Apart from the 'minor event' [irony alert] across the Atlantic today, with the inauguration of a new President (the 45th, President Trump) in the United States of America, there have been some major developments here too, in relation to the United Kingdom (UK) and its forthcoming exit from the European Union (EU), in the past few months. In October 2016 the Prime Minister Mrs May announced that she would 'trigger' Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty no later than 31st March 2017 - you can read more about this here. Much more recently, on 17th January 2017 she delivered a major speech in which she set out 12 key areas in her plans for implementing our departure, one of which specially pleases me, that we will no longer be a part of the 'Single Market' (aka the 'protectionist cartel' of the EU) - you can read more about this here and here.
The 12 key areas referred to above include:
- 1. Certainty;
- 2. Control of our own laws;
- 3. Strengthen the union (referring to the four nations which together comprise the UK);
- 4. Maintain the Common Travel Area with Ireland;
- 5. Control of immigration;
- 6. Rights for EU nationals in Britain, and British nationals in the EU;
- 7. Protect workers' rights;
- 8. Free trade with European markets;
- 9. New trade agreements with other countries;
- 10. The best place for science and innovation;
- 11. Co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism;
- 12. A smooth, orderly Brexit.).
Naturally there has been considerable reaction to her speeches, not only within the UK itself (and of course from our 'illustrious' [another irony alert] First Minister in Scotland), but perhaps more relevantly from some leading figures within the EU itself; I don't plan to detail that here, except to observe that most of the 'spluttering' responses from EU functionaries and leaders from other countries has been uniformly negative and frankly intransigent. Perhaps not entirely unexpected, but given the shambles which the EU has got itself into, with its badly thought out policies, is still somewhat remarkable, when subjected to critical analysis. Specially of course the Eurozone of the 'single currency', the Euro, but the general protectionist reality of what is purported to be a 'free market' (aka the 'single market'), but of course is nothing of the kind - it is basically a protectionist cartel, specially in anything relating to food, for the benefit of a few members, but certainly not of the UK.
The high unemployment levels, in particular amongst younger citizens, in certain member-states of the EU, mainly amongst southern countries, appears not to concern the Brussels bureaucracy or the leaders of the few Eurozone member countries which benefit directly from the monetary union represented by the Euro. I find this particularly reprehensible. This is indeed probably the major reason that changed me from being a fervent Europhile to someone convinced we as a country had to get oursleves out of this bizarre mess, which is anything but 'democratic'.
Showing posts with label SNP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SNP. Show all posts
Friday, 20 January 2017
Saturday, 3 September 2016
Further thoughts on the EU, "Brexit" and related matters
As we are now at the beginning of September, and the end of the main summer holiday period when many politicians, civil servants and citizens generally will have been on holiday, it is I think now appropriate to write the kind of article I am now writing. As has often been the case in earlier years the month of August has, apart from being an hiatus in 'business as usual' for politics, also been a time when eccentric stories become newsworthy for broadcasters searching for things to write about during the dog days of summer.
For most, probably all, of my adult life I have been strongly supportive of the EEC (later the EU) and of the UK joining it and remaining a part of it. Personal circumstances meant I was not able to vote in the 1975 referendum, two years after the UK joined the EEC, to decide whether the country should remain or leave - I lived then in a place called Djibouti (wedged between Ethiopia/Eritrea and Somalia) in the north-east of Africa, and at that time people living outside the UK could not vote in UK elections, except in very special circumstances. But had I been in a position to vote, I would certainly have voted to remain in the EEC.
Broadly speaking, with perhaps just a few qualms, I supported most of what was done later, where it affected the UK. The Schengen Treaty (from 1985 to 1995 until 1997 when it was incorporated into EU law by the Amsterdam Treaty), did not and does not affect the UK, or as it so happens Ireland (that last bit is really irrelevant to me, of course, because even though it might otherwise affect Northern Ireland, there has been a common travel area between the UK and Ireland for a long time, unaffected by the independence of Ireland from the UK). The fact that the UK is an island nation meant, in my view, that it was practical, if not in the view of some I suppose entirely desirable, not to adopt Schengen. I doubt if it would have been easily do-able if we had land borders other than with Ireland. It is probably no accident either that our decision to remain outside Schengen coincided with plans to build the Channel Tunnel link between the UK and France (constructed between 1988 and 1994) - the value of that decision has perhaps only become more sharply defined by the events of very recent years.
The Single European Act, whose main purpose was to enhance 'free trade', ultimately came into force in 1987, having been delayed in its implementation by actions in Denmark, Greece, Italy and Ireland. Interestingly, it is probably the only piece of EU legislation largely championed from inception to conclusion by the UK. Because the UK has, for decades and indeed centuries, been all about 'free trade'. It did extend QMV ('Qualified Majority Voting') though, as part of the price paid [by the UK] for certain other countries (basically France and a few others) to allow this legislation to pass. The subsequent Treates (Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice), whilst ratcheting the EU's control a little tighter with each step, seemed to me 'acceptable' in the greater scheme of things.
What really began to make me rethink my view of the fundamental wisdom of the UK being a member of the EU were the referendums on the now-defunct European Constitution held in 2005 in both the Netherlands and France, in which both rejected its proposals (others had already had referendums to ratify it), which effectively halted that particular process, and specifically what followed a few years later; the UK government had earlier promised a referendum, but the rejections by others made that pointless. Having read the draft European Constitution in great detail myself, in anticipation of a referendum being held in the UK, I too would have voted against it had I had the opportunity.
What followed a few years later was the Lisbon Treaty, effectively the European Constitution rewritten, pushed through in spite of being initially rejected in a referendum in Ireland in 2007, later shoved through in that country in 2009 in the face of the economic crisis facing that country after the 'crash' of 2007/2008; but let's face it, no one really cares what Ireland thinks (certainly not most of the other members of the EU, other than the UK), so they were 'prevailed upon' to allow it to pass. The reality is that the UK independently bailed out Ireland during this crucial period, not because of any undue sentimentality (that is not the British way), but simply in a recognition of the historic intertwining links between the British and much smaller Irish economies, although perhaps influenced also by the social and familial links between the two countries. The harsh reality, though, is that without UK support, Ireland would have been 'sunk', as otherwise Ireland would have been consigned to the same 'hell'/purgatory currently occupied by Greece. As for the semi-clandestine ratification by the UK of that Treaty by our then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, I would prefer to remain silent; the level of contempt I have for that man is infinite and only a modicum of concern about the libel laws of this country will restrain me from writing what I really think about that excuse for a man; as I am also Scottish (and 1/4 quarter Irish as it so happens, with reference to earlier comments) I don't think accusations of 'racism' apply, although I am quite happy to acknowledge that it is my firm belief that the "socialism" that Gordon Brown and those who think like him profess to believe in, is one of the greatest evils that existed when I was born and unfortunately continues, luckily in much reduced form, to this day, I have grown weary of glossing over this basic reality in recent years, so this is the first time, apart from brief allusions to it in Twitter from time to time, that I have really 'let rip' on this issue. Unfortunately there is not a great deal to choose between the destructive effects of the "socialism" offered by Labour ('new', and the 'old' back-to-the-future kind which current leader Corbyn represents) and that offered by the SNP.
On Friday 2nd September our sad excuse for a First Minister in Scotland, Ms Nicola Sturgeon, gave up on her 'day job' of actually running Scotland in accordance with the Scotland Act (as amended), in favour of a pointless resurrection of the obsessive and obsessed SNP policy of wanting to rip Scotland out of the UK, despite very recent opinion polls demonstrating that the people of Scotland, apart from adherents of the 'SNP cult' which Ms Sturgeon leads, have little or no desire for this to happen, and far less desire for the holding of another referendum to try and change the result of the referendum held on the matter as recently as September 2014.
Despite the febrile predictions of those who campaigned vociferously for the UK to remain a member of the EU, the economy continues to be robust and the exchange rate of our currency, the Pound, although somewhat lower than before the EU Referendum (but arguably now at a more sensible level to meet both the needs of exporters and holidaymakers requiring to purchase a foregin currency to help fund their annual vacation abroad), has certainly never been in danger of 'collapse' and indeed in recent weeks has been strengthening somewhat from its low point after the EU Referendum - fine, so long as it does not become too strong and begin to adversely affect exports. As with everything else in life, the level at which the exchange rate hovers is a balance of complex and sometimes conflicting interests.
Now that summer is almost over, and more or less normal business has resumed, one imagines (and hopes) that the government will begin seriously to put in place the process of the UK leaving the EU. I am not one of those people that wants precipitate action, but I do want to see some concrete moves in this direction fairly soon, to give voice to the results of the referendum in June. The attempt in the past few days at a tax grab by the European Commission (EC), against the wishes of EU member state Ireland for whose benefit the EC purports to be acting, is just the latest example of the malign anti-competitive instincts of some EU member states and the bureaucrats of the EC and only reinforces the need for us in the UK to get out of the economic and political dead-end that the EU represents.
For most, probably all, of my adult life I have been strongly supportive of the EEC (later the EU) and of the UK joining it and remaining a part of it. Personal circumstances meant I was not able to vote in the 1975 referendum, two years after the UK joined the EEC, to decide whether the country should remain or leave - I lived then in a place called Djibouti (wedged between Ethiopia/Eritrea and Somalia) in the north-east of Africa, and at that time people living outside the UK could not vote in UK elections, except in very special circumstances. But had I been in a position to vote, I would certainly have voted to remain in the EEC.
Broadly speaking, with perhaps just a few qualms, I supported most of what was done later, where it affected the UK. The Schengen Treaty (from 1985 to 1995 until 1997 when it was incorporated into EU law by the Amsterdam Treaty), did not and does not affect the UK, or as it so happens Ireland (that last bit is really irrelevant to me, of course, because even though it might otherwise affect Northern Ireland, there has been a common travel area between the UK and Ireland for a long time, unaffected by the independence of Ireland from the UK). The fact that the UK is an island nation meant, in my view, that it was practical, if not in the view of some I suppose entirely desirable, not to adopt Schengen. I doubt if it would have been easily do-able if we had land borders other than with Ireland. It is probably no accident either that our decision to remain outside Schengen coincided with plans to build the Channel Tunnel link between the UK and France (constructed between 1988 and 1994) - the value of that decision has perhaps only become more sharply defined by the events of very recent years.
The Single European Act, whose main purpose was to enhance 'free trade', ultimately came into force in 1987, having been delayed in its implementation by actions in Denmark, Greece, Italy and Ireland. Interestingly, it is probably the only piece of EU legislation largely championed from inception to conclusion by the UK. Because the UK has, for decades and indeed centuries, been all about 'free trade'. It did extend QMV ('Qualified Majority Voting') though, as part of the price paid [by the UK] for certain other countries (basically France and a few others) to allow this legislation to pass. The subsequent Treates (Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice), whilst ratcheting the EU's control a little tighter with each step, seemed to me 'acceptable' in the greater scheme of things.
What really began to make me rethink my view of the fundamental wisdom of the UK being a member of the EU were the referendums on the now-defunct European Constitution held in 2005 in both the Netherlands and France, in which both rejected its proposals (others had already had referendums to ratify it), which effectively halted that particular process, and specifically what followed a few years later; the UK government had earlier promised a referendum, but the rejections by others made that pointless. Having read the draft European Constitution in great detail myself, in anticipation of a referendum being held in the UK, I too would have voted against it had I had the opportunity.
What followed a few years later was the Lisbon Treaty, effectively the European Constitution rewritten, pushed through in spite of being initially rejected in a referendum in Ireland in 2007, later shoved through in that country in 2009 in the face of the economic crisis facing that country after the 'crash' of 2007/2008; but let's face it, no one really cares what Ireland thinks (certainly not most of the other members of the EU, other than the UK), so they were 'prevailed upon' to allow it to pass. The reality is that the UK independently bailed out Ireland during this crucial period, not because of any undue sentimentality (that is not the British way), but simply in a recognition of the historic intertwining links between the British and much smaller Irish economies, although perhaps influenced also by the social and familial links between the two countries. The harsh reality, though, is that without UK support, Ireland would have been 'sunk', as otherwise Ireland would have been consigned to the same 'hell'/purgatory currently occupied by Greece. As for the semi-clandestine ratification by the UK of that Treaty by our then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, I would prefer to remain silent; the level of contempt I have for that man is infinite and only a modicum of concern about the libel laws of this country will restrain me from writing what I really think about that excuse for a man; as I am also Scottish (and 1/4 quarter Irish as it so happens, with reference to earlier comments) I don't think accusations of 'racism' apply, although I am quite happy to acknowledge that it is my firm belief that the "socialism" that Gordon Brown and those who think like him profess to believe in, is one of the greatest evils that existed when I was born and unfortunately continues, luckily in much reduced form, to this day, I have grown weary of glossing over this basic reality in recent years, so this is the first time, apart from brief allusions to it in Twitter from time to time, that I have really 'let rip' on this issue. Unfortunately there is not a great deal to choose between the destructive effects of the "socialism" offered by Labour ('new', and the 'old' back-to-the-future kind which current leader Corbyn represents) and that offered by the SNP.
On Friday 2nd September our sad excuse for a First Minister in Scotland, Ms Nicola Sturgeon, gave up on her 'day job' of actually running Scotland in accordance with the Scotland Act (as amended), in favour of a pointless resurrection of the obsessive and obsessed SNP policy of wanting to rip Scotland out of the UK, despite very recent opinion polls demonstrating that the people of Scotland, apart from adherents of the 'SNP cult' which Ms Sturgeon leads, have little or no desire for this to happen, and far less desire for the holding of another referendum to try and change the result of the referendum held on the matter as recently as September 2014.
Despite the febrile predictions of those who campaigned vociferously for the UK to remain a member of the EU, the economy continues to be robust and the exchange rate of our currency, the Pound, although somewhat lower than before the EU Referendum (but arguably now at a more sensible level to meet both the needs of exporters and holidaymakers requiring to purchase a foregin currency to help fund their annual vacation abroad), has certainly never been in danger of 'collapse' and indeed in recent weeks has been strengthening somewhat from its low point after the EU Referendum - fine, so long as it does not become too strong and begin to adversely affect exports. As with everything else in life, the level at which the exchange rate hovers is a balance of complex and sometimes conflicting interests.
Now that summer is almost over, and more or less normal business has resumed, one imagines (and hopes) that the government will begin seriously to put in place the process of the UK leaving the EU. I am not one of those people that wants precipitate action, but I do want to see some concrete moves in this direction fairly soon, to give voice to the results of the referendum in June. The attempt in the past few days at a tax grab by the European Commission (EC), against the wishes of EU member state Ireland for whose benefit the EC purports to be acting, is just the latest example of the malign anti-competitive instincts of some EU member states and the bureaucrats of the EC and only reinforces the need for us in the UK to get out of the economic and political dead-end that the EU represents.
Monday, 23 March 2015
In Scotland? Vote tactically in May 2015 General Election - Keep SNP Out!
As I indicated in an article here posted during February 2015 (link here), I indicated that it is my intention to vote "tactically" at the forthcoming general election in May 2015 and that in the context of my own constituency this means I shall in all probability vote for the Liberal Democrat candidate, based on my own assessment of the political dynamics of this area, with the aim of trying to ensure that the SNP does not win here.
Recently I have 'liked' a Facebook group called Scotland's Big Voice ("SBV" for short), which like me has the aim of thwarting the disaster that too many (or any) SNP MPs at Westminster would represent, plus the aim of removing the SNP as Scotland's government at next year's Scottish Parliament election and obviously I would be happy to see that happen too. There's an interesting analysis of the SBV here in the politics.co.uk website.
For the General Election in May 2015, SBV have drawn up a 'wheel' of all Scottish constituencies with suggestions of how people should vote tactically to minimise the number of SNP MPs elected and I am happy to say their assessment of my constituency (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey) tallies with my own. Below is the full chart:
Recently I have 'liked' a Facebook group called Scotland's Big Voice ("SBV" for short), which like me has the aim of thwarting the disaster that too many (or any) SNP MPs at Westminster would represent, plus the aim of removing the SNP as Scotland's government at next year's Scottish Parliament election and obviously I would be happy to see that happen too. There's an interesting analysis of the SBV here in the politics.co.uk website.
For the General Election in May 2015, SBV have drawn up a 'wheel' of all Scottish constituencies with suggestions of how people should vote tactically to minimise the number of SNP MPs elected and I am happy to say their assessment of my constituency (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey) tallies with my own. Below is the full chart:
Wednesday, 11 February 2015
Who ya gonna vote for? (GE May 2015)
For some months the pace has gradually been accelerating with the pieces being moved on the political chess board and for the next now slightly less than three months we are all likely to be bombarded with claim and counter-claim by the different parties for our votes.
Whilst our 'first past the post' (FPTP) electoral system for UK general elections does usually provide a clear result, the last time in 2010 it did not and the polling information recently seems to indicate that it may provide a similarly inconclusive result this time too. A bid by coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, to have a form of proportional representation ('Alternative Vote') put into law was decisively rejected in a referendum held during 2011. Personally I am very pleased that it was rejected, because I think the introduction of an Alternative Vote for general elections would have institutionalised coalitions, which I think would have been retrograde for our politics - I prefer to see the governing party, whichever it is, given a reasonably free hand to pursue its policies so that the results, good or bad, and who was responsible for them, can be more clearly seen and attributed.
In my particular constituency (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey) our current MP is a Liberal Democrat, the quite prominent cabinet minister in the coalition government, Danny Alexander MP. Anyone who has been reading my blog over the years will know that I am definitely not a Liberal Democrat, nor am I a supporter of this political party, but I am happy to acknowledge that the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition has been a moderate success and that Danny Alexander MP has played a fairly prominent role in this success, being No.2 in the Treasury and generally supportive of government policy. More recently he, and other Liberal Democrat MPs, have been keen to differentiate themselves from their Conservative colleagues and I think this is perfectly understandable ahead of the 2015 general election. I am, at the very least, grateful that we have had at least a partially-Conservative government these past almost five years, so that more rational policies have been implemented when compared with the many idiocies and plain incompetence of the previous awful Labour government. However, it is possible that a heavy electoral price may be exacted of the Liberal Democrats, according to the opinion polls, for their participation in the coalition government. I think this is grossly unfair, because at least they have helped save us from the disaster of another Labour government, something I am very happy about.
Nominations for the May 2015 general election have of course not yet closed, but so far (as at the time of writing) the 3 major UK national parties, Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats, plus the SNP and and the Green Party have chosen their candidates, but there may well be more candidates declared before nominations close. You can see the currently-known candidates in the YourNextMP website here:
- Alexander, Danny (Liberal Democrats);
- Hendry, Drew (Scottish National Party [SNP]);
- Mountain, Edward (Conservative Party);
- O'Reilly, Isla Macleod (Scottish Green Party);
- Robb, Mike (Labour Party).
Normally my voting decision would be pretty straightforward, I would vote for Edward Mountain for the Conservatives or perhaps abstain; basically I am a Conservative, but am no longer a member as a result of earlier anti-gay policies during the leadership of William Hague MP and his successor Iain Duncan Smith MP and, to a lesser extent during the leadership of the Scottish Conservatives of the late David McLetchie. However, although I have not rejoined the Conservatives as a member, their earlier anti-gay policies have been abandoned and replaced by an altogether more positive range of policies and actions, even if some of their MPs and MSPs remain as anti-gay as ever they were; within Scotland (the area that obviously concerns me most directly) there are a number of similarly and notoriously anti-gay SNP MSPs, a fact that the SNP doesn't really like to talk about and whenever the topic has been raised by me in the past I have been howled down by irate SNP supporters (aka 'dupes' and/or 'shameless apologists)'. Their are fewer similar Labour and no or almost no Liberal Democrats, to the best of my knowledge. Of course, there are other issues beyond 'gay rights', I readily accept, but this is a matter of such fundamental importance for basic human rights that I make no apology for awarding it a certain prominence - tough if anyone reading this takes issue!
Beyond that of course, I am for free enterprise and against any form of 'socialism' or 'collectivism' because 'socialism' and similar philosophies have produced such abysmal results wherever in the world they have been tried, it really is the archetypal 'dead parrot' of political philosophies so far as I am concerned! (with acknowledgement to 'Monty Python').
Anyway, where does this leave me and my voting decision for the forthcoming general election? I could vote for the Conservative Edward Mountain quite happily, but being realistic he is likely to garner only between 13 and 16% of the vote (worst and best case scenarios based on recent history) and is 'highly unlikely' to be elected as our next MP, even if he manages to increase the vote somewhat; that is the harsh reality, sadly; here is the result at the 2010 general election to illustrate this. So under an FPTP system those 6 to 7 or 8,000 votes are effectively wasted. The two likely realistic alternativea to the Liberal Democrats in this constituency are Labour or the SNP (formerly we had a Labour MP and our current MSP is from the SNP, for example); I would find either very unpalatable, but based on recent opinion polls the main 'danger' seems to come from the SNP and I certainly wish to avoid that outcome at all costs - so my present intention would be, through somewhat gritted teeth, to vote for Danny Alexander of the Liberal Democrats. The question that those who would normally vote Conservative need to ask themselves is - do you really want to see the SNP (or potentially Labour) win in this constituency? Given that it is highly unlikely (i.e. next to impossible) that a Conservative can realistically have any hope of winning here, would you rather have one of the unholy duo of the SNP or Labour win or would it not be less unpalatable to have a Liberal Democrat instead? Honestly? I know some will find my arguments anathema - but don't come complaining to me on the morning of Friday 8th May 2015 if instead we have an SNP or Labour MP, when some of the usual 6 or 7,000 Conservative votes could have been more usefully directed to the Liberal Democrats. I have never met Edward Mountain and if I thought he had a realistic chance of winning would happily vote for him, so I hope he will forgive me for writing so candidly about my feelings.
Whilst our 'first past the post' (FPTP) electoral system for UK general elections does usually provide a clear result, the last time in 2010 it did not and the polling information recently seems to indicate that it may provide a similarly inconclusive result this time too. A bid by coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, to have a form of proportional representation ('Alternative Vote') put into law was decisively rejected in a referendum held during 2011. Personally I am very pleased that it was rejected, because I think the introduction of an Alternative Vote for general elections would have institutionalised coalitions, which I think would have been retrograde for our politics - I prefer to see the governing party, whichever it is, given a reasonably free hand to pursue its policies so that the results, good or bad, and who was responsible for them, can be more clearly seen and attributed.
In my particular constituency (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey) our current MP is a Liberal Democrat, the quite prominent cabinet minister in the coalition government, Danny Alexander MP. Anyone who has been reading my blog over the years will know that I am definitely not a Liberal Democrat, nor am I a supporter of this political party, but I am happy to acknowledge that the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition has been a moderate success and that Danny Alexander MP has played a fairly prominent role in this success, being No.2 in the Treasury and generally supportive of government policy. More recently he, and other Liberal Democrat MPs, have been keen to differentiate themselves from their Conservative colleagues and I think this is perfectly understandable ahead of the 2015 general election. I am, at the very least, grateful that we have had at least a partially-Conservative government these past almost five years, so that more rational policies have been implemented when compared with the many idiocies and plain incompetence of the previous awful Labour government. However, it is possible that a heavy electoral price may be exacted of the Liberal Democrats, according to the opinion polls, for their participation in the coalition government. I think this is grossly unfair, because at least they have helped save us from the disaster of another Labour government, something I am very happy about.
Nominations for the May 2015 general election have of course not yet closed, but so far (as at the time of writing) the 3 major UK national parties, Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats, plus the SNP and and the Green Party have chosen their candidates, but there may well be more candidates declared before nominations close. You can see the currently-known candidates in the YourNextMP website here:
- Alexander, Danny (Liberal Democrats);
- Hendry, Drew (Scottish National Party [SNP]);
- Mountain, Edward (Conservative Party);
- O'Reilly, Isla Macleod (Scottish Green Party);
- Robb, Mike (Labour Party).
Normally my voting decision would be pretty straightforward, I would vote for Edward Mountain for the Conservatives or perhaps abstain; basically I am a Conservative, but am no longer a member as a result of earlier anti-gay policies during the leadership of William Hague MP and his successor Iain Duncan Smith MP and, to a lesser extent during the leadership of the Scottish Conservatives of the late David McLetchie. However, although I have not rejoined the Conservatives as a member, their earlier anti-gay policies have been abandoned and replaced by an altogether more positive range of policies and actions, even if some of their MPs and MSPs remain as anti-gay as ever they were; within Scotland (the area that obviously concerns me most directly) there are a number of similarly and notoriously anti-gay SNP MSPs, a fact that the SNP doesn't really like to talk about and whenever the topic has been raised by me in the past I have been howled down by irate SNP supporters (aka 'dupes' and/or 'shameless apologists)'. Their are fewer similar Labour and no or almost no Liberal Democrats, to the best of my knowledge. Of course, there are other issues beyond 'gay rights', I readily accept, but this is a matter of such fundamental importance for basic human rights that I make no apology for awarding it a certain prominence - tough if anyone reading this takes issue!
Beyond that of course, I am for free enterprise and against any form of 'socialism' or 'collectivism' because 'socialism' and similar philosophies have produced such abysmal results wherever in the world they have been tried, it really is the archetypal 'dead parrot' of political philosophies so far as I am concerned! (with acknowledgement to 'Monty Python').
Anyway, where does this leave me and my voting decision for the forthcoming general election? I could vote for the Conservative Edward Mountain quite happily, but being realistic he is likely to garner only between 13 and 16% of the vote (worst and best case scenarios based on recent history) and is 'highly unlikely' to be elected as our next MP, even if he manages to increase the vote somewhat; that is the harsh reality, sadly; here is the result at the 2010 general election to illustrate this. So under an FPTP system those 6 to 7 or 8,000 votes are effectively wasted. The two likely realistic alternativea to the Liberal Democrats in this constituency are Labour or the SNP (formerly we had a Labour MP and our current MSP is from the SNP, for example); I would find either very unpalatable, but based on recent opinion polls the main 'danger' seems to come from the SNP and I certainly wish to avoid that outcome at all costs - so my present intention would be, through somewhat gritted teeth, to vote for Danny Alexander of the Liberal Democrats. The question that those who would normally vote Conservative need to ask themselves is - do you really want to see the SNP (or potentially Labour) win in this constituency? Given that it is highly unlikely (i.e. next to impossible) that a Conservative can realistically have any hope of winning here, would you rather have one of the unholy duo of the SNP or Labour win or would it not be less unpalatable to have a Liberal Democrat instead? Honestly? I know some will find my arguments anathema - but don't come complaining to me on the morning of Friday 8th May 2015 if instead we have an SNP or Labour MP, when some of the usual 6 or 7,000 Conservative votes could have been more usefully directed to the Liberal Democrats. I have never met Edward Mountain and if I thought he had a realistic chance of winning would happily vote for him, so I hope he will forgive me for writing so candidly about my feelings.
Monday, 25 August 2014
Salmond stretching the truth
Ahead of this evening's debate between Alex Salmond (for the SNP) and Alistair Darling (for Better Together) here's an amusing video-clip which illustrates pretty clearly the lies and distortions that flow freely from Salmond's lips and his hench-men or hench-women in and out of the Scottish Parliament in their aim to dismember our country, the United Kingdom:
Don't let the SNP succeed with their separatist and insular agenda - vote NO on 18th September, I urge you!
Don't let the SNP succeed with their separatist and insular agenda - vote NO on 18th September, I urge you!
Wednesday, 20 August 2014
Hateful bigotry from Nairn's SNP Councillor on Highland Council
(Please see UPDATES at end)
Nairn has four Councillors on Highland Council and one of these is Councillor Liz MacDonald, who represents the SNP. The article below appeared in our local [weekly] newspaper yesterday:
Whilst I find her "chip-on-shoulder" and plain nasty views deplorable, it is at least good that these have been exposed in our local newspaper. I think that all her comments deserve a good 'fisking', but I think this particular extract from the article above of one of her quoted remarks illustrates perfectly the kind of person she is:
How naïve does someone have to be to make such a comment? Presumably if she had wished it to remain private she would not have tweeted publicly about it (but see below), but perhaps sent a 'direct message' instead, nor would she then have spoken about it to a reporter from "The Nairnshire". However, this particular remark says something more about Councillor Liz; this person, an elected Councillor, has a habit of blocking people from viewing her Twitter feed who have criticised anything she has tweeted in support of the SNP. For example, I am myself blocked from viewing her tweets because a couple of months ago I responded to a tweet from her suggesting, in response to one of my tweets, that I should get a copy of "Scotland's Future" to enable me to comment knowledgeably. This is a document put out by the Scottish Government (which currently is SNP led). I responded that I had indeed ordered this document soon after it was published and that I had subsequently read it cover to cover. I also commented that I found it merely a propaganda document (a 'manifesto' if you will) for the SNP and that it is vague on detail and provides no real factual information to allow people to make an educated and considered decision on how to vote in the forthcoming referendum. It is really just a very lengthy list of forecasts and wishful thinking. I realised some time later that Councillor Liz had blocked me as a result and I am aware that others locally have been blocked by her too, for having had the temerity to dissent from SNP 'dogma'. To be clear, I was never rude to her, but it is equally clear that she is unwilling to engage in meaningful debate and frankly doubt she merits holding public office with such a closed-minded attitude toward free debate. Our local newspaper "The Nairnshire" has performed a valuable public service by revealing the attitudes of our SNP Councillor when it comes to open debate.
Finally, it is unsurprising to me that the "The Nairnshire" article has gone unmentioned so far in another well-known Nairn blog; the writer is a supporter of the SNP cause and is usually very quick to comment on important articles appearing in our local 'rag'. Perhaps realising the devastating 'own goal' which the remarks and tweets made by Councillor Liz represent, he has preferred to draw a veil over it? She may regret that someone has decided to publicise her noisome tweets, but Twitter is part of social media and she will have to get used to it - or alternatively she might care to go into a sound-proofed room where she would be able to spew out her hateful rhetoric to her heart's content and not risk others becoming aware of her bigotry.
This article expands upon my tweet on this topic earlier today, here.
UPDATE (Wednesday 20AUG2014 16.45 BST) I have just noticed that our local councillor Liz MacDonald has unblocked me on Twitter; I can't say precisely when or why this has happened, but perhaps it is as a result of this blog article and my tweet earlier today. In any case I wanted to record this fact and that I am pleased about it.
2nd UPDATE (Tuesday 30DEC2014 21.18 GMT) As a result of visits to this article over the past couple of days and the last few weeks from some major media organisations (e.g. BBC and BSkyB amongst others), I decided to [try and] visit Ms MacDonald's twitter feed (@Liz_Nairn) this evening and discovered that I have once more been blocked from viewing it or following it; I have no idea how soon after I mentioned above that I had been 'unblocked' I was 'reblocked' as I don't follow her tweets and have not attempted to visit her Twitter feed since I last wrote here about it. Undoubtedly my article, entirely accurate and factual as it is of course, is acutely embarrassing to this person, but quite frankly it was/is no more than she deserved/deserves. I read a few days ago that it is now SNP policy to block 'dissenters' from their 'dogma' systematically and although I have no idea of the accuracy of the comment I read about this (in Facebook, as it so happens, in one of the pages I follow there) it does seem to have the ring of truth, for the SNP does seem to be a deeply 'paranoid' and closed-minded organisation.
Nairn has four Councillors on Highland Council and one of these is Councillor Liz MacDonald, who represents the SNP. The article below appeared in our local [weekly] newspaper yesterday:
Councillor MacDonald (SNP) stands by her "butcher's apron" remark to Labour man - article appearing in "Nairnshire Telegraph" 19th August 2014 (Unfortunately our local weekly newspaper in Nairn does not have an on-line presence.) - Hateful bigotry from Nairn SNP Councillor Liz MacDonald - Click here to see an enlargement.  Click here to see an enlargement. |
Whilst I find her "chip-on-shoulder" and plain nasty views deplorable, it is at least good that these have been exposed in our local newspaper. I think that all her comments deserve a good 'fisking', but I think this particular extract from the article above of one of her quoted remarks illustrates perfectly the kind of person she is:
| "I was surprised that he had gone to the press about it because it was a tweet between us." |
Finally, it is unsurprising to me that the "The Nairnshire" article has gone unmentioned so far in another well-known Nairn blog; the writer is a supporter of the SNP cause and is usually very quick to comment on important articles appearing in our local 'rag'. Perhaps realising the devastating 'own goal' which the remarks and tweets made by Councillor Liz represent, he has preferred to draw a veil over it? She may regret that someone has decided to publicise her noisome tweets, but Twitter is part of social media and she will have to get used to it - or alternatively she might care to go into a sound-proofed room where she would be able to spew out her hateful rhetoric to her heart's content and not risk others becoming aware of her bigotry.
This article expands upon my tweet on this topic earlier today, here.
UPDATE (Wednesday 20AUG2014 16.45 BST) I have just noticed that our local councillor Liz MacDonald has unblocked me on Twitter; I can't say precisely when or why this has happened, but perhaps it is as a result of this blog article and my tweet earlier today. In any case I wanted to record this fact and that I am pleased about it.
2nd UPDATE (Tuesday 30DEC2014 21.18 GMT) As a result of visits to this article over the past couple of days and the last few weeks from some major media organisations (e.g. BBC and BSkyB amongst others), I decided to [try and] visit Ms MacDonald's twitter feed (@Liz_Nairn) this evening and discovered that I have once more been blocked from viewing it or following it; I have no idea how soon after I mentioned above that I had been 'unblocked' I was 'reblocked' as I don't follow her tweets and have not attempted to visit her Twitter feed since I last wrote here about it. Undoubtedly my article, entirely accurate and factual as it is of course, is acutely embarrassing to this person, but quite frankly it was/is no more than she deserved/deserves. I read a few days ago that it is now SNP policy to block 'dissenters' from their 'dogma' systematically and although I have no idea of the accuracy of the comment I read about this (in Facebook, as it so happens, in one of the pages I follow there) it does seem to have the ring of truth, for the SNP does seem to be a deeply 'paranoid' and closed-minded organisation.
Monday, 25 June 2012
"Hypocrisy" from Danny Alexander, who just happens to be my MP
I've previously given our local MP, Danny Alexander, now a member of the Coalition government (from the LibDem wing of course), a fairly easy ride when commenting on his expenses at the time of the Telegraph revelations two and a half years ago, but rank hypocrisy and 'jumping on bandwagons' makes me heave! Here we have our Danny jumping on yet another bandwagon criticising those who make perfectly legal arrangements to minimise their tax liabilities:
- when, as Guido Fawkes has helpfully reminded us, he 'flipped' his properties, using what what can only be described as quite imaginative arguments, prior to the eruption of the expenses scandal in order to save himself rather a lot of tax.
As I wrote in 2009 (first link above) I expect he is no worse than very many other MPs, of all politcal parties, not to mention other well-known figures or obscure citizens for that matter, but it sticks in my throat to see him (and indeed David Cameron, the Prime Minister, last week) taking to the airwaves to lambast people like Jimmie Carr (horrible left-wing hyposite that he is, too) exploiting perfectly legal - for the moment at least - loopholes in the law to minimise his tax liability.
It is NOT moral, or in any way sensible, to maximise voluntarily one's tax liability to the State, merely so that it can squander it - this is NOT (surprisingly enough from me - Ed) a political rant against any particular political party. What it is, though, is a very clear statement of my view that one is obliged to pay only what the law prescribes as being due in tax, not a penny more nor a penny less. There is no question of 'morality' being involved - we are a country governed by the rule of law, not the moral prejudices of partisan individuals or newspapers.
So, Mr Alexander (and Mr Cameron or any Labour [or SNP] politician for that matter), I think you should think more carefully before taking yourself to television studios to try and profit from the 'tabloid-style' prejudices being whipped up just now. Your own tax affairs and those of quite a few other politicians are by no means clear-cut, depending upon who is doing the interpreting of what is 'moral' or 'immoral'.
For myself, I prefer to look at what the law says. Period.
- when, as Guido Fawkes has helpfully reminded us, he 'flipped' his properties, using what what can only be described as quite imaginative arguments, prior to the eruption of the expenses scandal in order to save himself rather a lot of tax.
As I wrote in 2009 (first link above) I expect he is no worse than very many other MPs, of all politcal parties, not to mention other well-known figures or obscure citizens for that matter, but it sticks in my throat to see him (and indeed David Cameron, the Prime Minister, last week) taking to the airwaves to lambast people like Jimmie Carr (horrible left-wing hyposite that he is, too) exploiting perfectly legal - for the moment at least - loopholes in the law to minimise his tax liability.
It is NOT moral, or in any way sensible, to maximise voluntarily one's tax liability to the State, merely so that it can squander it - this is NOT (surprisingly enough from me - Ed) a political rant against any particular political party. What it is, though, is a very clear statement of my view that one is obliged to pay only what the law prescribes as being due in tax, not a penny more nor a penny less. There is no question of 'morality' being involved - we are a country governed by the rule of law, not the moral prejudices of partisan individuals or newspapers.
So, Mr Alexander (and Mr Cameron or any Labour [or SNP] politician for that matter), I think you should think more carefully before taking yourself to television studios to try and profit from the 'tabloid-style' prejudices being whipped up just now. Your own tax affairs and those of quite a few other politicians are by no means clear-cut, depending upon who is doing the interpreting of what is 'moral' or 'immoral'.
For myself, I prefer to look at what the law says. Period.
Friday, 23 July 2010
The Megrahi release saga rumbles on ...
I'm not going to rehash the arguments for or against releasing Megrahi last year, a decision taken by the Justice Secretary in the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government'), Mr Kenny MacAskill MSP; I thought then and think still that the decision was both wrong and foolish. My articles written at the time on the matter give my detailed view of the matter:
- Scotland sends a convicted murderer home "to die" (20AUG2009)
- Bill's not popular in some quarters locally it seems (22AUG2009)
- Majority 'oppose' Megrahi release (28AUG2009)
- My absolutely final word on the al-Megrahi release saga (01SEP2009)
Now that final article linked to above, written on 1st September last year, might be thought to be contradicted by this present article, but in fact it is not because this article is on a whole other aspect of this saga, relating to judicial and constitutional territoriality. However, before continuing this article I think it useful to quote the final two sentences from my last article above:
At the time of the release the US authorities expressed their view opposing the release very vociferously, but as I wrote in the first article linked to above "We have our legal system and they have their's and they have done many things in recent years which have been found by many in this country to be revolting or merely unjust in recent years, and precious little notice have they taken of the views and sensibilities of what is supposed to be their closest ally in the world."
In recent weeks a US Senate hearing has been taking place into the oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico involving oil company BP, a company with strong British links historically, even though it is today a truly multinational conglomerate with a large proportion of its shareholding outside the UK, with US shareholders holding a very significant stake in the company. It has been suggested by some US Senators that there may be a connection between the release of Megrahi and a deal agreed with the Libyan authorities by BP. Now these US Senators have 'invited' Mr MacAskill and the Scottish Prison Service's medical chief Dr Andrew Fraser to travel to Washington to give evidence before the US Senate hearing. The Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') has declined this 'invitation'. Also invited are Mr Jack Straw MP, former UK Justice Secretary and Mr Tony Hayward, BP chief executive, neither of whom have yet announced a decision on this matter. It will be recalled that Mr Hayward recently gave evidence before the US Senate in connection with the Gulf of Mexico oil-spill.
My view is very strongly that no official of the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') should attend the US Senate hearing. I am no friend of the current ruling political party in Scotland, the SNP, nor do I care for the First Minister, Mr Alex Salmond MP MSP, but I watched him being interviewed earlier today on BBC News on the matter and have to say I agree completely with his analysis, which followed very closely the statement issued by a spokesperson on behalf of his administration:
The US is a close ally of the UK (which includes Scotland), but the two are completely separate countries and it would seem to me totally invidious, on principle, for any official of a UK government or a devolved part of the UK such as Scotland, to accept or imply acceptance of the jurisdiction of a foreign country. I cannot imagine any official of the US Federal Government or one of the US States agreeing to give evidence before a Parliamentary Committee in the UK, nor would it be correct for them to accept such an obligation - the furore that that would arise in the US amongst the public there were such testimony to be offered by any US public official before the parliament of a foreign country, even of a close ally such as the UK, would be intense and entirely justified.
The Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') has stated its willingness to supply further written evidence to the US Senate and that is as much as the US Senate can expect, indeed my view is that even this is too much. I may disagree strongly with the decision taken by Mr MacAskill, but it is clear that he took that decision with due regard to Scots Law; that is the end of the matter so far as I am concerned.
Finally, the comments made by Labour's Holyrood justice spokesman Richard Baker, to the effect that it was "perfectly legitimate" for US senators to ask Mr MacAskill to travel to Washington and answer questions are in my view completely wrong-headed and betray a complete lack of understanding of the constitutional issues involved, specifically relating to the sovereignty of the UK; I have no love for the SNP, but it is immensely pleasing that the Labour Party is no longer in power in either Scotland or Westminster if this is the care and attention they give to this country's status as an independent country; of course Labour is the political party that when in government agreed the unequal US/UK Extradition Treaty 2003 with the US, so they have 'form' in their dereliction of national duty.
- Scotland sends a convicted murderer home "to die" (20AUG2009)
- Bill's not popular in some quarters locally it seems (22AUG2009)
- Majority 'oppose' Megrahi release (28AUG2009)
- My absolutely final word on the al-Megrahi release saga (01SEP2009)
Now that final article linked to above, written on 1st September last year, might be thought to be contradicted by this present article, but in fact it is not because this article is on a whole other aspect of this saga, relating to judicial and constitutional territoriality. However, before continuing this article I think it useful to quote the final two sentences from my last article above:
"Whatever we may think of the decision by Mr MacAskill, it was made in good faith I have no doubt (if in my view for misguided reasons), but it is done and cannot be reversed. We must now live with the consequences, whatever they are." |
At the time of the release the US authorities expressed their view opposing the release very vociferously, but as I wrote in the first article linked to above "We have our legal system and they have their's and they have done many things in recent years which have been found by many in this country to be revolting or merely unjust in recent years, and precious little notice have they taken of the views and sensibilities of what is supposed to be their closest ally in the world."
In recent weeks a US Senate hearing has been taking place into the oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico involving oil company BP, a company with strong British links historically, even though it is today a truly multinational conglomerate with a large proportion of its shareholding outside the UK, with US shareholders holding a very significant stake in the company. It has been suggested by some US Senators that there may be a connection between the release of Megrahi and a deal agreed with the Libyan authorities by BP. Now these US Senators have 'invited' Mr MacAskill and the Scottish Prison Service's medical chief Dr Andrew Fraser to travel to Washington to give evidence before the US Senate hearing. The Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') has declined this 'invitation'. Also invited are Mr Jack Straw MP, former UK Justice Secretary and Mr Tony Hayward, BP chief executive, neither of whom have yet announced a decision on this matter. It will be recalled that Mr Hayward recently gave evidence before the US Senate in connection with the Gulf of Mexico oil-spill.
My view is very strongly that no official of the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') should attend the US Senate hearing. I am no friend of the current ruling political party in Scotland, the SNP, nor do I care for the First Minister, Mr Alex Salmond MP MSP, but I watched him being interviewed earlier today on BBC News on the matter and have to say I agree completely with his analysis, which followed very closely the statement issued by a spokesperson on behalf of his administration:
"Since the Lockerbie atrocity in 1988, all matters regarding the investigation, prosecution and compassionate release decision have been conducted according to the jurisdiction and laws of Scotland. "Clearly, the Senate Committee has responsibility to scrutinise decisions taken within the US system, and Scottish ministers and public officials are accountable within the Scottish Parliament system. That is the constitutional basis of our democracies. "The Scottish Parliament's justice committee has already undertaken a full inquiry into the decision on compassionate release, and the Westminster Scottish affairs committee has also examined the issue in terms of the formal inter-governmental relations that exist within the UK. That is right and proper." |
The US is a close ally of the UK (which includes Scotland), but the two are completely separate countries and it would seem to me totally invidious, on principle, for any official of a UK government or a devolved part of the UK such as Scotland, to accept or imply acceptance of the jurisdiction of a foreign country. I cannot imagine any official of the US Federal Government or one of the US States agreeing to give evidence before a Parliamentary Committee in the UK, nor would it be correct for them to accept such an obligation - the furore that that would arise in the US amongst the public there were such testimony to be offered by any US public official before the parliament of a foreign country, even of a close ally such as the UK, would be intense and entirely justified.
The Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') has stated its willingness to supply further written evidence to the US Senate and that is as much as the US Senate can expect, indeed my view is that even this is too much. I may disagree strongly with the decision taken by Mr MacAskill, but it is clear that he took that decision with due regard to Scots Law; that is the end of the matter so far as I am concerned.
Finally, the comments made by Labour's Holyrood justice spokesman Richard Baker, to the effect that it was "perfectly legitimate" for US senators to ask Mr MacAskill to travel to Washington and answer questions are in my view completely wrong-headed and betray a complete lack of understanding of the constitutional issues involved, specifically relating to the sovereignty of the UK; I have no love for the SNP, but it is immensely pleasing that the Labour Party is no longer in power in either Scotland or Westminster if this is the care and attention they give to this country's status as an independent country; of course Labour is the political party that when in government agreed the unequal US/UK Extradition Treaty 2003 with the US, so they have 'form' in their dereliction of national duty.
Sunday, 11 July 2010
Salmond 'frit'
First Minister of Scotland and 'all round good egg' [not] Alex Salmond thinks so little of the voters of Scotland that be believes they will be confused if they are asked to vote on two matters at the same time. The UK government proposes to hold a referendum on whether the voting system for Westminster elections should be changed from the traditional 'first past the post' (FPTP) to the 'alternative vote' (AV) system on the same date, 5 May 2011, that the next elections will he held for the Scottish Parliament . A subtext to this fear on Salmond's part is that his party, the SNP, did pretty poorly in the recent Westminster elections, managing only to maintain its number of MPs at 6 (out of 59), when it had hope to raise its Westminister representation to 20. Mr Salmond has therefore written a rather laughable letter to David Cameron, the new Prime Minister, pleading his partisan case:
The Coalition Government's (Lib Dem) Scottish Secretary Michael Moore has rightly dismissed Mr Salmonds's 'mewlings' thus:
Of course Mr Salmond knows that relatively few people, whatever they may say in opinion polls, are actually prepared to go into the voting booth and vote for the 'fantasy politics' that the SNP specialises in. At the May 2010 Westminster election the SNP managed only 19.9 per cent of the vote in Scotland (up from 17.6 in the previous election) although it edged past the LibDems into second-place in number of votes. Bizarrely the SNP suffers from the same problem as the Scottish Conservatives in that their support is too thinly-spread around the country to gain very many seats under an FPTP voting system, so it is possible that an AV system would be to its advantage, just as the d'Hondt voting system for the Scottish Parliament has unquestionably benefitted the SNP, even though it has allowed it to operate only as a minority Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') since the last Scottish parliament elections in 2007.
Salmond knows that his only hope in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections in 2011 is to stir-up discontent with Westminster in the hope (probably vain) that he can increase SNP support. The reality, Mr Salmond, is that the vast majority of Scottish people are far to savvy to fall for your brand of 'snake-oil' politics. The referendum on the UK voting system and the 2011 Scottish Parliament election should go ahead on the same date next year; the Scottish people are plenty intelligent enough to decide and quite importantly it will save quite a lot of money to do so. Why does Salmond believe the Scottish people cannot be trusted?
PS/ This is my 3,000th blog-post since I began this blog in April 2002. How long will it take me to get to 6,000 I wonder ...
"I believe that your proposals to hold a referendum on the same day undermines the integrity of the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. "These elections are of profound importance to our citizens and I believe they have the right to make their electoral choices for the respective devolved chambers without the distraction of a parallel referendum campaign on the UK voting system. "When you visited Edinburgh shortly after your election, you placed great emphasis on what you called 'the respect agenda' between the UK government and devolved administrations. "It is not clear how the decision to hold the AV referendum on the same date as our elections, and to do so without any prior consultation, fits into the spirit of that framework." |
The Coalition Government's (Lib Dem) Scottish Secretary Michael Moore has rightly dismissed Mr Salmonds's 'mewlings' thus:
"To say that this will confuse voters is to underestimate the intelligence of the Scottish people. "Many countries routinely hold elections and referendums on the same day. I am confident that Scotland can do the same. "There will be ample time in the election campaign to debate all the issues facing Scotland, and for Scots to make their judgment about who is best placed to deal with them." |
Of course Mr Salmond knows that relatively few people, whatever they may say in opinion polls, are actually prepared to go into the voting booth and vote for the 'fantasy politics' that the SNP specialises in. At the May 2010 Westminster election the SNP managed only 19.9 per cent of the vote in Scotland (up from 17.6 in the previous election) although it edged past the LibDems into second-place in number of votes. Bizarrely the SNP suffers from the same problem as the Scottish Conservatives in that their support is too thinly-spread around the country to gain very many seats under an FPTP voting system, so it is possible that an AV system would be to its advantage, just as the d'Hondt voting system for the Scottish Parliament has unquestionably benefitted the SNP, even though it has allowed it to operate only as a minority Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') since the last Scottish parliament elections in 2007.
Salmond knows that his only hope in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections in 2011 is to stir-up discontent with Westminster in the hope (probably vain) that he can increase SNP support. The reality, Mr Salmond, is that the vast majority of Scottish people are far to savvy to fall for your brand of 'snake-oil' politics. The referendum on the UK voting system and the 2011 Scottish Parliament election should go ahead on the same date next year; the Scottish people are plenty intelligent enough to decide and quite importantly it will save quite a lot of money to do so. Why does Salmond believe the Scottish people cannot be trusted?
PS/ This is my 3,000th blog-post since I began this blog in April 2002. How long will it take me to get to 6,000 I wonder ...
Saturday, 19 December 2009
The SNP's "Blogger-gate" rumbles on
(Please see UPDATE at end)
In classic scandal-fashion it's perhaps not always the original deed that causes a person or group the greatest difficulty, but the attempted 'cover-up', the lies and spin that 'does' for them. I doubt very much that Alex Salmond (not my favourite person of course, either as a person or for his politics) had any personal prior knowledge of what various people within the SNP, at various levels, or those outwith it but in general suporters of what it stands for, have been up to to further the SNP cause in the wilder reaches of the blogging fraternity (I expect he is far too busy to bother with surfing the net very much). However, watching Mr Salmond talking about a certain kind of blogger in the most scathing terms at FMQs on Thursday and having the camera take in a very embarrassed-looking Mr Mike Russell from time to time, one could not but wonder whether the tongue-lashing Mr Salmond was giving that certain type of blogger had other targets in mind as well - I know some will disagree with me, but I thought it reminiscent of my school Rector on one occasion giving a public rebuke at school assembly to a senior, and brilliant, fellow-pupil who had been caught out doing something hhe should not have done - in this case that 'pupil' was Mr Mike Russell, whose denials of prior knowledge of the blog run by his former aide now look increasingly threadbare. I 'Twittered' about this a couple of days ago, although I haven't blogged about it.
Now, through another of my 'favourite people' (who despite everything I may otherwise think about him is generally I accept a faithful purveyor of fact or at the very least educated deduction, without fear or too much favour and with a sizeable degree of self-awareness of his own, ahem, limitations) I learn that the 'MacLachlan affair' is ensnaring other SNP-people in its fall-out - the 'Dumfries & Galloway Standard' is definitely not on my regular reading-list. Jeff tried to 'close down' this debate in his blog a few days ago, pooh-poohing it as of little importance and even in his latest post tries to downplay its importance - on the contrary I think it is very damaging and a gift to the mutually-hated Labour Party.
Of course some SNP-supporters who read this may think that, as a Unionist(*), my views can be discounted, but of course I am not a Labour supporter so am completely disinterested in the petty, but vicious, squabbling between Scotland's two major political groupings, the SNP and Labour, even if I freely admit to some wry amusement at what they are doing to each other. I have myself had a falling-out (written about ad nauseam in this blog and in my personal website over the past nearly 8 and in excess of 9 years respectively) with the Conservative Party, of which I was formerly a member, so I can I think claim fairly that I am pretty objective in my assessments of the various political parties, including the one with which (even today) I have the greatest instinctive affinity.
My considered opinion is that not only must Rob Davidson, leader of the SNP council group in a part of the Scottish Borders, step down, but so must Mr Mike Russell. I have to say that, whilst I don't like SNP politics one little bit, I had always until now considered Mr Russell one of the more affable and intelligent senior SNP people; now I believe him to be just another soiled political operator. I hesitate to offer Mr Salmond pointers to actions which might favour his cause, but he really does need to rid himself of this kind of Cabinet member - unless of course there are more revelations to come implicating Mr Salmond himself.
(*) Using the word 'union', or any derivation of it, in any faovurable context is not something that comes easily to me, but I do believe in the continuation of the United Kingdom, just as I believe strongly that Britain needs to stay within and be a full part of the European Union. Of course I have never been a member of any 'union' in my life, nor would I have ever consented to join one; the very idea makes my conservative libertarian soul retch. The latest nonsense from the BA union is just the latest example of what I consider so awful about this kind of body
UPDATE: (Sunday 20DEC09 11.55 GMT) I think this is developing into something of a "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" duel. Someone is certainly 'lying', it seems clear, although perhaps we haven't yet got to the root of precisely who that is if this latest 'epistle' from Mark MacLachlan is a guide; the linked Sunday Times article make for interesting reading, too. Round three?
In classic scandal-fashion it's perhaps not always the original deed that causes a person or group the greatest difficulty, but the attempted 'cover-up', the lies and spin that 'does' for them. I doubt very much that Alex Salmond (not my favourite person of course, either as a person or for his politics) had any personal prior knowledge of what various people within the SNP, at various levels, or those outwith it but in general suporters of what it stands for, have been up to to further the SNP cause in the wilder reaches of the blogging fraternity (I expect he is far too busy to bother with surfing the net very much). However, watching Mr Salmond talking about a certain kind of blogger in the most scathing terms at FMQs on Thursday and having the camera take in a very embarrassed-looking Mr Mike Russell from time to time, one could not but wonder whether the tongue-lashing Mr Salmond was giving that certain type of blogger had other targets in mind as well - I know some will disagree with me, but I thought it reminiscent of my school Rector on one occasion giving a public rebuke at school assembly to a senior, and brilliant, fellow-pupil who had been caught out doing something hhe should not have done - in this case that 'pupil' was Mr Mike Russell, whose denials of prior knowledge of the blog run by his former aide now look increasingly threadbare. I 'Twittered' about this a couple of days ago, although I haven't blogged about it.
Now, through another of my 'favourite people' (who despite everything I may otherwise think about him is generally I accept a faithful purveyor of fact or at the very least educated deduction, without fear or too much favour and with a sizeable degree of self-awareness of his own, ahem, limitations) I learn that the 'MacLachlan affair' is ensnaring other SNP-people in its fall-out - the 'Dumfries & Galloway Standard' is definitely not on my regular reading-list. Jeff tried to 'close down' this debate in his blog a few days ago, pooh-poohing it as of little importance and even in his latest post tries to downplay its importance - on the contrary I think it is very damaging and a gift to the mutually-hated Labour Party.
Of course some SNP-supporters who read this may think that, as a Unionist(*), my views can be discounted, but of course I am not a Labour supporter so am completely disinterested in the petty, but vicious, squabbling between Scotland's two major political groupings, the SNP and Labour, even if I freely admit to some wry amusement at what they are doing to each other. I have myself had a falling-out (written about ad nauseam in this blog and in my personal website over the past nearly 8 and in excess of 9 years respectively) with the Conservative Party, of which I was formerly a member, so I can I think claim fairly that I am pretty objective in my assessments of the various political parties, including the one with which (even today) I have the greatest instinctive affinity.
My considered opinion is that not only must Rob Davidson, leader of the SNP council group in a part of the Scottish Borders, step down, but so must Mr Mike Russell. I have to say that, whilst I don't like SNP politics one little bit, I had always until now considered Mr Russell one of the more affable and intelligent senior SNP people; now I believe him to be just another soiled political operator. I hesitate to offer Mr Salmond pointers to actions which might favour his cause, but he really does need to rid himself of this kind of Cabinet member - unless of course there are more revelations to come implicating Mr Salmond himself.
(*) Using the word 'union', or any derivation of it, in any faovurable context is not something that comes easily to me, but I do believe in the continuation of the United Kingdom, just as I believe strongly that Britain needs to stay within and be a full part of the European Union. Of course I have never been a member of any 'union' in my life, nor would I have ever consented to join one; the very idea makes my conservative libertarian soul retch. The latest nonsense from the BA union is just the latest example of what I consider so awful about this kind of body
UPDATE: (Sunday 20DEC09 11.55 GMT) I think this is developing into something of a "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" duel. Someone is certainly 'lying', it seems clear, although perhaps we haven't yet got to the root of precisely who that is if this latest 'epistle' from Mark MacLachlan is a guide; the linked Sunday Times article make for interesting reading, too. Round three?
Saturday, 5 December 2009
A quasi-meltdown of SNP-leaning blogs is in progress
Over the past few weeks a couple of SNP-leaning blogs have 'ceased transmissions' ("Wardog" and "The Universality of Cheese") and now I learn that a third, "Subrosa", has gone off-air, too. I had started to write a blog article a few days ago which would have been entitled "SNP-leaning bloggers on the psychiatrist's couch" and the first couple of paragraphs would have read:
- that post had been 'inspired', if that's quite the right word(!), by some blog entries in the SNP Tactical Voting and J Arthur MacNumpty blogs, probably if I recall correctly in Subrosa's blog, too (no longer possible to check there, however) which all seemed to be indulging in what one might politely describe, at least in the case of the first two (the third being, we are led to believe, a lady) as keyboard onanism, as if SNP-blogging is co-equal with all Scottish blogging. There are other bloggers in Scotland than the fantasist SNP-leaning bloggers (and of course one of these two is I understand not actually based in Scotland at all, but is presumably someone with a Scottish heritage). Admittedly the SNP-bloggers have in recent months been generally more 'vocal' than other bloggers here. In all recent SNP-leaning blogging there has been a pretty clear whiff of 'victimhood', that somehow they, and by extension all Scottish/British bloggers are somehow being 'got at', possibly by agents of what is known as the MSM or 'main stream media', who are all castigated as being 'Unionist supporting' or sometimes 'Labour supporting'. Now I haven't ever made a practice of reading the Scotsman newspaper online (or in print) as I find it a pretty mediocre rag, but I have occasionally seen articles in both media - a feature of many of the few articles I have read online was the 'over the top', some might say 'obsessive' nature of many of the comments there, mainly emanating from what seemed to be SNP-supporters. I recall, before 'she' started blogging having occasionally seen the name 'Subrosa' given as the author of some of the comments, a few of which were frankly racist in tone. Nevertheless I found her as a blogger generally interesting, although hardly objective. On a couple of the occasions when she left a comment in my own little blog I had occasion to comment on the unpleasantly quasi-homophobic nature of these comments, but her comments were left in place by me (she may have deleted them subsequently, for all I know or care, as I now realise 'Wardog' has done too over the past couple of weeks, although in his case our debates never touched on homophobia as I never detected any whiff of that in him whatsoever) because the way she expressed her comments was always civil and I put her views down to being those of someone of advanced years. I knew no details of who she was, but she represented herself in her blog as being someone of advanced years.
In any case, one feature is common to the three SNP-leaning blogs which have been taken down recently - they were all anonymous. Shortly before the first two ceased blogging their identities were revealed, in the case of 'Wardog' by himself in his later blog entries and in the case of 'The Universality of Cheese' as a result of investigative journalism. From what I have gleaned from a couple of bloggers who have written about Subrosa's blogging demise, her identity was to be revealed this coming Sunday.
I can understand, at a pinch, why some bloggers wish to blog anonymously, but for the first 33 months my blog was in existence (until January 2005) I simply did not link to 'anonymous' blogs, period. From January 2005 I have relaxed this policy, and plan to continue with that more relaxed policy now, but I have never been entirely happy with the whole concept of anonymous blogging. It is significant, I think, that whilst both the SNP Tactical Voting and J Arthur MacNumpty blogs are written under the mask of pseudonyms, neither is anonymous. I have in the past written highly-critical articles about the author of the SNP Tactical Voting, from none of which criticism do I resile in any way, even if I accept that his writing is often of a high standard and displays a sound analysis on occasion, but of course I agree with neither on the merits of what the SNP desires to achieve in/'for' Scotland. But that is healthy debate with which I have no quarrel and both of these bloggers do write generally very coherent articles (even if they are interminably long sometimes).
In my own case I have never blogged anonymously. I have lost a few friends as a result (not everyone seems to have been willing to accept the 'revelation' that I am gay, but I can do without their acquaintance, quite frankly) and some of my views on other matters have irritated a few people beyond reason to the extent that I did have a stalker at one stage who purported to post scurrilous comments in other blogs under my name, presumably as a means of discrediting me. Luckily I was alerted to this by a couple of other bloggers so was able to overcome the problem. However, even in the recent past (following my recent article about 'Wardog' - linked to above) I was obliged to delete a comment from an SNP-supporting 'nutter' claiming 'victimhood' and various other 'excuses' for why [s]he had contravened my comments policy by writing offensive homophobic comments and alleging that I was somehow a Labour supporter (just as offensive!), which no rational person who has read much of what I have ever written here could reasonably assume to be an accurate interpretation, just because I don't happen to fall at the feet of wee-Eck's phantasmorgical nonsense!
So what does all this boil down to? Firstly, I am sorry to see these three bloggers (so far) disappear, because I do believe in free speech, however objectionable I may find some of the views expressed. On the other hand all three of these bloggers did pretty regularly post scurrilous obsessive nonsense either in their own blogs or in the comments pages of newspapers - and some people take exception to this. My view generally is that if I have something to say, I say it. Of course I do often self-censor so that what I think does not pass my lips or appear in print in my blog or in comments I occasionally make elsewhere, because I am not a complete idiot. Some idiots (i.e. these three bloggers), however, seem to think that they can say whatever they choose under the cloak of their supposed anonymity, then claim some kind of victim status when someone 'calls' them on it. My attitude is that I must accept responsibility for whatever I write here - sometimes I have written some pretty pointed things about various individuals but so far, luckily, this has not brought me more than minor 'grief'. Fundamentally I do think anonymous blogs are cowardly - it's rather like some of my closeted gay acquaintances over the years who have made all sorts of excuses for why they remain closeted, pretty pathetic in most cases, with a few exceptions admittedly (if I were gay and living in Iran or Nigeria, for example, I'd keep quiet about it too, very probably). Just what was it that people like Subrosa, Wardog and The Universality of Cheese were trying to achieve by their anonymous blogging and why is it considered such a disaster for them to have their identities revealed? I may be a 'libertarian', but I am not an 'anarchist' so I do accept there are certain limits to what one may say or write even in a democracy, without potentially being subject to legal sanction; anonymous bloggers seem to hope to skirt around this basic rule of living in a society governed by law. The attempts to portray them as 'victims' does not, in the final analysis, wash with me, however much I may regret their cessation of blogging. Live by the sword...
Reading quite a few of the SNP-leaning blogs over the past week or so has been like being an observer at a global mind-dump; the snide remark might be (and slap me hard for typing this lol) that there's been a lot of trash accumulating in them there minds to dump. But that would be cruel. The current cycle of introspection amongst this cohort of bloggers seemed to kick off a couple of weeks back with the sudden disappearance of the 'Wardog' blog, which I wrote about to high-light the dangers to wider freedom of speech which his 'silencing' seemed to represent. |
- that post had been 'inspired', if that's quite the right word(!), by some blog entries in the SNP Tactical Voting and J Arthur MacNumpty blogs, probably if I recall correctly in Subrosa's blog, too (no longer possible to check there, however) which all seemed to be indulging in what one might politely describe, at least in the case of the first two (the third being, we are led to believe, a lady) as keyboard onanism, as if SNP-blogging is co-equal with all Scottish blogging. There are other bloggers in Scotland than the fantasist SNP-leaning bloggers (and of course one of these two is I understand not actually based in Scotland at all, but is presumably someone with a Scottish heritage). Admittedly the SNP-bloggers have in recent months been generally more 'vocal' than other bloggers here. In all recent SNP-leaning blogging there has been a pretty clear whiff of 'victimhood', that somehow they, and by extension all Scottish/British bloggers are somehow being 'got at', possibly by agents of what is known as the MSM or 'main stream media', who are all castigated as being 'Unionist supporting' or sometimes 'Labour supporting'. Now I haven't ever made a practice of reading the Scotsman newspaper online (or in print) as I find it a pretty mediocre rag, but I have occasionally seen articles in both media - a feature of many of the few articles I have read online was the 'over the top', some might say 'obsessive' nature of many of the comments there, mainly emanating from what seemed to be SNP-supporters. I recall, before 'she' started blogging having occasionally seen the name 'Subrosa' given as the author of some of the comments, a few of which were frankly racist in tone. Nevertheless I found her as a blogger generally interesting, although hardly objective. On a couple of the occasions when she left a comment in my own little blog I had occasion to comment on the unpleasantly quasi-homophobic nature of these comments, but her comments were left in place by me (she may have deleted them subsequently, for all I know or care, as I now realise 'Wardog' has done too over the past couple of weeks, although in his case our debates never touched on homophobia as I never detected any whiff of that in him whatsoever) because the way she expressed her comments was always civil and I put her views down to being those of someone of advanced years. I knew no details of who she was, but she represented herself in her blog as being someone of advanced years.
In any case, one feature is common to the three SNP-leaning blogs which have been taken down recently - they were all anonymous. Shortly before the first two ceased blogging their identities were revealed, in the case of 'Wardog' by himself in his later blog entries and in the case of 'The Universality of Cheese' as a result of investigative journalism. From what I have gleaned from a couple of bloggers who have written about Subrosa's blogging demise, her identity was to be revealed this coming Sunday.
I can understand, at a pinch, why some bloggers wish to blog anonymously, but for the first 33 months my blog was in existence (until January 2005) I simply did not link to 'anonymous' blogs, period. From January 2005 I have relaxed this policy, and plan to continue with that more relaxed policy now, but I have never been entirely happy with the whole concept of anonymous blogging. It is significant, I think, that whilst both the SNP Tactical Voting and J Arthur MacNumpty blogs are written under the mask of pseudonyms, neither is anonymous. I have in the past written highly-critical articles about the author of the SNP Tactical Voting, from none of which criticism do I resile in any way, even if I accept that his writing is often of a high standard and displays a sound analysis on occasion, but of course I agree with neither on the merits of what the SNP desires to achieve in/'for' Scotland. But that is healthy debate with which I have no quarrel and both of these bloggers do write generally very coherent articles (even if they are interminably long sometimes).
In my own case I have never blogged anonymously. I have lost a few friends as a result (not everyone seems to have been willing to accept the 'revelation' that I am gay, but I can do without their acquaintance, quite frankly) and some of my views on other matters have irritated a few people beyond reason to the extent that I did have a stalker at one stage who purported to post scurrilous comments in other blogs under my name, presumably as a means of discrediting me. Luckily I was alerted to this by a couple of other bloggers so was able to overcome the problem. However, even in the recent past (following my recent article about 'Wardog' - linked to above) I was obliged to delete a comment from an SNP-supporting 'nutter' claiming 'victimhood' and various other 'excuses' for why [s]he had contravened my comments policy by writing offensive homophobic comments and alleging that I was somehow a Labour supporter (just as offensive!), which no rational person who has read much of what I have ever written here could reasonably assume to be an accurate interpretation, just because I don't happen to fall at the feet of wee-Eck's phantasmorgical nonsense!
So what does all this boil down to? Firstly, I am sorry to see these three bloggers (so far) disappear, because I do believe in free speech, however objectionable I may find some of the views expressed. On the other hand all three of these bloggers did pretty regularly post scurrilous obsessive nonsense either in their own blogs or in the comments pages of newspapers - and some people take exception to this. My view generally is that if I have something to say, I say it. Of course I do often self-censor so that what I think does not pass my lips or appear in print in my blog or in comments I occasionally make elsewhere, because I am not a complete idiot. Some idiots (i.e. these three bloggers), however, seem to think that they can say whatever they choose under the cloak of their supposed anonymity, then claim some kind of victim status when someone 'calls' them on it. My attitude is that I must accept responsibility for whatever I write here - sometimes I have written some pretty pointed things about various individuals but so far, luckily, this has not brought me more than minor 'grief'. Fundamentally I do think anonymous blogs are cowardly - it's rather like some of my closeted gay acquaintances over the years who have made all sorts of excuses for why they remain closeted, pretty pathetic in most cases, with a few exceptions admittedly (if I were gay and living in Iran or Nigeria, for example, I'd keep quiet about it too, very probably). Just what was it that people like Subrosa, Wardog and The Universality of Cheese were trying to achieve by their anonymous blogging and why is it considered such a disaster for them to have their identities revealed? I may be a 'libertarian', but I am not an 'anarchist' so I do accept there are certain limits to what one may say or write even in a democracy, without potentially being subject to legal sanction; anonymous bloggers seem to hope to skirt around this basic rule of living in a society governed by law. The attempts to portray them as 'victims' does not, in the final analysis, wash with me, however much I may regret their cessation of blogging. Live by the sword...
Sunday, 27 September 2009
The SNP and its pro-religioinist homophobic agenda
The SNP and its leadership are skilled political operators and even someone like me who opposes (vehemently) their basic policy objective of taking Scotland out of its partnership within the United Kingdom would have to accept that they play a good political game.
But do its supporters always understand those whom they support and the less-emphasised (at least in the mainstream press reports) policy issues which underlie much of the SNP agenda? Amongst the younger age-groups which the SNP seems to see as forming its natural support-base, specially in the future, one wonders if they understand fully just who it is they are supporting?
I've written about this matter before, although the comments provoked on that occasion from a pro-SNP political-activist (and now Westminster-candidate) have unfortunately been lost, because in the intervening 18 months I have changed my commenting system from Haloscan to the one offered by Google/Blogger for technical reasons, when I was obliged to alter radically my blog template toward the end of 2008 (I wrote about the then forthcoming change here).
In the latest issue of Scotsgay magazine, Issue 94, Garry Otton (of Scottish Media Monitor fame) takes a detailed look at the SNP and its associations with (and financial support from and to) various religious groups and on various issues - you'll need to scroll down to page 10 of the linked .PDF file to find the 'Badge of Shame' article. A few brief extracts from Gary Otton's article are instructive in illustrating some of the less well publicised aspects of SNP policy, despite earlier attempts in comments to my earlier article to pooh-pooh such concerns:
Just where is the SNP trying to take Scotland, riven as it seems to be (from top to bottom) with religious 'zealots'?! It takes great care not to talk too openly about its 'theocratic' agenda, but it is there to ferret out if one cares to look - thanks are due to Gary Otton for his efforts at exposing some of the 'wackier' ideas.
[*] PS/ I have been reading Gary Otton's writings for quite a few years now so am not unaware of his definite left-wing (and probably pro-Labour) biases and his seeming visceral dislike of Conservatism, so it is probably necessary to factor similar caution into an evaluation of his feelings about the SNP in relation to Scottish politics and its rivarly with Labour for influence.
But do its supporters always understand those whom they support and the less-emphasised (at least in the mainstream press reports) policy issues which underlie much of the SNP agenda? Amongst the younger age-groups which the SNP seems to see as forming its natural support-base, specially in the future, one wonders if they understand fully just who it is they are supporting?
I've written about this matter before, although the comments provoked on that occasion from a pro-SNP political-activist (and now Westminster-candidate) have unfortunately been lost, because in the intervening 18 months I have changed my commenting system from Haloscan to the one offered by Google/Blogger for technical reasons, when I was obliged to alter radically my blog template toward the end of 2008 (I wrote about the then forthcoming change here).
In the latest issue of Scotsgay magazine, Issue 94, Garry Otton (of Scottish Media Monitor fame) takes a detailed look at the SNP and its associations with (and financial support from and to) various religious groups and on various issues - you'll need to scroll down to page 10 of the linked .PDF file to find the 'Badge of Shame' article. A few brief extracts from Gary Otton's article are instructive in illustrating some of the less well publicised aspects of SNP policy, despite earlier attempts in comments to my earlier article to pooh-pooh such concerns:
"Salmond confesses that religion is the driving force in his thinking and seeks to accommodate Catholic thinking on every level, supporting (.. [*]) more sectarian or 'faith' schools and lobbying Whitehall for Catholic adoption agencies to be given an 'indefinite' exemption on gay adoption." "Since gaining power, Alex Salmond snubbed a debate on gay equality which was attended by all political parties, even the Tories.[*]" "... a senior SNP councillor in the Borders and Nationalist constituency party chairman, Keith Gunn exposed his 'beliefs' during a BBC Radio Scotland phone-in when he was asked why non-believers should have to treat the Bible with reverence. He confessed, 'Well non-believers are damned to Hell anyway, so why should we bother?' Presenter Graham Stewart suggested he might 'live alongside other people and have respect', but he was having none of it, 'No, I don't think so' he gushed. 'When we all went to church on a Sunday morning and we all prayed to the Lord Jesus Christ every Sunday morning, this was a much better country. Look where it is going now. We have got so-called gays who are really very sad people and we have non-believers and heathens, you know, running the country and running down Christianity. .... The SNP were quick only to dismiss his ideas as 'personal'." "Writing in the Scottish Catholic Observer, he [Salmond] went on to promise the Catholic Church he would do all he could to secure them exemptions from equality legislation - already passed by Parliament into law - that some Catholics saw as forcing them to treat gays equally in their quest to become prospective parents in publicly-funded, Catholic adoption agencies." |
Just where is the SNP trying to take Scotland, riven as it seems to be (from top to bottom) with religious 'zealots'?! It takes great care not to talk too openly about its 'theocratic' agenda, but it is there to ferret out if one cares to look - thanks are due to Gary Otton for his efforts at exposing some of the 'wackier' ideas.
[*] PS/ I have been reading Gary Otton's writings for quite a few years now so am not unaware of his definite left-wing (and probably pro-Labour) biases and his seeming visceral dislike of Conservatism, so it is probably necessary to factor similar caution into an evaluation of his feelings about the SNP in relation to Scottish politics and its rivarly with Labour for influence.
Tuesday, 1 September 2009
My absolutely final word on the al-Megrahi release saga
There has been a lot of fall-out from the release of the release of al-Megrahi back to Libya and that fall-out may not be over as yet. However, there is an article in today's Times newspaper by the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, that lays out pretty clearly what happened; three brief extracts:
- the whole article merits close study I think. I don't pretend to agree with everything that David Cameron has done so far, or that he seems to be planning should he become Prime Minister fairly soon (increasingly likely, on present trends, I'd say), but I have to say that those, both on the left of politics and on the gerontocrat-wing of the Conservative party itself, who declare Cameron to be 'light-weight' or 'shallow' seem to me to be way off-beam. That man is no light-weight and I think his clear-sightedness in this case makes that abundantly clear.
Almost done. Two articles in the Spectator's Coffee House are useful to read, too (here and here) - it is clear that Labour's connection to what happened is not as 'hands off' as they would have us believe. My earlier articles on the release are here, here and here.
Of course it's his interpretation, which I happen to agree with. A lot of people, particularly supporters of one of the political parties in Scotland (the governing Party here which made the decision to release al-Megrahi), disagree strongly with that view. Whatever we may think of the decision by Mr MacAskill, it was made in good faith I have no doubt (if in my view for misguided reasons), but it is done and cannot be reversed. We must now live with the consequences, whatever they are.
"Decisions concerning the fate of criminals, not least those responsible for mass murder, often provoke widespread public anger. But the outrage at this one has crossed continents and damaged our relationship with our closest ally, America. It has been a fiasco. "At its heart lies a series of failure of judgment. The first failure was the decision by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, to release al-Megrahi on “compassionate grounds”. Due process found al-Megrahi guilty, a verdict upheld on appeal. The Libyan Government accepted responsibility for the bombing and paid compensation to the Lockerbie families. Any doubts about the safety of al-Megrahi’s conviction should have been tested by the second appeal, which he instead withdrew. That is why I said that compassionate release was completely inappropriate. We are dealing here with someone convicted of one of the biggest mass murders in British history. Al-Megrahi’s victims were not allowed the luxury of “dying at home”. What on earth was Mr MacAskill thinking of when he made this utterly bizarre decision?" Then: "The second misjudgment was Gordon Brown’s failure to speak up clearly and promptly. On a matter fraught with such emotion, and with the potential to damage Britain’s reputation abroad, a decisive lead from the Prime Minister was required." And finally: "The Government needs to understand that it cannot reject this as an overhyped summer story and dismiss these suspicions out of hand. This issue goes to the core of how this Government operates. Unless these suspicions are properly put to rest, the al-Megrahi case will mark another damning chapter in the sorry history of Labour’s years in power." |
- the whole article merits close study I think. I don't pretend to agree with everything that David Cameron has done so far, or that he seems to be planning should he become Prime Minister fairly soon (increasingly likely, on present trends, I'd say), but I have to say that those, both on the left of politics and on the gerontocrat-wing of the Conservative party itself, who declare Cameron to be 'light-weight' or 'shallow' seem to me to be way off-beam. That man is no light-weight and I think his clear-sightedness in this case makes that abundantly clear.
Almost done. Two articles in the Spectator's Coffee House are useful to read, too (here and here) - it is clear that Labour's connection to what happened is not as 'hands off' as they would have us believe. My earlier articles on the release are here, here and here.
Of course it's his interpretation, which I happen to agree with. A lot of people, particularly supporters of one of the political parties in Scotland (the governing Party here which made the decision to release al-Megrahi), disagree strongly with that view. Whatever we may think of the decision by Mr MacAskill, it was made in good faith I have no doubt (if in my view for misguided reasons), but it is done and cannot be reversed. We must now live with the consequences, whatever they are.
Friday, 28 August 2009
Majority 'oppose' Megrahi release
An ICM/YouGov survey poll in Scotland has revealed that a very significant majority of Scots opposed the release of convicted Pan-Am bomber Abdel Basset Ali Mohamed al-Megrahi from a Scottish prison, because of his advanced prostate cancer, so that he could return to Libya 'to die' with his family. I wrote my view of the release here (I was strongly opposed) and followed it up with another article a couple of days later, to respond to some of the anonymous vitriol I had received through the comments in another local blog as a result of my stated view (which I stand by still, incidentally).
The just-published opinion poll reveals that my views on this matter are not in any way atypical of the majority of Scots, despite efforts by certain SNP politicians and apologists for the policies of that political party (mainly those who themselves share the political aims of the SNP) to use relentless 'spin' to try and show that it was their view that had majority public support. It didn't and it doesn't! Just as the public support for the SNP itself has taken a well-deserved beating compared to the position it held in the opinion polls a year ago.
The just-published opinion poll reveals that my views on this matter are not in any way atypical of the majority of Scots, despite efforts by certain SNP politicians and apologists for the policies of that political party (mainly those who themselves share the political aims of the SNP) to use relentless 'spin' to try and show that it was their view that had majority public support. It didn't and it doesn't! Just as the public support for the SNP itself has taken a well-deserved beating compared to the position it held in the opinion polls a year ago.
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Scotland sends a convicted murderer home "to die"
(Please see UPDATE at end)
I watched poor Kenny MacAskill MSP (Scottish Justice Secretary in the SNP Scottish Executive) stand up today and spend a tediously long period trying to justify the unjustifiable. I have to say that whilst watching him read out his statement I had a sneaking admiration for his even delivery and stamina - as if he thought that D..R..A..G..G..I..N..G out his statement for so long would confuse the issue.
If the verdict of guilty against Megrahi is unsafe, as some seem to believe, then the evidence against him needs to be re-examined carefully and dispassionately - and this could have been done many years ago if there was any substance to it; indeed two appeals have taken place already and been rejected. If his conviction was not unsafe, in other words if he was correctly convicted, then I think his sentence of life imprisonment should have meant just that. Until his conviction is overturned, for me he is guilty - and for Kenny MacAskill, too, on the basis of what he took so long to say today.
So, according to Mr MacAskill we in Scotland let people out of prison because they're going to die imminently, out of 'compassion'. I wrote my views about that here, when I made a passing reference to the Megrahi case. They are no different today now that the Megrahi case has hit the headlines. What about the people who were killed when that aeroplane blew up over Lockerbie - they didn't get to go home to die with their families! Nor for that matter, I expect, do other convicted criminals who happen to die of old age, or a heart attack, or a stroke, whilst in prison. We are all going to die some day - it's part of human existence, indeed of every living creature. The fact that someone happens to be dying of some incurable disease in prison does not make them any more deserving of 'compassion' than any other criminal serving a prison sentence who happens to be going to die there.
MacAskill waffled on for ages trying to confuse the issue by dragging out his decision not to grant release under the Prisoner Transfer Scheme with Libya agreed by the UK government, when the Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') had sought an exemption for Scotland for any Lockerbie convictee (i.e. Megrahi), when that decision had no bearing - apart from trying to make yet another tedious political propaganda point in the SNP's campaign to sow dissent wiith the UK government - on the decision he took to release Megrahi on grounds of 'compassion', saying it was in a noble Scottish tradition. It's not one I've ever heard of. My analysis of this is that it is yet another example of the SNP Scottish Executive playing yet another cyncial game to try and wrong-foot the UK Government by strutting its devolved power before the world. Mind you it's no different than the cackeyed reasons Jack Straw, UK Justice Secretary, gave for releasing Biggs 'to die'. I'd rather MacAskill and Straw excercised compassion in their own time, not on my behalf. Pass the sick bag, Alice!
And we have, as any fool could have predicted, this criminal being given a hero's welcome back in Libya and using our Scottish Saltire as part of a crude propaganda exercise. Well done Mr MacAskill! I'll need that sick bag again, Alice!
PS/ To me, just to be clear, it's completely irrelevant that the US government objected vociferously to the prospect of Megrahi being sent back to Libya. We have our legal system and they have their's and they have done many things in recent years which have been found by many in this country to be revolting or merely unjust in recent years, and precious little notice have they taken of the views and sensibilities of what is supposed to be their closest ally in the world. The fact that there is a different Administration in the US today has not changed the fact that Guantanamo remains open and that the US is, many believe, still consigning people they capture to treatment that wouldn't be tolerated on US soil. I am very pro-American, but rank hypocrisy makes me heave!
UPDATE: (Sunday 23AUG09 14.10 BST) One of the other Nairn bloggers, Graisg, kindly wrote a brief article in his blog to alert his readers to my article; he expressed no view about what I had written. I placed a comment in his comment for that article to thank him for high-lighting my blog (obviously it has increased 'hits' here, specially from local people, although most of the 'hits' seem anyway to have come from the US). However, a number of the comments there were, ahem, somewhat uncomplimentary about me and I planned to post my own further comment there - however Graisg had closed off comments because of the nature of some of the earlier comments (I think) so I have written a new article here, which includes word-for-word what would have been in my comment.
I watched poor Kenny MacAskill MSP (Scottish Justice Secretary in the SNP Scottish Executive) stand up today and spend a tediously long period trying to justify the unjustifiable. I have to say that whilst watching him read out his statement I had a sneaking admiration for his even delivery and stamina - as if he thought that D..R..A..G..G..I..N..G out his statement for so long would confuse the issue.
If the verdict of guilty against Megrahi is unsafe, as some seem to believe, then the evidence against him needs to be re-examined carefully and dispassionately - and this could have been done many years ago if there was any substance to it; indeed two appeals have taken place already and been rejected. If his conviction was not unsafe, in other words if he was correctly convicted, then I think his sentence of life imprisonment should have meant just that. Until his conviction is overturned, for me he is guilty - and for Kenny MacAskill, too, on the basis of what he took so long to say today.
So, according to Mr MacAskill we in Scotland let people out of prison because they're going to die imminently, out of 'compassion'. I wrote my views about that here, when I made a passing reference to the Megrahi case. They are no different today now that the Megrahi case has hit the headlines. What about the people who were killed when that aeroplane blew up over Lockerbie - they didn't get to go home to die with their families! Nor for that matter, I expect, do other convicted criminals who happen to die of old age, or a heart attack, or a stroke, whilst in prison. We are all going to die some day - it's part of human existence, indeed of every living creature. The fact that someone happens to be dying of some incurable disease in prison does not make them any more deserving of 'compassion' than any other criminal serving a prison sentence who happens to be going to die there.
MacAskill waffled on for ages trying to confuse the issue by dragging out his decision not to grant release under the Prisoner Transfer Scheme with Libya agreed by the UK government, when the Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') had sought an exemption for Scotland for any Lockerbie convictee (i.e. Megrahi), when that decision had no bearing - apart from trying to make yet another tedious political propaganda point in the SNP's campaign to sow dissent wiith the UK government - on the decision he took to release Megrahi on grounds of 'compassion', saying it was in a noble Scottish tradition. It's not one I've ever heard of. My analysis of this is that it is yet another example of the SNP Scottish Executive playing yet another cyncial game to try and wrong-foot the UK Government by strutting its devolved power before the world. Mind you it's no different than the cackeyed reasons Jack Straw, UK Justice Secretary, gave for releasing Biggs 'to die'. I'd rather MacAskill and Straw excercised compassion in their own time, not on my behalf. Pass the sick bag, Alice!
And we have, as any fool could have predicted, this criminal being given a hero's welcome back in Libya and using our Scottish Saltire as part of a crude propaganda exercise. Well done Mr MacAskill! I'll need that sick bag again, Alice!
PS/ To me, just to be clear, it's completely irrelevant that the US government objected vociferously to the prospect of Megrahi being sent back to Libya. We have our legal system and they have their's and they have done many things in recent years which have been found by many in this country to be revolting or merely unjust in recent years, and precious little notice have they taken of the views and sensibilities of what is supposed to be their closest ally in the world. The fact that there is a different Administration in the US today has not changed the fact that Guantanamo remains open and that the US is, many believe, still consigning people they capture to treatment that wouldn't be tolerated on US soil. I am very pro-American, but rank hypocrisy makes me heave!
UPDATE: (Sunday 23AUG09 14.10 BST) One of the other Nairn bloggers, Graisg, kindly wrote a brief article in his blog to alert his readers to my article; he expressed no view about what I had written. I placed a comment in his comment for that article to thank him for high-lighting my blog (obviously it has increased 'hits' here, specially from local people, although most of the 'hits' seem anyway to have come from the US). However, a number of the comments there were, ahem, somewhat uncomplimentary about me and I planned to post my own further comment there - however Graisg had closed off comments because of the nature of some of the earlier comments (I think) so I have written a new article here, which includes word-for-word what would have been in my comment.
Thursday, 30 July 2009
An SNP supporter's tipple of choice (for pay)
Well-known SNP supporter, Sir Sean Connery, drinks that well-known brand of [not Scotch] whisky from Japanese producer Suntory. Presumably this ad. gets played to introduce the one-time 'Bond, James Bond' when he attends SNP functions?
And he looks so happy, don't you think?
And he looks so happy, don't you think?
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Is the Glenrothes result now credible?
(Please see UPDATE at end)
Apparently the marked electoral register for last November's Glenrothes by-election, on which officials in polling stations score out voters as they register to vote, has gone missing, according to a Courier exclusive report. The result confounded expectations at the time amongst all political parties, including Labour, who all expected a very close result and possibly a narrow SNP victory.
My own allusion to the result and my explanation for it were based on an implicit assumption of the integrity of the vote. Whilst there is absolutely no evidence that the result was anything but sound, the inability to trace such an important legal document as the marked election register must inevitably cast suspicion on what happened back in November.
(thru Guido Fawkes story here)
UPDATE: (Tuesday 3FEB09 18.06 GMT) I've just noticed in my visitor statistics that this post was viewed this afternoon from the Electoral Commission server - I hope that this body will take a good look at the Glenrothes result and issue an HONEST appraisal quickly. We do not require a whitewash! And will not believe it if it is clear that this is what it is.
Apparently the marked electoral register for last November's Glenrothes by-election, on which officials in polling stations score out voters as they register to vote, has gone missing, according to a Courier exclusive report. The result confounded expectations at the time amongst all political parties, including Labour, who all expected a very close result and possibly a narrow SNP victory.
My own allusion to the result and my explanation for it were based on an implicit assumption of the integrity of the vote. Whilst there is absolutely no evidence that the result was anything but sound, the inability to trace such an important legal document as the marked election register must inevitably cast suspicion on what happened back in November.
(thru Guido Fawkes story here)
UPDATE: (Tuesday 3FEB09 18.06 GMT) I've just noticed in my visitor statistics that this post was viewed this afternoon from the Electoral Commission server - I hope that this body will take a good look at the Glenrothes result and issue an HONEST appraisal quickly. We do not require a whitewash! And will not believe it if it is clear that this is what it is.
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
Scottish Parliament rejects Salmond's SNP budget
The Scottish Parliament (SP) today rejected the Scottish Executive's (aka 'Scottish Government's') budget proposals. The vote was 64 on both sides and the Presiding Officer (aka 'Speaker') cast his vote to defeat it, citing precedent that casting votes should not change the status quo, which accepting the budget proposals would have done. Apparently the Green Party withdrew its support shortly before the vote and the the support of the Conservatives was not quite enough to swing it Alex's way.
It seems First Minister Salmond wants MSPs to forego the first week of their February holiday (why a February holiday, by the by?) so he can bring the budget before the SP again. I heard him speak on the radio at 8pm during the news bulletin implying that if he couldn't get his budget through it might necessitate 'going to the people'. No doubt a lot of hard political bargaining will be happening in the next few days amongst all the Parties. Which amongst the two principal Parties might lose/gain most from an early election? Whilst the SNP looks and is feeble, and its hold on power is precarious, the Labour lot are hardly more popular, with the toxicity of Brown's 'leadership' down in London unlikely to help their cause, even in their Scottish heartlands.
And we are only pretty near the beginning of this downturn/recession/depression, call it what you will. I haven't seen a great deal of discussion in blogs (those in the UK at any rate) so far about the unrest and violence which has occurred in recent weeks in a number of countries across Europe (Greece, Iceland, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria - can Estonia and Hungary be far behind?) with a general strike planned in France tomorrow. How quickly is it likely, if at all, that this unrest will spread to our little island? Who knows, but I suspect that before this thing is through we're going to see much more of this kind of thing and perhaps much worse - today's little difficulty in the SP might then come to seem merely a quaint reminder of what may then seem like better times.
OK, OK Cassandra will shut up ...
It seems First Minister Salmond wants MSPs to forego the first week of their February holiday (why a February holiday, by the by?) so he can bring the budget before the SP again. I heard him speak on the radio at 8pm during the news bulletin implying that if he couldn't get his budget through it might necessitate 'going to the people'. No doubt a lot of hard political bargaining will be happening in the next few days amongst all the Parties. Which amongst the two principal Parties might lose/gain most from an early election? Whilst the SNP looks and is feeble, and its hold on power is precarious, the Labour lot are hardly more popular, with the toxicity of Brown's 'leadership' down in London unlikely to help their cause, even in their Scottish heartlands.
And we are only pretty near the beginning of this downturn/recession/depression, call it what you will. I haven't seen a great deal of discussion in blogs (those in the UK at any rate) so far about the unrest and violence which has occurred in recent weeks in a number of countries across Europe (Greece, Iceland, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria - can Estonia and Hungary be far behind?) with a general strike planned in France tomorrow. How quickly is it likely, if at all, that this unrest will spread to our little island? Who knows, but I suspect that before this thing is through we're going to see much more of this kind of thing and perhaps much worse - today's little difficulty in the SP might then come to seem merely a quaint reminder of what may then seem like better times.
OK, OK Cassandra will shut up ...
Sunday, 16 November 2008
National Debtline for Scotland: 0808 808 4000
The Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') has set up a national debt hotline to give people who have got major financial problems, or are rapidly approaching the stage of having them, advice on how to ameliorate their situation. I don't often have much good to say about the Scottish National Party and its activities, but this is an exception; I think the aims of this project are worthy and I hope the execution lives up to these. Introducing the hotline, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is quoted as saying:
The National Debtline number is 0808 808 4000.
"As the recession bites, families across Scotland are feeling the pressure financially, with increases in food prices, rising bills and mortgage and lending uncertainty all adding to the headache. "National Debtline will provide the best possible support for people with debt problems. The advice is free, confidential and independent. "The main message we want to get across is for people to take control of their debt, before it controls them. "This government will do all it can to help those in difficulty, and that's why I would urge anyone experiencing financial problems to call National Debtline." |
The National Debtline number is 0808 808 4000.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
Westminster 2009/2010 - let battle commence
I thought I would continue my previous practice of publishing all 'propaganda' from political parties that happens to drop through my letter box; first out of the stocks for the next Westminster parliamentary elections which will presumably happen in 2009 or 2010 (unless the shocking state that our present Labour government has got us into leads them to call a 'snap' election before the end of this year - probably unlikely), is Scotland's self-styled 'national' party, the Scottish National Party (SNP), introducing us to their PPC for the Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch & Strathspey constituency, a gentleman by the name of John Finnie whom we are informed in the leaflet is a former policeman, hence the slightly witty banner title in the second image below.
As readers of my little blog will know well, I am not a supporter in any shape or form of the SNP and I plan to publish any further political propaganda leaflets which drop through my letterbox from whichever political party they come (well, if I am honest, with one exception - I will not publish any material from the BNP, nor have I ever linked to their website and have no intention of ever doing so):
As readers of my little blog will know well, I am not a supporter in any shape or form of the SNP and I plan to publish any further political propaganda leaflets which drop through my letterbox from whichever political party they come (well, if I am honest, with one exception - I will not publish any material from the BNP, nor have I ever linked to their website and have no intention of ever doing so):
SNP PPC leaflet - SNP INB&S - October 2008 (Click any image to see an enlargement) |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)