So the contest which has been gripping the nation in a fever of excitement has finally been concluded...
Oh wait, Strictly Come Dancing doesn't finish until Saturday! (Come on Alesha!) In the meantime, Nick Clegg has narrowly won the rather less motivating race to become new leader of the Lib Dems.
Here's hoping he has enough time to pack before one of his colleagues does him in....
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Empire Strikes Back...
The Empire I am referring to, of course, is the evil one run by Darth Murdoch which has used the dark side of the Force to corrupt our legal system, media and fringe left wing parties to persecute an innocent man.
Certainly, that is how poor Tommy Sheridan, erstwhile MSP and leader of the SSP/Solidarity/Tommy Sheridan Party is stating his case. He has just been accused of perjury following the epic battle he had with the News of the World over the rather racy allegations it made about his personal life, and has been the victim of some police harrassment.
Poor wean!
It has been a strange old case, responsible for destroying the SSP and Tommy losing his place as one of the most charismatic members of the Scottish Parliament. (Although lets not exaggerate this point too much, he didn't have a huge amount of competition!) The whole case has served to demostrate the size of his ego and the pygmy status of those who took up the reins of the SSP once he moved on. I am not a fan of Tommy, but he was acknowledged as one of the most impressive debaters and speakers in the Parliament - Colin Fox and the other SSP MSPs were dull and uninvolving - after the initial excitement of their breakthrough in 2003, the public quickly got fed up of their attention seeking antics and their lack of focus in participating in the work of Parliament to best represent their constituents.
And now we face the renewed situation whereby the press will be temporarily deluged (well, maybe not that much - they'll be lucky if they can summon up the energy to talk to what remains of the SSP) with two groups of the further left slagging each other off as scabs and Murdoch groupies, nailing tightly the coffin of the political aspirations of their respective parties - who ultimately are identical anyway, and therefore only serve to split their vote and kill their own causes.
It is a sad day for the Rainbow Parliament of Scotland, sadly confined to the history books for the foreseeable future. And behind it all lurks the smug figure of Alex Salmond, chuckling in that annoyingly arrogant way of his about the good fortune that has come his way. The SNP won the election in a large part due to their success in taking supporters disillusioned with the SSP/Solidarity rift into their fold, and Wee Eck will know that this is the ideal time to solidify his hold on this group.
Certainly, that is how poor Tommy Sheridan, erstwhile MSP and leader of the SSP/Solidarity/Tommy Sheridan Party is stating his case. He has just been accused of perjury following the epic battle he had with the News of the World over the rather racy allegations it made about his personal life, and has been the victim of some police harrassment.
Poor wean!
It has been a strange old case, responsible for destroying the SSP and Tommy losing his place as one of the most charismatic members of the Scottish Parliament. (Although lets not exaggerate this point too much, he didn't have a huge amount of competition!) The whole case has served to demostrate the size of his ego and the pygmy status of those who took up the reins of the SSP once he moved on. I am not a fan of Tommy, but he was acknowledged as one of the most impressive debaters and speakers in the Parliament - Colin Fox and the other SSP MSPs were dull and uninvolving - after the initial excitement of their breakthrough in 2003, the public quickly got fed up of their attention seeking antics and their lack of focus in participating in the work of Parliament to best represent their constituents.
And now we face the renewed situation whereby the press will be temporarily deluged (well, maybe not that much - they'll be lucky if they can summon up the energy to talk to what remains of the SSP) with two groups of the further left slagging each other off as scabs and Murdoch groupies, nailing tightly the coffin of the political aspirations of their respective parties - who ultimately are identical anyway, and therefore only serve to split their vote and kill their own causes.
It is a sad day for the Rainbow Parliament of Scotland, sadly confined to the history books for the foreseeable future. And behind it all lurks the smug figure of Alex Salmond, chuckling in that annoyingly arrogant way of his about the good fortune that has come his way. The SNP won the election in a large part due to their success in taking supporters disillusioned with the SSP/Solidarity rift into their fold, and Wee Eck will know that this is the ideal time to solidify his hold on this group.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Launch of vital US political broadcast...
It is that time of year where the most important political broadcast from the States is released. I am of course referring to Barney Cam, in which George W Bush's Scottie Barney stars in an uplifting morality tale. This year the focus is on the importance of the National Parks - one of the few areas that many of us would agree on with Bush! Check it out at www.whitehouse.gov - it's well worth the time invested!
To make it even more of a Box Office smash, it has a cameo from our very own Tony Blair. In a show stealing piece, he discusses his own Scottishness, and praises the success of the Bush Scotties as ambassadors for Scotland. Much more poignant than anything Jeremy Paxman would ever have teased out.
To make it even more of a Box Office smash, it has a cameo from our very own Tony Blair. In a show stealing piece, he discusses his own Scottishness, and praises the success of the Bush Scotties as ambassadors for Scotland. Much more poignant than anything Jeremy Paxman would ever have teased out.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
No such thing as bad publicity...
He just couldn't cope with it, could he?
I'm talking about the Beloved Leader of course, His Holiness Alex Salmond. He couldn't cope with the fact that Wendy was getting all the press coverage (even if it was negative!) so sat and thought of something to get the spotlight back on himself. Hmm, what would be successful in this aim - new policy? (As if!) A bold political masterstroke? Streaking at the next football match televised to the Scottish nation?
Thankfully, the last horrific option was rejected at the last minute, and instead he went for a nice cosy lunch with that well known philanthropist, Donald Trump. Happily they sat in a cosy little hotel (I've always wondered who pays for things in that kind of situation - might be kinda awkward when the bill arrives!) and chatted about the world.
Now, Alex Salmond did nothing illegal in his meeting with Trump - he is the Constituency MSP and it is an important matter. However, he is also the First Minister of Scotland and scant hours after his chat the matter was called into Holyrood by his Government.
Of course, he had nothing to do with it and in fact was able to claim with a relatively straight face that "I know nutting." Wee Eck is a canny enough politician to know that it didn't matter in the situation, as the perception the public would be rightly able to take from this is that Salmond is on the side of the wealthy like Trump, and his talk of social democracy and devolution of power to the local level is as empty as the National Conversation that he is having with himself.
We are at the situation now where the convener of the committee who cast the deciding vote is facing strong pressure to be replaced, where the decision of the committee has been effectively ignored (I know, the Govt may uphold the decision, particularly if pressure is applied to them, however I am not going to hold my breath) and the continuing centralisation of all power in Salmond's ample bosum continues at breakneck speed.
But then, is this hugely surprising from a party launched into power by the financial weight of Brian Soutar?
I'm talking about the Beloved Leader of course, His Holiness Alex Salmond. He couldn't cope with the fact that Wendy was getting all the press coverage (even if it was negative!) so sat and thought of something to get the spotlight back on himself. Hmm, what would be successful in this aim - new policy? (As if!) A bold political masterstroke? Streaking at the next football match televised to the Scottish nation?
Thankfully, the last horrific option was rejected at the last minute, and instead he went for a nice cosy lunch with that well known philanthropist, Donald Trump. Happily they sat in a cosy little hotel (I've always wondered who pays for things in that kind of situation - might be kinda awkward when the bill arrives!) and chatted about the world.
Now, Alex Salmond did nothing illegal in his meeting with Trump - he is the Constituency MSP and it is an important matter. However, he is also the First Minister of Scotland and scant hours after his chat the matter was called into Holyrood by his Government.
Of course, he had nothing to do with it and in fact was able to claim with a relatively straight face that "I know nutting." Wee Eck is a canny enough politician to know that it didn't matter in the situation, as the perception the public would be rightly able to take from this is that Salmond is on the side of the wealthy like Trump, and his talk of social democracy and devolution of power to the local level is as empty as the National Conversation that he is having with himself.
We are at the situation now where the convener of the committee who cast the deciding vote is facing strong pressure to be replaced, where the decision of the committee has been effectively ignored (I know, the Govt may uphold the decision, particularly if pressure is applied to them, however I am not going to hold my breath) and the continuing centralisation of all power in Salmond's ample bosum continues at breakneck speed.
But then, is this hugely surprising from a party launched into power by the financial weight of Brian Soutar?
Friday, November 09, 2007
The (brief!) geopolitical case for the Union
In a time when the Union is under frequent attack from expected, and in the case of Cameron and his Tories, unexpected sources, I think it is important that we examine all of the aspects that make the Union an important and beneficial set-up to the nations involved. Obviously the economic issues have been receiving the most coverage so far, however I would like to jot down a few ideas about what I feel are the geopolitical responsibilities of the Union, and why we would be abrogating our responsibility if we were to break it apart.
As the United Kingdom, we possess a role on the world stage which far outweighs our geographic size. This is rooted in several causes - the historical legacy of our Empire which spanned the globe; the power of economy which outperforms many 'bigger' nations; the global power of the English language and others. Possibly even more crucially, we are seen in many quarters as the birthplace and spiritual home of modern democracy - the US and France may have taken particular paths, but it Westminster that is called the Mother of Parliaments. Our tradition of liberal democracy (as so impressively laid out in Gordon Brown's recent speech, which I will return to at another date) is one that has acted as the underpinning of much liberal thought across the world, and continues to provide an ideal for nations to aspire to - including our own!
It is true that our global reputation has been damaged by the war in Iraq, and respect for our causes dimished by our association with the most unpopular US President there has probably ever been. However, Iraq is only part of the story, and our history and future is bigger than that intervention. To argue, as Alex Salmond frequently does, that Iraq is a justification for splitting from the Union is ridiculous - that is the path to anarchy, whereby anytime a section of the population does not agree to something the Government does, they split away and follow their own path. In reality, Iraq must be the impetus for us as a nation to refind our role on the world stage, and work to restore the faith of the world in us.
For as the UK, we have a unique and important role to play. This goes beyond our traditional role as the link between Europe and the US, although this is a crucial role. Our role also involves the historical link of the Commonwealth, whereby our future is intrinsically linked to that of nations who we are tied to, and with whom we are striving for the Common Good. Our interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, along with generally the intervention in Afghanistan, are ones that are supported in world opinion, as is the pressure that we are putting to bear on Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Our traditional approach, of using diplomatic pressure to seek to influence nations, backed up by a willingness to intervene with military force if required, is one that strikes a happy balance between the gung-ho US and the laissez-faire approach of say the French.
We also have an important role to play, by example, support and pressure, in the spread of liberal democracy. I know that many of my colleagues in the Party will shudder at that thought, as it has become widely associated with the neocon movement behind the war in Iraq, however, I don't think that there is anything illiberal in the spreading of democracy. If we can restore our place as a respected international player, then we can provide an inspiration to nations struggling to find their way to peaceful democracy and a model for them to aim for.
All of this will not happen as independent nations I'm afraid. I think that were the UK to be disbanded, only England would really retain any lingering influence, and that would be minimal and short-lived, especially if it was up against an independent Salmond-led Scotland which was focussed on doing everything it could to prove its difference. From a Scottish point of view, our proud history of standing against oppression around the world would sadly be lost if Salmond had his way and we followed the Irish path of neutrality. It is not enough in this interconnected world that we live in for a nation to sit back and claim no responsibility for what is happening around it - it is simply the abdication of responsibility. Salmond claims to be so keen on what is happening on the global stage, yet without the opportunity provided by the UK's Permanent Seat on the Security Council his role and influence would be virtually nil.
And I believe that this is the point - we have a responsibility to continue to play a role on the world stage, as a democratic nation holding out the example that different countries and peoples can live together in peace and co-operation. The UK, despite the problems and things we would like to change, is a living example of solidarity in a common cause, something that is all too rare in the world. We are hated by Al-Qaeda and its ilk precisely because we represent the world they don't want to see - free, liberal and pluralist, respecting the rights of all and willing to take a stand against injustice and oppression. We have made many mistakes in our history as a United Kingdom, but we have also been a shining light and a vessel for changing the world for the better. At a time when the world is confronted by threats, it is important that we continue to bear this responsibility and to struggle for those who cannot struggle for themselves.
As the United Kingdom, we possess a role on the world stage which far outweighs our geographic size. This is rooted in several causes - the historical legacy of our Empire which spanned the globe; the power of economy which outperforms many 'bigger' nations; the global power of the English language and others. Possibly even more crucially, we are seen in many quarters as the birthplace and spiritual home of modern democracy - the US and France may have taken particular paths, but it Westminster that is called the Mother of Parliaments. Our tradition of liberal democracy (as so impressively laid out in Gordon Brown's recent speech, which I will return to at another date) is one that has acted as the underpinning of much liberal thought across the world, and continues to provide an ideal for nations to aspire to - including our own!
It is true that our global reputation has been damaged by the war in Iraq, and respect for our causes dimished by our association with the most unpopular US President there has probably ever been. However, Iraq is only part of the story, and our history and future is bigger than that intervention. To argue, as Alex Salmond frequently does, that Iraq is a justification for splitting from the Union is ridiculous - that is the path to anarchy, whereby anytime a section of the population does not agree to something the Government does, they split away and follow their own path. In reality, Iraq must be the impetus for us as a nation to refind our role on the world stage, and work to restore the faith of the world in us.
For as the UK, we have a unique and important role to play. This goes beyond our traditional role as the link between Europe and the US, although this is a crucial role. Our role also involves the historical link of the Commonwealth, whereby our future is intrinsically linked to that of nations who we are tied to, and with whom we are striving for the Common Good. Our interventions in Sierra Leone and Kosovo, along with generally the intervention in Afghanistan, are ones that are supported in world opinion, as is the pressure that we are putting to bear on Zimbabwe and Myanmar. Our traditional approach, of using diplomatic pressure to seek to influence nations, backed up by a willingness to intervene with military force if required, is one that strikes a happy balance between the gung-ho US and the laissez-faire approach of say the French.
We also have an important role to play, by example, support and pressure, in the spread of liberal democracy. I know that many of my colleagues in the Party will shudder at that thought, as it has become widely associated with the neocon movement behind the war in Iraq, however, I don't think that there is anything illiberal in the spreading of democracy. If we can restore our place as a respected international player, then we can provide an inspiration to nations struggling to find their way to peaceful democracy and a model for them to aim for.
All of this will not happen as independent nations I'm afraid. I think that were the UK to be disbanded, only England would really retain any lingering influence, and that would be minimal and short-lived, especially if it was up against an independent Salmond-led Scotland which was focussed on doing everything it could to prove its difference. From a Scottish point of view, our proud history of standing against oppression around the world would sadly be lost if Salmond had his way and we followed the Irish path of neutrality. It is not enough in this interconnected world that we live in for a nation to sit back and claim no responsibility for what is happening around it - it is simply the abdication of responsibility. Salmond claims to be so keen on what is happening on the global stage, yet without the opportunity provided by the UK's Permanent Seat on the Security Council his role and influence would be virtually nil.
And I believe that this is the point - we have a responsibility to continue to play a role on the world stage, as a democratic nation holding out the example that different countries and peoples can live together in peace and co-operation. The UK, despite the problems and things we would like to change, is a living example of solidarity in a common cause, something that is all too rare in the world. We are hated by Al-Qaeda and its ilk precisely because we represent the world they don't want to see - free, liberal and pluralist, respecting the rights of all and willing to take a stand against injustice and oppression. We have made many mistakes in our history as a United Kingdom, but we have also been a shining light and a vessel for changing the world for the better. At a time when the world is confronted by threats, it is important that we continue to bear this responsibility and to struggle for those who cannot struggle for themselves.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Amazing Grace
I finally got round to watching Amazing Grace at the weekend, and I must admit I was incredibly moved by it.
Now, I'll hold my hands up and confess to being an idealist when it comes to politics. But what I saw in that film is what, to me, politics is all about. The vision to change the world, the dedication to overcome challenges and the commitment to doing what is right, even if it carries personal cost.
I get depressed when I hear the negativity that is felt towards politicians. At an event I was running last week, the audience (composed of very educated and motivated people) waxed lyrical about how all politicians are in it for themselves, concerned only with protecting their pensions rather than in making a difference to the world. When I disputed this assessment, I was greeted with looks of incredulity - how on earth could I be so naive as to think that there were any politicians in it for the greater good.
But I do believe that this is the motivating factor for involvement in politics, and I certainly know it is for me. For me, politics is a vocation. Now, I know that the religious terminology will grate for some readers, but I very much believe that there is a calling to politics. It is not just a job or a career with good pay and benefits, but rather is a chance to change the world to be a better place. Politicians are elected with different views of how they would like the world to be, and Parliament is where they are able to argue their views and put forward a direction for the country.
This type of vocational politics is one that can inspire the public and the next generation of activists. As a job, politics is not the ideal way to make money. It is intensive and demanding, and although the pay for MPs is very high, there are business jobs which are far better paying - just ask all those MPs who have moved on to be board members of big companies!
Politics is crucial to our lives - it impacts on everything that we do. I say this to groups when I am doing my outreach events, and at first many of them look at me as if I have two heads! However, when we discuss the impact that it has and the changes it can make, they change their views and get fired up at the possibilities that it presents.
William Wilberforce was a man who changed the world, even though the odds were stacked outrageously against him. He strived through years of failure, ridicule and personal attacks, and sacrificed his own personal ambition to the greater good of those who had no voice for themselves. This, to me, should be the mantra of all our elected representatives and indeed for our Party as a whole. Politics, and politicians, do matter - we need to make sure that the public is aware of this through the actions and motivations of those elected to represent them.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
The West Lothian Question
If we leave aside for one moment the incredibly petty hypocrisy of Cameron and the Tories in calling for English votes (Funny they weren't so keen on this when it was the UUP propping up a Conservative Government) they are trying to score political capital on a growing problem, and one which we as a Party ignore at our peril.
Devolution has created an environment in which growing sections of the English population feel that they are being treated like second class citizens, subsidising the rest of the UK. Now, these feelings are emotional ones which are not directly based on reality - in particular there seems to be a strange presumption in most English based media sources that everything in Scotland and Wales is paid for by 'English' taxes. I can confirm without a doubt that I and other Scots pay the same taxes!
However, there is a point to some of the resentment where it is felt that Scottish and Welsh MPs have a say over issues that they cannot actually effect in their own part of the UK. (Again, this raises hackles in Scotland and Wales - afterall we suffered from the Thatcher years without ever providing support for her.) This resentment, if unmet, stokes feelings which could inevitably lead to the break-up of the UK.
Of course this is something that suits the SNP, but increasingly it is also suiting the wishes of the Tories, who appear ever more keen to forget their Unionist beliefs. Cameron knows that the Tories would do better in Westminster without those troublesome Welsh and Scottish MPs causing trouble, and so is starting to appear willing to sacrifice the UK for power.
This is where the Labour Party needs to step into the argument and start proposing ways forward which listen to the legitimate concerns of England without throwing out the entire political structure. Devolution has been a success for Scotland and Wales - maybe it is time to examine devolution for England. Westminster must remain a Parliament for the entire UK, in which its Members can vote on every issue - anything else makes a mockery of the institution and brings about a inevitable slide to dissolution. However, the issue of devolving the areas which are devolved for Scotland and Wales should be examined in great detail.
A while ago on here there was a debate with one of my posts about possible ways forward, and we discussed options for keeping the UK Parliament as a way to respond to the issues such as defence and international relations which the four nations must deal with together, but with devolved bodies for each of the consituent nations which could examine specific issues in their national context. I think that this method would still run the risk of fuelling some of the fires of independence, but it would also provide a feeling of genuine interaction for the citizens of the UK.
The UK Parliament could continue to elect Members from each of the Constituent Nations, although reform of the voting system would be crucial to ensuring that the body was felt to be representative. Taxation could be dealt with as it is now, with money being distributed to the four nations to spend on their devolved areas as they saw fit. The UK Parliament would continue to represent the UK on an international stage, with the four national parliaments being able to find in their contributions through their national and UK representatives. With the UK Parliament dealing with issues which directly affected the four nations collectively, there would be no question of whether a Scot could be Prime Minister or Health Secretary.
The increased status of the national parliaments would also help to develop a stonger motivation for people entering politics to consider standing for them. Currently there is still a tendency in Scotland to view Westminster as where the power is - this has a strong effect on the quality of candidates choosing to stand as MSPs. However, a strong devolved Scottish Parliament and a specific UK Parliament would allow candidates to stand for the body which involves what they are most interested in - i.e. UK for foreign policy, Scotland for education and health.
The four nations, under this system, would remain strong contributing parts of the UK, although each would have the flexibility to respond to issues in ways that suited them. This would lead to differences in provision and different ideas being tried out - an additional aspect of the UK Parliament would therefore be to provide a means of ensuring that best practice was shared between the national parliaments. As citizens would still belong to the UK, there would be no impact on their international status, and they would continue to share the benefits that being a citizen of the UK provides.
I think that the environment of the UK is changing, and the desire for constitutional progress is going to continue. My ideas sketched out above are just initial thoughts and I am sure that there will be plenty that people will find wrong or disagreeable with them. However, I think that this is a vital time for the Party to debate the issue and provide leadership to the UK. I think that Cameron's intentions will lead is to the break-up of the UK, which would be a disaster for all of the consituent nations, and it is crucial that we can demonstrate that there are alternatives which can be both successful and fair.
I would love to hear what readers feel are the best ways forward.
Devolution has created an environment in which growing sections of the English population feel that they are being treated like second class citizens, subsidising the rest of the UK. Now, these feelings are emotional ones which are not directly based on reality - in particular there seems to be a strange presumption in most English based media sources that everything in Scotland and Wales is paid for by 'English' taxes. I can confirm without a doubt that I and other Scots pay the same taxes!
However, there is a point to some of the resentment where it is felt that Scottish and Welsh MPs have a say over issues that they cannot actually effect in their own part of the UK. (Again, this raises hackles in Scotland and Wales - afterall we suffered from the Thatcher years without ever providing support for her.) This resentment, if unmet, stokes feelings which could inevitably lead to the break-up of the UK.
Of course this is something that suits the SNP, but increasingly it is also suiting the wishes of the Tories, who appear ever more keen to forget their Unionist beliefs. Cameron knows that the Tories would do better in Westminster without those troublesome Welsh and Scottish MPs causing trouble, and so is starting to appear willing to sacrifice the UK for power.
This is where the Labour Party needs to step into the argument and start proposing ways forward which listen to the legitimate concerns of England without throwing out the entire political structure. Devolution has been a success for Scotland and Wales - maybe it is time to examine devolution for England. Westminster must remain a Parliament for the entire UK, in which its Members can vote on every issue - anything else makes a mockery of the institution and brings about a inevitable slide to dissolution. However, the issue of devolving the areas which are devolved for Scotland and Wales should be examined in great detail.
A while ago on here there was a debate with one of my posts about possible ways forward, and we discussed options for keeping the UK Parliament as a way to respond to the issues such as defence and international relations which the four nations must deal with together, but with devolved bodies for each of the consituent nations which could examine specific issues in their national context. I think that this method would still run the risk of fuelling some of the fires of independence, but it would also provide a feeling of genuine interaction for the citizens of the UK.
The UK Parliament could continue to elect Members from each of the Constituent Nations, although reform of the voting system would be crucial to ensuring that the body was felt to be representative. Taxation could be dealt with as it is now, with money being distributed to the four nations to spend on their devolved areas as they saw fit. The UK Parliament would continue to represent the UK on an international stage, with the four national parliaments being able to find in their contributions through their national and UK representatives. With the UK Parliament dealing with issues which directly affected the four nations collectively, there would be no question of whether a Scot could be Prime Minister or Health Secretary.
The increased status of the national parliaments would also help to develop a stonger motivation for people entering politics to consider standing for them. Currently there is still a tendency in Scotland to view Westminster as where the power is - this has a strong effect on the quality of candidates choosing to stand as MSPs. However, a strong devolved Scottish Parliament and a specific UK Parliament would allow candidates to stand for the body which involves what they are most interested in - i.e. UK for foreign policy, Scotland for education and health.
The four nations, under this system, would remain strong contributing parts of the UK, although each would have the flexibility to respond to issues in ways that suited them. This would lead to differences in provision and different ideas being tried out - an additional aspect of the UK Parliament would therefore be to provide a means of ensuring that best practice was shared between the national parliaments. As citizens would still belong to the UK, there would be no impact on their international status, and they would continue to share the benefits that being a citizen of the UK provides.
I think that the environment of the UK is changing, and the desire for constitutional progress is going to continue. My ideas sketched out above are just initial thoughts and I am sure that there will be plenty that people will find wrong or disagreeable with them. However, I think that this is a vital time for the Party to debate the issue and provide leadership to the UK. I think that Cameron's intentions will lead is to the break-up of the UK, which would be a disaster for all of the consituent nations, and it is crucial that we can demonstrate that there are alternatives which can be both successful and fair.
I would love to hear what readers feel are the best ways forward.
The devolution of race equality legislation
Was asked to produce a response to a debate that was held at the SNP Conference on racial equality (it was a fringe event organised by my work amongst others) and so I thought I would stick up my piece to let you see what you think of it.
Would transferring race equality powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament truly aid in the fight against racism and if so, what would we do differently?
Jamie Cooke
(writing in a personal capacity)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no doubting that Scotland can be a different place to the rest of the UK. We proudly still possess our own legal and education systems, and of course a strongly performing football team! The election of a minority SNP Government whose stated desire is to lead Scotland to independence is a historic first for the country, even if public opinion appears to be against their aim, and the Government is promoting claims for greater Scottish freedom in regards to various powers.
In the context of this, it would be logical for the Scottish Government to push for the devolution of race equality powers to the Scottish Parliament. However, I believe that, whilst there is some merit to the idea, there are also dangers contained within which may prove negative in the wider fight for racial equality.
There is a fairly common perception in Scotland that we are more welcoming than our neighbours to the South. Racism is largely seen to be an English phenomenon, and we do not see it as a Scottish issue. The Attitudes to Discrimination research of 2003 found that 68% of respondents feel that Scotland should do all it can to eliminate discrimination in all its forms. Yet 53% felt that there is “a lot of discrimination” against ethnic minority groups, rising to 63% amongst younger respondents. These indicate that Scotland still has work to do.
Part of this work is due to the fact that the ethnic minority community in Scotland is very small, and largely contained in the West of Scotland. It is possible to live in significant parts of Scotland and not come into contact (or certainly very limited contact) with members of other ethnic communities. Racism in Scotland is in some ways a hidden issue, dwarfed by the historic problem of sectarianism. However it is a growing issue, fuelled in part by response to the dispersal of asylum seekers and the arrival of immigrants from Eastern Europe. (In total, police dealt with 1,022 racist incidents in Lothian and the Borders in the 12 months up to 1 April [2007] - double the amount recorded three years ago, a new report shows. The Scotsman 28/06/2007)
In light of this, would a devolved set-up make sense? Surely it would allow the issue to be explored from a Scottish point of view, with Scottish specific responses? For example, Scotland has attempted to pursue different approaches to immigration than the UK Government under both the current administration and their predecessors, even though it is a reserved issue. Furthermore, there is a feeling that Westminster is heavily influenced by the power of ‘Middle England’ whose interests are not often tied to the cause of racial equality.
However, I think that the devolution of the issue would not be constructive. The issues involved in racial equality are those of human rights, which are universal and not country specific. The implication that human rights vary from country to country by its very nature removes the universality of the rights, and can negate their importance. When we are at the stage of striving to implement the UN Declaration of 1951 across the globe, and to tighten up the EU’s frameworks for human rights, trying to set up Scotland specific guidelines or legislation would be counterproductive.
Furthermore, creating a Scotland specific body runs the very real risk of replicating work and creating needless tensions. Rather than creating new publicly funded bodies which compete with each other for headlines and funding, the best route forward is for the Scottish Government to continue to implement UK wide racial equality legislation within Scotland. With the newly established Equality and Human Rights Commission having a specific Scottish section, it is vital that best practice in Scotland is held up through this so that it can influence the rest of the UK.
If Scotland is finding innovative responses to the problems posed by striving for racial equality, then the cause of racial equality will be best served by these response being shared as widely as possible across Great Britain. Devolution of the issue would merely distract from the work that is being undertaken.
Would transferring race equality powers from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament truly aid in the fight against racism and if so, what would we do differently?
Jamie Cooke
(writing in a personal capacity)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no doubting that Scotland can be a different place to the rest of the UK. We proudly still possess our own legal and education systems, and of course a strongly performing football team! The election of a minority SNP Government whose stated desire is to lead Scotland to independence is a historic first for the country, even if public opinion appears to be against their aim, and the Government is promoting claims for greater Scottish freedom in regards to various powers.
In the context of this, it would be logical for the Scottish Government to push for the devolution of race equality powers to the Scottish Parliament. However, I believe that, whilst there is some merit to the idea, there are also dangers contained within which may prove negative in the wider fight for racial equality.
There is a fairly common perception in Scotland that we are more welcoming than our neighbours to the South. Racism is largely seen to be an English phenomenon, and we do not see it as a Scottish issue. The Attitudes to Discrimination research of 2003 found that 68% of respondents feel that Scotland should do all it can to eliminate discrimination in all its forms. Yet 53% felt that there is “a lot of discrimination” against ethnic minority groups, rising to 63% amongst younger respondents. These indicate that Scotland still has work to do.
Part of this work is due to the fact that the ethnic minority community in Scotland is very small, and largely contained in the West of Scotland. It is possible to live in significant parts of Scotland and not come into contact (or certainly very limited contact) with members of other ethnic communities. Racism in Scotland is in some ways a hidden issue, dwarfed by the historic problem of sectarianism. However it is a growing issue, fuelled in part by response to the dispersal of asylum seekers and the arrival of immigrants from Eastern Europe. (In total, police dealt with 1,022 racist incidents in Lothian and the Borders in the 12 months up to 1 April [2007] - double the amount recorded three years ago, a new report shows. The Scotsman 28/06/2007)
In light of this, would a devolved set-up make sense? Surely it would allow the issue to be explored from a Scottish point of view, with Scottish specific responses? For example, Scotland has attempted to pursue different approaches to immigration than the UK Government under both the current administration and their predecessors, even though it is a reserved issue. Furthermore, there is a feeling that Westminster is heavily influenced by the power of ‘Middle England’ whose interests are not often tied to the cause of racial equality.
However, I think that the devolution of the issue would not be constructive. The issues involved in racial equality are those of human rights, which are universal and not country specific. The implication that human rights vary from country to country by its very nature removes the universality of the rights, and can negate their importance. When we are at the stage of striving to implement the UN Declaration of 1951 across the globe, and to tighten up the EU’s frameworks for human rights, trying to set up Scotland specific guidelines or legislation would be counterproductive.
Furthermore, creating a Scotland specific body runs the very real risk of replicating work and creating needless tensions. Rather than creating new publicly funded bodies which compete with each other for headlines and funding, the best route forward is for the Scottish Government to continue to implement UK wide racial equality legislation within Scotland. With the newly established Equality and Human Rights Commission having a specific Scottish section, it is vital that best practice in Scotland is held up through this so that it can influence the rest of the UK.
If Scotland is finding innovative responses to the problems posed by striving for racial equality, then the cause of racial equality will be best served by these response being shared as widely as possible across Great Britain. Devolution of the issue would merely distract from the work that is being undertaken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)