Stunned. Sick. Gutted.
A million and one words to describe how I'm feeling following the result last night. Things had looked positive for a while, especially in the Easterhouse section of the constituency where I was working from, but in the end it wasn't enough. The SNP's mammoth effort (they put out more activists and I presume spent more money than we did) was successful and John Mason, widely described by the commentators as the least impressive of the candidates of the by-election, will be serving the people of Glasgow East at least until the next General Election.
I think the first point that has to be made is that Labour activists put in a fantastic effort. As I mentioned in previous blogs, I have been blown away by the commitment and dedication that I have been lucky enough to witness. Activists have come in from across the country and belied the supposed death of our Party. Sadly, it wasn't enough but that doesn't detract from the great work which was done. We need to try and sustain this energy into other constituencies - there are no more safe seats for us.
So why did we lose? Ultimately, it seems that the more affluent areas of the constituency such as Mount Vernon turned out in good numbers and voted SNP, whilst the areas where we had support didn't turn out so well. The drop in our support was not enough to allow the SNp to win (I think) so the impact of tactical voting helped deliver it for them as well. The Lib Dems experienced a big squeeze - I would guess their protest votes they've picked up before transferred to the Nats. I had expected more Tories to vote tactically, but in the end they only lost 1% of the vote share. I think that because they ran a high profile campaign their support, limited in number though it may be, continued to vote for them allowing them a successful third place, exactly what Cameron was looking for.
All in all, exactly the results we did not want.
We are hearing a lot about the reasons behind the loss, with the London commentariat in particular billing it as a referendum on Gordon Brown - indeed Cameron is now calling for an election on the basis of the the 3 by-elections. However, I don't think that this is necessarily true, and reflects the London bias which clouds the judgement of most commentators who find it hard to accept that the rest of the country might be different. People are disappointed with the Government, and indeed the Party (which is the more important bit), but I don't think they viewed this election as a way to get rid of Gordon. Rather, it is a reflection and reminder, and god forbid we needed one, that the SNP are viewed as a serious party who people will entrust to represent them.
For this wasn't a reflection on support for independence - in fact, the SNP's success has been rooted in convincing people that you can vote for them and oppose independence. They have done nothing of real note in their first year of government in Scotland, but because of this they have done nothing to really annoy people, certainly in Glasgow. Becuase the city still has a very efficient Labour majority council, we have not been hit by the SNP-inspired cuts to services which have savaged other parts of the country - the actions of our council have shielded people, a fantastic reflection on Stephen Purcell's team. The SNP talk centre-left even whilst delivering centre-right - unfortunately many people take the information at face value, so if the SNP bill themselves as more Labour than Labour, then they must be.
Central to the SNP's ongoing success is Alex Salmond. Now personally I believe that he is one of the most arrogant, smug creatures to have ever crawled out from under a rock, but the truth is that in Scotland he appears head and shoulders above the rest of our politicians - this includes the entireity of his own party as well. Eventually his arrogance will be his undoing (believe me, that smug smirk that plasters his face will be less appealing when the Nats are under pressure) but in the meantime he is master of all he surveys. Mason was kept out of the spotlight as much as possible, and when he was seen it was invariably with Salmond holding his leash - if you like, he is the Bojo of the SNP. His brief forays into the media beam were spectacular in their incompetence - either in making comments which contradicted the SNP line and demonstrated his hardline fanaticism, or in his inept TV displays in the debates prior to the election. But it didn't matter. His own personal support as a councillor (he received the highest number of first preference votes in the whole of Glasgow) coupled with Salmond's efforts ensured his success.
Margaret Curran was an excellent Labour candidate, and indeed probably brought the result far closer than anyone else would have done. She made a big sacrifice to run for this election - I think she would have become the leader of the Labour group at Holyrood, and indeed we are poorer as a Party if we do not, as would seem likely, have her as our leader in Scotland. She worked hard and is very popular with constituents - in the end, the Party's current travails were just too much to overcome. She will continue to be a wonderful representative for her constituents in Holyrood.
So where now? Well, we have the joys of a council by-election in Ballieston to now look forward to. On a national level, we are definitely in a serious hole just now. Nothing is going our way, and I think we have to hope for a very quiet summer to give ourselves some time to recuperate. We have lost the trust and connection we had with much of the electorate, and need to address this. We talk about listening, but it has to be more than that - it has to be action, but action for a purpose rather than as a kneejerk reaction to media headlines. We have to remember that the SNP have had spectacular by-election results in Glasgow before, and in both cases lost Govan back to us in the subsequent General Election. People were protesting, and choose the best placed party to do so - just as they did with the Tories in Crewe and Nantwich.
We have to recognise that the SNP are the dominant party in Scotland just now. We have been portrayed as being complacent about our support in Glasgow and the West of Scotland, and rightly or wrongly, this has stuck in the public's imagination. The SNP have nothing of substance to offer, but they can play on grievance to great success - afterall, the politics of grievance is their very reason for existance.
We need to take the fight to them. They have dominated the political discourse since the election in 2007, aided by our own turmoil. Essentially we have made it easy for them. We need to listen, but we need to demonstrate that we are dedicated and energised as a Party now as we were in 1997. I witnessed the dynamism of our Party in action over the past couple of weeks, and we now need to harness this.
Stephen Purcell talked on Newsnight last night about the need to refind the dynamism which we possessed in 97 - I like to think he stole the idea from my radical centre blog! =) For me, it is the crucial drive for us. We look tired and stale, devoid of ideas or direction. This isn't a true reflection of our Party - look at the vibrant discourse on here - but it is what the public is told through the media.
I talked about this by-election being a chance to draw a line in the sand. We've lost, and we have been pushed back past that line, with defeat in the next General Election certainly in the likely column. But we can't give up and concede it to the Tories. A Conservative Government in Westminster alongside a SNP Government in Holyrood will signal the end of the Union and a disaster for the people of the UK. We have a responsibility to put up one heck of a fight, to argue our case and defend the people we represent. Despite Cameron's political games with the UUP, we are the party of the Union, and the only party who genuinely try to represent all of the citizens of the UK, rather than just a selct few.
I've been fired up by this election, and I refuse to let the SNP's victory drag me down. If it's a fight they want, then its a fight they will blooming well get. And with hard work, we'll see a Labour MP returned for Glasgow East at the next General Election and a Labour Government continuing to work for the good of the UK.
As the old phrase says, it's always darkest just before dawn - lets make sure that sunrise starts now.
Showing posts with label Scottish Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scottish Politics. Show all posts
Friday, July 25, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Telling the Story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7255488.stm
Intersting article on the BBC site about the role of storytelling in politics. It examines the impact of the "Man from Hope" story that Bill Clinton gave to the US, and which turned his polls around and led to him becoming President. Tony Blair was obviously a successful proponent of the art too. For Gordon Brown, however, it is not something that comes so easily.
Is it a skill that he needs to learn?
I think that the problem can be that policy and detail, whilst vital to the success of programmes the Government implements, is too dry and disconnected for most people in the UK. Most voters don't have the time to pore through intricate detail of policy - rather they are looking for the narrative of why the Government or party campaigning for their votes is planning to implement ideas and what their vision is for the country. People want vision and inspiration - I think they then trust the parties to get on with the indepth details of how things actually work.
Gordon Brown is successful at the intricacies, but the narrative is not yet working. And we'll be in trouble if it doesn't. I think we partly lost the election in Scotland last year due to a lack of inspiring narrative. The Lib/Lab coalition Executive had been functioning very successfully and had lots of concrete, sensible ideas for the next term. The SNP, however, were light on realistic policies (as demonstrated by how quickly they've dropped a lot of them) but provided an exciting narrative - freedom and a bright new paradise of an indepedent Scotland. Now, I'm not suggesting that we sink to their level of putting across narratives based on myths and fallacies, but we do need to look at our vision and our inspiration.
Look at the US. The presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, is looking on the verge of being knocked out of the race by a freshman Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. He is light on specific policy (try reading his most recent book - lots of lovely rhetoric, not exactly much in the way of practical ideas) but he is exciting and inspiring. His narrative of 'Change' is inspiring voters, who trust that his energy and vision will be underlined by bringing in experts around him who can flesh out the ideas.
Gordon Brown is a man of great moral vision and commitment, and there is no doubt that he has a vision to make Britain a better, fairer society. He has touched on aspects of it during his time, but the travails of the recent months have forced him to become bogged down in the specifics of detail and policy. As a Party and a Government we need to overcome this and redefine our vision. We need to be strongly spreading it, demonstrating why we should remain in Government in Westminster, and return to Government in Holyrood.
A strong vision will show the paltry efforts of the other parties for the shams that they are. But if we do not share this vision, then we will suffer and Britain will take a different direction in the future from the society that we would like to see.
Intersting article on the BBC site about the role of storytelling in politics. It examines the impact of the "Man from Hope" story that Bill Clinton gave to the US, and which turned his polls around and led to him becoming President. Tony Blair was obviously a successful proponent of the art too. For Gordon Brown, however, it is not something that comes so easily.
Is it a skill that he needs to learn?
I think that the problem can be that policy and detail, whilst vital to the success of programmes the Government implements, is too dry and disconnected for most people in the UK. Most voters don't have the time to pore through intricate detail of policy - rather they are looking for the narrative of why the Government or party campaigning for their votes is planning to implement ideas and what their vision is for the country. People want vision and inspiration - I think they then trust the parties to get on with the indepth details of how things actually work.
Gordon Brown is successful at the intricacies, but the narrative is not yet working. And we'll be in trouble if it doesn't. I think we partly lost the election in Scotland last year due to a lack of inspiring narrative. The Lib/Lab coalition Executive had been functioning very successfully and had lots of concrete, sensible ideas for the next term. The SNP, however, were light on realistic policies (as demonstrated by how quickly they've dropped a lot of them) but provided an exciting narrative - freedom and a bright new paradise of an indepedent Scotland. Now, I'm not suggesting that we sink to their level of putting across narratives based on myths and fallacies, but we do need to look at our vision and our inspiration.
Look at the US. The presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, is looking on the verge of being knocked out of the race by a freshman Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. He is light on specific policy (try reading his most recent book - lots of lovely rhetoric, not exactly much in the way of practical ideas) but he is exciting and inspiring. His narrative of 'Change' is inspiring voters, who trust that his energy and vision will be underlined by bringing in experts around him who can flesh out the ideas.
Gordon Brown is a man of great moral vision and commitment, and there is no doubt that he has a vision to make Britain a better, fairer society. He has touched on aspects of it during his time, but the travails of the recent months have forced him to become bogged down in the specifics of detail and policy. As a Party and a Government we need to overcome this and redefine our vision. We need to be strongly spreading it, demonstrating why we should remain in Government in Westminster, and return to Government in Holyrood.
A strong vision will show the paltry efforts of the other parties for the shams that they are. But if we do not share this vision, then we will suffer and Britain will take a different direction in the future from the society that we would like to see.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The SNP Approach
If you are ever curious as to how the SNP Government in Scotland prefers to do its business, then the recent SportScotland debate is a good insight.
In case you are not familiar with the story, the SNP pledged in their manifesto to have a 'bonfire of the quangos' with SportScotland one of the key targets. However, when the SNP started investigating the issue, they found that SportScotland is widely respected and considered a key part of the development of Scotland's sport and the successful Commonwealth Games bid. In the face of this expert opinion, the SNP backed down, performed a U-Turn and saved the agency.
Now, this was an ideal opportunity for the SNP. Afterall, the Scottish public is quickly becoming used to the fact that SNP promises are, shall we say, flexible. Therefore the U-Turn was hardly going to be a disaster. Rather they could use it to demostrate that they listened to the right people, and were humble enough to admit that there was a better way forward.
Of course, this is nothing like what happened. Instead of the balanced approach, the SNP went after some of the very experts in a pathetic revenge bid. Following the merger of SportScotland and the Scottish Institute of Sport, both the Chairs have been sacked. Dougie Donnelly (Sports presenter and Chair, sorry former Chair of SportScotland) and Julia Bracewell (a former fencer and his counterpart at the Institute) are both well respected. However they made the cardinal mistake of criticising the Government.
And unfortunately for them, Our Beloved Leader Alex Salmond does not take criticism lightly. Or at all. So in a move that is blatantly obvious to everyone in Scotland, he has thrown his rattle out of the pram and dealt a blow to Scottish sport.
Sadly, I think we will only see more of this. The first year of the SNP Government has been fine for them - short term populist policies, a disorganised opposition and the welcome realisation that actually they wouldn't automatically destroy the country. However, the pressure is going to start improving now as the public start to realise that when the SNP make a promise it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Salmond is the most impressive figure in Scottish politics just now, but he can't cope with anyone disagreeing with his divine mandate - indeed, that smug smirk that we have all missed is making an irritating comeback. But more importantly for the SNP, their talent pool is rather shallow. Stewart Maxwell, the Sports Minister humiliated in this fiasco, is picking up favourite status as to who will be the first Minister to be sacked/resign, Kenny MacAskill is obsessed with picking fights rather than doing his job and the back benches of the SNP posse in the Parliament are quite frankly terrifying.
The opportunity is there for Labour to start working hard and pulling apart the stitches of the SNP group. The discipline that the SNP have exerted thus far has been surprisingly efficient (although checking out their online contributions demonstrates some of the worrying group-think that is becoming prevalent) but the cracks are already there to see. It is our job to open them up.
Salmond has had a good first year, but now the real work starts. Welcome to Government Eck, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
In case you are not familiar with the story, the SNP pledged in their manifesto to have a 'bonfire of the quangos' with SportScotland one of the key targets. However, when the SNP started investigating the issue, they found that SportScotland is widely respected and considered a key part of the development of Scotland's sport and the successful Commonwealth Games bid. In the face of this expert opinion, the SNP backed down, performed a U-Turn and saved the agency.
Now, this was an ideal opportunity for the SNP. Afterall, the Scottish public is quickly becoming used to the fact that SNP promises are, shall we say, flexible. Therefore the U-Turn was hardly going to be a disaster. Rather they could use it to demostrate that they listened to the right people, and were humble enough to admit that there was a better way forward.
Of course, this is nothing like what happened. Instead of the balanced approach, the SNP went after some of the very experts in a pathetic revenge bid. Following the merger of SportScotland and the Scottish Institute of Sport, both the Chairs have been sacked. Dougie Donnelly (Sports presenter and Chair, sorry former Chair of SportScotland) and Julia Bracewell (a former fencer and his counterpart at the Institute) are both well respected. However they made the cardinal mistake of criticising the Government.
And unfortunately for them, Our Beloved Leader Alex Salmond does not take criticism lightly. Or at all. So in a move that is blatantly obvious to everyone in Scotland, he has thrown his rattle out of the pram and dealt a blow to Scottish sport.
Sadly, I think we will only see more of this. The first year of the SNP Government has been fine for them - short term populist policies, a disorganised opposition and the welcome realisation that actually they wouldn't automatically destroy the country. However, the pressure is going to start improving now as the public start to realise that when the SNP make a promise it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Salmond is the most impressive figure in Scottish politics just now, but he can't cope with anyone disagreeing with his divine mandate - indeed, that smug smirk that we have all missed is making an irritating comeback. But more importantly for the SNP, their talent pool is rather shallow. Stewart Maxwell, the Sports Minister humiliated in this fiasco, is picking up favourite status as to who will be the first Minister to be sacked/resign, Kenny MacAskill is obsessed with picking fights rather than doing his job and the back benches of the SNP posse in the Parliament are quite frankly terrifying.
The opportunity is there for Labour to start working hard and pulling apart the stitches of the SNP group. The discipline that the SNP have exerted thus far has been surprisingly efficient (although checking out their online contributions demonstrates some of the worrying group-think that is becoming prevalent) but the cracks are already there to see. It is our job to open them up.
Salmond has had a good first year, but now the real work starts. Welcome to Government Eck, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Bobbies on the beat cut crime - well duh!
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Bobbies-on-the-beat-DO.3667986.jp
I know, it seems a very self obvious title for this, but the fact is that the Scotman's report today appears to be a surprise to some.
Law and order is a topic that is causing the public distress - admittedly it is often non based on anything approaching reality and is then exaggerated by the media, but it is still a concern. The evidence with the increase in patrolling police officers in Glasgow and Edinburgh is very strong that this helps to reduce crime.
There needs to be an increase in the visibility of the police and in their connection to the community. Too often they are seen today as being detatched from the society and communities that they serve, instead being observed as merely enforcers of the state's laws - or even more relevantly, to not be seen to be enforcing anything at all. Increasing police presence in a positive consistent manner would strengthen bonds, as opposed to the regular absence, followed by a deluge in reaction to particular incidents.
Proaction rather than reaction - that is a key strand of progressive thought. With the SNP having mucked up the policing issue in Scotland, this is a key chance for Labour to regain the iniative. The false guarantee of numbers sounds good to the electorate but doesn't help the country. What we need is a commitment to changing the approach of policing, using the police's own professionalism to guide changes so that they are introduced with their support and advice rather than contrary to it. This would allow us to create a strong image in Scotland.
Of course, we'll struggle with it in the rest of the UK if we don't backdate the pay officers! But a combination of backdating and dialogue would demonstrate to the Force that it is vital and help to restore its place as a key aspect of society.
I know, it seems a very self obvious title for this, but the fact is that the Scotman's report today appears to be a surprise to some.
Law and order is a topic that is causing the public distress - admittedly it is often non based on anything approaching reality and is then exaggerated by the media, but it is still a concern. The evidence with the increase in patrolling police officers in Glasgow and Edinburgh is very strong that this helps to reduce crime.
There needs to be an increase in the visibility of the police and in their connection to the community. Too often they are seen today as being detatched from the society and communities that they serve, instead being observed as merely enforcers of the state's laws - or even more relevantly, to not be seen to be enforcing anything at all. Increasing police presence in a positive consistent manner would strengthen bonds, as opposed to the regular absence, followed by a deluge in reaction to particular incidents.
Proaction rather than reaction - that is a key strand of progressive thought. With the SNP having mucked up the policing issue in Scotland, this is a key chance for Labour to regain the iniative. The false guarantee of numbers sounds good to the electorate but doesn't help the country. What we need is a commitment to changing the approach of policing, using the police's own professionalism to guide changes so that they are introduced with their support and advice rather than contrary to it. This would allow us to create a strong image in Scotland.
Of course, we'll struggle with it in the rest of the UK if we don't backdate the pay officers! But a combination of backdating and dialogue would demonstrate to the Force that it is vital and help to restore its place as a key aspect of society.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)