Stop Kony, or Else!?

I must admit I have been moved by the Stop Kony meme currently circulating on what we used call the ‘information superhighway’. At first I was sceptical, fearing it might be some kind of lame hoax, but a quick background check, via the utterly infallible BBC, proved that Kony is indeed real, and a really bad bastard to boot. He deserves to be brought to justice along with a fair number of twisted criminal scum who have been operating around the world with functional impunity for far too long. If this campaign is successful and this vile person is legally caught and given the trial denied to his morally kindred spirit, Gaddafi, we will have witnessed the most significant event of Web 2.0.

For a long time I have thought that if all the cultural debris flowing around Facebook every day was focussed occasionally on matters of importance we could see a significant positive change in some aspects of the crazy world we all share. The internet offers education for all in a way that would have been unthinkable to most people of even twenty years ago. The flipside is that it is heftily crammed with more nonsense than any rational person can imagine even now, and curiously enough it is this side that has been embraced by big business and the main power blocks of the world.

The digital globalisation of the past decade has changed the way people interact. Not always for the better, but you would be hard pushed to find someone who doesn’t enjoy at least some of the benefits of this new connected age. We are probably living in what historians will one day think of a fancy name to describe as – the time when we had computers but didn’t connect our brains directly to them. A key historical moment in this period could be when people declare en masse that they are not prepared to put up with the same level of oppression and indifference that has gone before and demand something better. Some would point to the Arab Spring as proof that this is already underway, although this example also highlights some of the dangers of this approach.

If we are to see a brave new world of global facebook democracy we sure as hell better make sure we choose carefully whose trends we follow. We could face the real threat of Justin Bieber or Cheryl Cole being taken seriously; and no amount of social change could pay for that. More seriously, we would probably see the likes of Fred Goodwin hanged as well as de-knighted.

If this kind of easily led and totally righteous global lynch mob is to catch on then no one can guess where it could lead us. Unless of course you have read some popular history. Alternatively, and some would say more likely, it may trend for a few days before fizzling out as quickly as Rebecca Black. Still, I hope it succeeds and brings about a peaceful revolution of the mind, leading to a fairer, more even, more just and downright sexier human race.

But that’s something to ponder on another day. For now it is sufficient to say:

F*** Kony!!

Independence or Empire?

I always find it strange when people demand to know with absolute certainty every single thing that will happen in the future of an independent Scotland.

Will we still be in Europe? Yes.

How many warships will an independent Scotland have? Seven.

What colour will the sky be? Blue and grey.

Will it fall on our heads? Not initially.

Even familiar things seem to scare them, like keeping the pound. Apparently maintaining our own currency that we have used for centuries is even more offensive to these people than the threat of ‘seperation’ from their benevolent London benefactors. The same people never think to question what things will be like in a future of continued union.

Proponents of the Union seem to think that voting no in 2014 will see us restored to some kind of wartime paradise, complete with spitfires guarding the sky and shared British values paraded with bunting at every street corner, a perpetual cavalcade of Royal Wedding fervour. People with this attitude fail to take in to account the reality of what Britain has become in the seven decades since the last great war.

Consider that in 2008 the longest period of continuous economic growth in modern history came to an end. You might think we would have been well placed to ride out a few years of slow growth, after all we had ‘never had it so good’.  On the contrary, successive Westminster governments of all colours have seen to it that four years in to this slump we have only started to witness the most savage cuts ever inflicted upon our society. It makes you wonder who benefited from the decade of tremendous growth. It certainly wasn’t the man, or woman, on the street.

Its just assumed that life within the Union will soldier on with some kind of unforseen prosperity taking us back to the glory days of Empire. Perhaps with all the recent bombing raids and assaults on sovereign nations we British should feel entitled to some of the spoils of war. In 21st century reality, however, colonialism is not in vogue .

There is no payback for the expeditionary wars we have been fighting for years. Labour and Tory alike have been seduced by the fantasy of a post-colonial Britain as international bobby on the beat, with the power and moral authority, to attack and invade any country deemed a common criminal by the chief constable of the world - America. All of this has cost a great deal of money, taken without mandate from the British taxpayer.

One has to wonder what our economy would be like had the billions wasted on murdering foreigners been invested in the hospitals, schools and universities that our country needs to succeed. This is no leftist argument; free enterprise would have benefited tremendously from the stable economic conditions this kind of inward investment would have fostered. Imagine how different our approach to the global downturn could have been had New Labour banked some of the booty from the supposed boom years instead of squandering it on illegal and unwanted weapons and wars.

Those worrying about the future direction an independent Scotland might take should give some thought to how the UK has been faring and ask themselves what optimism they can reasonably hold for the status quo.

Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? – Ach, why no?

It’s a hell of a time in old Caledonia with farcical scare stories sprouting like mushrooms in the night, a fresh batch eerily appearing only to be dispelled each morning by a smidgen of reason. To mention just some of the more plausible recent cringing unionist lies we’ve been told: it is ‘illegal’ for us to decide our own future like a ‘real’ country; our beloved pandas will be on overnight rendition flights south following independence; anyone on a Spanish holiday at the stroke of midnight on independence day will be forcibly deported, or more likely shot; and my own personal favourite – we will have to pay the removal costs for WMDs that were unlawfully sited in our country against our will. 

Today the big news was Salmond having the cheek to use Edinburgh Castle for an event of great national and, going by the large assembly of foreign press, international significance.  Apparently an iconic building that predates the union by centuries is not a suitable place to discuss Scottish democracy.  Despite this the dastardly Salmond announced that it is the Scottish Government’s intention to hold a referendum on whether Scotland should regain its status as an independent nation. 

The cat is out the bag.  The unionists did not see that one coming.  Perhaps that is why they have not been able to come up with a clear or cohesive argument in defence of their cherished union, or propose with any sincerity their vision of how the current constitutional situation can be improved, short of independence. 

The SNP have announced quite clearly that they wish to see a one question, Yes/No referendum asking the following question: 'Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"  Seems straightforward enough though even this may well be branded ‘too ambiguous’ by the brand of unionist who deliberately fails to grasp the concept of independence, even though they understand it perfectly when applied to any other country.

If opinion polls are to be believed there does seem to be a growing interest in full fiscal autonomy, or some form of ‘devo max’ yet curiously no party is offering this.  I am mildly surprised that this is not causing more of an outcry than it seems to be.  The SNP are sticking to independence, which as their raison d’etre is forgivable, and they have significant electoral support for this stance. 

Support for the status quo is less yet we have three parties representing that antiquated model when only one would suffice and none of them acknowledging what the people actually want.  The party that comes up with a credible implementation of fiscal autonomy may well win the day yet the unionists are too busy currying for London favour to care even for their own political survival.  The electorate do not reward such stale indecision – just ask the remaining lib dems, assuming you can find one.  If majority opinion wants ‘devo max’ then that is precisely what we should get.  Its time someone thought about offering it. 

Be careful what you vote for however.  Thrilling as devo max may sound for a lot of people it carries some big drawbacks that independence simply does not.  We would still be in a situation where London decides what is best for London and imposes it unilaterally on us in key matters such as defence and foreign policy.  Essentially, we would send a Barnet-style block grant to Westminster to fund Tory wars and pay for William Hague’s whisky-free excursions to promote the RUKs interests.  That would be a curious settlement indeed but still far less ludicrous than our current arrangements.