Always forgive your enemies-nothing annoys them so much- Oscar Wilde
Scottish Labour- Breath of Fresh Air

Scottish Independence has "complicated" politics rather a lot, hasn't it? SNP in limbo, Labour in limbo and the thread of the General Election next year in the balance. So, watch this space...

Upon the announcement Lammont had resigned as Scottish Labour Leader, Miliband and co were left in a very dire situation, especially because it was over the lack of influence Scottish Labour had over the country. So finally, some sense has been drummed into the heads of Labour electorates, and they chose their most popular candidate, step in Jim Murphy.
A prominent figure amongst Labour supporters for supporting the No party for Scottish Independence, however it hasn't bothered anyone by the slightest. Having been the favourite from the start, Murphy won by a 50% majority, and actually has promises worth listening to, unlike his colleagues *cough* Miliband *cough*
With an apparent lose of identity amongst Labour and Scottish Labour in particular, Murphy has reverted back to the traditional red Labour that Miliband doesn't quite know. By promising a 50p income tax for those who earn over £150,000 a year, he is theoretically redistributing money from the rich to the poor... WELCOME BACK LABOUR!
This couldn't come at a better time for a failing party, an identity crisis, a leader looking like a Muppet (literally), and a General Election round the corner. Promising devolution for nationalists, lower taxes and more public spending for socialists, and a smile that you can actually trust. Win, win, win for Labour. Being a Tory, it may be surprising for me to be congratulating Labour on this appointment, but there's only one reason I support this, and that's purely down to "Bottler Brown". As Alex Salmond prompted, the one man promising the Scottish devolution reforms has resigned, Gordon Brown choked... Where have I seen that before? So with Murphy, I believe the Scottish will finally have a leader who might actually fufill his promises and keep the United Kingdom; United.
Jordan Ifield (congratulating Labour is a

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt- Abraham Lincoln
Labour- EU Following Suit (and also failing)

Every week I seem to find a problem in Labour policy/politicians/promises, and this week, is by no means any different. This weeks culprit: Yvette Cooper.
Immigration will be one of the major factors in determining the next government next year, we've all known that since UKIP actually gained some popularity. And ever since, the scramble to see who's actually prepared to kick out illegal immigrants has started, and so Labour were natural to pounce, with Cooper stating that "stronger checks" would be placed under a Labour government in immigration, proposing checks on previous criminal record in their native country. Now this sounds all well and good in a vague way, stop criminals gaining entry gaining to the country. We all want that, however; it doesn't take long for some scrutiny to demolish it.
Take Labour's previous immigration promise for example: 1000 new immigration officers if we're in government. Cooper used this as justification for their new promise of new checks on criminal records. But as far as i can see, 1000 new officers in a country as big as the UK won't make a difference, especially if it's 1) only against criminals (small minority) and 2) only for those outside the EU. It's a bit like discovering you have a water leak, and cover it over with paper, point at it with a big neon sign to the public saying "LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE DONE!"
Labour, and all the other "big" parties, seem to be overlooking the big picture. For the public, you and me, the biggest problem regarding immigration is how many people are coming through our borders. Not racist, it's just there are too many. Labour are promising more staff, Tories are promising reforms, Lib Dems are still imploding, its only UKIP that (unfortunately) have a strong immigration policy, with policy and conviction, just that it's a bit racist for my liking. UKIP have sounded out the EU for all our immigration issues, and I agree with them on that, and only the Conservatives have got close enough to that by promising an EU Referendum. Apart from that it's been a shambles ever since Britain became exploited by the EU. Bailing countries out, lending it more money just because our economy is better than everyone else's, and more importantly we still need to stay. The trade and relations we grow from it are outstanding, so when Cooper suggests anymore reforms in England, someone donate her a "Dunce" hat and remind her that the main immigration problem doesn't come from us, but the EU.
Jordan Ifield (spoken like a true Tory)



If I am pushed I will push back, that is the way I am. I am very British. We don't like to be pushed around. When the chips are down we might have to step into grey areas- Damon Hill

Star Wars Episode VI- Revenge of the Salmond

It was only just last week that I wrote a blog on someone who's not wanted... But thankfully, he had the good sense to retire (thank you Brown). However, Mr. Salmond is now making a return, and an unpleasant one.

Being the leader of the failed "Yes" campaign of the Scottish Independence Referendum was never going to be a good thing. Neither was resigning because of it. But because of that resignation from Alex the Salmond, his dignity was left partially intact... Until now. Yes, he has decided to enter the running of MP (the UK one! What a shocker...) in the constituency of Gordon. Let there be fireworks...
Now, as it turns out, this is a disastrous move by Salmond, because it will only gain him and his party, the SNP, more critics. Its only been 2 months since his "noble" defeat at Holyrood in the Independence Referendum, and whilst the English couldn't vote, as a whole, we were against independence. So I don't see the SNP getting many votes, especially when 1) they don't prioritize English issues in an English Parliament! And 2) Salmond has already stated that they have no intention of running Government, defeating the point of their running in the General Election, and wasted votes as a result... Poor logic is evident.
However, I can give Salmond some sympathy, firstly, he lost the Independence Referendum (although was a sore loser) and secondly, the one man to guarantee the reforms promised for Scotland if the Yes party lost the election, (Bottler Brown) has lived up to his name and bottled it by resigning. So, promised reforms without any due date, good luck Scotland. And with all attention in politics turning towards the General Election next year, whilst everyone hisses at UKIP for anti-feminist views, it seems increasingly unlikely we'll ever see any Scottish Political Reforms in our lifetime.
What now then? Before next years election, we can predict what the result will be, and with almost certain credibility, I can say: I have no idea who will win. If you take the results of the previous MP elections in Gordon, you'll find that ever since it joined as a Member of the UK Parliament in 1983, the Liberal Democrats have won every time. However, this possibility is looking increasingly unlikely next year, with the combination of the Lib Dems virtually imploding, and the gain in popularity for the SNP, Labour and the Conservatives in Scotland, it's anybody's game. And if Alex Salmond loses... Well, he is stuffed. Can he risk failure again? No is the simple answer, he'll disappear into a history textbook in 50 years time as a Key Figure in why the Scottish didn't gain their independence in 2014.... That'll be the day!
Jordan Ifield (that would be a good textbook)

I always wanted to be somebody, but now I realize I should have been more specific- Lily Tomlin

Gordon Brown Resigns as MP- HALLELUJAH

The day has finally come, whether you love him or hate him (me), Gordon Brown has finally decided to throw in the towel. Having been MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (where the hell is that?!) for 31 years... 31 years... How can they cope? He has resigned, or at least will, after the 2015 General Election. But what does this leave for Brown? And what reputation has he left behind?

Bias is something that is strong for me when it comes to Gordon Brown, 1) because I have only lived to have seen or known about his huge mistakes in the 2008 World Economic Crisis, and 2) I live in a deeply Conservative South East constituency... You can see where this is going...

But where do I start? Back in the day, before I was born, Labour needed reformation or a renaissance, and the Blair-Brown co-op offered this in 1997, and much more. It offered the Labour Party a new lead on socialism, and being a keen economist and nerd, Brown virtually walked into the role of Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1997. That was an achievement, a huge one, which he capitalized on by using his mathematics and graphs to reform our economy, with public spending being prioritized, and with living standards increasing, Mr Brown hadn't done bad in his first term.. But this allowed him to get ambitious... Too ambitious.

Anyone for a pint of failure?

It had been long speculated that Gordon had wanted to be Prime Minister, from a young age. I'm not sure about that, maybe an astronaut, or in the case of Gordon Brown, probably Mickey Mouse, but not Prime Minister. But in 2007, having seen Labour's popularity drop with the Iraq War-"miraculous" disappearance of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the warning alarms on the economy going off, Blair wisely jumped ship, leaving his colleague (Brown) to fill the shoes of a clown in a fire of economic disaster. That was precarious enough, and I feel some sympathy for him... But I'm afraid the next few years of his life were dotted with incompetence and stubbornness.

Firstly, having gained leadership of the country, without a General Election, he should've naturally caled one. Just to gain public backing, and with his ratings and Labour's on the infamous "Brown Bounce", it seemed he would've won... But then he done the also infamous, "Bottler Brown" and decided to let his ratings to fall, and this became a recurring theme for the next few years... 3 words: Economy, Boom, Bust. 2008 wasn't exactly the brightest year of his life... And will be forever remembered as the year, Brown cocked up. He saved the banks, which was valiant enough, but not his bacon. The again, infamous, recession occurred, and the rest is history. Because of this incident. Brown and Labour were predicted to lose the 2010 General Election, but because this was Brown behind the reins, it was natural that he was going to go out spectacularly. And not only did he do so, but he also managed to nail the coffin of defeat, by calling a deep Labour supporter a "bigot"... Even at the young age of 12, I knew that the word bigot was not a nice word... So because of Brown, I have remembered the most pleasing memories in history: the moment Gordon Brown put his hands in his head upon hearing the news... Thanks for the legacy Brown!

Jordan Ifield (Now let the discussion begin!)

For the powerful, crimes are those that others commit- Noam Chomsky


Ed Balls- Hypocritical, he is

I know I am biased in such a rant against Labour, but never have I seen such a huge flaw in a statement since Gordon Brown called a Labour supporter a "bigot". But with George Osborne releasing news of an extra £2 billion to the NHS, it can be nothing but good news. Can it, Labour? After all, you did mention nearly exactly the same proposal in your 2014 party conference.

But no.... Out comes Ed Balls... And I thought Ed Miliband didn't know what he was talking about. The Andrew Marr Show today gave another perspective to Labours' position as Leader of the Opposition... Hypocritical without justification. That's how low they have gone. Ed Balls heavily criticized Osborne's proposal, for not saying where the money is coming from, fair enough, until you realise that he's going to do so on Wednesday.... If that's not enough hypo criticism for you, check out what he said next...

Mr. Balls believes that this extra 2 billion pounds will come from savings, like the ones used to bail the country out of recession etc... Does the year 2008 ring a bell? Or does the crash of banks make a better bell? Yep, the one party that was responsible for the UK going through one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression of the 1920's, has publicly lauded the party that got us OUT OF IT, that they are spending too much.... That's too much for my mind to take. I struggle to comprehend the sheer lack of common sense in Balls' response.

Okay, back down on planet earth, I realise that as part of the Opposition, he can't commend the proposals. But as part of the Labour party, you must realise that the Conservatives have done the right thing. They have cut until the tills were going again, and then rewarded them. Positive motivation for a failing economy, and just when Labour were complaining of living standards in the UK, BAM, another 2 billion into the NHS. And whilst the Conservatives have had snags along the way e.g. EU and UKIP, but they've done a better job than Labour would've done if they'd stayed in government with the economic policies of a kid with a £50 note in Toys R Us.

Jordan Ifield ((Shut up, Ed) Family Guy reference #563)

 

 

Be warned: A person content to sit with you and criticize others will speak critically of you out of earshot- Richelle E. Goodrich


England bites back

Don't we all remember the festivities of the Scottish Independence referendum? Remember the gathering of thousands round the Christmas tree e.g. Holyrood, awaiting the announcement of their present: Independence. And they only got a tangerine and staying part of the UK. But with the promise of devolution from the Government, will the tangerine turn into an xbox one?

Well... We still don't know the answer to that.... 2 months have now passed, with no conclusive result; no law, no policy, no SNP victory. As a result, many Scots gave become agitated by the lack of reforms, and pin the blame on Gordon Brown. One, because its Gordon Brown, and two, he was arguably one of the most influential politicians in the referendum, and promised reform.... Which hasn't arrived. And even the English are getting a bit puzzled by this... And want their reforms back.




English councils, are never happy. They have the widest spectrum imaginable, between recycling your rubbish they are helping fix the national debt. So reward them why not? Even though they are arguably lousy at their jobs, there's no need to cut their funding dare I say, or even let Scots (who are not involved in any way shape or form) vote on their issues? Now that would be wrong, wouldn't it Mr. Blair in 1997? Or Mr. Cutameron?




As far as I can see, the councils have a right to be angry, Scottish councils have been largely well protected, as they have been promised reforms and devolution, and whilst it hasn't arrived yet, it's almost inevitable. Whilst English councils have been left in no mans land, with counting coppers becoming a sport in some counties, and with no new reforms for greater control, and those north of the border gaining a pot more control, I can only really see a one way ticket to a debate in the House of Commons, and Gordon Brown. Cue the canned laughter.


Jordan Ifield (because we all laughing at Gordon Brown)

In, out, in, out and shake it all about- Nursery Rhyme and Monster Raving Loony Party Manifesto

EU- Cameron given "Major" Blow

Think Blair and Brown, or Thatcher and Major, one things is always told from one Prime Minister to another before their time. Most of it is almost like a telling off, e.g. Don't cock up the economy with HUGE public spending and have no reserves, cough* Brown *cough* . But one thing that I and many others weren't expecting, was a 90's Prime Minister to have a say on modern EU politics and David Cameron. And for once, the odd ball was right!

Sir John Major, not remembered very well, maybe the creepy eyes and glasses spring to mind, and then Blair straight after him. However, he does have some brains, and some will, when it comes to the EU, and has hit the nail on the head with its issues and resolutions. Problem: Over immigration. Resolution: Reform EU and restrict immigration. Simple as that.




Well, it's easier said than done I can imagine, but it's what the UK needs. The UK's population has risen by 7% over a decade, which isn't purely down to immigration, but holds a large proportions of it. We'd run out of room and resources by then, and in contrast, in the next couple of decades, Germany is predicted to stay the same, or in some cases, go down! No wonder Merkel is opposed to any EU reforms... I can just see Germany opposing any restrictions on the EU based on democracy, but if they had the same problem of overpopulation as us, she would be begging for the same reforms we are. Unfortunately, I can only see the conservatives bottling it, we all saw their complacency with the EU Arrest Warrant, but Cameron will see the bulging puppy eyes of Merkel and follow anything she says. And only one person in British politics would dare defy her, and if I saw Nigel Farage as Britain's Prime Minister in my life time, I'd probably move to France and wear a stripy shirt and eat cheese for the rest of my life.


So, what now for the EU? Leave, reform, or stay? The only issue is, I can see only 2 options being picked if any, and those are the wrong ones. If Mr. Blunt Racist Farage gets his way and we leave the EU, despite his claims, our economy would falter due to the lack of faith in trade, and we'd lose precious allies, or lose trust. But if we stayed in the EU without reform, we'd keep loaning money for the rest of our lives to failing countries e.g. Greece. And we'd lose faith in allies due to overpopulation and Merkels conservative attitude. The UK and David Cameron are too weak to challenge anyone, and make the reforms that this country needs, to give us breathing space from immigrants, appease our population and shut Mr.Farage up for good... And then I'll be happy. Especially with a lack of Mr. Farage.


Jordan Ifield (Merkel + Garage = WW3)

It is better to fail aiming high than to succeed aiming low- Bill Nicholson

Conservatives and Labour- Lying through gritted teeth

Where to start... Europe isn't to be meddled with, especially in this current climate of divide between pro-EU and Eu-skeptics. UKIP have become very prominent on such a climate, and now pose a serious threat in "stealing" constituencies from both Labour and Conservatives come May 2015.


 So when it comes to promises about the EU, you should stick to them... Stand up the Conservatives.

Promising a vote in the House of Commons over the controversial EU Arrest Warrant was always going to be double edged sword. The Conservative's bottled it, but why? Surely Labour's promise to vote Yes would be enough wouldn't it. Labour and Conservative make up the vast majority of the Commons, so it was guaranteed result. Wasn't it? However, the Conservative's claim that whilst Labour had told them that they would vote Yes, their whip would actually instruct them to do otherwise...

Hard times call for hard measures... And here is the extreme case, this week has been, quite frankly, disastrous for Miliband and Labour. When several Labour MP's have called for Miliband to resign, or in most cases, something worse, Labour needed to get the bit back in between their teeth, and realise that the General Election was just round the corner. It was almost another "bigot" moment, and one that was, as it turns out, made worse.

The phrase "offence is the best defence" couldn't be more precise here, and going all out against the Conservatives, is arguably, their favourite and most used policy over their history. So when it came to the EU Arrest Warrant, which if you look at Labours pro-EU ideology and past, you would think they'd vote yes, but because of their audacious and pathetic plan, they fell face first into the puddle of shame. Not before they had given the tories a kick up the backside though, and arguably relieving the pressure off Red Ed.


It was a compromise for Labour, and one which was short term, but it worked. Because there was no other alternative. If the Conservatives had decided to keep their promise, which they should've done, and held a vote on the EU Arrest Warrant, many MP's, including Labour would've voted no, due to controversy. And most likely, they would've lost, which would leave egg on their face... Again.


However, the alternative, of breaking the promise and not holding a vote, gave Labour an excuse to call the Conservatives undemocratic and untrustworthy, which in this case, they were. This relieved pressure off Miliband and Labour, and for once, since the Scottish Independence Referendum, Labour aren't the ones to blame. They were only partially to blame. For such an audacious and incompetent plan, that won due to the Conservatives dead end.


Jordan Ifield (Ed Miliband still needs to step down)

The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says: "It's a girl"- Shirley Chisholm

Ummm... UKIP... What have you done?..

Racism is often an accusation made against UKIP, with their often considered racist policies and ideology. I'm one of them to be honest, and another is Baroness Wheatcroft, however sexist isn't one I had associated with them... Until now...

Janusz Korwin-Mikke- He's certainly off my Christmas list

Don't we all remember when UKIP lost their ally to make their "Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group" (and very radical right wing, unnecessary immigration policies). It made UKIP's membership in the EU Parliament look like a farce, and to save themselves from me laughing at them for another day, they rescue their group by gaining another ally. And in terms of me laughing at UKIP, they have only given me ammunition, and suprisingly, sexual slurs which NEED addressing.

Janusz Korwin-Mikke has a treacherous and VERY controversial past, so why did UKIP hire him? He said that women SHOULDN'T have the right to vote in 2007, that is undemocratic and he shouldn't have any place in politics for that alone, and as UKIP have probably realized by now, has tainted their image horrendously, not that is was in good shape anyway! Maybe he could be forgived though, if he apologized and kept a low profile, but under UKIP, who have a racist-sceptic approach, he's been able to spread his controversial wings and announced that some women who are rape victims, actually want sex.... Has he by any chance heard of the word sexist?

I can't see his logic, or his common sense for that matter. Usually I wouldn't comment on political matters outside of mainstream or unrelated nonsense. But this case in particular wanted me to send a message to UKIP and their supporters. You are supporting a party, who are so desperate to make a group, that they have the ethical mind of sexist dinosaur, to make up the numbers.Whilst this isn't the first time UKIP have been under the spotlight, and aren't (supposedly) as racist as the BNP (who don't even deserve my breath saying) I do think they crossed a definite line. Politics is supposed to problems, whatever they may be, not creating a series of ethical and moral issues that are as dated as medieval.

Jordan Ifield (As you may gather, I'm not a UKIP supporter...)

If you could kick the person in the pants responsible for most of your trouble,
 you wouldn't sit for a month-  Theodore Roosevelt

Ed Miliband- Give up now

Every week Miliband is often in the front pages, and never for the right reason. And has now got to the extent that Labour MP's have noticed this, to which they have let their insults fly and truths (yes, they are) be told. However, it is with deepest regret and well, laughing stock continued, that Miliband actually has an ally... Pfftttt.... What now? Labour to win the next General Election? Don't be daft....

Well, as it turns out... No they won't, but it's always reassuring that the loser, Ed Miliband, won't be alone. Former Leader of the Labour Party, Lord Kinnock, has defended Miliband's position as Leader, and labelled challenges to his position as "nonsense". So those 3 out of 4 electorate groups for the Labour Leader vote were wrong to choose David Miliband? And that there isn't enough evidence to show that Miliband isn't worthy of Labour Leader? I mean, if you look at Ed's track record, it isn't the brightest. His position before Labour Leader was the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change... Hardly a good background, and forging an alliance with arch-rivals over the Scottish Independence Referendum, exposing your weakest link in Scottish Constituencies, wasn't the best idea either. OR forgetting the deficit in your 2014 Labour Party Conference... THE BIGGEST ISSUE IN BRITAIN TODAY.... I'm sorry, but to justify Ed Miliband, either you have lost your marbles, or I have lost mine.


So, where now for the blundering buffoon? The best scenario for many, would've been for David Miliband to be Labour Leader. As I and many others believe he is more mature and has the background with (common sense) where Ed lacks. However, as David has flew off to the USA, what is the best scenario? The resignation of Ed would be welcomed in many areas, but would be putting a white flag out before the 2015 General Election. So he's stuck in a "messy" situation, but as far as I can see, Labour don't have many chances winning the General Election next year, as they have lost too much faith in Miliband and in Scotland devolution, so why not resign? It would be the turning point for Labour (again), but one that would be welcomed. They need a strong willed Leader with a direction and identity to lead Labour into the 21st Century and to win a General Election.


Jordan Ifield (being a Tory, I don't mind if Miliband still looks like a fool though)

Fairness is not an attitude. It's a professional

skill that must be developed and exercised.- Brit Hume

Undermining Authority

When MP's are elected by their constituency, a certain level of decency is often expected of them, one not only to his constituents, but his common sense. Because, MP or not, stealing is illegal. The law stands firm on this, or does it? The expenses scandal over claims made by MP's that were invalid have undoubtedly made some of the public lose faith in the political system. And why should they trust it? As far as we get to see is the backdoors of Westminster and the newspapers showing us all of these scandals. Hardly a transparent system if you ask me.

So why is the news that claims made by MP's are destroyed after 3 years not surprising? And that it stops the investigation into the scandal dead. It's just beggars belief how the public can believe in a system which covers up scandals. Covers up investigations. Covers up criminals. How can we be politically be lead by people who are potentially criminals? We can't, and whilst I saw this newsflash unsurprising, it does make me wonder why anyone bothers thinking about the turnout problem in the UK.


Its obvious, the system is flawed, or more importantly, the people who lead us are flawed. I can't vote for a MP in my constituency if I knew he was going to claim millions on second homes or duck houses. It's criminal, and whilst the loop hole existed, I blame the MP's who exploited it. That loop hole could've existed for a thousand years, and no one would've batted an eye lid if no one exploited it. But if the by-election in my constituency had an MP formerly accused of over claiming expenses, they're not getting my vote. They're the reason I wouldn't vote at all. They're the reason I would lose faith in the political system.


Jordan Ifield (It sounds more like a mafia than a government if you ask me)

The only difference between suicide and martyrdom really is the
amount of press coverage- Chuck Palahniuk

Labour-1983 all over again?

It was only around a month ago when I got the pleasure of talking to a Baroness of the House of Lords, and we talked, strangely enough, over the need for reform in the House of Lords. We agreed on the need for change in terms of age, with the average currently at 70 and all but ruled out the possibility of a 2nd elected Chamber over the contradicting function of it and the House of Commons. According to me and the rest of the room, this made sense, because whilst we admitted it wasn't perfect, nothing was and alternatives looked scarce. Reform was unanimously and silently preferred in a room of around 50 along a Baroness, strong opposition against, a very weak and reactionary Ed Miliband...  There will be riots...

The USA has many things that the UK doesn't, for example: bad cars, fake bacon and the fact that I can't walk in an alcoholic shop without getting decapitated under suspicion of age drinking. But whilst, unfortunately, some of these ideas are filtering over to the UK, there's one I'm well and truly against, and it just happens to be Labour's next big proposal... What a surprise...

In 1983, Labour infamously made the "Longest suicide note in history" with their manifesto for that years election favoring extremely left wing policies and ideologies, which frankly bewildered many Labour supporters to voting Conservative in a landslide victory for the right wing party. This has been argued as a reason for the rebirth of Labour under Blair in 1997, and whilst this is in the past, events seem to be re-occurring. One of the proposals in the infamous 1983 "suicide" manifesto was to abolish the House of Lords, and it has striking similarities with the proposal by Miliband today to replace the House of Lords with a Senate. Cue the canned laughter.

Recently resigned  Scottish Labour Leader, Johann Lamont, accused several Labour MP's of being dinosaurs over the treatment of a Scotland wanting to devolve. It has been very clear that the conviction of the promises made by Miliband to Scotland have been poor, and that her resignation left a scar in his Scottish reputation (it's hard to believe he had one anyway). So in clear retaliation, much like the one made by the "Big Three" in the Scottish Referendum, Miliband has proposed a senate which would elect Senators from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. But as far as I see, it's just glorified false hope with no more potential of his hopes of being Prime Minister next year. Miliband has clearly just seen warning signs from Lamont's resignation, realized he was in a hole, made a very shoddy glorified proposal and stuck a sticker on it. Admittedly, there is a problem in the ratio of members of Lords from constituencies, especially in London, but how does this solve the issue? Not the ratio issue, the wider picture, the one that shows the UK's falling turnouts. This would have no affect on turnouts, and because it's only a glorified House of Lords, people would perhaps have less faith in politics, after all, no one wants an expensive change in politics only for it to have no impact. In conclusion: Miliband, actually have some creativity and come up with clever proposals that will work, not retaliate like a 5 year old on the naughty step.

Jordan Ifield (or should Miliband just step down?...)

By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail- Benjamin Franklin

Labour- Act your Age

I'm sure to many of you, that with the General Election only 191 days away (I was sad enough to look it up) Labour look like they're in shambles. The Scottish Independence Referendum seemed to expose their lack of structure or form, and more importantly, how little faith they have in Ed Miliband. And we can see why. 

On Friday, rather unexpectedly, Johann Lamont resigned from her post as Leader of the Scottish Labour Party. This may not surprise you or me at any other time of the year, but right here, right now, it exposes Labour's weaknesses and it is clearly not a coincidence. Here resignation is after the Scottish Independence and the annual Labour Party Conference, with the General Election looming round the corner. So what significance does this have? Firstly, Miliband publicly embarrassed himself in the Scottish Independence Referendum, according to Labour MP's, by joining forces with Cameron and Clegg (he still exists?) and promising further Scottish Devolution, and now that they are still part of the UK, these promises aren't exactly taking 5 minutes. And with Labour having strong support in Scotland, its likely they may lose constituencies because of it. This is crucial, considering the General Election next year now has the potential for Labour to look like a laughing stock.

So where does this leave Labour? Quite frankly, a sitting duck. It's bad enough for one of your most popular leaders to stand down, in one of your most popular areas. But to leave on the grounds that Scotland didn't get enough power in the UK through Labour, really shows that the Scottish people have been betrayed. 45% of the turnout in Scotlan'ds Independence Referendum voted yes, and those people will be absolutely fuming, not only over those that voted no, but also Labour. Who's not going to vote for Labour, them. And so many more from those who voted no, and realize that they have been betrayed by Labour and the other parties. I wouldn't be half surprised if the Monster Raving Loony Party got an MP in Scotland now, because if you don't vote SNP in Scotland, who else do you vote for? If you choose Conservative, Labour or Lib Dems (they've still not imploded?) you're going to be betraying Scotland's democratic future. If you vote SNP, you're just voting for a party who are regretting not winning the referendum and won't make many changes because of it. And that leaves UKIP.... Just no. I think even Scotland know that leaving the EU is not the answer to everything. Anyone for the Monster Raving Loony Party? Free owl on membership!

Jordan Ifield

It's one thing to shoot yourself in the foot. Just don't reload the gun- Lindsey Graham

Recall- Combatting a Corrupt Parliament

It's very rarely the case where you justify the option to sack yourself. But, at least theoretically, that's what MP's backed in the House of Commons on Tuesday. This had been a demanding issue for some time, often seen as a more democratic role of the MP, with the option to get rid of them before the next by-election every 5 years. And whilst, on paper, this looks promising, it's not black and white...

Greg Clark: The man begind the recall debate and the
smoking gun

The principle with a recall is that if an MP has done wrongdoing, such as criminal intent. They can then be removed through another by-election,  forced by a petition from their constituency (at least 10% have to sign it). This would therefore combat the old system of an MP getting a prison sentence smaller than 12 months, and still holding their position. Like many, I hold the opinion that this is wrong, as it is hard to justify anyone keeping their job after such offences. Politicians should have the same right as anyone in these situations, and be sacked, or at least petitioned against. 

However, whilst there is an overwhelming majority of MP's that support recall, there are 2 rival methods of recall being proposed. The first and simpler of the 2 is being proposed by MP of Tunbridge Wells, Greg Clark. His system would be to get by-election through a petition in the constituency which needed 10% of the turnout. But surely, ten percent is a small amount, and it still leaves the loop hole of the MP switching parties and not attend Parliament or go on holiday. This is an opinion hel by Zac Goldsmith, who has devised the rival plan, and the proposal is that a petition with 5% of their constituency signing, with an intent to recall and then 20% to recall their MP. In terms of comparison, I can only see one major difference, democracy.

Zac Goldsmith: The man behind the rival recall
and wins my vote

Constituents need to feel a sense of security that their MP will represent them at all costs, that he would fight tooth and claw for their cause. So if you were voting right now, you would be concerned if your MP was to not turn up at Parliament, or disappear to Egypt on a 5 month vacation. This would, undoubtedly leave you with less faith in the electoral system, and may even put more voters off voting all together! And we don't need another cover up of the turnout crisis in Britain... So why close a loop hole in Clark's proposal, and then create another through changing parties. I for this reason believe, with 68 other MP's, that Goldsmith's proposal is better, as it aims to progress Britain democratically.

Jordan Ifield (Goldsmith has an amazing haircut)



Don’t talk, just act. Don’t say, just show. Don’t promise, just prove- Unknown

Back to normalities-Fighting

Can't we all just get along? Nearly a month on from the Scottish Independence Referendum, and the last minute promises made by the "big three" (Cameron, Miliband and Clegg)  have only lead to them all going at each others necks and allowed Gordon Brown back into mainstream politics... I know which one I'd rather not.....




Quickly thought out policies don't usually end well, especially when they're made for a country who are quite impatient. However the devolution of Scotland seems to have hit a snag over, England of all things. Just this Wednesday, William Hague argued that if Scotland devolves, then English MPs should vote for England, closing a loop hope that Scottish MP's can still vote on English policies, that don't affect them. Weirdly, Labour and Gordon Brown (oh god) believe that this policy was enforced by David Cameron after the Referendum, and that doing so would undermine the union.... Pardon?




Gordon Brown specifically said in the debate that Scottish MPs should sit on equal terms with English MPs... So how come Scottish MPs can vote on English exclusive legislations and English MPs can't do this in return? To me at least it sounds that Brown has no argument to justify, and he's quite possibly lost his marbles (again). But Hague summarised the situation of limbo both Scotland and England are in with "The United Kingdom is in greater making danger if the legitimate arguments, and expectations of English decision making, on decisions only affecting England, are not responded to". And I'm afraid Mr.Brown, he's right. This flaw has been around too far, and is now starting to damage our relationship with Scotland over devolution, and England needs its own rights too. So if you only want to annoy Scotland, carry on. But if Labour does have some common sense, then maybe they'll help fulfil promises they actually made.


Jordan Ifield

Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything- George Bernard Shaw

Baroness Wheatcroft

Isn't it a pleasure to meet someone who's on Wikipedia? Well, on friday, I got this wish granted, and when the Baroness came at 2 o'clock, I was very keen to what she had to say...

The first thing that she mentioned was the difference in the House of Commons and her position in the House of Lords, and was very keen to mention that the Lords (supposedly) had a greater variation in professions and races than in the Commons. Whilst this bewildered me for a second, simply by the sheer innocence (or more "we're better than them") comment, I listened on and wasn't surprised to hear her say about the average age of the House of Lords. Whilst many have this aged image of the House of Lords, and many believe it wrong, it can be perceived as true, with the average age of a Lord being 70. Now whilst this doesn't surprise me, I did agree with her that this does perhaps need to be changed. Whilst it is stereotypical to think that older people have more conservative views than younger people, in a case such as this, maybe something needs to happen, just to help a new generation get involved and make a difference in British politics.

Another thing that she mentioned, and I agreed on, was the constant legislation passed into the House of Lords. The Conservatives have been accused of making policies too much around public opinion, instead of their ideologies, making them too weak to support their arguments. This reflects in the case of legislation, anything big in the news, and by the time you can say "we don't need another legislation", there's another legislation proposal sitting at your doorstep. What significance does this have? It becomes a nuisance, with unnecessary and flawed legislation that wouldn't stand up to stop a burglar stealing a packet of crisps.

Whilst I would've listened to her story all day, it was pressing to hear a Lord's view on many of the pressing subjects in the news. For example, a subject which I have a strong (biased) opinion on, allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote. I feel very strongly that they should be given the vote, because I believe that if you had the knowledge to vote, your being denied a human right. However it was clear that she didn't share the same views, and used the example of the Scottish Independence Referendum as evidence to support that they shouldn't, as 70% said Yes. However, because they have a different opinion doesn't mean they can't vote, and whilst this is only an interpretation, they still had a strong opinion and knowledge to vote, and I think that if you have those two things, there shouldn't be anything stopping you from voting.

By the end of the Q&A, I'd felt enlightened on the workings of the House of Lords and Parliament, as well as pessimism on the situation in Israel and scandals. But by the end, one question I was keen to get an answer to, took an unexpected twist... "What is your opinion on the House of Commons being able to, in a very rare case, overrule any decision made in the House of Lords? E.g. Fox Hunting". Her response, was interesting... She said that it was the House of Lords job to advise and "educate" the House of Commons, and it was always their decision, the Lords weren't there to overturn anything. This surprised me in many ways, but the sheer innocence of saying that it was their job to "educate" the House of Commons seemed to me, a bit offensive. Admittedly I did point this out to her, but it did make me thinks afterwards. Do Lords feel like they're untouchable, they can't get "sacked" after all, and do they feel more worthy of status than those in the Commons. Maybe that's a step too far, but I do think that some reforms need to be installed in the House of Lords, perhaps a way in which Lords can be sacked, or an elected chamber, which may be rather difficult. But I still agree with her that something needs to change in the House of Lords, or the consequences maybe fatal to a British "democracy".

Jordan Ifield

It's always a wake-up call to get beaten- Usain Bolt

Avengers Assemble, Again...

Isn't it ironic I wrote my first blog with the same headline, and I now sit here writing this against another common enemy. It's hard to find any political news or headlines that don't revolve around UKIP, their recent rise to power over the past few weeks, in a year that has been huge for them, is incredible. But then again, I can say they are growing well in popularity, but it's safe to say, I'm not one of them. And neither are any other political parties for that matter.

Cameron, Miliband and (Clegg is supposed to be here, but he's too busy trying to stop his party from imploding) are all gathering again, not against the SNP and Alex Salmond, but an even worse threat. Nigel Farage and attempt to stop him laughing in the face of the EU. One problem. They have the wrong end of the stick. Ed Miliband, for example, accused UKIP members of not thinking "the parties listened to them, or that the country represented them". The flaw in this, that he is right. But he hasn't changed that. And neither are the Tories, or the Lib Dems (who are losing voter left, right and centre anyway). In reality, UKIP have gained voters by the thousands over the course of this year, and the Conservatives, Labour and Lib Dems have almost sat back and relaxed in awe of this spectacle. No political party has made such a change in British politics in such a small space of time, but it's not for the better.

The current political climate is so unpredictable at the minute, that it's hard to make a firm judgement at where I see any political parties by the end of the General Election. But with the recent by-elections, I can safely (and gladly) say, that UKIP be in office next year. Whilst the Clacton by-election may say different judging by the huge win for Clacton, but Labour still won the Haywood and Middleton by-election, showing that by no means UKIP are walking over everyone. And whilst they did slash Labours majority by just over 600, this still shows that UKIP still aren't appealing to everyone. This is where my conclusion comes in, I believe UKIP are many peoples second party. These people would vote any of the Big Three parties (as a generalization), but when most of these parties are bickering amongst themselves and don't keep promises (e.g. LIBERAL DEMOCRATS) they fall out of favour with these parties... Step in UKIP. They have the ideal policies for everyone, at the minute, centered on tightening immigration, which is undeniably a big problem now, and blaming the EU for all of our problems, which each and every Briatain can admit to do every now and then!


Jordan Ifield

It is easier to forgive an enemy than to forgive a friend- William Blake

UKIP Manual #754- How to annoy the Tories

It's not very often that a silver plate comes along with the chance to gain a substantial amount of voters, but on that very rare occasion, UKIP seems to have taken them all. It's safe to say that none of the big 3 parties capitalized on their last party conferences before the General Election. David Cameron "resenting the poor", Miliband forgetting the deficit and Clegg getting egg on his face by not supporting expanding runways at airports, which all show the world, how not to gain voters. The tide then can only go one way... UKIP.... Unfortunately.

With the gain of two former Conservative MP's, it is clear to see that they have capitilaized well with the complacency of the Tories, but one key element of their speech bugged me from the word go, "choose change". Change is a broad and vague term, and is exactly what UKIP have been "supposedly" wanting for years, and now this seems like the ideal time to take it, whilst the big 3 are still recovering. But there is only 1 thing UKIP have had a strong ideology and policy about, immigration. As far as I can see, the rest of their policies are just reactionary and not exactly realistic. 

Good joke Nigel- All your policies our based on leaving
the EU

For example, how would UKIP save tax payers money? Leave the EU, and save £55 million a day (in their 2014 manifesto). Sorry?  Do UKIP understand economic policy? Their answer to everything is to leave the EU! It's like a child reaction to losing it's candy, "but I want to!" And I may not be a mathematician, but that sounds like a Utopian dream, and even if it were true how much of that money would get filtered back into society? And what about the long term? That £55 million may not be a one off payment, but with a population of around 64 million, what major difference is it going to make?

But back to the recent by-elections, and again, "vote UKIP, get UKIP". Sure, you can do that, but either way, you're still not a big threat. Yes, the Conservatives were keen to outly that UKIP were getting stronger and emphasised how the traitorship of their MP's was "disgraceful" but the hole UKIP dug themselves in the build up to this, is too deep. The claims of racism and lack of political depth (it's all based on leaving the EU! And we'll have a referendum on that if we stay with the Conservatives anyway) before the EU Parliamentary Election gave UKIP a lot of bad publicity, and its swayed people (like me) to believe that UKIP don't have any sense of direction and can be ideologically racist. 

Jordan Ifield (I'm clearly anti-UKIP)

Any man can make mistakes, but only an idiot persists in his error- Marcus Cicero

Lib Dems- Shot in foot

Do the Liberal Democrats want to be voted? Because I previously thought that the Labour and Conservative party conferences weren't successful, but to publicly decide to raise taxes and savagely criticize the conservatives and David cameron for their actions in the economic recovery won't lead to any new voters, or any previous ones.




Utopia seems to be in Clegg's mind, and that he will get it... Somehow. Nearly all of us admit, the economy has improved, but it's not perfected. And the Lib Dems, have been a part of the coalition which has got us this far. They should appreciate that, and so to say that the best way of perfecting it is through tax rises won't win them any voters, even considering that the public have been cut enough through public spending.


One key element in their speech that particularly disgruntled me, had to be the accusations of both Labour and the Conservatives, which were based, theoretically, on stereotypes. The justification behind saying that "Labour would screw the economy" may have been true 5 years ago, but who knows what they might do next time round. Another could be said for the Conservatives "punishing the poor", correct me if I'm wrong, but after the Conservatives walked into No 10 in 2010, the poor have generally been better off economically! Their basis for these accusations have been based on traditional stereotypes from ideologies made in the early 1900's, which both parties have distanced themselves from since the 90's...


So, having ranted on about the Lib Dems, it's clear to me that all the 3 main (arguably) parties have changed their stances before the General Election next year, and none of them for the better. The worst feeling (for me) is that UKIP are the only benefactors from these conferences, which worries me...


Jordan Ifield

Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. - Bernard Baruch

Conservative "Promises"

Another party conference, another round of deciphering promises and lies, and this time the Conservatives. But this year, it's not any new Tory conference, because this year, they back to their roots. Cut taxes, stricter immigration and protect the NHS (accusing Labour of mismanagement), what is more left wing?

This is especially surprising to some us, because a recent trend would indicate that parties are moving away from their traditional ideologies, in favour of policies suiting public opinion. So are the Conservatives taking a huge gamble here? Will it pay off? 

"I can cut your taxes"- But at what cost?

Coming from a strong ideological background is a double edged sword, keep it and suffer strong public opposition, move away from it and face strong party divisions. David Cameron arguably made the strong decision to move towards public opinion, away from their traditional ideology when he came into leadership in 2005, by focusing on the failing economy and how it needed a re-boot. He especially promoted cutting public spending to help the economy, and this bode well with the public, shown in the win for the Conservatives in the 2010 General Election. However this is generally viewed as a reactionary policy, as it isn't strictly Conservative ideology. But this sort of policy has come under fire by the parties own MP's, as shown in the abdication of 2 MP's to UKIP in a month. So has David Cameron retaliated, and has it succeeded?

It's another tightrope, with Cameron still playing safe, keeping the public happy too (or at least promises to!) First key "promise"-  cutting 30 million people's taxes, and sure, why not? What's the harm? First flaw, they're giving Labour ammunition, as the most likely consequence of this will be a stagnating economy, Whilst the UK economy has got its self back on track since the Conservatives walked into No 10, but we're not through it yet, we can aspirre to be the best in Europe, and we look good against other countries (especially in Europe!), but we can't fall behind and more importantly into another recession. Second "promise"- the UK would "walk on by" the threat from IS, well that fell apart quickly didn't it? To say that and know that the RAF are bombing ISIS is beyond contradictory, it's almost a blatant fib that should be rewarded with a 5 minute timeout on the naughty step.

Does this need explaining?- Summary of the Conservative
"promises"

And finally, a third "promise"- immigration would be a key policy as part of Britain and the EU negotiation strategy... I'm sorry, but can someone tell David Cameron, that this has been the case for years, and nothing has changed. Same old border crossings, same old waiting times, same old illegal immigrants coming in, and you wonder why 2 MP's moved to UKIP? I hate to say, but Cameron gave UKIP the upper hand, during his own conference, because I don't think this promise will be enforced, because it is realistically improbable and is vague enough to question in the first place. In fact, the conference in my mind only summarized what the Conservatives should have done, they had the opportunity to win over the public, by being realistic and true. However, they fell into the same trap as Labour, and I'm afraid that only leaves the Lib Dems and UKIP, which is an even harder prospect is my eyes.

Jordan Ifield

Life's tragedy is that we get old too soon, and wise too late- Benjamin Franklin






UKIP: Change of Approach

Saying no would be wrong, but then so would me saying yes. UKIP have no doubt risen from the outside racist party David Cameron claimed they were 6 years ago. But to say that they were a leading party for the election would be a step too far, in my opinion.

Well, its safe to say that UKIP have stolen the headlines this week. To have a party conference and get such a high level of popularity shows you mean business, but also shows that Labour have been humiliated, and the Conservatives are in hot water.

With the General Election next year, UKIP are clearly going out guns blazing with announcements such as reducing income tax from 40p to 35p if you earn up to £55,000 a year. Or that you'll now have to pay if you earn £13,500 a year, sounds all splendid and wonderful, doesn't it? Well the gain of 2 Conservative MP's clearly justifies this, does it?

Nigel Farage: Who will be laughing in office in 2015?

 They have gained a lot of influence, emphasised in their succes in the EU Parliament election, yet their policies have been strongly based on immigration and Britain's stance in the EU. So much so, that it is only now (8 months before the General Election) that they start showing the country their "other" policies and ideologies.

 It seems too little, too late compared to other parties, such as the Conservatives, who have been justifying their financial role in the aftermath of the triple dip recession. The same could be said for Labour, who have looked for reforms in welfare, particularly in the NHS. So UKIP have left themselves standing on one leg after the EU Parliamentary elections, in my opinion. Gone are the days of haggling other parties in hope of gaining cheap votes, but hopefully justify strong ideologies, with strong policies. But they won't have the time to gain much more influence before the General Election, meaning they won't get into Downing Street... Yet.






Jordan Ifield

We promise according to our hopes, and perform according to our fears.
 -François VI de la Rochefoucault

Redemption Attempt-Labour

Party conferences everyone! Take your seat, gather your note pads and pencils for the game-show where you pick holes in promises across the country. First round, Labour. 

Now, let me get started here. I know, in theory, it sounds like a Utopian wonderland, where the public get a better welfare system, and don't have to directly pay for it. However, as far as I can see, this has been done before, and in the long term, ruined Britain. Britain 1997, Labour gain office, promising a new welfare state and lower taxes. Britain 2008, in triple dip recession, under Labour. My problem is, where is the money going to come from? If it's not coming from the public, where is it coming from? Tourism? Immigration? Where? 

Ed Miliband Party Conference: the size of the problem
he thinks he has

Whilst it has already passed, having been from the 21st to the 24th of September, I just wanted to summarize my personal opinion of what happened. Labour have shot themselves in the foot. Nearly 5 years since the last general election, and Labour have already seemed to have forgotten why they were thrown out of power in the first place, economics. Having been the party to have led Britain into a triple dip recession in 2008, the Tories appropriately adjusted their policies to cutting down financial deficit and debt. However, when the British economy is just growing again, and stable, Labour decide that giving the NHS £2.5 billion, along with caps on taxes is a good idea. 

One of my main concerns for the Labour party, is there constant change of policies to counter UKIP. It's been a recurring thing for many parties, with another Tory MP switching sides as an example. But, immigration into the UK has been a key area that Labour were keen to highlight at the party conference, with "stronger border checks" and "reduce low skilled immigrants into the country" being a main change if Labour came to power. Bonus round: can anyone find anything about what they're actually changing. It's very vague to say the least, and even my anti-UKIP stance will know that they have a better manifesto than that. "Stronger border checks", how? Are we increasing the numbers of security and borders or only allowing a certain amount of people in per month? It's vague enough for me to think, Labour don't know what they're doing themselves.

So, with Labour having (in my opinion) justifying why they shouldn't be in office, can the Conservatives fight back and show the UK they actually politics (instead of sending jets to bomb ISIS). I guess we'll find out on the 1st of September...

Jordan Ifield

We will all, someday, experience death, and become obsolete as a dead leaf falling from a tree, crushed by passersby to ashes underlying the earth.- Kim Elizabeth

Fall from Grace

First things first, whilst I wanted the No party to win, the way that they did it may have annoyed the Scots enough to want a re-vote. At first everything was fine, and inevitable. For one, Alex Salmond went off in a fashion not unlike a young boy caught stealing jam. Giving a resolute "thanks, but no thanks" to his fellow supporters, he left his Deputy First Minister to pick up all the pieces after the result, by leaving her at the counting stations whilst he went home. Nice guy.

Alex Salmond, the phrase "the higher you are, the harder you fall" really didn't occur to you, did it? September 18th 2014, voting begins, and high optimisms run around the Yes and No camps... Until...
Disaster, whilst the Yes party were getting a lot of votes, a majority was almost impossible, with the No party getting a win in every  county, but 4... 28-4... Oh dear

Sulking Salmond: How not to be a good sportsman

Whilst the referendum was not based around how many counties chose yes or no, it did show a substantial amount of people opposed independence, more importantly, a majority was being formed for the No party. So when the inevitable "NO" rang out through thousands of microphones everywhere, there was only going to collateral damage...


Not only that, but (as I predicted!), violence ensued. In Glasgow especially, who voted yes, violent divides were apparent, as Police had to separate the protesters in fear of public disorder. Which wasn't as bad the Northern Irish, but in my opinion is still disgusting, the result is final, you can't go back, so why cause so many problems for nothing?

However, can blame his bad behaviour, on the nature of the No parties win, or rather the reaction of it. David Cameron did the right thing, (the best he could do in his situation) and sympathize with Salmond and the yes party, but start boasting about re-forms and further devolution. What he probably wasn't expecting, was to get stabbed in the back. Good old friend and Labour leader Ed Miliband decided that the best way of justifying independence, is to go back on your plans and tell Cameron to slow down. Whilst this too may be justified due to the feat of the task, it doesn't fall me. With the general elections over the hill, Miliband is concerned Cameron will win favour with the scots, where a large chunk of Labour support is... If this is polluted, as Miliband would say, by the Conservatives, Labour's chances of winning the General Election will be severely damaged. But whilst it gives the "effing torries" a kick, Miliband has just undermined the no party (which he supports), and judging by the lack of response from Cameron, Miliband has just Britain in the foot.

Thank god then that the SNP, half shot themselves in the foot too. With momentum for them at an all time low, nothing it seemed, could be worse. Step in Alex Salmond. Resigning from his position as First Minister in effect of November, Cameron was left with a sigh of relief that Miliband hadn't left too much damage. But as always there is more to come, by May 2015, we'll know...

Jordan Ifield (thank you Scotland, better together)

In my opinion, Scotland has placed itself on a tightrope, vote yes and you fall off one way, vote no and fall off another way. The only difference is the injuries sustained from the fall.

Scottish Referendum: Home Straight

Damned if they do, damned if they don’t
With a day to go before the big day, the world seems to be bracing itself for the biggest decision in political history since Margaret Thatcher was voted in as the first woman Prime Minister. And whilst the thick mist of political confusion looms over, something is clear, Scotland can’t win.

Are both as bad as each other?

Imagine tomorrow evening, independence is declared, wild celebrations in parts of Scotland. Or not? Northern Ireland is a perfect example of how badly independence can be taken, violence and riots break out, to this day, over religion and their differences in independence. If not sorted out, the same could happen, and could undermine how well prepared Scotland is for independence. The same could happen if Scotland said No, so is Scotland stuck? Outside of Scotland, the EU is sweating on allowing Scotland into their ranks, and if there will be resentment by other countries with other “puppet countries” e.g. Flemish Independence.

In the long term, Scotland would have to balance itself economically, which would be an issue. Scotland would inherit large oil reserves, but they will run out sooner rather than later, and its tourism has only prospered during the Glasgow Commonwealth Games, a sign of being part of the British Empire! If Scotland don’t find a good source of income fast, it could look nasty. But don’t worry, Scotland would have already ruined their economy before they even had a chance at finding a source of income. Scotland WILL need a new currency, because to declare yourself independent from a country, and to still use their currency is as about as contradictory as walking in a Scottish Supermarket for fruit and veg.

My opinion, justified by revelations by the NHS and RBS

Then again, problems will still occur if Scotland vote No, with uproar also likely, and the inevitability of Alex Salmond sulking on the naughty step. However, unless a whitewash in the referendum occurs against him, he just won’t keep his mouth shut, posing further risks to British interests. And he’ll snatch Cameron’s hand off for the powers promised to Scotland in a No vote, and despite offering them, Cameron has to admit that the details aren’t finished and that the physical possibility of the reforms are questionable anyway. So has David Cameron bitten off more than he can chew? Tomorrow, we will find out…

Jordan Ifield

Scottish Independence: My Opinion

First and foremost, being English DOES entitle me to an opinion on Scottish Independence. And more importantly, what is the point of being separated? As far as I can see, all of the Yes parties claims about a "better" Scottish Government are based on nothing other than a few politicians dreams. 

Take the leader of the Yes party for example, Alex Salmond exclaiming that "We've gone from a small parliamentary party now to being a large one.", in reaction to the Yes campaign saying that the Scottish will get more powers over there own country from Westminister. And whilst yes he may have a good point, the objective of independence is to gain power of your own country, isn't it? So if we're giving Scotland power over itself without the need for loss of the country, surely it's a compromise that suits both countries, they control themselves and we both benefit each other economically and socially. In the light of this thought, I wonder what Alex Salmond really wants from this referendum, to create a feudal system and crown himself dictator?

"Scotland's future" More dangerous and uncertain than Salmond can handle

Secondly, what do both countries get from an independent Scotland? Firstly both countries will falter economically. The sterling pound has grown stronger than many currencies in the world, including the euro. But with the likelihood that the pound will be withdrawn from Scotland, as we saw when the Yes party won an opinion poll last week, the pound faltered and will likely stagnate further leaving England in a recession. This leaves Scotland to create a new currency and widely spread, which is huge task for any country, and could leave any country in termoil at the thought of this. Embarrassingly for Salmond and the Yes party 2 days ago, was the justification of this, when 5 five banks (including the RBS!) revealed they would relocate in England if Scotland voted for independence.

More uncertainty lies in the military, as England lays claim to it, Scotland need something to defend themselves if they become independent. And with their policy of removing all nuclear weapons in Scotland, the Yes party could render the country defenceless quicker than England can say "I told you so".
Whilst some issues are solved, such as the NHS remaining in both countries, it seems like there are just too many uncertainties and false hope for me to believe Scotland would be a successful independent country. It could pontantially leave both England and Scotland in economic termoil, defenceless wrecks and perhaps more importantly, national pride in ruins.

Jordan Ifield

"If everyone is moving forward together, then success takes care of itself." Henry Ford