Is the UK Supreme or a court jester?

The flaw at the heart of the UK's constitution remains the sticky point of the legality of the 'Crown in Parliament' being that it is only competent under English Law and constitutional practice. Scots Law and constitutional practice does not recognise this concept (Lord Cooper 1953, McCormack) as the considered will of the people of Scotland is paramount.

For the 'Crown in Parliament' to be effective in the UK Parliament Scotland would have had to have been subsumed by England under the Treaty of Union and this never was or is the case as article 19 of the Treaty of Union clearly establishes by protecting Scots Law and constitutional practice (plus other key interesting bits and pieces) for all time where 'all time' means exactly that.

There is no such beast as 'UK Law' only English Law and Scots Law and this whole concept of the sovereignty of the UK Parliament through this English Law device is the fallacy at the heart of the UK's 'unwritten constitution'. A fallacy which the law makers at Westminster continue to cling to, since to face up to reality would cause the Westminster House of Cards to come crashing down. Instead Westminster perpetrates the mistake made by Bagshott and others on this issue, as gospel. To point this out on Facebook is to draw attacks from hyper-unionists, masquerading as independence loving Scots, from out under their stones.

The UK Supreme Court was first envisaged by Blair and Derry Irvine as a device to hamstring the newly devolved assemblies and Scottish Parliament, ignored this statutory fact and the original bill had to be amended to include judges from the Court of Session as members of the UK Supreme Court panel. The legal fact was English Judges had no competency to make decisions on issues brought before it on Scots Law. The judges who ruled on the issue of "Named Persons" were not 'UK' judges but members of the Court of Sessions acting in the UK Supreme Court by election from the Court of Sessions. 

The judges made their ruling on 'Named Persons' as a result of applying the ECHR criteria on human rights. Ironically the same ECHR criteria Mrs May's Tories wish to have struck down on exiting the EU and would have, in that case, prevented the right wing Christian Fundidlymentalists, at the heart of the legal action, bringing any legal action in the first place. So much for any 'victory' for the Fundidlymentalists as Lallands Peat Worrier has pointed out the changes required will only delay 'Named Person's Bill' becoming law by a couple of months and have done little to alter the overall bill except to make the transfer of information between the agencies on "Children at Risk", a bit slower, more cumbersome and lead to children continuing to fall through the net probably to their deaths. The "Named Persons Bill fails Scotland's children" is already being inked in for many a Unionist media headline when this happens but not the reason why, the Pyrrhic Victory of a few right wing fundidilymentalists .... the same sort of folk who opposed the repeal of Clause 28 and will soon be calling for 'intelligent creationism' to be offered to their children as the real theory for life on Earth, in spite of all the 'God given evidence' to those pesky scientists which demonstrates they are talking shite.

As part and parcel of Article 19 of the Treaty of Union the Claim of Right (Scotland) 1689 remains in law and it is by this Scots Law statute that Elizabeth the Second of England and Wales holds her title as 'Queen of Scots'. An interesting side effect of the McCormack case is that Royal Mail post boxes in Scotland only have 'ER' on them and not 'ER2'. Lord Cooper may have stated in McCormack the Crown could cypher itself what it wished but the old 'Post Office' was sensitive to Scottish sensibilities at a time of a growing movement for Scottish home rule in the early 1950's in the aftermath of the theft of the 'Stone of Destiny' and the two million signature petition for Scottish Home Rule which Churchill duly ignored in 1952.

The only attempt to have a legitimate 'Union of the Crowns' was blocked by the English and Scottish Parliaments on the occasion that James the 6th and 1st sought to have it put into law. No monarch since has sought to bring about a legal unification of the crowns. To this day it is two separate crowns on one head. The Queen took the oath for her Scottish Crown (in accordance with the 1689 Claim of Right) the night before her English Crown coronation at Westminster.

The Elizabeth is Queen of Scots by 'agreement' of the sovereign Scottish people until such times as she either breaks the oath undertaken under the Claim of Right or we decide she is not ruling according to the considered will of the people of Scotland which remains paramount.

It is possible an independent Scotland could see Chucky on the English throne by act of 'God's will' while we have his sister Annie Bananae as Queen of Scots because we asked her. A situation which was one of the primary drivers behind the English Parliament's sudden enthusiasm for the Treaty of Union, part of the deal was to ensure the Hanoverian succession on the throne to Anne, the last Stuart Queen. The other driver was the cost to the English Exchequer of buying off known Jacobite sympathisers among the nobles of Scotland, a cost which was running at some £1 million a year by 1705 (some £295 Billion in 2016 values) and handled by the likes of Daniel Defoe among other English spies.

First we have to nail the idea that Westminster can tell us what to do by any sort of God given right  enshrined in the 'Crown in Parliament' and ensure to remind all Scottish MPs and MSPs they are bound by the considered will of the people of Scotland, a will which is paramount under Scots Law and constitutional practice.

The funny thing is the SNP get this, as was seen in the response to the 'No' vote in 2014 and is being seen as a result of the EU 'remain' vote in 2016. Scotland is, in modern constitutional terms, a representative democracy which is the root of the growing tension between Holyrood and Westminster because the English parties look at the SNP benches at Westminster and are reminded of this crucial constitutional difference on a daily basis as the SNP represent the 'considered will' of the people of Scotland on issues from 'Trident' to 'Welfare' to the undemocratic 'House of Lords' (another of those places of English Law Tradition which Scots Law and constitutional practice does not recognise. The Scottish Parliament may not always have been very 'democratic' in modern terms but it was always 'collegiate' in the make up of the Thrie Estaites).

A letter to DWP Medical Assessment System

Dr J Mengele MD
DWP Medical Assessments Ltd
Owswich House
Birkenhow Road
London
NA 12 IS

Dear Dr Mengele,

Re: My recent DWP medical assessment

I have a number of problems with the process.


My main concern starts with the Dr you employed to carried out my assessment. I had great difficulty understanding his thick Austrian accent and found his inappropriate hand gestures accompanied by, if I heard correctly, a "Seig Heil, mien Furher!" or two when ever he took a phone call from your good self, a bit off putting.

He seemed to be unable to explain just where his medical expertise to assess my many and complex physical and mental conditions lay and kept mumbling, "I never had zis problems when I was working the camps." which I took to mean he had been previously employed by Teresa May's Home Office's Border Control Unit at one of their infamous holding camps for illegal immigrant detainees. He explained he had a diploma in public health which sounded appropriate until I remembered the RN doctors who had these qualifications were known to one and all as 'drain sniffers' though maybe he meant occupational health which, potentially, would be more appropriate and I merely misheard him.

My problem was more the fact he had no knowledge of thoracic outlet syndrome, fibromyalgia or their  physical impact and kept muttering, "In my war, we treated people like you as cowards and we hung them from nearest tree as a warning to other backsliders.' as I described the mental problems my combat PTSD causes me on a daily basis.

What caused me greater concern was his continual reference to his DWP medical assessment guidance notes as, "Just like referring to the Furher's excellent Nuremburg Laws." or his incessant questioning of my ethnic background or if I had a twin, "As Dr Mengele was always looking for twins who would volunteer for some experiments he had in mind ". This he explained was nothing to do with the DWP, as such, simply to expand medical knowledge and was one of Dr Mengele's pet projects. Apparently you are also looking for people on disability or sickness benefit to volunteer on a project regarding hypo and hyperthermia as part of the DWP research on the elderly in cold homes as apparently they can either eat or heat their homes, not both.

He seemed a bit upset when I pointed out I had trained as a triage officer in my RN service and the cohort they were looking at for their experiments would be put at risk in either of these environments. At that point he started shouting he would have me sanctioned if I did not volunteer as he considered me fit for this sort of work. Apparently if I am dead on the day of the experiment, my family still have to turn up with my body, as this is the only proof you and the DWP will accept. My wife would like to know if it is OK if she has me embalmed first otherwise it might just get a bit smelly in the house if there is a long wait. She called your secretary, a Ms Irma Gretz, who apparently was primarily interested if I had any artistic tattoos on my body before telling my wife I could not be embalmed as it made the skin hard to get off.

Being a medically trained professional I decided to do some digging and apparently in the last year, alone, the DWP sanctioning program has resulted in over 16,000 deaths of vulnerable and sick UK citizens. I could not discern whether this was a direct result of your own experimentation on the sick and disabled or people taking their own lives to avoid your sick and oppressive DWP medical assessment program and its vicious sanctioning scheme.

As a result of my own investigations I have learned your DWP medical assessment program has been condemned in reports by UN, EU and OCED special commissioners as inhumane, oppresive, discriminatory and a serious breach of the people of the UK's human rights, especially the sick and the vulnerable. 

Further the UK Courts seem to agree this is the case and the DWP benefits sanction scheme has lost case after case in the UK Courts with even the 'should be in the Westminster Establishment's pocket' UK Supreme Court upholding the lower courts judgements against the DWP program. 

So I will not be turning up as commanded by the doctor in the medical assessment centre and will see you, your past and current boss in court before the Court of Session in Edinburgh as I press the case that your actions are contrary to the considered will of the people of Scotland, as expressed by our MPs and MSPs in vote after vote at both Westminster and Holyrood, a will which is paramount. 

Further the legal and constitutional basis of your claim for the sovereignty of the UK Parliament at Westminster over Scotland is based on a fallacy, as Scots Law and constitutional practice does not recognise the solely English Law constitutional position of the 'Crown in Parliament' as the people of Scotland's considered will is paramount. The people of Scotland lend their considered will to their MPs and MSPs to exercise on their behalf, not to the UK Westminster Parliament. Scotland's democratic parliamentary system has been, since 1328, a nascent system of polity which has developed in modern times to become known as a 'representative democracy'.

Dr Mengele, I hear their are better job opportunities in Argentina for people like you, if you move fast enough before we catch up with you. Maybe you could advise your ex-boss, Mr Duncan-Smith, and current boss,Mr Crabb, to do a runner to Argentina along with you before it gets messy.

Yours aye,

The Sovereign People of Scotland.

Dog Days

He stands,
Following the stream's flow.
Listening to the murbling sing song of water and air.
The occasional dull toll of stone over stone,
He stands.

He observes,
As wavelets break.
Head moves as bird catches eye
Or Golden Bear bumbles bombastically past,
He observes.

He waits,
Not knowing what for.
As rainbow spray spits and mists
The air around his head, a golden halo.
He waits.

I ponder,
Just what my dog
Is transcendentally musing
As he stands, observing, waiting,
Lost in himself and to me.

Theresa may not ...

This weekend we are beginning to see the difference between what Westminster claims is it sole authority. legal right, constitutional supremacy and the dichotomy caused by the devolved Parliament at Holyrood which is bound by Scots Law and constitutional practice so has to conduct itself in accordance with Scotland being a representative (the people are sovereign) and not a 'parliamentary' democracy (parliament is sovereign).

The root of the problem increasingly faced by Westminster when dealing with Scotland's considered will, a considered will which in Axa et al vs the Scottish Parliament (2010) the UK Supreme Court stated was paramount in accordance to the 1689 Claim of Right (Scotland) which placed in legal statute the primacy of the sovereign people of Scotland, is simply the constitutional fudge on which the Union has relied on prior to the 1998 Scotland Act, the Secretary of State for Scotland exercised Scotland's considered will, no longer has any legal or constitutional status. 

The 1998 Scotland Act terminated this long standing fudge as the legitimate considered will of the people of Scotland could only now be exercised by the Scottish Parliament. Hence why Mr Forsyth, the last 'Tory Viceroy of Scotland', was so stridently against any move to Scottish devolution, he understood exactly what the impact of Lord Cooper's judgement in McCormack vs the Lord Advocate (1953) would entail on devolution and especially the bit where Lord Cooper stated that "the legal and constitutional practice of the 'Crown in Parliament' is a solely English Law concept, constitutional practice and has no legitimacy in Scots Law or constitutional practice where the considered will of the people of Scotland is paramount"

The 'Secretary of State for Scotland' fudge then became the 'Sewel Motion' which covers all UK Parliamentary legislation which impacts on Scotland and requires the agreement of the Scottish Parliament before it can become law and applicable in Scotland. This was perfectly workable while Labour ran the Holyrood parliament as they would "jist dae is they were telt by Lunnon". With an SNP majority / minority government at Holyrood this cosy fudge ended as the SNP cannily played the 'Holyrood is a representative democracy' card and began to test just how far Lord Cooper's judgement in 'McCormack' could be played. The answer was seen in how rapidly Cameron went from "Independence Referendum; over my dead body" to "OK then" and exposed a UK constitutional fault line which is about as stable as the San Andreas Fault.

It is interesting to note on internet chat lines over this weekend how dyed in the wool Unionists are claiming Ms Sturgeon's position on preventing Scotland from being removed from the EU against our considered will, as represented in the EU referendum, is somehow 'undemocratic' and a 'betrayal of the Scottish electorate'. Yet as Scotland is a representative democracy it can be clearly argued the minority Unionists are the one's actually ignoring the democratic reality which is Scotland voted by a sizable margin to remain in the EU and in May 2016 elected a SNP Government, again by a sizable majority of the active electorate in Scotland, who stated the removal of Scotland from the EU, against our considered will, would be reason to bring forward a new independence referendum and termination of the Treaty of Union with England.

The SNP have worked carefully within the bounds of Scots Law and constitutional practice to the extent, in the light of the Axa et al judgement by the UK Supreme Court, means a legal challenge against the demonstrable 'considered will of the people of Scotland' will fail. In effect the UK Supreme Court is in sympathy with Lord Cooper's 1953 judgement on the inviolable right, protected by the Treaty of Union for 'all time' where all time means exactly that, being the sovereign people of Scotland's considered will remains paramount in accordance with the Claim of Right 1689 (Scotland) which remains 'in law' and by which Liz holds the Scottish Crown, agreeing to conduct herself as required by the considered will of the sovereign people of Scotland. Hence why Liz is 'Queen of Scots' and not Scotland. She is Queen just as long as the considered will of the people of Scotland agrees she can be Queen.

So Theresa may not:

• Prevent a second referendum on independence based on the forced exit of Scotland from the EU
• Bring forward a new 'Union Treaty', as proposed by her numpty Lordships - Lord Cooper stated any such change (such as a new Union Treaty) could only be agreed by the sovereign signatory parliaments of Scotland and England
• Unilaterally create a federal UK - The Westminster UK Parliament has no such legal or constitutional power to do so, a legal point conceded on Westminster's behalf by the Lord Advocate, before Lord Cooper in 1953

The SNP are being very canny and have let Westminster walk into a legal and constitutional blind alley of Westminster's own creation. Westminster's claim to UK wide sovereignty is based on a constitutional fallacy. A constitutional fallacy which Lord Cooper high lighted in 1953 and it is this, Scotland was subsumed by England by the Treaty of Union. Lord Cooper makes clear this was never the case and the presumption that only English Law and constitutional practice is operable at the UK Parliament has no basis in the Treaty of Union, as is made clear by the protection of Scotland's unique legal system and constitutional practices for 'all time' by the 1707 Treaty of Union, a treaty between equal partners, this legal point was also conceded by the Lord Advocate on Westminster Parliament's behalf. Lord Cooper could not see a time where this illegitimate legal and constitutional assumption within the UK Parliament and the fudges used to get round it, would be challenged. Lord Cooper never envisaged  Scottish devolution, an SNP majority, the Pandora's box of constitutional paradoxes which devolution would release nor the growing tension between Scottish representative democracy and English parliamentary democracy which would then come into play.

Westminster's claim of parliamentary supremacy has now been challenged and found to be wanting. Rather than deal with what actually is, the UK Parliament - through its two main Unionist Parties - is currently in the process of destroying itself in a Goya-esque orgy of self immolation. The Unionist Saturn is consuming its own children and the result is Mayhem.

A letter to the electorate of England and Wales

Dear, soon to be, ex-country men and women of the UK in England and Wales;

The referendum vote is already having major impacts on the UK economy. Especially in the Financial markets of the City of London. Bloombergs are quoting 'City' recruiters that 10,000 jobs left London for Frankfurt and Dublin in the first week after Brexit, inspite of the devaluation of the pound by the 'Bank of England' magicking up £270 billion of 'quantitative easing'. The pound is now at a 30 year low, pension fund values have been slashed while trading in UK property investment companies has been suspended  and US banks are looking to move their EU HQ's to either Edinburgh or Glasgow on Scotland's now inevitable independence. Inward investment into the English regions is now in reverse as EU projects which encouraged this go into abeyance. Nissan and Honda are already talking about closing down their UK operations in England and Wales and moving elsewhere in the EU. This is not a matter of being 'right', this is what is actually happening.

JP Morgan are committed to moving their EU operations to Edinburgh from London on Scottish Independence and expect to be in Edinburgh by 2019 at the latest. The EU is making it clear once the 1707 Union Treaty is revoked Scotland can become the UK successor nation in the EU. EU prime ministers from Belgium, Holland, Czech Republic, Germany and Poland have made clear how welcome Scotland will be to the EU nations. Rajoy of Spain and Hollande of France are not seeking to veto Scotland's EU membership, as claimed by the usual misinformation sources at the BBC or London base media, merely stating Scotland will have to have broken from the UK Parliamentary Union before it can gain membership.

Then there is the actual impact on what will soon be just England and Wales of the outflow of capital on an economy reliant on financial services, services which are less vital to the world of finance when outside the EU.

According to OCED calculations the two bits most likely to leave (Scotland and NI) are the only two bits of the UK which have a trade surplus with the rest of the world, importing less than they export on a per per capita basis. We can leave the argument of who actually subsidises who, except maybe to note that according to a Nobel Prize winning economist, Scotland's surplus with the UK Treasury vs Barnett pocket money received is in excess of £150 billion over the last few years, has been in surplus since at least the 1920's and probably far longer than that, it was sizable in the 60's which was why the Barnett 'fudge' came into existence, once oil and gas had been discovered around Scotland's shores in the aftermath of the McCrone Report on Scottish oil and gas in 1974. The OCED report suggests a Scottish GDP will be higher than rUK by a sizable amount and may well be far higher once the tax and other North Sea income which is currently written down as 'UK' receipts is fully credited to an independent Scotland's treasury. The Scotch Whisky industry, according to its own trade organisation, is apparently worth in excess of £5 billion per annum, to the UK Treasury, in direct taxes alone (vat not included).

The question becomes how will England and Wales pay for all the energy they currently import from Ireland, Scotland and France to keep the lights on in London, as one of the first casualties of Brexit has been the nuclear plant build in Somerset at Hinkley point and fracking is not a long term solution even without any consideration to the environmental penalties which will be inflicted on towns and villages across England and Wales

For England and Wales there will have to be a reckoning between the leave and the remain camps, as neither have come out of this stramash very well, before their 'England' descends ever more rapidly into a racist, fascist state where 'white supremacy' becomes the norm and the 'non white British' areas descend into hot beds of angry and violent Asian and Caribbean youth whose riots will make previous 'race' riots in England's cities look like a tea party by comparison.

The majority of the English and Welsh electorate voted to leave the EU and, as a result, end the UK Parliamentary Union (whether they meant to or not). It is time to get real, accept what has been done, let Scotland go, accept the EU now wants England and Wales out as quickly as possible, invoking Article 50 is now inevitable, conclude negotiations on ending EU membership as rapidly as possible and seek to find a way forward which will not involve England and Wales in a rerun of the USA's race wars of the 50's and 60's. The answer is not May or Leadsom, as they are part of the problem nor is it what ever form of Labour Party emerges from its most recent civil war because if you are going to rely on them, good people of England and Wales, you are well and truly screwed. The Red and Blue Tories are only concerned for their own 'legacy' in the mold of their great hero, Tony 'The War Criminal' Blair and the income from future cushy jobs with the banks and other financial services they have destroyed in London but will seek to 'advise' anyway.

The count down has begun, the EU wants England and Wales out by January 2019 at the latest, no point in pointing the finger or going off in a flounce, time to get your collective arse into gear.

(PS: for those who have a Scottish Great Granny or Grandpa or a vaguely sounding 'Jock' like surname I will be a willing agent to help you apply for a new EU Scottish passport in return for a decent fiscal donation to my retirement fund).

Caesar mortuam est: conspiratoris fecit.

There was bloodshed in the senate as previous ardent supporters of Caesar Boris Rotundum stabbed him in the back multiple times. Rotundum's great error was to have won the plebiscite returning Rome to mob rule when he had actually been told to loose. It appears that most of the Tory Senators first response was to send a slave to their money lenders to see if they had sufficient denari to afford to run for leader; leaving Rotundum's ex-friends free to do their grisly and gory work. This reporter, in exchange for not whipping Senate slaves, discovered the weapons the conspirators used to carry out this foul deed were a number of multicoloured rubber chickens which leaves one to consider just how thin skinned Rotundum must have been.

Further investigation discovered the rubber chickens for this evil deed had been supplied by the head of Rome's Fascii, Farage Insipidus. It is not known if Insipidus was in at the kill but we would be surprised, as he prefers to let other people carry out his dirty work while he disappears to enjoy the fruits of his labour. Be sure of this, his sticky fingers are all over the attack as it was his men who disappeared and left Rotundum vulnerable to this chicken attack. He claims he is now seeking early retirement to spend more time with his mistresses, booze and pile of gold at his villa near Pompeii.

The chief  perpetrator of the rubber chicken attack, Gove Minimus, commanded slaves to create a human pyramid to enable him to be high enough to land the first blow on Rotundum, his wife was heard cheering him on from the public gallery, so he could be the victor who brought Rotundum to his knees. After that the rest of them piled in to give Rotundum, in the patois of the plebs, a right good kicking, deflating Rotundum's ego completely from that which had previously filled the Senatus to one which would rattle around in a dice cup, alea iacta est - as the gambler's say.

Yet even as Minimus was laying claim to Rotundum's Toga and position he too came under a rubber chicken attack from his fellow conspirators who now claimed Minimus was just a back stabbing, wee runt who was only out for his own gain and not seeking to return the Empire to its true glory, as Minimus had claimed. It seems the author has under estimated the lethality of a rubber chicken attack when carried out by Tory Senators as Minimus soon retreated from the fray. With the Tory leadership race now in such a state of flux, the Vestigial Virgins have thrown their hat into the leadership ring claiming they are the true upholders of Empire yet even here there is conflict as the head of the "Tenders of the sacred flame of Thatcher", Attila May, and the head of the "Water Carriers of Neoliberalism" faction, Ghengis Leadsom, can not agree which Vestigial Virgin should run for leader. There will be a drawing of lots in the Forum until a winner for the Tory leadership becomes clear. 

It appears the Labour Senators tried to copy the Tory's successful rubber chicken coup on Rotundum on their own leader, Corbinius. According to slaves washing the floors of the Labour Senators' private bath house, no blood has been seen on the floors, yet, though the ghost of Blairius Primus Bellus is still claimed to be haunting its halls. The plebs have called on the Priest of Chillcotus to exorcise this evil spirit from not just the Labour Bath house but all of Rome, for once and for all.

In other news: the denarius is now in free fall against the shekel, at a 30 year low, and trading in Rome's insula, in the financial district, has been suspended as the buildings are on the verge of collapsing, in part due to shaky foundations. Meanwhile the Pictii in far off Scotia are once more in rebellion, threatening Rome's rule over the North. The Mirror, Times, Telegraph and Sun Legions have been sent forth to put these barbarians in their place, yet again, under the leadership of that hero of Empire, Brutus Brachius Confundus.

Pointless Politicians

Over the last week I, like many, have had a serious dose of dejavu, a re-run of September 2014:

• Shock: that so many people across the UK seem to be saying, "All nig-nogs, wogs and Arabs go home" no matter if you are UK born and bred
• Disbelief: that so many leave voters had not the slightest clue with regards the impact of the vote on their own jobs, security, savings and pensions
• Hurt: with the outpouring of ignorance and lack of foresight or future planning among the very politicians who created this situation in the first place
• Anger: that the Unionist politicians response has been to implode into internal party squabbles and back stabbing for their own selfish benefit with no thought to what the UK needs
• Depression: as I have nowhere to express any of these feelings so end up internalising them.

What do you find if you watch or listen to any political program this weekend or sight the headlines of the London based papers - any analysis of the precarious position the UK now finds itself in after Mark Carney of the Bank of England saved the UK economy from imploding (just) by pumping another £250 billion, via QE, into the UK's already stressed banking system? In effect devaluing the pound further and were Unionist politicians being held to account for their folly?

No!

What has actually been going on today has been a Unionist party politics version of 'Big Brother' where contestants have spent their time and effort seeking to get anyone but them ejected from the 'House of Fools at Westminster' . In Scotland, the BBC and the rest of the Unionist media have spent the day telling Scotland we are still too wee, too poor and too stupid to join the EU on our own. Trying to claim black is once more the new white and the EU want nothing to do with Scotland, even though they mistranslated all the statements to back up their false claims when the message from the EU to Scotland is actually: 

• "Ditch EU-phobic England and Wales and we will welcome you with open arms, no problems at all." 

All rather different from the BBC, Telegraph, Express and Mail's claims of  'Sturgeon struggling for support in Brussels for her EU ambitions.'

On Friday playing golf I was in the company of at least two friends who voted 'No' in 2014 and 'Leave' in 2016. I asked the simple question, how did they feel seeing their pension funds and savings collapse as a result of the Brexit result and their votes? Unsurprisingly I was faced with a high degree of denial that what happened was just a blip and the pound and markets would recover as the Brexit plan came into place. These are not stupid men both had successful businesses and yet the anger in their responses was palpable. It seemed to me they knew it had been a 'balls up' but could not admit to themselves they were responsible for it. Their response turned to the stock 'SNP baad!' style claims, straight from the front page of the Mail or Express, Scotland was just part of the UK and would just do what it was told to by Westminster.

Over the week I have read many comments on blogs and across Facebook expressing a similar sense of bewilderment that intelligent people who vote 'No' in 2014 and 'Leave' in 2016, especially in the over 60 age groups, still think by continuing to vote in the same manner, the result will be different next time. Younger people struggle to comprehend why their Grand Parents have screwed them over in such a selfish and inward looking manner. So as part of my own attempts to have some sort of catharsis to deal with my own depression over the issue here is a brief explanation of the psychological process that causes this hidebound thinking - and not just when it comes to exercising the vote.

Hard wired into the primate brain is an aversion to risk. In some respects it has been a very good evolutionary bit of hard wiring given our current position on the evolutionary chain. The longer you have exercised this aversion to risk, the harder it is to ignore it even when the evidence indicates doing what you are doing is in fact more risky than changing your behaviour. This is manifest as a pattern of behaviour in heavy smokers, over eaters and the likes where the response is routinely to blame some other cause for the behaviour, "Its my glands" or by claiming the risk is overstated. This is known as cognitive dissonance fitting the facts to fit your behaviour. This process explains why many of the over 60's will not agree that their 'No' vote or 'Leave' vote was maybe not as smart a decision or in anyway as logical as they think.

The other psychological issue that effects us all, Yes or No; Stay or Leave is called cognitive bias. In terms of day to day life it presents as what we think of as our intuitive answer or response to any question or event. Any answer, response or action we take using this quick decision making system, is not based in logic, just learned behavior. It is how people can catch or kick balls with out having to think about it, so is a very useful thought process for day to day survival. So if you have 'learned' to be a 'Yes' supporter, your cognitive bias system programs you to automatically respond in a 'Yes' way in your answers and actions, simply because it is easier and you do not have to actually think logically. In the same way as many over 60's have 'learned' through out their lives the UK is so 'great' it should not be broken up. It only comes unstuck when someone asks you 'why?' and engages your logic circuit and you are left to either stop and consider (logic) or simply respond using cognitive bias, 'Because I say so!'

Writing this article I am using my logic circuit, it takes time to do this, as I constantly seek balance my knowledge base (logic) against my own cognitive bias. In effect I seek to self edit myself at every turn because my cognitive bias tells me to write an article panning over 60's as ignorant morons for voting 'No' and 'Leave' in such numbers and not trying to understand at a very core level, why they have voted in this way. On the other hand when you read articles by the likes of Brian Taylor at the BBC or Crichton, late of the Herald, you see their cognitive bias at work; masquerading as an informed opinion. 

The reason I think people trust Ms Sturgeon. in a way they did not do with Alex Salmond, is her actions and responses engage most people's logical thinking circuit and not our cognitive bias circuit. This may explain why people who previously would not have touched the SNP with a barge pole, now put their trust in her leadership of the SNP when compared to the UK public's almost universal contempt for politicians in the 'House of Fools' at Westminster; then again it might just be my cognitive bias at work.