Why the Better Together campaign was a shambles

In less than two weeks, the United Kingdom could be irrevocably changed forever. Since 1707, Scotland and England, along with Wales and now Northern Ireland have endured over 300 years of shared history and endeavour. The United Kingdom has proved to be the most successful union of nations the globe has ever known. 

As I'm sure many are aware, the very concept of 'Great Britain' could be over. The campaign designed to stop this: Better Together has made serious errors and poor judgements. The Yes Campaign is consistently climbing in the polls because it has seized the false vision of their own optimism. I hope to allay the errors of the Better Together Campaign below.

1. The people who have fronted the Better Together Campaign have been the Labour Party and many members of Gordon Brown's government including the man himself. Why? Why did Better Together choose the man (Alistair Darling) to front a campaign to keep Scotland in union when he presided over the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and subsequently lost the 2010 general election? The members of the Brown government are toxic beyond belief. 

2. The myth that the Conservative Party is toxic in Scotland. The Tories have been forced to take a secondary role in Better Together somehow because they only have 1/59 Scottish parliamentary seats at Westminster. This is nonsense. The Tory vote in Scotland has become spread out geographically (something First Past the Post penalises) and in the most recent European election for the Scotland constituency, the Conservatives under David Cameron actually INCREASED their share of the vote. Coupling their votes with UKIP in a kind of centre-right alliance would have placed them above Labour and just behind the SNP. The Conservative Party's origins lie in the Scottish Jacobites and ideals of traditional Toryism in the 17th and 18th Centuries. The first Tory Prime Minister was Scottish; the Earl of Bute in the 1760s. Many Scots understand the need for spending cuts, there is a proud British military tradition, two Royal Navy aircraft carriers are to be built on the Clyde and many in Scotland have socially liberal values which the Westminster parties all share. After all, the Coalition has legislated for same-sex marriage but it was the SNP supporting Brian Souter, owner of Stagecoach and major financial donor to the Yes Campaign that fought to repeal Clause 28 (a clause which forbade the 'promotion' of homosexuality in schools). The Conservatives and David Cameron should have played a much more vocal and active role in Better Together.

 

3. If any, it would be the Liberal Democrats who have become poisonous across the United Kingdom. Going back on their tuition fee pledge was a disgrace and lost them their sizeable student vote. However, their embrace of federalism perhaps could be the answer. Federalism alongside localism, a devolution of power to ordinary people. The Conservatives have been historically in favour of this too, as has UKIP (whatever your opinion is on some of their more dubious views). The SNP has a poor record with local devolution and would only seek to centralise power in Edinburgh should an independent Scotland occur. 

The failure of Better Together to offer concrete new powers for Scotland as well as local governments has damaged their legitimacy and has allowed the SNP to trump their anti-Westminster rhetoric. A Cameron-Salmond debate with Cameron fully armed with concrete policies for Scotland would have seen off Salmond and forced the Yes Camp into disarray.

It would be a national tragedy if Scotland voted to leave our union of nations. The world is a dangerous place: an flexing Russia, the rise of the Islamic State and the instability in the global economy repudiate the SNP's fairy world dreams post-Yes. The world would be a less safer place if Scotland left and would severely reduce the UK's global role as an importance economic, humanitarian and military power. 

Anglosphere- The Beacon of Progress

The world over recent years has been suffering economic meltdown, mass poverty and violent conflict. International organisations such as the UN and the EU are loosing influence fast either because they are not seen as credible or offer mediocre solutions. It is difficult to see a positive future for planet Earth.

The Anglosphere however, that is primarily defined as: the United States, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada whilst potentially including South Africa, India and the democratic Caribbean islands is offering a beacon of progress and hope for the world.

The term 'Anglosphere' means what it says- a collection of countries who share English as the main language of communication. However this is not the only shared characteristic. We share democratic institutions such as parliamentary/representative democracy, the rule of law and trial by jury. We share historical struggles for freedom and liberty. We share an endeavour for a world of opportunity, freedom and happiness.

The economies of the Anglosphere have been forecast a much brighter future than those in the Eurozone or stagnant Japan. Even China in some economic circles, is not expected to overtake the American economy after all and would likely never reach it's GDP figures. Britain, as recently seen, is surging ahead of its European neighbours with France stuck at zero growth and the German economy dipping. Whilst Britain's membership of the European Union is continually of political and public importance, it is of no question that the Eurozone is heading in a completely different direction to Britain- a direction which we cannot follow. Australia has embraced it's economic freedom and has seen an economic success story alongside the Asian Tigers.

Perhaps it is time for Britain to retake its place alongside our brethren?

Diplomatically and militarily, the Anglosphere would be perhaps the most formidable power on Earth. This title is not necessarily desirable but it can be useful in shaping the world into a better place. The EU has no credible and collective foreign policy which stifles it's influence and the United States cannot act alone. Britain still maintains largely positive relations with her former colonies in Africa and Asia and bringing them further into the Anglo-Saxon economic fold alongside our democratic values would make the regions much better places and crushing poverty in these regions is of utmost importance and is in the national interest.

This is by no means a solution to the world's problems. However, a united, vibrant and successful Anglosphere can truly provide the world with a beacon of hope and freedom for which all should be welcomed. Our future economic position, our proud history- literally running through our collective bloods and our shared values of liberty can only be a force for good for the 21st Century, for ourselves and greater Earth.

The Ukrainian Question

The current crisis in Ukraine and that is UKRAINE, not THE UKRAINE which is an altogether larger historical and disputed geopolitical region is continuing to thrust itself into the international spotlight. The crisis will be at the top of the agenda in the upcoming NATO summit in Wales and it appears the conflict is only going to escalate unless leadership on all sides is taken.

The big problem in this NATO-Russia-Ukraine triad of relations is a complete lack of understanding on all sides. I shall deal with each party and hopefully help to explain how they can all solve the situation.

1. Russia. Vladimir Putin, although he denies, has invaded and is interfering in a sovereign state- a member of the United Nations and is almost certainly against international law. This does Russia no favours and gives it a negative and aggressive reputation within many countries, particularly weary governments in Eastern Europe such as Poland whom have had such a difficult historical relationship with Russia. Vladimir Putin using military force only devalues the influence Russia can have in being able to work cooperatively with NATO and the West.

2. NATO. The military alliance has played a leading role in the criticism of Russia, rightly so in terms of the violation of Ukraine's sovereignty. However, what NATO and the West fail to understand is the sense of disenfranchisement and alienation felt in places like Crimea and the Donetsk region in Eastern Ukraine. Many here have deep affinity for Russia and for some it has meant taking up arms as a last resort as the Kiev government is offering no concrete change such as devolution. Also, Ukraine is NOT a member of NATO which does not oblige the organisation to defend it in the event of invasion. However, the Kiev government has stated it's recent intention to seek membership of the alliance. This is problematic as Russia continually feels encircled and threatened by NATO- stoking tensions further. Ceasing accession talks temporarily could help stabilise relations.

3. Ukraine. The 'Revolution' as was seen a few months back when the pro-Russian regime was toppled was essentially a coup d'état. A democratically elected government was overthrown and there did appear to be a worrying amount of fundamental nationalists within the factions. This only serves to alienate those in the East of the country further and reinforces their claims of persecution and disenfranchisement. The Kiev government recently elected has also not done itself any favours and has made no attempts to reconcile the pro-Russian factions, instead meeting them with force.

4. Solutions. This is no easy task. However, all sides must recognise realities and de-escalate the situation. Russia must cease all invasions and instead come to the negotiating table alongside their allies in Ukraine and the Kiev government must acknowledge the grievances of their Eastern citizens and whilst maintaining that Russian intervention is completely unacceptable. NATO, the EU and the United States should be offering support to both sides and offer reassurance to Russia, an important member of the international community who should be working alongside side the West with issues such as anti-terrorism. After all, the threats of war seem to be very ironic and if war was to come, it would be very sad indeed considering the world's commemoration and remembrance of the First World War.