The Union as Racketeering
We’re witnessing now the No campaign and the Unionist infrastructure (what old Marxists would call ‘hegemony’) descend into a base language centred around threats and intimidation. I used to think that devout British subjects in Scotland were suffering an advanced form of mass Stockholm Syndrome, a nation of Patty Hearst’s.
I began to fantasize that the uncrumbling of this malignant form would come not by the consciousness of Scots but by development of it’s inverse – Lima Syndrome – amongst our ‘leaders’: Johann Lamont, Malcolm Rifkind, Michael Forsyth and others. The return of the Stone of Destiny was the first sign of this new variant strain, which remained undetected for years, until Michael Moore cracked and – in a remarkable press conference chaired by Alan Cochrane at Dunfermline Abbey – came over to the cause of independence, only to be followed quickly by Messrs McLeish, Chisolm, Boyack and Dugdale in a dramatic Burns Night revelry gone too far. But the real surprise came when Duncan Hothersall, Jackie Baillie, Ian Smart and Brian Wilson announced they had all joined Labour for Indy dressed in trews and playing air guitar to the Rollers Shang-a-Lang! at the Edinburgh Festival.
Scots aren’t suffering from Stockholm Syndrome – the mass delusion isn’t that strong. But we have been ruled by racketeers and the problem for the No campaign is that the more shrill and aggressive the threats become – as they have this week over BAE – the more this is exposed as a particularly vicious form of constitutional intimidation.
A crime racket is defined as a ‘a service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, will not be affected, or would not otherwise exist.’
Britain is a concept that offers a certain form of protection. It’s a protection racket that protects you from the future, from innovation or facing difficult challenges (like ‘what are we going to do now the worlds changed?’) by wrapping you (tightly) in bunting, celebrating the past and glorying in our institutions and achievements, however inadequate, corrupt or or blood-soaked they might actually turn out to be be under the most cursory scrutiny.
The dependency culture of an entire sector – shipbuilding – on handouts from the MoD – and the threats of its withdrawal today and yesterday in both ‘Houses’ – is a prime example of this racket. The secrecy around this set-up is falling each day as the whispers turn to shouts and the reality dawns on a whole set of people that this is both a deeply uncomfortable set of relationships and an utterly unsustainable situation. The Unionist Omertà is failing.
This is why the process of gaining independence is becoming both crucial and moving. Yes we could vote No and guarantee jobs on the Clyde for eternity. But the more you think about that prospect the more your realise what a backwards, fragile, and quietly insane idea that is. That such a project should be protected under a thinly veiled series of threats simply adds a tone of bitterness to the arrangement but the idea itself is one that’s open to plain ridicule. How long shall we build these ships and for what purpose? If, as seems likely, they have no operational purpose, nor can we afford to arm them, might we consider keeping both Portsmouth and Govan open? One to build them and one to dismantle them? The parts could then be trucked north for the process to restart? Like prisoners stitching then unpicking mailbags the entire British workforce could be kept in gainful employment in perpetuity.
Once we see the Lib-Tory-Labour alliance as part of racketeering operation the whole thing makes much more sense. They’re more Triad than Yardies, and the goal, to protect their power base, is both rational and comprehensible. They need to be either ‘arrested’ or persuaded to ‘go legit’.
If we keep paying the extortion will continue. This week told us that. It’s becoming clearer.