There's actually a fair and balanced article on Scottish independence in the Telegraph today. No not penned by Alan Cochrane, but by Tom Hunter: The Scottish independence debate needs pragmatism not Braveheart (sadly the headline writers and indeed the picture editor just had to get Mel Gibson in there somehow).
But better than the article itself is a superb comment from Harrbrian which I've shamelessly copied below (Harrbrian, I've assumed your consent but I'm happy to remove this post if you prefer). It's a brilliant summary of the problems afflicting the UK. Enjoy...or rather don't enjoy, and then resolve to change this unholy mess that the UK is in...
"What the Union requires is a fact-based debate that centres around the positives – of Scotland staying put, moving out or indeed accomplishing Devo-Max." At last a grown up comment in this newspaper.
The issue for Scotland is the same for all the regions of the United Kingdom - Westminster's overwhelming grip on revenue and political power, but in Scotland's case history and sentiment may provide the energy for change. For comparison: local councils in the UK are allowed to raise only 25% of their own revenue (which is why they ramp up parking fees), the Scotland bill will allow Holyrood to raise up to 35% (while taking away some powers), meanwhile local municipalities in Denmark, nearly 100 of them in a pop'n of 5.5M, raise 60% of their own revenue, and in Sweden it is 70%.
The politicians talk about sentiment and principle but this is about power. Westminster will not hand over powers voluntarily (nobody ever does - Blair was pushed into devolution by the EU), hence the refusal to consider the undefined but popular option of Devomax. The SNP obviously want more power in Edinburgh.
The catch that Westminster cannot see is that it is precisely its monopoly of power that makes Westminster so dysfunctional. Unlike in the other European democracies, we have no other centre of power, except perhaps Holyrood, which has less revenue raising ability than a Danish municipality. In England Westminster interferes with bin collection and how often nurses make their rounds, for god's sake. Lack of local responsibility turns citizens into fractious whingeing children, (read this comments column). You cannot run a medium sized business like this let alone a complex modern country.
In whatever form it comes, Independence or Devomax - the more power that is taken from Westminster the better.
The incompetence of Westminster is clearer the further you get in any direction from London, and wider travel plus the internet have made the comparisons easier to draw. It is not just the scandals like the Iraq war, MP's expenses, News International, the power of unregulated banks, although they are shameful enough, or even the hilariously inconsequential public inquiries ("Carry on, Westminster"): it also shows in the numbers.
Google almost any economic measure - GPD per capita, percentage industrialisation, balance of payments history, balanced budgets, external debt levels - and all the North European countries, (except France and Finland on some measures), outperform the UK. The UK's long term economic failure versus its Northern European competitors is being achieved despite reduced union bargaining power, significant privatisation, and it being made easier to sack staff than in any of them, and also despite repeated devaluations (a factor of 5 compared with German currencies of the last 40 years). The UK has had North Sea oil and still achieved a permanent trade deficit: genius.
For most social indicators - life expectancy, obesity, cocaine usage, teenage pregnancy, % GDP spent on Health, % of the population in prison, etc - the UK is nearly always the worst, and the more time you spend in Northern Europe the more you sense this. The internet also reveals that the same is true for less obvious indicators - social mobility, Gini index, percentage of women in positions of power, pay differentials, pension regulation, percentage of youth in training, liveable cities,
renewable energy capacity, etc.
With its secretive ways (look up the McCrone report if you live in Scotland), and massive centralisation of power, Westminster is failing the individual populations of England, Scotland and Wales. The McCrone report also contains some interesting remarks about the inevitable failure of regional policies.
But despite the crowded trains, the cracked pavements and pot holed streets that catch your eye when you return here, Westminster will not make the comparisons: it thinks in terms of its own importance, total GDP -" we're 6th in the world", rather than that of its citizens, GDP per capita - "we're poorer than everyone in Northern Europe". It is not just Westminster that is dysfunctional, but so is the underpinning "Great British" culture of its political and chattering classes, a culture that is encapsulated in its veneration of the polar explorer Scott, whose men died of starvation and who lost to Amundsen, whose men put on weight. It is not just the endless wrangling of left and right idealogues, any form of drama is more valued than a grasp of the numbers, cooperation and long term thinking. Costly and outdated assumptions are not challenged, as if Britain somehow deserves its UN security council seat, as if it can afford Trident and its military spend, and so, from Suez to Iraq, it is considered normal to indulge in murderous, self important adventures. Most disabling are the myths - Westminster being the mother of parliaments has nothing to learn from other democracies - and distorted narratives of identity - we won WW2 and have little to learn from our neighbours. The arrogance of empire without the fact.
The current British state works well for the metropolitan chattering and political classes, Westminster in short, who even if they do not believe all the myths buy themselves out from sharing the health and education services of their fellow citizens, and who, looking only to the USA, enjoy empire by association; however, for over a generation Westminster has failed to meet the test of basic competence, let alone the aspirations of the governed.
Unlike the successfully capitalist countries of Northern Europe, the UK is simply not earning its living in the world. As a result it can afford less and less of the modern goodies, like infrastructure investment, market regulation, targeted welfare and wide access to education and training: this leads to its making worse use of its only asset, its people, who become relatively less resourced, educated, numerate, healthy, less
socially mobile and less united in purpose, which in turn leads to relatively less wealth creation, which in turn leads ... etc, etc.
In Scotland the SNP are quite rightly looking to the more successful countries of Northern Europe as their model, because it would be almost impossible to be more dysfunctional than Westminster, from whom the rest of us should try to remove as much power as possible: the more the SNP succeed, the more we may all benefit.
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Thursday, 19 January 2012
Thursday, 27 October 2011
Negative Unionism
I live in hope, but there is still no sign of a positive case for the Union emerging from the Unionist parties. This troubles me, not because I want them to miraculously conjure up a convincing case for the Union, but rather because of the consequences if they stick with negativity.
First up, imagine the post-referendum scene, Scotland has voted against independence after years of being hammered with doubts, half-truths, downright lies and pessimism at the hands of the Unionists. In short Scotland has been cowed and frightened into voting No. The spoils of war are a downtrodden, depressed and shrunken Scotland, our people trampled underfoot, bereft of ambition, introverted, knowing our place in the world is the cold, wet corner of an inconsequential little island adrift from a fading continent. This is the victory that the Unionists seemingly crave with their unremitting negativity.
Alternatively (and let us hope and pray that it comes to pass), Scotland sees through the scaremongering and votes for independence. What then for those parties that tried to hold us back without offering any positive, that is to say honourable, vision? I'm sure their self-preservation instincts will kick in and they'll scrabble for some way to become relevant in the new Scotland that they so despised. But I wonder if the electorate will be so quick to forgive and forget.
First up, imagine the post-referendum scene, Scotland has voted against independence after years of being hammered with doubts, half-truths, downright lies and pessimism at the hands of the Unionists. In short Scotland has been cowed and frightened into voting No. The spoils of war are a downtrodden, depressed and shrunken Scotland, our people trampled underfoot, bereft of ambition, introverted, knowing our place in the world is the cold, wet corner of an inconsequential little island adrift from a fading continent. This is the victory that the Unionists seemingly crave with their unremitting negativity.
Alternatively (and let us hope and pray that it comes to pass), Scotland sees through the scaremongering and votes for independence. What then for those parties that tried to hold us back without offering any positive, that is to say honourable, vision? I'm sure their self-preservation instincts will kick in and they'll scrabble for some way to become relevant in the new Scotland that they so despised. But I wonder if the electorate will be so quick to forgive and forget.
Tuesday, 11 October 2011
The pain in Spain
The game in Alicante made for sobering viewing. I think it's time we come up with a new name for whatever it is Spain are playing, it bears little resemblance to the pedestrian game called football that everyone else is labouring with.
Glad to see Scotland stick at it though and hey, we won the last half hour! Yes, dear reader, that was the sound of straws being clutched right there. We've a decent side though, and I do think Craig Levein has us moving in the right direction. But for a contemptible dive and poor refereeing decision at the end of the Czech game we'd be looking forward to the play-offs now. Some decent young players are coming through, and the pace of Mackail-Smith and Goodwillie looked like it could threaten most teams. Shame that Goodwillie started reading his own headlines when he raced through and failed to square it to Mackail-Smith. 3-2 would have made for an interesting last few minutes. But hopefully he'll learn from the experience and be a bit cooler next time.
Another plus is the emergence of Bannan. He looks like just the kind of player we need to unlock opposing defences. The reality of the modern game is that every team is well organised and fit, even the likes of Liechtenstein. It's pretty rare for the minnows to get completely annihilated these days. The difference between the top teams and the also rans are those players that can create goals with a moment of creativity. If we can concentrate on encouraging the development of these type of players then we'll start to move up the rankings and maybe even qualify for a tournament.
All of which leads to the main point of this post. I do hope that the fans and press alike give Craig Levein at least another round of qualifying (or two) to continue to pursue his vision for the development of Scottish football. He's the first national manager I can remember who actually talks sense about the need to change how we coach kids to play in order to become competitive at international level. By definition the fruits of his labours with our youngest players will take several years to pay off. The last thing we need is to give him the chop in favour of someone who only sees the job as a stepping stone to a bigger pay day.
Ok, the tactics away to the Czechs were pretty objectionable (although in fairness they did almost work), but other than that Levein has developed a squad that clearly play with spirit and are trying their hardest. I'd like to see him use the time until the next qualifiers to give Mackail-Smith and Goodwillie more experience and perhaps to make sure that we have a good plan B in place for when his favoured 4-1-4-1 has to be abandoned. The 4-4-2 that we ended with against Spain tonight looked pretty reasonable, or perhaps a 3-5-2 with Hutton and Naismith charging down the flanks.
Finally, we can ill afford to have a player like Steven Fletcher sidelined. It would be great to see him back in the fold. I'm not sure on which side the problem lies, though from the press reports it seems to be on Fletcher's, but enough's enough. Time to bury the hatchet and get him back involved.
Glad to see Scotland stick at it though and hey, we won the last half hour! Yes, dear reader, that was the sound of straws being clutched right there. We've a decent side though, and I do think Craig Levein has us moving in the right direction. But for a contemptible dive and poor refereeing decision at the end of the Czech game we'd be looking forward to the play-offs now. Some decent young players are coming through, and the pace of Mackail-Smith and Goodwillie looked like it could threaten most teams. Shame that Goodwillie started reading his own headlines when he raced through and failed to square it to Mackail-Smith. 3-2 would have made for an interesting last few minutes. But hopefully he'll learn from the experience and be a bit cooler next time.
Another plus is the emergence of Bannan. He looks like just the kind of player we need to unlock opposing defences. The reality of the modern game is that every team is well organised and fit, even the likes of Liechtenstein. It's pretty rare for the minnows to get completely annihilated these days. The difference between the top teams and the also rans are those players that can create goals with a moment of creativity. If we can concentrate on encouraging the development of these type of players then we'll start to move up the rankings and maybe even qualify for a tournament.
All of which leads to the main point of this post. I do hope that the fans and press alike give Craig Levein at least another round of qualifying (or two) to continue to pursue his vision for the development of Scottish football. He's the first national manager I can remember who actually talks sense about the need to change how we coach kids to play in order to become competitive at international level. By definition the fruits of his labours with our youngest players will take several years to pay off. The last thing we need is to give him the chop in favour of someone who only sees the job as a stepping stone to a bigger pay day.
Ok, the tactics away to the Czechs were pretty objectionable (although in fairness they did almost work), but other than that Levein has developed a squad that clearly play with spirit and are trying their hardest. I'd like to see him use the time until the next qualifiers to give Mackail-Smith and Goodwillie more experience and perhaps to make sure that we have a good plan B in place for when his favoured 4-1-4-1 has to be abandoned. The 4-4-2 that we ended with against Spain tonight looked pretty reasonable, or perhaps a 3-5-2 with Hutton and Naismith charging down the flanks.
Finally, we can ill afford to have a player like Steven Fletcher sidelined. It would be great to see him back in the fold. I'm not sure on which side the problem lies, though from the press reports it seems to be on Fletcher's, but enough's enough. Time to bury the hatchet and get him back involved.
Wednesday, 7 September 2011
Union dividend
There is a good article by Ian Bell in the Herald, laying bare the complicity of successive UK governments in renditions and torture in Libya.
As he rightly concludes:
Now we applaud the movement we betrayed, and bomb the torturer we succoured. And they say Gaddafi is mad.
Depending on your point of view Scotland has either ceded it's sovereignty over the past 300 years or had it roughly taken away. In return we are told that we benefit from the union in various ways, invariably rather vague and nebulous ways. Chief among them is often the notion that we punch above our weight in the world. Well, perhaps it's time to update that worn out phrase. Recently it seems rather to be the case that we tear fingernails out above our weight. Or waterboard above our weight.
This moral descent is the very real price that we in Scotland pay today for allowing our sovereignty to be mishandled by successive UK governments. These atrocities are done in our name. The British people are responsible since we elected politicians that either failed to stop it, tacitly condoned it or even ordered it. And for what? All these betrayals of basic human decency are committed so that Britain has a place at the far corner of the big boys' table, or worse, for grubby oil deals that will benefit the local populace not one iota.
Britain once held itself to stand for fair play, decency and democratic values. Perhaps this self-image was never a reality. As the new Foreign Minister in 1997 the late Robin Cook spoke of Britain developing an ethical foreign policy. Well, that aspiration was brutally crushed in the intervening 14 years. Whether it's the waging of illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with no thought given to reconstruction afterwards, the use of bribery to sell weapons to repressive regimes, complicity in the rendition and torture of "terrorists" (was ever a more useful and flexible term coined?), abuse of so-called anti-terror legislation to silence an old age pensioner or to freeze the assets of Iceland (that hotbed of terrorism), rioting and looting in English cities or the callous robbing of a young man injured in the violence, the notion of Britain as home of fair play and the gentleman is dead and buried.
The pertinent question for Scotland today is, do we get a sufficient return on the investment of our sovereignty? Do the benefits of union outweigh the loss of control over our destiny? Well, Scotland should be in no doubt that it is inhumane, cold and calculating acts and values like those mentioned above that we continue to give our sovereignty away for. Britain has become a country with a nasty, vindictive ruling class that will do anything to anyone in the name of national interest. In truth this is the narrow nationalism that supporters of independence are often accused of. Now I don't doubt for a moment that there are Scots among this ruling class. As a people we are no more immune to human failings than anyone else. But an independent Scotland nevertheless has a chance to take a different path. We will assuredly suffer no delusions of being the world's policeman, or indeed his faithful poodle. We can leave the posturing death throes of imperial Britain behind and instead become a modern social democracy, one that seeks partnerships with like-minded peoples around the world. Let's try cooperating above our weight instead of punching everyone within reach.
As he rightly concludes:
Now we applaud the movement we betrayed, and bomb the torturer we succoured. And they say Gaddafi is mad.
Depending on your point of view Scotland has either ceded it's sovereignty over the past 300 years or had it roughly taken away. In return we are told that we benefit from the union in various ways, invariably rather vague and nebulous ways. Chief among them is often the notion that we punch above our weight in the world. Well, perhaps it's time to update that worn out phrase. Recently it seems rather to be the case that we tear fingernails out above our weight. Or waterboard above our weight.
This moral descent is the very real price that we in Scotland pay today for allowing our sovereignty to be mishandled by successive UK governments. These atrocities are done in our name. The British people are responsible since we elected politicians that either failed to stop it, tacitly condoned it or even ordered it. And for what? All these betrayals of basic human decency are committed so that Britain has a place at the far corner of the big boys' table, or worse, for grubby oil deals that will benefit the local populace not one iota.
Britain once held itself to stand for fair play, decency and democratic values. Perhaps this self-image was never a reality. As the new Foreign Minister in 1997 the late Robin Cook spoke of Britain developing an ethical foreign policy. Well, that aspiration was brutally crushed in the intervening 14 years. Whether it's the waging of illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with no thought given to reconstruction afterwards, the use of bribery to sell weapons to repressive regimes, complicity in the rendition and torture of "terrorists" (was ever a more useful and flexible term coined?), abuse of so-called anti-terror legislation to silence an old age pensioner or to freeze the assets of Iceland (that hotbed of terrorism), rioting and looting in English cities or the callous robbing of a young man injured in the violence, the notion of Britain as home of fair play and the gentleman is dead and buried.
The pertinent question for Scotland today is, do we get a sufficient return on the investment of our sovereignty? Do the benefits of union outweigh the loss of control over our destiny? Well, Scotland should be in no doubt that it is inhumane, cold and calculating acts and values like those mentioned above that we continue to give our sovereignty away for. Britain has become a country with a nasty, vindictive ruling class that will do anything to anyone in the name of national interest. In truth this is the narrow nationalism that supporters of independence are often accused of. Now I don't doubt for a moment that there are Scots among this ruling class. As a people we are no more immune to human failings than anyone else. But an independent Scotland nevertheless has a chance to take a different path. We will assuredly suffer no delusions of being the world's policeman, or indeed his faithful poodle. We can leave the posturing death throes of imperial Britain behind and instead become a modern social democracy, one that seeks partnerships with like-minded peoples around the world. Let's try cooperating above our weight instead of punching everyone within reach.
Monday, 9 May 2011
Referendummies
Some suggestions are doing the rounds that 2 referenda are required in order to achieve independence for Scotland. The first would seek the permission of the Scottish people to negotiate the terms of independence. The second would then allow the people to decide if they liked the results of those negotiations. Sounds reasonable enough in principle...except it does rather assume a level playing field.
As David Cameron has said, he will fight an independence referendum with every fibre of his being. Now, fast forwarding a bit, let's imagine the first referendum has been won and the negotiations are about to take place. If I were David Cameron I would have a very good incentive to drive the hardest deal I possibly could in order to influence the result of that second referendum. Give Scotland a terrible deal and the people will surely reject it. Sounds like the sort of thing one would do if one was desperate to keep Scotland in the union. And what would happen after that rejection? We would be in tricky territory - the Scots want independence, but not on the agreed terms. Does that mean more negotiations and a further referendum, repeated until a palatable solution is found? Or is the whole thing shelved, despite the Scots having voted for independence? Sounds like a recipe for chaos.
The knock against the single referendum is of course that approval would give the Scottish government carte blanche to get any old negotiated settlement from Westminster. But quite why the Scottish government would be content to get a bad deal I'm not sure. More plausibly the fear might be that a spurned and spiteful Westminster would only offer grossly unfavourable terms. But that would hardly be conducive to good relations between neighbours. And it would surely be in everyone's interests for the neighbours to get along - even after independence we will still have many interests in common. And it wouldn't play terribly well in the international arena for rump UK to be seen to be thwarting the legitimate democratic aspirations of Scotland.
Interesting times ahead anyway. I just hope Lord Forsyth keeps out of it - how he can possibly think he has a right to influence our nation's future one way or the other is beyond me. Twenty years on and he's still none the wiser.
As David Cameron has said, he will fight an independence referendum with every fibre of his being. Now, fast forwarding a bit, let's imagine the first referendum has been won and the negotiations are about to take place. If I were David Cameron I would have a very good incentive to drive the hardest deal I possibly could in order to influence the result of that second referendum. Give Scotland a terrible deal and the people will surely reject it. Sounds like the sort of thing one would do if one was desperate to keep Scotland in the union. And what would happen after that rejection? We would be in tricky territory - the Scots want independence, but not on the agreed terms. Does that mean more negotiations and a further referendum, repeated until a palatable solution is found? Or is the whole thing shelved, despite the Scots having voted for independence? Sounds like a recipe for chaos.
The knock against the single referendum is of course that approval would give the Scottish government carte blanche to get any old negotiated settlement from Westminster. But quite why the Scottish government would be content to get a bad deal I'm not sure. More plausibly the fear might be that a spurned and spiteful Westminster would only offer grossly unfavourable terms. But that would hardly be conducive to good relations between neighbours. And it would surely be in everyone's interests for the neighbours to get along - even after independence we will still have many interests in common. And it wouldn't play terribly well in the international arena for rump UK to be seen to be thwarting the legitimate democratic aspirations of Scotland.
Interesting times ahead anyway. I just hope Lord Forsyth keeps out of it - how he can possibly think he has a right to influence our nation's future one way or the other is beyond me. Twenty years on and he's still none the wiser.
Sunday, 25 April 2010
Sky News Scotland Debate - live text
12:02pm (it's definitely pm now, right...?) Overall I enjoyed this much more than the UK debates, much more vim and vigour about the whole thing, and the audience seemed a lot more clued up than the Glasgow one, so to the scores...
Edinburgh 1 - 0 Glasgow
Murphy: 5/10 Had some decent lines but overall came across as antagonistic, patronising and occasionally quite nasty. That daggers look at Carmichael revealed the true character of the man.
Salmond: 7/10 Not at his best, and Murphy did get to him with the line about being in his bed (Salmond in Salmond's bed that is, just to be clear) during the minimum wage vote. But as comfortable as ever in front of an audience and made lots of good points.
Mundell: 5/10 Also had his moments, but for the love of God smile now and then man! He doesn't seem to enjoy himself in these events, and you just know he was the unpopular kid at school who had a hell of a time, and now thinks he'll show them all!
Carmichael: 7/10 I would have given him a higher score but for his slightly weak closing speech. But he spoke well overall.
Thandie Newton: 9/10 Highlight of the 90 minutes, but one mark knocked off for appearing so soon after Murphy.
12:00am (or is it pm? I'm never sure...) Aargh, it gets worse!! Now the foxy Irish Sky News weather girl is on. I'd better give the scores before I have a lie down...
11:57am That's it, they all shake hands and head off for a communal bath. Apologies for that last mental image. I think I was disturbed earlier in the proceedings when we went from Jim Murphy's iguanadon-like visage to the fair Thandie Newton in an advert in the space of 3 seconds. The juxtaposition obviously overloaded a few neurons.
11:54am Carmichael: an exciting election this time. He's not looking at the camera though. Reading his script a bit too obviously for my liking. Halfway through he remembers to address the viewers at home.
11:53am Mundell: this election is about the future, British election, Britain, Rule Britannia! The Tories have the policies to tackle the real issues. Don't leave the choice to Alex Salmond or the Lib Dems, choose the government yourselves.
11:52am Murphy claims the election is a choice between Cameron and Brown for PM - clearly he doesn't subscribe to Clegg-mania. Derisory laughs from the audience!
11:51am Closing speeches. Salmond: haven't covered spending cuts in this debate yet. We should cut the things that don't matter to protect the things that do. SNP are cutting 1/4 of the quangoes (quangos?) apparently. Way to tackle a budget deficit is to grow the economy. We'll badly need local and national champions for Scotland in the next parliament.
11:49am Salmond: given the financial pressures, how we can justify £5 billion on ID cards that won't stop crime? Carmichael points out the shifting reasons for the ID cards that have been presented over the years.
11:48am Carmichael was a procurator fiscal depute apparently. He had a real job?! Heavens above, no wonder he comes across well and sounds like he's from the real world.
11:46am Salmond: if you want people to trust your security measures, don't abuse the ones we've already been subjected to.
11:44am Mundell raises the spectre of the 90-odd year old Labour member who was held under anti-terrorism laws at the Labour conference for the crime of heckling. Carmichael: when we restrict our freedoms we do the terrorists' job for them.
11:42am Murphy: as science has progressed the DNA database has become very useful. Criminals are apparently more desperate than ever before. Wonder how he measures that?
11:41am Salmond: ID cards are not an answer to terrorism or crime, more police on the streets are needed.
11:40am Final question: erosion of civil liberties over the last 13 years. How would you stop this erosion?
11:38am Murphy repeats the mantra: stronger together weaker apart, you can't base an economy on the volatile price of oil. Salmond responds that the Chancellor is planning on £40billion from Scotland's sector of the North Sea over the next 5 years. FAO Jim Murphy: nobody is suggesting the economy of an independent Scotland would be based on oil/gas. But it's a nice extra.
11:34am Salmond points out that we are a major oil-producing nation. Why are prices so high? Carmichael points out that Norway has the highest fuel prices in Europe.
11:32am Salmond welcomes Mundell's belated conversion to the cause of stabilising fuel duty.
11:28am Murphy seems to think Labour have been doing a good job on this front. Remarkable. Mundell understands this question he informs us. Does that mean he hasn't understood the rest? Carmichael: fuel duty keeps going up because the Labour government keeps putting it up. You won't get a litre of petrol for less than £1.30 in Orkney apparently. Salmond: average is £1.20 across Scotland, 70% of which is duty/VAT. SNP would modulate fuel tax increases by taking more money when oil prices went up. Says Labour and Tories opposed this, Murphy would have been better off in his bed on that vote! He's back!
11:27am Inaudible question from the audience. Why does the tax on fuel keep rising, says the lip-reading Adam Boulton.
11:26am Apparently when Murphy became Secretary of State Against Scotland he phoned his mum first, then Alex Salmond to say they had to work together. Perhaps regretting his aggressive attack on the minimum wage earlier.
11:25am Salmond comes back with 20,000 modern apprenticeships, attempting to recover his usual statesmanlike demeanour.
11:21am Murphy talks about introducing the minimum wage. Points out that Salmond went to his bed while the minimum wage was voted on. Murphy hammering the point home. Carmichael restores sanity. But that was a decent jab from Murphy (damn it!).
11:20am Youth unemployment next. Mundell rightly points out that Murphy and co have been in charge of the UK for 13 years, and also Salmond has been in government for 3 years.
11:17am How's it going so far? Overall Carmichael and Salmond are performing pretty well, Mundell has had his moments but doesn't seem to be enjoying himself much, Murphy looms sepulchral, stage left (I wonder if he insisted on standing on the left by the way...).
11:14am Consensus seems to be no. Quite right too, except where such decisions affect the pocket money going to Scotland and Wales I might add.
11:13am Should Scots/Welsh MPs vote on England-only matters?
11:12am Odd point from Mundell: Salmond and Brown didn't discuss the al Megrahi decision...but surely by the law of the land it was a decision for the Justice Secretary alone David.
11:10am Would Thomas Hamilton have been released from jail if he had survived and had been diagnosed with cancer?
11:07am Murphy took a beating on that question. Next up Adam Boulton asks about the controversy surrounding memos from the foreign office on the Pope's visit to the UK. Salmond: I'm on the B-list with Wayne Rooney apparently, the memos are juvenile. Mundell: Wayne Rooney has as many policies for Scotland as Alex Salmond - a good gag, albeit delivered with an air of spite etched all over his face. Murphy confesses he should have been at mass this morning. Just what I was thinking Jim...
11:05am Murphy resorts to the "good faith" defence. I'm reminded of a phrase involving the road to hell...
11:02am Murphy confesses to mistakes in post-war planning in Iraq. As Salmond points out, there were mistakes in the pre-war planning too. Carmichael calls Murphy up on his "rewriting of history". Murphy attempts to stare down Carmichael! If looks could kill (Murphy would be classified as WMD).
11:00am Mundell scores some points, highlighting the good job the forces do and how Labour have let them down.
10:57am Next Q: can the loss of life in Iraq/Afghanistan be justified in relation to the "war on terror" (copyright GW Bush, 2001)
10:54am Nice line from Salmond on Murphy and Mundell and their "gospel of despair" on why Scotland uniquely wouldn't have handled the economic downturn.
Slightly tetchy stuff so far, particularly an ugly shouting match between Murphy and Mundell (although I don't think they could do anything together which wouldn't be described as ugly).
10:48am Q2 How would an independent Scotland have coped with the economic crash? Salmond: fine, just like other countries. Murphy: I don't want us to be like Ireland. Mundell: we're much better off in Britain.
10:45am The odd timing of the debate catches forfar-loon napping (literally). Already the ebst debate of the election thus far - it has ad breaks so I can make a cup of tea :o)
Edinburgh 1 - 0 Glasgow
Murphy: 5/10 Had some decent lines but overall came across as antagonistic, patronising and occasionally quite nasty. That daggers look at Carmichael revealed the true character of the man.
Salmond: 7/10 Not at his best, and Murphy did get to him with the line about being in his bed (Salmond in Salmond's bed that is, just to be clear) during the minimum wage vote. But as comfortable as ever in front of an audience and made lots of good points.
Mundell: 5/10 Also had his moments, but for the love of God smile now and then man! He doesn't seem to enjoy himself in these events, and you just know he was the unpopular kid at school who had a hell of a time, and now thinks he'll show them all!
Carmichael: 7/10 I would have given him a higher score but for his slightly weak closing speech. But he spoke well overall.
Thandie Newton: 9/10 Highlight of the 90 minutes, but one mark knocked off for appearing so soon after Murphy.
12:00am (or is it pm? I'm never sure...) Aargh, it gets worse!! Now the foxy Irish Sky News weather girl is on. I'd better give the scores before I have a lie down...
11:57am That's it, they all shake hands and head off for a communal bath. Apologies for that last mental image. I think I was disturbed earlier in the proceedings when we went from Jim Murphy's iguanadon-like visage to the fair Thandie Newton in an advert in the space of 3 seconds. The juxtaposition obviously overloaded a few neurons.
11:54am Carmichael: an exciting election this time. He's not looking at the camera though. Reading his script a bit too obviously for my liking. Halfway through he remembers to address the viewers at home.
11:53am Mundell: this election is about the future, British election, Britain, Rule Britannia! The Tories have the policies to tackle the real issues. Don't leave the choice to Alex Salmond or the Lib Dems, choose the government yourselves.
11:52am Murphy claims the election is a choice between Cameron and Brown for PM - clearly he doesn't subscribe to Clegg-mania. Derisory laughs from the audience!
11:51am Closing speeches. Salmond: haven't covered spending cuts in this debate yet. We should cut the things that don't matter to protect the things that do. SNP are cutting 1/4 of the quangoes (quangos?) apparently. Way to tackle a budget deficit is to grow the economy. We'll badly need local and national champions for Scotland in the next parliament.
11:49am Salmond: given the financial pressures, how we can justify £5 billion on ID cards that won't stop crime? Carmichael points out the shifting reasons for the ID cards that have been presented over the years.
11:48am Carmichael was a procurator fiscal depute apparently. He had a real job?! Heavens above, no wonder he comes across well and sounds like he's from the real world.
11:46am Salmond: if you want people to trust your security measures, don't abuse the ones we've already been subjected to.
11:44am Mundell raises the spectre of the 90-odd year old Labour member who was held under anti-terrorism laws at the Labour conference for the crime of heckling. Carmichael: when we restrict our freedoms we do the terrorists' job for them.
11:42am Murphy: as science has progressed the DNA database has become very useful. Criminals are apparently more desperate than ever before. Wonder how he measures that?
11:41am Salmond: ID cards are not an answer to terrorism or crime, more police on the streets are needed.
11:40am Final question: erosion of civil liberties over the last 13 years. How would you stop this erosion?
11:38am Murphy repeats the mantra: stronger together weaker apart, you can't base an economy on the volatile price of oil. Salmond responds that the Chancellor is planning on £40billion from Scotland's sector of the North Sea over the next 5 years. FAO Jim Murphy: nobody is suggesting the economy of an independent Scotland would be based on oil/gas. But it's a nice extra.
11:34am Salmond points out that we are a major oil-producing nation. Why are prices so high? Carmichael points out that Norway has the highest fuel prices in Europe.
11:32am Salmond welcomes Mundell's belated conversion to the cause of stabilising fuel duty.
11:28am Murphy seems to think Labour have been doing a good job on this front. Remarkable. Mundell understands this question he informs us. Does that mean he hasn't understood the rest? Carmichael: fuel duty keeps going up because the Labour government keeps putting it up. You won't get a litre of petrol for less than £1.30 in Orkney apparently. Salmond: average is £1.20 across Scotland, 70% of which is duty/VAT. SNP would modulate fuel tax increases by taking more money when oil prices went up. Says Labour and Tories opposed this, Murphy would have been better off in his bed on that vote! He's back!
11:27am Inaudible question from the audience. Why does the tax on fuel keep rising, says the lip-reading Adam Boulton.
11:26am Apparently when Murphy became Secretary of State Against Scotland he phoned his mum first, then Alex Salmond to say they had to work together. Perhaps regretting his aggressive attack on the minimum wage earlier.
11:25am Salmond comes back with 20,000 modern apprenticeships, attempting to recover his usual statesmanlike demeanour.
11:21am Murphy talks about introducing the minimum wage. Points out that Salmond went to his bed while the minimum wage was voted on. Murphy hammering the point home. Carmichael restores sanity. But that was a decent jab from Murphy (damn it!).
11:20am Youth unemployment next. Mundell rightly points out that Murphy and co have been in charge of the UK for 13 years, and also Salmond has been in government for 3 years.
11:17am How's it going so far? Overall Carmichael and Salmond are performing pretty well, Mundell has had his moments but doesn't seem to be enjoying himself much, Murphy looms sepulchral, stage left (I wonder if he insisted on standing on the left by the way...).
11:14am Consensus seems to be no. Quite right too, except where such decisions affect the pocket money going to Scotland and Wales I might add.
11:13am Should Scots/Welsh MPs vote on England-only matters?
11:12am Odd point from Mundell: Salmond and Brown didn't discuss the al Megrahi decision...but surely by the law of the land it was a decision for the Justice Secretary alone David.
11:10am Would Thomas Hamilton have been released from jail if he had survived and had been diagnosed with cancer?
11:07am Murphy took a beating on that question. Next up Adam Boulton asks about the controversy surrounding memos from the foreign office on the Pope's visit to the UK. Salmond: I'm on the B-list with Wayne Rooney apparently, the memos are juvenile. Mundell: Wayne Rooney has as many policies for Scotland as Alex Salmond - a good gag, albeit delivered with an air of spite etched all over his face. Murphy confesses he should have been at mass this morning. Just what I was thinking Jim...
11:05am Murphy resorts to the "good faith" defence. I'm reminded of a phrase involving the road to hell...
11:02am Murphy confesses to mistakes in post-war planning in Iraq. As Salmond points out, there were mistakes in the pre-war planning too. Carmichael calls Murphy up on his "rewriting of history". Murphy attempts to stare down Carmichael! If looks could kill (Murphy would be classified as WMD).
11:00am Mundell scores some points, highlighting the good job the forces do and how Labour have let them down.
10:57am Next Q: can the loss of life in Iraq/Afghanistan be justified in relation to the "war on terror" (copyright GW Bush, 2001)
10:54am Nice line from Salmond on Murphy and Mundell and their "gospel of despair" on why Scotland uniquely wouldn't have handled the economic downturn.
Slightly tetchy stuff so far, particularly an ugly shouting match between Murphy and Mundell (although I don't think they could do anything together which wouldn't be described as ugly).
10:48am Q2 How would an independent Scotland have coped with the economic crash? Salmond: fine, just like other countries. Murphy: I don't want us to be like Ireland. Mundell: we're much better off in Britain.
10:45am The odd timing of the debate catches forfar-loon napping (literally). Already the ebst debate of the election thus far - it has ad breaks so I can make a cup of tea :o)
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Pride or prostration?
A great deal has been written about Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill's decision to grant Abdelbaset Al-Megrahi compassionate release. I don't propose to repeat any of the analysis of the rights or wrongs of that decision, or of the reasoning behind it.
Instead I'd like to focus on the reaction to the reaction. That is to say, how our politicians in Scotland have reacted to the criticism this decision has been met with elsewhere, and what this might tell us about the current political landscape in Scotland.
The positions, with one or two notable exceptions, have been drawn as follows:
* Tory/LibDem/Labour - disagree with the decision, worried about the effect on our relationship with US, "repulsed" by the Libyan reaction.
* SNP - sticking with the decision despite criticism from the USA, emphasising that our relationship with the US is bigger than this one issue, unhappy with the "inappropriate" reaction in Libya.
In my opinion the SNP have demonstrated greater political maturity by correctly making the decision on judicial grounds despite external political pressures, and also by steadfastly holding true to their position in the face of quite vicious criticism. It has been nothing other than the behaviour of a responsible government, acting according to the law and recognising that a nation's credibility is ill-served by meekly rolling over and being tickled on the belly when the first dissenting voices are raised. In short, it's exactly the behaviour you would expect and demand of a sovereign national government, and hopefully a nice taste of things to come in an independent Scotland.
In contrast let's examine the opposition stance. Unable to find any substantive criticisms of the way the decision was made, and boy how they've tried, they have been restricted to feeble and ill-conceived sniping around the fringes (Megrahi should go to a hospice?! Nice one Goldie). There is of course nothing wrong with proper scrutiny of the executive. But the opposition have gone beyond this and badly shamed themselves by their attempts to score party political points over this issue, as notably expressed by Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm.
Almost as bad has been the opposition's hand wringing display in the face of US criticism. It betrays an appallingly deferential attitude, born of a very obvious inferiority complex. Ironic really, as this was always the accusation levelled at proponents of independence.
Indeed, these recent developments have made it abundantly clear that the SNP desire for independence is an expression of nothing other than self-confidence in the abilities and status of Scotland. One could put it as follows: We will make our own decisions; where others disagree we will take account of their concerns, but we will make our own decisions; we are confident and secure in our relationships with other countries; we are confident in our ability to manage these relationships when we disagree.
This stands in marked contrast to the servile dependence of the unionist parties, and hence the UK, on the goodwill of the US to the exclusion of all other considerations. One could summarise this approach as follows: Please don't hate us, please! We'll do anything, if only you'll be our friend!
Soon Scotland will again face a choice at the ballot box. Take control of our future, assume full responsibility for our nation's fortunes and take our place among the fellowship of nations. Or skulk along as America's poodle's puppy, looking up with those big eyes, desperate to be loved.
I know which country I would rather live in.
Instead I'd like to focus on the reaction to the reaction. That is to say, how our politicians in Scotland have reacted to the criticism this decision has been met with elsewhere, and what this might tell us about the current political landscape in Scotland.
The positions, with one or two notable exceptions, have been drawn as follows:
* Tory/LibDem/Labour - disagree with the decision, worried about the effect on our relationship with US, "repulsed" by the Libyan reaction.
* SNP - sticking with the decision despite criticism from the USA, emphasising that our relationship with the US is bigger than this one issue, unhappy with the "inappropriate" reaction in Libya.
In my opinion the SNP have demonstrated greater political maturity by correctly making the decision on judicial grounds despite external political pressures, and also by steadfastly holding true to their position in the face of quite vicious criticism. It has been nothing other than the behaviour of a responsible government, acting according to the law and recognising that a nation's credibility is ill-served by meekly rolling over and being tickled on the belly when the first dissenting voices are raised. In short, it's exactly the behaviour you would expect and demand of a sovereign national government, and hopefully a nice taste of things to come in an independent Scotland.
In contrast let's examine the opposition stance. Unable to find any substantive criticisms of the way the decision was made, and boy how they've tried, they have been restricted to feeble and ill-conceived sniping around the fringes (Megrahi should go to a hospice?! Nice one Goldie). There is of course nothing wrong with proper scrutiny of the executive. But the opposition have gone beyond this and badly shamed themselves by their attempts to score party political points over this issue, as notably expressed by Labour MSP Malcolm Chisholm.
Almost as bad has been the opposition's hand wringing display in the face of US criticism. It betrays an appallingly deferential attitude, born of a very obvious inferiority complex. Ironic really, as this was always the accusation levelled at proponents of independence.
Indeed, these recent developments have made it abundantly clear that the SNP desire for independence is an expression of nothing other than self-confidence in the abilities and status of Scotland. One could put it as follows: We will make our own decisions; where others disagree we will take account of their concerns, but we will make our own decisions; we are confident and secure in our relationships with other countries; we are confident in our ability to manage these relationships when we disagree.
This stands in marked contrast to the servile dependence of the unionist parties, and hence the UK, on the goodwill of the US to the exclusion of all other considerations. One could summarise this approach as follows: Please don't hate us, please! We'll do anything, if only you'll be our friend!
Soon Scotland will again face a choice at the ballot box. Take control of our future, assume full responsibility for our nation's fortunes and take our place among the fellowship of nations. Or skulk along as America's poodle's puppy, looking up with those big eyes, desperate to be loved.
I know which country I would rather live in.
Saturday, 22 August 2009
A sporting chance
It's been a thoroughly depressing start (I'm tempted to say end) to the football season for Scottish football fans. In Europe Motherwell and Aberdeen were both thumped, Hearts are half way to being gubbed, Celtic look likely to be missing out on the Champions' League, albeit against a very good Arsenal side and due to a couple of lucky goals, Falkirk falling to the mighty Vaduz from, erm, Liechtenstein and of course the national team's debacle in Norway (and we'll neatly gloss over the Loons' midweek humping by Partick Thistle).
But, ever the optimist, it looks to me like a good step in the right direction is being made up in the Granite City. These facilities are precisely the sort of thing we need more of throughout Scotland and are a welcome follow up to the recently opened Toryglen Football Centre near Hampden and the soon to be built National Indoor Sports Arena and Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome near Celtic Park.
Sport should be a central feature of Scottish life, not for the feelgood factor of seeing our sportsmen and women or national teams performing well, although that is always welcome, but rather for the overall health of the nation. Hopefully facilities such as those mentioned above, together with already existing facilities and others in the pipeline, will encourage greater participation in sport, improvements to overall health, and, ultimately, an improvement in results at the elite level.
Again, I'll be an optimist - I am a Scotland fan after all! The relative sporting famine of the last few years and the historic underinvestment in facilities gives Scottish sport an opportunity to effect a Lazarus-style comeback. The rebuilding of our sporting infrastructure must continue, in every corner of Scotland. Radical changes (e.g. summer football) should be seriously considered and, let's face it, those vested interests that would oppose radical change have very little credibility left and must be swept away. And finally, just imagine how much sweeter Scottish success will taste after all these years of suffering! Onwards and upwards Scotland!
But, ever the optimist, it looks to me like a good step in the right direction is being made up in the Granite City. These facilities are precisely the sort of thing we need more of throughout Scotland and are a welcome follow up to the recently opened Toryglen Football Centre near Hampden and the soon to be built National Indoor Sports Arena and Sir Chris Hoy Velodrome near Celtic Park.
Sport should be a central feature of Scottish life, not for the feelgood factor of seeing our sportsmen and women or national teams performing well, although that is always welcome, but rather for the overall health of the nation. Hopefully facilities such as those mentioned above, together with already existing facilities and others in the pipeline, will encourage greater participation in sport, improvements to overall health, and, ultimately, an improvement in results at the elite level.
Again, I'll be an optimist - I am a Scotland fan after all! The relative sporting famine of the last few years and the historic underinvestment in facilities gives Scottish sport an opportunity to effect a Lazarus-style comeback. The rebuilding of our sporting infrastructure must continue, in every corner of Scotland. Radical changes (e.g. summer football) should be seriously considered and, let's face it, those vested interests that would oppose radical change have very little credibility left and must be swept away. And finally, just imagine how much sweeter Scottish success will taste after all these years of suffering! Onwards and upwards Scotland!
Sunday, 7 June 2009
Scotland doesn't exist
Well, what a pleasant couple of weeks away that was. No chance to read the papers or browse the web, barely a thought given to football or politics...have I missed much while I was away?
On my travels in the misty Carpathian mountains of Romania I was fortunate enough to purchase the stamp shown below. It's one of last year's stamps for letters to Europe (and has recently been replaced by a fetching picture of some storks). Now I'm not usually very interested in stamps but look again closely...isn't there something missing there...?
I guess this is all part of the Union dividend - invisibility to the outside world.
Not content with seeing Scotland the victim of a bad Romanian stamp (again) I also had the near impossibility of an unpleasant conversation with a Finnish lady. "Where are you and your wife from?" she asked. "Scotland and Germany", I replied. "Ah, England and Germany", she mis-repeated. For the sake of international relations I resisted my more bloodthirsty instincts and let it slide.
One day, hopefully soon, such irritations of Scottish invisibility will be a thing of the past.
On my travels in the misty Carpathian mountains of Romania I was fortunate enough to purchase the stamp shown below. It's one of last year's stamps for letters to Europe (and has recently been replaced by a fetching picture of some storks). Now I'm not usually very interested in stamps but look again closely...isn't there something missing there...?
I guess this is all part of the Union dividend - invisibility to the outside world.
Not content with seeing Scotland the victim of a bad Romanian stamp (again) I also had the near impossibility of an unpleasant conversation with a Finnish lady. "Where are you and your wife from?" she asked. "Scotland and Germany", I replied. "Ah, England and Germany", she mis-repeated. For the sake of international relations I resisted my more bloodthirsty instincts and let it slide.
One day, hopefully soon, such irritations of Scottish invisibility will be a thing of the past.
Monday, 9 March 2009
Constitutional poll
Evening all. I've added a new poll at the bottom of the blog: simply choose one or more of your favoured constitutional settlements for Scotland. The intention is to leave the poll there for a good long while, perhaps even until the next Holyrood election. Hopefully a good few votes will come in...shame we won't be getting that chance in the real world!
Oh, and don't forget the poll on Iain Gray's conference speech on the right hand side - currently Darling's botched clone is struggling for support, surely there must be some more Labour voters out there capable of using the internet...?
Oh, and don't forget the poll on Iain Gray's conference speech on the right hand side - currently Darling's botched clone is struggling for support, surely there must be some more Labour voters out there capable of using the internet...?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)