WE should be thankful that planes didn’t fall out the sky last week, but this week it’s potentially classrooms and other buildings across the public-sector estate doing the falling. Is this a visible manifestation of a Britain that is falling down?
It didn’t start with Boris Johnson but his brand of populism chimed well with certain sections of society. Those were the voters who felt – and yes, were – downtrodden, and had been firstly overlooked, then marginalised across rUK. What had globalisation and people movement done for them? Cheap food and veg from abroad, doing away with local, seasonal produce? Cheap labour undermining local? Wait, no, not that one. Someone had to pick the local produce. But equally somebody had to take the blame for their perceived lack of status within their own country, their belief of being left behind with stagnant wages, no control, and centralised power and money in faraway London.
READ MORE: What today's Programme for Government means for you: The key points
How convenient then to be able to crystallise that in the shape of a vote for Brexit and, if not immediately gaining the promised land, at least the promise of change. That Brexit vote has enabled the final push for rUK to slide into an even further right government, heavy on insular jingoism, light on human rights, workers’ rights.
Johnson may have exited the political stage but his cohorts are still there, politically active across the pro-Union parties, aligned with the business sectors, all now of the same ilk. No dissent, no harking back to the EU. They’ve seamlessly changed allegiances, and are now allegedly making Britain work in some new landscape populated with beneficial worldwide trade deals, surrounded by secure borders. If only England had won the World Cup, think of the waves of euphoria that would have washed away any negative thoughts as we approach a cold winter with continued strikes, a very busy sea route in the Channel, and a King who appears to approve of £8 million being spent for him to hang about school buildings.
What a farce! So exposing all of this, fact-checking lies and failures, demonstrating the social, cultural chasm widening between Scotland and the flailing Union, will bring about the required change, won’t it? With that General Election looming next year, we’re bound to have a new government, poised to reverse failures and deliver on Rishi Sunak’s two main pledges most likely to fail: stopping the boats and cutting NHS waiting times.
WATCH: Douglas Ross accused of misleading Holyrood as debate concludes
Step forward Labour. Really? Do we know what Labour is actually in favour of; how and what will they deliver? We hear every day what they won’t change and note their ability to U-turn without serious challenge from the majority of the media. The sleight of hand, the smoke, the mirrors, make it so easy for Labour to offer unexplained “change”. It’s nothing more change for change’s sake.
It is more than likely that the General Election will be in May of next year to coincide with a variety of local elections in England and Wales. Who would want to risk a local hammering in May with a national replay in, say, October?
So what of Scotland? We have options, yes, but will Labour gain inroads, make a threatening return with vague promises? Again. Would two, or possibly three, pro-indy candidates on the ballot paper see both a split and tactical voting keep indy out and Union in? In Edinburgh, we see how one Labour and one LibDem MP reap such benefits.
A vote in the General Election has to be not just a vote for indy, but the statement of intent to open negotiations to quit, just as a majority pro-indy vote in Holyrood would. How will that be articulated during campaigns and on manifestos in the run-up over the coming months? To offer change isn’t enough, so can indy messages offer a vision of positive change sufficient to make the indy vote secure?
Selma Rahman
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel