by Hazel Lewry

David Cameron visited Alex Salmond in Edinburgh this week.  The pro-union media trumpeted a softening of the rhetoric, which included a non-committal promise to "consider" more powers if Scotland votes down her natural right to self determination.

This is the jam tomorrow promise of Alec Douglas Home in 1979 all over again.  Douglas Home's promise of "something better" was backed up by Margaret Thatcher on the day before the home-rule referendum, when she promised that a no vote would not kill devolution.  But the Tories went on to hide the devolution jam from Scotland for umpteen years and more.  They even withheld the butter and toast as well.

The first question sparked by Cameron's proposal for more powers is: "Why should we believe you this time?"

The answer from David Cameron's own mouth, was: "You shouldn’t."

There can be no other interpretation because Cameron didn't actually promise anything, he said “consider”.  You might as well ask the local bank if they'd consider putting a few million extra in that Super Saver account you have, you know, just so it might actually resemble the name.  The bank will consider the deposit you're asking for, for about a nano-second before kicking you out the front door.  The bank has duly considered the request and considered it well.

Nothing tells us Cameron's period of contemplation will be any longer, or deeper than the local bank's.  There is nothing to stop him putting his proposals forward now, but he says the matter can only be discussed after a no vote has been returned.  If Cameron was serious, he would let us consider what flavour of jam is on offer and then we can decide if we like the taste.

It's not jam tomorrow; it’s not even a promise of jam tomorrow.  It's a promise of a consideration of a proposal of a little jam tomorrow after we gift him enough ingredients, consisting of the keys to our nation, after which he will have enough to make sure we can all eat cake.  But then we know where Scotland's choice ingredients are destined, the same place they already go, to London and the South East.

Let's imagine that David Cameron was to keep his word, and turn his considerations over a while and solidify them into promises, and that the promises actually made their way through Westminster's echoing halls and onto the legislative books.  What flavour of jam might we expect?

It will be soor ploom, made without sugar.

We will be forced to buy it and we will consume it even as it makes our jowls hollow and our eyes water, our bellies cramp and we head with haste for the commode.  We'll do this because we'll have no other option.  We'd have voluntarily voted away our own recipe book for our own Scottish jam.

Westminster's jam will taste so bad because we'll be supping it with the benefit of hindsight.  It could have been so much better had we not listened, again, to the scare mongering of the Unionists and their promises that are non-promises.  We'll see the evidence that would have made us aware a Yes vote was our only option in 2014.

We may get extra powers, which might become a reality, but they'll be cosmetic and meaningless, if we even get them at all.  We might get the power to set our own speed limits or regulate air-guns.  These will be our extra powers.  But they will come at a huge price.  We can expect to lose control over university funding, over the NHS, over much of our budget.

We can expect Holyrood to be completely neutered, in some peculiar fashion the media will spin this in an effort to make it acceptable to the international audience, while at the ballot box we will be rendered powerless to determine our future, our children's future or our national destiny.  

We can expect this because Westminster has had the fright to end frights, and Westminster does not like frights.  Those in power in London have demonstrated time and again they will react ruthlessly to anything that causes them fright.  For a recent example, just look at the sentences against the rioters last summer, with the Olympics approaching riots gave Westminster a fright and Westminster struck back.  Hard.

We can expect our welfare system, our community values and national sense of compassion to be obliterated.  Social programs stand to be decimated as each cut in England transfers to a respective cut in Scotland.  

Will the Barnett Formula survive the reprisals to come?  Probably not, given the swell of Conservative opinion on Cameron's back benches that claim Scotland receives more than our "fair share", even though we contribute more to the UK than we receive back.

Our soor ploom jam will be on the shelf at the supermarket, and as we put it out to be scanned at the checkout we might find ourselves looking into our mother's eyes, eyes that can hardly remain open after her last bout of chemotherapy.  She might not even be able to stand properly, be incontinent, but she'll be on that checkout or lose her right to sustenance unless we can prove she'll really be dead in a few weeks.  It will not matter that these inhumane policies will be what might kill her – she'll be scanning our soor ploom jam.

Before you get to the checkout you might walk past your child stocking shelves. She's got a degree, she worked hard for it, but now she's forced to work for her benefits because Westminster policies which decimated four nations to protect a City means there are no jobs.  You might pass her in the aisles knowing that your spouse, the only one still working in your family is paying her wages through their taxes, because the supermarket won't be.  The supermarket just gives her the bus fare to get to the unpaid work which teaches her nothing and does nothing for her job prospects.

Part of the recipe for tomorrow's soor ploom jam appears to be making certain that big business makes more money as we subsidise them through our benefits system.  It is Westminster passing these inhumane laws, often the result of these businesses lobbying London.

The recipe also seems to include protections for the City, the bankers, bonus schemes and more light touch regulation.  The recipe includes isolation in Europe, more wage freezes, austerity, lower living standards, higher fuel bills and the weakest in our society being targeted and vilified.  This sour plum jam Westminster is offering has a recipe most sensible folk might want to steer clear of.

In 2014 it appears there's an alternative on offer, if we like Westminster's soor ploom jam we can fire up the toaster.  Yet if we think our own recipe has even a chance of being a wee bit tastier we should dig through our ingredients, perhaps throw a few raspberries at London for its bigger jar.

Then we will get busy, making something fit for a real nation to enjoy.

Comments  

 
# Robert Louis 2012-02-19 02:01
Marvellous headline, Hazel.
 
 
# Frankly 2012-02-19 02:42
On the subject of jam tomorrow:

tinyurl.com/7zaso6v
 
 
# C2DEalba 2012-02-19 02:53
Excellent article, Hazel.

Never in a million years will Wastemonster give extra powers. There consideration will be how to neuter Holyrood and a no vote will surely create a licence to lay waste to Scotland. Thatcher will seem like a tea party. if Scotland votes no, she deserves all she gets. Harsh I know but what else is there.

Saor alba for a better future
 
 
# scotus 2012-02-19 04:26
Hi hazel, Absolute barnstormer of an article - truly excellent! Sorry for an O/T but his just amazed me bbc.co.uk/.../... - haven't any of them been paying any attention to what Eck has been saying?
 
 
# mealer 2012-02-19 08:20
I didnt enjoy this article at all.
Well done.
 
 
# Dubai_scot 2012-02-19 09:24
Deception is a form of oppression too? So much for Westminster being the mother of all parliaments!

It is a shame that Forsyth and Foukes, to name but two intellectual giants, cannot see this as a self evident truth.
 
 
# gus1940 2012-02-19 11:20
I find it interesting that the 2 F's were kept silent (or deliberately ignored by the Unionist media)in the week that Cameron paid us his state visit to deliver his 'promise'.
 
 
# alicmurray 2012-02-19 09:27
The horror of a no vote is just too much to contemplate. The pitiless actions of the ConDems towards vulnerable people shows that Scotland just has nothing in common with England any more. The myth that the ConDems are decent people must be trampled on. Please give your trust and fear of the unknown into the capable hands of the clever, compassionate, decent, hardworking people led by Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon in Edinburgh.
 
 
# clootie 2012-02-19 09:34
I've been throuh this once before and I know we cannot trust them. They lied and did not even pretend to care that we knew they lied after the vote was in the bag.

They have no credible positive case so it's back to the bag of dirty tricks - after all we were stupid enough to buy it last time!

The same day the PM was promising to CONSIDER more powers the Lords were issuing a statement on the required restrictions to tax raising powers - misdirection at it's best.
 
 
# Vincent McDee 2012-02-19 11:58
Being taken for a ride (on you own bicycle) is a well known side-effect from voting tories.

Cameron is not an anti-independence but a pro-dependence.

Le me remind you dependence has four applications in its definition:

1. The state of being dependent, as for support.
2.
a. Subordination to someone or something needed or greatly desired.
b. Trust; reliance.
3. The state of being determined, influenced, or controlled by something else.
4. A compulsive or chronic need; an addiction:

And I wouldn't wish any on my worst ennemy.

Just send him home "tae think again".

PS: He may be doing just that:

"DAVID Cameron has privately conceded the pro-Union parties will need to give voters more details on the alternative to independence ahead of the 2014 referendum, according to sources close to the meeting between the Prime Minister and First Minister last week"

heraldscotland.com/.../...

"Moore then repeated the Coalition mantra that the six demands, including control of the Crown Estate Commssion, corporation tax, broadcasting and excise duty, were still being considered"

Hazel's Bank is swifter.
 
 
# mato21 2012-02-19 12:25
So if I've got this right these demands were one of the first things the SG did when they came to power in May and they're still being considered???
My recollection is they had been dismissed more or less out of hand However with this news hope springs eternal!

How long then will call me Dave need then to consider what he nearly promised but didn't

Our time on this earth is limited Has no one told him that?
 
 
# velofello 2012-02-19 12:13
A No vote will bring about an alignment of Scottish policies to those of England, NHS, university fees, nuclear power stations etc etc. All in the name of unity.
Just as a drowning man clutches at a straw so Cameron will say anything, anything to try and swing a No vote.
 
 
# bringiton 2012-02-19 12:19
Excellent again Hazel.
We need to make it known that the result of a referendum is not required in order to give the Scottish Parliament more powers.This,as we all know,could be done now as amendments to the current Scotland bill.When this doesn't happen it should tell any doubters what London's policy is on additional meaningful powers for us now and forever more.
 
 
# Exile 2012-02-19 19:00
Precisely. If they mean it, they can do it now and then let us vote on it in 2014. But of course the illegitimates do not mean it. They're just trying it on. What a bunch of shysters.
 
 
# cynicalHighlander 2012-02-19 12:19
Forth2 Radio: radioplayer.forth2.com/

Interesting listening to phone in with Moore talking garbage.
 
 
# tartanfever 2012-02-19 12:23
I just listened to the first caller, and couldn't get any further...his question:

'hullo michael....I'm wonderin'...would Scotland be bettr off independent ?....i'm getting fed up.....with politicians....I mean.....would ..err... Scotland......errr.......hmm....be better off independent...I mean.... err.....

and so on.

Great article Hazel. Thanks.
 
 
# lumilumi 2012-02-19 12:25
Thanks for this brilliant article, Hazel. It should be compulsory reading to every Scot.

I get the feeling that many who now think they'd vote no to independence are just afraid of change - a common enough sentiment in human beings the world over, we humans tend to think "better the devil you know".

The problem with this approach is that they don't really know the devil. If Scotland voted no in 2014, things wouldn't remain unchanged. A no vote would result in changes for the worse, a yes vote would result in changes for the better. That is not to say that an independent Scotland wouldn't have any problems, of course it will, but at least the people of Scotland would be in the driving seat, able to democratically steer the country, unlike now.
 
 
# deepwater 2012-02-19 14:03
lumillumi:

If I may, I'd say you're three quarters right. I think almost everyone will agree a "No" vote is a vote for the worst scenario.

After all, the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, and there's plenty of Westminster form for that.

That the future after independence will be better is unknown - we have no internal yardstick - that I also believe it will be better is beside the point. That it will be OUR future is the vital driver.
 
 
# lumilumi 2012-02-19 14:30
Thank you, deepwater, for reminding me that no-one can know the future. Not the unionists, not the independist, not the SNP or any other party.

But, as you say, judging by past behaviour, Westminster's "jam tomorrow" isn't exactly convincing.

I think I tried to say that independence will not automatically result in a land of milk and honey. There will be many social and economic problems to overcome, but, like you said, the main point is that the people of Scotland get to shape their own future. That is the important thing. Self-determination.

I say this from the perspective of a small, peripheral semi-arctic nation of 5m, with no significant natural resources apart from trees and plenty of fresh water. We were very poor when we became independent but independence let us pursue policies that benefited us, such as free education, and health care for all. We've become one of the richest nations in the world. We wouldn't be there if we weren't independent.
 
 
# Clawd Baws 2012-02-19 12:27
As the song goes: "We need to get out of this place, if it's the last thing we ever do."

Never a truer word. Then rump UK can tend the City on its own while we fashion a proper social democracy...
 
 
# jim288 2012-02-19 12:35
Good article. I think Cameron played this card far too early. If he'd held his nerve until closer to Autumn 2014 then there wouldn't have been enough time to properly deal with the promise of jam tomorrow.

As it is he's left the way wide open for Salmond to ask for the details to be spelt out now and tacked on to the Scotland Bill. We've now got two years to point out that Westminster has done nothing to devolve significant further powers so why believe it will be any different in future.
 
 
# rhymer 2012-02-19 12:49
A no vote means the imposition of university ttuition fees in Scotland.
A no vote means an end to a NHS that is free to all Scots.

A YES vote means no WMD on the Clyde
Continued free care for the elderly.
Free university education
And a free Scottish NHS
and lots more positive stuff...
 
 
# Electric Hermit 2012-02-19 12:52
"Westminster policies which decimated four nations to protect a City"

Would that be an example of a "zinger"?
 
 
# J Wil 2012-02-19 12:59
The papers this morning are saying that Cameron will not tell us what additional powers Scotland might get until the refendum is over.

How many times has Cameron changed his mind over this and how many more times will he do so? Doesn't he realise how desperate a time Ruth Davidson is having playing catchup?
 
 
# lumilumi 2012-02-19 13:36
Of course he doesn't realise. As far as he's concerned, poor Ruth is his mouthpiece in the north. He has no conception of Scottish politics today.

Keep up the good work, Dave! As Alex Salmond said a while back, David Cameron is a great asset to the independence campaign.
 
 
# mato21 2012-02-19 13:14
An interesting look back

.../scotland-said-yes.html
 
 
# jafurn 2012-02-19 15:05
Absolutely on the button ..suberb article Hazel and a very stark warning to anyone considering allowing Scotland to be put into the 'promised land' yet again.
Vote YES it's our only hope.
 
 
# Jiggsbro 2012-02-19 15:16
To be fair to Alec Douglas-Home, he did offer something better if the Scots voted 'No'. The Scots voted 'Yes', and so got...nothing at all.
 
 
# jafurn 2012-02-19 16:02
Thanks to a labour MP's amendment as well...whod a thunk it?

en.wikipedia.org/.../...

George Cunningham (born 10 June 1931) is a British politician.


Cunningham strongly opposed Scottish devolution. At his prompting the House accepted an amendment to the 1978 Scotland Act that a majority voting "yes" in the devolution referendum would have to constitute at least 40% of the Scottish electorate. As expected, the threshold wasn't achieved. In this sense Cunningham could be said to have brought down his government and ultimately speeded his own political demise.
 
 
# lumilumi 2012-02-19 16:07
The problem is that the SNP, or other independent-minded bodies, cannot tell the scared, timid voters what independence will be like. Nobody knows. In effect, you're asking people to take the plunge.

Scared, timid voters think they know what "NO" will mean, things going on as usual. They don't realise that that will not be the case.

Now, this presents a dilemma for everybody campaigning for independence. They shouldn't stoop down to the level of unionists and their scaremongering. Scaremongering about what might happen in case of a NO vote. Independists must put out a positive case and be positive all the way. Acknowledge potential problems but give positive solutions to them.

I think that it's also important to separate the SNP and independence. Many people who're unsure about independence voted for the SNP last May because the SNP was seen as a competent government. Many people who are for Scottish independence only vote for the SNP because they see the SNP as the only vehicle able to deliver that important goal. After independence, they'll vote for some other party. As it should be. A democracy needs a PR election system and a number of parties so that diverse voices can be heard.
 
 
# Jester 2012-02-19 15:42
Brilliant article Hazel!




www.wordpress.airdrierambler.com
 
 
# Dundonian West 2012-02-19 16:11
Great article Hazell.
May I say,incisive,an d DECISIVE to anyone with an open mind.

Just a wee reminder for anyone who hasn't seen this Tory Labour breach of faith to the Scottish electorate.[Below].
Just as true now(probably more so)than it was back then.
Same political Unionist groupings--then and now.
Darling's and Cameron's words today have a certain hollowness to them,in light of this report,hidden away in the vaults of Westminster.
independent.co.uk/.../...
 
 
# Jim Johnston 2012-02-19 16:28
Hi Hazel,

Some might say Camerons proposition will "Kill devolution STONE DEAD !!!

Now where have I heard something like that before ?
 
 
# cadgers 2012-02-19 17:02
I do enjoy your articles Hazel, please keep them coming!
 
 
# lumilumi 2012-02-19 17:25
Come to think of it, all the SNP and other independence-supporting groups can offer is that Scotland will have self determination, and things might be better.

The unionist cabal (Westminster controlled) will do its best to scare and intimidate people. It will be a tough fight until 2014.

I hope the people of Scotland will be brave enough to vote for self determination. Independence.
 
 
# Exile 2012-02-19 19:10
lumilumi

The crucial issue in addition to self-determination regarding political decision-making is THE ACCESS TO ALL OUR OWN RESOURCES that independence will bring. That plus good governance and democratic control means things will undoubtedly be better with Independence, provided an unreconstructed Labour Party don't manage to slip back into power. But that strikes me as extremely unlikely. It is essential we continue to stress the positive. The fact that our positive propaganda is also truthful is simply a bonus. We must encourage the fainthearted. Scotland now has a chance, which we must grasp tightly with both hands.
 
 
# DaveyFaeArdrossan 2012-02-19 18:20
Whilst I fully understand the sentiment, I think that Hazel may have been taking lessons from unionists on how to argue a case. So instead of "vote no to independence, or the bogey man will get you", we now have (the first I've read anyway) an argument of "vote yes to independence, or the bogey man will get you".

In the main, so far, I have found the case for independence has been put in a positive and constructive manner, whilst those opposed argue along the lines of "no, ye canny dae that" , as opposed to trying to construct a positive case (if such exists) for remaining in the union.

I would hope that those of us for independence continue to focus primarily on delivering a positive case in the context of a proper debate, rather than sink to the lowest common denominator of negative, unreasoned argument and scare stories as seems to be favoured by the unionist camp thus far.

The debate has got another 30 or so months to run. Remember what has happened to the Labour party for being consistently negative since the 2007 election, and determine not to go there.
 
 
# Exile 2012-02-19 19:12
That makes sense Davey. But I also believe what Hazel has written is true, and it's good to bear it in mind. It reflects my immediate thoughts once the (approximate) date for the referendum was announced. "Now it's game on: Scotland Free or a Desert!"
 
 
# Fourfolksache 2012-02-19 20:50
Whilst I agree with the desire to stay positive Davey we need to ensure that the doubters understand that the retribution in Westminster to a NO vote would be swift and final. We do need to 'paint the positive' picture but no one should doubt that instead of Cameron's lie we will get the opposite - they will not give us a second chance!
 
 
# deepwater 2012-02-20 02:17
DaveyFaeArdross an:

No lessons I'm afraid, just able to see both sides of the coin, one of which the Union prefers to keep hidden.
 
 
# oldfoggie 2012-02-19 18:21
Hi I listened intently to a question time between Mr Moore and the Westsound radio public, never once answered a question put to him, he just came out with the same old rhetoric, we are considering these things, never once did he tell anyone what the extras on offer if the NO campaingn won the day, this man has absolutely no credibilty, slimmy as they come but there again thats the Libdems for you.
 
 
# Arbroath1320 2012-02-19 18:42
I think you are well overdue for a lie down in the "Darkened Room" oldfoggie. :D

Don't tell me you expected Moore to give an actual answer to any of the questions put to him did you?

He is a Lib/Dem they don't do answers!
 
 
# DaveyFaeArdrossan 2012-02-19 18:51
Since Moore is a Lib Dum, do you think he might come up with a pledge card on this to be photographed with? After all one can only break a promise properly if it's been made in the first place. :)
 
 
# Arbroath1320 2012-02-19 19:08
Whit? You want a signed pledge card. :D

Next you'll be wanting Independence. :D
 
 
# DonaldMhor 2012-02-19 19:21
I think the SNP should shake London to it's boots and go for a one question referendum ASAP, that is this year. They would win the YES vote hands down after watching the writhing of the snake oil sales men of the union. They really are now taking the mickey and patronising even worse that Thatcher ever did.
 
 
# Macart 2012-02-19 23:10
Something to consider Hazel - You mentioned the Olympics in the article and the soor ploom jam. It may be that with the eyes of the world on Britain this year Cameron is softening his approach on an increasingly internationally well thought of independent Scotland. He won't want international comment on a heavy handed approach to a Scottish referendum. Bad for business you know. I suspect we may be 'Back to Basics' once the Olympics are safely out of the way this summer and the eyes of the world are elsewhere.

What do you reckon?
 
 
# deepwater 2012-02-20 02:21
Macart:

Worth thought.

Lots of thought.

The first thing springing to mind is that if Cameron is at any English venue with media time, then the respective First Ministers should be equally treated.
 
 
# Macart 2012-02-20 08:06
Here's another thought along the lines of your last comment. Since the BBC have decided the the FMs physog on sports related telly is too fractious and sensitive when approaching a political election or vote, how are they going to avoid putting said physog on telly when the Commonwealth games are being held just prior to the most contentious vote in modern history?

I could be wrong, but I think the beeb have just massively shot themselves in the foot.
 
 
# Ben Power 2012-02-21 10:22
How many of us actually share these articles on Facebook. Sending them far and wide by Facebook and email is a great way of encouraging support for both Independence and Newsnet Scotland.
 
 
# jafurn 2012-02-21 23:30
Hazel I have just been to your blog and read with great interest your excellent new article re Mr Murdoch and I look forward to seeing it on NNS...but why is it so hard to post a comment/reply on your blog.... I gave up in frustration.

P.S. here is the article and I recommend it to anyone....

weegiewarbler.blogspot.com/
 

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.

Donate to Newsnet Scotland

Banner

Latest Comments