Westminster means hate

When England was an empire, it used colonialism to spread bigotry and hate, leaving a legacy of homophobic legislation around the world. And now, they're using colonialism to force bigotry and hate on Scotland, by vetoing Scotland's gender recognition law:

Rishi Sunak’s government has blocked legislation passed by the Scottish parliament that would make Scotland the first part of the UK to introduce a self-identification system for people who want to change gender.

The Scottish secretary, Alister Jack, announced that he would use section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 for the first time to halt the gender recognition bill after a review by UK government lawyers.

This is a Scottish law for Scottish people, and nothing to do with England. It was passed overwhelmingly by the elected Scottish Parliament, which is meant to be able to pass such laws. And its being vetoed by an English government trying to appeal to English voters by running a transphobic hate campaign. Its an affront to both basic decency, and to the promise of Scottish devolution. Its an explicit attack on Scottish democracy, and the right of Scots to govern themselves.

Fortunately there's a solution for the latter. The only way Scotland will be free of English bigotry is independence. Leave Westminster to fester in its own hate. Scotland should make its own future, away from those terf arseholes.

That's no how you do democracy

Last night, the English Supreme Court ruled that the Scottish government cannot hold an independence referendum. Having said that Scotland is not a colony, they then turned around and effectively said that they are, by forbidding them from holding a democratic vote on their own constitutional arrangements unless another country says they can.

Pretty obviously, this is incompatible with any notion that the UK is a democratic country, let alone a voluntary union. In a voluntary union, the parties can choose to leave. Instead, Scotland is locked in, trapped in a cage unless England decides to let it out. They're handcuffed to a partner who economically abuses them. Which makes the need and desire to break those chains even stronger.

But the ruling goes further than that. Because the Supreme Court's logic of looking at the extended (rather than strictly legal) effects of a Scottish law for constitutional impacts can apply to other things. For example, Scotland has a democratic system of government, rather than Westminster's backward first-past-the-post. It has lowered the voting age to 16. While the legal effect is restricted to Scotland, each of these presents an alternative, and implicitly makes a moral case for it, putting pressure on Westminster to change its rotten constitutional system. That is, they affect the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Will Scotland's domestic policies now be micromanaged by England to stop Scotland from making them look bad, on the basis that everything is constitutional?

Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said that the SNP will run a de-facto referendum on independence at the next available election, and polling is already saying that they will receive more than 50% support. So there's going to be a democratic mandate for independence whether Westminster wants one or not. The next question is whether they will recognise it, and allow Scotland to leave peacefully and democratically, or whether they ignore the expressed democratic will of the Scottish people, and effectively announce their intention to retain Scotland by oppression and force?

Another referendum in Scotland?

The Scottish government has announced plans for another independence referendum:

Nicola Sturgeon plans to hold a second referendum on Scottish independence in October next year if her government secures the legal approval to stage it.

Angus Robertson, the Scottish government’s constitution secretary, said that provided ample time to pass the necessary legislation, set out the Scottish National party’s case and stage a campaign.

The case for Scotland being allowed to decide its own future is clear - its their country, after all, and decisions about it should be made in Edinburgh, not Westminster. But we know how this will go: the Tories in London will refuse to permit any democratic vote. And support for independence will rise accordingly.

Ending royal corruption in Scotland?

Earlier in the week, The Guardian reported that England's monarch had been secretly having laws amended to carve out exemptions for herself, using a procedure called "crown consent". Its a corrupt holdover from the days of absolute monarchy, and something which has no place in a modern democracy, or even in the UK. Unfortunately, Scotland can't get rid of it (at least, not until they're independent, at which point they can redefine their relationship with the monarch, or just tell them to go fuck themselves). But as Andy Wightman points out, there are a few things they can do to make this power much harder to use:

First, Scottish ministers should reject any request from the palace to exempt the Queen’s private estates from Scottish legislation. If this means that Queen’s consent is refused, then ministers should come to parliament and make that known.

Second, the Scottish parliament can take the initiative. It cannot remove the statutory requirement for Queen’s consent but it can amend its procedures to require far greater transparency from ministers about which bills require it, when and under what conditions it has been granted, and (most critically for legislative proposals) complete candour about which parts of any bill or any subsequent amendments are being lodged at the request of the Queen.

That an unelected head of state has the power to legislate in their personal interests, with no transparency or accountability, is antithetical to democracy. The Scottish parliament must take a lead in insisting on the openness and transparency it so often claims to champion.

Meanwhile, Aotearoa has a holdover of this in our parliamentary rules. Standing Order 321 provides that "No member’s bill, local bill, or private bill that contains any provision affecting the rights or prerogatives of the Crown may be passed unless the Crown has, by message, indicated its consent to that provision". I'm not sure if this means that there is a similar consent process here for government bills, or whether it is simply assumed that the government automaticly consents on behalf of the foreign monarch to its own legislation. Either way though, seeing member's bills with majority support having to wait for a formal stamp of approval from an unelected foreign inbred who lives on the other side of the world is demeaning to our democracy. I can't recall such consent ever being denied - we're not the UK, after all - but the possibility that it could be, to a bill with majority support, is an affront to our democracy. As for how to fix it, the solution is obvious: remove this odious provision (and until that happens, move to suspend it in any third reading debate on a member's bill).

The Scots deserve their referendum

Scotland went to the polls on Friday in national elections, and delivered another thumping victory for the Scottish National Party. Once again, it fell just short of an absolute majority, but has an easy majority with the Scottish Greens. Both parties campaigned explicitly for Scottish independence, and in a democratic country, it would be just a matter of time before they got one. But the UK is not a democratic country, and Boris says "no". Which is I guess what we should expect from a party which has announced its explicit intent to rig the mayoral electoral system in England to make it easier for them to win...

On democratic principle, the Scots are in the right. They clearly campaigned for a referendum, and won majority support for it. But more generally: its their country, not England's. Decisions about what happens in Scotland should be made in Edinburgh, not Westminster. If that's not going to be the case, then maybe they should petition the UN to be added to the decolonisation list.

Kicking English nukes out of Scotland?

Scotland is going to the polls on Thursday in parliamentary elections which look likely to be won by the SNP. The most obvious outcome is likely to be another independence referendum and the potential breakup of the UK. But there's something else at stake: the UK's nuclear weapons:

Trident could be forced to the US or possibly France if Scotland became independent because there is no alternative port immediately available elsewhere in the UK, according to a retired admiral responsible for Britain’s nuclear policy.

Unless Scotland were to agree to lease back the Faslane submarine base to the rest of the UK, continuing Trident would probably require the help of an allied country or the nuclear deterrent would have to be halted completely, the expert said.

[...]

“A Scottish secession would therefore generate fundamental operational and fiscal issues for the UK’s nuclear deterrent,” Gower wrote, because Faslane base, the warhead loading site at Coulport, and nearby testing ranges are all based in Scotland or Scottish waters.

Which is England's problem, not Scotland's. Whether to play host to nuclear weapons is ultimately a decision for the Scottish people. They're currently denied that right and forced to host English nukes by the Westminster government (which seems oddly reluctant to base them in England - a prime example of how Westminster treats the rest of the UK like colonies rather than partners). If they vote for independence then kick out these immoral weapons, then England only has itself to blame. And as someone from a country which is already nuclear-free, I'm hoping they do just that.

Well, crap

UKanians went to the polls yesterday in early elections aimed at resolving the Brexit impasse. And they certainly have, delivering a huge majority to the Tories, and (barring internal rebellions of the sort which delayed Brexit) giving them the power to do whatever they want. And thanks to the UK's unfair electoral system, they got all that on just 44% of the vote...

But the Tories aren't the only beneficiaries of that unfair system. In Scotland, the SNP won just under half the vote, but 80% of the seats. Meanwhile, the LibDems got 11% of the vote nationwide, but only 2% of the seats, while the Greens and Brexit parties - small but notable minority votes which could easily be accommodated in a legislature as large as the UK's - were left with nothing. Its all the worse because the rest of the UK's elections - for its devolved legislatures and the European Parliament - use one form or another of proportional representation, so UK voters know what they're missing out on.

So what are the Tories planning? Bexit, obviously, which is bad enough. Undermining judicial review rights (which saw their illegal prorogation cancelled) and the Human Rights Act (their version of the BORA). A pogrom against Travellers. The UK voted for that, and now they're going to get it, but it is nothing good, and UKanians should get out while they can. The Scots are ahead of the game already, with a demand for another independence referendum, which Boris Johnson has already refused. But the more they refuse, the greater the pressure will be for a vote (because a. that's the democratic solution; and b. Scotland doesn't like London telling them how to run their lives). And in London doesn't let them hold a binding, legal referendum, they may simply go Catalonian and hold a non-binding, illegal one, and dare London to try and stop it or ignore the result.

Reversing the clearances?

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Scottish landlords cleared the highlands, driving people off their land and forcing them into destitution or to emigrate. The result was a Scottish countryside full of sheep farms and deer-parks, run by and for a small clique of rich lords. Now, the Scottish government has been advised to reverse the process:

Scottish land ownership rules must be radically reformed to reverse the concentration of the countryside in the hands of a small number of ultra-wealthy individuals and public bodies, a major review has warned.

The study by the Scottish Land Commission, a government quango, says that in extreme cases where landowners abuse their power they could face compulsory purchase or community buyouts.

The commission, set up by Scottish ministers who are likely to look closely at its conclusions, found that major landowners behaved like monopolies across large areas of rural Scotland and had too much power over land use, economic investment and local communities.

[...]

Describing the worst effects of that monopoly power as “socially corrosive”, the SLC warned: “In some parts of Scotland, concentrated land ownership appears to be causing significant and long-term damage to the communities affected.” The eventual goal of the commission would be to break up many large estates.

The Scottish parliament will be debating the report this week. Hopefully they'll decide to proceed. Alternatively, they could do what New Zealand did when faced with an incipient rural aristocracy in the late C19th: tax rural land, drive the landlords into bankruptcy, and use the resulting proceedings to break up their estates.

A constitutional clusterfuck

Brexit has been a huge clusterfuck for the UK, with the stupid decision of elderly racist tories leading to a self-cannibalising cabinet, a completely dysfunctional government, and a country sleepwalking towards international isolation. And that's without even looking at the Irish problem. And now, to add to the steaming pile of messes it has caused, they have a new one: threatening the constitutional settlement with Scotland.

Scotland is a devolved government, effectively a separate country within the UK. And, as with the UK's overseas colonies, there's a longstanding constitutional convention that Westminster doesn't legislate for Scotland without Scotland's consent. But Brexit means reallocating EU powers within the UK, and that means legislating for Scotland, if only to determine where they go. But the Scottish parliament doesn't like the deal being offered (under which they merely get "consulted"), and so have effectively vetoed it in an effort to get a better one:

The Scottish parliament has voted against Theresa May’s Brexit legislation by a large margin, putting the UK on the brink of a major constitutional dispute.

Holyrood rejected the UK government’s EU withdrawal bill by 93 votes to 30 on Tuesday after Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Scottish Greens backed Nicola Sturgeon’s decision to oppose proposals on post-Brexit power sharing set out in clause 11 of the bill.

The vote is not legally binding but it will force the prime minister to make a high-risk decision to impose those power-sharing plans on Scotland or make further concessions to the Scottish government to avoid a crisis.

Westminster purporting to legislate for Scotland without their consent and in defiance of constitutional convention would undoubtedly be legal (because they would say that it would be), but equally undoubtedly unconstitutional. Of course, Scotland has a solution if they don't like England's Brexit deal: leave. And with Scottish voters voting overwhelmingly to stay in the EU, its an option they should take.

The first step on the road to Scoxit

The Scottish Parliament has formally voted to request powers to hold a second independence referendum:

Nicola Sturgeon has won a key Holyrood vote on her plans for a second independence referendum, triggering accusations from UK ministers that her demands are premature.

Sturgeon won by a 10-vote majority after the Scottish Greens backed her proposals to formally request from the UK government the powers to stage a fresh independence vote at around the time Britain leaves the EU, in spring 2019.

She is due to write to Theresa May later this week, asking for Westminster to hand Holyrood the temporary powers to stage the referendum under a section 30 order. She said she would avoid writing until the prime minister had invoked article 50 to trigger the Brexit process, which she is expected to do on Wednesday.

Its basicly unconstitutional for Westminster to refuse such a request, but the Tories will try. But by doing so, they'll make it crystal clear that they think England should be in charge of Scotland, strengthening the case for independence even further.

The best way to an independent Scotland

Have an English Tory Prime Minister who reminds everyone of Margaret Thatcher say they can't do it:

Theresa May has moved to block a new Scottish independence referendum by saying "now is not the time" for another vote.

The Prime Minister said a repeat of the 2014 referendum was not appropriate because the country was already going through a huge change in terms of Brexit, and that Scottish people needed a fuller picture before taking any decision on the future.

But her move to block another vote for now creates an intense political stand-off with SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon, who will next week ask Scottish MSPs to approve her plans for a second referendum.

And that is that, I think. May can fulminate all she wants, but by making it clearly an issue of liberal Scotland vs Tory London, and claiming to have a veto on the aspirations of the Scottish people, she's basicly ensured that when a referendum happens, London will lose it.

Scotxit is on

The UK Parliament is currently playing ping-pong between the Lords and the Commons over a Brexit enabling act. Meanwhile Brexit pre-negotiations are already turning into a mess, with the EU demanding that the UK accept freedom of movement as a condition of market entry, and Theresa May threatening to walk away from a "bad" deal (i.e. one which doesn't let her have a racist immigration policy). Faced with the very real prospect of being stuck in a lifeboat with cannibalistic England, the Scottish government has taken the obvious course, and has demanded another independence referendum:

Nicola Sturgeon has triggered a fresh constitutional battle over Scotland’s future after announcing plans to stage a second independence referendum within two years.

Accusing Theresa May of thwarting Scotland’s desire for a special deal with Europe, the first minister confirmed she plans to hold the vote between autumn 2018 and spring 2019 unless the UK government offers substantial last-minute concessions.

Sturgeon said the prime minister’s refusal to discuss full Scottish access to the single market and to threaten heavy restrictions on the new powers for Scotland after Brexit made a second referendum all but inevitable.

The latter is particularly important - Westminster is trying to use Brexit to undermine Scotland's autonomy and seize back devolved powers. And faced with that sort of bullshit, who wouldn't leave? Better to be master of your own destiny than slave to London.

There will now be the usual fight about whether Scotland is "allowed" to have a referendum (of course they are, and it would be unconstitutional for Westminster to refuse), and about timing. Westminster will of course fight tooth and nail on them - and in the process they'll probably make the case for independence even stronger. Because every time some Westminster Tory says "no", or sneers at the idea of an independent Scotland, they make it clearer and clearer what this is about: respect. London does not respect other parts of the UK and treats them as peasants. Fortunately, Scotland is in a position to actually do something about it and leave.

Scotland rejects Brexit

The Scottish Parliament has formally voted to reject Brexit:

The Scottish Parliament has formally rejected Theresa May’s plans to begin the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, with politicians from every party except the Conservatives uniting to vote against the triggering of Article 50.
A clear majority of MSPs supported the Scottish Government’s motion that the Prime Minister’s Bill giving the green light to the EU withdrawal process “should not proceed”, passing it by 90 votes to 34.

More than 62 per cent of Scots voted to remain part of the EU at last June’s referendum and only one of the nation’s 59 MPs, the Scottish Secretary David Mundell, supported the Bill at Westminster.

Its symbolic only: the courts have said Scotland's consent is not required, and for some reason the SNP decided not to do this as a formal Legislative Consent Motion. But it lays the groundwork for another independence referendum should England decide to force Scotland out of the EU.

The Brexit decision

The UK Supreme Court has upheld the High Court's decision on Brexit, upholding parliamentary sovereignty and the principle that it is parliament that makes the laws, not royal decree:

The government has lost its fast-tracked appeal to the supreme court, forcing ministers to introduce emergency legislation into parliament to authorise the UK’s departure from the EU.

In a judgment that sets a far-reaching constitutional precedent and upholds parliamentary sovereignty, the court ruled by a majority of eight justices to three that MPs and peers must give their consent before the government can trigger article 50 and formally initiate Brexit.

The decision sets clear limits on the extent of the government’s executive powers. Rights embedded in the law by the 1972 European Communities Act, which took the UK into what was then the European Community, cannot be removed by the government’s prerogative powers, a majority of the justices declared.

The UK government will now introduce a bill to trigger Article 50, but its not clear how detailed that bill needs to be. If they get it wrong, it'll be straight back to court. Meanwhile, parliament will also get to amend and hear submissions on the bill, possibly introducing constraints on the government's plans.

The court also ruled that the UK government did not have to consult its devolved nations over Brexit and that the Sewel Convention, a core part of the constitutional structure of the UK, was not legally binding. Of course, that doesn't mean that its not politically binding, and ignoring it is asking for a fight between Westminster and the devolved nations. Scotland is going to act as if their consent is required anyway, backed by the a clear threat of a second independence referendum. And if England ignores constitutional convention and purports to legislate for Scotland against Scottish wishes, that referendum should be easy to win.

This'll be fun

It turns out that the Scottish Parliament may have the legal power to block Brexit:

Not many people are familiar with section 2 of the Scotland Act of 2016, but it could give First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and her government in Edinburgh the legal power to block the UK from triggering Article 50. Conservative MP Anna Soubry - in a wonderfully honest interview in The Guardian yesterday - mentioned it in passing:

The government is appealing against the high court ruling, but at the supreme court hearing, the Scottish government will argue that the consent of Holyrood is also required to trigger article 50. Soubry thinks it has a strong case. “Yes. I’m reliably informed that the Scotland Act 2016 section 2 says that you cannot interfere with devolved Scottish matters, they must be determined by the Scottish parliament.”

The application of EU law in Scotland is a devolved matter. Which means the consent of the Scottish Parliament is required if Westminster wants to remove it (just as the consent of the NZ Parliament used to be required if the UK Parliament legislated something which affected us).

Of course, the deal here is obvious: Holyrood will consent to Brexit if Westminster consents to Scoxit. And the two countries can then happily go their separate ways. Sadly, I expect the "English nationalists" (actually English supremacists) who backed Brexit won't be happy with that though...

A revealing "joke"

Last Friday was April Fools Day, and media institutions around the world took the opportunity to publish the fake stories they've wanted to all year. The Independent's offering? Scotland and Wales 'could form own country' if Britain votes to leave EU:

Scotland and Wales are in preliminary talks to split away from the UK and form a new country if Britain votes to leave the EU in June.

The extraordinary proposal has been discussed by members of the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Government, and it is being taken seriously by the UK Government...

And that's how the English political-media establishment view Scotland and Wales' nationhood: as a joke. And that is precisely why both countries should leave the UK.

A Tory veto in the UK

Its the democratic nightmare: some party uses its temporary mandate to strap the electoral chicken so that only it is allowed to govern. And it has just happened in the UK, with the Tories ramming through a change to Standing Orders to ensure "English votes for English laws".

How is this strapping the electoral chicken? As I pointed out earlier in the year, by allowing only English MPs to determine English law, it effectively grants them a veto on government. In order to govern and enact their policies, future governments won't just have to have a majority in the House of Commons, but also a majority of English MPs therein. Which, given the Tory dominance of England, effectively means only they can govern in practice. A future UK Labour government (or coalition with the SNP) will face having its English policies - which means education, health, welfare and tax rates - voted down by the English Tory minority, despite having a majority in the House.

(The core problem here is the UK's devolution not having gone far enough, and Westminster still thinking that it is the legislature for England rather than the UK as a whole)

The message to the Scots is clear - despite supposedly being part of the UK, they're not going to be allowed to have any say in its government. They're peons, not citizens. And faced with that attitude, there's really only one self-respecting choice: hold another independence referendum, and leave.

The problem with (UK) Labour

The UK's youngest MP, the SNP's Mhairi Black, gave her opening speech to the house of Common syesterday, and highlighted UK Labour's central problem: betrayal of its core values:

“Like so many SNP members I come from a traditional socialist, Labour family. Like so many, I feel that it is the Labour party that left me, not the other way about,” she said.

“The SNP did not triumph on a wave of nationalism – it triumphed on a wave of hope – hope that we could have an alternative to the wave of Thatcherite neoliberal policies from this chamber, hope that representatives could genuinely give a voice to those that don’t have them. …

“I mention it in order to hold a mirror to the face of a party that seems to have forgotten the very people they’re supposed to represent – the very things they’re supposed to fight for.

UK Labour will apparently respond by voting for Tory austerity. Because that's who they are now: just another pack of NeoLiberals in suits, unwilling to present any alternative. And then they wonder why people don't vote...

...or why people don't vote for them. Because in the part of the UK with functioning proportional representation (sorry, Wales, I do not regard your intentionally cripped and disproportionate version of MMP as functioning), they're now hemmoraghing votes to the Greens:

The Green Party is on course to take ten seats from Labour in next year’s Scottish Parliament elections, a new poll shows.

The left-wing environmentalists will increase their MSP count six-fold from two to 12 if a new poll conducted by Survation is repeated on 5 May.

The Greens are polling 11 per cent in the proportional representation list vote for the parliament, up from 4 per cent at the last round of elections in 2011. They are fighting for third place with the Conservatives, who are on 12 per cent.

Labour are just ahead of the two parties of 19 per cent, down from 26 in the previous round of elections. The SNP are far ahead on 45 per cent.

So that's 25% of the Scottish Labour vote, gone in one election to a party willing to present a green and left alternative, rather than more NeoLiberalism. And the only thing that's stopping the same thing from happening at Westminster is the UK's unfair electoral system.

An English veto

The UK has developed a distressing habit of making significant constitutional changes for partisan political reasons. Last term it was the Tories' attempt to equalise the size of electorates - a move which would have improved their electoral system but was driven purely by an effort to shaft the Labour party. That was defeated - the LibDems decided it wasn't in their partisan political interest for UKanians to have an equal voice in Parliament - but this term we have "English Votes for English Laws" aka "preventing Scottish MPs from voting on things".

As with equal sized electorates, there's a reasonable argument underlying it: the UK has devolved a lot of policy to the Scottish Parliament, so why should Scottish MPs be allowed to vote on matters which only affect England? But the real driver is the desire of the Conservative party - which dominates in England - to lock Labour out of power forever, combined with some pretty toxic English supremacism. Because what EVEL actually means is that in order to govern in practice - that is, enact its policies - a party would not to win not only the confidence of parliament as a whole, but also of English members - basically, an "English veto" on government, forever. England uber alles!

The core problem here is that, for historical reasons, Westminster effectively does double duty as both the UK and English Parliament. But the solution to this isn't self-serving changes to standing orders to diminish the role of Scottish MPs and make it clear that they are a subject people, but a fully devolved English Parliament with powers equal to the Scottish one. But the UK will never do this - firstly, because it is democratic; and secondly, because then it would invite quite reasonable questions about what Westminster is actually for. After all, if Scotland and England and Wales and Northern Ireland each govern themselves, do they really need 650-odd elected parasites (and fuck knows how many unelected ones in the Lords) to handle the few issues they decide need to be handled jointly? I think not.

As for the solution, the SNP is threatening a legal challenge, which will of course fail due to Parliamentary Privilege. Which leaves them with the other option: walk. If the Tories want England, let them have it. At least Scotland can be free.

The cost of stat-juking

The Scottish government is to cease publishing crime statistics. Why? Because they've been manipulated so much that they're simply not reliable:

SCOTTISH Ministers are proposing to wash their hands of recorded crime statistics amid claims the figures are routinely manipulated by police.

[...]

However, as revealed by the Sunday Herald, the UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) refused to rubber the stamp the Government's crime stats last year.

"We conclude that the statistics do not currently comply with several elements of the Code of Practice," the body noted.

The watchdog added that the Scottish Government should seek "strong levels of assurance" about the quality of the figures, but warned: "This report concludes that the Scottish Government lacks sufficient evidence to be able to provide such appropriate reassurance."

The correct course of action would of course be to fix the problem, by ensuring those statistics are reliable. Ending political pressure on the police to lie would be the start of that process. Instead, the Scottish government plans to keep up that pressure, and just shift responsibility for the statistics entirely to the police - allowing them to encourage lies while washing their hands of the consequences. The public should have no confidence at all in the result.

Meanwhile, this bit is eerily familiar:

Police sources said the recorded total was deliberately kept low by crimes being left as "incidents" by officers and kept off the books.

Officers are said to be using their "discretionary powers", such as verbal warnings, to stop incidents being upgraded to crimes.

In other cases, it has been alleged that victims of crime decline to pursue complaints after being told by officers that they will have to give evidence in court.

The violent crime figures can also be manipulated by recording serious assault as common assault, the latter of which is a lesser category.

Or, as Prez put it:

"Juking the stats ... Making robberies into larcenies. Making rapes disappear. You juke the stats, and majors become colonels. I've been here before."

The consequence, of course, is that police resources get misallocated, because they're tailored to an increasingly false picture of reality. The Soviets found out that you couldn't run an economy like that; how long will it be until the west realises you can't run a democracy like that either?