Scotland the Brave...It's going to have to be if.....

... the numbers in the present blindfolded sleep walk towards the pro-independence "Yes" vote precipice continue to grow.

It's all very well many Scottish residents feeling good about the country after not too bad a summer(anything less than dire is quite good), a successful and good humoured Commonwealth Games, the stimulating and entertaining Edinburgh Festival and Fringe and countless heartwarming and stirring ceilidh's with singing and plentiful refreshment far into hazy late light evenings. From that happy state of mind a heady "Why not give it a go" feeling can gently wash over the smiling voter who then sets foot for the polls full of national enthusiasm and optimism. The X goes on the paper and they stride out, maybe back to the pub for the hair of the dog.

The next morning on waking to initial results indicating it's a "Yes" for independence it all might suddenly feel terribly different. A mistake maybe. What then? Can we predict something like the morning after any very cheery and well fuelled party. "Oh my God. We're on our own. Did my vote make the difference?Was it me?"

 The second TV debate went badly for the Darling  the"No" man  who did much better in the first. The "Yes" leaning BBC Scotland's studio audience had helped give the shouty SNP leader the impression of having "won". That though is just one debate and  should be meaningless in the context of the real big issue.

The big issue. There's the rub. There's little sign of it. Anywhere. Not just in this debate. There's little about what what the UK really is how and why it punches above its weight internationally, the advantages to Scots ( and everyone else) of being an integral part of a bigger entity in which the country and its people have played a prominent part for several centuries. There has been nothing about the scope the UK gives for wider and better employment and powerful roles. This absence of well drawn pictures of the real big issues has allowed the debate to descend into the narrow cul de sacs of health ("our" NHS) and to a lesser extent education, benefits, free this and that and whether Scots are a few hundred quid a year better off one way or the other. Then there is also the "Let's make the country Tory proof" which appeals across both the "Yes" and "No" camps and pushes some of the latter into the former. Forget that. Scotland is Tory- proof anyway. It's a state of mind thing and includes things like a paranoia about privatisation and countless things that could deliver modernisation. Like many of the country's perceived ills these things are wrapped up in a bundle and dropped at Margaret Thatcher's feet.

Objectively the the current greater UK normally works pretty well for all its constituent parts. It's not perfect or going to satisfy everyone and the north v the south and London arguments are just as valid points for debate as the ones about Scottish independence. In reality the Scots, with their own parliament,  have a large amount of freedom already without the downsides of being on their own .They will certainly get more after the Referendum whatever the outcome.

Even now it looks as if "NO" should come in with a majority ,even if a slim one. If it doesn't it's going to take a very brave heart to genuinely say through that morning after hangover "That's wonderful". The even worse news is that five or ten years down the line the sufferer is likely to be saying "Why on earth did we do that?" Then that awful rebuff:  "Too late".

Meanwhile down south, with Ed Miliband in his bid to woo the Scottish left promising us all a high tax socialist nightmare, the English may well be shouting "Vote Yes" but that's another story. We will come back to it.

They said it,- The Mayor of Calais.

British citizens have known it for a long time, politicians of all major parties deny it but now Natacha Bouchard the Mayor of Calais has said it.

Britain's immigration laws,-and couple that to its benefits regime,- makes the country an Eldorado to prospective immigrants. Add in the fact that thanks to a plethora of very human rights based laws and judgments and an oversupply of lawyers who deal in such matters, few who reach the country's shores are ever actually deported. Rights to a family life, belonging to a group that is under pressure at home,being guilty of murder in a country which still has capital punishment all guarantee being able to stay once you've arrived and uttered the magic words "asylum" at the border, usually a well marked line in arrivals halls. No wonder Ms Bouchard, faced with the long term problem of accomodating and feeding the growing queues of people awaiting their chance to climb aboard or even underneath a UK destined lorry is saying enough is enough and the British must do something about it. In the meantime there is talk of the French setting up a centre in Calais to advise the hopefuls on how to maximise their chances of a successful plea for asylum. It's unlikely that, having got this far, they need it but it's the thought that counts.

Britain's greatest success in reducing immigration has come through classifying students as immigrants. Very few actually have any intention of staying much beyond their education and any subsequent allied training. They support themselves and don't ask for state benefits. They and their visiting parents make a major contribution to the national economy while studying and their early links can be of lifelong benefit to the country in subsequent years. Their immediate fees also do a lot to finance and maintain Britain's highly successful private education industry. Just the sort of people to keep on a tight rein then while Calais remains and open tunnel (or ferry) mouth.

One might hope for Dave, Nick and Ed to also say it how it is. Dream on. That needs political boldness and honesty. Don't you know there's an election coming? Unfortunately for them,- and ultimately the electorate,- that nice Mr Farage down the pub might take a different line.

European Presidential Hubris and......

 The EU Commission's  recently appointed President, Jean-Claude Junker has indicated that the UK is unlikely to secure one of the top jobs it seeks when they are carved out/up next weekend. He is it seems upset that there are not enough females in the top positions. Unlike last time around, Britain has not put forward a female candidate. "Unfortunately, and despite MY (the capitals are ours) repeated request, most of the governments insist on sending male candidates."

Just who is the unelected (other than  by a show of hands around a table by EU leaders) chief civil servant of the EU imagine he is to be laying down the law on gender balances or imbalances? It is not beyond imagination that most eligible women are too sensible to want anything to do with these posts. It is certainly insufficient grounds for blocking the candidates from senior or desired roles. He may not like it but his job is to work with whoever the member states nominate and this should be made very clear to him before he and the Commission rush further out of control.

This latest intervention by EU's leading beaurocrat says all one needs to know about why the enormous Brussels machine needs urgent reform before it leaves Earth's orbit and spins into outer space powered by hubris and the endless money which is an overhead on the cost of everything that is made or done in Europe. In its original form as a Common Market, the organisation had a valid purpose in facilitating intra-European trade and adding value. Once France and Germany's underlying agenda of creating a political federation led by themselves broke cover it began its trajectory to becoming an ever increasing constraint and liability on everything Europe did. Europe's wealth lies in its enormous diversity of cultures, geography, and political and economic systems. To crush these under foot ,-something that in a nightmare scenario could end up in the future being done militarily,- is disastrous. Underperformance and poverty lie in a monolothic, one size fits all, superstate ruled autocractically, indeed dictatorially, from a single centre riding arrogantly and roughshod over these differences. The politically misconceived single currency is just one example of what happens when uniformity is imposed.

The arch-federalist Mr Junker is stepping way outside his remit in trying to dictate to member states who, or what sort of person, they should put up for the Commissioner roles. Misguidedly and sitting deep inside the Brussels non reality bubble , he sees these appointments as HIS Vice-Presidents or deputies , not as the EU's. In other words he has (alarmingly quickly) taken to seeing the EU as his property rather than that of the member states, some of whom, notably the UK, he clearly doesn't like and treats with scorn. Only a hand wringing Nick Clegg, oblivious of the real issues and always willing to subjugate national interests to those of the federalists, could come out in favour of Mr Junker's attempts to lay down the law on the kinds of candidates put forward by governments,- and he has done.

Already it appears that David Cameron may be beginning to back away from making a big issue of this one. His nominee, the virtually unknown although maybe very competant Lord Hill, will be said to be happy with any role. Commissioner for Car Parking would be spun from Downing Street as a British triumph. That's how things currently are on the sea of pre-election aimlessness. All three main parties lack a helmsman or maybe even a rudder. Even the Scottish independence debate has descended into a squabble about details rather than the big issues of the pros and cons for everyone of the UK remaining intact. No sign of big pictures or the ability to generate excitement and forward momentum anywhere although the goal mouths are wide open for anyone who does.

Headline of the Day....

"Lib Dems want compulsory sex classes"- The Times.

Where does one even start to comment?

A Levels-The rewards of success for their architect.

-This year's A Level grades were very good despite tightening up the sylabus and marking (although the overall " pass" rate above grade F is still 98%).

-There is a much better social distribution of top grades than previously so more less well off students will be  going to good universities.

-There are 30,000 additional university places than last year thanks to increased government funding.

Much of this success story is down to Michael Gove, summarily replaced as a supposed electoral liability by the new "Peace in our Time-I love teachers" lady.  Students and their parents might like to join Mr Gove in reflecting on the justice or otherwise of being thrown out of office for being disliked by those to whom any  reforms of a too often  underperforming state educational system are abhorrent.

Unfortunately the executioner, David Cameron, marooned on an island of lack of feeling for realities outside his own close knit circle and advisors, has by ditching one of his best and most loyal performers, again devalued his own leadership.

Footnote: Another area in which British politics is currently flying blind is foreign affairs. Few/none of our leading politicians has a deep experience of or even interest in matters beyond our shores. Perhaps if they took their families on holiday to places further afield than Spain, Portugal and Italy (yes, that's Dave, Nick and Ed this month) they might just start to sniff, smell, feel and even understand a wider world. It will take time but it's never too late to start. Meanwhile sorry to anyone threatened with genocide in these holiday months,- we just can't get our heads around it. It's all too much.

ISIS-Britain Flexes Its Muscles.

Following today's very limited US attacks on Isis militants "to protect American nationals and interests", -note no mention of the 100,000 or more Iraqis facing threats of imminent genocide,- the UK has weighed in.

Definately no military intervention but a couple of million pounds worth of tents, solar powered lighting, meals and bottled water. That's a big comfort. At least people can be slaughtered in tents, aided maybe by electric light and having had a portion of a meal and a gulp or two of water. There are a few more millions going to charities "already on the ground". Unfortunately there is no sign of any in the affected areas. Never mind. At least when its all over and its safe to venture out of Baghdad or wherever they are holed up they will be able to afford to get to the scene of whatever has happened in more, newer and shinier 4x4s.

Isis must be quaking in its shoes.

Didn't we do well..................Afghanistan "Rebuilding".

The Times reports that the cost of "rebuilding" Afghanistan has now exceeded that of the post WW2 Marshall Plan for rebuilding Europe. The US has forked out £61.5 billion since 2002 and the UK(which actually spent its Marshall Plan money on social engineering in setting up the NHS rather than actual engineering) has thrown in £890 million.

 Those sums are on top of the actual military operations on which the US has spent a staggering £296 billion and the UK £22 billion.

In both cases one is entitled to ask "For what?"

In both cases the answer has to be "Nothing" or at best "Very, very, little".

Between the western allies, actually mainly the US and UK, we have destroyed Afghanistan's infrastructure, failed to put in place a stable non corrupt and Taliban-proof government and in the process lost and had maimed for life large numbers of our own soldiers.

With all the redevelopment money spent we might expect to see a new, disciplined, well trained and effective armed and police forces, a network of excellent highways, new, well equipped school,hospitals and power stations as well as replacements for shattered homes. In other words a fine new model state working robustly and able to stave off any future attempts by the Taliban or others to put the clock back.

Instead the US watchdog on Government spending is said by the Times to have reported that most of the projects are undermined by poor planning,shoddy construction, mechanical failures and inadequate oversight. In other words there is precious little to show for the billions and what there is is unlikely to last long before collapsing or breaking down, probably for ever. The same continues to go for most misguided foreign aid but that's another story. Our legacy in both human and physical terms will be dismal.

 As we have said before, anyone with any idea of Afghan history, its social /tribal history or anything to do with it would have said that at the beginning and never have embarked on this adventure. Even a flight over the country tells most people that idealistic visions of democratic, or indeed any unified, rule have any chance of realisation. Despite that the UK ,led by the US and the Bush/Blair relationship, did. In the British parliament barely a voice against was raised against it by anyone in any party. Most were actively supportive with the grave tones and seriously furrowed brows which are intended to denote deep understanding and wisdom at such times. Even now most of our politicians, terrified of accusations that they have thrown away hundreds of British and many more Afghan lives for nothing,- as they have,- remain in denial. They mutter things about it all having been worth it. It hasn't. Worse, having created this mess (Yes, Mr Blair) we will now blame the Afghans for not resolving it and we will walk away leaving them to their fate.