And so it begins in earnest. The age old tactics, so tried and tested, scourge of many of those colonial Johnnies, are now being turned on Scotland. Yes, it's that perennial favourite, divide and rule!
The so called Earl of Caithness, Chief of Clan Sinclair, Malcolm Ian Sinclair, has added some amendments to the Scotland bill. These are to the effect that Orkney and Shetland should be removed from Scotland in the event that they reject independence while the rest of Scotland votes in favour, and that Rockall should be retained by the rump UK despite being part of the Isle of Harris and therefore under administrative control of Na h-Eileanan Siar.
It's difficult to know quite how to react to this latest unionist skulduggery. Part of me starts fantasising about Madame Guillotine, part of me rages against a Tory peer wielding this sort of influence, part of me wants to laugh at the desperation inherent in this f**kwit's proposals. I guess in the absence of a treasonous cat's paw as First Minister they can't simply redraw the maritime boundaries again to annex all of the above into English waters.
What is abundantly clear is that the Earl only cares about islands that have, or might have, oil nearby. He seems not to care about the democratic wishes of, say the people of the Hebrides, surely also a part of Scotland with significant cultural and historical differences to much of the mainland. He doesn't even single his own Earldom, Caithness, out for his special treatment, despite it also being under Norse control for a time.
In any case, I can't really imagine that the Machiavellian manoeuvrings of a Tory lord will do anything other than turn people firmly against the British state. If this is British fair play and the way the British establishment deals with my country then count me out. I always swore I would never join a political party, but Earl Caithness, congratulations! Your devilish scheming is the final straw after the last few weeks (or rather decades) of unionist lies, outlandish scare stories and disgusting denigration of Scotland and its people. You have created an enemy today, and he's off to join the SNP. I urge everyone else to do the same.
Showing posts with label SNP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SNP. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 January 2012
Friday, 6 May 2011
Scotland comes of age!
Well it's official - the SNP now have a majority in the Scottish Parliament with 21 seats still up for grabs. Unbelievable. Having sat up all through the night enjoying the banter at Subrosa's blog I'm still buzzing. Result after result just kept tumbling our way with some ludicrous swings to the SNP, principally (though not exclusively) from the Lib Dems.
Breaking the Glasgow Labour hegemony is surely a watershed moment in Scotland's modern political history. The habit of many lifetimes has been broken, once and forever. Now that people have come over to the SNP once they will surely find it much easier to do so in future.
The referendum is now a certainty, though I agree with Alex Salmond that this should not be rushed. It's a crucial vote for Scotland's future and the unofficial campaign for a Yes vote should begin right now. Opponents have already begun talking Scotland down (Danny Alexander conspicuously doing so on the BBC earlier today, happily falling into bed with Ed Balls of all people).
Top priority for the SNP though must be getting enhanced powers for Holyrood asap. My great fear is that the reality of cuts to the Scottish block grant will make manifesto commitments extremely difficult to deliver. And we can't use the excuse of minority government now. Labour will paint these as SNP cuts, despite the truth that they are coming from Westminster and are due to Labour's 13 years of misrule. The solution is to gain the extra powers that will allow us to lift our economy up towards its potential. Once that is done we will be in a much better position to persuade the electorate that Scotland's future will best be served as an independent nation, able to govern itself according to its own priorities, taking its place with the other free nations of the world and cooperating with them where common interests occur. We must all play our part in lifting our nation up.
Breaking the Glasgow Labour hegemony is surely a watershed moment in Scotland's modern political history. The habit of many lifetimes has been broken, once and forever. Now that people have come over to the SNP once they will surely find it much easier to do so in future.
The referendum is now a certainty, though I agree with Alex Salmond that this should not be rushed. It's a crucial vote for Scotland's future and the unofficial campaign for a Yes vote should begin right now. Opponents have already begun talking Scotland down (Danny Alexander conspicuously doing so on the BBC earlier today, happily falling into bed with Ed Balls of all people).
Top priority for the SNP though must be getting enhanced powers for Holyrood asap. My great fear is that the reality of cuts to the Scottish block grant will make manifesto commitments extremely difficult to deliver. And we can't use the excuse of minority government now. Labour will paint these as SNP cuts, despite the truth that they are coming from Westminster and are due to Labour's 13 years of misrule. The solution is to gain the extra powers that will allow us to lift our economy up towards its potential. Once that is done we will be in a much better position to persuade the electorate that Scotland's future will best be served as an independent nation, able to govern itself according to its own priorities, taking its place with the other free nations of the world and cooperating with them where common interests occur. We must all play our part in lifting our nation up.
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, 6 July 2009
Tribal loyalty 0 - 1 Common sense
How nice to see a principled stand being taken on the issue of prison reform by Cherie Blair and Henry McLeish. Both have stepped above the political fray, casting any tribal loyalty aside in order to praise the SNP's proposed penal reforms, whereby community sentencing would be preferred to jail time of less than 6-months.
Note that important word: preferred. This would be no diktat to those deciding on sentencing. Dangerous criminals could still be put in prison at the discretion of the courts. But rather than wasting public money sending petty criminals tofinishing school prison, they would instead be "paying back" to society.
It is perhaps instructive to ask ourselves what purpose a sentence less than 6-months serves. Is it a punishment/deterrent? Or an attempt at rehabilitation? If the former, then I suspect most criminals are not quaking in their boots at the prospect. If the latter, then perhaps we need to ask why re-offending rates remain stubbornly high.
Personally, I'm a firm believer in criminals being confronted with the effects of their crimes. Most human beings, when shown the misery they have caused their fellow man, will show some form of remorse. With support and guidance at that stage we give them the best chance of becoming productive members of society. If the community sentencing is of this type then the reforms have my full support. Of course there will always be an uncaring few without a conscience, and custodial sentences perhaps remain the best option for such cases.
Of more concern to me however, is the nature of the opposition to the reforms. If Labour were pretty hopeless in power they are even worse in opposition. Where are the ideas? Where is the alternative vision for Scotland? Nowhere to be seen. They seem far too busy opposing any new SNP initiative for the sake of it. On this particular issue former FM Henry McLeish puts it in unequivocal terms:
[Quoted from the Scotsman, 5th July 2009]
I've emphasised a couple of phrases: Labour were the progressive party. But no longer. Labour are misleading the public. Strong stuff from McLeish, but spot on. How much better the public is served when our politicians tell it like it is, rather than meekly following party orders.
Note that important word: preferred. This would be no diktat to those deciding on sentencing. Dangerous criminals could still be put in prison at the discretion of the courts. But rather than wasting public money sending petty criminals to
It is perhaps instructive to ask ourselves what purpose a sentence less than 6-months serves. Is it a punishment/deterrent? Or an attempt at rehabilitation? If the former, then I suspect most criminals are not quaking in their boots at the prospect. If the latter, then perhaps we need to ask why re-offending rates remain stubbornly high.
Personally, I'm a firm believer in criminals being confronted with the effects of their crimes. Most human beings, when shown the misery they have caused their fellow man, will show some form of remorse. With support and guidance at that stage we give them the best chance of becoming productive members of society. If the community sentencing is of this type then the reforms have my full support. Of course there will always be an uncaring few without a conscience, and custodial sentences perhaps remain the best option for such cases.
Of more concern to me however, is the nature of the opposition to the reforms. If Labour were pretty hopeless in power they are even worse in opposition. Where are the ideas? Where is the alternative vision for Scotland? Nowhere to be seen. They seem far too busy opposing any new SNP initiative for the sake of it. On this particular issue former FM Henry McLeish puts it in unequivocal terms:
"Their claims are wholly ridiculous," he said. "They are arguing against something that is not being implemented or recommended by the [Scottish] Government. My appeal to Labour, who were the progressive party, is to read the report [by the Scottish Prisons Commission]. None of it adds up to anything remotely like what they are claiming. They are misleading the public."
He added: "The Labour claims on this are just totally wrong. There is no provision that says every sentence under six months is not allowed. The sheriffs still have the right to sentence as they wish."
He went on: "Labour and the Conservatives are saying crime equals punishment equals prison. That strategy has got us into a situation where we are wasting millions of pounds every year, a situation where we are not protecting the public any better and a situation where we have some of the highest re-conviction rates in Europe."
[Quoted from the Scotsman, 5th July 2009]
I've emphasised a couple of phrases: Labour were the progressive party. But no longer. Labour are misleading the public. Strong stuff from McLeish, but spot on. How much better the public is served when our politicians tell it like it is, rather than meekly following party orders.
Monday, 23 March 2009
Poll results: minimum price per unit of alcohol
The results of the latest poll were:
Do you approve of a minimum price per unit of alcohol?
Yes, >40p: 5
Yes, <40p: 3
No 1
Yes, 1p, hic!: 1
The temperance movement is alive and well in Brigadoon it would seem. Thanks again to all who voted. Maybe to boost the numbers I should publicise the next poll on Blether with Brian again...?!
Do you approve of a minimum price per unit of alcohol?
Yes, >40p: 5
Yes, <40p: 3
No 1
Yes, 1p, hic!: 1
The temperance movement is alive and well in Brigadoon it would seem. Thanks again to all who voted. Maybe to boost the numbers I should publicise the next poll on Blether with Brian again...?!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)