not be the case.
That is if the Red Tories - let's call the centre right opposition what they objectively are - are condemned to electoral irrelevance in Scotland and Scots can force the Red Tory Chancellor in waiting to cancel his planned £86billion of cuts, circumscribe the vile right wing extremist Rachel Reeves, and thereby restore food to the table of the 2% of Scots Wilkie has worked 22 hour shifts to immiserate. NO activists like Wilkie continue to refuse to take responsibility for the misery their selfish right wing actions have caused. We can all accept when folk mea culpa and admit they got it wrong, and that they now wish to join the fight for democracy. However the idea that right wing activists should get to lecture us about solidarity and communitarian ethics when their arguments consist of astroturfing, victim blaiming, characterising those whom they claim to share so much with rhetorically as wild animals, British nationalist Schmalz and disingenuous confessions of left wing faith is a vile travesty. Objectively these British nationalist activists stand for remote far right rule that is causing an escalating humanitarian crisis. This is a zero sum game Mr Wilkie, and if you want to have any credibibility at all with democrats and not just with privately educated Red Tory councillors it's about time you took some some responsibility and joined us in the fight to end Labour's policy of promoting and escalating starvation in working class communities.
"Perhaps [the First Minister] has enough on her plate trying to assimilate the 45ers whose strong views were unleashed by her predecessor; unleashed without any thought as to the genie being let out of that particular bottle?"
Who are these dread democrats? Hatred and fear of popular politics is most notably associated with the right, and indeed is the foundational conerstone of conservative politics. If Wilkie is the "left leaning idealist who believes in a federal UK solution" he confesses himself to be one would think this cohort of Scots who want democracy instead of remote Whitehall rule are not very far from Wilkie's position? If not, why not? The repeated wild animal metaphors the young Labour activist uses rather give the game away.
I am not remotely an idealist, but as an internationalist and a socialist, I could only vote YES, campaign for YES, and repudiate the reactionary British state - one of the most venal and imperialistic polities ever created. My response to the referendum result was to stick an A2 YES poster in the window, because of what this rebellion represents - a left wing rejection of imperialism, chauvinism, backwardness and Tory reaction. The formal technical arrangements by which Scots get to opt out of the far right consensus that characterises the three Tory parties at Westminster is far less consequential to me than simply that we do, and at the very earliest opportunity, taking control of our natural resources to establish some form of social democratic commonwealth.
Nevertheless the federalist who wants to 'leash' fellow Scottish democrats goes on to qualify his support for "federalism" but invoking the Smith Commission and the need he sees not to suggest it does not go far enough. This is a body designed to deliver a rehashed Calman Commission, and a settlement so far from Home Rule (defined as the same as Dominion Status within the British Empire) and federalism as to be palpably ridiculous. This prompts questions about how deep his ostensible federalism runs, because the Smith Commission is a mandate for continued unitary British state and the absolute sovereignty of Whitehall in fiscal and social security affairs, which brings us to his next point. He claims we need to be "taking active responsibility for making things better," yet he refuses to trouble himself with taking responsibility for the contradictions of his position.
For many of us the democracy rebellion - for that's what it remains - is not an academic exercise, as it appears it is for our "federalist" who somehow mananged to reconcile his beliefs with working a 22 hour shift for the campaign against democracy on polling day. In communities blighted by Whitehall rule this rebellion *remains* a zero sum game. In August of this year my residents association held an emergency local meeting in response to the escalating humanitarian crisis in our community. Large numbers of us aren't eating. The local foodbank was set up following poverty stricken residents needing to steal food from the big Tesco to survive. At the time of the August meeting we had data to show that during May 623 people around our estate had to rely on food parcels to eat. Over 60% of our community went on to vote YES. One month after the right's pyhrric victory in October 623 had become over 1000 relying on food parcels to eat. This horror continues to escalate. When will Wilkie, the man who hails from the party which caused this crisis, take some responsibility?
Perhaps because our "federalist" qualifies his left wing credentials by saying he's an "idealist" we maybe need to inject some empiricism. The British state is starving poor Scots because of conditionality in the benefits system, introduced by James Purnell in 2009 under the last UK Labour government, who was advised by one Blair McDougall at the time. The system of sanctions and work capability assessments introduced by McDougall and Purnell were found by the SCVO to be not just the primary cause of food poverty but (together with Westminster's labour market regulation: another thing we don't get to 'take responsibility for') the almost exclusive cause of it. Currently DWP targets state that 5% of all welfare recipients must be sanctioned every two weeks, regardless of circumstance, so the 'conditionality' merely matches the target, as was always intended. This conditionality (the sanctions regime) is *designed* to starve people in communities like mine, with the only conceiveable aim being to 'discipline' the labour market. This labour market discipline (and the low wage economy it precipitates) is why there is cross party consensus among the Tory parties of power at Westminster, because this is the point of ideological unity. This is what the NO campaign was about enforcing in Scotland, so our 'left-leaning federalist' would absolutely *have* to be an idealist to fail to interface with this. Let me spell it out to Wilkie because he seems too interested in his own idealism to understand the reason we remain in rebellion: the British state is currently starving 2% of Scots as an act of *cross party consensus,* which will be exacerbated by whoever wins the next UK election; there is only one way in which this will not be the case.
That is if the Red Tories - let's call the centre right opposition what they objectively are - are condemned to electoral irrelevance in Scotland and Scots can force the Red Tory Chancellor in waiting to cancel his planned £86billion of cuts, circumscribe the vile right wing extremist Rachel Reeves, and thereby restore food to the table of the 2% of Scots Wilkie has worked 22 hour shifts to immiserate. NO activists like Wilkie continue to refuse to take responsibility for the misery their selfish right wing actions have caused. We can all accept when folk mea culpa and admit they got it wrong, and that they now wish to join the fight for democracy. However the idea that right wing activists should get to lecture us about solidarity and communitarian ethics when their arguments consist of astroturfing, victim blaiming, characterising those whom they claim to share so much with rhetorically as wild animals, British nationalist Schmalz and disingenuous confessions of left wing faith is a vile travesty. Objectively these British nationalist activists stand for remote far right rule that is causing an escalating humanitarian crisis. This is a zero sum game Mr Wilkie, and if you want to have any credibibility at all with democrats and not just with privately educated Red Tory councillors it's about time you took some some responsibility and joined us in the fight to end Labour's policy of promoting and escalating starvation in working class communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment