Why Scotland needs a Bicameral parliament

We are seeing the big flaw in the Scottish 'parliament'.  It has no 2nd revising chamber.   

It is clear it is not a parliament that can be seen in legislatures in democracies across the globe.  They simply don’t work this way.  And it’s increasingly obvious why.  It was conceived as an assembly, almost like a glorified Strathclyde Regional Council, not a full-blown parliament.  It therefore doesn't have checks and balances you would expect in a ‘parliament’  that is passing legislation like this.    

And that won’t be happening any time soon if Scotland becomes “independent”. What government would add a revising chamber when it knows it can get everything through without a pesky 2nd chamber. 

There is a second thing at play here.  Every piece of legislation presented in Holyrood is done on the basis of presumed consent from the UK parliament which provides the Scottish assembly with its legitimacy.   

Given the Gender Recognition Bill will have consequences in the rest of the UK which go beyond the remit of Scotland’s devolved powers, the UK could simply remind Ms Sturgeon that the assembly in Holyrood would be acting out-with its powers and, if she continued to seek to implement the Bill, legitimacy could very simply be withdrawn by the UK government for this Bill.

Nicola can't swing both ways

Ms Sturgeon is pretty useful at juggling numbers and telling us Scotland voted to stay in the EU, a reason she thinks should be enough for a 2nd Independence referendum.   

On closer inspection it turns out not quite the whole of Scotland voted Remain.   38% of Scottish voters voted Leave.  That was a total of 1,018,322 out 2,679,795 of souls who voted to Leave the EU.  Hardly “Scotland voted to Leave”. 

So, what of the last General Election?  Well, only 45% voted for Nicola and her SNP.  Hardly a Scotland voted SNP result.   

Ms Sturgeon can't swing both ways.  As the late Paddy Ashdown said, "you either believe in democracy or you do not". 

Net Zero? Taxation should be.

Well, an interesting change in tack by Chanellor Kwarteng. (I do hope the Daily Mirror gets the right photograph on its pages tomorrow.)  

But any government should be starting from the points: 

1. In what areas is government help needed and 

2. What is the absolute minimum amount of money we have to take off the citizens to achieve it.    

Saying, as Scotlands first minister effectively has said overnight, that a 45% rate is morally right is just infantile.  If the need for taxpayer funded government intervention fell surely it would be immoral to keep taxing at a high level just to fill the governments coffers. 

To keep on with the first ministers dubious claim to be the moral guardian of the nation.  I am not sure how moral it was to have primary school children forced to sing songs of praise to her. “We are so grateful thank you for always keeping us safe, working so hard, for being strong for us.”  It was just like what children sing to Kim Jong-un.  Very disturbing.  

Sticking to morals.  Is it morally right for the taxpayer to keep funding the treatment of sick people who have, through their own actions, created their illness?  That is why people have to insure their own car third party.  It is not morally right that other pick up the tab for your driving.   

Morally, if taxpayers money is to be used in health care, should the funding not be put into stopping people becoming ill in the first place?    

Or end of life care.  Instead of spending a significant amount of the NHS budget on keeping people alive for a few months, should we not accept that death is inevitable and pour that money into stopping people getting ill in the first place?  Or into palliative care?  

Discuss.

The EU's Boot Boys

The IMF, long noted for its less than perfect forecasting and Moodys, again, being less than accurate on a number occasions, have taken to the issuing of reports to denounce Chancellor Kwarteng.  Which is odd given the basis on which they are being critical could be used against many nations, not least the USA, when it comes to poverty in an industrialised nation. Or China.  Where do we even start with that nation.     

But no, it’s the UK that gets the kicking.  Aided and abetted on the airwaves by all the usual suspects in the UK, largely people who don’t believe in democratic mandates.  It’s clear the majority in support of the IMF are of similar mindset.  Leaving the EU was a mistake.  The people who voted Leave were stupid.  The UK must be punished.         

Funny how all these people in unelected posts, Lagarde ECB, von der Leyen EU, Kristalina Georgieva IMF, all think they know better than democratically elected and accountable people.

The cynical amongst us must have wondered what influence Ms Legarde used given she formerly was head if the IMF.  I’m sure she left a good few anti UK place men and women behind to do her work.

A final thought is a comment made by Daniel McCloray posted in the Telegraph, “If ever there were proof of institutional overreach this is it, welcome to the unelected deities who hand out punishment to sovereign states if they don’t comply.  How did we get here?”   But we can't be surprised.  The IMF, the EU and ECB have done this all before.  Greece, Italy, Ireland et al.

If you let your people vote, just make sure they vote the right way.  Or we will punish you. The message comes over loud and clear.