BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Eoin_og

Listed below are comments made by Eoin_og between Wednesday, 4th February 2009 and Wednesday, 17th June 2009.

«Newer
Older»

A political career shelved 4:37pm on 17 Jun 2009 #11 - Firstly, Mr Taylor is not a judge and it is not his job to pronounce judgement on anyone; Secondly, it would be foolhardy in the extreme for any journalist to commit himself in print when he or she is not in full possession of the facts.

As an aside on the police looking into this matter, bear in mind that as Scotland has a separate legal jurisdiction from England, nothing that has previously been said re prosecutions ('looking unlikely', etc) applies. The decision to prosecute is made by the Procurator Fiscal based upon a report given by the police; so Mr Devine may face prosecution in Scotland.

There is a jurisdictional question, and I am not aware of exactly where the receipts were submitted. If it was down in London then it would probably fall under the English jurisdiction, but if they were, for example, posted in Scotland to London then it would be the Scottish jurisdiction.

Personally, I would be in favour of a prosecution (providing the jurisdictional question was resolved) as there seems to be a prima facie case and it is, in my personal opinion, in the public interest.
All change? 3:16pm on 11 Jun 2009 Greenock boy, #123 & 127

I endorse your approach towards blogging unreservedly; it is how it shuld be done. I'm not making a comment on the substance, only the style. With regard to #123, the last paragraph - I always prefer the quotation, "Never argue with an idiot, they'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". But that is perhaps a bit childish of me.

Would that the debate could continue in the style you have outlined, although I don't think it shall.
Battling on 3:15pm on 09 Jun 2009 #33, RE

Yes I am serious, and happy to clear up any further questions you may have regarding my intent in posting. Please don't hesitate to ask.

I note you state that 'everyone else seems to know'; in which case, you had better mention it to the Justice Minister, as he seemed to believe that it was the SNP delivering on their manifesto commitment. The opposition spokespersons also failed to flag up the fact that the SNP failed on this one count; indeed, according to the BBC, the Labour justice spokesperson welcomed the new figures.

Further, you adopt the position that the SNP "reneged on this flagship 'fully costed" manifesto pledge', and then go on in the same paragraph to state that it was the Conservatives that forced the SNP to 'stick to their own promise'. Assuming you are talking about the same pledge/promise, I fear you may have laid a burden upon the logical semantics of the English language which it may not be able to bear.

But this tit for tat aside, I hoped to emphasise that when a government does good, it seems that the opposition still criticise when it would be more to their credit to welcome the result (which is good for the populace) and continue to test the government on other areas. And yes, you are correct, a great many manifesto promises disappear, from all governments; SNP included. The fact that all governments are guilty does not alleviate the sin of any particular government, I entirely agree.

Dubbieside - good link, I enjoyed the article.
Battling on 1:47pm on 09 Jun 2009 I'm delighted by the recognition that the SNP are delivering (thus far) on their manifesto promise of 1000 extra police officers across four years. Many manifesto pledges sink without trace across a government's tenure, but it appears this one will be delivered upon. I was less impressed by the reaction of the opposition parties which have hounded the SNP over this (as is their duty in opposition): the Tories were desperate to claim it for themselves (with the decidedly odd 'any number over 500' qualification, although I am aware they claim to have forced the SNP to change from 500 to 1000); Labour forecast economic problems next year that will make the current level unsustainable (irony not being a strong point); and the Lib Dems at least point out that the true test is people feeling safer in the streets, which at least gives credit to the achievement, albeit implicitly. I think it would have been far more to the opposition's credit if they simply said that they were happy to have more police on the streets.

Re the current news story, it is depressing that all current actions revolve around the desire 'to win the next election'. That should not motivate a politican; that should be the consequence of their true motivation which is (ought to be) rendering public service to those who voted to place them in positions of power. Personally I think absolute transparency and a well educated populace is the key to good politics, but that is for another day.
The Golden Rule 10:42pm on 09 Feb 2009 And #62, my apologies for making you nauseous - again, not my intention. I will simply point out that in many aspects of the public sector we provide the money for others making the decisions; that is part and parcel of how government operates. I would say that to think that one can simply make demands of these persons from a 'we pay your wages' basis is misleading; I too pay tax and my licence fee, but I do not think to dictate to civil servants nor the head of the BBC what to do.

I'm not posting this to aggravate this discussion, I just perceive that perhaps my reasoning did not come across as I would have liked. Perhaps there is a BBC policy which differentiates blogs of this kind which calls for it to be pre-moderated, I don't know. That is my only point.
The Golden Rule 10:34pm on 09 Feb 2009 Slightly saddened that we appear to be discussing the pre or no pre-moderating of the blogs; in essence, I don't think it changes a great deal about the debate on this forum. I would say that the BBC should explain the discrimination between this blog and others, as it must be justified. But I will stand back from calling for this blog to be non pre-moderated as there may well be a reason for it. By all means ask for an explanation, but let us not pre-judge. I apologise if my declination caused offence; I did not mean to.

To turn to the substance of the blog, #54; I absolutely agree that de jure independence does not always equal de facto independence. But in my opinion, we are approaching this question from the other direction. Through the west lothian question and now the question of borrowing powers, eventually the factual situation will become untenable as Scotland becomes more and more independent de facto; this tension will then, I hope, lead to a similar de jure situation. I'm quite excited about it to be honest! But I emphasise that is my opinion, and your example is an excellent warning against empty promises and symbols of independence without any substance.
The Golden Rule 4:25pm on 09 Feb 2009 It seems that there are two themes running through this thread. The first relates to governments having borrowing powers at all; the second seems to be unanimous approval of granting borrowing powers to the Scottish Government.

With regards to the first, there can surely be no question of taking away the power of borrowing from governments. It is required to ensure that government can still operate, that capital projects can go ahead, etc. I would also be wary of saying it it borrowing from future generations - an equal way of representing that is to say it is an investment for future generations. As an example, a new bridge across the forth will be an investment with borrowed money, and the asset may well be worth more than the debt.

With regards to the second, as I've said (neutrally) it seems an inevitable process; as more and more political situations arise like the one concerning the bridge, and Westminster fails to exude any kind of superiority with regards to fiscal prudence or expertise, eventually a majority of Scots will demand fiscal independence. And from that naturally follows de jure independence.

Finally, # 31 - this is a BBC blog, and we are posting on their territory, under their rules. To be frank, I do not find it insulting if the BBC wish to pre-moderate comments to ensure that nothing libellous or obscene is automatically put forward, and cover themselves. As regards the flow of debate, I don't know about anyone else, but I find that comments tend to be more refined and concise when more time is allowed for them. So I thank you but will politely decline your urging.
The Golden Rule 2:35pm on 09 Feb 2009 This then addresses the nub of the problem. Those who desire to stay within the UK will have to accept a parliament which is inherently fettered in financial terms, as borrowing on the open market wold be impossible without a clear line of who is responsible for fiscal repayments and who is the guarantor in the case of default and thus it must come through the treasury. The treasury, however, is not the most flexible or efficient of beasts, which will undoubtedly give rise to an ongoing tension with regard to Scotland's capital developments. While all might be rosy in the time of similar political leadership north and south of the border, might the temptation for the Labour / Tory adminstration down south to win political points through fiscal means be too great in times of hostile leadership north of the border?

Personally, I think the tension is too great. Akin to the West Lothian question, there will come a time when a decision is made (with or without ulterior motive) which creates such a political storm that separation will take place. I would say it is inevitable (kindly note I'm not endorsing or opposing it).
A sense of relaxation 4:58pm on 05 Feb 2009 This situation is almost comparable to the ever-present West Lothian question, and has, to my mind, a certain air of inevitability about it. As soon as any borrowing powers are ceded to the Scottish Government, more and more will be demanded; any constraints will be seen as unnecessary and undemocratic. Eventually, we will come to the stage where full fiscal powers will be demanded, which is de facto independence; that presumably would swiftly lead to de jure independence as well. Every cessation of power to the Scottish government, be it political, economical, social, etc, will be nigh on impossible to claw back by Westminster; and the argument against extending them would only become tenable in the scenario of Scotland becoming some kind of basket case (economic, or political, etc).

A slippery slope for Unionists; the crack which will lead to the opening of the floodgates for those of us that are pro-independence? We do live in interesting times
It's not easy being Green 2:24pm on 04 Feb 2009 Forfar-loon, that is phenomenal. I don't agree (at least not 100%) with the content, but happy to acknowledge the skill!

«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

Eoin_og