What Yesterday Meant to Me

Since that first time I heard Greta Thunberg, I sensed that something wonderful might be about to happen.

Eventually she inspired a resistance. The school children's revolt and then Extinction Rebellion - children and adults saying there no longer could be, nor would be, tolerance of the status quo.

As altruistic Britons were refusing to move, they were arrested, charged and taken into custody - for what is genuinely trying, in a most modest way, to save humanity by changing minds.

And it worked.

With more than two-thirds of the population now realizing that the UK was in a climate change emergency, Jeremy Corbyn took that as his cue to table a motion calling on Parliament to declare a state of national climate emergency that easily passed in the House of Commons bolstering similar declarations from Wales and
Scotland.

As Westminster was declaring a national emergency, across the Atlantic, Canada's finance minister, Morneau, was beating his chest over fracked gas, LNG, as proof of Canada's ability to deliver on big carbon-energy projects. The prime minister, meanwhile, was begging Alberta premier, Jason Kenney, to save emissions caps by promising to just look the other way on bitumen extraction.

Brits take pride in their "stiff upper lip" image, the "Stay Calm and Carry On" national mantra. The people of the UK aren't afraid to look over their shoulder and spot what's coming and, when they did, they demanded action.  Canadians, apparently, aren't made of such stuff. All we have to hear are empty threats such as "this will hurt the economy" and we're in full rout. It seems we don't care if this cherished economy or that small fraction represented by fossil fuels has led us to a cliff edge. We're not stopping.

We don't care. Not enough of us anyway. Sure, we're worried about climate change but not enough to insist that real measures be taken to at least give us a chance at a soft crash landing. Ah, the kids'll figure out something. They'll have to with the future we're bequeathing to them.

Maybe we can still change but the clock is quickly running out and our governments aren't courageous enough to declare climate change a national emergency even though Canada is vulnerable. We have the longest coastline of any nation, from sea to sea to sea. Our vast forests are being ravaged by heat waves, unreliable snowcap and summer precipitation, mass infestation by pine beetles and other pests that are now moving steadily out of the West toward the Atlantic. The Arctic ice and snow that once kept our tundra and permafrost stable is disappearing, giving rise to the release of potentially massive quantities of methane and CO2. To the south, "once a century" floods are now becoming once every few years, our "new normal." Science now shows that the prairie petro-provinces are looking at a future as parched wasteland. Mega drought imperils our domestic food security. Our essential infrastructure is in decay and in no shape to withstand the severe climate that is even now setting in. Even our fisheries are being changed as native species migrate in search of colder waters. Wildfire smoke now perfumes the skies of the West, forcing ordinary Canadians to shelter indoors at what used to be the very best time to be outdoors.

But no, we don't have a climate change national emergency and, if we do, we're too cowardly to deal with it.  We won't change, not in time. When we go to the polls this October look for 70 per cent, perhaps more, of the vote to go for the very worst petro-state parties, the Liberals or the Conservatives.

Yesterday was a bittersweet moment, one eagerly awaited. I'm proud of the British people for forcing their politicians' hands. I wish we were made of that same stuff.

What We Saw This Week in Westminster

It looks like utter chaos in Theresa May's House of Commons. The Conservatives are fractured, Labour is fractured, whipped votes aren't. The Scots want something, the Northern Irish want something else, the Welsh are playing it cool for the moment, at least compared to everyone else. Some are calling for snap elections. Others want another referendum. A small camp wants a hard Brexit, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. Another group wants to settle for the withdrawal agreement May negotiated with the EU. That includes the "backstop" for the Irish border that infuriates the hard Brexit camp.

What the world is witnessing, with a lot of puzzlement, is a nation governed by representative democracy having to deal with the result of direct democracy. It doesn't help that the Brexit referendum was botched. Leave voters were seduced by empty promises that bordered on outright lies, coupled with financing irregularities and, of course, the manipulative prowess of Cambridge Analytica.

After two years of wrangling, there isn't a person today who can accurately define Brexit. What is it? Who knows? Having recently spent hours listening to Brit talk radio (LBC London) or the Guardian live stream coverage of the House of Commons, it's obvious that there is no central factual framework to this. One will eventually emerge, possibly by default. There may be no real managed outcome and that will be a cloud over Parliament for years to come.

The referendum was direct democracy. Brits were asked to choose Leave or Remain and the Leave camp won by a small margin. Team Farage might have spun Leave supporters with sugar plum dreams but they had no accountability once the votes were counted.  Like Jacques Parizeau their only challenge was to get enough "lobsters in the pot."

The referendum outcome then fell to Parliament, representive democracy, to enact in some form or another. That's where the real slogging began. MPs had to represent their constituents and the nation. And doing that meant dealing with other affected parties that had no vote, no say, including the entire European Union, especially the Irish Republic. There were fears of a resumption of "the Troubles" between north and south. It wasn't easy getting the UK into the EU and it wasn't going to be easy to get out either.

What lies ahead in the next few weeks? Nobody knows. Theresa May will keep trying to grind down MPs until she gets enough support for her withdrawal agreement. Third time lucky? Then she needs the support of all 27 other members of the EU for a postponement of the March 29 trigger date.

A lot of mistakes have been made since David Cameron called for the referendum. The United Kingdom, if it can even remain united, will be paying for those mistakes for years to come.

It is Finished. Scotland Stays Put - For Now.

The BBC has called the Scottish independence referendum for the No side.  The pro-independence Yes side did win some notable victories, Glasgow for example, but not enough votes overall to succeed.

Now it falls to David Cameron to face down angry dissent in the Tory caucus and make good his promises to the Scottish people if they supported No.  That's not going to be easy and could lead to a Tory revolt but there'll be absolute hell to pay if the Scots who tipped the vote Cameron's way are given cause to feel they've been had by Whitehall.

The Union May Survive Intact but Cameron Is Seriously Wounded

According to The Guardian, late polls show Scotland will stay in the United Kingdom.  As Scots went to cast their ballots the No side was up six points, 53 to 47 for the Yes secessionists.

Assuming those numbers hold, the onus is going to fall very heavily on London to come through with its 11th-hour promises of a new deal for the Scottish people.

Already Cameron is facing a rebellion in his caucus over what are seen as giveaways to the north that will have to be paid for by the south.

"Writing in the Wiltshire Gazette and Herald, [Cameron's rail minister, Claire Perry] warned against giving Scotland 'a whole raft of goodies' which would have to be 'paid for by us south of the border to try and appease the yes voters.'

"Perry wrote: 'The funding formula for Scotland, the rather cobbled together Barnett formula, already delivers per capita funding north of the border well in excess of that spent per head in other parts of the union, and if there is a proposal to allow devolution of local taxation, as well as maintaining the current level of funding from the UK parliament, than that can hardly be equitable for those of us in the Devizes constituency and all other areas in the non-Scottish union."

Like it or not, all three party leaders pretty much went along with the bribe and there'll be hell to pay if they renege in the aftermath.  A win for the No side is not going to end London's problems. They're only just getting started.

The Guardian's Gaby Hinsliff writes that many of Cameron's caucus colleagues wonder if he has any chance of winning the tough battles ahead.

For days now, the grumbling in Tory circles has been growing louder: a low, angry chorus muttering that, whatever happens, it’s all David Cameron’s flipping fault. Although flipping isn’t the word they use. When it first began looking as if Scotland might be heading for independence, his party’s anger with him was understandably intense. Even when the consensus shifted back to maybe no-by-a-whisker, his apparent complacency still annoyed them.

But what’s striking is that even when rumours began flying that it might be a firmer no, you could still find Tory MPs wholly unable to forgive a leader who many feel did too little for too long, before panicking and doing too much too late.

It’s not the fact that he offered Scotland extra powers at the last minute that has annoyed English Tories, so much as the back-of-a-fag-packet inelegance with which the deal was presented, and the fact that he seems to have kept so few bargaining chips in reserve.

Will Scotland Show Us the Way?

Polly Toynbee writes that Scotland might just show the rest of us the way to reset social democracy.  Hint - it involves raising taxes.

The Guardian columnist, writing in the Daily Record, says that with a "yes" vote on independence, Scots will have an opportunity to close the poverty gap if they have the will to pay for it.

Of places in the UK where you are likely to die earliest, heading the list are Glasgow, Dundee, Greenock, Hamilton and Clydebank, alongside England’s unhealthiest spots – Manchester, Blackpool and Burnley – and Belfast. Things look even worse when you measure how many good years residents can expect before they fall into ill health with long-term conditions.

A Yes vote won’t change the facts of social life. That needs a) a radical, egalitarian administration in power at Holyrood that b) adopts an active social programme based on higher tax to pay for higher welfare benefits and fairer pay.

I understand all the other reasons for choosing Yes or No. But for me, an outsider looking in, here’s the No1 independence question. Are the people of Scotland genuinely willing to tax themselves towards social democracy?

That includes all those company bosses threatening to decamp if corporation tax goes up or any hint of top rates rising. But it takes not just taxing the rich – real redistribution means middling folk paying more too.

...It’s admirable that many Scots look north, aspiring to join the Nordics. Who wouldn’t choose to be more Swedish than Cameron British? But those countries start out fairer than Scotland or the UK, with fewer people paid rock-bottom wages and fewer executives elbow-deep in company treasure chests.

To become as fair as Sweden, Scotland would have to move five points on the
Gini coefficient measure of inequality – no small feat. It would take more benefits for the low paid, sick and unemployed, higher tax on incomes over £100,000 and more council tax. It would need a hike in the minimum wage to a living wage and tough controls on boardroom pay.

Would Scotland wear all that? Across the UK, eight out of 10 say the gap between rich and poor is too great – a high and rising number, spurred by the spectacle of bank bonuses in austere times.

Attitude surveys find Scottish residents are a bit more willing to redistribute by a margin of 43 per cent in favour to 34 per cent against. But the rest of the UK is only marginally behind, at 41 per cent for redistributing to 30 per cent against – at least in theory but are they willing in practice?

Does Scotland have the will to show the rest of us the way? With a Yes or a No vote, greater devolved powers will mean freedom to make significant difference. Let’s hope that means more than a shoddy corporation tax race to the bottom.

Will Britain's PM Energize Quebec Sovereigntists?

British PM David Cameron is prepared to roll the dice.  He'll tell the Scots this week they can hold a binding referendum on sovereignty provided, 1) that it be held in the next 18 months, and, 2) that if it fails any future referenda will be advisory only.

Cameron is also ruling out a third option, something akin to "sovereignty association."   The referendum has to be a straight "yes/no" question.   The Scots will have to decide they're either part of the UK or not.

The Scots won't be happy with Cameron's terms.  They wanted the referendum in 2014, the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.   They're also chafing at the notion that London could frame the question to be put to the Scottish people.   Sound familiar?

Will a Scottish vote in favour of independence be enough to stir restive sovereigntists in Quebec?  It'll be something to keep an eye on.