BBC Blog Network

User Profile

GrandfatherFlump

Listed below are comments made by GrandfatherFlump between Thursday, 8th May 2008 and Thursday, 11th September 2008.

«Newer
Older»

Not on top form 8:04pm on 11 Sep 2008 Two points.

First, in defence of Brian Taylor. He is a first class political commentator who does an excellent job of saying what he thinks while remaining objective. His contributions to this blog are thoughtful and thought-provoking and the stats show that they generate plenty of debate. The fact that others contributors to this blog do not know what Brian's own personal political views are shows what a good job he is doing of showing impartiality and non-partisanship.

Second, in defence of Cathy Jamieson, I think she did a pretty decent job today and would be the most likely of the three candidates to cause the FM problems at FMQs. She had a quick reply when the FM congratulated George Burley and the Scotland team and she managed to press the FM on an awkward issue despite the PO's frequent interventions. It was really the PO who came to the FM's rescue.
Tavish Scott takes to the leadership stage 12:36pm on 28 Aug 2008 Did anyone see Gordon Brewer's interview with Tavish Scott on Newsnight last night? If not you can watch it via this website.

Why would you bother?

Well partly for the fun of seeing the new LD leader unable to answer the question of whether he will support a multi-option referendum. You would think that someone who is supposed to be so good with the media would have a better answer worked out.

But more amusingly, to watch Mr Scott struggling to cope as his ear-piece falls out. And then even more amusingly to hear Gordon Brewer apologise - as if he'd accidentally pulled out the wire from his end!

Can we have a BBC Scottish politics gaffes and outtakes show - maybe in time for the 10th anniversary of the Parliament?
Fighting for survival 4:55pm on 10 Jun 2008 What a terrible error of judgement by the PM to risk his entire career over an issue like this. There is just nothing whatsoever for him to gain even if he gets it through. The current proposal is such a watered down version of the original 90 day policy that it hardly toughens the law at all. And even if it gets through the Commons, the Lords will send it back for another vote so the whole issue will be around for a while yet. I cannot see for the life of me why he thinks it is worth all the hassle.

However, to be fair, Ms Angiolini's quotation is not really out of line with what Government Ministers have been saying. She said "the requirement for an extension to the current 28 day is not supported by prosecution experience to date." The Government do not dispute that. They have been arguing that while that is true, they believe there may well be cases in the future that will require a longer period of detention before charge.
A good grilling 4:05pm on 22 May 2008 "Snag for the opposition leaders is that, on the day, Alex Salmond did not appear even faintly disquieted by their disparate assault."

I don't know if the FM gets enough credit for the way he deals with FMQs - not just today but every week.

Compare his performance to his predecessors and to the PM and he is in a league of his own.

Not only anticipating the questions and having pre-prepared lines but even today anticipating the quote Wendy would use and being able to find and finish the sentence for her, thus showing her up for selective quoting!

His ability to turn an argument (even a good argument) against his opponent is second to none. And he always addresses the question if not always answering it, which is more than can be said for Gordon Brown.

Annabel began very well today with her usual off the cuff humour and her pre-rehearsed joke about the PM. But her second question lacked the usual punch, given that the FM had already dealt with her point first time round.
Sensitive topics 2:57pm on 15 May 2008 Why on earth do people bother travelling to the city where the game is being played when they don't have tickets for the match?

The most sensible solution for the future is that only fans with tickets are encouraged to go and the message is put out loud and clear that local bars will not even show the game, never mind set up beer tents and big screens and relax the drinking laws.

No city deserves to be invaded by thousands of drunken football supporters, regardless of nationality or which team they support.

Having said all that I bet Wendy was absolutely delighted to have something serious to talk about so that the FM couldn't spend FMQs laughing at Labour's referendum policy. And for once it was the FM who looked to be struggling to answer clever questions from Annabel and Nicol.
Clearly confused 9:31pm on 13 May 2008 In the time it took me to write that, Wendy's changed her policy again! What a joke.

Maybe I should keep my posts briefer in future. In fact I think we should all take a break from blogging until the Labour Party has decided on a policy and held it consistently for at least 24 hours.
Clearly confused 9:19pm on 13 May 2008 Brian

I'd still love an answer to my question (no.8).

On Rev_S_Campbell's question (no.18) - why don't the SNP bring forward a bill now that legislates for a referendum in 2010? It's a good question and you put forward a good argument.

Three possible reasons:

1. It may be an issue of time. There may be insufficient time in this Parliamentary session to allow the inclusion of another bill at this late stage. (This may or may not be true but it would be a useful excuse if the SNP choose to hold their ground)

2. Doing so would give Labour the chance to keep making the same point in Parliament over a prolonged period - why not 2009? After all the hooha of the past week dies down, this question could begin to resonate with the public and cause the SNP some serious embarrassment.

3. The SNP are currently perceived as a strong and competent Government. Wendy and the Labour Party look weak and incompetent. So the SNP don't need to do anything that could be seen as making a concession to Labour and which Wendy might be able to spin as her forcing the Government's hand.

But I'm beginning to wonder if the SNP would have a better chance of winning an independence referendum in 2009 than in 2010. Presumably Salmond's calculation before the election was that Scotland would vote for independence rather than allow another decade of Tory rule. But with Labour's popularity nose-diving both north and south of the border and support for the Tories beginning to rise even up here, maybe a referendum sooner rather than later would be better for the SNP?

I agree with RodmurrayHFC's comments (no.17) and loved the deliberate mistake in your final sentence:

"And please, could you all check your spelling, punctuation and grammmar!"

At least I assume it was deliberate?!
Clearly confused 4:44pm on 13 May 2008 Brian

Any news yet of Labour moving towards support for a referendum with three options including 'more powers' as defined by the Calman Commission?

Unless they return to their previous position of rejecting the SNP's calls for a referendum (which would surely signal the end of the road for Wendy), it seems to be the best option open to them.

Presumably the problem with a three option referendum is that the vote might be split fairly evenly leaving uncertainty over the way forward, hence the FM's idea of a transferable voting system being used.

The alternative, which I guess would suit the Unionists better, would be to ask two questions, as in 1997, along these lines:

1. Do you think the Scottish Parliament should be give more powers? Yes or No.

2. Do you want the Scottish Government to negotiate for Scottish independence from the UK? Yes or no.

Would the SNP accept a referendum on that basis?
Dearie me 4:51pm on 11 May 2008 Wendy's position has changed every day this week so it's hard to predict what it will be in 2010. And her position only matters if she's still leader of her party in Holyrood.

But today she said quite clearly that Labour would not vote against a referendum bill. They might want to debate the wording of the question but they won't vote against the principle of a referendum. Why not? Because "Labour aren't scared of giving the people their say." That is, apart from the PM, Wendy's brother and the rest of the UK Cabinet!

Which means that the Scottish Parliament will approve a referendum bill in 2010, unless of course Gordon Brown forces Wendy into another U-turn and orders Labour MSPs to vote against it.

But what I still don't understand is why Wendy is so keen on only offering a choice between independence and the status quo. Surely, as all the polls show, that is the SNP's best (and only) chance of winning.

How long will it be before Wendy calls for a three-way referendum with 'more powers' being defined by the Calman Commission. That would be the logical solution and would all but guarantee that independence would be defeated, at least this time round.
Not just any referendum 4:59pm on 08 May 2008 Brian,

On reflection, I think that Wendy's U-turn does cause a bit of problem for the SNP.

I agree that:

1. She would have been in a stronger position had she made this move sooner - as soon as she took over the leadership.

2. She should have announced it in a clearer and more thought-out way.

3. She should have done it with the full knowledge and co-operation of the PM.

4. And she should have discussed her strategy with the Tories and Lib-Dems who might have been more sympathetic if she had presented it to them as a united Unionist challenge to the SNP.

But with time, I think all of these mistakes will be forgotten by the majority of the Scottish people as the fundamental question keeps coming back:

"FM, if you want independence, why won't you introduce a Referendum Bill now?"

Those of us who regularly watch FMQs and read and contribute to this blog know that the SNP's position has been completely clear and consistent and that the case for a referendum in 2010 has been well made.

But for the vast majority of the population, the simplicity and strength of Wendy's argument may well make sense, especially with the endorsement of the CBI and others.

The SNP have to decide whether to risk looking like they are running scared of a referendum or do a deal.

Their manifesto allows some wriggle room: the commitment is to an independence referendum 'with a likely date of 2010'.

Calling Wendy's bluff and bringing forward a Bill for a referendum in 2009 with a straight choice - independence, yes or no - is surely the best way forward and their best chance of achieving their goal.

Two other questions:

Wendy said the other night it would take a year from the Bill being presented to the date of the referendum. (Actually she said it would take 9 months "from the start of 2010... that would take us to November" which I make 11 months!!) The FM said that's not true and it could be done a lot more quickly. Who is right?

Today, the FM used the word "freedom" to cheers from the SNP benches. Is that a deliberate change of language or has he been using this word for a while now?

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

GrandfatherFlump