What Has the ‘Scottish National Party’ Done for Scotland?

I ask the question because I am intrigued. Since gaining power in Scotland, what have Nicola Sturgeon and her accomplices actually done to improve the lives of the Scottish people?  They may have done wonderful things, but I do not remember reading about any such things. What I keep reading is that they have oppressed the people more and more. Thus, for example, they have passed laws which criminalise a person who is perfectly aware and able to drive, merely because he has enjoyed one pint of lager. But it gets worse. The person who drinks one pint of lager cannot know whether he is ‘drunk’ or not. OK… ‘One pint of lager’ might be too low to register. I mean, the tolerances of breathalysers are too uncertain to be sure that a ‘blood/alcohol’ level is over the limit as regards one pint of lager. But the person who is being breathalysed has no way to counter accusations. Blood tests are equally uncertain.

Another ‘law’ has been the ‘named person’ conjecture which designed to ensure that no Scottish child will suffer in any way. How can you have a ‘law’ which is based upon a ‘conjecture’? The ‘conjecture’ is a ‘hope’. We ‘hope’ that named person plan will work. There is not alternative understanding. It is a ‘hope’. Also, of course, smokers have been persecuted further.

But what have Sturgeon and her accomplices done to improve the lives of ALL the Scottish people? It seems to me that what they have done convert the misery which they have heaped upon smokers and drinkers into a benefit for non-smokers and non-drinkers. How does that work?

I just cannot see it.

But what is equally important, if not more so, is that, as far as I can see, the SNP has not enacted anything which improves the lives of the Scottish people. Everything is negative. Ban this, ban that, ban the other. EVERYTHING has been negative.

But I may be totally wrong and am prepared to apologise.The SNP Government in Scotland may have done wonderful things. I do not know. I just see weird and contradictory things. One the one hand, the SNP wants total independence from the UK, but is happy to subject itself to EU regulation. Further, they have representation in the UK Parliament (presumably because they want to influence laws regarding Scotland), but would not abstain as regards the EU since more Scots voted to stay in the EU than did not.

So what is England forced to presume? It is that SOME OF the Scots want their cake and happeny. They want TOTAL INDEPENDENCE, but do not want to pay the price.

So I come back to my former question. What has the SNP Government in Scotland done to improve to lot of Scots?

You might reasonably ask why the SNP wants to leave the UK but become a small ‘object’ in the EU. How can the ‘publicity’ created persona of Sturgeon convert into a force in the EU? It cannot. I guess that there are lots of people who convert faces on the TV into powerful persons.

I  suspect that, if Scotland left the UK and nailed its colours to the EU, it would become a backwater of ‘equal impoverishment’.

I hate the whole situation. I hate the ‘Barnett Formula’. Not because it helped the Scots at the expense of the English, but because it produced the sclerotic situation that we have. Catch 22.

But I am not in despair. It can be worked out, but it would require honesty. There is no doubt that England helps out Scotland via the Barnett Formula. But you might reasonably ask why university students in Scotland pay nothing for their tuition while English student have to pay thousands of pounds. In the USA, it is even worse. The costs of being a university student are horrendous. I read somewhere that the costs can be upward of $70,000. Oh, and here is an interesting thing that I read – you cannot declare yourself bankrupt. If you are a university student, and borrow $70,000 dollars to pay for your course, you are forever indebted.

I understand the basic idea – that it would be too easy for a youth to declare himself bankrupt and walk away from his debts. I understand that, and do not pretend to know the answer.

It depends upon the creation of a new class. The new class is ‘clever buggers’. It was ‘clever buggers’ who created the EU. To those ‘clever buggers’,  everyone is either a worker bee or a renegade bee.

Is it any wonder that The People of England have rebelled?

 

Advertisements

6 Responses to “What Has the ‘Scottish National Party’ Done for Scotland?”

  1. Samuel Says:

    The purpose of government (not the legitimate or lawful purpose but that to which all governments devolve because they are formed by and from men; legitimate governments are created to protect people from crime, to ensure their equality under the laws) is to enslave and enserf the people so a small and well connected “elite” (there have always been a few who fancy themselves better than everyone else) can have everything and live off the labor of all the rest. “Crime” only happens when someone has been harmed in their person or property. Anything else any government makes a “crime” is illegitimate and that makes that government, itself, outside the law, or, in other words, every member of that government that makes or attempts to enforce such laws on all of us is a criminal. Proving their guilt shouldn’t be difficult except, aside from our juries, they control the courts. Punishment should be limited to decorating the outside walls of the houses of parliament for Christmas.

    • junican Says:

      Not sure that I have quite got your meaning right there, S.
      I suppose that we would have to go back tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of years to a point where one ‘strong’ man got to intervene in disputes. For is it not true that. even among animals, the strongest individual makes the decisions? But, at some point, the most knowledgeable ‘person’ became the arbiter rather than the strongest, which is where the ‘elders’ stepped in.
      Your point about lawmakers themselves becoming criminals is an interesting one. At what point does taxation become theft? Is it when lawmakers cheat on their expenses or grant themselves financial privileges?
      It all becomes horribly complicated.

      • Some French bloke Says:

        Not sure that I have quite got your meaning right there, S.

        I think Samuel may have put too much of his reasoning in the first sentence between brackets, and you have to read slowly twice to fully ‘get’ it. Here’s an attempt at re-phrasing it, getting rid of the brackets while salvaging their contents:

        “Legitimate governments are supposed to protect people from crime, to ensure their equality under the laws. But since they are formed by and from men, a few of whom always fancying themselves better than everyone else, the lawful purpose of said governments has been diverted to enslave and enserf the people so that a small and well connected “elite” can have everything and live off the labor of all the rest.”

        the most knowledgeable ‘person’ became the arbiter rather than the strongest

        But at some later point, a set of ‘clever buggers’ set themselves up as arbiters rather in lieu of the most knowledgeable persons…

    • Some French bloke Says:

      aside from our juries, they control the courts.

      Except that they indirectly, but largely, control the juries, too, since such men also operate the MainStream Media.

  2. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    The sooner Scotland is independent and receives no more subsidy from England the better.

    • junican Says:

      How about reinstating the ‘Kingdom of Mercia’, if there ever was such. ‘The Republic of Yorkshire’? Do the Scots really want Queen Sturgeon? We managed to vote out King Cameron and now have Queen May. What a farce!
      The weird thing is that the populations of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (whole of) are now so intermixed that few of us do not have a mix of ancestors from all of those countries. Geographically, Scotland is a defined landmass, but it is, essentially, just a region where some of The People of Britain live. Perhaps we should reinvent Great Britain and invite Ireland to join us. How about a referendum?

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: