UK Election 2017: tell your old folks their time is up

We live in an age where the source of your news will determine who you vote for and where in the social pyramid you probably find yourself. Most people will read from a news source, but there are stark differences in how those news sources treat various events and deal with diverse opinions. For one newspaper a scandal, for another an amusing anecdote. For one TV news broadcaster a waste of money, for another a long-term solid investment. Who to believe? And why does it matter to read all different sources of news?

My grandfather, who was also my uncle (long story cut short - my mother and her mother married two brothers), once gave me a very important life lesson. I asked him one day why he read a left-leaning newspaper but also a right-leaning one. His answer was clear: you have to know what the enemy is up to. I have never forgotten that line and I have stuck by it ever since.

Today, we live in a multi-faceted media world. We can get our news from someone's Facebook feed, or feeds from sources we ourselves have accepted. We can get it from watching Sky, Fox, ITN, or the BBC. Indeed, we can find it from a rejected newspaper in the train, or maybe we buy our newspapers at the corner shop every morning.

Newspaper readers in particular are very difficult to wean off their paper of choice. You could never give a Sun reader the Guardian and presume they will like it immediately. And vice-versa. Besides, it is not just a question of politics - it is also a matter or familiarity, intellect and taste. But it really matters. Because getting your information from one source is detrimental to acquiring a balanced opinion. Malcolm X once said, "If you aren't careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." If you stick to one source of news, over time, you are likely to believe everything written in there.

I acquire my news from the BBC, the Guardian, Mail Online and the Independent. I sometimes read the Economist, the Telegraph and watch Channel Four News on their website. I also see a lot of posts on Facebook from very diverse outlets such as Al Jazeera, CNN, and France 24. Most treat issues with the same seriousness and neutrality. Some find a unique angle to report from, some give statistics, some show a non-commentary video to tell the story. But the vast majority do not try to influence you one way or the other, because most of us accept certain issues as already fact, or because the news outlet wants you to make up your own mind through what they present. That is not always the case when it comes to politics.

That brings me on to the upcoming general election in the UK.

Where to begin? Let us start with the spin and the influencing. Take Theresa May's non-appearance at the BBC Election Debate on Wednesday night. She was replaced by the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd. Predictably, the left-wing press said this was a mistake, and she was scared of meeting the people, terrified of debates and not interested in ordinary people. The right-wing press predictably said it was not worth her turning up as it was a waste of time because twice as many people were watching BGT on ITV and because she was out on the streets instead, talking to the people who matter.

Where does the truth lie here? It probably lies somewhere in the middle - Theresa May knew a few weeks ago that she was a country mile in front, so she thought it best to steer clear of controversy and stay on-message, however sterile and boring that is. Saying that, I would say this was a bad error of judgement, as it gave five of the other six debaters the chance to stick in the sword.

Then there were the debates themselves and how they were reported. I watched the last half, and I saw highlights of the rest on highlights clips on YouTube and Facebook. I thought Jeremy Corbyn, Tim Farron, Angus Robertson, Caroline Lucas and Leanne Wood were quite eloquent, but they spent a long time attacking each other and especially the Tories, and not enough time talking about their own party's credentials. Amber Rudd was robotic and smiled when the audience laughed at her comments, like "judge us on our record". It was as if she knew this was just a soundbite, and she realised the audience knew as well. Paul Nuttall was like a builder's bumcrack at a society ball. He was excess to requirements. He got nearly no applause and when he opened his mouth to speak, he came across like Sean Spicer's less talented stand-in.

How did the newspapers report it?

Take a look at this article in the Guardian, on how biased the media has been behaving against Jeremy Corbyn, which seems to have a lot of credence. This one attacks Corbyn for befriending terrorists, this one shows Corbyn as a security risk, and this one bemoans the left-wing bias of the BBC. They're all from the Daily Mail.

If one runs a Google search for Daily Mail articles on the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn, one can find hundreds and hundreds of them criticising and attacking. The same newspaper's treatment of the Conservatives and Theresa May? Pretty clement, even towards Boris Johnson, the current incumbent of the people's Naughty Step:

In the end, this article is about Boris Johnson's masterful handling of an ice cream known in Britain as a 99 and nothing about policy at all. Funnily enough, there were no negative stories at all, except the one on the PM's refusal to attack Trump for pulling out of the Paris Agreement, and a mild one on her decision not to go to the BBC debate. Press bias is a feature of both the left and the right, and although left-wing ones are quite strong, they don't hit nearly as hard. Nowhere is it more vitriolic and more effective in its premeditated viciousness and underhand manoeuvres than in the hands of the right-wing media. They manipulate stories, change angles and points of view depending on who they are defending or attacking. But now, the tide is turning and many reasonably-minded press outlets are calling them out. Here is one of those, handled very effectively by the Huffington Post.

So, before you put your mark on the ballot paper next week, do a lot of research and question everything. You may even end up changing your vote preferences. For that reason, we need to get the message to the old. They are the ones most heavily influenced by newspapers, especially the right-wing press, and the ones most likely to vote. Demographically, in 5 to 10 years, there will be a lot fewer of them around, and my own feeling is this time is seen by the oligarchs in charge of the UK's press as being the final opportunity to make a landgrab for more wealth and influence.

Fortunately, the young are fighting back. Hundreds of thousands of new registrations to vote have been placed recently, and mainly by the young. This has caused a massive tilt in the opinion polls and a surge towards Labour, but these young people are notoriously languid on polling day. We can only hope they do go out to vote in their droves. The UK needs an effective opposition, especially if the Conservatives win a majority.

The Internet is full of images and graphics, like this one below, debunking the myths and lies spread by the right-wing media. The problem is, old people do not see these things, because newspapers do not have the same scope as the Internet, and so many old people are unaware of these simple issues.

(continued below the images)

These images containing meaningful messages are doing the rounds on the Internet, and so I challenge anyone with a family member over 60 who is without Internet: dig around for 5 to 10 simple yet effective memes of this kind, put it on your laptop or tablets and visit your relative to persuade him/her to vote for a party that wants to look after everyone.

Let us face it, the old have had their day. They need to be told the world will still be going on once they have departed, and it will most certainly not be the same world we have now. The elderly need to be persuaded that in fact, they do not have to put up with the decisions they make. The young do. Make way for youth, go and persuade your grandad to stand aside for the benefit of his descendants.

Don't bring your religion into politics and count on my respect

I have been utterly astounded by the number of people whom I have come across, on Facebook, in the media, or in person, who vote for political leaders based on one point only, no matter how relevant their other beliefs are for them. This is a very blinkered and self-defeating point of view, and the biggest share of this went to Christian fundamentalists, the vast majority of whom turn out time and time again for one party in many countries that best represents their chance to implement their ideologies, no matter what else the party believes in. We saw this in Poland, which swept the conservatives to power, and now we have seen it in the US, where the Republicans have steamrollered their way to all three houses.

In 2015, the Polish elected the Law and Justice (PiS) party to power, thanks to a growing dissatisfaction in rural areas with the speed of reforms implemented by the previous incumbents, Civic Platform. Although it is understandable for people to vote out a party that has ignored them, there were many who voted for PiS based purely on their sympathies with the Roman Catholic Church in the country. Since PiS was elected, it has taken a sledgehammer to the democratic institutions that were set up to assure constitutional equilibrium in the country, has tried to totally ban in-vitro fertilisation and pregnancy terminations (unsuccessfully) and tried to gag the independent media outlets.

Many fundamentalist Catholics in Poland would never consider voting for another party, and most certainly not for Civic Platform, the party that upheld the right to abortion in a vote not long before the last election. On 3 October 2016, the proposal to ban abortion outright brought Polish women of all kinds out on strike in a huge act of peaceful civil disobedience. Two days later, many politicians had begun to distance themselves from the proposal and an amendment was being considered at the time of writing this.

The irony is, the PiS (standing for Law and Justice) party claims they helped overthrow the Communist regime along with the Catholic Church, so they feel a little like they are owed a debt of gratitude for bringing about democracy, and yet they themselves have the most undemocratic agenda since the fall of Communism in 1989. So much so, a group of intellectuals and moderates established the KOD (Committee for the Safeguarding of Democracy) as a counterweight to the encroaching reduction in freedoms taking place in the country. What they want is closer to a theocracy than a democracy, and the people are finally beginning to realise the consequences of their actions.

The moral (pardon the pun) of the story here is, do not force your ideology on others. If you don't want to be involved in, or even inadvertently condone, something that you fundamentally deplore, that is your right. But it does not mean you should force your view on others by voting for a party based on one point of obsession. This is not how democracy works. Democracy is inclusive, and one size most certainly does not fit all.

Now we turn to the other side of the Atlantic, where the Republican party has won the right to govern the United States for the next four years. There is a great paradox between people with Christian values and the parties they vote for, the vast majority siding with the Republicans.

Let us take a look at Republicans' policies and compare them to Christian values:

So, to start with, they want to keep God in the public sphere. All's well and good if you're a Christian then. But dig a little deeper and the truth is very muddy.

Christian values stipulate that one should do unto others as you would do unto yourself, including:

• giving shelter to those in need; 
• providing help to the sick and the poor; 
• not killing your fellow human. 

And yet the Republicans strongly oppose giving asylum to those who have come to the US for a better life, they wish to foist medical expenses back on the individual and advocate the reversal of the weapons restrictions introduced under Barack Obama. Upon further consultation of policy one can see the Democrats favoured these points. Who is more closely aligned to Christian doctrine in these areas? I know who I would say...

Then there are thorny issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, both favoured by the Democrats and opposed by Republicans. These issues are relevant to far fewer people than those in the preceding paragraph, and yet they are the Republicans' most fertile hunting grounds for opposition supporters. So what this suggests is that, despite the fact that Jesus himself is recorded as hanging around with socially stigmatised groups like prostitutes and ex-criminals, this is irrelevant when it comes to Christians' political behaviour in modern times.

We can ignore the hundreds of thousands of people on the poverty line who are about to have healthcare added to their list of debts; rough up and throw out any under-the-radar immigrants who are doing all the jobs Americans don't want to do rather than give them an amnesty; and risk our lives by going out onto the street hoping not to meet a testosterone-fuelled sicko with a gun licence who can kill at a second's notice. Forget that, because hold your horses, folks... love between two people is only right and proper if they're male and female, and we shouldn't allow anyone to make sexual "mistakes". This is really rather creepy, but yes, fundamentalist (emphasis on the mental, and most definitely not on the fun) Christians would rather vote based on such kneejerk matters such as that rather than on the bigger issues.

The same goes with the environment:
It is entirely feasible that the next energy secretary will be a climate change denier. Despite all the warnings, the evidence and the fact that nearly two hundred countries have signed treaties to deal with it, the US is probably about to assign this job to a sceptic. Christians are split on this issue, although time and time again the Bible tells humans to respect the Earth:
Leviticus 25:1-7 and 23; Psalm 24; Ezekiel 34:18; Matthew 6:26; 1 Timothy 4:4; the list is endless, and they all point to the need to look after our planet. So one would think, that even as a sceptic, one would at least be respectful of our Earth and Her resources. But most Republicans favour withdrawing from environmental treaties and reigniting the fossil fuel industry.

Again, this is considered a side-issue by many fundamentalist Christians, because moral behaviour is a far greater threat to them than this. And to be honest, I find it at best very distasteful, at worst profoundly hypocritical. But most of all it highlights the easily-led, knuckle-headed narrow-mindedness of people (or sheeple, considering they are a flock) that:

• they would elect a party that condoned the widespread carrying of guns yet called themselves "pro-life"; 
• would listen to their priest telling them the story of the Good Samaritan and then immediately join a demonstration against Mexicans or Muslims; 
• would read from 1 Corinthians 13, which even for a non-believer like me is the best definition of love in existence, and then go and heckle an LGBTQ event. 

I remember I once knew a Baptist minister's daughter who, despite the deep unpopularity of John Major's government in 1997 due to the in-fighting, the scandals, the remoteness of the ministers and the institutionalised corruption, declared she would vote for him because he went to church. Did she even pay attention to the news...? I doubt it.

And this is my problem with religion interfering in politics. You cannot blindly let yourself be guided by priests, bishops and cardinals on the very narrow moral issue of sex and love which, by the way, they don't even take part in (if you don't play the game, you can't expect to make up the rules), and at the same time have a clear conscience on other issues of a more urgent nature, like the rising oceans, civilian gun crime, free healthcare, proper education, housing the homeless and welcoming refugees. The Statue of Liberty itself has these words:

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, 
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. 
To spread the light of liberty world-wide for every land."

If this is what you believe, then you are most definitely not a Republican, but you have probably been made to believe that you are by more eloquent people, or cajoled into voting for them by peer pressure, pressure from your elders or by your sheer blindness to the real issues.

I think it's only right to see that Bible verse in full. Learn from it, because it sums up not only what one might call "conventional" love, but also that for the Earth, for our neighbours, for our fellow humans, and our country:

"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

So on that note, if you vote based on one narrow issue of religious doctrine, don't expect me to regard you as an example of moral fortitude, for you have done nothing more than condoned a sort of "Christian Sharia" - the imposition of your religious doctrine in our law and politics, where people of other religions need to coexist. The content of Sharia law is totally different to Christian teaching in many aspects, but I don't think anyone would agree that Christianity should be applied to our laws. This is why, even in France and ultra-Catholic Italy, religious symbols are banned from state workplaces. Religion has a place inside people as individuals - it is a very personal thing. It has no place in a one-size-fits-all public sphere.

So please, keep your own beliefs to yourself, and don't impose them on others.

Why the electoral system in Britain is broken and how to fix it

In the beginning, the Labour Party went barking mad. Then the Conservatives got sleazy. One party in power alone, and the dangerous ideology that it implements, has caused untold damage to the nation, and now many people are reluctant to allow either of them to govern alone. Where do we go next?

The Labour Party of the sixties and seventies was full of paranoid militants and fist-pumping demagogues that were able, at the drop of a foreman's hat, to hold the country to ransom with one-out-all-out strikes and hard-cheese speeches if they didn't get their way. People saw through it all and Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Party won by a thumping landslide. Even my left-leaning father voted Tory in 1979. Due to their utter profligacy, Labour had left the country in a serious financial crisis. They were also being held to ransom by firebrand union members who had seen to it that the electric regularly went off and the shops weren't fully supplied if they didn't get their way. With Labour unelectable, the Tories just ran roughshod over those they could bully and cajole (the unions, Northerners, Scots and the poor among others) and alienated whole swaths of the electorate that they didn't care about. Sometimes this was for the good of the nation (hence the swift but ruthless reduction in the national debt) but often the upshot was the sale of another government enterprise for a fraction of its asking price to a friend of a friend of the minister responsible, who also got a cut somewhere along the line.

The swivel-eyed lunacy of the left kept them out of power for 18 years, until the back-stabbing sleaze of the Major administration made Labour understand that by rebranding itself, it could win once more. Tony Blair realised socialism was a dirty word, but people wanted to throw out the Tories, and they voted for New Labour in their droves. Sworn capitalists, bankers, even right-leaning newspapers gave their blessing to the new set-up. The country went into a deep euphoric trance brought on by spin doctors' magic touches and Tony Blair's messianic speeches, which made the nation realise that at last they had a leader they could say was punching above the country's weight abroad and redressing the balance at home. The trance was so deep, Blair even got re-elected despite a highly unpopular war in the Middle East.

...However...

...However...

What we didn't realise, on that day when Blair gave up Number 10 saying, "it is over, goodbye," was that he had handed over the keys to the nation to Gordon Brown on the eve of a financial meltdown and a global recession that would have far-reaching consequences for some time to come, probably a generation. It didn't have to be like that. Other countries, like Canada, Germany and Australia, avoided it. He was, quite frankly, spending his way into people's affection. Buying popularity. The most narcissistic and deluded Prime Minister of a Western democracy there has ever been decided to bail out when the money dried up. Nice.

And in stepped Gordon Brown, the last Prime Minister of a one-party government we will have for a very long time. It wasn't his fault. This was Blair's ultimate revenge for his great rival: leave him to pick up the pieces; let him take the hit. And so he did. Officially voted the single-worst PM in living memory (after Callaghan and Heath that's quite some doing), Brown made sure Labour was to lose the 2010 election by being indecisive, dithering and looking gloomy even when he was smiling. He had no real policies, just improvised "ideas" from the many think tanks New Labour employed at the taxpayer's expense.

And finally in May 2010 the electorate decided there was another way. Out went old confrontational politics, in came consensual politics. The Con-LibDem coalition that formed held together pretty well for the full 5 years, and I think, according to the polls, David Cameron and his two-party government didn't do badly, getting the UK out of some pretty tricky situations. But during the last 5 years, several things happened that have transformed the landscape of UK politics forever:

a. the Scottish referendum mobilised a whole nation, and despite the failure to secure their own nation state, the SNP is poised to win nearly all the seats in Scotland. Labour made themselves toxic in the country by siding with the hated Tories in the referendum debate. I fail to grasp why the Scots should think this, because it's only on this one opinion, which was demonstrated by all the parties except the Greens. I'm sure Labour and the Tories think trees are green and the sun is bright: it doesn't mean you have to hate one party because they agree with your enemy.

b. This has caused other parties to seize their moment. Plaid Cymru in Wales, the Greens in England and UKIP have cajoled their way into mainstream politics to such an extent, that they found themselves sharing a stage with the Big Three (well, the Big Two and the little coalition partner) during the recent leaders' debates. The smaller parties proved themselves worthy of being there too. To such an extent, in fact, that in some polls even the Greens are ahead of the Lib Dems.

c. Labour and the Lib Dems have lost credibility - the former due to Scotland and the last time they were in power, the latter over broken promises to cancel tuition fees. This has let the others in. The majority of party swingers are Lib Dems to the Tories or UKIP and Labour voters to the SNP, Plaid Cymru or UKIP.

The problem now is that the parties and their leaders really don't have a clue how to operate in these new conditions. Miliband and Cameron are refusing to talk about the deals they would do with any coalition partners; Miliband has said emphatically that he would rather the Tories got back in than be part of an SNP-Labour coalition in any shape or form. How many of us really believe that? He was stupid to say it, because he will be held accountable after Thursday, if the mathematics mean it is the only option. Cameron is tight-lipped about his party's future, just like Miliband, and dodges any question about coalition. These two are the living embodiment of a country experiencing the death throes of two-party politics. People's allegiances have changed, much like their shopping habits. No longer do we go to the same shop for the product we want; we look around for a better deal, and at the moment, we think the better deal is a combination of parties, to keep checks on the bigger ones.

What is likely to happen after 7th May is anyone's guess, but I would hope that whoever is there will be grown-up enough to fix the electoral system. These are two scenarios:

1. All parties' leaders choose their brightest minds who are to remain impartial and non-partisan, to discuss how to implement a better and more representative chamber, maybe where you get the same percentage of MPs as the electorate voted for you. It is ludicrous that the Greens, if they get 7% of the votes, might still only get one MP.

Problem: although the Lib Dems, UKIP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens would benefit from this, the SNP, Tories and Labour, crucially the three biggest parties, would not. A fudge would most certainly happen that would please nobody and further alienate an already tetchy electorate.

2. I would favour keeping the constituencies but having a two-round election, where the two candidates in a constituency with the most votes would go through to a second round the week after, thus guaranteeing MPs garnered more than 50% of the votes in their chosen constituencies, but keeping them on their very best behaviour as they may very well not make it to (or through) the second round. This way, we keep the tried-and-tested constituency set-up, which assures MPs remain attached to their electorate, and at the same time ward off that most undemocratic and elitist list system favoured by some countries that should know better. Although proportional representation assures correct apportioning of seats, it distances party grandees from their voters as they know they're top of the lists and thus don't need to do any campaigning at all. They can just hire some party stooges to hand out balloons to passers-by at supermarket car parks. So I would be loath to unleash such a badly thought-out system on such an engaged and active electorate.

Problem: I can already see most politicians being fervent opponents, as this system means their electorate, instead of voting for whom they want, would possibly vote for the other candidate in a sort of "anyone but that lot" exercise. Tactical voting on a whole new level. However, if an incumbent MP has done a good job, most people would put party politics aside and vote with their heads. I know Tory supporters who vote for their current Lib Dem MP because he's been very good for their town.

Considering the looming hung parliament and the unfathomable mathematical hangover it is likely to create, it would not surprise me if the Tories and Labour went into some kind of German-style Grand Coalition just to keep their two wannabe sister parties, UKIP and the SNP respectively, out of government. I doubt it, but it is an interesting scenario. Could you imagine the stunned looks on the faces of the ruling coalition backbenchers, when some wealthy, landed Eton/Oxbridge alumnus with no chin and an accent that could cut glass is reluctantly siding with a tieless, comprehensive school-leaver wielding a thick regional brogue and bus driving and a stint at a supermarket checkout featuring heavily on his CV? Angus Robertson of the SNP would be the Leader of the Opposition. It wouldn't last long... but long enough to cause Scotland to chip itself off. Who outside Scotland remembers The Vow any longer?

Lastly, if big-party politicians want any credibility, they need to stop treating the electorate as idiots. If they are to do deals with other parties, they need to say so, so that the electorate can make up its mind better. This whole campaign has been about nothing but ignoring the vast elephant in the room that is the next coalition. I, for one, am not scared of the SNP; far from it. Considering the efficiency and straighforwardness of the Scottish government, I think the Westminster parties are scared the SNP will come in and sweep up too many of the little comforts the established parties took for granted. Complacency has no place in British politics any more, and I think a dose of SNP in government will do the country good. Leave the SNP out, and they risk Scotland breaking off altogether.

Perfidious Alba - biting the hand that feeds it

More politics today, I'm afraid. It seems that quite a lot of people in Scotland, on the fringes of the European continental shelf, have voted for the Scottish National Party, known as the SNP. Well, let them go. I mean, for 300 years they've grumbled, moaned, patronised and suffered their way through that Union, claiming they're under-represented, they don't get heard, feel that they're living in the shadow of Big Brother England. So let their leader, Alex Salmond, have his way in government. Let him steer the Scottish ship out of the British harbour. And then stand back and wait for the bang.

Because that is what will happen. I don't think he's thought it out properly. On a recent BBC programme on the Scottish election, old fishface Salmond said he'd retain the pound as the main currency of Scotland. Well pardon me Al old boy, but you're missing the point here. Scottish independence means you get your own currency, set your own foreign policy and trade with other nations alone. How ideal would that be for him? It seems he wants his own little domain without the unpopular drawbacks economic policy would bring to his door. Let London take the blame. Is it because even he realises Scotland would have the economic power of Latvia if he set his own currency up?

Scots, like the Irish and the Welsh, have continually gone in for some hard England-bashing. They seem to find it fun to mock those south of the border, preferably those in the south east corner, the ones with the wrong accent who subsidise their free university education while those in England pay thousands to send their offspring off to get degrees.

Of the £8680 of tax money most earners pay on middle-income salaries that was spent by UK central government in the year 2006, £1120 get put towards the health service (fair enough); £763 will go to local government (to help towards services such as police and education); £440 on education; £343 on defence; £135 on Northern Ireland; only £75 on international development and £4200 are left over for fluctuating expenditure like social security and infrastructure. But a massive £520 gets put aside on regional expenditure in Scotland and Wales. That means if the UK let Scotland go its own way, the English would all have a rebate which would certainly add to the Christmas present fund or a little extra pocketmoney for the summer holidays.

So this also means Alex Salmond wants English tax to carry on subsidising his little fiefdom up there, because if he did get full independence, Scottish income tax would make Belgium and Sweden look like Monaco. You've certainly done the maths, Al. After trying to negotiate independence his way, England would basically be paying for him and his little Scotlanders to carry on feeling sorry for themselves and congratulating each other on being able to continue ranting at the English at their expense.

I mean, what would an independent Scotland bring to the world? Let's look into it:

• Another Eurovision entry: whilst re-applying for membership of the EU, which when considering the queue in front of them (Croatia, Macedonia, etc.), might take a while, they can get fast-track membership of the EBU and possibly get just as badly blown away by voters' bias as the others. As long as they get more points than England, it doesn't matter, eh?
• Another EU Commissioner: what portfolio would they get? They were hard-pushed to find one for the Romanian Commissioner Leonard Orban - eventually, Multilingualism was scraped off the bottom of the barrel for him. So let's give the Scots control of a Complaints department. They'd be good at that.
• Exporting quality TV: once the BBC is broken up into the SBC, EBC and so on, they can try and raise enough money to put together some interesting shows and documentaries that other countries would want to buy. If not, there's always YouTube.

Excuse my chagrin in this matter, but I feel I'm losing my identity because some starry-eyed utopians want to turn the north of the UK into a huge kibbutz. I am British. My surname is Goslitski. My Polish grandfather was involved in the D-Day landings. My family's other side is mainly Irish, but the point is here that I am NOT happy being called English. For in order to feel English I would need Anglo-Saxon or Norman blood, which I have precious little of. The British Jamaicans, Nigerians, Australians, Zimbabweans, Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis in the UK may also know what I mean. "British" is a universal word, an all-encompassing pair of syllables which give us that little bit of freedom to feel what we are. Why do some Scots feel so put out by it?

When I was younger, I remember the Scottish, Welsh and sometimes even the Northern Irish qualifying for the European Football Championships or the World Cup. The consensus in most of England was to share out the support for the "Home Nations". Yet up in Scotland, many made the opponents of England teams, whether cricket, rugby or football, honorary Scots for the day. It used to be meaningless banter, but recently it has become more personal, and many English people I know have withdrawn any support they would have offered them. Trivial example, I know, but it shows you the ill-feeling flowing through the land.

Do I detect a bit of historical retardedness? Some little Englanders still revel in Germany-bashing or Argentina-baiting, which I find quite petty, but at least the events related to their behaviour are not too far back. The Scots have been roasting the English since Bannockburn in 1314. Isn't it time to bury the past? Who do these people think they are? And why do they insist on hlding grudges over things their ancestors, now definitely dead, might have done to them through the ages? Are we going to write to the city council of Rome and ask them for compensation because they once ruled over England 1600 years ago? Or for that matter, do you think we should lobby the UN to bring sanctions on France for all the battles over the centuries? No. Because we're past that now. It has nothing to do with people alive today. In the same way I find it vulgar that many English until recently used to bang on about the Second World War, I find it even more repulsive that some Celts of whichever denomination keep pounding the English, laughable even, considering how far in the past it was. The Union works well NOW. Doesn't that count for anything?

The UK is not London-centric. In fact, it heavily favours the Scots and Welsh: their Members of Parliament can vote on English matters, which the English ones cannot. The Scots get free university education. They have their own newspapers, can print their own money and get preferential treatment in many other issues. Many of them still want more. For example, when London's candidature was put forward for the 2012 Olympic Games, many outside the capital, including some English, claimed London bias. Why not Glasgow, or Edinburgh? Because those cities are not anywhere near equipped enough to deal with such an enormous event. The UK applied before with Manchester and Birmingham. The French tried with Lille. The Germans with Leipzig. The Japanese with Osaka. But the IOC stated that only large cities with the correct infrastructure would have any chance. In Europe only Barcelona, Munich, St Petersburg and Milan would have any chance of defeating capital cities and two of them have had the Games already. London won and the other cities didn't.

I am not anti-Scottish, but I can't stand it when people stereotype a whole nation as evil bad guys. These people can't see a successful marriage: the United Kingdom has a lot going for it. Together, it punches above its weight in international affairs, it shares equality with France, Germany and Italy in the EU, it has greater credibility in this globalised world. "British" has long been a word to inspire, has been a symbol of a quality product, has for centuries turned "me" into "us". Why should this be different now?

But if the Scots want to go, let them. And in 10 years, when their foreign debts become too high, when their infrastructure needs repair and there isn't enough money, when their main source of income is wind energy (and we all know you need a lot of those expensive propellors to even charge up a phone battery), when their population ages but their pensions are minute, when their citizens are queuing at banks to withdraw their savings before the crash, let those of us who still believed in the Union say with one voice, "we told you so".

Mrs Blair vs Mr Thatcher: the French presidential candidates

So the French elections are entering their final episode, when the proud people of that nation cast off the 5th Republic's statuesque leadership and finally enter into the political world of the 20th century. They have been waiting for this moment since the massive strikes of the nineties. France is no longer the place it used to be: people accept the need to make their country relevant outside Europe. They also know they have some problems internally. But do they?

Let's look at the facts:
France has one of the best health services in the world
It is one of the leading tourist destinations, battling Spain and the United States for supremacy
It has a reputation for fine wines and aesthetic food
It has the highest amount of people taking part in sport in Europe
The architecture and infrastructure of most of its towns are very nicely organised
This means a high standard of living
It has a world-class working ethic, balancing family and profession

But:
It has a high ethnic minority population which feels disenfranchised from the "real France"
It suffers from high unemployment and a flagging industry sector
It subsidises agriculture to the point where it is no longer to produce food, but to keep angry militant farmers in jobs
It props up all types of meaningless traditions, jobs and ways of life to stop its members revolting
It boldly tries to form an alternative to the "American Way", and would have great success, but for nobody taking it seriously enough

And this is where the problem lies: France doesn't really have anything to worry about, none of its problems can be solved overnight, but not all of them are incurable. Its people are just suffering from a temporary inferiority complex brought about by the realisation that they are no longer major players in Europe or the world at large. This realisation came in two waves. Firstly, in its drop from on high:

- When London won the bid for the 2012 Olympic Games, France understandably went into a period of inward-looking self-pity, thinking that the "Anglo-Saxon" (as some of the detractors like to call the UK and the US) hegemony was dangerously extending into deep-seated French creations like the modern Olympic movement. I seriously believe London won simply because its final presentation focused on the Games themselves, not on the smiling faces of its inhabitants in the videos which accompanied them. Paris was a gimme until that final moment.

- Another was its loss of linguistic and political power in the European Union. Until the arrival of the 10 newcomers, France and the French language were in control of most of the European debate. With the arrival of countries like Estonia, Slovakia, Cyprus and Malta, where French has few learners, let alone speakers, the shift eastwards meant English was now the only realistic working language of business and politics in Europe. More importantly, it also meant the European monetary mentality and political mindset had shifted from social state to market economy.

Its second realisation was waking up to find its young people, its unemployed but most of all its minorities feeling threatened and intimidated. The future of France, excluded from the workplaces and ignored in discussions on its direction, left outside of any meaningful roles to play. Cities quaked with fear as cars were set on fire, shops looted and what were communal areas became empty by day and fraught with lawlessness by night. The French way of life was taking a battering. Those with jobs knew they had a job for life no matter what, as long as they didn't rock the boat or challenge their bosses. The hierarchy ruled and those below waited until a place became free to move up. The rest just stood in line catching the leftovers thrown from those on the ladder of employment.

These two factors have pushed France to accept it needs to change, but nobody has a plan yet. Ideas are abundant, opinions everywhere, but actions are not forthcoming.

Enter the two candidates:
Mrs Blair, alias Ségolène Royal
Mr Thatcher, alias Nicolas Sarkozy

Ms Royal has so far shown she is a listener and a sympathetic mother-figure who wants to reform the country but she has not set out any policies in stone yet. She has attacked Mr Sarkozy for his immorality and bloodthirsty ambitiousness but she has tried to copy Mr Blair's image-conscious election campaigns and vague election promises. Mr Sarkozy on the other hand has shown his hand and nailed his flag to the mast. He seems to have some draconian views on France's problems and his popularity has risen, Thatcheresque, by his controversial views and hard-line reform packages. Like Mrs Thatcher, he has gained further popularity by his sheer bloody-minded insensitivity to what people think of him.

If France is to change, it is going to have to put up with a lot of pain. It seems the country is bent on re-invention but this may just come with a change of leader and the rest will take care of itself. Alternatively, the new leader may seek to curry favour with the whole population and continue to give in to the unreasonable demands of its more militant inhabitants. I think it will depend on who gets his/her message across better when in power. Sarkozy is likely to be blunt, forthright and obstreperous in his pursuit of overhauling the system. Royal will probably be explanatory in her vision yet vague in the way she wants to do it, in order to persuade the population to adopt her methods.

Mr Sarkozy's main downside is himself. If he can get through the message that he is serious about his policies, some (like his reduction of tax, which seems unrealistic at this juncture) which curry favour with the honest worker and some (no Turkey in the EU) which further disenfranchise the minorities, there could be some turbulence ahead.

Ms Royal's main problem is her much-too-benevolent ideas ("consolidate" the 35-hour week, raise the minimum wage by 250 euro) which seem to just make a mockery of France's need for reform.

Whoever wins in the early hours of Monday morning, one thing is for certain: both will be accused of u-turns and lies to win the Elysée. For Royal to further subsidise the poor and for Sarkozy to maintain tax levels to support his agenda, I fear nobody is fooled by the insincerity and idealism. They will both have a shock when they see the small budget they have to carry out their plans.