Orf with their heads! 0 votes
To the Tower's naughty step! 0
We're a' Jock Tamson's MSPs! 2
Vive la revolucion! 10
On that basis Brigadoon seems to be a hotbed of revolutionary fervour, treasonous dogs that you are! Thanks again for all your votes.
Monday, 6 July 2009
Thursday, 2 July 2009
A right royal rant
In these troubled times what is exercising the little grey cells of the chattering classes of Scotland? The prospect of shipyard closures on the Clyde? The imminent loss of hundreds of jobs at two of Diageo's plants? No dear reader, worthy though these stories might be of attention, a far graver matter faces the nation. Prepare yourselves. Forty-eight of our MSPs didn't bother to go and listen to the Queen giving some speech or other. Alas, whither Scotia?!
Treachery though it be, I'll confess that I didn't bother to listen to Her Majesty, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that "her" speech consisted of the usual platitudes and banality that she's restricted to in order to remain apolitical and avoid giving offence (Big Phil on the other hand...). Happy to be corrected on that point mind, please relay to me any great profundity that she imparted to us plebs using the comments below.
So why the stushie? Why is everyone proclaiming this to be a day of shame for the parliament? Whatever happened to that idea of Scotland building a modern, egalitarian, 21st Century democracy? Or the pride and glee we all shared when "A man's a man for a' that" was sung to the Queen at the official opening? Straight out the window! Get a grip Scotland!
Treachery though it be, I'll confess that I didn't bother to listen to Her Majesty, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that "her" speech consisted of the usual platitudes and banality that she's restricted to in order to remain apolitical and avoid giving offence (Big Phil on the other hand...). Happy to be corrected on that point mind, please relay to me any great profundity that she imparted to us plebs using the comments below.
So why the stushie? Why is everyone proclaiming this to be a day of shame for the parliament? Whatever happened to that idea of Scotland building a modern, egalitarian, 21st Century democracy? Or the pride and glee we all shared when "A man's a man for a' that" was sung to the Queen at the official opening? Straight out the window! Get a grip Scotland!
Wednesday, 1 July 2009
Logan's run
The BBC ICM poll details have been published (available here). Some interesting snippets therein, particularly the mixed feeling on Brown as PM, the foreboding at the prospect of Cameron as PM, and the high aproval for Salmond as FM.
The two big questions posed were around how Scotland should be governed and how Scots would vote in a referendum next year. Mischievous type that I am I couldn't help but notice that the 65+ age group responded quite differently to the rest on these questions...
Q.14 Which of the following comes closest to your view about how Scotland should be governed....
Q.19 Next year, the Scottish Government wants to hold a referendum to ask the people of Scotland whether they agree or disagree that..."the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state"
Interesting stuff I'm sure you'll agree! Remove the wrinklies (hypothetically speaking!) and Q.19 looks pretty close to me. Maybe Eck should wait a few more years for that referendum ;o)
The remaining difference between pro-independence and pro-devolution max responses to Q.14 comes largely from the 18-34 age group. I wonder what effect a lack of jobs for young people and a good dose of paternal Toryism might have on this group over the next few years...all to play for!
The two big questions posed were around how Scotland should be governed and how Scots would vote in a referendum next year. Mischievous type that I am I couldn't help but notice that the 65+ age group responded quite differently to the rest on these questions...
Q.14 Which of the following comes closest to your view about how Scotland should be governed....
| Excl. 65+ | All | |||
| Scotland should become independent of the rest of the UK, with the Scottish Parliament able to make all decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland | 42.27% | 38.35% | ||
| Scotland should remain part of the UK, with the Scottish Parliament able to make some decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland | 49.94% | 53.72% | ||
| Scotland should remain part of the UK, with decisions about the level of taxation and government spending in Scotland made by the UK Government | 6.67% | 6.64% | ||
| Don't know | 1.11% | 1.29% |
Q.19 Next year, the Scottish Government wants to hold a referendum to ask the people of Scotland whether they agree or disagree that..."the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state"
| Excl. 65+ | All | |||
| For | 45.92% | 42.26% | ||
| Against | 46.41% | 50.10% | ||
| Refused | 7.67% | 7.64% |
Interesting stuff I'm sure you'll agree! Remove the wrinklies (hypothetically speaking!) and Q.19 looks pretty close to me. Maybe Eck should wait a few more years for that referendum ;o)
The remaining difference between pro-independence and pro-devolution max responses to Q.14 comes largely from the 18-34 age group. I wonder what effect a lack of jobs for young people and a good dose of paternal Toryism might have on this group over the next few years...all to play for!
Monday, 29 June 2009
What a difference a decade makes
Ten years into the era of devolution and we live in interesting times. I'm reminded of the tale of George Bernard Shaw in conversation with a young lady: "Would you sleep with me if I gave you 10,000 pounds?" he asked her. She thought about it and decided that she would. "Good," said Shaw, "so would you also sleep with me for sixpence?" The lady was outraged. "What sort of woman do you think I am?" she thundered. "We've established what sort of woman you are," Shaw replied, "we're merely haggling over the price."
It seems to me that Britannia finds herself in a similar position to that young lady. The referendum in 1997 established the principle that Scotland was entitled to self-determination. The resounding Yes-Yes vote further established the principle of self-governance. And the argument was essentially over at that point. Scotland firmly established what sort of a union it has with the rest of the UK. Scottish sovereignty resides with the Scottish people, not with Westminster (nor indeed with Holyrood!).
Since then there has been much "haggling over the price": which powers to devolve, which to reserve? But the principle of Scottish sovereignty towers above the debate, the Scottish people must decide.
Which brings us to the question of a referendum on Scotland's future constitutional arrangements. Do we need one? Or are we all content with the current model of devolution?
Over the last decade it has appeared increasingly clear to me that change is needed. The rise in the share of the vote for the SNP has been remarkable, as has the demise of the New Labour project. Not all of this swing can be ascribed to a protest vote. Many people will have voted for the SNP precisely because they want Scotland to have more power. This has become all the more likely in light of Westminster's travails over the last year or two. For all its faults Holyrood looks like a paragon of probity next to "Wastemonster".
Meanwhile, the once barely audible discontent south of the border at the "subsidies" and "privileges" that Scotland supposedly enjoys has increased to a low rumble. As swingeing public sector cuts are applied over the next decade this perceived grievance will loom ever larger. How will a Tory government in Westminster respond? How will they handle an SNP government at Holyrood? What mandate will the Tories have to decide on reserved matters, such as Trident, for Scotland?
Alternatively, how will England react if it votes Tory but Labour's tally of Scottish MPs helps bring about a hung parliament? Suddenly that democratic deficit that Scots have railed against for so long might be keenly felt in middle England. Will the Tories happily leak votes to the English Democrats? I suspect not.
How then should Scotland face the challenges of the next decade? With a system that breeds misunderstanding and a sense of injury on both sides of the border? Or with a cleaner, simpler constitutional arrangement backed by a strong democratic mandate?
Quite simply Scotland must be given a direct choice. Not some sleekit, skewed choice, with arbitrary thresholds imposed as a spoiling tactic, nor an extrapolated choice based on the results of a general election fought over many different issues. No. We need a straight, honest choice between the main options: full independence; devolution max of whatever flavour (federalism? confederalism? Calman?); keeping the status quo; or direct rule from Westminster.
For me the choice remains clear, the principle of self-governance has been established. Independence is the logical outcome of that victory. Not "isolation", as Gordon Brown would love you to think of it (Why Gordon, do you think the Scots would vote for isolation? Is your opinion of us really so low?). But simply the freedom to run our country in a fair and just fashion according to our ever-changing needs, choosing when and on what terms to cooperate with our neighbours as common interests arise, and playing a full part in the international community.
As ever the consitutional poll remains open in Brigadoon: cast your vote in the poll on the right hand side.
It seems to me that Britannia finds herself in a similar position to that young lady. The referendum in 1997 established the principle that Scotland was entitled to self-determination. The resounding Yes-Yes vote further established the principle of self-governance. And the argument was essentially over at that point. Scotland firmly established what sort of a union it has with the rest of the UK. Scottish sovereignty resides with the Scottish people, not with Westminster (nor indeed with Holyrood!).
Since then there has been much "haggling over the price": which powers to devolve, which to reserve? But the principle of Scottish sovereignty towers above the debate, the Scottish people must decide.
Which brings us to the question of a referendum on Scotland's future constitutional arrangements. Do we need one? Or are we all content with the current model of devolution?
Over the last decade it has appeared increasingly clear to me that change is needed. The rise in the share of the vote for the SNP has been remarkable, as has the demise of the New Labour project. Not all of this swing can be ascribed to a protest vote. Many people will have voted for the SNP precisely because they want Scotland to have more power. This has become all the more likely in light of Westminster's travails over the last year or two. For all its faults Holyrood looks like a paragon of probity next to "Wastemonster".
Meanwhile, the once barely audible discontent south of the border at the "subsidies" and "privileges" that Scotland supposedly enjoys has increased to a low rumble. As swingeing public sector cuts are applied over the next decade this perceived grievance will loom ever larger. How will a Tory government in Westminster respond? How will they handle an SNP government at Holyrood? What mandate will the Tories have to decide on reserved matters, such as Trident, for Scotland?
Alternatively, how will England react if it votes Tory but Labour's tally of Scottish MPs helps bring about a hung parliament? Suddenly that democratic deficit that Scots have railed against for so long might be keenly felt in middle England. Will the Tories happily leak votes to the English Democrats? I suspect not.
How then should Scotland face the challenges of the next decade? With a system that breeds misunderstanding and a sense of injury on both sides of the border? Or with a cleaner, simpler constitutional arrangement backed by a strong democratic mandate?
Quite simply Scotland must be given a direct choice. Not some sleekit, skewed choice, with arbitrary thresholds imposed as a spoiling tactic, nor an extrapolated choice based on the results of a general election fought over many different issues. No. We need a straight, honest choice between the main options: full independence; devolution max of whatever flavour (federalism? confederalism? Calman?); keeping the status quo; or direct rule from Westminster.
For me the choice remains clear, the principle of self-governance has been established. Independence is the logical outcome of that victory. Not "isolation", as Gordon Brown would love you to think of it (Why Gordon, do you think the Scots would vote for isolation? Is your opinion of us really so low?). But simply the freedom to run our country in a fair and just fashion according to our ever-changing needs, choosing when and on what terms to cooperate with our neighbours as common interests arise, and playing a full part in the international community.
As ever the consitutional poll remains open in Brigadoon: cast your vote in the poll on the right hand side.
Friday, 26 June 2009
Poll results: What do you think of Scotland's target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2020?
Noble gas 4 votes
Laughing gas 1
Gas bags 3
What a nerve gas 1
A pretty even split then between those admiring the good intentions and those sceptical of whether the targets can, and perhaps should, be met.
Perhaps the Scottish government would persuade more people by seeking an endorsement from a prominent celebrity? Susan Boyle for example - I can see it now, Boyle's Law. And if anyone can think of worse gas-related puns please share them!
Laughing gas 1
Gas bags 3
What a nerve gas 1
A pretty even split then between those admiring the good intentions and those sceptical of whether the targets can, and perhaps should, be met.
Perhaps the Scottish government would persuade more people by seeking an endorsement from a prominent celebrity? Susan Boyle for example - I can see it now, Boyle's Law. And if anyone can think of worse gas-related puns please share them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)