BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Anagol

Listed below are comments made by Anagol between Friday, 5th September 2008 and Saturday, 14th March 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Faustian pacts and pompous asses 2:44pm on 14 Mar 2009 It surprises me not that Sir Menzies Campbell has been miffed by First Minister Salmond's impressive reception in Washington. If a serving First Minister is a "novice", however, what is a failed party leader who has never been a minister of anything anywhere?

When MC was attempting years ago to become Liberal MP for the then Tory stronghold of East Fife, a function arranged at an East Neuk hotel attracted, embarrassingly, no more than a handful of local residents, two of whom were my good self and the other my brother. All the places had been set in the grand room reserved for the event at which the aspiring great man of politics was to preside, but there to meet and greet him were ultimately only me and my wee brother, both of us in our teens but genuinely interested in politics and ready and able to engage with him.

So what happened? Did MC reward us for our interest or was it beneath his dignity to meet a couple of lads who would have been delighted to meet him and indeed honoured? Too much of a patrician, I'm afraid. A minion was deputed to deal with us while the toff disappeared, never to be seen by either of us. Neither of us, needless to say, has ever felt tempted to vote for his then party or his current one.

Acting the patrician statesman is all very well, but you have to be a statesman first, really, and you would, honestly, have to be a bit of a pompous ass to reveal your jealousy of a successful party leader's statesmanlike meeting with the US Secretary of State, who was clearly not too proud to meet the political leader of Scotland but might have drawn the line at devoting a couple of hours to you, Sir Ming. Sir Who?
'Rip it up and start again' 3:57pm on 12 Feb 2009 Having just watched a recording of today's FMQs, I cannot but reflect upon the Labour group leader's assertion that the First Minister's credibility had been "shot to pieces" because he had been "caught red-handed selling short Scottish voters" by acknowledging that in the present parliament his minority government has been unable to construct a stable majority which would make it possible for a local income tax to be introduced.

To acknowledge that an LIT bill cannot pass before the next Scottish general election may seem to Mr Gray to be something for which an apology is called, but I doubt whether the people of Scotland will agree. If the SNP government had a parliamentary majority, he might have a point, but everyone else knows, I presume, that a minority government cannot be held responsible for opposition parties' refusal to provide it with a majority for a measure to which they are implacably opposed. Of course, it is all empty rhetoric ("volumes of verbosity", as Auntie Bella aptly termed it), just a lot of huff and puff signifying nothing, the usual Gray over-rehearsed and overscripted moral outrage, which can hardly be said to be worth anyone's attention. Even my lapdog started yawning before he was half-way through.

As for the worryingly serious issue of the slight kerfuffle between Ms Goldie and the Presiding Officer, or "Mr Ferguson", as she improperly addressed him, one might suppose that a summons to the PO's office for a dressing down might be in order, if it were not for the uncomfortable fact that Mr Ferguson may suspect that he would be on the receiving end of it.

As for the Lib Dem leader, he seems to like being embarrassed. At least he appeared to laugh at himself when Mr Salmond cast up at him those words of his rashly uttered upon his election as Lib Dem leader to the effect that Lib Dem support for a referendum on independence was not wholly unthinkable, or some such formula. Combine that with Labour's declared support for such a referendum as recently as last year and one has justification for not taking seriously the call for the referendum bill to be abandoned.

Indeed, the coast is now clearer for attention to be focused on the referendum proposal to a greater extent during the second half of the SNP government's first term of office. Having swept out of the way some business that it could not reasonably hope to make progress on, the SNP has created scope for it to focus electors' attention on the independence issue. The recent appointment of an "independence minister" would seem to confirm that this is the intention. Making this issue loom large, in tandem with issues connected with the recession, is apparently to be a dominant characteristic of phase two of this parliament and would appear to be a sensible strategy. Focusing attention on the issue of Scottish autonomy has, after all, paid dividends before:

"If the pressure for self-government is maintained and electors convinced that this is no narrow issue, but the one that matters most to them, the road may not be as long and as hard as predictions based on past experience would indicate." (The Scotsman, November 12th, 1968)

There followed the SNP upsurge of the 1970s and the first devolution referendum followed eventually by the referendum that gave us the Scottish Parliament that we see before us today. There will be another referendum on the constitution coming our way soon. There can be little scope for doubt about that. Doubt really only concerns which side of the next Scottish general election it will fall on.

When it comes to a vote on the referendum bill, the 2011 election will be just around the corner, and unionist parties will have to decide whether they can face the Scottish electorate after just denying it the right to vote on the constitutional future of Scotland. That being so, it is eminently understandable that unionists are keen for Mr Salmond to abandon his commitment to the referendum, but they must realise, of course, that they are barking up the wrong tree there. If anyone is going to prevent a referendum in this parliament, it will not be the SNP government. That poisoned chalice will be handed to the unionists, and they are welcome to drink from it.
Honeymoon ends 2:34pm on 07 Nov 2008 As will not have gone entirely un-noticed, one trusts, amid all the usual brouhaha and hype, the decline in Glenrothes Westminster constituency electoral support for the Labour Party vis-a-vis the SNP between 1997 and 2008 is palpable. Between 1997 and the present day the gap between the Labour and SNP shares of the vote of 33.7 per cent has been reduced to 19 per cent, representing a substantial decline in Labour's position in this heartland constituency in relation to that of the SNP as well as a decline in the Labour share of the vote over the period. It appears incontestable, therefore, that the party which is moving forward here is the SNP.

In a period of economic uncertainty and some anxiety for the electorate this is a creditable performance for the Scottish National Party, which, however, will rightly not be satisfied with it, as its ambition for Scotland impels it to move forward fast. While this rate of progress may have been as much as was possible in the present exceptional circumstances, the SNP may reasonably be expected, in line with its pattern of performance to date, to improve on this at the next Glenrothes Westminster election, which cannot be very far away.
Honeymoon ends 11:51am on 07 Nov 2008 Having heard this morning that there had been, according to the governor-general, a "dreadful" result for the SNP in the Glenrothes by-election, I naturally assumed that, on a massive voter turn-out, a substantial swing against the Scottish National Party had occurred.

Resigning myself, therefore, to the grim prospect of finding that all hope of rescuing my country from the life-threatening clutches of the UK had disappeared overnight, I thought there must be little point in examining the results closely. Then I remembered that, with all due respect, I probably should not be taking Mr Murphy's word for anything and so forced myself to gaze into the presumed frightful reality of the horrible event.

And what did I find? The SNP share of the vote is up by 13.52 per cent, representing a 5 per cent swing to that party. I realize, of course, that Labour people tend to have difficulties with numeracy as well as literacy, but these figures would appear to suggest that there has been, in fact, no swing against the SNP at all and that, not only has its share of the vote not gone down but it has risen substantially. As for the voter turn-out, 52.3 per cent is hardly remarkable. In a supposedly safe Labour seat this is not a sign of massive community enthusiasm for the Labour candidate. Let us be honest. It is hardly arrogant or partisan to observe that this a low turn-out by any reasonably objective analysis. The most recent UK general-election turn-out for this seat was low, but this is even lower.

What conclusions should be drawn? The first conclusion to draw is that one should draw one's own conclusions. The second conclusion to draw is that, in light of the first conclusion, there are no further conclusions of mine that you should pay uncritical heed to, as I should be presumed to be as biased in my own way as everyone else is in his or hers. Nevertheless, it is perhaps not too arrogant to confide in you my relief at not finding myself faced after all with the prospect of certainly spending the remainder of my life as an unwilling citizen of the UK.

One further point may be worth offering for consideration. It is not a conclusion but is merely a thought that anyone of any political persuasion might wish to bear in mind, I think. As the Glenrothes by-election was, for reasons of which you may be presumed to be well aware, a contest which the Labour Party dared not lose, it brought to bear on it all of the resources that that party could muster from the whole of the UK and did so in a way which, while not impeccable, showed that some lessons had apparently been learned from its organizational debacle in the Glasgow East by-election. Unfortunately for the Labour Party, this is an unrepeatable feat, by which I mean that, by definition, nothing of the sort can be managed in a UK general election, at which the sitting Labour MP will have to rely mainly on party workers from within his constituency. As is well known, however, Labour Party activists are somewhat thin on the ground in Scottish constituencies these days compared to SNP ones. All else being equal, which, of course, it may not be, the Labour vote at Glenrothes may be expected, therefore, to decline further and to decline further in other Labour-held constituencies.

To conclude, we are only just entering a potentially deep and enduring recession at this point, one which the Labour UK administration cannot escape a degree of responsibility for despite all the spin that there has been. By the time of the UK general election, unless bouncing Brown is emboldened to call a snap election, the economic damage that may well have been inflicted on Scotland will quite possibly determine the nature of the political landscape that will be formed then more than any other single factor. However, I invite you to dismiss this thought from your mind and form your own conclusions, by all means. Whatever you do, do not accept those of the governor-general.
Taxpayer should take note of bail-out 3:53pm on 16 Oct 2008 #357 Reluctant-Expat

How precisely, pray, does apprising us of the fact that you have just wet yourself contribute to the unionist case? Was it the hysteria that did it to you, my poor dear?

It has already been pointed out on numerous occasions in this discussion forum that the unionist response to those who credibly oppose their account of anything whatever is commonly to shoot the messenger or to ridicule him or her. Is this likely to be persuasive?

Shoot the messenger all you like, and wet yourself till the cows come home, but the message has got out, and it is circulating all over Scotland. All dried out now, by the way? Have a nice day.
Piffle and tosh 11:01am on 08 Oct 2008 #79 Browndov

"(...) unless a sensible federal solution can be agreed then it may make more sense for Scotland to repeal the union."

Seconded. As there would appear to be no grounds for supposing that a sensible federal solution can be agreed, those who are in favour of one will understandably veer towards repeal of the union.

UK federalism is a noble and fine idea. Admirable but useless, as it takes two to tango.

As for the UK government's response to the banking crisis, I defer to Sir George Mathewson's assessment.
Sentiment and history 5:42pm on 17 Sep 2008 #28 Dougie-Dubh

I agree with the points that you make.

Developments yet to unfold may turn out to be of such a character that they will strengthen the SNP's case for independence.
Who ya gonna call? Sir Angus 12:03pm on 11 Sep 2008 As my earlier post has been somewhat mangled by this site peculiar aversion to the pound sign, here it is again, tidied up.

A masterstroke from Mr Swinney, as has been widely recognized.

Sir Angus Grossart has explained the essence of the project which the Scottish Government has chosen him to take charge of as follows:

"I have been asked to help deliver the Scottish Futures Trust as an effective operating body, to improve the major infrastructure procurement of Scotland. I have accepted the challenge: it is to achieve a better deployment of the talents available in Scotland, from the public and private sectors, to secure greater efficiency and additional financial benefits from a massive infrastructure programme, with investment of circa 35 billion pounds planned over the next 10 years."

Who can doubt that the SNP government is right to undertake a massive revitalizing infrastructure programme for Scotland? The country is crying out for it. Who can doubt that it is wise to acknowledge the scale of ambition and challenge involved in this? Who can doubt the wisdom of going about this in the most professional way possible in the circumstances? Who can doubt the wisdom of securing the services of Sir Angus Grossart to that end?

As the SNP MP Angus Robertson has stated, the infrastructure programme involves "a capital investment programme in Scotland of some 12 billion pounds over the next 3 years, and 35 billion pounds over the next 10 years - on schools, roads, hospitals, prisons.

"The 150 million pounds is the increased investment in infrastructure that we can secure each year under the SFT compared to the PFI rip-off - through greater partnership, improved preparation and handling of projects, and better value finance, including the non-profit distribution model."

The Finance Secretary: "With an infrastructure investment programme of some 35 billion poinds over the next 10 years, SFT will be central to this Government's purpose of increasing sustainable, economic growth."

Professor John Kay, a Fellow of St John's College, Oxford, Visiting Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, and a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, said:

"PFI is well past its sell by date. The Scottish Futures Trust can achieve its three objectives of cheaper finance, better project management and the operation of infrastructure projects for the benefit of the people of Scotland."

This SNP government continues to demonstrate that it knows what it is about and how to go about it in ambitious and innovative ways. In contrast to this, the less imaginative and frequently numbskull opposition tactics of Scottish Labour, which are an embarrassment even to its adversaries, do not show it in a very favourable light or reveal it to be a political force from which Scotland can expect much more than pathetic negativity and passive compliance with the requirements of powerful interests elsewhere.

It will be interesting to see how far the SFT model can be progressed within the relatively hostile political environment with which a pro-independence government has to cope as a minority facing a unionist majority in its own legislature as well as a resentful and doomed administration in London.

As neveraboot seems to suggest at #18, the lack of a real Treasury, which Scotland can only have with independence, is what is least satisfactory about the Scottish Government's efforts to develop the Scottish economy and further our essential interests. Fortunately for us, the party in power in Edinburgh is dedicated to remedying that defect.
Who ya gonna call? Sir Angus 11:46am on 11 Sep 2008 A masterstroke from Mr Swinney, as has been widely recognized.

Sir Angus Grossart has explained the essence of the project which the Scottish Government has chosen him to take charge of as follows:

"I have been asked to help deliver the Scottish Futures Trust as an effective operating body, to improve the major infrastructure procurement of Scotland. I have accepted the challenge: it is to achieve a better deployment of the talents available in Scotland, from the public and private sectors, to secure greater efficiency and additional financial benefits from a massive infrastructure programme, with investment of circa £35 billion planned over the next 10 years."

Who can doubt that the SNP government is right to undertake a massive revitalizing infrastructure programme for Scotland? The country is crying out for it. Who can doubt that it is wise to acknowledge the scale of ambition and challenge involved in this? Who can doubt the wisdom of going about this in the most professional way possible in the circumstances? Who can doubt the wisdom of securing the services of Sir Angus Grossart to that end?

As the SNP MP Angus Robertson has stated, the infrastructure programme involves "a capital investment programme in Scotland of some £12 billion over the next 3 years, and £35 billion over the next 10 years – on schools, roads, hospitals, prisons.

"The £150 million is the increased investment in infrastructure that we can secure each year under the SFT compared to the PFI rip-off – through greater partnership, improved preparation and handling of projects, and better value finance, including the non-profit distribution model."

The Finance Secretary: "With an infrastructure investment programme of some £35 billion over the next 10 years, SFT will be central to this Government's purpose of increasing sustainable, economic growth."

Professor John Kay, a Fellow of St John's College, Oxford, Visiting Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, and a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, said:

"PFI is well past its sell by date. The Scottish Futures Trust can achieve its three objectives of cheaper finance, better project management and the operation of infrastructure projects for the benefit of the people of Scotland."

This SNP government continues to demonstrate that it knows what it is about and how to go about it in ambitious and innovative ways. In contrast to this, the less imaginative and frequently numbskull opposition tactics of Scottish Labour, which are an embarrassment even to its adversaries, do not show it in a very favourable light or reveal it to be a political force from which Scotland can expect much more than pathetic negativity and passive compliance with the requirements of powerful interests elsewhere.

It will be interesting to see how far the SFT model can be progressed within the relatively hostile political environment with which a pro-independence government has to cope as a minority facing a unionist majority in its own legislature as well as a resentful and doomed administration in London.

As neveraboot seems to suggest at #18, the lack of a real Treasury, which Scotland can only have with independence, is what is least satisfactory about the Scottish Government's efforts to develop the Scottish economy and further our essential interests. Fortunately for us, the party in power in Edinburgh is dedicated to remedying that defect.
Politics as football 2:54pm on 05 Sep 2008 #20 SuperJulianR

How refreshing. You are absolutely right, of course, Julian. Your clarity of vision suggests that you know Scotland somewhat better than does your average resident of England.

As for your average resident of Scotland, seeing clearly and having self-confidence is not so easy when there are vested interests in the media and elsewhere clouding every issue so as to make us think that we shall inevitably stumble and fall if we attempt to stand on our own feet. This is the environment in which we live, as bighullabaloo will confirm from his media perspective.

To be realistic, therefore, one cannot expect to move from where we are to independence in one step, although I wouldn't altogether exclude it as a possibility. That is why the deficiencies of federalism are insufficient to rule it out of court, particularly as a federal arrangement would be a much better constitutional fit for very many of us than what we have at present.

«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

Anagol