Corporate branding is an exercise in image-making. Brands do not describe the company or organisation, rather they create an impression in the minds of potential customers and investors. What works with businesses also works with political parties.
The Liberal Democrats, with their speech codes restricting the free speech about things with which they disagree and their longing to overturn the result of the Brexit referendum, are neither liberal nor democratic.
The modern Labour Party have embraced identity politics and support just about every sectional interest available, apart from Jews and the white working class. As Emily Thornberry noticed, the commoners tend to have ideas which do not fit in with Labour’s new priorities; some of the hoi polloi even display St George’s flags. But corporate branding is effective and many working people still automatically vote for what they see as ‘their party’.
The Conservative Party have no desire to conserve anything. The traditional family of Dad, Mum and the children was once seen as the bedrock of our social structure. Today it is difficult to find any policy proposed by the Conservatives which would see the traditional family strengthened in any meaningful way. We even had Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron proudly introducing homosexual marriage to the UK ‘because I am a Conservative’.
The Conservative Party is an organisation whose primary object is to gain and hang on to power for its leaders whatever policies they support: a self-perpetuating oligarchy.
Perhaps the most grotesquely and yet effectively misnamed political party is the Scottish National Party. Apart from the penchant of Cabinet Secretary for Justice Humza Yousaf MSP to wear tartan ties, there is little specifically Scottish about the SNP. It would be possible to lift the SNP’s main policy proposals and aims and by changing the geographical designations alone transform it into the Finnish, Greek or any other National Party, including the English.
The SNP are at heart a progressive globalist party who just happen to operate in Scotland. And yet it works: there are hundreds of thousands of patriotic Scots who work for, support and vote for the SNP, thinking they do it for the Scotland they love. The Scotland which will be demolished by the SNP.
Instead of being committed to the preservation and development of the cultures which have created modern Scotland, the SNP are devoted to multiculturalism. In their desire to accommodate every identity group in pursuit of ‘diversity is our strength’ they sideline things Scottish apart from a few bagpipers or folk singers providing window-dressing at rallies and conferences.
The SNP want to leave a successful union in which Scotland is the second-largest country, and has far greater influence than mere numbers warrant, in order to be part of a 28-plus-member union where Scotland would be one more insignificant minnow in a pool dominated by French and German sharks.
Remaining in the customs union and allowing free movement of people would be of benefit only to the globalist corporatists who are determined to dismantle the power and influence of nation states. Globalists thrive on interchangeable populations and the low wages they bring about.
The pseudo-patriotism of the SNP is encapsulated by their determination to be the most ‘progressive’ party around. This is the sole area where they promote the idea that Scotland is inherently different in its culture or practices from other nations. Scotland under their rule no longer distinguishes itself on its education system or its work ethic. Today Scotland stands out as being at the forefront of progressive social engineering.
You have to be very progressive indeed to think it appropriate for a government to canvass the opinions of eight-year-olds on contentious national policy. The Scottish government Twitter account ScotGovEurope asked: ‘Are you aged 8 – 18? Children and young people in Scotland are going to be affected by #Brexit, so we want your views!
Are you aged 8 – 18? Children and young people in Scotland are going to be affected by #Brexit, so we want your views!
Apply to join the @cisweb Children & Young People's Panel on Europe to work with @scotgov.
Find out more & apply by 22nd August ?? https://t.co/aGDYtjmNAD pic.twitter.com/NjCCVDv98B— ScotGovEurope (@ScotGovEurope) July 13, 2018
The Children in Scotland charity which is running the consultation with eight-year-olds and upward received more than £200,000 in Scottish Government grants last year.
In practice ersatz patriotism isn’t inclined to work out if a policy is good in itself. The important thing is to proclaim Scotland to be the first to try to impose some new untried measure on the populace. This is the SNP concept of Scottish exceptionalism, particularly in relation to the rest of the UK. There is rarely any discernible unease or thought given to the fact that there may be good reasons why no other country has gone down that particular road.
The SNP’s love of state-initiated social interventions most worryingly includes a proposal to require every child born in Scotland to be registered with its own personal state-appointed guardian, or ‘named person’. These guardians, usually teachers or medical practitioners, will have the responsibility of monitoring the wellbeing and happiness of every Scottish child under 18, or older if still in school.
It is proposed that a named person will have a range of powers that could, ultimately, lead to a child being taken from its parents. One council report has already suggested using the named person to authorise gender-reassignment of twelve-year-olds against the parents’ wishes.
This proposal has met spirited opposition and has been blocked for the moment from becoming law. In July 2016 the UK Supreme Court found that some aspects of the proposed legislation were unlawful. This stopped the Named Person Scheme becoming law on August 31, 2016, as originally envisaged.
The Supreme Court criticised the scheme not only on legal technicalities but on the principles behind the scheme. One judge pointed out: ‘There is an inextricable link between the protection of the family and the protection of fundamental freedoms in liberal democracies . . . Different upbringings produce different people. The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.’
But still the SNP are determined to push it through. After all, it’s the ‘progressive’ thing to do.
