Dreaming Of Perfection
Any rational assessment of Scottish (or indeed UK or world) politics at the moment tends to be negative and depressing, so since it’s a new year we thought we’d make an extra-special effort at writing something positive.
Unfortunately that does require us to enter the realm of fantasy. But hey, everybody needs a little holiday from time to time, right?
So we’d like you to spend a few moments dreaming of a better world, readers. And it’s a very simple exercise. Just imagine a universe where there are no political parties.
There’s still politics, and there are still politicians. (Although the matter of whether we really need any at all is a contended question. Countries have gone years without governments and come to no discernible harm. But let’s stick with them for now.)
But every few years we just elect a Parliament full of people.
Individuals stand for election. Every candidate gets a free mailshot to the electorate of their constituency, as they do now, explaining where they stand on whatever issues they want to campaign on. Hustings take place where voters can ask them questions. Their pledges are recorded on the website of the local council for reference (much as their personal information is now).
And then people just elect the ones they like the most and they run the country. Every vote is, in essence, a free conscience vote. There are no party whips enforcing a party line, no punishment for refusing it. Every MP is responsible for their own vote and answerable to the electorate.
There are no “safe seats” where possession of the right party rosette ensures you of a cushy job for life no matter how much of an imbecile you are. Equally, there are no seats where a good and popular MP gets the boot because they had the strength of character to stand up against their party (or, y’know, just sticks to what their party is supposed to stand for when the leadership betrays it, pointing no fingers at anyone whose name rhymes with Dickola Durgeon).
The Prime Minister is whoever gets the support of the most MPs in a vote at the start of each term, as it is now, and the Cabinet is made up of whoever the PM thinks would be best qualified for each job. If the PM loses the confidence of the Cabinet they can vote him/her out, but the whole Parliament chooses the new PM, who’ll likely want their own Cabinet, so there’s no incentive for gratuitous destructiveness.
If the government loses the confidence of the House there’s a new election, but since again that isn’t really in anyone’s interests – remember, nobody has a safe seat any more so they’d be risking their own jobs – there’s much more incentive for everyone to work together for the good of the nation.
If there are no parties, then there are no donors to exert influence, and nothing for lobbyists or media moguls to put pressure on. (They could still try bribing individuals, of course, but there would be very strict rules on MPs accepting outside funding, because what need for it would there be? They already get taxpayer funding for staff and a very generous salary.)
No longer will good people be frozen out because they’re too “maverick” to toe a party line. Nor an easy career path for wannabe drones with zero experience of real life. No longer will voters have to choose the least awful of a clutch of awful options, because EVERYONE will be an independent on a level playing field.
And that’s it, folks. That’s the plan. Everything else stays pretty much the same as it is now. The upsides are obvious and outlined above. Now, can anyone come up with a single serious drawback? We’re all ears.
The trouble with this is that as soon as they’re elected (if not before) they start forming alliances and voting blocs that are soon indistinguishable from political parties.
Well, of course they will. There are only a couple of positions available on any given policy. But none of it will be *enforceable*.
You can write ‘The Scotland Constitution’…
This is how local government used to work (and worked well) in Scotland outside the major cities until the town and county councils were abolished in the reform of local government in 1975.
Local and National governance are two wholly different beasts…
Most “Independents” in local government I encountered during the 80’s and 90’s were simply Tories who, thanks to Thatcher, were too afraid of the electorate to admit it publicly.
This is basically ‘sortition’.
Morag points out that alliances would soon form. Aye, and then the interest groups would find a way to ‘lobby’/bribe, do the usual.
But if positions were limited (say, 5 yrs maximum) then there wouldn’t be time for a lot of rot to set in.
And as I said – the alliances would not be “enforceable”. Alliances themselves are natural human behaviour and not the problem.
Just a couple of hours ago I received this quote:
“Today we have made the right to vote ubiquitous, and very rightly so, but have denied the voters the opportunity of a complete education”.
It goes on to describe politicians “are forced to act tactically rather than strategically in order to remain in power long enough”.
I think someone might have had a preview of your article Rev 🙂
That’s where it all falls down. The perception of a just vote. The perception of a just system. The perception of a just politician.
I need to stop at that because moving on from there suggests the perception of a just society, and then the perception of a just world. Must stop. That’s outwith the positivity of this article.
AI-Ternative: Punk Rock: Let Me Take You Home:
“In the midst of neon dream
Let’s break out and reign supreme
Your smile’s a spark igniting fire…
As the morning breaks the dawn
We’ll keep movin’ on and on…”:
link to tinyurl.com
AI-Ternative: Phoenix:
“Rise up from the embers, far in my soul
Wings spread, wide awake
I take control
Skyline full of colours
Night turns to day
Every step I take, I find my own way
Whispers in the wind, they carry my song
Stronger than ever, nothing can go wrong
I’m a Phoenix, rising high again
From the depths I spread my wings, ascend…”:
link to tinyurl.com
AI-Ternative: We Are The Storm: Emotions:
“Sun is shining bright, no worries to find…
Can’t explain it, but I feel no pain…
The beat is pumping through our veins
Lightning strikes, but we don’t feel a thing
In this storm of love, together we sing
Every heart be synchronised in time…
This is how it’s meant, how it’s supposed to be…
Sky’s the limit – Let’s touch the sky…”:
link to tinyurl.com
The negative ones are so fu**ing stupid.
I love it…
I’ve heard there are people so fu**ing stupid, they believe all the wisdom the world needs can be found in the lyrics of pop songs.
Maybe it’s a modern twist on the older practice of randomly opening The Bible and using whatever text you find there to guide your decision of the day.
But at least The Bible readers could convince themselves there was a divine plan being worked out.
I’ve never read the bible, Hatey
I don’t need the bible to demolish your integrity (at will:)
Mad Salvy: The Divine Kinetic Awareness of Flow: It Doesn’t Stop:
“Amoeba Nematode man I’m just sitting on my flow
That changes lives and alters formulas causing invertigo
Cause we row out then row in the boat is floating down the spiral
Now you’re getting motion sickness when you listen to what’s viral
Cause the poisoning of youth is the agenda of the powers
So i’m just cleansing my soul under these meteor showers…
Putting into action what they can’t even theorize…
Fell down the rabbit hole and paid admission with my sanity
So you might say I’m crazy when I say I defy gravity
But I reciprocate the hate to happiness and love
Cause when I get a little worked up I just go turn up my subs
And I find therapy in knowing that I understand vibration
It’s a different language and i’m the one chosen for translation
Letting my, letting my voice into your mind
Letting my, letting my, letting my voice into your mind…
Manifesting destiny with every message i unravel
It doesn’t stop…”:
link to genius.com
#QFlow #duh
Good idea. Adding…
No second jobs
No HoL (abolish or replace)
I would just add that an MP’s staff in constituency offices/Parliament should keep their jobs after a change in MP and employing family members as staff should be banned.
How about we try democracy first?
Meaning what?
The UK system of FPTP – how about we have a PR system, a democratic system first.
Though a properly functioning democracy shouldn’t need full time MPs.
Be careful what you wish for.
Reform UK would now have around 93 to 94 MPs based on their vote share under PR.
(Based on estimates by The Electoral Reform Society).
Personally I think that’s a cracking idea – Ducks head below parapet 🙂
Lets say that PR is introduced at Westminster and Reform UK are projected to get what you say.
They are now in the mainstream and not in the fringes. They will be in the spotlight for all to see how they are, what they stand for and what their policies are.
Given that spotlight, how well do you think they will actually stand up to scrutiny especially when most of their policies, if the same as the rhetoric spoken by the likes of Farage, like privatising the NHS, is going to sit with potential voters whom they policies will detrimentally affect?
Once the public actually sees what Reform is, do you think they will get these 93 to 94 MPs?
Even if they do get these number of MP’s, they will be like the SNP with the first sniffing of power will merge into the establishment and sit on Westminster’s benches getting their bonuses and not willing to rock the boat for fear of upsetting their lucrative gravy train.
Reform, at least under Farage, is nothing but a joke and will wither under the light of even little scrutiny.
You make some very good points.
I wouldn’t confuse the rhetoric of Farage with many of the (sensible) policies they are proposing and/or developing.Don’t mistake the message for the messenger etc.
However, as you point out, the devil will be in the detail.
Some of the more positive elements include:
Taxation and Economic Policies:
Immigration:
Freezing non-essential immigration, aiming to relieve pressure on public services, housing, and wages. They propose strict limits on immigration and an “employer immigration tax” to discourage reliance on foreign labour.
Public Services – Health and Education:
Environment and Energy:
Reform UK wants to abandon net zero targets, describing them as economically damaging. Instead, they propose increasing drilling for gas and oil in the North Sea, fast-tracking clean nuclear energy, and shale gas licences. They argue this would lead to cheaper energy while still supporting environmental measures like tree planting and recycling.I love their ongoing support of SMR nuclear – the only party to be doing so.
Motoring and Transport:
Policies include canceling low-emission zones and low-traffic neighborhoods, abandoning the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel cars, and cutting fuel duty by 20p. These are aimed at supporting traditional car use and reducing costs for motorists.
Student Loans and Financial Support:
They propose to abolish interest on student loans, potentially giving students more financial freedom post-graduation.
These are all brave suggestions and reflect Reform UK’s approach to governance, focusing on reducing state intervention in some areas while increasing it in others with a strong emphasis on national identity and economic pragmatism.
However, as you suggested PacMan the feasibility and impact of these policies are subjects of debate, especially in terms of their economic implications and alignment with global trends towards sustainability and social inclusivity.
The one USP I believe Reform have is treating their supporters and potential voters like adults without any sugar coating.
Others on this forum will no doubt beg to differ which is right and proper.
Others will wish to stick the boot in. 😉
I won’t stick the boot in, John K, because you’ve probably simplified Reform’s proposals. As you’ve summarised them though, they don’t stack up for me.
It’s the usual mixture of tax cuts and investment promises – it’s bleedin obvious for example that no government can cut taxation as you outline and still ramp up investment in a failing, unreformed NHS. It’s as if the Truss event never happened, let alone as if the ongoing slomo Reeves event (which is doing much the same to economic forecasts and long term UK government borrowing costs – just more slowly) hasn’t registered.
But that’s just a detail compared with the root problem. If that’s all to Reform’s agenda they will fail as surely as Starmer has been fated to fail since Day 1. Until the human rights legislation and the ability to interfere with political processes that is baked into the UK judiciary has been amputated, any significant changes to government policies will be entangled in endless delaying red tape while the clock runs inexorably down to the next election.
That’s the reason that Sunak spent near half a billion of taxpayer’s hard earned and not one single grifting criminal was sent to Rwanda for processing.
That’s the reason why Starmer isn’t even trying any more on that front. The legal blob can stop anything it disapproves of, and the legal blob is entirely captured by hostile elements.
As Cummings famously observed in the BoJo years, people have to understand that when UK politicians pull on the levers of power, these levers are detached from the mechanisms at the remote end.
Reform will have to fix that, or fail like everybody else since Blair set all this up.
We have a PR system in Holyrood, that still creates tribalism, with MSPs beholden to the “party line”.
We also have an even more proportional system in local government, where the public still choose who should fix pot-holes, based on party lines and whether that candidate’s party believe Scotland should be a member of NATO. I mean, THAT is how people are voting on who sorts out our bin collections. A complete farce.
Would that be the same if there was compulsory voting which in theory should force people to look at who they are voting for?
In the earliest days of devolution, our main streets were a riot of colour with competing parties festooning lampposts etcetera with placards. By the 2016 election, 32 out of 36 Scottish councils has established by-laws prohibiting election posters on council owned street furniture.
The four “hold-out” councils continue to allow election posters on street furniture, proving that any perceived “littering” issue can be managed rather than resorting to prohibition. It’s no coincidence that all four councils are rural and are substantially populated by independent councillors, free from the admonishments of any party head office.
Is the potential for a wee bit litter too high a price to pay for a vibrant, mass participation democracy? The answer from our permanent managerial class is apparently yes.
In Ireland, poster campaigns are still an integral part of the election calendar. The various parties are given a fixed number of days to remove their materials after polling day. If any placards remain, the cooncil take them down and fine the errant party. Deposits could be mandatory before advertising materials are permitted on council owned street furniture, that way no one could dodge paying a fine.
Absolutely. There’s no guarantee that seeing posters will force turnout up but lack of such basic visibility makes it far easier for those who never follow current affairs to remain oblivious to polling day. Your idea about deposits would be a far better approach than the situation we have now.
Great idea, but how would Rainjurs fans know who to vote for?
Perfection, in my opinion, Rev. As you say, lobbyists would be out of work immediately. I know, sad for Charlotte Street Partners, but bliss for the rest of us.
Scotland crucifies me for being perfect.
Would be totally impractical in “real life”.
A few areas that spring to mind:
Read some history. “Homage to Catalonia” (George Orwell) might be a good start.
That all just sounds like a load of academic waffle. Belgium managed fine with no government at all. Why would a government of independents be inherently problematic? And where the hell do the military come in?
Well the military is accountable to the civilian authority. So the Secretary of State for Defence needs to have an unambiguous mandate. There is a risk that the ultimate civilian authority would be permanent civil servants.
At the moment, in theory, policy is developed at the grassroots level of political parties. How would we replace that with something that actually works?
Whenever this topic is raised I am reminded of the late, great Dennis Rodgers, who wrote for the News & Observer in Raleigh, NC. He once argued that the state legislature should be filled like a jury. Select people at random and send them to the State Capitol for two years.
What on Earth are you talking about? The SSD has a mandate from the Prime Minister, and the occupant of the role can change at any time. We don’t elect an SSD.
But the Prime Minister would not be elected on a party manifesto. That’s fine for, say, Isle of Man or the Channel Islands states because they don’t have to think about defence (or foreign affairs). However, who controls the military is a serious issue and one that, hopefully, people consider before they place their X beside the representative of the party of their choice.
I’d really love to support your idea 100% because it has the potential to improve the laws we write. Indeed, I saw something like that when I first moved to the USA in 2001. The party leaderships had less control over “backbenchers” and voting against the party line was not the unpardonable sin that it has, sadly, become.
There’s no reason to think non-party people are less efficient than party politicians. Look at what we have now in Holyrood and Westminster – no signs of great efficiency there. In fact the opposite – particularly noticeable in Holyrood because we can see what the country needs and we can hear/read what we get.
You’d also have a professional civil service to advise.
And it’s not like who we currently elect don’t do all of that stuff anyway. Arguably, the reason they do it so badly is twofold – they’re stupid, and they’re in a political party with vested interests. (And they’re there for too long.)
Homage to Catalonia depicts the tragedy of what happens when sects of zealots from the same faith start fighting each other over how best to reach an ideological promised land, regardless of how ordinary people feel about it. That’s closer to what we have today than a parliament of *elected* members, none of whom belong to any specific party.
The ongoing carnage in G@za provides much the same example for those too idle to wade through a dense tome of the ancient dead-tree media.
From what I observe of the humous fan club regularly posting on here, I’d discourage the usual suspects from reading HtC. They’ll just want to re-model the Indy movement along the lines described in the book.
Synchronicity Rev, I had just such a discussion with Mrs Lochinvar in the local last night albeit our discussion was focussed on local authority elections.
But what hell, why not, go the whole hog, politicians and parties are hoors for the buying by big business, foreign political interests and lobbying groups.
Vanishingly few folk are engaged in politics enough to attend hustings. All most folk can fit into their busy lives is to read or watch MSM (which is pretty much unavoidable). Thames House would put forward a slate of “approved” but otherwise unacknowledged candidates who would in turn be promoted by MSM.
For that obstacle to be overcome, the much vaunted new age of Internet freedom and citizen journalism would have to finally materialise, having ‘till now been an ever illusive glow just beyond the horizon. This is a matter of eternal frustration for many of us. “Why oh why can’t my friends and neighbours be as informed of reality as me?”.
Will 2025 be a year of breakthrough? Perhaps.
If we consider the current conflict in Ga$a, excluding don’t knows, 65% of Americans believe that the rogue colonial state in West Asia is committing war crimes. That figure would not be possible if American citizens were relying on their MSM for information. The spectrum of coverage on MSM on these matters runs from apologists (CNN, et al) to outright cheerleaders (Fox, OANN).
The same metric in the UK has a 90% uptake, and the same observation applies here. This polling (YouGov) is six months old, I doubt events since will have moved the dial much. The 10% of respondents in the UK who refuse to see the atrocities being perpetrated by the European colonial outpost will be a fixed feature. Avoidance of cognitive dissonance and tribal loyalty will not permit them to alter their views. The percentage of don’t knows may however reduce.
Turning to Keir Starmer, what kind of politician holds steadfastly to a position held by 10% of the population? A political who was appointed by the Permanent State, with a fixed and very limited list of instructions. Starmer will serve his one term and be richly rewarded for it.
“Vanishingly few folk are engaged in politics enough to attend hustings.”
Then they’ll get the politicians they deserve. But when everyone has the same amount of coverage and (baseline) financial clout, at least the playing field will be even.
Imagine if voting was made compulsory. Would this force enough people to be be engaged in politics to the point where this wouldn’t happen?
I can.
Sorry, but this is a wonderful idea that makes perfect sense in theory. In practice it will work this way:
In Australia two parties own the place, Labor (spelled the American way) and Liberal (which is “conservative”). There are some others (such as “Greens”) but most of the worst legislation gets slammed through by the big two without any debate anyway, so without +50% between them the minor parties are just accessories in the show.
At the local Council level we have this odd tradition (I’ve never looked into the details or origin, but I’m sure there’s a “good” reason for it) whereby almost all candidates present themselves as “just your local person wanting to serve you”. In reality they are almost all operatives of one of the big main parties, but they turn up in civvie gear for local elections. The colours on their signs tend to give it away for the dummies, but to all intents and purposes it works just like the system you propose.
Except of course it doesn’t, because in the end we get Local Councils controlled by much the same people who run everything else. They just act like they’re really independent.
You can’t stop people from “coincidentally” all agreeing to follow a particular line that happens to look 100% like a political party line.
Like any kind of prohibition, you’ll just push it into the black market.
The only answer is a properly informed electorate. And that requires a properly functioning non-partisan media. Which in turn requires non-partisan journalists. That’s why the people who own everything and run everything put so much time and resources into making sure we don’t have a functioning media.
Present company excepted (which is why I’m an avid fan from way over here for all these years – not pissing in your pocket, by the way), the needed functioning non-partisan media is almost non-existent.
“You can’t stop people from “coincidentally” all agreeing to follow a particular line that happens to look 100% like a political party line.”
But you can’t FORCE them to either. So why would they? It’s fine for a lot of people to agree on something and get it passed. That’s democracy. But right now, if they disagree with the party they’re a member of they get punished. With no parties they could vote with their conscience all the time.
Can’t find the exact quote but it’s along the lines you have more choice of candidates in Moscow West than you would have in Bournemouth West (Tory stronghold). Even if all the Moscow ones all represent only the Communist party.
An interesting thought experiment, but outside of the structure of political parties how does policy development and campaigning on national issues take place. Does every MP present their own personal manifesto based on ill formed personal opinions which they have little in the way of resources or time to test and develop? Outside of an organised party structure I think it also would be incredibly difficult to engage effectively with politicians on key political given the 626 autonomous moving parts. There won’t be the option for example of engaging with a shadow minister/spokesperson for each party on any given subject.
Outside of an organised structure, I’m also not sure how trade-offs between competing priorities would be managed, particularly on spending. We would likely end up in the classic case of everyone wants both tax cuts and increases in spending, with MP’s having no incentive to back down and no structure to coerce them into doing so. You might then find that key decisions are made on the basis of short term horse trading, not a clear view of the national interest.
I’ve kinda warmed to the idea of monarchy over the past few decades. The key is for the monarch to have lots of offspring, and for the succession to go to the best of them, not the eldest.
As I’ve posted elsewhere, I don’t believe government is a job for amateurs, and even for professionals, to do it well needs decades of study. So like playing tennis, or any professional sport, get them started studying and learning young, well before age 10, and by the time mummy dies and they get the crown at age 40 or so, they’ll be bloody good at government.
Cue the inevitable pelters from the usual suspects, but alert readers may wish to ponder on the same usual suspects and their never ending cheering for the likes of poot, Xi, Khamenei, etc. None of these is elected in any meaningful sense. Each of them is essentially a monarch, and as the usual suspects never cease to claim, each of them is running rings around our democracies.
So go figure.
One final thought. The idea that you get wise, competent government from combining the democratically massed stupidity of millions of eejits is strictly for the birds. As the Athenians well knew when they created democracy back then, and what they created and called democracy bore little resemblance to what we have today.
Is it not what the ancient Greeks and Romans did?
Yes, they certainly had their issues but not exactly world ending like these nutters we are stuck we are stuck with though is it??
Great as a “thought experiment” but I doubt it’d be practical in the long term. There is definitely a need for more independents to be elected (Ireland always seems to have a fair number, even if many of them are connected to parties, former TD’s or have known agendas) and my auld da always used to say that one of the deaths of local government was the take over of local councils by party politics.
I still reckon in real life we can construct a “reformed” system which at least tries to stop some of the rot of the current system. We should definitely go for Irish style STV to encourage more parties. I’ve also warmed to the idea of having a second chamber (previously I felt it was a waste of time) which should reflect a broad range of interest groups: sectional, professional, Trades Unions, pensioners, students.
Again I quite like the Irish idea of having “panels” in their Senate for certain areas like Culture/Education, Industry/Commerce, Labour relations etc. I don’t think there should be the ability for the government to appoint Senators though.
Employment of family members, having second jobs and not turning up for the day job should definitely all be cracked down on, and foreign or corporate donations should be banned. Personal donations should be registered and strictly limited and there should be stringent rules about people who have donated getting government contracts, jobs or sinecures on NGO’s and quangos.
The parliament should decide on the pot of money available for elections, publicity etc, and the parties should get the % of the pot they get in votes (or according to an average in polling if they’re new).
Conscience:
“A conscience is a cognitive process that elicits emotion and rational associations based on an individual’s moral philosophy or value system.”:
link to en.wikipedia.org
#ScotlandValues #FreedomWings
re. “in essence, a free conscience”
re. “negative and depressing”
Positivity:
“The quality of having a positive attitude:
I’m a great believer in positivity.”:
link to dictionary.cambridge.org
Perfect:
“Complete and correct in every way, of the best possible type or without fault:
A perfect day.
What is your idea of perfect happiness?”:
link to dictionary.cambridge.org
#HappyScotlandPeople
@PeteWishart has blocked you:
“It’s good to see Musk’s Xitter bringing everybody together…..”:
link to tinyurl.com
#Q
The National Joke (2025): ‘Don’t feed Elon Musk the troll’ is easier said than done:
“It’s textbook trolling – and it works…”:
link to archive.ph
Q-consciousness: where is the flow?
link to pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
BBC (2025): Europe leaders criticise Musk attacks:
“Those who are spreading lies and misinformation as far and as wide as possible are not interested in victims, they’re interested in themselves,”:
link to archive.ph
World Economic Forum: Agenda Contributors:
Thierry Breton
European Commission
UK Government
Ursula von der LeyenChristian Linder
BBC News
Emmanuel Macron
Ofcom
Global Coalition for Digital Safety
Pedro Sanchez
Olaf Scholz
George Soros
Keir Starmer
Jonas Gahr Støre:
link to weforum.org
The flow is here, Scotland:
link to wingsoverscotland.com
Let’s face it…
Most of the grifters on the Westminster gravy bus are simply lobby fodder to do the bidding of the whips.
Without the party machine and the threat of deselection if you don’t tow the line we might end up with representatives who do what we want them to do….
Represent us!
Sounds great, the one slight problem that might crop up is that it would still be politicians we would be dealing with
There’s the sortition option, mentioned by Ian Brotherhood. I understand that to be like the jury system i.e. selected from the Council roll of residents. I think there would have to be some grounds to disqualify the least able, just as there is currently for voting.
I’ve been saying something along those lines for many years.
For well over 100 years we have had these prevailing cancers call Conservative and Labour and their wee parasite party the Lib Dem’s who will be anything the other 2 like for a temporary place in the big seats beside them.
Vote for the local independent that is in tune with your views.
Someone who doesn’t have to toe a party line that is against their own wishes and the thoughts of their local electorate.
MP’ s should be barred from meeting other MPs other than in parliament were we can hear their thoughts and ensure there is no vote for my bill although you are against it and I will vote for yours.
No more dark money and corporation bribes to party funds and no trade union influence.
Their pay rises and pensions should be aligned with the U.K. averages. If they do well by increasing our standard of living then they should be equally rewarded.
The above format would have stopped the UKs illegal wars,
Brexit, HS2 white elephant, the corrupt PPE contracts for Tory
friends and may even have provided an independence route for Scotland.
Banning your daughter from having a boyfriend just results is her having a secret boyfriend, who is always worse. We would have secret (or at least undeclared) political parties, who would pretend to be persuaded by the arguments of their co-members into agreeing with them. The lobbyists would soon catch on, and the corruption would end up being just the same.
Reading some replies… Still thinking the same old same old.
The only problem I can see and from the few replies.
Are people ready for such simple easy to do government. If you spend your life walking miles to get water and then suddenly water appears in abundance. The mind finds it hard t accept.
Well said, Mark:
link to wingsoverscotland.com
And if they support Independence…. they could stand under an I 4 I banner, and get your full support, no doubt, for the concept. Oh wait.
Been there, done that, got the t-shirt.
Where if falls down, is within the Holyrood voting franchise, where list seats go to minority parties – not individuals.
Could there not be an umbrella organisation as Action for Independence succeeded in doing [but the constituent parties then stood aside for Alba, sadly].
Direct democracy provisions need to be added to your plan, Rev.
Some btl comments have said that secret parties would be formed. To counter this there needs to be the power to allow the voters to stop/repeal laws that damage citizens. Such powers would render secret parties/alliances less worth doing. Switzerland operates such a system – we could look at those provisions as a starting point.
I disagree Sarah. Stop looking out at other countries for answers when the answer is already here.
I was giving a current example in order to demonstrate that direct democracy is not a dream, it is a reality.
Sit corrected
🙂
re. “the answer is already here.”
Mark and Sarah are leading Scotland’s direct democracy…
#Freedom
I’m flattered!
Modest leader…
#Champ
I’m glad to see Stuart has been freshening up on his Lenin, with a bit of “The state and revolution”. Well done, comrade! Not like that commiephobe James Kelly.
Dikola Durgeon and the Dildo Dancers.
Got a nice ring to it.
What form of PR will it have without Political Parties and FPTP
Neil Gray has just been on the phone to me shouting and bawling. I tried to convince him that he could still get driven about in a Limo.
I’m not convinced that government is so easy, anybody can do it. There’s virtually no job in modern life where it’s accepted you can pull somebody off the street and they will be able to perform satisfactorily. So why would government be any different?
Something I would like to see is a narrowing of the franchise, by making voting a two-stage process. Before any voter is allowed into the ballot box, she first has to pass a multiple choice examination on the candidate’s manifesto promises.
Key to this is that all the questions would be published beforehand, along with the answers, so every Compos Mentis voter would need to only do half an hour’s study to memorise the answers.
Say five questions on each candidate’s policies, times the number of candidates standing. It’s doable to organise.
Benefits would be that no voter ignorant of the policies would be likely to pass the exam, so no vote for her. Ditto, no voter too doolally, or too idle, to memorise the answers.
Key benefit would be that every voter would be forced to at least look at every candidate’s policies – no ignorant voting just for the rosette – and finally, every voter would remember the winning candidate’s promises and would be livid if they were not adhered to.
I think this would re-enthuse and re-engage voters with their elected representatives.
How do you stop parties forming though? it’s utopian nonsense. If there can be no parties there can be no unions, no organisations you can belong to, nothing but individuals.
No Thank you.
I don’t follow your leap from “if no parties, there can be no unions etc”.
We need to thrash out the strengths and weaknesses of the party system vis a vis non-party. That is presumably why Stu has written this article – to give a platform for discussion and see if there is a better system than the one we currently live under.
In my opinion, the current system is showing all the weaknesses and no strengths of party politics. Look at Westminster on the issue of the humanitarian outrage in the Middle East. Starmer is able to ignore the public view because the backbenchers are under his thumb – they will not represent the views of their constituents. It was the same with the Conservatives dishing out contracts to friends – no voters thought it was legitimate yet it happened.
Why should there not be unpressured debate in a non-party assembly/parliament and decisions reached that are based on a commonly agreed view?
A very Thatcherite scenario.
Also what law of the universe forbids safe seats without parties? What stops one candidate getting thousands of votes more than the next placed person?
Nothing, obviously, but the hope would be that the seat would go to the one adjudged to have the best policies.
Why are Scots such naysayers , it always appears that no matter what possible positive actions are proposed there are always those whose visions can only exist within the negative destruction of ideas
That is not to say that better ways should not be considered to support positive action but to focus solely on the destructive negativity aspects of any idea just kills positive thought and stifles discussion
If you look at the current political parties and the politicians infesting those parties surely that reality encourages discussion and ideas that there must be a better way that citizens can become aware of their role in good governance and their ability to shape that governance
I am a total believer in direct democracy and I believe the only way that can come about is through independents with no party affiliation whose position is entirely dependent on their ability to interact with their local peoples reality and wishes
Some of the comments here are very disappointing. Is this a case of ‘ You can take the horse to the water but you can’t make it drink it.’ The very thought is putting some folk into “does not compute, does not compute, does not compute…..
You must have missed my earlier post:
“Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, ‘Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous?’ Actually, who are you not to be?”
I’m glad you agree with me.
Anyone trying to form a Party or secret collective gos to jail and does not collect £200.
If this state of affairs ever came to be then Scottish Independence would be done thing.
It would take the celebrity culture out of politics in one fell swoop.
It would make lies and misinformation in politics obsolete.
I’ve been dreaming of ‘perfection’ for many years.
It’s ma main ‘how to run a country’ dream.
It makes total sense.
I have other dreams, but they are not concerned with how a new, dynamic ‘political’ system could happen, direct democracy, instead those other dreams are mostly all about how I might survive the current state of play.
My life is about survival.
Security. Securing security. Nailing it down. Feeling safe or, at least, safer.
I’m always thinking about my next possible move.
‘If the government decide to do this, I will have to do this.’ Always feeling bounced about. Always having to think about how to mitigate, and survive, the worst effects of corrupt, venal, disinterested and damaging government policy.
And so are many, many people.
It’s fucking shocking.
Many of us are not thriving, we’re not living a ‘good’ life, we’re actually just spending our entire life TRYING to stay alive for the sake of it. One day leads to the next, but don’t get your hopes up about seeing next month/year.
The majority of our energy and efforts go into survival.
This reality, this situation has been created by politics and politicians. They know this, hence the big push on assisted suicide. They know their policies drive people to despair/ruin/suicide and their answer is ‘we’ve provided you with a euthenasia pod, so what you moaning about you ungrateful fucker’.
*As an aside, in Scotland, public sector pension providers are unable to give information to pension members due to the fact that pension providers have not received guidance (its been years now) from the Scottish Government on the McLeod Remedy.
How the fuck is anyone able to plan for the future when they can’t get basic number crunching from the people who hold the pension pot that they have paid into and depend upon?*
Other posters have identified potential issues with this lovely fantasy. They have focused on certain aspects.
I’d like to focus on the CHARACTER & MOTIVATION of a person who goes, wants to go, into a prominent, powerful leadership role.
As it stands, political parties attract sheep. That’s my opinion.
And they attract the venal. The self-interested liars. The people who need to be lead (which is just arse-covering by a different name, therefore no accountability) and love hierarchy and structured pecking orders.
People who are happy to toe the line, be told what to think and say, EVEN when it goes against their own personal ethos, all for the ULTIMATE BRUCIE BONUS; belonging to a powerful, perk-rich, tribe, a wealthy, wealthy club . . . those types of people are not for walking a lonely path through the wilderness whilst detractors lob stones at them.
They don’t have a sacrificial bone in their body. Those people don’t care one jot about 99% of the population that they are supposed to represent and fight for. They only go into politics for the self enrichment. They are the most cynical of people. They fully believe that nothing can be done to improve living standards and quality of life. Knowing this ‘fact’, they see entering politics as a way to ensure maximum income for minimum effort, and they probably snort in contempt at the old skool politicians who are very few now, but still actually give a fuck about their electorate.
Basically we have, in the vast majority of our elected representatives, total fucking SCUMBAGS: Criminals, rockets, bams, crackpots, bellends, wankstains, arseholes, wankers, numpties, fannies, shysters, pricks, cunts, robbers, and bastards. And there’s a few too many tractors too.
What I’d like to see is passionate people of good character and altruistic motivation putting themselves forward for election. But these people will never gain traction whilst the political party system survives.
Scotland already has many excellent people who have all the right qualities/skills/knowledge/attributes/experience. They’re mostly just NOT in current political parties. So, let’s get rid of the parties, and let these people flourish.
I’d like to see accountability, honesty and transparency. I’d like to see people working together, fermenting ideas until they are potent, thrashing things out for the common good and the betterment of the people they represent. The list goes on . . . it would be great. Instead of being an ostrich for decades at a time, out of despair, I might actually get involved with stuff.
Yes, of course human nature will not change, and it goes without saying that ‘the rot’ will start up in any new system . . . but I reckon we’d get a good few decades out of it before we, the people, had to step in and sort out any mess.
Anyway, I’ve probably missed lots of important points that I shouldn’t have, but I’m no author.
Just been reading the latest rants from the Chief Satsuma…
Declaring economic war on Denmark, in effect the EU, if he doesn’t get his grubby paws on Greenland – probably so his toy car producing buddy can strip mine the rare earths, once global warming, which isn’t a thing BTW, melts out the glaciers.
Declaring economic war on Canada, because the US/Canadian border doesn’t mean shit, apparently.
Declaring economic war on Panama, because US operators get charged for shipping through it. God forbid!
All this and more to come…
Popcorn or tin helmet with optional NBC suit. Not sure which to reach for, TBH…
Either way, his reaction to his supersonic ear piercing episode appears to be manifesting itself as some kind of death wish.
Given the MO of certain BTL denizens here they’ll soon be assuring us Greenland is full of akshul Nazis and it was their own fault the yankees just had to invade them because *reasons*. And let’s not even get started with those Kanuks. They really had it coming, eh?
I wonder what 40 million left of centre Canadians (including 9 million Quebecers) would do to the US voting patterns and the electoral college? That’d be like another California joining the union: I’m not sure the Donald has thought this through!
Still….if borders really do mean nothing anymore, what’s the point of independence at all?
Then again, I believe the current guesstimate for the number of illegal invaders (AKA as grifting crims) in the USA is around the 12 million mark.
And President-elect Trump has stated he intends to clear out that swamp.
Obviously, he’ll need places to put them all.
I can tell from your “Chief Satsuma” jibe you’re not a fan – fair enough. Shame you’ve no record that I can recall of opposing colonialist, imperialist, militarist aggression on here.
Because that would enable you to virtue signal from the moral high ground 🙂
There’s nothing about a madman in the White House and a madman in the Kremlin to cheers about other than an apparent equilibrium of insanity.
Shame I’ve no record, you say? I do, as it happens , but you can add it to your long list of subjects about which you have absolutely no idea.
“Chief Satsuma” is a bit juvenile I’ll confess…
I much prefer the “Annoying Orange”
Come the revolution, the people who have the idle time to waste on photoshopping stuff like that will be found useful tasks.
20 years rock breaking with hand tools sounds about right 🙂
What is it about us Scots anyway? The Donald is half-Scottish and sure, he’s had advantages since birth, but so have millions of other Yanks and they’re not about to be POTUS for the second time.
I’m pleased and proud that one of our birthright has achieved this. If he was half descended from the dregs of some sub-Saharan or southern American shithole we’d never hear the end of how the boy done good.
Where are Scotland’s patriots.
Love you Scotland.
I know this is a relatively light hearted article by Stu but no political party’s sounds good to me. I would not be against our representatives, at whatever level, being ‘Independent’ but the reality is that this ideal would only exist on paper. Alliances would be formed-it is human nature. Who answers all the huge unanswered questions regarding Independence that no current Political Party will even attempt?
What I would like to see is only ‘Professionals’ entering politics. Those with a track record or qualifications in something relevant. Any clown can throw his hat into the ring, as it stands just now, and if he/she nails his colours to the mast of whatever Party is currently in favour they have a reasonable chance of being elected. Look at some of them in Holyrood and Westminster just now!
Too many rank amateurs in the game of Politics.
Be wary of ‘technocrats’. Be even more wary of those really are enthusiasts, for example, ‘truss’ should only function as a surgical appliance. Random selection might be better.
I am open to innovative approaches to Politics and Political systems. But this article only includes elected legislative Parliaments. The real problem is the demise of our Public Institutions. Over 4 years for a conclusion to Operation Branchform. A minor fraud case.? . Nobody ever resigns or is sacked. Scotland is polarised those that believe in accountability and those that don’t. Those that suck up to the SNP and those that don’t. And your employment prospects is based on your support of the SNP. Meanwhile every aspect of the Scottish Public Service deterioration largely goes unreported. Pick any field of Public Service. Health, Education. Economy and so on. The structural and procedural handicaps of Holyrood are well known. From Civil servants to COPFS. Time to get them working for us. Time to start sacking people.
“Time to start sacking people”
Absolutely spot on George.
Time to identify every job that contributes directly to front line services, whether it’s emptying bins or emptying bedpans, and sack the rest.
Of course, as things stand, that would bankrupt every public sector employer as the mountain of unfair dismissal claims and compensation cases would drag through the legal system for a decade.
But that’s the Gordian knot that needs to be cut. Either society deals with it while it still can, or we just wait helplessly until the unaffordable ever-growing anchor of state bloat sinks the ship and takes all of us to the bottom.
As often remarked, it does appear that politics mostly attracts those persons most unsuitable to be engaged in the processes and political parties function most effectively to eradicate any signs of personal good conscience, they are an MP’s first loyalty far above their constituents. It cannot continue for much longer and that is why successive govts are building ever stronger repressive legal structures.
I heard a rumour that John Alderdice had written a book (or maybe an academic/medical paper) on psychopathology of politicians but I cannot find which it is. If anyone knows, please give details.
When there are examples such as Brown, and Blair, it is screaming-obvious that there is profound psychological trouble.
A related, though not complete, solution is proposed by The Sortition Foundation
Change system to:
1. True PR. 50k votes gets you an MP. Low turnout = lots of unemployed MPs. That should focus their minds*
2. 10% (round up) of MPs (randomly selected–could be televised like the football draws) must stand for re-election on each anniversary of GE
3. Max 10 years (to the day!) service then out. That’s cumulative, so 2 years, then a gap, then 5 years is 7 in total.
4. Salary pegged as multiple of mean wage. Or Multiple of GDP. Country does well, MPs get more wage
Using 1, current crowd would be:
Lab–194
LD–70
Cons–136
SNP–14
Reform–82
* I’ve always found “voter apathy” an insulting and patronising term. If we aren’t voting, its THEIR fault, not ours!
Re 3: That rule makes it near certain that the politician fails at both her career as an MP and her career as something else. Most people who have pursued a professional career know that you need a decade or more of learning in the job before you become any good. As for the MP’s second career, just ask any mother how her career fared when she took a couple of years out to have kids. Ten years out to be an MP would be a likely fast track to the dole.
Re 4: Mass immigration increases GDP whilst simultaneously making the indigenous population poorer. What you propose would incentivise politicians to flood the country with immigrants (just like now). It’s share of GDP per head that’s the really important measure of national wealth.
We all know what you get when the pay is peanuts. Whether cycling around with hot food on your back, or posing at HR while you feck up a jam jar deposit scheme, the rule applies.
Think I got my GDP and GNP mixed up?
I see enough of them with 20+ years who are still rubbish at being an MP……
Perhaps.
That’s no argument for throwing out the baby with the bath water though. MPs/MSPs with 20+ years experience who know their responsibilities inside/out, who know how things work, who get results, etc are worth keeping.
That’s why in history, most revolutions and conquests are followed by a period of absolute chaos, until the new regime re-hires the more acceptable and necessary elements of the old regime and gets them back to work.
Because they are the only ones who understand how things slot together.
Incidentally, that’s why Professor Baird’s idea that in order to decolonise Scotland, every tractor and house Jock has to be sidelined, is an absolute no-starter. But that’s a different debate.
The precise opposite of your Point one is in operation.
The mass rejection by the populace to the offers being put before them in our 4th July General Election resulted in an adjustment to the Short money formula.
Prior to the GE, Short money was allocated as follows: £21,438 / seat, £43 / 200 votes. After the GE, this was changed to £22,296 / seat and £44.5 / 200 votes. This was backdated to 1st April. The press release announcing this was dated 8th July.
There was no Parliamentary scrutiny of this, the Permanent State just went and did it on its own authority. We reject their insulting attempts to attract our support, and they piss in our faces.
Of note: Short money goes to Party Headquarters, and party HQs determine who gets to be a candidate (in the case of Labour and SNP certainly).
Wee Harvie is getting ignored again. He’ll get angry and pish on the patio like he did when the Bute House Toilet Deal blew up in his face. Should have stuck to garden nobbing.
This whole article is nonsense. Very appealing nonsense from some perspectives. But nonsense, nonetheless. Political parties are both essential and inevitable. The notion that they can be abolished derives from antipathy towards political parties as we know them. It is not informed by any understanding of what political parties rightly are and what is their proper purpose.
Political parties are what we make them. Or they are what we allow others to make them. We – the electorate or the people or society as a whole – have neglected our responsibility to ensure that political parties are what we need them to be and serve the purpose they are supposed to serve. That purpose is to connect the people to effective political power – the power to effect change. Basically, the power to make laws.
What people detest and want to be rid of is not political parties as they should be but political parties as we have allowed them to become. Hating political parties is like hating your car because it is a dirty, unreliable, shambles that doesn’t work the way you want it to work while totally disregarding the fact that you’ve never had it serviced or repaired or cleaned.
The idea that we can and should get rid of political parties is based on this detestation of them. It is not based on any rational appreciation of the role that political parties rightly play in our politics. That the political parties are, in general, broken is surely beyond question. The urge to destroy them because they are broken borders on the infantile. The notion that we can get rid of political parties is just plain naive.
Political parties are not only essential, serving in the realm of public policy a purpose analogous to trade unions in the realm of work – they are also inevitable. They can’t be stamped out. Destroy them and they will simply reform. Two factors make this so. Human nature. And the nature of politics.
In the interests of brevity, I won’t go into a full explanation of these factors. I will say only that if you fill the parliament with individuals sitting as ‘independents’ they will immediately start to form groups. Before long, those groups will be indistinguishable from the kind of political parties we have now. Because we, the people, will have had no say in or influence over their development. Just as the vast majority of us decline to have their say in what a political party is or try to influence the way it works.
We don’t have properly functioning political parties because creating and maintaining a properly functioning political party requires effort. People are lazy. They won’t put in the effort. I’ll wager the vast majority of those whining about the political parties and urging that they be abolished have never even joined a party, far less attended the occasional branch meeting.
The running of political parties is left to the handful of people who are willing to do the work. They are prepared to put in the effort either because they genuinely want the party to be as it should be, or for motives that are entirely self-serving. The latter tend to outnumber the former because they form cliques while the former are starved of support by the idle mass of the party membership.
We cannot get rid of political parties because they will always tend to reform. We mustn’t get rid of political parties because their true purpose is to facilitate collective action in the realm of public policy in the same way that trade unions do in the workplace.
If you want to fix our politics, you first have to fix the political parties. Democratic politics works only with mass participation. with New Scotland Party we are trying to create a model of a political party functioning as it should.
This advert was sponsored by #Party Politics or Die
You present no counterargument.
I’m convinced.
I’ll hold your jacket if somebody will hold Rev Stu’s 🙂
The political system is rotten.
Peter is pointing out who is to blame for that and also makes the important point that those complaining probably have no experience of them.
An experienced Scotland wouldn’t be in this mess.
Building an oppressed peoples critical awareness is important, as is reform of what passes for an education system (Freire) which tells them all they ‘need to know’ in order to maintain their subjugation.
The low proportion of indigenous/subordinated people permitted into elite higher education is another factor limiting the capability for critical awareness.
As is a very one-sided and heavily biased media and the values of the dominant cultural hegemony and establishment which determine all of the above.
So, before you can address an elective system in a colonial society Rev, you really need to first fix the factors that condition a people and the colonial mindset; also remembering that ‘colonialism is based on psychology’.
…..which returns us to understanding that the only way to change a colonial society is through decolonization and liberation/self-recovery of the people.
I was wondering when colonialism would rear it’s head. I should have realised that Alfie Boy would step up to the mark.
Disappointing to note that there is no link to mince penned by someone else, purely by coincidence, who is also called Alf Baird. At least we were spared the cute Scottishy words Alf wants us all to use. No local dialects, spelling or pronunciation allowed in Alf’s world. Would Gaelic be banned?
WINDWORD
From Macrasoft
The exciting new App that takes one sentence and expands it into a thesis.
This exciting new technology is taking academia by storm.
This is how it works…
Take what you want to say in one sentence and WINDWORD will expand your point into a ten page compendium of very big words and real proper spelling.
Available in all Further Education Outlets….
Probably as good a system as any, however to quote Homer Simpson “when will people ever learn, Democracy just doesn’t work!”
Scotland’s lost souls scorn perfection.
Isn’t that right.
Dan.
As you are on your toes regarding electricity consumption and distribution etc., do you have or use this app? It’s in English or any other language for use of.
link to app.electricitymaps.com
It has more to do with Carbon emissions.
Regards
Political Control Cascade UK 2024
UK Population 69,138,192
Registered voters 48,208,507
Voted 28,924,725 (59.8%)
Labour 9,708,716 (33.7%) votes
/result
Labour PM. 1
/controls
Labour Cabinet. 22
/controls
Labour MP’s. 650
Labour membership
(‘23) 370,450
Virtually unremovable for 5 years
There are some policy positions that require real expertise and experience and a long-term approach, not least to enable the representative to interrogate officials. However, pursuing these tends not to pay immediate dividends. To master those areas the representative needs time to spend on them, possibly to the detriment of spending time on more obvious ‘bread and butter’ issues likely to be at the forefront of constituents’ minds – I am thinking of technical areas like foreign policy, environment, pensions, science, infrastructure planning &c. The risk of SC’s suggestion is that constituents will vote for representatives who stress ‘local’ issues or focus narrowly on ‘bread and butter’ issues at the expense of technical expertise. We need a Parliament which balances such representation. I am not saying we have that now, but SC’s idea makes it more likely that we’ll end up with a Parliament full of local councillor types and very few specialists.
I do think that there is an element of the electorate getting the representatives we deserve – we also need to look at ourselves and the sort of promises that we vote for if we want better politicians. We need to accept things such as delayed gratification.
Somone tell me have the SNP given up on independence.i cant remember the last time I heard them talk about it.