Recently in Independence Category

In my previous post I said that Government is playing politics with the police. Right on cue the Premier, after issuing a joint statement with the Governor, comes out with his own and re-politicises things.

Dr. Brown said: "While we've taken action to address the crime issue, we are not yet satisfied and are calling for more reforms. Unfortunately, despite being in government, we are hamstrung in our abilities to act. In spite of the fact that the Bermudian taxpayer pays for our police service, an unelected Governor has full control over operational policing.

"We have repeatedly called for reform in operational policing strategies. Specifically, we are calling for a greater police presence in known hot spots. We are calling for greater community policing to build trust between the people and the police. And, we are calling for international experts to be brought in to help train our police in best practices for reducing gang violence.

"The people of Bermuda expect results. They're going to hold the people they elected accountable. Bermudians are rightfully outraged by the recent violence and are demanding action. We are taking action. We are pleading with Government House to adopt new operational policing strategies. And, we are making the case that those who pay the operational policing bill should have a say over operational policing strategies. We are making the case at the Overseas Territories Consultative Committee while we are in London. We believe that policing in Bermuda must be reformed, not more of the same.

It is clear that the Premier is more interested in the argument than the issue.

As the UBP, the Governor, Larry Burchall and others have pointed out, the Governor doesn't have operational control of the Police; the Commissioner and his Assistants do

That is the way it is and should be.

So this appeal, this 'plea' for operation control, is either disingenuous or demonstrates a willful ignorance of good governance.

The conspiracy theorists claim Government wants operation control to block investigations of themselves. I don't share that view. As I said earlier, Dr. Brown likes the politics of this argument.

I'm convinced that the issue of the Police is simply a convenient way to:

a) breathe life into the dead independence issue by trying to fabricate antagonism towards the UK;
b) draw the UK/Governor into a more active governing role to create the impression that we are under a colonial thumb and that the elected Government is powerless;
c) deflect responsibility for the escalation in crime during the PLP's tenure

The simple truth is that Bermuda has been self-governing in every material respect for decades; and modern democracies have separations between operational policing and politicians.

No amount of political brinkmanship can change that.

There is an ongoing campaign by the Government to try and increase the day to day role of the UK as a means to emphasize colonialism. The hope being that they can start chipping into the huge opposition to independence, issue by issue.

Present our status as a colony as an impediment to managing the island, rather than a neutral factor or even an asset, and hope that over time you can change hearts and minds.

I don't see it happening. But what I do see is a lot of issues getting worse rapidly while Dr. Brown revels in the politics and neglects the policy.

In fact, if the Governor is to blame for not letting the Police get all "draconian" on criminals, then the PLP should be supporting him. After all that was the crux of their election campaign.

This will continue to worsen. Not because the Police need to be told how to do operational policing by politicians, but because the Government are obsessed with using the Police as a pawn in an outdated dogmatic political argument that the overwhelming number of Bermudians are on the other side of.

The huge turnouts to see the Queen and the outpouring of goodwill along the streets feels like a valve has opened to release the pressure that has been building up.

I wandered down to the ferry terminal today when someone told me the Queen was on her way and the crowd was large, diverse...and giddy. People were thrilled to see the Queen, but I think more than that were really proud to show off their island to a large audience.

There's been plenty of comment about the lack of enthusiasm from the Premier and the Government for this 400th anniversary, which really has felt like a colossal missed opportunity. Overlay that with the constant niggling towards the Governor, the UK in general and the antagonistic approach to the British component of our heritage, and you had a population that was tense. Unnecessarily so.

We've heard relentlessly that because we're not independent that it is somehow 'unnatural' or that Bermuda is not mature. But I think the polls, and the atmosphere on the island this week, have shown that on this issue the Premier and his party are seriously out of step with the public by continuing to try to push an issue that people simply do not want.

I don't think that we Bermudians are royalists in any sense, or somehow enamored with the UK, or afraid of change. I'm certainly not. It seems to me that the constitutional arrangement that Bermudians ratified in 1995 and polls show support in larger numbers today, is rooted in our pragmatism.

The disconnect between the PLP and the Bermudian people is that while the vast majority of Bermudians are deeply pragmatic, the PLP leadership and membership are dogmatic on this issue. What we've seen is a shift from an overt pro-independent campaign to this campaign of contrived confrontation, culiminating with the Uighur issue and the fight over the Police, to somehow convince us that we're being oppressed or treated like children.

It would seem that the enthusiasm for the visit of the Queen has blown open this idea that we don't have shared interests and history, both which should be celebrated and exploited not suppressed.

So we've ended up with our 400 year celebrations feeling like they really started with the Queen's visit because the Government seems so ashamed of who we are as a country. The Bermuda 400 organisers have been working so hard, but it felt like they really didn't have the support of the political leadership. This culimated with the Premier being on vacation for the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Bermuda.

The political campaign to suppress and erase all things British has had the side effect of squandering one of our greatest tourism marketing assets. It's also wasted thousands of hours of energy on an issue that doesn't help advance solutions but creates new problems by embedding real problems in an outdated dogmatic political argument, rendering them that much harder to resolve.

It's been refreshing to see the Bermudian spirit unleashed over the past few days, and people from all backgrounds so excited to be showing off what makes Bermuda such an international success story and a unique blend of cultures.

May it continue.

Why is it that whenever PLP members get outside of Bermuda they start talking up Independence, but when they get home they play it down? This is becoming a pattern.

Could it be because Bermudians are overwhelmingly opposed to it and they are totally out of sync with the populace?

Some interesting exchanges in the Caymans between other countries and the Bermuda delegation:

Many delegates at the CPA conference raised issues concerning the Progressive Labour Party’s quest for independence in Bermuda.

“People in Bermuda are enjoying a high quality of life, and a high standard of education as well,” said Turks and Caicos Opposition Party Member Arthur Robinson. “Why would Bermuda want to move toward independence?”

“My philosophy is ‘if it’s not broken, why fix it?’”

Mr. Caines said similar “scare tactics” have been used in many British Overseas Territories to argue against separation from the UK.

“The assumption is that the country would go in a less than stellar direction,” Mr. Caines said. “Would you believe in 2007, we have re–insurance companies and offshore companies clamouring to come to Bermuda?”

“It has very little to do with Bermuda the place, but with effective and prudent governance.”

A representative from Trinidad questioned the motives of certain political parties who promise independence to get elected, and then adopt harsh measures to prevent people from becoming involved in government.

Today's 12% swing in favour of independence isn't the first time Research Innovations have produced independence numbers that aren't credible and correct next time around.

On October 10, 2006 I commented that:

Reading the latest poll results online, very quickly, from NY, my initial reaction to the Independence results is that they don't really make sense.

Big swings in undecideds such as this, in a two month period, just don't happen - in either direction - barring some major development to change people's minds. And that hasn't happened.

And then 2 months later, on November 28th, 2006 another poll was released and I wrote this (apologies for the broken RG links, they changed their website):

I was right. The latest poll has things back on track, with the last poll clearly an anomaly, although one that makes me question the methodology and interpretation of the results. The article and pollster should have disclosed that the results were inconsistent and viewed skeptically.

So in a 4 month period independence support suddenly went up and then dropped back to normal levels. Nonsense.

Which is why today's supposed 12% move also isn't credible. A statistically massive move like that would only occur with some significant event, not just in a two month period when independence hasn't been on the agenda.

The UBP has their own beef with the polls - and pollster - as well (a conflict I've written about before):

June 3, 2007

Dear friend:

I am writing as a result of a Royal Gazette story on Friday on national polling.

The story reported poll findings by the firm Research Innovations which we consider questionable and suspect.

Our own poll results from early May show a dramatically different picture.

...

These ratings differ dramatically from those reported in The Royal Gazette. We believe our figures are more accurate for two reasons:
They are supported by our polling in marginal constituencies with a second polling company that has worked in Bermuda for many years; and
The Royal Gazette pollster Mr. Walton Brown is the cousin of the Premier and also, at this time, listed to be a candidate for the PLP at the next election. I believe this constitutes a conflict of interest.

The United Bermuda Party is well-positioned to win the next election.

Our push for integrity in government, education reform, strong public safety, seniors care, tax relief and environmental protection stands in sharp contrast to a government that is faltering in terms of performance and trust.

Sometimes one statement reveals so much.

Dr. Brown's press release today endorsing polling for candidate selection and condemning "power brokers operating as a controlling clique are permitted to call the shots" leads to all sorts of interesting places, not to mention hypocritical ones.

Firstly and most obviously the hypocrisy: Dr. Brown heaps scorn on the branch structure as a "controlling clique", a committee which had reportedly 9 representatives from the constituency, in favour of the 5 member controlling clique of the candidate selection committee, who stand poised to overrule the branch.

One person's controlling clique is another's democratic committee I guess. Or is it just that one can be more easily controlled.

Here's a suggestion: Hold a Primary. Neither party is fond of them but they're a good mechanism for settling these things.

Meanwhile, the commitment to polling as a democratic method of measuring public support over the whims of a minority surely means that Dr. Brown will respect the polling which has consistently revealed for more than a decade that an overwhelming majority of 2/3rds of Bermudians are completely opposed to Independence? Right?

Or is that not quite what he was getting at?

Well that didn't take long.

Only 5 months into his time as Premier, the Doc reaches for and takes a gulp from the poison independence chalice. Take a big long draw I say.

What is it about independence? The lure seems just too great doesn't it.

But I can't get over how insulting the Premier was towards the vast majority of Bermudians who are opposed to Independence: we just need to be educated. You see, if you don't agree with Dr. Brown and the PLP elite you're uneducated and ignorant; incapable of weighing the information yourself and reaching the pragmatic conclusion that there's nothing in it for us, just the politicians.

So go ahead Dr. Brown. Hang that albatross around your neck.

They never learn do they?

Two months ago I commented that the results from Research Innovations latest independence poll didn't make sense:

"Big swings in undecideds such as this, in a two month period, just don't happen - in either direction - barring some major development to change people's minds. And that hasn't happened."

I was right. The latest poll has things back on track, with the last poll clearly an anomaly, although one that makes me question the methodology and interpretation of the results. The article and pollster should have disclosed that the results were inconsistent and viewed skeptically.

I do however take issue with this idea that Dr. Brown has put Independence on the backburner:

Polls have consistently shown a majority of people against Independence, however, Dr. Brown stated before he was elected that Independence remained a "principal objective".

But he indicated he would be placing the issue on the back burner when he said it would not be an initial focal point of his leadership.

Nonsense. It's squarely on the front burner with the heat on high.

Since Dr. Brown was selected, he has done nothing but stoke the Independence flames.

The new Premier hoped to manufacture a confrontation over the location of his weekly meetings with the Governor (which the Dep. Gov. nonchalantly swatted away), attempted to exclude the Governor from the Overseas Territories meetings in the UK, is attempting to try and have the Governor become more active in managing issues which have been delegated for decades, refusing to consult on the Governor's appointment, and his opening comments of the 2006 Throne Speech which were not-so-subtle coded references to Independence:

Many wise Bermudians have lamented Bermuda’s motto, “Quo Fata Ferunt,” where the fates may lead us or whither the fates carry [us], and have remarked that the time has come to chart our own fate, our own destiny and our own future.

Every move that the Premier has made in his first 3 1/2 weeks has been toward achieving two related goals:

1) To try and force the UK through the Governor here to increase their profile and take an active role in governing rather than the hands-off approach of the past few decades, to try and create a perception that we are not self-governing.

2) To try and annoy/pester the UK to the point that they become the one pushing for Bermuda to go Independent, because he knows that he can't sell it to Bermudians.

Dr. Brown has cast aside the positive case for Independence (one no-one has been able to make yet) for the negative one.

He's trying to take Bermuda back more than a few decades to the technical but long since discarded constitutional model so that he can make the case that we don't run our own country.

Shrewd, but desperate.

The other aspect of all of this is that the confrontations are mostly about power. The appeal of Independence to a guy like Dr. Brown is not about achieving some democratic ideal but about acquiring more power.

That is abundantly clear.

Evil colonial master.

The PLP has ordered all flags be flown at half mast for eternity. Independence is officially dead.

Yawn.

This little non-event confirms that the current Premier is no different than his predecessor; he's just better at playing the game.

What a bore.

Reading the latest poll results online, very quickly, from NY, my initial reaction to the Independence results is that they don't really make sense.

Big swings in undecideds such as this, in a two month period, just don't happen - in either direction - barring some major development to change people's minds. And that hasn't happened.

Historically support, opposition and undecideds have remained extremely stable, so a sudden move is odd; particulalry when you consider that the main advocate of independence had a slight downtick in his popular support, yet his signature issue experienced a reduction in outright opposition.

Doesn't add up to me, although the fact that support has held steady does. I just don't see what event would have triggered so many undecideds to reconsider. Nothing happened.

As painful as it is to start my post-vacation blogging this way, here goes:

I don't for the life of me understand why UBP leader Wayne Furbert felt the need to hold a press conference on Independence today. Sure, most of what he said was fine, but what was the point?

No-one gives a damn, and the PLP have been looking for someone to spar with on this for years now. So far they've just been talking to themselves.

And lately they've even started answering themselves, which is the real sign you need to vist St. Brendan's, aka the Mid Atlantic Wellness Centre.

I don't know what he was thinking. The PLP look like idiots for continuing this in the face of complete and overwhelming disapproval and ambivalence.

I wouldn't be surprised if the PLP come charging out of the gate on this again thinking that they've got someone to argue with.

The UBP is on much better footing when they do what Kim Swan did this week, which is point out that the Government's own Sustainable Development report notes that Government has no housing policy and is just winging it:

"They reported that Government has no clear housing policy, relying instead on initiatives that are ad hoc and purely reactive in nature; that it has an uncoordinated approach to housing that means ‘only a partial view of the housing needs of the Island is being taken’ and it lacks a separate department with clear roles and responsibilities for housing."

If you don't think that Kim struck a nerve then you mustn't have noticed that the Finance Minister made a little statement today and that Senator Walter Roban was out rattling of the very ad hoc reactive initiatives as if they constituted a plan and a coordinated approach.

Leave independence to the PLP. No-one else cares in the least But people do care about housing, crime, education etc.. That's where the UBP is on the best footing.

Here we go again.

Dr. Brown gets an A for creativity, with an admirable reach to dredge up a reason to go independent, seeing as the previous efforts (including the Premier's favourite that in an independent Bermuda his chauffeur could pick him up on the runway) have all failed.

"In the first place, our thriving colonial heritage has made us heirs to a bureaucracy rivalled only by Whitehall itself," he said.

"Simply put, prospective developers were not made to feel welcome in Bermuda."

This coming from the Deputy Premier of a blindly pro-independence party that has increased the staffing of an already bloated civil service by several hundred bureaucrats during their tenure. All this from a Government that boasted they would bring in the “scissor-man”.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs has released it's second report on Independence and Bermuda.

I haven't read it in its entirety yet.

Interesting quote from Walton Brown in today's RG Magazine article entitled "Inside the UBP":

"Right now, the only issue is independence. If the UBP were real smart they would say they want an election on the issue and they would probably win it". Merely gaining a 'no' vote at the referendum for which they are campaigning, won't win any electoral advantage, argues Mr. Brown.

True. The UBP would probably win an election run on independence. The flip side however is that they'd be setting a precedent that runs directly counter to their point of principle that independence is an issue that the electorate are entitled to vote on directly.

The Royal Gazette
Opinion (24 Nov. 2005)

Welcome to the New Bermuda, a twilight zone where our political leaders exist in a parallel universe, one where up is down, regress is progress and wrong is right. With consistency having no place in the PLP Government it’s become abundantly clear that Cabinet functions as little more than an auto and dining club, a fragmented collection of individuals with competing agendas, little cohesion and a lack of leadership.

The sole unwavering message emanating from the Cabinet Office is that the United Bermuda Party is the big baddie; PLP mantra has long dictated that the UBP are responsible for all that is wrong, nothing that is right, everything that will be wrong and most importantly all that the current Government have screwed up.

What’s striking in all of this is just how much Mr. Scott and his colleagues are emulating exactly what they decry; whether it’s the rolling back of democratic reforms and accountability, back-room deals or most remarkably the discarding of the Holy Grail of “one man one vote”. The PLP Government’s ability to hold entirely contradictory positions on simple issues, blissfully oblivious to the patent absurdity of it all, is impressive.

The PLP’s position on Independence is a useful starting point to demonstrate the extent of the cognitive dissonance which grips our current political leadership. For a party that claims to abhor all things British, their desire to shatter our flimsy but advantageous ties and go it alone is oddly predicated on retaining everything British. Juxtapose that with their fervent desire to entrench Bermuda in Caricom – oddly predicated on rejecting everything it stands for – and the issue becomes all the more unintelligible.

The PLP advocates that we cut ties with the UK - but retain the Privy Council, Queen as Head of State, EU passports and British citizenship ie. keep all our UK ties.

And it advocates joining Caricom but rejecting its raison d’etre – the Caribbean Single Market Economy – which includes the free flow of labour, single currency and the Caribbean Court of Justice for example.

Therefore establish no meaningful ties with Caricom other than the Ministerial trips.

It’s little wonder then that no one outside of the ideological fringe find either of these positions coherent, let alone appealing.

But the PLP leadership can’t even remain consistent with their own intellectually inconsistent positions; whether it’s Dame Lois – the PLP’s guiding light and legal advisor to BIC – recommending that Bermuda cast aside the Privy Council, or Dr. Brown – the number two man in Government – recently expressing his desire for Bermuda to expand our role in Caricom’s Single Market Economy.

The Government is as predictable as the weather, hence the increasing public concern. Sadly, it’s not just around policy that Cabinet fails to demonstrate consistency or follow their own advice; it’s also evident in their interactions with those who they serve.

A good rule of thumb in politics is to not insult the intelligence or character of the electorate. Recently we’ve seen both. As leadership starts at the top, let’s start at the top. Several months ago “The Man” led his party straight into the gutter when he publicly insulted the intelligence of the 14,000 registered voters who’d like a direct vote on Independence. Generally that’s not a good idea, and you don’t have to be a PR expert like the Premier to understand that.

But it gets worse. The Premier’s favourite tagline is “Bermuda works best when Bermuda works together”. Sounds nice right? Except he doesn’t believe it, judging by the Colonel’s – who doesn’t care what you think – successful audition for a return from Cabinet exile.

On his officially non-political but obviously totally political radio talk show - the one where he routinely hangs up on callers – the newest PLP Senator uttered a phrase so heinous that it will no doubt supercede his previous efforts at infamy.

Back in August Mr. Burch, frustrated that his talk show callers wouldn’t fall into line like his regimental conscripts, referred to anti-independence black Bermudians as “house n***ers”. Impressed, Premier Scott promptly invited the shock jock back into Cabinet; because Bermuda works best when Bermuda works together. Or not.

Again, that type of comment isn’t smart at the best of times, but it does seem to fly in the face of the Premier’s professed desire for unity and rational debate does it not? While Senator Burch may not care what people think, he’ll surely think twice about lobbing that slur again outside of Cabinet.

It’s an inconvenient fact for a Cabinet which strives to polarize Bermudians around race, but polling consistently indicates that not just a majority of Bermudians oppose independence, but a majority of black Bermudians do so as well.

Well done Mr. Burch. In two statements you’ve insulted and ostracised 48% of the voters who didn’t vote PLP in 1998, and now more than 50% of black Bermudians who you deem “house n***ers”. Nice. Welcome to Cabinet.

In fact, whether he cares what anyone thinks is irrelevant. What matters is that most voters will care what he and his colleagues think, and that type of offensive, intolerant and outdated mentality has no place in politics, let alone Cabinet.

A twilight zone indeed.

Mid Ocean News (28 Oct. 2005)
UBP MP John Barritt's 'View From the Hill'

LIKE you, Mr. Editor, I am never surprised by the growing number of people who seem to have the answer to our problems, but not the solution. Independence for Bermuda, and those who push for it, appear to fit comfortably into that category. BIC included. Let’s go to the Report for an example of what I am talking about. This time it is about the way in which we govern ourselves – or, more accurately, the way in which we allow ourselves to be governed. The passage to which I am referring is found in a chapter entitled “Findings of the Commission” in a short section headed “Political”:

“The Westminster style of government has served Bermuda well; however, the challenges facing Bermuda today demand a change in this inherent adversarial approach”.

We could quibble about the use of the word “style”. But I think we know what BIC meant. It’s the system – and the Westminster system of parliamentary government is decried because, in the eyes of the Commissioners, the political parties (I assume they mean both PLP and UBP) spend too much time in the Legislature trying to score political points, and, further, according to BIC, the fundamental issue of what’s right or wrong for the country takes a back seat to the political balance sheet.

Strong stuff, Mr. Editor – and who am I to disagree? But the criticism is not new. We have it heard before – for some long numbers of years in fact, and not just under the PLP but the UBP as well. Speaking for myself, I think we do not spend enough time actually debating the issues of the day: too much time and effort in the House of Assembly has long since been given over to the laborious reading of lengthy statements and prepared briefs by Government Ministers. This worst trait is best illustrated when the annual Budget rolls around in February when you can see for yourself just how choreographed and predictable and tedious debate has become. But I digress. Back to the Report and the Commissioner’s recommendation:

“The challenges facing Bermuda today require that there be a change in this style of governance.”

A change in the style of governance: what’s that got to do with independence, Mr. Editor? Nothing, in my view. But as long as we are on the subject let me make a few of my own observations and, yes, this won’t be the first time I have gone on about the need for parliamentary reform in Bermuda. We can change the way in which we govern ourselves now. We don’t have to wait until independence. All we need is the will to change and a willingness to act. But the PLP Government has shown itself to be steadfastly uninterested, if not flat out against any suggestion of parliamentary reform. Attempts to bring about reform in the House of Assembly have either been rebuffed or allowed to languish without action within the Rules and Privileges Committee, a committee headed by the Speaker and controlled by a PLP majority.

This isn’t rocket science. Nor is it radical surgery. We have fallen well behind the modern practices and procedures of other parliamentary jurisdictions whether they are to the west of us, the east, the north or the south.

Meanwhile, selected local parliamentarians traipse off annually on all expenses paid trips to conferences and seminars organized by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which Bermuda is a member, where they are exposed to presentations on changes and improvements which have been made to the Westminster system of government, all of which have been designed to bring about and have brought about better governance.

Page 32 of today's Gazette contains a half page advertisement from the Bermuda Independence Committee pleading their case after taking a pounding for the past couple of months.

There's a few things of note about the letter:

1) Perhaps not the most obvious element of the release is that not every BIC Commissioner signed the statement (and bear in mind they all signed the report itself)

Who signed:

- Bishop Vernon Lambe (Chairman)
- Derrick Burgess
- Dianna Kempe
- Gary Phillips
- Janet Smith Bradshaw
- Mike Winfield
- Crystal Caesar
- Eddy DeMello
- David Rowntree
- Robert Steinhoff

Who didn't sign:

- Marc Bean
- Rolfe Commissiong
- Donna Pearman
- Dame Lois Browne Evans (legal advisor)

Three of the Commissioners (and Dame Lois) didn't sign. Coincidence? I doubt it.

Next, is this lame excuse for stupidly attempting to mislead the public around the use of a referendum:

"The Report went through many variations, seemingly endless re-drafts and edits. In editing this section, we left a misleading and inaccurate statement. We apologize for the confusion this has caused."

So the statement that the commission found no instances of referendum's in determining sovereignty was an editing error? Give me a break. Even Premier Scott's racist email excuse was more creative than that. It's inclusion was intentional.

3) In response to the exclusion of the UBP's submission, the commission argues that all written submissions were summarized in Annex 27 (true) and that only those referenced in the text of the report were printed in full.

An objective report would have printed all the submissions in full (or perhaps none at all). Picking and choosing which submissions were worthy of comment and full inclusion speaks to the bias of the report and its authors. Selectively using submissions was clearly intended to draw attention to certain perspectives at the expense of others to further the report's pro-independence stance.

4) While the report gave special mention to "Benefits" and promised to explode the "Myths and Misconceptions", no section was dedicated to the benefits of continuing a relationship with the UK. The explantion?

"Some have stated that the Report does not address the benefits of the Status Quo and is therefore unbalanced. We are confident that all those reading the Report, will recognize the advantages of maintaining the status quo, which are contained, in some details, in the Report, particularly in sections 3.7 and 3.9"

Excusing the final sentence's terrible use of commas (we all have our moments), this is simply another example of the report's bias.

If the public is smart enough to infer the downsides of independence wouldn't they be smart enough to pick up on the upsides as well without the need for special sections. It's quite simple really: the pro arguments get preferential treatment and high play while the downsides get buried throughout the report.

This attempt for redemption is as weak as the report itself. The commissioners should just accept that their report has been discredited and dismissed.

A report that was billed as the definitive document on Independence isn't even part of the debate; it's irrelevant, not even a blip on the radar screen.

These commissioners lack credibility and their pleas are too little too late.

You should never blog while watching the World Series. If you do you're likely to forget to make a point in your post, as I did with last night's post.

One of the examples I meant to cite of the Premier's insincerity and duplicity in how he is going about attempting to rig the method used to decide Independence, was the following quote from Saturday's Gazette story (as well as a similar point he made in a radio interview with VSB on Friday):

"Yesterday the Premier replied that it would have been pointless to discuss an idea with Islanders without first checking if it was going to be feasible possibility with the UK Government."

If that's the case, why did the Premier charge out the gate with a press release raising the idea of an election-referedum combo immediately after the meeting concluded?

The UK gave no indication of their position either way, they just listened, or so we were told. Why then would the Premier raise the idea in a press release, other than to apply pressure, which is what might have annoyed the FCO in the first place.

So the FCO seems to be a little schizophrenic about whether the Premier broke some protocol by issuing a press release about the dicussions at the Overseas Territories Consultative Council meetings, held this past week in London.

First, in unattributed comments reported on VSB and then in yesterday's Mid Ocean News, FCO officials were said to be annoyed that a longstanding protocol of confidentiality was breached. Then today's Gazette and yesterday's VSB news broadcast ran comments that it was no big deal.

Perhaps the real answer is that the FCO would have preferred that confidentiality had been maintained but are now engaging in a little diplomacy to calm things down. Who knows to be honest?

I'm not so bothered really, particularly if what was released were issues discussed in open session. But that doesn't get 'P' off the hook.

I'm in total agreement with the comments from UBP Leader Grant Gibbons - the Premier should have these discussion at home first before trying to cut a deal with the UK. This issue is about Bermudians, and they overwhelmingly want to exercise their right, and one with a precedent in the 1995, to vote on Independence in the most democractic method possible, a referendum.

To the contrary, the Premier is simply shopping around to see what the least democratic method is that he thinks he can get away with. That's unacceptable and makes a mockery of the PLP's clumsy 'one man, one vote of equal value' claim. 'One man, one vote of equal value...as long as the result goes our way' would be a more honest slogan.

It's pretty clear that the Premier is backed into a corner on this. Just look at the moves and statements they've been making lately.

That he's over in the UK lobbying for an election-referendum combo is an implicit acceptance that a referendum is inevitable; the vast majority of Bermudians want ome and the UK has made it clear that anything less is unacceptable. Hence, the Premier's begrudging acceptance that there's no way around it, leading to Plan B: dilute and muddy a referendum as much as possible.

Secondly, as I pointed out yesterday, by inquiring whether the UK would allow a 'unique solution' that was 'agreed by the people of Bermuda' has further boxed him in. There's only one way to get agreement of the people, and that's via a referendum.

What are the alternatives?

Polling?. If 'P' were to poll test his unique solution and hope to use the results as an example of 'agreement' then he's in a bind. Endorsing polls as a legitimate measure of public opinion would be pointless. He'd have to concede defeat on Independence; polls have consistently reported enormous and unwavering opposition to the whole idea of independence itself. They also indicate enormous support for a referendum.

I suppose he could try to say 'Trust me, Bermudians are ok with this', but that ain't gonna cut it with anyone. Trust went out of the window a long time ago.

I can't think of any other way really? Unless he wants to make the method an issue for the next election. But that's just stupid for all the obvious reasons.

Time to throw in the towel Mr. Premier.

Can anyone help me decifer this part of the statement that the Premier released on Wednesday from London (apparently a violation of diplomatic protocal and to the annoyance of the Foreign Commonwealth Office):

"Premier Scott queried if the British would give fair consideration if the decision to go to Independence by a unique method agreed by the people of Bermuda was submitted." [Emphasis mine]

Just how does Mr. Scott propose to determine the agreement by the people of Bermuda? Surely the only way would be via a referendum.

So is Mr. Scott suggesting that we have a referendum about whether to have a referendum?

Forget about agreeing the method. If Mr. Scott is so willing to determine the agreement of the people of Bermuda on issues he'll be comfortable simply measuring the (lack of) agreement on the issue of Independence itself via a referendum.

It gets better and better. You couldn't make this stuff up it's so ridiculous.

By the way, while Phil's chillin' over at Limey in Bermuda a guest opinion has been posted by Marsha Wiggins, entitled "The Manipulator".

Ms. Wiggins delivers a swift rebuke to to Calvin Smith's rather disingenuous Opinion in Tuesday's Gazette.

Here's the unedited text of yesterday's press statement from the Association of Bermuda International Companies (ABIC) and the Association of Insurers and Reinsurers (ABIR), in response to the release of the BIC report.

Their 3 submissions - only one of which made it into the report (ABIC's and the 2nd ABIR document clearly laying out historical precedent for referendum were excluded) - are linked at the end:

ABIC and ABIR Reiterate Position Statements on Independence

"Hamilton, Bermuda. September 28, 2005

"In light of the recently released Bermuda Independence Commission ("BIC") report, the Association of Bermuda International Companies ("ABIC") and the Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers ("ABIR") today reiterated their concerns surrounding the issue of independence. ABIC and ABIR stressed that the concerns outlined in their written submissions on the topic remain unchanged, adding that some of the statements contained in the BIC report and the media do not fully reflect the positions of these organizations. ABIC and ABIR´s written submissions dated October 22, 2004 (ABIC), June 18, 2004 (ABIR), and February 7, 2005 (ABIR) are attached to this press release.

"ABIC and ABIR stated that they view Bermuda as one of the preferred jurisdictions in the world in which to do business. They commented that Bermuda’s attractiveness is based on a number of important features, including the Island’s historically stable social and political structure; its participation in the United Kingdom’s legal system, framework, customs and traditions with which international business partners are comfortable; and the total mix of economic costs and benefits of doing business on the Island.

"ABIC and ABIR stated that the current debate regarding dramatic and irrevocable changes to these critical features of Bermuda’s political, legal, social and business environment raises important issues for the international business community.

"ABIC and ABIR’s primary concerns, as summarized in their written submissions, include:

"• To ensure a stable and democratic outcome, ABIC and ABIR strongly support the use of a referendum on the question of independence. Their written submissions include information regarding the long history of referendum use to determine questions of sovereignty. They would also support an accelerated timetable for such a referendum in order to end the uncertainty associated with this discussion.
"• Any alteration in the Bermuda market’s relationship with the commercial law, legal apparatus, appellate process and continued common law development of the United Kingdom legal system, with which international business partners are comfortable – and/or the risk of intersection with other judiciary systems less central to the international financial services sector – could impair Bermuda’s international business.
"• The materially increased costs of independence will result in higher taxation and other costs for companies, employees, and business partners, at a time when other dynamics already threaten the cost competitiveness of doing business in Bermuda.
"• Concern over the issues of nationalities and passports, and the prospect of Bermudians losing UK citizenship and the right to live and work in the EU, where many of our members have overseas operations.
"• Concern over the prospect of significant and potentially adverse changes, via newly defined and uncertain processes, to the regulatory regime in which we currently operate, and which has served Bermuda well.
"• Concern that membership in CARICOM would be negative for Bermuda and the Bermuda business community. Joining CARICOM would be costly, and none of the resulting economic ties would materially benefit Bermuda’s international business sector, for which the US and Europe are the largest markets.
"• Concern on sustaining the real value of the Bermuda dollar.
"• ABIC and ABIR’s written submissions point out that the decision to go independent is irrevocable.

"ABIC and ABIR clarified that this press release and the written submissions referred to above are the only materials which should be attributed to these organizations, until such written materials are updated or supplemented by them. Additional copies of these submissions are available, free of charge, as follows:

"With respect to the ABIC submission:
ABIC
P. O. Box HM 655
Hamilton HM CX
Telephone (441) 295-8932
Fax (441) 292-5779

"With respect to the ABIR submissions:
ABIR
XL House
One Bermudiana Road
Hamilton HM11
Telephone: (441) 294 7221
Fax: (441) 296 4207

"Attachments:
ABIC´s Submission
ABIR´s Submission 1
ABIR´s Submission 2"

Hmmm. Seems the transcripts of the PLP's meeting have just reappeared on BIC's website. For how long remains to be seen.

Well, it seems that the UBP has some company in the omission of their written submission to the Bermuda Independence Commission.

I've spent some time over the weekend looking into a tip I received that the Association of Bermuda International Companies (ABIC) written submission to the BIC was excluded from the final report, and I can't find any sight of it.

There are traces though, with references in the report to ABIC as well as the listing in Section 5 of the BIC report to their oral submission. The exclusion of the UBP's written submission has been well documented, but ABIC's appears to have received like treatment.

ABIC's Oral Submission is included as Annex #28, but the official written submission is nowhere to be found. But there is confirmation on BIC's website that ABIC did indeed deliver a written document in the 'Highlights of Oral Submissions' where ABIC representative Gavin Arton refers to it:

Gavin Arton

* Member of ABIC Executive.
* Asks whether Commission has received written submission from ABIC.
* There should not be a rush to decision on Independence. Commission should be aware of the law of unintended consequences. For example, international industry in Bermuda is in a fragile state and is the largest contributor to economy. Cites the recent AIG problem.
* Concerned as to the importance of passports and US pre-clearance.

Remember, ABIC's position was pretty clearly annunciated in a letter which was obtained by the press, and in this position paper. The conclusion? "Almost no positives" was the headline which caused quite a stir in the community on the eve of BIC's appointment. So it's little wonder that BIC played it down and played up other comments.

But that's not all. In addition to the omission of the UBP and ABIC's submissions, is the ever-changing content of BIC's website.

Last week the UBP's submission suddenly appeared in the submission listing (if you look at the date stamping on the PDF, it was created on Sept. 21 at 9:43AM by Qian Dickinson and presumably posted sometime later that day), after the controversy of it's omission hit the news.

And now, it seems that the detailed virtually verbatim transcripts of the BIC's sessions with all sorts of organisations have disappeared from the website. The past several weeks have seen lengthy press coverage of the PLP's position and the Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers (ABIR) after transcripts of their meetings emerged online.

But with today's Gazette reporting an unmoving 66% opposition to indepencence, it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Nicolette Reiss' column in Mid Ocean today joins the chorus panning the BIC as 'fertilizer', and rightly so.

But what caught my attention were the comments at the end, that I was directed to this morning by a friend regarding Ms. Reiss' telephone encounter with BIC Commissioner Rolfe Commissiong.

Today's Mid Ocean is not yet online, but Ms. Reiss recounted how Mr. Commissiong called her in response to a column she wrote, and proceeded to scream at her down the phone that Bermuda would be taken to Independence, and via a general election.

Oh, and this was after he had been appointed to the Bermuda Independence Commission.

If anyone had any lingering questions about whether the fix was in, I trust they are now answered.

RG Opinion 22 Sept. 2005

The Bamboozle, Indoctrinate and Condition Report, I mean the Bermuda Independence Commission Report, is in, all 600 pages of it. And what’s the conclusion? Let me summarize: “We misled you because we had to.”

The unwelcome six month intrusion by “not only a commission on independence, but also an independent commission” produced a report whose contents stood-up to a month of Cabinet scrutiny but seconds in the public arena; being swiftly discredited as a lightweight rehashing of decades old reports littered with outright misrepresentations, omissions, distortions, falsehoods and overly rosy projections.

Just what the Premier ordered. A job well done, The Man hoping to be King declared at last week’s press conference, with the delivery of a used-car salesman.

The document that the BIC’s Chairman characterized as “a light to the future” is about as illuminating as the BELCO fire. This one however fizzled out in minutes, a monumentally desperate attempt to further the narrow agenda, oversized egos and powerbase of an out of touch Cabinet.

The BIC vastly overplayed its hand by producing a report consumed with overwhelming bias. Confusing Bermuda Onions with Mushrooms was a rookie mistake; onions don’t appreciate being kept in the dark and fed … well this is a family paper, so let’s just say ‘manure’.

If any independent commissioners existed at the beginning of this exercise, they clearly acquired Stockholm Syndrome along the way.

With so little substance but so many problems, the toughest decision is what to debunk first. A good starting point is the most obvious and egregious error, one so untrue it could have only been intentional.

The BIC Report opens with a disingenuous bombshell, claiming that the “Commission learned that, in many cases, the decision on independence was determined by means of a general election and, in no instance, did the Commission discover the use of a referendum.”

This statement is so blatantly dishonest it is hardly worthy of correction. Compound that by the fact that the “general election versus referendum” debate was explicitly outside of the Commission’s remit and everything in the report becomes suspect.

But a correction is nonetheless in order. How’s about Bermuda, East Timor, Quebec and Jamaica in addition to many, many more? That the PLP urged a boycott of Bermuda’s 1995 referendum doesn’t mean it didn’t occur.

Bermudians didn’t want independence then, and we don’t want it now. Demonstrating a modicum of respect for the electorate’s intelligence would have been advisable before attempting to rewrite history.

But it gets worse; the UBP even did the BIC’s homework on this issue, by citing numerous examples of jurisdictions which decided the issue of sovereignty through referenda. Not to be swayed with facts, the BIC nonetheless claimed that they didn’t ‘discover the use of a referendum’ anywhere, while neglecting to include the UBP’s submission in the final report or on their website.

Did I say “we misled you because we had to”?

Off again on another tangent, the BIC proudly claimed that “after two decades of decline, the tourism sector appears to have stabilized and may even be improving.” The Prime Misleader of Tourism would be proud.

Except that statement didn’t hold up either; being swiftly debunked by a BIC Commissioner himself in a Mid Ocean News article of Friday 19th of September 2005, only one day after the BIC report was released. In the interview, President of the Bermuda Hotel Association – and prominent BIC Commissioner Mike Winfield – lamented the declining hotel occupancy rates over last year, noting that August’s occupancy rate plunged to 70% from a “not acceptable” 79% in 2004.

You couldn’t make this stuff up could you? But what are a few factual errors among friends?

How’s about those misrepresentations and rosy outlooks you ask? Well, try this zinger on for size, the misrepresentation of one of the biggest points of concern: the inevitable withdrawal of British citizenship?

The UK’s position is abundantly clear; citizenship would be withdrawn for those without familial connections. But don’t believe me, here’s what the UK said in their submission, and the Governor recently affirmed:

“In the past, the usual practice was to withdraw British nationality from the majority of those acquiring citizenship of the new state on independence but to provide for its retention where the person concerned had a residual connection - for example through a parent or grandparent – with the UK or a place that continued to be what nowadays would be referred to as a British overseas territory. We would not expect to take a different approach in Bermuda’s case.”

“We would not expect to take a different approach in Bermuda’s case.” Seems unambiguous enough doesn’t it? Not to the BIC, who contend that this could be negotiated at a constitutional conference. Have they no shame?

And then there’s section 3.8, where the Commission analyzed their data in two hopelessly pro-independence sub-sections entitled “Myths & Misconceptions” and “The Benefits”.

Where was the section on the ‘Cons’ you ask, as any objective analysis would surely have included? Evidently it was deemed redundant; the whole document is one big con.

The BIC suggests that Bermuda needs a Truth and Reconciliation Commission before addressing Independence; an inspired recommendation indeed. A good place to start would be with the BIC report itself.

By the way, the UBP's press release from today's press event on the BIC report can be found here, and their submission - the one the BIC ignored and the Premier denied existed - can be found here.

The only comment I'll make at this point is to say that Wayne Furbert and Jamahl Simmons flanked Grant Gibbons as if they were bodyguards from the Nation of Islam.

Smile guys. You're winning on this issue.

The Bermuda Sun is on to something with their latest web poll (popup blockers will prevent the poll displaying).

Which is more important to you?

:: Independence
:: British Citizenship
:: Tonight's Dinner

Not surprisingly "Tonight's Dinner" is in the lead with 43%. Independence is bringing up the rear at 17%.

The more the merrier.

A quick follow up on something I forgot to mention in my last post but one reader quickly pointed out.

The BIC will probably argue that because the UBP's submission focused heavily on the mechanism to decide independence (ie. general election vs. referendum) that the BIC excluded it on the basis that it would have been outside of their remit.

Except of course that the BIC went beyond their remit themselves, making a point of addressing the mechanism issue in the report, dishonestly of course implying that referendums have not been used.

They can't have it both ways.

Ah, what little credibility the BIC Report had is now officially gone, after the Royal Gazette report today revealing that the UBP's submission was excluded from the final report.

Even more damning, is the fact that the UBP's submission contained numerous examples of places that had decided the issue of independence via a referendum, something the Commission claimed they could find no evidence of. Unless of course they didn't read the UBP's submission.

Whatever the excuse is, it just won't wash. Either they:

- omitted the examples that were provided because they didn't suit the agenda
- didn't read the submission from one of the island's two political parties
- don't know how to do research or
- just didn't care.

I'd suggest it's the first.

I'm not surprised, this was obviously a setup from day one. The writing was on the wall in the selection of commissioners and advisors being overwhelmingly pro-independence.

Peter Woolcock should re-issue his last cartoon of Alex Scott throwing the Bermudians for Referendum petition in the garbage, with Rev. Lambe throwing the UBP's BIC submission away with it.

Four days old and the report has been blown to pieces.

Like the calls for Cabinet resignations over housing, don't hold you breath for it to be withdrawn. The report did exactly what is was supposed to: enter a dishonest presentation of the 'facts' into the record as the official document on independence.

Schizophrenic? You decide.

The Bermuda Independence Commission (BIC) report, which all of the commissioners signed off on, states that:

"...the tourism sector appears to have stabilized and may even be improving."

Yet today in a Mid Oceans News article entitled "Tourism report shows huge decline in room bookings" (not yet online), President of the Bermuda Hotel Association (BHA), and coincidentally a BIC Commissioner, Mike Winfield (who I hear was a major writer of the BIC report) states that:

"August should be one of our strongest months. Seventy-nine per cent last year was not acceptable and 70 percent this year is even less acceptable."

Doesn't sound like either stabilization or improvement to me. Which one is it Mr. Winfield?

How did I miss this? God I'm thick.

Thanks to TH who has just pointed out one glaring example of the decision on independence being taken by referendum (as dismissed by the commission in the following statement):

"The Commission learned that, in many cases, the decision on independence was determined by means of a general election and, in no instance, did the Commission discover the use of a referendum."

Uh, Bermuda perhaps. In 1995 we had our own little referendum where the answer was 'NO'. But that precedent wasn't worthy of mention.

Yawn. Well, I read the BIC report and made some notes on the bits that are interesting, inaccurate, biased etc..

I was underwhelmed by the dressing up of the same old information that's been out there for years, decades in fact. This is the best they could do? The 80 pages amounts to very little in the way of new info, persuasive info, or things that will spark a debate, if it ever gets started.

There's a clear implied endorsement and recommendation for Independence throughout the report, if not an explicit one. Take for example the fact that there are sections devoted to "The Benefits" - pie in the sky stuff- and "exploding" the "Myths and Misconceptions", but nothing about the "Cons", which are buried througout (loss of UK citizenship, increased costs, international business objections etc.).

And the constant attempt to stress their credibility isn't particularly subtle. Clearly the commissioners have a bit of a complex.

For example, the FOREWORD concludes with:

"In conclusion, whilst we found it a challenging feat, we remained not only a commission on independence, but also an independent commission. [emphasis mine]"

Protesting too much methinks, not to mention the sentence structure. I assume the sentence was intended to suggest that the task of compiling the report was a "challenging feat", but as written states that they found it challenging to remain an independent commission. Freudian slip perhaps.

A few other general comments.

The most glaring and egregious statement is in section 3.2.3 (as originally pointed out by Phil Wells), that the commission couldn't find anyone who'd used a referedum to go independent. (We won't get into the fact that the mechanism was completely out of their scope):

"The Commission learned that, in many cases, the decision on independence was determined by means of a general election and, in no instance, did the Commission discover the use of a referendum."

There are myriads of others including recent examples of East Timor from Indonesia and Quebec's failed referendum in 1995 I believe, which I witnessed while studying in Canada.

Other than that there isn't much of note really. The document is clearly intended to 'educate' in the propaganda sense, and contains far too much editorialising. It even makes the case for replacing the Westminster system, due to it's adversarial nature. Surely that is for a different forum and not the "fact finding" BIC.

It also bizarrely states that "the tourism sector appears to have stabilized and may even be improving". Dr. Brown would be proud that his misrepresentation of tourism stats has been so readily assimilated.

I would sum up my initial impressions after a quick first read as a document that will have little influence and certainly doesn't contain any bombshells to sway anyone or restart the stalled debate.

The polls indicate that the undecideds is a small percentage and that the 60%+ that is opposed hasn't moved at all over the past 6 months to a year. The BIC's report, while a valiant attempt to soften the negative perception around independence, won't change that.

The UK's clear guidance that UK citizenship will be withdrawn is not accepted by the BIC as fact. They seem to think it's something the Bermuda Government can negotiate, probably because they know it's a deal killer.

The report's conclusion is essentially that we should go independent but stay British too.

We want everything without giving up anything.

While I was in the gym the BIC report was posted to the Government's website.

I haven't had time to read it yet, so I'll comment later.

By the way, apparently the Premier will be releasing the overdue Bermuda Indoctrination and Conditioning report today at 10AM with a press event.

It'll be a valiant attempt to change the topic from all the bad news, one that will probably fail as only Cabinet is interested; too bad most people consider independence bad news too.

The UN's Very Special Commission of 24 has released their report on their vacation in Bermuda.

What's in the report? Not much. But at least we now have an example of what an Independent Bermuda's six figure UN membership dues will produce.

Maybe I'll comment on it later. Probably not though.

It's good to see that Dame Jennifer Smith isn't letting her new colonial title change her; she's still a pedantic crank.

A hat tip to ZBM's Julie Matthews for dishing up the obvious question to our new Dame after yesterday's Queen's Birthday parade (paraphrasing here):

Q. How does Dame Jennifer reconcile this award with her party's historical antagonism towards the UK [and presumably their current desire to sever ties]?

A. [Delivered with trademark scowl visible under brow of fancy hat] Well you might think that you've caught me out with this question. But you should be aware, and the question that you should have asked, that Bermuda's MPs swear an oath to the United Kingdom and the Queen. It would be contradictory not to [participate in the Queen's Honours].

Uh, ok. If that makes you feel better I guess.

Here's a good follow-up for the next interview with the cranky Dame:

"In the unlikely event that Alex Scott is successful in ramming Independence down the people of Bermuda's throats, will you and your colleagues be returning your Colonial titles alongside the thousands of revoked EU passports?"

Somehow I think I know the answer (if that's the correct question to ask, that is).

[Note: I've been informed by a reader, who previously emailed the UK asking whether the titles would have to be returned in the event that Bermuda went Independent, that the answer was "No".]

And the HHO (Hypocrit of the Highest Order) goes to, Premier Alex Scott, for willingly partaking in the annual colonialist ritual of the Queen's Honours.

Remember her? She's the figurehead of the colonial master Alex in Wonderland claims to be trying to liberate us from?

Surprised? You shouldn't be.

But oh, what I wouldn't give for footage of (Dame) Jennifer Smith, and her predecessor Dame, Dame Lois Browne-Evans, kneeling before the Queen.

Um, must we continue with this charade that the BIC is objective?

Only the most naive, or uninterested, haven't cottoned on to the fact that the BIC is stacked with those in favour, presenting opinion as fact.

Not surprisingly it has emerged that the BIC's 'advisor', the most pro of the pro-Independencers - Phil Perinchief, has been out preaching the Independence gospel to impressionable students, apparently as a private citizen - one who just happened to be on a panel with the UN Decolonialisation zealots and also just happens to be an 'advisor' to the Premier's door-to-door Independence salesmen. Puh-lease.

Let's review some of the comments from the man that the impartial Premier and impartial Chair of the BIC, said can look at this objectively and present both sides:

"Going Independent would allow us to join international organisations, join and meet new people, be exposed to greater technical and vocational training. The time has come for us to stand up tall and do for ourselves rather than non-Bermudians 4,000 miles away who might not have our best interests at heart. There are 191 independent countries in the world. 16 remain dependent territories, 11 belonging to the UK. 16 versus 191 is a serious minority."

I suppose we're going to have to endure this sham through to completion, when the BIC presents its report and disbands, to much fanfare, freeing up its membership to assume their obvious roles in the PIC, the Pro-Independence Commission.

Oh, and if you doubt that the BIC itself is overwhelmingly pro, just take a look at the "Did you know that..." section of their website:

1. There are 191 Independent countries forming The United Nations.

2. There are only 16 non-self governing countries left in the world, of which Bermuda is one.

3. Bermuda as an independent country can apply for membership in any of the following organisations or their organs or agencies: the U.N. the O.A.S., the Commonwealth Secretariat, and the E.U.

4. There is within the U.N. the Group of 77, small independent states that have formed one large bloc to champion and safeguard the interests of its members within the U.N. and throughout the world. Bermuda could align itself with this group.

5. If the Governor of Bermuda does not sign any legislation passed by both the House of Assembly and the Senate, then that legislation would not become the law of Bermuda.

6. The Governor and Deputy Governor are appointed by the U.K. Government, and are non-Bermudian.

7. The ministry of the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is the ministry responsible for Bermuda’s external relations and foreign affairs.

8. Bermuda’s Constitution cannot be amended solely by the Bermudian legislature or Bermudian people, but only together with the U.K. Government’s assent by way of a Constitutional Conference held by the U.K. authorities.

9. Bermuda’s Constitution, an Order in Council of the U.K. Parliament, can be revoked or recalled partially or in its entirety and against the wishes of the Bermudian people; by the U.K. Parliament, according to the Bermuda Constitution Act 1967, section 2 and 3.

10. An Independent Bermuda could retain the Privy Council as its final legal Court of Appeal.

11. An Independent Bermuda could become a Republic within the Commonwealth or a Constitutional Monarchy.

12. In a republic, the President is the Head of State and in a Constitutional Monarchy the Queen or Sovereign is the Head of State.

13. A republic may have a non-executive (or ceremonial) President or an executive President who has more powers.

14. A Constitution is fundamental and key as to how well a truly democratic country is run.

15. The pre-clearance to the US of Immigration and Customs is likely to be continued in an independent Bermuda, according to the US State Department.

Very balanced. No, "Did you know that... Bermudians without a familial connection to the UK will have to give up their EU passports", for example.

Let's just end the charade please. It's beyond tiring.

The anemic Bermuda Indoctrination and Conditioning meetings persisted this week, with a paltry 30 people coming out to each of the two forums (including the regular BIC groupies).

Which is both telling and amusing.

I'm not a numbers guy, but I did the math:

30 attendees;
15 Members of the BIC (13 members, 2 advisors); and
7 members from the UN's decolonialisation idealogues.

That's almost one BIC or UN representative for every member of the public, a ratio of 0.73:1.

Generally a good rule of thumb is that when the panel is as big as the audience ... you're talking to yourself.

I hear that Bishop Lambe, Chairperson of Bermuda Indoctrination and Conditioning, responded to a question at a forum - or should we call it a small gathering of friends - about why the UBP wasn't supportive of the visit from the UN's Special Committee of 24, by questioning why some people oppose education.

I submit the following:

The SC 24's website lists Bermuda as having a population of 6,997. That's only out by a factor of 10.

Next question.

In one fell swoop French voters today probably dealt the fatal blow to the proposed EU Constitution, and the creative but most-likely short lived 'Eurofication of the Overseas Territories' theory.

Back to the drawing board for all sides I guess.

Pearls of wisdom from the zealots at the UN Decolonialisation bitch and moan session.

Some of my favourites:

"Walton Brown, an expert from Bermuda, drew attention to a disturbing “eurofication” of the OverseasTerritories that was reshaping the very nature of their relationship with the United Kingdom/European Union.

"In practice, it represented integration by stealth and contained two key elements. First, it reclassified all Overseas Territories’ nationals as British citizens."

I've got nothing against Walton Brown but I'm not sure what makes him any more of an expert on decolonialisation than the other 60,000 of us who live here. Who made the 'expert' designation anyway?

Isn't he just another guy with an opinion? Hmmm, that seems familiar.

Then his main objection seems to be the granting of full British citizenship to the Territories. Which is of course a problem because it removed the claim that we were second class citizens, and is probably responsible for the overwhelming opposition to Independence from those who stand to spend the most time under it. Young Bermudians are, according to the polls, overwhelmingly against, up to 84% from 70%. Big surprise.

The sentiment is clearly that the move presents an opportunity, one people resent others wanting to take away from them.

And:

"In recent decades, the language used to describe the colonial reality had been mystified, so that being referred to as OverseasTerritories instead of colonies or dependent Territories removed the colonial reality from the minds of the colonized.

"Similarly, calling the colonizers administering Powers allowed them to maintain their respectability in the community of nations."

Which I found pretty amusing. Because 'Administering Power' isn't particularly relevant with respects to Bermuda. When the UN crowd was down here recently they repeatedly used that term, and it was unfamilliar to me. It felt to me like it was being invoked to try and make people believe that they weren't self-governing, which of course Bermuda is. The UK certainly do retain ultimate constitutional authority, but if they ever abused it to force us to do something we didn't, well we'd just bid them adieu.

Ghast. Horror. We have the real power, they don't.

We make a choice to retain ties because the vast majority of us see practical and pragmatic benefits.

And finally:

"Michael Winfield of the Bermuda Independence Commission said that independence was not a burning issue in that British Overseas Territory, which enjoyed one of the world’s highest standards of living.

"Bermudians were more concerned with issues that affected their daily lives, such as schools and housing.

"Some felt that those issues should be resolved before the independence was broached, while others felt that independence would be a means towards resolving them.

"Noting that racial segregation was much reduced in the Territory, he said that Bermudians of African descent, who made up 70 per cent of the population, would probably tend to associate the idea of independence with the abolishment of slavery and the notion of “free at last”, while those of European descent tended to doubt the Bermudian capability to govern and to nurture the inaccurate idea that if things went wrong they could always call on “Mother England” for help."

I'd take a bit of issue with the last paragraph on Mike Winfield's comments.

What it doesn't say, and maybe he said it but it got lost in the reporting, is that he's atriculating sentiments held by a minority of each racial group - an older minority who still frame independence in the terms of a 1960's battle.

The Bermudians who I associate with, both socially and professionally, of all races, are predominantly in their 20s - 50's. And I don't hear this view. I hear the earlier part of Mr. Winfield's comment, that they would prefer we focus on issues that are directly impacting our lives, and that the change in citizenship has flipped quite a few people.

Young(er) Bermudians in particular see the ability to hold an EU passport as a compelling reason to retain our loose ties with the UK.

But the sentiments of the majority of the population won't deter the UN's Decolonialisation ideologues...because of course they know what's best for us.

Wow, that was fast!

First off the mark with another example of the PLP's not-so-subtle 'the UBP love England jabs' is reader CD (no that's not me):

"While we seek to serve all the good people of this great country of ours, we would encourage the Opposition to experience life here in Bermuda up close and personal and not from the decks of the now decommissioned, Royal Yacht, Britannia."

- From "The Power of Positive Thinking" Opinion by Scott Simmons, Royal Gazette, April 5th 2005

I missed that one while on vacation.

But indeed, another great example. In fact, this one's particularly glaring, because like Mr. Simmons' previous Opinion that was again the payoff line of the piece. More bizarrely, it w was also the sole reference to the UBP in the whole article.

Desperation.

Posting has been light lately as I've been on vacation for a week, followed by a week of business travel, and then it took a week to get re-oriented. But I'm back in the swing of things now.

So I apologise for playing a little bit of catch-up over the next few days, on a variety of topics.

First in that list is a follow-up to my post of a few days ago discussing why most people are uninspired by the topic of independence.

One of the points I made, but didn't support with concrete examples, focused on the signs of an emerging strategy by the PLP to portray anyone not supportive of independence as a 'royalist', UK loyalist or aligned with the UK.

So I think it's only fair to follow-up with some examples, statements that just didn't fit in with the topic being discussed, but clearly made for one purpose only; to try and plant a seed in people's minds that in particular the UBP are royalists and loyal to the UK not Bermudians.

The problem? These references are glaringly out of place.

Example A: Scott Simmons' rather meandering, probably ineffective, but at times mildly entertaining Op-Ed in the Royal Gazette, 'What's new about the UBP?'.

The piece was essentially an out of the blue attack on UBP Leader Dr. Grant Gibbons by the PLP's spokeperson. It was the last sentence of the piece that just didn't fit in and got my attention:

In the mean time, the Progressive Labour Party will continue to govern in the best interest of the people of Bermuda while the old UBP guard brushes up on the opening bars of "God Save The Queen".

Huh? The UBP is brushing up on "God Save the Queen"? That was the article's payoff?

Figuring that this wasn't used because Mr. Simmons thought it too good of a joke to pass up, even though it had little relevance to the piece, I decided to keep an eye out for further examples.

Then, just a few weeks later, a similar off-topic reference appeared again, this time in an even stranger place; Dr. Brown's sole public comment on the 'pay for play' scandal:

The Deputy Premier also touched lightly for the first time on the pay-to-play allegations last night. “Regardless of his beliefs about the Premier's positions on the issues of the day (including groundless allegations against me), the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has revealed a most unseemly and ungentlemanly side of his character,” he said.

"The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition"? Since when have we been going to those lengths to say "The Opposition", and do you think the PLP would refer to themselves as "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition"? Nope. It might be the technical term, but they're also Her Majesty's Government in that case.

And I can only presume that Dr. Brown isn't too concerned with the pay for play scandal if he'll insert something like that in his press release.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when the PLP are having to resort to such childish tactics in order to try and advance Independence.

I'll be on the lookout for more references like this, both in the print and broadcast media. The more the merrier. Send in any you see and I'll post them here.

Yet another article in the foreign press on Independence, this time it's one published a few days ago at ObviousNews.com.

ObviousNews does a good job of making some obvious points - to those of us who live in the real world and not those intent of reliving the battles of the 60s.

On the money quotes:

"The passion for independence on the wealthy mid-Atlantic island and Britain‘s oldest colony seems, however, even more lackluster than most Bermudians‘ fervor for their motherland."

and

"It's the wrong issue at the wrong time," said opposition lawmaker Trevor Moniz, who voted against his own United Bermuda Party to help defeat a previously unsuccessful referendum on independence a decade ago.

Moniz is typical of many whose wish to continue ties with Britain is based more on pragmatism than passion.

Not-so representative sentiments:

Historian Joyce Hall, who can trace her family back to the first English settlers, said the island owed Britain.

"Everything that is stately and dignified is British," said Hall, who admitted she is a dying breed.

Ms. Hall is a very nice and well-intentioned lady who I've met on a couple of occassions. She's very outspoken.

Ms. Hall is also, as she indicated, in a very small minority. And in case you haven't noticed it yet, that's the minority that the spin doctors at the PLP want to try and paint anyone opposed to independence as, when in fact they are few and far between.

Of the majority who oppose independence, very few would fall in Ms. Hall's camp and most would fall in Trevor Moniz's - they don't look at the UK with starry-eyed awe, but from a perspective of pragmatism.

Contary to Ms. Hall's assertion, we don't owe the UK anything, and they don't want much.

The overwhelming majority of people who do not support independence, are not royalists or admirers of the UK. They are Bermudians, of all ages, races and backgrounds who believe that we are best served through the current arrangement with the UK, not some ideological desire for a permanent bond or because they run nice parades.

Bermuda, as a legitimate financial market is under attack, both directly and indirectly.

U.S. insurance industry scandals are turning the attention of regulators and Congress to the islands of Bermuda -- home to 1,600 insurers, or one for every 40 residents of the isolated UK territory.

We have an incredibly successful economy, currently totally reliant on international business, yet it is also incredibly fragile.

So what are we doing?

Screwing around with an independence campaign that can only further the interests of the political elite. Really wise.

Today's installment of the anti-independence poll delivers more bad news for the vainglorious aspirations of the Premier and his band of 1960s relics.

There's a lot to discuss in the poll, but it looks like the more that independence is discussed, the less appealing it is to the vast majority of the population.

Sounds an awful lot like what George Bush is experiencing with his Social Security push. That's just one more thing that George Bush and Alex Scott have in common.

The UN crowd arrived on Sunday, and were front and centre at tonight's rather dull public meeting (from the radio broadcast on VSB's AM 1450). Just the same tired non-arguments being rehashed.

But don't you think that the UN Special Committee of 24 on Decolonialization would have a little more credibility if they actually knew the population of Bermuda?

They're only out by a factor of 10.

First impression are everything as they say. So here are mine after reading the Bermuda Indoctrinating and Conditioning's two documents of notes and one press release they released on their site, discussing just what they've been up to:

* Feb. 16, 2005 - Washington Meeting with DHS and FAA
* Feb. 17, 2005 - Visit to The United Nations
* Feb 17, 2005 - Press Release on Visit to Washington D.C. and NY

There's a few interesting tidbits in them, but there's also some sort of odd things in there.

For one, there is a weird use of capitalization in the notes, select words suddenly appear in CAPITALS, presumably for EMPHASIS. But isn't the point to just PRESENT the information in a DIS-PASSIONATE way.

Then there's strange references like this (Section I.B):

"Mr. Simon Williams entertained the BIC delegation at a lunch at a scenic U.N. dining room ..."

Huh? Who cares that it was a "scenic U.N. dining room"? Does that really need to be noted?

Or this in Section II.A of the UN notes:

"Once again the BIC delegation was warmly and respectfully received; even commended on the noble and daunting task it had undertaken."

...

"The Chairman of the SC-24 took the view, which was echoed by other distinguished ambassadors present, that the BIC and Bermuda were tackling the issue of Independence in the correct manner by educating its population first and giving Bermudians themselves a chance to make the choice of maintaining the STATUS QUO by remaining as they are OR transitioning to Independence."

A little self-congratulation anyone? It gets worse in the press release:

"The delegation has been told that the BIC’s advanced inquires and forward thinking is historic."

The Committee seems to be a) star-struck and b) working extremely hard - probably the hardest - at justifying its existence to an ambivalent or outright hostile public.

The rolling out of Michael Winfield and David Rowntree last week to try and quell dissention felt more than a little desperate:

Mr. Rowntree in particular appeared to have, maybe unconsciously, adopted the languate of inevitability:

David Rowntree, one of the BIC members who visited the UN recently, said there was no need for anyone to fear that the SC-24 was trying to push Independence.

"Eleven of them are coming here to answer any questions we may want to pose them," Mr. Rowntree said. "They have overseen many a country going Independent.

"They have a template on ways and means of going Independent. This is a process that may take one year or five years."

So they're not pushing independence, the "UN Committee on Decolonialization" that is, they just have a "template on ways and means of going Independent. This is a process that may take one year or five years." That isn't exactly neutral language in my book, whether intentional or not (and I don't profess to know Mr. Rowntree's personal feelings on independence).

But where were the rest of the commissioners? The selection of those two felt extremely calculated.

And what about the comment that "the BIC and Bermuda were tackling the issue of Independence in the correct manner by educating its population first and giving Bermudians themselves a chance to make the choice..."

Well, what's the other manner? Just a press release issued one day declaring that we're now independent? Lowering expectations to beat them is never a bad strategy.

But let's look at some of the countries who we are looking to for advice in managing our affairs:

"Ambassadors from Dominica, Jamaica, Papua-New Guinea, Bolivia, Cuba, the Congo and Syria spoke to these issues ..."

Cuba - a one party communist state? Syria - run by a military dictatorship since 1963? Yep, we really need to take advice from a committee which has representatives like these. Nice.

But moving on:

"Lastly, on the economy of Bermuda, it was expressed by the Chairman of BIC, Commissioner David Rowntree and government liaison and constitutional lawyer, Mr. Philip Perinchief, that BOTH tourism and the international companies would not likely be adversely affected by a transition to Independence as long as Bermuda continued to enjoy a stable POLITICAL and SOCIAL environment with the prevailing economic prosperity and status quo maintained. The SC-24 concurred. The expressions referred to above were in response to the issue of the expected ‘scaremongering and tactics’ employed by the protagonists of constitutional change or Independence experienced almost everywhere where such change had been contemplated."

"Tourism and the international companies would not likely be adversely affected by a transition to Independence ..."? and "... with the prevailing economic prosperity and status quo maintained."

Which of course begs the question of why we're going down this road if the point is to maintain the prevailing status quo?

Additionally, we all know that tourism isn't contributing much to our economy anymore, so it's all about the international companies anyway. And they've expressed some real concern over this move, which most of us don't want anyway.

Here's the money quote in the ABIC's paper's conclusion:

"In that context, there are almost no positives in any move towards independence and, as outlined above, a number of potential negatives. These need to be carefully handled if this sector, which has become the lifeblood of the Bermuda economy, is to continue its substantial contribution as employers, taxpayers and contributors to the community."

Yeah, so I guess it's heart warming that "the SC-24 concurred" with the statement that the "international companies wouldn't be adversely affected". Because of course a committee made up of people from places like New Guinea, Bolivia, Cuba and Syria, who know next to nothing about Bermuda or our economy, are better informed than the Association of Bermuda International Companies - that would be an association made up of representatives of the companies themselves.

But it is worth asking then whether BIC briefed the Decolonialization crowd on the published position of the Bermuda companies. A paper that one that one of the BIC commissioners (not at the time though), Rolfe Commissiong attacked with odd statements like this:

"I was perturbed, to say the least, by the claim issued on behalf of that body that the Government shouldn't force people to Independence."

I'm yet to understand what's perturbing about that statement. Perhaps we can ask Cuba and Syria to assist with interpretation?

Or maybe the BIC members preferred not to bring that up, it's sort of inconvenient. Material, but inconvenient I know.

There is much much more in these releases that raises an eyebrow. Section B of the UN visit document details the Ambassadorial meetings with a number of countries.

Here are some gems, note the CAPITALISATION:

Barbados

"The present COST of Barbados Ministry of Foreign Affairs is between $5 – 6 million (US) dollars. 'The BENEFITS are difficult to quantify on an annual basis because such benefits are sometimes UNQUANTIFIABLE. I mean how can you QUANTIFY benefits that FLOW to your country over a long period of time as a result of your trade agreements which are longer than a year in duration? One thing is clear, we in Barbados believe the benefits of having a MFA [Ministry of Foreign Affaits] far outweigh the COST of $5 – 6 million (US) dollars a year.'"

Apparently the benefits of independence are unquantifiable, or UNQUANTIFIABLE, as they are longer than a year in duraton. Right. So I assume the downside is also unquantifiable? Or of course they can't point to the benefits so it's easier to just say they exist but we can't put our finger on them.

Jamaica

The Jamaican representatives try to separate Independence and the ensuing decline in their economy and increase in poverty and pin it on the UK. They strangely prefaced their remarks with:

"A large number of people were saying it wouldn’t work. Our economy will go down; our dollar would be worth nothing."

Well, uh, yeah. That's exactly what happened isn't it?

And then:

"No, Jamaica’s economy or dollar did not go down or Jamaica did not become poor as a result of Independence. We are better today. Our difficulties in our economy are a DIRECT result of our COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS and TRADE RELATIONS with the U.K. being LOCKED into the PRICES that the U.K. said we MUST pay BEFORE we went Independent."

Ok, so there were agreements that were in place and would be called in as a condition of independence, but the devaluation of the currency and the economic freefall had nothing to do with these agreements, ones that wouldn't have been called in otherwise.

Whatever. I hope the BIC aren't lapping this stuff up, but the capitalization would suggest they are.

I can't say I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy about the direction the BIC is heading from its initial reports and posturing.

This time it's in the UK's The Independent with an article (no subscription needed) and an editorial (subsciption required).

There's a couple of minor errors (policemen in white knee socks & neglects to point out that the Chief Justice is also a Governor's appointment) and a more optimistic tone for the prospects of Independence than other reports and commentaries, but it's an interesting read that has apparently been picked up by the Belfast Telegraph as well.

Via the Pondblogger:

The UN's Special Committee on Decolonization announces visits to Bermuda for March 28-31 and May 30-June 4.

i-Newswire, 2005-03-12 - The Special Committee on Decolonization this morning made arrangements for an upcoming United Nations special mission to assist the people of Bermuda in making an informed choice regarding their future status. It also made plans for a regional seminar in the Caribbean in May.

more ...

The Bermuda Indoctrination Commission, er I mean Bermuda Independence Commission, has a website, through the government portal.

It doesn't appear to be linked anywhere through Government's main site and I don't believe has been publicly announced, but it does exist, albeit with limited information at this stage.

Note the memorable URL. It's good to see they even have their own slogan and logo.

Chairman of the Commission Rev. Lambe has an introductory letter that was released to the media, that tries to sound impartial but is riddled with a clear pro-position, such as:

"Firstly, because an Omnibus Survey, a syndicated quarterly survey of Bermuda residents June 2004, clearly indicates a strong interest for more information on the subject of independence. We will provide that information and quench that thirst for knowledge."

Thirst for knowledge? Strong interest? That's more than a little misleading, and indicates that Rev. Lambe has adopted Alex Scott's talking points, without pointing out the overwhelming ambivalence and outright opposition to independence in these very same polls.

He goes on:

"Every country has the inalienable right to self determination in terms of its constitutional destiny. That right has been affirmed to us by the UK Government. Its time to exercise it and put to rest the question on independence pro and con."

Time to exercise it? Well, that sounds like a preference to me, even though the next sentence says:

Therefore, we envision that at the conclusion of this exercise we shall have provided this community with the necessary formal and appropriate information to address the decision on independence.

If you think Alex Scott will allow this committee to present a report that isn't overwhelmingly in favour of independence, then the Causeway is still for sale. I'm accepting offers.

Anyway, there isn't much on the site yet, but I'll see if I can track down the first report which was recently tabled in Parliament, but apparently doesn't add much new to the age-old debate.

Here's another outsiders view of Alex Scott's independence push, from Caribbean Net News. It's pretty even-handed, although there's at least one error. Most notably:

A poll conducted last month in Bermuda revealed that 65% of those polled are against independence and only 35% are for it. The views expressed in the poll are based largely on very politically charged arguments made by both the ruling PLP and the main opposition, the United Bermuda Party (UBP).

The last polls indicated about 65% against, but the remaining 35% were both for and undecided.

But on balance, and setting that error aside, the commentary seems pretty fair. The last 3 paragraphs struck me as particularly relevant to the debate:

"After all, becoming an independent nation is no trifling matter for a small state regardless of how relatively prosperous it might be. Caribbean and Pacific small states can readily attest to the high and increasing costs of maintaining security and participating in international affairs, as well as to the lack of human resources to carry out the tasks.

Not surprisingly, the member states of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), even though they are doing so as a ‘Community of Sovereign States’ are moving toward streamlining the functioning of independence in their individual and collective interest.

If years of experience has taught CARICOM countries that ‘going it alone’ is not a viable option in today’s global community, Bermudans should be given the right of a referendum to choose their path. And, they should be fully informed of all the benefits and pitfalls that surround the question of independence on which they are asked to decide."

More good publicity in our sole economic pillar in this month's edition of Risk and Insurance. I can see Dublin, Caymans and everywhere else rubbing their hands with glee:

Whichever method is chosen, Bermuda's international companies do not want independence. In an extraordinary departure from protocol, the Association of Bermuda International Companies (ABIC) wrote Premier Scott late last year to express its doubts on independence, saying it offered "almost no positives" and "a number of potential negatives." ABIC called for a referendum on the issue after wide consultation and cautioned the premier against forcing independence on Bermudians.

ABIC's contribution to the debate was loudly frowned on by the PLP intelligentsia. By tradition, Bermuda's international companies never say a word in public about the way Bermuda is run, other than to provide input on proposed legislation. The fear that independence might sour the atmosphere for insurance, banking and trust is endemic among the foreign business community.

"What Bermuda chooses to do is entirely its own business," the CEO of a major company says, on condition of anonymity. "However, if what Bermuda chooses to do endangers the security of the insurance companies, you can be damned sure that the insurance companies will have an opinion, and they will want to make it heard."

Saying that he had discussed the matter privately with Premier Alexander Scott, the CEO admitted that his company had a plan to relocate to Dublin, should matters in Bermuda turn against the vast army of corporate interests. "We've had that plan since the day we started in Bermuda, and we have a similar plan in every other jurisdiction in which we operate," he added. "It would be irresponsible not to."

COHA, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, has released its second report on Independence for Bermuda.

After the mini-brouhaha that erupted after the first report was released, which was written by a research associate (aka intern), COHA Director Larry Birns has himself written the latest analysis.

Try and parse this diplomat speak.

The UK releases a statement indicating that they prefer but won't mandate a referendum for independence:

Caribbean Net News: UK sets out route to independence for Overseas Territories

Saturday, February 12, 2005

LONDON, England: Following discussion at the September 2004 Overseas Territories Consultative Council in London, the United Kingdom government has issued a policy statement setting out the United Kingdom's view on the method for Overseas Territories to move to independence, where that is an option.

Mr Bill Rammell, UK Minister for the Overseas Territories, said, "The UK Government need to be satisfied that, if a territory moves to independence, it does so on the basis of the clearly and constitutionally expressed wish of its people. "

"At this time, the presumption of the UK Government is that a referendum would be the way of testing opinion in those territories where independence is an option. But a final decision on whether to go the referendum route, and what form the referendum might take, would need to be determined by the UK on a case-by-case basis, reflecting the uniqueness and individual characteristics of each
territory," he added.

B-b-but I don't understand?

Does this mean we went independent by stealth? I thought Government's hands were tied in dealing with drugs and crime?

"He further announced that funding has just been approved by Cabinet for another 11 Police officers to join the PSU."

Minister of Labour and Home Affairs Randy Horton - 10 Feb. 2005:

"The Ministry of Home Affairs is also currently working on witness protection legislation which it hopes will persuade more witnesses of crime to come forward and testify in trials without fear of reprisal.

"The amendment to the Criminal Code last year was an important step," he argued.

"With higher penalties, more arrests, more prosecutions and hopefully more convictions, I think the deterrent against this sort of behaviour will be keenly felt."

Premier Alex Scott - 10 Jan. 2005:

"We want to fight crime, drugs, and have a society that is safe for everyone. I can't direct the Minister for Public Safety to direct the Police Commissioner to do the following because he answers to the Governor. He responds to and respects the Minister but we don't control the chief cop in this community."

We here at Politics.bm have become quite concerned about the mental stability of our Premier.

We were watching the latest installment of the Alex Scott Media Charm Offensive (emphasis on the 'offensive') on ZBM last night, when we noticed that 'The Man' seems to have multiplied into 'The Men'.

We sprayed Diet Sunkist across our living room when we heard The Man repeatedly refer to himself as the collective 'we'. Most notably, we counted upwards of 5 instances of 'we' and one instance of 'us' in response to just the final two questions from interviewer Jim MacKey.

For example, Mr. MacKey asked how comfortable the Premier was in his position after a year and a half at the helm, to which The Men responded that 'much more than we were one, two or three days after taking over'.

We thought this might have been a slip of his forked-tongue until we heard it several more times, in elaborating on his answer. In fact we lost count. Cementing our concern, the Premier told Mr. Mackey that he was 'pleased you could spend some time with us'.

We spent the night ruminating over the expansion of the Premier into a plurality, and can offer the following potential explanations:

1) The Cabinet Office is situated over Mount Doom, the Premier is in reality a hobbit formerly known as Smiegal, who refers to Independence as 'My Preciouuussssssssss'.

2) That Alex Scott might be just one personality of the multi-personalitied Sybil Scott, as wonderfully captured in the 1970s/80s film 'Sybil'.

3) That we live in the Matrix, ergo we're all slaves to the artificially intelligent architect. Alex Scott is Agent Smith and Grant 'Neo' Gibbons might be The One capable of resetting the Matrix.

4) That puppet-master Ewart Brown was discreetly crouched behind the plush stripey chair that was gobbling up our posturely-challenged Premier, whispering the answers to him, in a low tech version of the Bush Bulge.

Our concern is genuine and we'll stay tuned for further developments in the Lives and Times of Alex Scott.

Hmmm, perhaps I'll send a case of chewing gum to the Cabinet Office. If the Premier's mouth is full of a wad of gum it might prevent him from embarrassing himself when he speaks:

'Concerns that Government should be focusing on other, more pressing issues did not hold water with the Premier. "What - we can't chew gum and talk at the same time? Gee, how hard is it to discuss? Come on now," he said.'

Well, uh, that's the point isn't it. Your Government's woeful track record suggests that you don't seem able to chew gum or walk, let alone do them both together.

"The Government stands solidly with the Police and will make available those resources that are required in order to guarantee the kind of safe and secure society that all of us have a right to expect."

Labour and Home Affairs Minister Randy Horton, 29 Dec. 2004

One Week Later

(Paraphrasing here) The inability to deal with crime and law and order lies with the Governor who is responsible for policing and internal security.

Premier Alex Scott, 06 Jan. 2005

So according to Alex Scott, just yesterday, the Government is helpless to get involved with the Police until we go independent. So was Randy Horton the Governor's puppet on New Years Eve?

Or are we again being played for fools by the Premier - on so many levels?

From a reader, and a candidate for the claim vs. fact database:

"Did you happen to catch the VSB interview with Alex Scott last night (I heard it this AM on the radio) wherein he blamed the government's ability to adequately deal with crime and prevention thereof on the Governor (in his capacity as the head of the police service) and the Commissioner as they are the parties directly responsible for policing and internal security? He went on to say that these barriers would be removed in an independent Bermuda. Am I wrong here or is he saying that Bermuda's crime rate and violence will continue to spiral southward (pun intended) until we're independent? Talk about scare tactics !!

"I think what he's really indicating is that his government isn't capable of providing the necessary guidance to the governor (as was successfully done under the UBP) nor are they capable of properly allocating resources, fiscal and otherwise, needed by the police service, an effective prosecution and AG chambers to carry out their jobs properly dispensing justice.

"I imagine his comments are going to cause quite a flurry among the independence debaters and would hope that the UBP takes this opportunity to remind the electorate that they had no problem with the current setup and (to me recollection) didn't point the finger at the governor and the commissioner during periods of heightened criminal activity. This is just another example of an inept PLP."

A new low, even for Alex Scott.

I'd like to start by saying how disappointed I am that I wasn't invited to participate on BIC.

Secondly, for all those who think UBP members won't state where they stand on the big issues, I think Independence was dumb in 1995 and even more stupid in 2004/5.

Ok, so why would the UBP choose not to participate in the BIC? There are two real schools of thought about whether to participate or not. But before we go into that let's just review how we got here.

Put yourself in the Premier and the PLP's shoes. Alex Scott, the Accidental Premier, was thrust into the Premiership without a mandate and a divided team. Over his first year he went from high ratings post-Fabian to abysmal levels of approval - a level it took his predecessor four years to reach. His signature accomplishment (or lack of it), Berkeley, has been an unmitigated disaster, his Social Agenda was a flop, he's done nothing for housing, Renee Webb kicked his ass left right and centre and everyone knows he's out of his league and desperate for something to keep him on top.

So what were his choices? The most obvious was to change the subject. What is the best thing to: simultaneously change the topic, rally his disenchanted base, guarantee (he thought) the UBP would get distracted and off of their winning formula of the past 12 months, and divide them interally while uniting his fragmenting Parliamentary team?

He grabbed for the same issue that John Swan did when he had nowhere to go. Alex figured Independence would be his saviour - and the UBP's downfall.

So he launched the campaign 9 months ago, and where did it go? Nowhere. Why? Because the UBP didn't play ball. The PLP expected the UBP to divide internally, fly off the handle about Independence, drop their agenda of housing, seniors, empowerment, race relations, and become consumed with a non-issue that two-thirds of the electorate don't want, and those who do don't see as a priority.

Ok, so back to where we are today.

The Premier makes an offer to the UBP for one member on his Bermuda Independence Committee. Should they participate or not?

Let's start with the case for participating (in no real order):

1) Participating would put someone on the inside to report back. Well maybe. But to be honest, that committee is going to spring more holes than one of Alex Scott's lame excuses.

2) The UBP could help shape the direction of the committee and influence its outcome. If you buy this one I've got a Causeway to sell you. This committee will produce the report Alex wants. And if they don't he'll send them back until they do - or he'll bury the report. If you really believe that this committee, despite their best intentions, can produce a report recommending against independence you're dreaming.

3) The 'we want a referendum' constituency needs a voice on the committee. The committee hasn't been tasked with answering that question. They've been charged with researching the pros and cons.

4) The UBP castigated the PLP for boycotting the 1995 referendum and should participate this time. Well, only if you think this is a legitimate exercise, which it isn't. But regardless the UBP haven't said we won't participate in the discussion, they've said we won't be on this committee.

5) Independence is the biggest issue out there. Well, not according to the majority of the population. Most people want the government to focus on the issues supposedly being addressed in the Social Agenda. The PLP have been talking up independence and watching their numbers fall. Why hitch should the UBP hitch their wagon to this kiss of death.

Maybe there's a few others, but these strike me as the major ones.

The case against participating:

1) 60% + of Bermudians don't want independence and the vast majority of the rest don't see it as a priority anyway. So why participate in something no-one wants? The UBP is with the majority here, it's the PLP who have to do the convincing. Let them.

2) By participating, the UBP is lending credibility and legitimacy to a fraud of an exercise. I'm with this one. This thing is a complete sham and the Premier knows what he wants. This BIC has been created to put lipstick on this pig as well as create a sense of inevitability. The only person who benefits from the UBP's participation is Alex.

3) Independence is intended to be a distraction to take the UBP off of the things that have hurt the PLP and benefited the UBP. Yep, absolutely. It isn't a coincidence that the Premier launched this when he was getting hammered with bad news, and took 9 months to take step 1. The PLP would like nothing more than the UBP to become consumed with independence and stop talking about the issues that the vast majority of Bermudians care about - and the PLP continue to fail on.

4) The UBP would be prevented from contradicting the recomendation of the BIC if their participated. Well, yes and no. They could produce a minority report, but the outcome is pre-determined anyway. The UBP has much more flexibility on the issue outside of the BIC than they do internally.

5) The BIC reports to Cabinet not Parliament. The committee should report to Parliament on such an important issue and not Cabinet (ie. the Premier first) and the UBP should not support this.

6) The UBP was offered 1 seat on a committee of 13. Not quite a sincere offer to participate is it?

Again, there's more I'm sure. But these are the big issues I think.

Ok, now to dispel a few misconceptions out there.

- The UBP are looking for payback after the PLP boycotted the UBP's 1995 referendum. Nope. Sorry. This isn't payback, and it isn't even a parallel. The UBP have just said they won't participate on this first stage committee. The debate hasn't really started, there's plenty of opportunity to be heard when the time is right, if it ever happens.

- The UBP is hugely internally divided over Independence. Nope again. Sorry to disappoint. I've participated in, and listened to, a number of UBP conversations, both group and individual on independence. No-one, not one person I've heard, supports a general election as the method to determine independence. Everyone supports a referendum, and I'd say the party is heavily against Independence - much more so now than in 1995. A number of prominent UBP members who were ardently pro-independence in 1995 aren't interested now, particularly with the UK passport benefit that we know have.

- The PLP are for independence. Nope (I sense a pattern here). The party may have an official position of wanting it, but the membership isn't so sure. Lots of PLP members are against independence or ambivalent, many don't support doing it via an election and others absolutely don't support Alex's pursuit of it.

- The UBP don't know what to do and have their heads in the sand. Nope. The party knows exactly what it is doing. The reason the whole debate hasn't even moved forward is because the UBP didn't come to the wicket 9 months ago. Alex expected the UBP to become hyper-focused on independence and play on his turf - except they didn't and we all know Alex and this PLP crowd couldn't organise an orgy in a whore-house. Thus, 9 months of nothing.

- People are out collecting petition signatures and the UBP is doing nothing. Nope again. The UBP isn't doing nothing, they're just not on this committee. Collecting signatures for the petition will be very valuable when the Premier tries to ram it through with an election and bypass the electorate.

Ok, so I know all this isn't going to appease some people, because the word 'Independence' to many UBP supporters and Bermudians causes them to flare up like a grease fire - but as soon as they realize it's just another false start they die down until the word is spoken again.

I see very few positives to participating and I think it plays right into Alex's hand as presenting this exercise as legitimate and of value. It isn't. The public are overwhelmingly against this, they don't need to be told what to think, the PLP need to listen for a change and not lecture.

But let's use our heads here and realize that Alex wants nothing more than the whole island to talk about nothing other than independence for the next year or more. Because every word written or spoken on the topic is less time and print spent on corruption, mismanagement, lack of accountability, inaction on housing, crime, seniors, healthcare, education etc.. The UBP have been killing the PLP in Parliament and in the public for many months now. Why should they abandon a winning formula to play Alex Scott's game?

Grant Gibbons and the UBP are absolutely right to continue with their own agenda, and not get distracted by the PLP's shell game. The people actually care about the issues the UBP are talking about, and the party is gaining credibility, rebuilding and becoming the voice for an ignored majority. To become distracted with the non-issue of independence would be a huge mistake and throw away all that has been accomplished in the past 6 years, but particularly in the Alex Scott era.

There will be plenty of opportunities and time to tackle this. But there's no need to lose the plot now and play right into Alex Scott's hands. The PLP have been practically begging the UBP to talk about it and take a position, because they don't know how to sell it on its merits. No-one cares.

Remember, only about 20% of Bermudians want independence. So why spend 90% of our time talking about it?

Therefore, in the spirit of taking my own advice, you'll see very little further comment (you might have noticed little over the past 9 months) on independence.

I'll be focusing on the issues that count. And if you want to hold the PLP accountable and get them voted out you should too. Independence is a distraction not an issue.

Here's the full text of the UBP's press release today as to why they chose not to participate on the BIC. I'll write more about this tonight, a decision that was absolutely appropriate.

To those who are panicking already over this decision ... relax.

The United Bermuda Party has today declined to submit a member to Premier Alex Scott’s proposed Bermuda Independence Commission.

Party Leader Grant Gibbons said, “Quite frankly, we cannot in good conscience participate in a process that we believe is an inappropriate use of the people’s time and resources. This commission represents yet another attempt by the PLP to distract attention from other, more pressing issues facing our people. From the feedback we are getting it’s clear that independence is not a priority for most Bermudians given the other pressing issues that need to be addressed. We believe that time, resources and attention need to be directed toward solving some of the serious social issues facing our community: affordable housing, needs of seniors, economic empowerment, education, tourism, to name just a few.”

Dr. Gibbons continued, “We can understand why the Premier would want to create a distraction given the problems and scandals that the PLP have been facing. We can see how this commission helps the Premier in his quest to become the first Prime minister, but we don’t see where it’s really going to help the rest of the people in this country.”

“The Premier keeps suggesting that people want more information on independence, and that may be true – but the people also want more information on Berkeley, the Bermuda Housing Corporation and a host of other issues that the PLP government has failed to come clean about,” Dr. Gibbons said.

United Bermuda Party Deputy Leader Wayne Furbert added, “The PLP are putting the cart before the horse. Time and time again we have stated that it is pointless for the PLP to engage in fact finding and debate on the pros and cons of independence until the decision making process has been clearly defined and agreed. They don’t appear to have learned their lesson from the last round of constitutional discussions where they created an unnecessary atmosphere of distrust and anxiety.”

“We believe that the only way to insure that the will of the people is given voice is through a referendum. We believe that the PLP is pushing for a general election on this issue is because they don’t trust the voters to make the right decision. They believe that using a general election to decide this issue will help them reach their goals. What we don’t understand is how this benefits the people.”

I'm not near a radio so if anyone can email me the BIC member list I'd appreciate it.

So far I've heard that Walton Brown isn't on it as I'd been told earlier but that Rolfe Comissiong, Crystal Caesar, Lois Browne-Evans, Eddie De Mello and David Rowntree are in.

Apparently the UBP held a press conference around 1PM and announced that they've declined the Premier's invitation to contribute 1 member to his Bermuda Independence Committee.

Grant Gibbons and Wayne Furbert conducted the event and, with considerable restraint I imagine, politely explained that the UBP's members are just too busy working on Housing, Seniors, Economic Empowerment etc. and can't spare a body for the Premier's vanity project.

Wasn't it generous of the Premier to ask them for one member, 1 out of 13? The UBP earned 49% of the vote a year ago but only 8% of a voice on the BIC?

That's a clever new twist on 'One (wo)man, one vote, each vote of equal value' - the PLP mantra. They just dropped that annoying equal value bit.

Anyway, apparently Comrade Alex is holding his own event at 3PM to announce the Marxist revolutionaries who will accompany Comrade Perinchief.

I hear the Premier's list will include Lois Browne-Evans (legal advisor), Derrick Burgess (labour rep.), Rolfe Commissiong, Walton Brown (pollster and independence advocate) among a few others.

Let's see if I'm right and who the rest are.

I'd like to thank Comrade Google, arguably the most powerful accountability tool on the planet.

Yesterday I received from a stealthy emailer (and shortly thereafter it showed up in a comment on Limey in Bermuda), a link to a tribute to deceased Dominican Prime Minister 'Rosie' Roosevelt Douglas, posted on website by newly seconded Government lawyer to the Bermuda Independence Commission Phil Perinchief.

I mentioned earlier the inappropriateness of Mr. Perinchief as liason to the BIC, but look at the language that he uses - in the year 2000 - during his post to a bulletin board.

Posted by Phil Perinchief on Oct-9-00 8:05pm from 209.25.38.185

"First of all my sincerest condolences and sympathies to the relatives of Prime Minister 'Rosie' Roosevelt Douglas and the people of Dominica. Secondly, I say farewell to a close friend and comrade-in-arms. A comrade who despite numerous obstacles and setbacks never lost the vision of establishing a just and equitable society for all Dominicans. It is clear that unlike too many of us, who as Black Students in Canada fighting to overcome racism and reaction, 'Rosie' kept the promise of returning to our respective countries to continue the struggle for Independence from Colonial Britain and the establishment of true democracy. For this he has my unbridled and unqualified admiration and respect. I say to those of you who 'mouthed' platitudes about freedom and Black Power during those heady student days, free yourselves from your total immersion into selfish capitalistic opulence and follow 'Rosies' example. As with Sekou Toure, Walter Rodney, Che Guevara, Malcolm X and others too numerous to mention, I say to you 'Rosie' - A LUTA CONTINUA. PATRIA O MUERTE!! You are deeply missed!!

Comrade Phil Perinchief - Bermuda"

That post was written on Oct. 9, 2000. The year 2000! Time to move on I'd say. While the extreme times of the 60s and 70s might have called for extreme measures, and socialism and communism were in vogue, there's little doubt that those tactics and ideologies are no longer appropriate.

Unfortunately Mr. Perinchief isn't alone. The PLP benches remain heavily populated with these type of 1960's relics and thinkers (to be generous), entrenched in a romanticized and discredited world of revolutionary Marxism that the vast majority of Bermudians left behind a long time ago. Name me a more capitalist place than Bermuda? I'm sure Mr. Perinchief's appointment to the CPU as BIC liaison makes the business community that fund our lifestyles here extremely comfortable with the prospects of an independent PLP Bermuda. Dublin anyone?

Mr. Perichief's language isn't a suprise, anyone who knows even a little about the upheaval in Bermuda during the 1960s and onwards - which led to the formation of the PLP - will not be surprised. In fact, the Mid Ocean News ran a series of exposes into this last year (search on black beret cadre).

But what is most damning, is that the Premier would knowingly appoint someone so clearly incapable and unwilling to take a dispassionate look at the issue of Independence to an 'objective' body like the BIC. The Premier also has no compunction in disingenuously claiming that Mr. Perinchief can argue both sides of the issue.

Mr. Perinchief's appointment was no coincidence. What little pretense existed of the objectivity of BIC has now been blown out of the water.

The Premier's underhanded and dishonest pursuit of Independence, in spite of a disinterested and vastly opposed public, will cause serious short and long term damage to us both economically and socially, if it hasn't already.

It's pretty clear where this campaign will eventually go once the Premier gets desperate, and he will.

Eagle-eyed resident Limey, Phillip Wells, has astutely pointed out (in response to my earlier post) that:

"According to that Gazette report, Phillip Perinchief is being installed at the Central Policy Unit to liase with the BIC. He won't be part of the BIC itself. So any research he does can presumably be much more closely monitored by the Government than it could if the BIC were given that job."

Phil is correct that Mr. Perinchief won't be a member of the BIC itself but the CPU. The CPU is a division of Cabinet and thus subject to the Premier's oversight and control - an important distinction.

Thanks Phil.

Twice now when discussing Independence, the Premier has displayed an impressive level of denial.

The first instance was after the Royal Gazette released their poll results on Independence, while the second was in Parliament on Friday when he announced the formation of the Bermuda Independence Commission.

The quote is paraphrased in the second linked RG article, but I heard it when he was delivering his statement to the House. So what did he say?

"Speaking from memory, he said via e-mail: “There is another very significant finding from a poll conducted by the Omnibus Group (I think that’s their corporate title) that more than 70 percent of individuals polled indicated that they wished to have (more) information on Independence.

"The conclusion we can draw is that while 'X' percent are for Independence and 'X' percentage against Independence (at this time), the majority of Bermudians wish to have more information on the subject ..."

Royal Gazette: 'Islanders say no to sovereignty', Nov. 26, 2004

A similar quote was delivered in Parliament as well and is paraphrased in the RG story as:

"A poll released last month showed 60 percent were against Independence but Mr. Scott said a Government poll had shown 80 percent wanted more information on the subject."

Royal Gazette: 'Premier announces Independence Commission', Dec. 11, 2004

That's a powerful level of denial. You know, it's not just a river in Egypt blah, blah, blah. (I'd like more info on lots of things, like syphillis for example. But I can confidently say that I don't want it and don't forsee anyone convincing me otherwise.)

The point I really want to make is that the Premier can't bring himself to actually say the numbers of people who are for or against. He prefers instead to say 'X amount', but is happy to trot out the number who'd like more information (which interestingly grew from 70% to 80% in two weeks.) He's become quite selective in what numbers he feels are credible in polls, discounting some and promoting others - often even from the same surveys.

Secondly, notice that in his email he included "(at this time)" when discussing the number of people opposed:

"... 'X' percentage against Independence (at this time) ..."

"At this time"? Why only include it after people who are opposed? That assumes that only people against Independence will change their mind. There's no reason to believe that, unless of course the BIC plans on conducting a snow job? Ghast, they wouldn't do that would they?

Regardless, the most significant aspect of any of the polls on Independence is the small number of undecideds - 17.2% in the most recent Research Innovations/RG poll.

That's tiny. Even if every undecided changed their mind in favour, it still fails (around 60% against vs 40% for), assuming any changes in the fors and againsts cancel each other out.

I'd suggest the Premier seek some therapy. I prefer my politicians to be reality based.

Installing Phillip Perinchief at the Bermuda Independence Commission (BIC) as liaison and research officer is like asking me to conduct research for the PIC, the Premier's Incompetence Commission.

Ever heard the one about the Masochist and the Sadist?

The Masochist says to the Sadist: "Hurt me."
Sadist replies: "No."

What does that have to do with anything? Read on.

Yesterday in the Senate, and last night on VSB and ZBM news, Sen. Walter Roban (PLP) was begging - I mean almost literally begging - the Opposition to argue with him on Independence? (RG has some of the Senate coverage here but it was much better on TV.)

The following is a fake transcript of an argument between Sen Roban (the Masochist) and UBP Sen. Kim Swan (the Sadist):

Sen. Roban (PLP): (Issuing challenge to UBP) "What's the UBP's position on Independence? Do you support it or not?"

Sen. Swan (UBP): Bermudians deserve no less than a referendum on the issue. One man one vote, one vote of equal value. I thought the PLP liked that concept?

Sen. Roban: "No, no, no. That's not what you're supposed to say. What is your party's position? Do you support it or not?

Sen. Swan: "The UBP supports a referendum as the mechanism to decide Independence."

Sen. Roban: (steam coming off his head) "Come on please, fight with me. You're supposed to hysterically oppose it."

Sen. Swan: (with a twinkle in his eye) "We trust the people and support allowing them to decide through the democratic means of a referendum."

Sen. Roban: (about to explode) "Please, play along with the script. We don't know what to do next. We brought it up and you're ignoring us. No-one's interested, least of all the public. We need to demonize someone? Are you for or against Independence?"

Sen. Swan: "A referendum is the only fair way."

Sen. Roban: (Storming off camera) "What's wrong with you? You don't expect us to make the case on it's merits do you? This isn't fair. I can't take this anymore."

Sen. Swan: (practicing his golf swing) "This is fun. Let's do it again next Wednesday."

This talk from Cal Smith and Rolfe Commissiong about ABIC not being allowed to wade into the independence debate is stupid and insincere on a number of levels:

Firstly, the outrage about international business becoming involved in local politics is complete and utter BS. I submit the following as evidence of PLP duplicity:

"In addition it must be noted that your Party has received very kind and significant financial support from the business community and I would like to personally thank the respective firms and individuals for their much valued contribution."

(Alex Scott addressing the PLP Annual Delegates Conference on 25 October 2004)

So the standard is that we'll take your money, but keep your opinions to yourself thank you very much. Unless the PLP return the business community's money (both local and international) and refuse to accept any in the future they don't have a leg to stand on here. This is hypocrisy at its best.

If ABIC's conclusions had been favourable they'd be trumpeting the report and ABIC would be their best buddy.

Rolfe and Cal are not running off on private missions, they're doing the Premier's dirty work. The attack dogs are out because they think they finally have someone to demagogue in the Independence debate - the Governor thing didn't bite so they're trying ABIC on for size. That's all they are up to here with this false outrage. This issue has gained zero traction in the past 9 months and they're desperately searching for something to trigger a debate among the overwhelming majority of people who find it completely uninteresting and irrelevant in our day to day life.

This attack on ABIC will likely backfire. ABIC and their members have done more work and provided more clarity on the issue with one letter than the Government has. People respect and appreciate that. They also have far more credibility than any political party and directly affect the lives of thousands of their Bermudian employees. While they ultimately look out for the financial interests of their shareholders they have provided a dispassionate look at the issue with a business-like approach.

I doubt I'll comment much more on this but this is nothing more than posturing and unhappiness over Government's vaporware PR campaign being undercut before it starts. That's the Government's own problem from their own procrastination. The're just upset that information has come out which will only solidify in the minds of the two-thirds of Bermudians who are already suspicious of this, that Independence is ill-advised.

Just a quick follow up on my last post.

From what I can gather, the polling on gambling in Bermuda indicates a 50/50 split, although I'm yet to see a scientific poll on this (the unscientific RG web poll has a slight majority against. The Bermuda Sun conducted a web poll as well but their search function seems to be down). I've asked around and I think both parties have done the polling either before or after the election and reached the same result - right down the middle with no discernable preference.

Independence on the other hand has a clear "No" preference, 65% against and a tiny (12.8%) undecided. This suggests that regardless of the PLP's 'vaporware' "national dialogue" campaign they are unlikely to change many minds. But we know they want independence in spite of the electorate...thus trying to push it through with some General Election slight of hand.

Back to gambling. I was surprised how adamantly against gambling the PLP suddenly went, after initially taking a measured approach. The clue is probably in AG Mussenden's reference to 'constituents' not the polling, which is probably a bit of a red herring. I doubt that they suddenly got a poll in showing a huge swing against.

The safe bet is that the constituency Mr. Mussenden is referring to is the significant and powerful church crowd - as the Limey pointed out - that has a significant influence on both parties, but mostly the influence of the AME Church on the PLP. Check this article out and try and find some air between the PLP and the AME church's statement on independence, gambling and gay marriage.

I'd suggest that they had some feedback, whether solicited or not, and decided that it wasn't worth the political risk to have a protracted community debate. So the Premier came out strong against, a little over the top in his presentation I thought, that made him seem to be playing to a constituency.

PS: The Limey has a good take on the PLP's lack of interest in receiving public input on Government policy. I think our perspectives are compatible - because the proposed dialogue on Independence is insincere. Phil makes a very consise, compelling case for this.

A defining trait of the PLP Government is that differing standards are applied to different issues.

Case in point. Compare the approach to gambling and independence. On gambling the Premier and his proxies point to polls as attesting that a majority of Bermudians are opposed to this, so no need for community discussion:

Attorney General Mussenden:

�We are not convinced there is strong support for gaming machines, casinos or lotteries in the community.

�Based on what we are hearing from our constituents and in recent polls, the majority of people want to keep gambling out of Bermuda.�

(The Premier said the same thing during the Parliamentary debate recently, but I can't find the article on RG's website.)

But when it comes to independence, the same standard doesn't apply.

Recent polls and admissions from PLP insiders confirm that the vast majority of Bermudians - including at least half of the PLP membership - are against independence.

However, on that issue, we're promised a multi-year period of propaganda - err, I mean 'education and dialogue' - but on gaming the Attorney General tells us that no national discussion is needed.

But I guess as Arthur Hodgson pointed out recently (surely much to the chagrin of the PLP spin machine), the PLP elite believe that if the electorate don't agree with them that they're too dumb to know what's good for them - or at least what's good for the PLP leadership.

Alex Scott, during an interview on VSB news this evening, mentioned that no other Head of State was present at the annual RIMS conference and that Bermuda was the star.

I'll assume that Mr. Scott knows that he's not the Head of State and is posturing! Keep your eyes open for the appointment of ambassadors, state dinners, private jets, a PLP green flag, higher taxes, increased debt....

By the way, it's easy for Bermuda to be the star at these insurance industry events, and it has little to do with the current Government, so I'd suggest he stop patting himself on the back. Bermuda is in the position it is in because of some smart moves many years ago, private sector innovation and a governing party that knew to stay out of the way...until recently.

After listening on the radio news and reading about British Prime Minister Tony Blair's farewell press conference, I'd sum up the PM's visit as a win for Mr. Blair and a loss for Alex Scott and the anti-British contingent.

Mr. Blair seems to have endeared himself to Bermudians as a relaxed, down-to-earth guy, respectful of Bermuda and genuinely interested in our people and our culture.

Doesn't quite jive with the manufactured image put out by the Scott Spin Machine does it?

It's amazing how the personal touch of a renowned communicator like Mr. Blair can pull the rug out from under those seeking to demonise him and his Government for political agendas.

I had another read of the anonymous op-ed in RG today by 'Contributed'.

In my last post I said that the piece "effectively debunked" the national pride argument. After reading it again this evening I'll amend that statement to demolished the national pride argument.

That was a great piece of writing by someone who has taken a very measured, reasoned and thoughful approach in considering the sole reason in favour of independence that any of the advocates have articulated thus far.

It's a shame the piece was unsigned because I'd like to shake his/her hand.

The definition of insanity is 'repeating the same behavior and expecting different results'. It's an overused phrase (and I've been complaining about tired cliches lately) but well articulated by Cal Smith in his rather meandering op-ed in today's RG.

I appreciate his clarification that our affiliation with Caricom is so that we can learn what NOT to do!

Nice one Cal.

I've only got one question? When is someone going to point out a nation from which we can learn what worked, not what didn't?

I certainly hope this isn't the way we educate our kids?

The op-ed states that "Clearly, in its quest for Independence, Bermuda has much to gain from an association with the islands to the south of us. We can learn from their mistakes and receive valuable instruction in the management of a micro-state that, quite frankly, mega-states like America and England are unable to provide."

Mr. Smith thinks that Bermuda, with one of the highest standards of living in the world (oh yeah, that's just "propaganda") needs to learn management techniques from some of the poorest and most troubled nations in the world. The same nations that desperately want to emulate us and are struggling to stay afloat both economically and socially (one follows the other by the way)!

Don't forget that when we joined Caricom a number of the member countries resented our new association. We were (accurately) seen as a rich non-caribbean island which would syphon resources from genuinely needy Caricom nations.

Mr. Smith does a great job in making a very strong case against independence through the lack of positives that he is able to identify.

We're being asked to support a negative by the independence advocates. We won't make their mistakes. We won't lower our standard of living.

Coincidentally this is the same approach used to sell us on Caricom in the first place. We were told that we won't have free movement of labour. We won't be a full member. We won't be bound by their positions. We're still wondering what we get from it but apparently that is irrelevant. So what are we there for other than a place for our politicians to preen and profile?

The only positive? National pride, which was effectively debunked in another op-ed today.

The few arguments so far made in favour of independence by it's advocates all relate to doing the same thing but getting different results.

Insanity indeed!

There's your campaign slogan: "Independence Insanity: repeating the same behavior and expecting different results".

I've been sent this referendum letter a few times lately. Both the Mid Ocean News and RG have had stories on it recently.

So here it is:

Referendum Letter Template

My only word of warning would to be careful what you ask for. Other than Alex Scott and a couple of his proxies, I haven't sensed a real excitement locally since the issue was raised - yet again.

If everyone starts writing letters to the press, the Premier and Government House etc. saying that we need a referendum on Independence then the Premier will claim support for his initiative. There's no need to create a groundswell of support for a referendum on independence when the public seem uninterested in the issue. Mr. Scott is no dummy and is well aware of this.

Alex Scott hasn't yet achieved what he wanted, to shift the public discourse away from PLP Government ineffectiveness, scandal and corruption and on to a more abstract and fungible issue. The Premier is hoping to cynically attempt to position himself as a modern day freedom fighter from a non-existent foe, obscuring the issues that are going unaddressed.

I for one, don't plan on helping him achieve momentum. He's going to have to carry his own water on this one.

The better angle (as this letter takes) is to argue that if Bermuda were to consider independence at some point in time, that a referendum is the only legitimate mechanism to measure public support.

I don't know how much more obvious the Premier's independence strategy could be.

On the Premier's Caricom experience he said:

�..we did have the courtesy and respect shown to us of allowing us to be at the table and to be able to speak.�

and on his need to be picked up on the airport runway:

"The Premier, not Alex Scott, should probably be given equal respect to dignitaries who visit the Island, to the Governor who is part of the executive of the Island...If I allow that to be disrespected I am allowing the Country to be disrespected."

Get it? Caribbean countries respect us, the UK doesn't...thus independence is necessary to be treated with respect.

Well if the UK did respect us I bet they no longer do after the disgraceful public displays by 'the Premier, not Alex Scott'.

So let me get this right.

The day after the Premier was pounding the podium for the media over concerns he supposedly has with the Governor, he is quoted in today's Mid Ocean News as saying that he "'did not appreciate' learning of Mr. Coleman's [US Consul General] comments through the media rather than directly through him".

Am I hearing this right?

Seems there's one standard for Mr. Scott and another for everyone else. But then again he is the "constitutional head of internal affairs"...blah, blah, blah.

Mr. Scott is serving as justification of why Bermuda is better served, at least under the current administration, by the UK handling our foreign affairs.

It's amateur hour at the Cabinet Office. Unfortunately the joke is on us.

Watching the Premier today at his press conference made me feel ill.

Alex Scott used the event to cover everything from attacking the UK as undemocratic to not respecting the position of Premier because the Governor didn't immediately agree to his request for airport runway pickups.

The UK apparently is undemocratic because they would only allow him observer status at the Caricom meetings. Well, they're right. Bermudians voted 2-1 in the 1995 referendum that they wanted to remain a colony, thus Mr. Scott should stop preening for the press and observe. The referendum's 'Yes' result meant that Bermudians were content with the UK representing our interests internationally, whether Mr. Scott likes it or not.

I discussed in a previous post the ridiculousness of this drama over airport privileges for the Premier. Phillip Wells seems to have misinterpreted my post, although I did focus on the profiling of the PLP since assuming the Government. My point is that the Premier isn't being straight with us on why he wants these things and is using them for other purposes, both personal and now evidently political.

Apparently I misread the motive for this confrontation over airport runway privileges by suggesting that it was driven by a desire for additional perks. While I stand by that as part of the decision - probably triggered by the over the top VIP treatment that he'll have received at the recent Caricom meetings - it's clear after watching the press conference today that the Premier is instigating confrontation with the Governor as a ploy to build support for independence.

The Chief Justice appointment process was used for political gain (and probably back-fired) and now, before any response has been received on the airport pickup 'crisis', the Premier is taking the same angle attacking the Governor and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for not respecting the position of Premier if they don't meet his demand.

They haven't even made a decision yet and the Premier is furious.

This guy's a joke.

Does this approach sound familiar? It's the same failed method he used in recommending a Chief Justice.

If anyone thinks the Premier wants the Governor to agree to his runway request you're mistaken. Mr. Scott didn't want his choice for Chief Justice to be successful and he'd prefer to have this trojan horse runway issue be denied as well. That way he can build his case for mistreatment and disrespect of our Premier by the evil colonialists.

Mr. Scott, devoid of any real reasons to justify the benefits of independence, is now using every opportunity to fabricate confrontation where there is none. The PLP are hoping to manufacture a feeling of inferiority in the community and will apparently stoop to any level to do this.

If this is the type of diplomatic approach we can expect as an independent nation we'll be the laughing stock of the world.

The image of the Premier banging on the podium demanding that the UK agree to increased airport privileges was shameful and a discredit to his Office. I'm not sure why he has to ask frankly. Doesn't the Transport Ministry run the airport and Immigration and Customs control the runway? What's the Governor's jurisdiction?

This Premier is an embarrassment. In the absence of any real reasons to go independent the PLP are trying to create crisis after crisis in an attempt to hoodwink Bermudians into supporting his Independence initiative.

The electorate is much more intelligent than Mr. Scott seems to think.

I've just finished watching an excellent documentary called Life & Debt that was recommended to provide some perspective on Jamaica post-independence.

I'd strongly recommend that everyone rent this (on video in the drama section at Leisure Time) and draw their own conclusions.

Without wanting to provide a review, the main thrust of the 80 minute documentary is the interaction between the IMF and Jamaica, and the impact of IMF policies on a newly independent nation. In light of Bermuda's latest flirtation with independence I was increasingly interested in any parrallels and lessons that Bermuda could learn from Jamaica's experience.

A couple of quotes that really hit home for me:

Stephanie Black (Narrator): "When we wished for independence from Great Britain - we had something else in mind. We cannot now remember what that was. So you could imagine how I felt when one day driving on the Queens Highway I asked myself, 'is the Jamaica that I see before me self-ruled, a worse off place than when dominated by the bad minded English?'"

and

Former Jamaican Prime Minister Michale Manley: "Countries like Jamaica found that when they became free, they soon were in every kind of financial problem, because they didn't have the economic strength to make it on their own. They needed time to build economies that could then make it in the world."

Those quotes really struck me hard. Why?

Well, the question before us with independence is at its core whether we as Bermudians will be better off as an independent nation or do we gain more from the relationship with Britain than we have to give away.

While arguments can be made on both sides of the issue I couldn't help but note the economic advantage that an aspiring independent nation, Jamaica, had when compared to Bermuda. Jamaicans were independent from Great Britain but they became to this day totally dependent on the IMF! They traded one relationship for another much worse one. Jamaica as a small nation with no power on the world stage had no clout. They couldn't call on Britain's vast influence to help them. They were on their own and we see the result.

Yes Bermuda currently has a strong economy - but it is 100% service based and heavily reliant on imported expertise. We have no resources, no exports and we import everything!

Jamaica, on the other hand, was self sustaining with agriculture and actually generated exports (bananas) to bring in revenue and create jobs. Bermuda could never be self-sustaining while a country like Jamaica actually could - and look where Jamaica is now.

I return to Mr. Manley's quote above: "Countries like Jamaica found that when they became free, they soon were in every kind of financial problem, because they didn't have the economic strength to make it on their own."

Rent the movie.

If this Independence stuff actually materialises into a decision through a referendum (let's get real, that's the only thing that will be accepted as legitimate, the general election stuff is a distraction), will Alex Scott have the integrity to resign as Premier if the answer is NO?

Say what you want about John Swan's push for Independence, but he had the conviction of his beliefs to put his leadership on the line, stepping down after the public delivered their verdict.

I meant to comment on a statement by the Premier when it was initially reported in the Royal Gazette over a week ago I think.

The Premier's quote that drew my attention was:

"So what I'm saying is anybody who is for it has to realise one fundamental thing � to achieve Independence you have to take a significant majority with you"

I'd bet a large amount of money that the Premier will hope he never said this and will never say it again. I'll be holding him to it when the time comes though. Why?

Well...Mr. Scott has gone on record as requiring that a simple 50% plus one majority in favour of Independence is insufficient. I'm always pleased when I find common ground with this Premier and agree that a super-majority of 2/3 is required for this type of move by a country in a referendum. A minimum turnout would be necessary aswell, although I doubt that will be an issue in Bermuda.

Either way, whether the PLP wants to use a general election or a referendum to determine independence, the Premier has taken the position that a narrowly won result isn't sufficient, it has to be a "significant majority".

Now if only we could get the Premier to agree that a referendum is the best mechanism!

The following is the full text of the statement to the House of Assembly
regarding Independence for Bermuda by Premier, The Honourable W. Alexander Scott on Friday 12 March 2004.

"Mr. Speaker and Members of this Honourable House of Assembly,

"Thank you."

Kit Astwood has provided a very refreshing perspective on independence.

Mr. Astwood's approach to the issue demonstrates why individuals like this Bermudian have achieved personal and professional success. They step back and dispassionately look at the issues, deciding what will serve our collective interests.

He poses the question that is at the core of this pending debate and something I've asked before:

"What tangible improvements in our quality of life will independence bring and what would be the costs associated with it?"

If that question can't be answered adequately, then the decision seems simple to me.

Both the Royal Gazette and the Bermuda Sun are running web polls (unscientific) regarding independence with slightly different questions. The results so far:

RG asks: "Should Bermuda go Independent"
(After 971 votes cast)

Yes - 18.6
No - 74.7
Don't Know - 6.7

Bermuda Sun asks: "Is Bermuda ready for independence?"
(After 495 votes cast)

Yes - 31.1%
No - 66.1%

Last night I was watching Fresh TV (to help me drift off to sleep as it usually does) conduct an interview (or more like show a monologue) with someone who was speaking on the gay marriage issue.

Now, whether you knew it or not Bermuda must go independent to uphold our Christian moral society and prevent gay marriage from destroying our society. Normally I struggle to stay awake during Fresh TV News but this one got my attention.

This individual (I never heard or saw his name) received an inordinate amount of air time to argue that: Britain was going to come under pressure from the EU to marry gay couples, and that the UK would in turn force Bermuda to do likewise - just as they did in 1994 with the Stubbs bill!

Wrong, the Stubbs bill was a locally initiated bill to remove the discrimination in our laws against gay men, it had nothing to do with UK pressure from my understanding.

Isn't it ironic that Alvin Williams is arguing that Independence is the only way to end discrimination (racial) in Bermuda while another is arguing that it is the only way we can continue to discriminate (sexual orientation)!

Independence has suddenly become the solution for every issue facing the community and our current lack of independence will be used by its advocates as the reason for all our troubles. Once we go independent we'll all join hands (male to female hands please) and sing kumbayah.

Gay Marriage - go independent. Chief Justice - we need independence. Bad traffic from the west end - go independent, traffic will run smoother!

The debate is already degenerating and it hasn't even started yet!

Matthew Taylor (of the Royal Gazette but writing for the Associated Press) has a story out on the wire that is getting picked up by international news agencies about the PLP's independence push.

There isn't much new in it, but it is worth pointing out that the final paragraph is misleading when it states "Scott did not say when a referendum might be held".

In fact, the Premier has said that he thinks a referendum unnecessary. Mr. Scott was on the news last night reaffirming his party's preferred, and incredibly flawed, method of using a General Election to measure support for independence, rather than the only responsible way - a referendum. He did leave a little room to manoeuver but it was pretty clear what the PLP will be pushing for.

Why is this flawed? Well apart from clarity and simplicity of a referendum in measuring support for one issue, unclouded by general election noise, I'd put forward this potential General Election scenario:

Both parties support independence in their election platforms. Or perhaps more likely the UBP have members who support it but only with a referendum. Messy.

How would people opposed to independence express their choice? They can't, but perhaps that's what the PLP want, a pre-determined outcome.

Simply put, as Sir John Swan affirmed last night, a referendum is the only responsible way to decide this question.

The following is the full text of the speech delivered by the Premier to the PLP Founders Day Luncheon on Sunday, 29 February 2004:

"The Way Forward"

It was an idea whose time had come.

Walter Nathaniel Harvey Robinson was the first PLP Leader to contest an election under the new Constitution, the details of which had been hammered out (with him leading the PLP delegation) in London � two years earlier.

One of the issues that Trevor Moniz raises in today's RG interview is worthy of further comment:

Alex Scott is a Premier without a mandate, in place solely due to the unelectability of others, rather than his own appeal. So the accidental Premier, struggling to create appeal for his tenure, has decided to rally the troops by placing independence front and centre on his agenda - above the many pressing social needs of the community.

What does this mean for the next few years? Well, it means that the PLP are out of gas and ideas and have nothing left to offer the country in the way of improvements of quality of life. So they're appealing to an issue that actually divides, not unites, the community.

It also suggests that Alex Scott will be looking towards calling a general election sooner rather than later in the party's 5 year term (which began on July 24, 2003). The Premier cannot let the term run out that long because the impact of the rising debt and spending will start coming home to roost. Combine this with the impact of many years of PLP neglect of the social needs of Bermudians and Mr. Scott forsees a problem.

In need of an issue to fire up his base and to campaign on, the Premier will most likely be looking towards an election in the 2005-2006 time period I imagine.

Call me cynical but the day before housing - the PLP's most serious and continuing failure as a government - is due to come up in the Budget debate, Alex Scott makes a speech calling for us to begin discussing independence?

Post independence we will have the same problems we do pre-Independence. We'll have the same housing problems, the same reduction in jobs for Bermudians, the same corruption and the same division that have gripped the country since the PLP took power in 1998. Actually, they'll probably be worse as the PLP will feel entitled to ignore the pressing social problems during this process of discussing independence.

Grant Gibbons and Trevor Moniz have hit the nail on the head, calling this a distraction tactic from an underperforming Government and a leader without a mandate.

Until the PLP can point to real accomplishments under their tenure they should put any aspirations for independence on hold.

Distraction? You decide.

PLP Chairman Neville Tyrell is doing the press rounds hyping a speech the Premier will give on Sunday outlining the PLP's plan for independence.

No one has yet produced a compelling argument for the BENEFITS of independence to the life of Bermudians, but the PLP can't even build a house (or a school), produce a tourism plan, or even advise on the appointment of a new Chief Justice without a major debacle erupting. Their history in Government doesn't give me any confidence that they'll be able to manage a process to independence any better.

I imagine Mr. Scott's reasoning is that he thinks this is an issue that:

a) fires up their base (before a by-election perhaps);
b) clearly differentiates them from the UBP, and;
c) will cause serious internal divisions in the UBP

I'm not sure that b) and c) are the case anymore as the United Bermuda Party has learned some valuable lessons from the 1990s and has a very different Parliamentary group now. I imagine the issue of independence will be handled much better now.

Regardless, Alex Scott is skilled in the art of hype and subsequent inaction so this could be just another case of lots of talk no action.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called for the decolonialisation of the remaining 16 territories with the "active participation of the peoples".

The question remains: if the people of a colony want to remain a colony (this could be the case with Bermuda) then will they force the issue?

This letter by Bob Richards (someone I know well from the 2003 UBP campaign) is a must-read:

A sad chapter

E.T. (BOB) RICHARDS
Warwick

Bill Zuill has started the New Year with a fantastic editorial pulling the rug out from under the PLP. Their track record on Bermudianisation is very different from their self-congratulatory proclamations.

Here's more evidence of PLP hypocrisy over the "Mother Country and Colony" relationship that Alex Scott claims to despise:

The Queen's New Years Honours were announced last night with 8 Bermudian recipients including most notably Mr. Eugene Cox, Minister of Finance. How strange that Alex Scott would participate in this process, particularly when it is causing so much commotion in the UK itself as an elitist and antiquated system. Perhaps he's looking forward to collecting his own KBE down the road from the "Colonialist UK". I'm completely in support of honouring people like Mr. Cox who have provided years of service to Bermuda, but you can't have the relationship with the UK both ways.

We need only to use comments from Walter Roberts, a former PLP MP and Deputy Leader to illustrate the point (emphasis mine):

�it has been my view � and the view of the party � that as long as Bermuda is not independent, we would not accept awards from the Queen.

�And this is in the PLP constitution, which came about because we felt it would not be in Bermuda�s best interest, as a colony, to accept awards from the master.�

Dame Lois Browne-Evans is the most notable hypocrit when, after years of demanding PLP supporters turn down honours conferred under a UBP administration, she accepted a KBE. This understandably caused much disappointment and anger to many principled long time PLP members.

A Letter to the Editor that I wrote to the Royal Gazette is in today:

Dear Sir,

Christian Dunleavy
WARWICK

....Alex Scott, the PLP and Bermuda (whose Premier embarrassed us all internationally). The Governor announced yesterday that Richard Ground, to no-one's surpise, is the new Chief Justice. We'll have to wait to see the PLP's reaction but you can be sure it will involve lots of comments about UK interference in Bermuda's affairs, our need to re-assess our colonial status etc..

The UK clearly expressed their displeasure with the political lobbying of Premier Scott's Government with a brief but pointed criticism of the Premier:

"(Overseas Territories Minister) Mr. (Bill) Rammell, in conveying this decision to the Governor, and to the Premier, has made it clear that it is not appropriate for the post of Chief Justice to become the subject of political pressure."

Ouch. It's unusual for Governments to publicly smack down other Governments. After the display of amateurism that the UK was subjected to by Alex Scott I'm not surprised.

May the independence debate begin. You now know the tone it will take.

Watching the TV news last night with the Premier's Chief Justice press conference, I couldn't help but sense that the Premier and Attorney General were up to mischief.

The Attorney General stooped to the lowest level, recounting how Mr. Straw had inadvertenty referred to the "Occupied Territories" rather than the "Overseas Territories", while both the Premier and AG were using language intended to dredge up images of oppressive colonial regimes ("Mother Country and Colony", "Master and Colony").

Perhaps Mr. Straw's slip-up revealed that his mind was elsewhere. Surely he really isn't too interested in Bermuda's petty political squabbles. Mr. Straw spends alot of time thinking about Palestine, that's where that came from. Any suggestion that the UK occupy Bermuda is irresponsible and inflamatory, and that's what the AG intended.

The use of language by the PLP around this issue is deliberately incendiary. It is intended to conjure up feelings of a people who were forcibly colonised, something that absolutely does not relate to Bermuda. Rewriting Bermuda's history has been going on for years and is really starting to take hold.

We were not forcibly colonised, although many black Bermudians are decendants of slaves who were forcibly brought here. The fact that Bermuda's racial demographic has changed over time due to immigration and birth rates is not a problem, but we shouldn't pretend that black Bermudians were displaced by Britich colonialists. The language that is employed is designed to convey that impression. There are no indigenous Bermudians, although you will hear that sentiment tossed around (Rolfe Commissiong has actually used that term). The last referendum on Independence in 1995 resulted in an overwhelming NO vote (more than 2-1 against), regardless of the PLP's abstention campaign, it would almost certainly have failed anyway.

Most of the PLP are the children of recent imports, much like myself. Sanders Frith Brown, as irrational as he can be, has many times challenged the PLP about their heritage. He's never been proven wrong because he's never been responded to. That's why he calls them the St. Kitts club. Yet somehow the PLP feel some increased claim to Bermuda as 'their island', attaching themselves to a fictional colonialisation.

Inferring that Bermudians are being oppressed by an evil colonial power who conquered the native people, while a popular sentiment, is completely false. I've just said something that will prove unpopular to many as it undermines their Nationalist/race based agenda, but that's the sham that is being perpetrated on many Bermudians. You can want independence for other reasons, but not that one.

We are starting to go down the General Election rhetoric road on this issue. The independence debate isn't far around the corner.

If you weren't convinced that Alex Scott is ready to use the Chief Justice issue as his segway into independence then read today's article in the Royal Gazette. It's as clear as day.

Notable quotes from Premier Scott:

"To appoint a non-Bermudian Chief Justice against the will of Government would be a �regressive step�
----
�When a Bermudian Premier gives advice, we found it does not carry the weight one would have thought."
----
"When pressed about how he would react if Mr. Straw ignored his advice, Mr. Scott said: �We will wait until the moment. I don't want the pre-empt the decision because we don't know how it will go."

�I would like to share the experience with my Cabinet and parliamentary colleagues and the party in general to see what we feel is the appropriate demeanour of the Government if it should happen that our advice is not taken."

The UK's position can be found here. I get the impression they are saying either go independent (something Bermudians overwhelmingly rejected less than 10 years ago) or accept our role.

Alex Scott was interviewed from London on ZBM radio news today at lunch. He explained that he met with Overseas Territories Minister Bill Rammell for 30 minutes to discuss the issue of the Chief Justice.

Apparently the issue has now been escalated to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who will make the ultimate decision. I can only think that this means the outlook is bleak for the Government's position. OT Minister Rammell appears to have been unconvinced by the Premier's arguments, or he would have made the decision then and there. It looks to me like the UK representatives, while politicians, are immune from the whims of Bermuda's electorate and may actually be looking at this without regard for the politics of Bermudianisation, just the best candidate. Fancy that!

I don't know the details of whether Ms. Wade-Miller or Mr. Ground are the more suitable candidates, but I imagine that the UK representatives couldn't care less about the political posturing of our politicians. Governor Vereker has taken a firm stand, Mr. Rammell obviously agrees with his position and as a result Mr. Scott has asked for the final (barring Tony Blair's intervention) arbiter to review this.

Surely we should save pestering the Foreign Secretary for major issues. I don't want to understate the importance of the Chief Justice appointment, particularly in light of the rising lawlessness here, but surely Jack Straw has better things to do than get involved in our never-ending 'Bermudian vs. non-Bermudian' sideshow.

In the radio interview Mr. Scott stated something along the lines of 'Bermuda's people will be pleased to know that their Government has taken this to the highest level possible'. That sounds like a concession speech , and an attempt to save face after the Premier's chest-beating in the press. But losing this fight will serve the Premier's means if he is building his case for independence. Perhaps Mr. Scott privately prefers this outcome.

The odds do not look good for the Government to prevail on this. I doubt Jack Straw will spend more than 5 minutes on this issue once he sees what it is about.

Royal Gazette: Bermuda-British showdown looms over appointment of Chief Justice, Dec 03, 2003

The most notable - and well-documented - change at the Cabinet Office, post-Jennifer Smith, has been the style. In every case except one, the style has been inclusive, non-confrontational and embracing, however hollow it my be. There is one exception however: the Governor and relations with the UK.

Jennifer Smith's relationship with the UK, and alternatively with the public, were the exact opposite of her successor. Her term was characterised by arrogance, secrecy and a confrontational style, however the relationship with the UK remained coordial and respectful, much to the disdain of many party members. Some PLP supporters, most notably Rolfe Commissiong, were offended by this approach. They felt that Ms. Smith wasn't moving the independence agenda along at a rapid enough pace and was becoming too cozy with the UK.

Premier Scott has taken a different approach. Some might say circumstances have dictated this - but I would disagree with this assessment. This Premier is a shrewd operator, particularly when it comes to PR. I believe he has embarked on a deliberate path of confrontation with Government House to drive independence to the fore.

Why would he do this rather than simply making his case on other grounds? The PLP has always wanted independence and Alex Scott is as much a nationalist as anyone in his party. He is using every opportunity to shift the debate from independence as a convenience to one of urgency and inevitability.

The Premier is building his case, logging incidents he will point to as necessitating the move towards independence. This case will no doubt involve many fabricated examples of the UK 'interfering' in our affairs and the need to separate, in order to control our destiny.

I was surprised that Jennifer Smith didn't make independence an issue at the last election. That was a critical mistake for her which surely would have guaranteed a larger margin of victory, and perhaps her survival. Surely the many disenchanted PLP supporters who stayed home would have turned out in force for such a platform, and it would have been more problematic for the dissidents to oppose her. Independence is an energising issue for the hard core PLP supporter. Combine that with those who felt the PLP needed a second chance and you'd have had a definitive win. Perhaps the UK had already indicated their unwillingness to honour that approach to independence and Jennifer Smith decided to wait.

Alex Scott is making a smart move. The question is, will he be called on it and will the UK take a strong stance. The current Governor and Deputy Governor have exhibited a hiretofore unseen candidness regarding the UK's oversight of Bermuda - whether Alex Scott likes it or not.

Someone called Trimonious commented on A Limey in Bermuda that Alex Scott has changed the tone "from racial incitement to nationalism and independence".

This is something that I've also noticed over that past few months, although Alex Scott will play the race card as well as anyone - as he did during the election campaign. The Premier is hoping for a 'rebirth', beginning the day he was installed. It isn't a coincidence that he hasn't made one comment on anything pre-July 24th. He is attempting to distance himself from his shameful antics of the past and is, as Trimonious commented, looking to shift the dialogue around Nationhood, using any excuse to raise the issue.

The fury over the Governor's comments strikes me as one which has been created to drum up nationalistic feelings. The Governor was speaking, at a pretty high level, about the complexity of foreign relations in the post Sept. 11 era and specifically commented that the process need not be confrontational.

Alex Scott and the PLP immediately attempted to portray this as something nefarious or �provocative�. My read is that the Governor was attempting to begin a dialogue and prepare Bermudians for some external scrutiny.

Mr. Scott's chest-beating about the exemplary manner we conduct our internal affairs rings hollow in light of the well documented corruption and mismanagement of the past 5 years. The Premier himself is a central figure in an active police fraud investigation involving $700,000 of missing taxpayer funds. A little external scrutiny might be welcome frankly.

Britain does, contrary to many people's wishes, have the final say in any constitutional change - they must pass an Order in Council before change is enacted. Independence however may be the only exception. If Bermuda voted decisively to separate from the UK, they would certainly have to comply (something they thought we'd do many years ago).

The Deputy Governor's interview in the Sun, suggests that the UK realised they screwed up in the recent amendments to the Constitution and don't want it to happen again.

The UK's representatives here appear to have been selected less for their ceremonial suitability as in the past, and more for their ability to be intermediaries between Bermuda and the UK.

Julian Hall's recent column in the Mid Ocean News makes for interesting reading on this topic, although I don't necessarily agree with his perspective. It also reminded me what a wasted talent Mr. Hall was as a politician. Once one of Bermuda's most charismatic and promising politicians, Mr. Hall is now mired in legal problems.

The brouhaha over the Governor's comments on the relationship between the UK and Bermuda is escalating.

Today's papers (not yet online), and the recent evening news are full of fallout from the Governor's speech. In fact the Governor specifically stated that "With good sense and good will on both sides - and those qualities are much in evidence here in Bermuda - this complexity need not evolve into confrontation".

It looks like we're moving to confrontation.

Bermuda Sun: Deputy Governor spells it out (2003-11-14)

Here's the interview I mentioned with the Deputy Governor on Independence and Constitutional change.

The Bermuda Sun hasn't published their Friday November 14th, 2003 edition online yet but the interview with Deputy Governor Nick Carter is well worth reading.

It looks like the move to independence won't be as easy as the PLP had hoped.