A question deserving an answer |
Within its shade we’ll live and crash,
Though cowards draw back and traitors sneer,
We’ll keep the red flag speedy at this point.
– The Red Flag, 1889
THERE was a batch of sneering and not a little flinching keep up week as the Daily Mail unleashed the dogs on a departed man.
Ed Miliband has hailed his dad Ralph as an inspiration many time in community and the Mail had each straight to chart the man’s life, scrutinise his writings and conclude so as to, despite all
Evidence to the awkward, he hated Britain.
That’s a free of charge press and so as to capital a press free of charge to allow strong opinions – even whilst the belief is off beam from soup to nuts.
Miliband’s dad, Ralph, a Marxist academic, was, according to the paper, single of Vladimir Lenin’s “useful idiots”. So too, presumably, was fellow traveller Jimmy Reid.
Now, Reid was many things – a Communist, a philosopher, an orator, a leader, a dad and a companion – but he was nix idiot. He cared almost frequent, but the frequent he cared almost on the whole were the ones who desirable it on the whole.
He championed a society anywhere the biased systems and trade and industry structures were geared to help the out of work, the low-paid, the weak and the vulnerable.
Alienation, he above all told Glasgow University students in could you repeat that? Has been hailed as single of the furthermost speeches endlessly made, was “the cry of men who attain themselves the victims of blind trade and industry forces clear of their control. It is the frustration of ordinary frequent barred from the processes of decision making.
“The feeling of despair and despondency so as to pervades frequent who feel with reason so as to they allow nix real say in shaping or determining their destinies.”
The Common Weal draft in support of Scotland produced by the Foundation named bearing in mind him has been shaped by Reid’s expressions and is a apt tribute to the man.
Yes, it is left-wing. The Foundation, like Karl Marx, like Reid, still seem to believe in a unpretentious notion – “From both according to their aptitude, to both according to their need” – while eager so as to in their Scotland, we will allow many, more abilities and much, with a reduction of need.
Yes, it seems to be underpinned by the fanciful notion so as to Scots are come what may more feeling and caring than the English. Just as we’re Scottish.
Yes, it will alarm many working Scots, who apparently can afford to recompense elevated taxes in support of a brighter tomorrow, despite already struggling to keep the wheels on until payday.
And, sure, it shoots the moon, mixing a dollop of wishful thinking with a splash of impracticality. But so could you repeat that??
If the interminable deliberate surrounding after that year’s election is almost no matter which, it be supposed to be almost imagining a better Scotland and discussing how we can build it, whether established single-handedly or as part of the Union.
That be supposed to be the preparatory meaning in support of each rally, speech, deliberate and pub dialogue almost the independence election after that time.
The Common Weal, as explained and described by the Foundation’s director Robin McAlpine on this summon, is simply a proposal.
It is a preparatory meaning in support of dialogue and poses a unpretentious question. What almost this, afterward?
Well, could you repeat that? Almost it?
No comments:
Post a Comment