baldysblog.co.uk

Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about Gordon Brown is his total lack of courage and decisiveness on key issues. His failure to deal with the EU Constitution culminating in yesterday’s farcical signing of it by Brown speaks volumes about the man. However on the Scottish and Welsh Devolution issues, a policy he was party to creating, there is no effort made to even try and explain or justify them to the electorate. What emerges is that however much he desired the job, the truth is that Gordon just doesn’t have what it takes to be a Prime Minister and perhaps it is over Scottish Devolution that we see this illustrated most vividly.

Whilst the Scottish Labour seats are important to the Labour Party, the battle at the next General Election will be lost and won in populous England. Brown prattles on about “Britishness” but as an MP that sits for a Scottish seat, you might imagine that he would have forthright opinions or insights to share with us on the subject of Scottish MPs being able to vote on matters that effect English or Welsh voters but not on those that effect their own Scottish constituents because of Devolution.

The Sound of Silence

Instead we just have silence, more than that, a deafening silence which is little short of amazing for a man who would claim to be a politician. Devolution was introduced by Labour to tie in Scottish support for Labour whilst ensuring that there could never be a revival of the Tory Party in Scotland but oddly, it has backfired on them to the extent that they no longer control the Scottish Parliament, it has now become the fiefdom of Alex Salmon of the SNP.

However, if Brown stood up and defended Devolution as a good thing for all, fair enough and regardless of whether or not you agreed with him. Or if he said “Sorry, we didn’t mean to but we got it all terribly wrong and we now need to fix it…” one could respect the honesty. But silence on the matter is ridiculous, rather like the Pope not having a view on Religion or a Judge on the Law, just plain daft and it fits so well with a picture that the man has painted of himself, fearful, indecisive and out of touch with reality.

The Four Nations

I believe that the 4 nations that form the UK are better off together as the historically, intertwined and extended “family” that we are and the “economic arguments” are irrelevant and only designed by the mendacious to spread division. To put that into perspective, in an independent England, you wouldn’t question the right of Liverpool or Newcastle to be part of England on economic grounds would you ?

When Cromwell and the Parliamentarians used the word “commonwealth”, it was to describe a concept of a common ownership at the national level and in that sense, Welsh water, Scottish oil and the wealth generation by the City of London are all part of the “commonwealth” of these island peoples. In fact you can extend that to the very climate of the islands where in this place or that, it favours the growing of particular crops or the rearing of particular animals, even the very variety of types of fish in our national waters.

The Idle Chatter of Nationalists

When Alex Salmon and his underlings talk about “Scottish Oil” they are deliberately clouding the issue to paint a rosy picture that is blatantly untrue and designed to fool the ignorant.

Firstly whether the oil and gas reserves are in English or Scottish waters, all the shore jobs and infrastructure are in Scotland and the ‘profits’ from oil should not be confused with the price of petrol at the pumps which is a separate matter to do with tax raising.

Secondly, in the event of Scotland opting for independence from the UK, they would lose the Orkneys & Shetlands because the inhabitants have long stated that they will not be part of an independent Scotland. Whether they remained part of the UK, opted for their own independence or joined up (some would say rejoined), Norway, they would want their share of oil in “their waters”.

So Where is Brown ?

If I, a not particularly well informed UK citizen can pick holes in the SNP case, why is it that a Scottish MP who happens for the moment to be PM but for 10 years was Chancellor of the Exchequer, not stand up and make the case better than I ? All we have ever heard from him on this topic is a growl about the Barnett formula working to Scottish benefit. You would imagine that he would have engineered a public speaking event in Scotland to celebrate 300 years of the Union where he laid out in detail, the benefits of the Union to both countries and his words would or should, carry the authority of 10 years of High Office.

But no, just like the “sneaky signing” of the EU Constitution, this wee timorous beastie says nothing and if a Scotsman who has become Prime Minister of the UK can say nothing, what hope for the Union ? If they had a viable candidate, I’m sure that by next Spring, the Labour Party would replace him and hope that 2 years would be time enough for a “new chap” to make an impression with the electorate before an election has to be called in 2010 if only to minimise the damage to the Labour Party that will inevitably follow. Sadly, they have no talent or resources to call upon and besides which, the stench of decay and decline has already attached itself to the Labour Party so their time in the wilderness beckons.