Unionists unite to disenfranchise Scots


by Hazel Lewry

It becomes clearer with each election cycle.

Now we’ve got the Daily Record reporting that David Cameron is asking all Scots voters he can influence to vote for Alex Salmond, ostensibly to keep Labour from power in Holyrood. Does Ms Goldie’s boss not know that it’s a Scottish decision, by and for the people of Scotland. At least Ed Balls informs us by way of the Record that’s what’s happening. The joys of propaganda.

Yet what on earth could be behind such a stance by David Cameron? Why would any political leader so brutally and effectively blindfold and stand Ms Goldie up against a wall without the Record even giving us details of the last meal for the Con-Dem’d.

There’s a multitude of possibilities, perhaps the least likely of which was proposed by the Record in its reporting of Mr Ed’s remarks, which was to keep Labour “out”. The party oligarchs will be betting on just the opposite reaction from Scots voters. Especially the more easily manipulated ones.

What will be interesting will be if DC lends Mr Ed’s statements a comic air by denying these allegations.

Would that mean a Con-Dem alliance in Westminster that simply has no bearing in Scotland, when both parties are heading for what can only be described as “marginalisation” after May 5th, if poll trends are accurate.

If DC turns Mr Ed’s statements into the talking horses hind quarters with a denial, we have the prospect of some interesting hypothesis.

Reverse psychology actually comes strongly into play as all London parties are well aware the Conservatives in Scotland have been marginalised for decades and would do much to see Union leadership re-established North of the border. Why do the Tories continue to persevere with Scotland one wonders, unless every “Scottish Conservative” vote is a Union guarantee it will be one less in the Nationalist corner?

With a denial from Mr Cameron it’s more likely simply dishonest Labour “scare tactics” designed to herd Lib-Dem voters to open Labour arms. “Anything but the SNP” should really have been the cry.

Without the stated denial from the Conservatives this would lend credence to Ed Balls’ remarks. What then can be read into it?

It appears we’d actually have a case of the London parties working together to remove the SNP from government. It hardly sounds credible does it? But look at our recent political history, both at UK level and in Holyrood.

We’ve had a Labour-Lib coalition in Westminster, a Conservative-Lib coalition in Westminster, a Labour-Lib pact in Holyrood [twice].

It doesn’t sound so outlandish until one considers that a logical argument exists for three of the four cases to have involved the SNP. There was talk of a “rainbow” alliance to keep Labour in power at Westminster after the 2010 General Election. The SNP were willing, but Labour refused. It was apparent Labour preferred to see Scotland subjected to the grim reaper’s scythe in the form of Con-Dem cuts. This was the Labour desire rather than doing a deal at Westminster that in any way might have positive repercussions for Scotland with a party dedicated to her well-being having a productive voice at UK level.

In both Holyrood elections in 1999 and 2003 there were similar actions by the Labour Party in Scotland.

In 1999 we had Labour with 56 seats and the SNP with 35. A natural coalition could easily be formed with the two largest parties, but it was a Lib-Lab pact that “did the deed” for a majority government. This clearly flaunted and ignored the wishes of vast swathes of the electorate who had categorically stated by their votes they wanted to see a government either of a minority Labour construction or Labour-SNP coalition. Party number 1 and party number 2 – it doesn’t get much simpler. That is the democratic will Labour ignored. It wasn’t in any way justifiable as the Lib-Dems secured less than half the seats of the Nationalists. It was, quite simply, about Union and Westminster control.

Without an offer first being made to the SNP, and their subsequent refusal, the only interpretation again is to thwart the democratic will of the Scots electorate. 2003 was absolutely no different. This led to the commonly acknowledged “wasted years” of devolution.

By 2007, Scots for the most part, as electoral results are determined, decided to walk away from the party denying them their voting choices and embrace an SNP minority or coalition-led government. No Union party would sign on. The Lib-Dems refused and Labour have since stated “don’t bet the dinner” on it, or similar verbiage. The SNP went with “consensus” politics which have demonstrably put Scotland far ahead of England as a place to live over the last few years.

In fact much of the media has taken to referring to a North/South divide. It seems the South continually has issues.

This only leads to one inescapable conclusion on my behalf – there are only two significant parties in Scotland, the SNP and the Unionists. Whichever London-based party you vote for you should know simply that they are historically less likely to act for Scotland’s betterment than they are to close ranks and vote en-mass for policies designed to hurt or impede our nation. The “gift” of billions of pounds worth of Scottish territory to England and the Calman Commission are but two examples.

Cast your vote on May 5th, in the sure and certain knowledge that in many cases Labour=Conservative=Liberal-Democrat.

Just as certainly it’s not going to necessarily equal what’s good for Scotland, as the three London-based parties support each other in their attempts to bleed away any vote share possible from Scotland’s voice.