Money. There never seems to be enough of it, does there? At least not for the right things, at any rate. Money, as we have seen, can be conjured (printed, in actual fact) from thin air, to rennovate royal palaces and bail out banks that have gone bust and to fight wars that we probably ought not to be fighting. None, though, can be found for the destitute or the disabled, for schools or hospitals, for those whose need is greatest. Today, at PMQ’s, Theresa May talked of a “sustainable” social care system. Coming from a Tory, that almost certainly means on a shoestring and substandard.
No-one ever seems to have enough money, the poor actually don't, the rich think that they don't. You might even say, that the more money people have, the more they seem to want. I strongly suspect, if more of us accepted there is only so much money one individual or family or group of individuals needs, there would be an awful lot more of it available to do the things that are truly important.
Scotland doesn’t have enough money, so we’re told. Without the United Kingdom, Scotland would be skint, on the bones of its arse. How often have we heard the self-loathing Scot, or the BritNat tell us that without England and the United Kingdom there would be no-one to pay the bills. Without England and the United Kingdom, the workshy would receive no dole money, the hypochondriacs no ESA or PIP, the coffin dodgers no pension. Without England and the United Kingdom, they insist, all those not gainfully employed would freeze and starve and die. And without England and the United Kingdom there would be no jobs, none, so everyone would freeze and starve and die. Without England and the United Kingdom, there would be no Scotland. Right wing rot, all of it. And people believe this nonsense.
England, and therefore the United Kingdom, we are to believe, have more than enough money, which is why Scotland’s bills are paid. Only they don’t have enough money and the bills aren’t paid, which is why there are the deficit and the national debt. I can already hear the self-loathing Scots and the BritNats shrieking, with perverse delight, that an independent Scotland’s deficit and debt would be greater, so much greater in fact, that everyone who lived there would spontaneously combust. Meanwhile, it’s perfectly okay for the UK to self-immolate by way of Brexit.
Only the other day, I had a crazed zombie-slave to the cult of Windsor telling me that public spending per head of population was higher in Scotland than in England, as if I did not know this (how could I not- they never shut up about it) and as though this would somehow make me see sense, or as I prefer to say, buy me off, as it had her. When I gently suggested that this was at best a cheap trick to ensure the continued servility of a majority of Scots, the lunatic told me, without a trace of irony, that I was “barking”.
Sod self-respect, to hell with hope, let’s stick with backward Britain, a kingdom united by way of a bribe. Assuming Scotland is still a millstone around England’s neck when the UK finally makes it through the EU exit door, what happens when they realize that there’s no gold waiting for them at the end of the Brexit rainbow? Who will they blame in the absence of the EU? I’ll wager they’ll blame the “subsidy junkies” and then the Barnett formula will be on the bonfire before you can say Guy Fawkes. What then for the zombie-slave Windsor worshipers and their credit card balances?
If the Scottish economy is underperforming, it is because the government at Holyrood is hamstrung by devolution, whilst the government at Westminster couldn’t care less. Don’t get me started on Broonite-Dugdalian federalism. There is every indication that inequality and elitism, filth and sleaze will continue to hold sway in the UK for what might as well be forever. Independence is the only way to escape it. Scotland has everything and more that we need to make a success of it. Meanwhile, Tory England has everything and more than it takes to make a backside of Brexit. It’s a no-brainer, surely?