The news that Gordon Brown has agreed to participate in a series of TV debates ahead of the next Westminster election is quite rightly causing a bit of a stushie in Scotland. The SNP are talking of amicable solutions to allow Eck to take part, but more likely they will be given short shrift by the TV companies. The result will be legal action from the SNP to prevent any debates bereft of Eck's beaming fizzog from being broadcast in Scotland.
This stance, though potentially depriving us all of watching a half-decent slanging match, seems absolutely correct. Quite why three parties should be accorded the extra publicity and platform that these high-profile debates will afford is not clear to me. The main argument seems to be that only the Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem leaders are potential Prime Ministers in waiting. One only has to read that last sentence again to see the idiocy of the argument...Nick Clegg? Potential Prime Minister?! Ahem.
Behind this lurks the distasteful presumption that the media already knows the outcome (more or less) of the election. As things stand the smaller parties get a raw enough deal: restricting the debates to a Labour-Tory-Lib Dem triopoly fatally undermines the idea of free and fair elections.
Obviously in Scotland the proposed debates simply fail to reflect the continued reality of Labour and the SNP fighting it out for the top prize, with the Tories and Lib Dems failing to get much of a look in. As other observers have noted, if the SNP do well enough there won't be a UK to be Prime Minister of, and under those happy circumstances one G Brown would likely be ineligible for the job - a potential PM indeed! Similar arguments apply to Wales with Plaid Cymru also deserving a place in any debates broadcast there.
Furthermore, one only has to look back to the last European elections to realise that there are in fact other parties out there, even in England. Granted, UKIP might not quite be shooting for second place in a Westminster election (yet), but then again surely their performance in the European elections makes them, and more to the point those people that voted for them, worthy of a little more consideration? And how can they ever hope to make a breakthrough if they are dismissed as a small party, unworthy of even a bit-part role?
The cosy, unthinking consensus in Broadcastingland seems to be that Labour and the Tories will naturally take turns in power for evermore. Anything else is unthinkable. The real value of the Lib Dems in this scenario is merely to lend some feeble credence to the notion that we live in a dynamic multi-party democracy. They make the stitch-up look a little bit more credible.
This ossification of politics is a consequence of the first-past-the-post system, where parties with a broad appeal spread throughout the country suffer compared to those with a more localised support. My hope is that people are gaining more of a taste for proportional representation. We've had it now in Scotland and Wales for 10 years. We've had it in European elections for longer. The London elections are also conducted using PR. If the SNP poll 30% of the vote next year and end up with only 10 MPs I for one will be demanding: "Where is my vote?!" And if UKIP get anything like the same share of the vote as in the European elections but gain no MPs, then I might well be one of many. Democracy indeed.
Sunday, 4 October 2009
Friday, 25 September 2009
No messin'!
So John Smeaton is to stand as a candidate in the Glasgow North East by-election. The opening salvo of his campaign is shown below, and is well worth a watch:
More common sense in those 5 minutes than I've heard in quite a while from the professional politicians! Much as I'd love to see him "batter down the doors" at Westminster I fear for the lad's chances. How long before the first smears appear in the press? Desmond Tutu could stand for Glasgow North East and, after a sly word from John Smith house, the papers would denounce him as a frock-wearing tranny.
And even if Smeaton makes it down to Westminster how will his parliamentary colleagues treat him? If Michael Martin was derided as Gorbals Mick then what does fate have in store for Smeaton? How do you think the Westminster boys' club will react to the new boy from the rough estate at the edge of town? Chin up John, set aboot them!
More common sense in those 5 minutes than I've heard in quite a while from the professional politicians! Much as I'd love to see him "batter down the doors" at Westminster I fear for the lad's chances. How long before the first smears appear in the press? Desmond Tutu could stand for Glasgow North East and, after a sly word from John Smith house, the papers would denounce him as a frock-wearing tranny.
And even if Smeaton makes it down to Westminster how will his parliamentary colleagues treat him? If Michael Martin was derided as Gorbals Mick then what does fate have in store for Smeaton? How do you think the Westminster boys' club will react to the new boy from the rough estate at the edge of town? Chin up John, set aboot them!
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.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Poll results: If you were Justice Secretary how would you have treated Megrahi?
If you were Justice Secretary how would you have treated Megrahi?
Keep him in prison: 4 votes
Prisoner transfer: 1 vote
Compassionate release: 38 votes
An overwhelming endorsement for MacAskill's decision then. Thanks to everyone who voted.
Keep him in prison: 4 votes
Prisoner transfer: 1 vote
Compassionate release: 38 votes
An overwhelming endorsement for MacAskill's decision then. Thanks to everyone who voted.
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)