Deft governance
The Scottish Government's website always repays inspection.
Apart from gripping statistics about sheep, one can find much to amuse and inform.
Right now, for example, the "splash" items (to borrow a term from my old newspaper days) concern hospital infection and efforts to help communities afflicted by unemployment.
So what, I hear you mutter. So this. The choice is not accidental. These two topics feature as key demands for enhanced financial assistance from, respectively, the Conservatives and Labour.
The health item refers to an announcement by Nicola Sturgeon about new measures to tackle hospital acquired infection.
No doubt, she is working on the outdated concept that you should leave hospital healthier than when you were admitted.
Action on HAI was item one on the shopping list being progressively advanced by the Tories as part of their price for backing John Swinney's Budget.
Other items may emerge in due course.
Think of it as a political Dance of the Seven Veils.
Tabloid touch
The other lead on the SG website is more intriguing still. It concerns PACE - Partnership Action for Continuing Employment.
The headline - Stepping up the PACE - speaks of a yearning for a light, tabloid touch.
What great development has occurred? For what has the front page been held? Well, nothing, really.
Ministers, it would seem, are "working to improve the support" provided by PACE.
Since all funded initiatives are, rightly, under semi-permanent review, one would have thought this to be a statement of the obvious.
Rather, though, it is a statement of intent.
Labour has demanded that PACE schemes be enhanced - as part of its contribution to the Budget debate.
In essence, ministers are saying with this website item: we hear, we act.
Mildly amused
Explicitly, they are saying to Labour: if you still can't sign up to our Budget, then don't attempt to blame us for ignoring your demands.
Now, of course, Labour wants more, much more.
It has set out a 15-point plan for reviving - or, at least, protecting - the economy.
John Swinney says he's implementing some of them, he'll have a look at others - but Labour cannot expect the full package.
For the avoidance of any doubt, I am not remotely complaining about the Scottish Government website.
It is deft governance to use every tool at your disposal to advance your objectives.
The Budget undoubtedly fits into that category.
Just thought you might be mildly amused, that's all.
PS: Well done to United for their 4-0 triumph over East Stirlingshire. I thoroughly enjoyed standing on a terracing once more, cheering on the lads. Great to see Sean Dillon has joined Lee Wilkie and Jon Daly in signing new contracts. Go for it, Willo Flood. Arabs everywhere salute you!
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~51~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
"Deft governance" within a daft constitutional framework is a nice trick if you can manage it. Very deft, indeed.
Complain about this comment
While I don't agree with everything the Scottish Government/SNP are doing, I have to say that Nicola Sturgeon is a breath of fresh air when it comes to Health Ministers/ Secretaries. Look at what John Reid and Patricia Hewitt achieved, and compare this to the efforts being made by Nicola.
Complain about this comment
Brian
While I have no doubt the Scottish budget will pass, I think that the biggest political story at present is the funding off new Forth Bridge.
The London Labour contortions over this are amazing but credit must go to Mrs Balls for highlighting how unfair to Scotland the present position is. I would have thought that anyone including our Scottish media would be questioning why Northern Ireland has borrowing powers up to 2.5 billion pounds, and Scotland has none.
Why are we being punished in this way? or is it Northern Ireland are being rewarded for something?
This is yet another example of one rule for everyone else and one rule for Scotland.
The real question that needs an answer is "just why does G Brown hate Scotland and the Scots so much.
Complain about this comment
The reason that the Westminster Government (do they deserve capital letters?), hate Scotland is because Holyrood has the greatest autonomy of any "national parliament" within the UK.
The London thinking therefore is that Westminster needs to keep a tight kerb on Scottish Government aspirations - very subtly of course.
They must be careful though not to drive more of the Scots electorate into the SNP camp.
Complain about this comment
Newsjock
You are probably right.
I do however think I remember an opinion poll that showed support for the SNP would grow massively if people in Scotland felt that money was being withheld from Scotland unfairly.
Perhaps one of Brians other bloggers may be able to come up with a link to this poll.
P.S. I cannot say that Mrs Balls or Murphy are being subtle though.
Complain about this comment
Here's a selection of jobs up for grabsgrabs! Not for the long term though.
Complain about this comment
5. At 5:27pm on 12 Jan 2009, dubbieside wrote:
Newsjock
You are probably right.
I do however think I remember an opinion poll that showed support for the SNP would grow massively if people in Scotland felt that money was being withheld from Scotland unfairly.
--------------
The problem is that the bridge does not affect that many people relative to the number of voters.
Also, as I said earlier, the perspective a lot of people have with regards to the bridge funding is that Swinney announced the project prior to securing funding. That is what the headlines state. Labour almost got away with a good response until the mentioned PFI.
Most voters will only rise up substantially against Labour if they are directly affected by budget decisions in London. And even then, they will see that the Scottish Government are making many decisions.
It's like the HBOS situation. How many voters are directly affected by the issues?
Complain about this comment
Maybe our polititians should employ the guys who are running all those alleged sweatshops in the Midlands to take over the governments cack handed attempts to increase employment. They seem to be the experts at finding jobs , albeit for illegal immigrants and at less than the minimum wage, but good at it nevertheless. Brown seems to be intent once more on handing out cash to the long term unemployed and to hell with the ones who have just lost their jobs as usual. I suppose the philosophy is that if you've been in work you're more likely to look for work yourself and find it without the useless assistance of the jobcentre. On the Forth bridge question, the money will be forthcoming I expect but it will be parcelled up to look as though it was all down to Comrade Murphy and the po faced Lady Balls, and nothing to do with the SNP government.
Complain about this comment
The Conservatives have opened up a double digit lead over Labour down South.
[url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5504673.ece]Click Here[/url]
This may explain the frenzied attacks on the SNP here in Scotland. The longer Brown waits to go to the polls proper the greater the lead Cameron will enjoy.
We may be witnessing the beginnings of a rearguard action from Labour as they realise that the next election will almost certainly be won by the Tories.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147
Not so When John Swinney announced the project funding was in place, and still is.
The lack of funding has never been the issue, the issue which Labour would like to obscure is the best and most economical way to fund the bridge.
If Labours spin about taking the money from budgets up to 20 years in the future is a non starter as there are no budgets set yet, that would mean no one could get a mortgage for a house as no one has a budget that is set for more than a year, and with the current mess Brown has made of the UK economy very few people could guarantee they will be in a job in five years never mind 25 years.
Strange that you think money being withheld from Scotland, and Scotland being treated differently from the rest of the UK is of concern only to people who use the Forth Bridge.
It concerns us all that Labour want to continue PPP/PFI and put our children and grandchildren even further into hock. Mind you they have not sold a knighthood lately, maybe they need to give more money to their friends.
Complain about this comment
7 Neil_Small147
Although I take your point, and don't disagree (I've aired thoughts along the same lines myself), are we though ignoring the cumulative effect of headlines here?
One headline after another will 'nudge, nudge' people if you like until they are more likely to feel affected - why attempts are made to influence headlines, of course. I think that's how it works!
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147 says:
"Also, as I said earlier, the perspective a lot of people have with regards to the bridge funding is that Swinney announced the project prior to securing funding."
Well if you are correct it means that if Westminster do not consent to the SNP's request then the bridge might not be built, as, according to you, funding hasn't been secured.
However, the SNP have stated categorically that the bridge will be built.
In other words, if the bridge is still to be built regardless of Westminster's decision then funding was indeed secured at the time of the announcement. It doesn't have to be the SNP's preferred method of funding, it just needs to have had funding guaranteed - come what may.
I realise that you said *perspective* and therefore may not be your own view. In that case you appear to be saying that the media have misled the Scottish electorate over this story.
Complain about this comment
#9 greenockboy
The return to a double-digit Tory lead over Labour in a UK opinion poll rather serves to confirm the impression that can be gained by turning to the Nick Robinson blog today, where our dear friend derek_barker has been fighting a losing battle trying to fend off an angry mob of Middle Englanders baying for blood and clearly intent upon ejecting "Crash Gordon" from Downing Street.
Significantly, the huge rise in Labour UK government borrowing appears to be increasing Middle England's resentment of spending by the Scottish Government, which it evidently considers to be spending English taxpayers' hard-earned dosh to provide what it views as indolent Scots with preferential treatment. You know how that refrain goes. We have heard it often enough. If these people succeed in bringing in a Tory UK government, it will no doubt be under enormous pressure to do something about the devolution settlement to satisfy them, as they are, after all, the Tory Party's core support.
As we know, however, the Scottish electorate is unlikely to tolerate any reform of that settlement that does not result in a strengthening or extension of the powers of the devolved institutions in Scotland. Furthermore, any externally contrived substantial reduction in government spending here at a time when the economy of England is being stimulated by massively increased UK government spending would clearly be incendiary. Something seems to be looming on the political horizon . . . a perfect political storm to match the economic one.
Complain about this comment
#3 dubbieside wrote:
"While I have no doubt the Scottish budget will pass, I think that the biggest political story at present is the funding off new Forth Bridge."
...Yeah, well the BBC have never been too keen to get into the real story of the day!
Is anyone else disgusted that the BBC are busy falling over themselves to cover a silly teenagers 'youtube style video' which happens to have a racist comment in it, while thousands are being slaughtered in Gaza and the BBC have simply capitulated to the Israeli refusal to let in journalists? I have seen almost no coverage of the crisis today and yet it is escalating to new levels.
...are the BBC really and deliberately that biased in everything they do? Or are they just incompetent?
I though Fox News took the biscuit with the 'Fair and Balanced' punchline... they don't hold a candle to the BBC!!!
Yours, sickened by BBC BS,
Bongo.
Complain about this comment
Firstly I think Brian has a job for an extra moderator as it becoming very frustrating grrr.
#7 Neil_Small147
Re- the bridge. I think it affects an awful lot more people than they realise from the North right down to the borders and beyond.
________________
The whole (hole) UK economy is shrinking fast and we have only just started to fall of the cliff and no amount of government (tax payers) money will stop it, called good money after bad.
World economies of developed countries are not going to grow as our demands are greater than natural resources can supply. Money, a man made way of trading commodities, is related to these natural resources. At the moment our money supply is greater than our earning capacity ie. were running out of raw materials.
Future: that is unknown as governments both sides of the border believe in capitalism and economic growth by increasing population, I don't, and this will unfold as fewer taxpayers have to support an increasing number of unemployed families.
Time to take stock of what is workable in Scotland's context and work to those goals rather keep patching up a flawed system, lot of grief ahead but at least a sustainable future for those left in the wake.
Complain about this comment
cynicalhighlander, unfortunately, I agree 100% with your #15... even more unfortunately, the only way people are going to learn is the hard way... and that really doesn't bare thinking too much about.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Is it just me or is this government terminally stupid. 2500 pounds to take on the long term unemployed.
Unless there is something in the small print that was not reported on any news bulletin that I have watched, are there any safeguards in this policy.
What is there to stop any company paying off say 50 workers because of "the worldwide economic conditions" then re-employing 50 long term unemployed at lower wages and conditions, and pocketing the 2500 pounds paid for employing them? Do not tell me that will not happen, as most companies are so ethical!!!
It ranks along side the 2.5% cut in VAT. An example of how useless this is, I have been informed by my internet provide my monthly bill will be reduced because of the VAT cut. I am rushing out to spend, spend, spend because of this massive windfall.
Mind you it will still cost the country 12billion pounds.
Complain about this comment
Re the bridge, I'm playing Devils Advocate here.
OK, so Swinney cannot go for the preferred option. I understand it, you do and so do most of the regular posters on here.
The bridge is not a critical issue for Scotland. The reason I say this is that most people are not directly affected by it.
I know this is easy with hindsight, but when Swinney announced the bridge project perhaps he could have said this:
"We have asked the Treasury for a loan payable over 20 years. If they decline then we will have to use money allocated for other capital projects. We will not use PFI. Nor will we use SFT as this is designed for smaller scale projects."
This is being proactive and forces Darling to react. Instead, things happened the other way around.
The press cannot manipulate that sort of announcement. Yes, they can and will ask searching questions but Swinney cannot be accused of publicly announcing a major project without checking if the funding is confirmed.
Now if he goes ahead as proposed, with cuts to other projects, then this may go both ways in term of blame: Scottish Government making cutbacks or Westminster not giving additional funds.
You accuse the media of being biased towards Labour. In that case, Alex Salmond needs to improve his marketing and communication strategies in order to circumvent this.
If Brown goes for a spring election, which I think he will, then his spin doctors will use every trick in the book up in Scotland. Everything will be tried. They will use Iceland, HBOS, the bridge and others. It certainly will not wash with everyone but the objective is to plant the seeds of doubt in the minds of voters.
You have to accept that this ploy may be sucessful. Assuming that everything will go well is fatal.
Complain about this comment
good post 13. Agree.
Will be interesting if the Tories win the UK election how Nulab reposition themselves in Scotland. There's so many permutations that spring to mind I don't think I have room to list them...
Complain about this comment
#13 Ben_Lomond
"Something seems to be looming on the political horizon . . . a perfect political storm to match the economic one."
Feel free to be amused at my next point, but I'll mention it anyway for fun.
Before hints of the banking problems had arisen, I'd watched United States politicians and been bothered at how arrogant they now seemed. I announced to Mr Write that I predicted the United States was due to take a fall, somehow get its comeuppance. The consequences of those troubles I considered might mean it would no longer be just as powerful. (sneckedagain's #65 at the end of 'The dog that didn't whimper' seems to be describing something like this?)
About then I also declared that perhaps Scots would 'plump' for independence, only if they first came to suffer under a harsh economic environment. (Is Ben_Lomond describing something similar here?)
After trying to figure out just why Unionist politicians don't want Scotland to leave the Union, I decided in the end it must come down to a hole in the finances. I expect there has standardly been catastrophic dodgy bookkeeping at the Treasury, and The Union is the best way to hide that secret. I predict a shocked public when it all comes out.
Finished soothsaying!
:->
Complain about this comment
19. At 11:45pm on 12 Jan 2009, bluelaw wrote:
good post 13. Agree.
Will be interesting if the Tories win the UK election how Nulab reposition themselves in Scotland. There's so many permutations that spring to mind I don't think I have room to list them...
-----------------------
I doubt they will be wiped out (but you never know!).
I think the odds are for an even split between SNP and Labour MPs, with possibly the odd Tory and a couple of Lib Dems.
Much depends on the timing of a general election. Brown's best option is probably this spring.
Complain about this comment
#18 Neil_Small147
Neil, I think you are getting fairer than you've been! (Not insulting!)
"You accuse the media of being biased towards Labour. In that case, Alex Salmond needs to improve his marketing and communication strategies in order to circumvent this."
I absolutely agree. Just because they are in the right (in my opinion!), doesn't mean they will necessarily win. Fortunately there are other options out there than just the big papers.
"Re the bridge, I'm playing Devils Advocate here."
You must, otherwise it might look as if some mysteries have been solved! What then! ;->
"I know this is easy with hindsight, but when Swinney announced the bridge project perhaps he could have said this:
"We have asked the Treasury for a loan payable over 20 years. If they decline then we will have to use money allocated for other capital projects. We will not use PFI. Nor will we use SFT as this is designed for smaller scale projects.""
Considering, and they will have because this 'being in power' is their big chance, that SNP ministers plotted if you like or planned with care, this whole funding episode, why did they not use your above more sensible PR friendly approach?
Either they weren't decent or clever enough, or they couldn't. I can conceive of scenarios where the latter would occur - information we are not aware of compromised the SNP's hand (it was a juggle and I think as little information as possible would have flowed freely between the two sides).
Or they deserve criticism for not thinking enough ahead, as you say it looks like that if you go by some headlines. If so, it's an unusual and pretty glaring gaff. I don't think the SNP are perfect, but I do think, through necessity, they are politically street wise and would have cynically second and third guessed this the whole way. They are used to loosing not accustomed to winning.
Brown's jobs plans can't help but appear insulting! He must be confident he'll get another job.
Complain about this comment
#20 aye-write
As for a harsh economic environment that might produce serious political consequences of some description, "a hole in the finances" or "a hole in the economy" would seem to qualify. If you have not already been reading Nick Robinson's blog today, I recommend that you take a look at the posts of PortcullisGate and squirestrat near the "Economy, economy, economy" thread:
"The PBR figures are looking more and more stupid. Spending is set to rise greatly even on PBR figures. And we can say that in reality it will grow far more than those figures 1 Tril pounds. Also our GDP will fall off a cliff over the next 2 years. Greatly reduced income from the financial industry. The building and associated industries are on their knees. Service industries are being battered. What will the % of Debt to GDP turn out to be? It will look terrible to our foreign investors." (PortcullisGate)
On the subject of what may be looming in the immediate future:
"..and the reason everything is quiet, relatively in Westminster is SOMETHING IS ON THE CARDS [my caps] - even opposition is quiet which could mean the talks with Civil Servants is already on the cards.
Bank rules have co-incidentally been rewritten (via a Labour majority) in the Lords...this is to keep a month's grace for any announcement and so Govt bonds which can't sell don't go completely down the u-bend!!
Nick I think can sniff something - we have never seen such a quick blog like this that is balanced...ever.
There are going to be some pretty weak but desperate loan guarantees to business and the reason being they need businesses to hire people - because as you quite rightly point out - tax revenue has gone past the point of recovery (for the state we are in) - there is no cash flow for Govt...and the reason for that is profligate spending..." (squirestrat)
In the middle of an economic maelstrom such we appear to be in now, of course, it would be catastrophic for the UK to be confronted with constitutional problems. It has thus become imperative from Labour's point of view to prevent these from arising. Watch it as it struggles to do that. If Labour cannot hold on to power, however, the resulting political configuration may almost certainly bring the constitutional issue into very sharp relief, to say the least.
The UK economy has indeed got a hole in it, and so has the UK state.
Complain about this comment
CORRECTION:
In line 5 of the first paragraph of my #23, "near" should be "near the end of".
Complain about this comment
aye-right, forsooth soothsayer, I think you are correct in your rune reading!
Complain about this comment
Brown will hold out until 2010. I don't believe for one second they'll be an election this year.
I hope the SNP hold sway in a hung UK Parliament. That would be best for Scotland in the run up to independence.
Complain about this comment
As Dominique Strauss-Kahn of the International Monetary Fund was remarking just before Christmas, there is now a "disturbing" level of debt in the UK: UK government debt of £650 billion pounds (44.2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product) and rising and UK consumer debt of . . . wait for it . . . £1.4 trillion! And we see that the UK government is encouraging consumers to get into even more debt, which the banks are expected to finance instead of returning to prudent lending practices, in order to keep the tills ringing a little while longer and postpone the day of reckoning until after the next UK general election.
Unfortunately, the day of reckoning is coming, anyway. The UK is bust and in this condition is facing the dawning of the age of the East, to which much of this debt is owed. Living beyond your means, whether you are a consumer or a state, must come to an end sooner or later. 2009 will be a painful year for many, and the political reckoning will follow hard upon it.
By way of contrast, oil-rich and renewable-energy-rich Scotland could carve out a viable future for itself by using its resources to construct a diverse economy as a member of the European Union and the eurozone . . . if only it were not tied to the hopelessly unbalanced and flimsy non-viable economy of the pitiably poorly governed UK state, which is plainly no longer able to preserve the illusion that it can offer protection against the economic realities which are now pressing in upon it, just as Mr Madoff in the present economic climate could no longer preserve the illusion that his business was viable.
Now a particularly serious problem appears to be emerging: even governments can have difficulty in raising loans when they really need them. In order to attempt to stimulate the UK economy in the way that it has declared that it wishes to do, the UK government needs to borrow heavily on the bond markets and for some time to come, but, in the present exceptional global economic climate, these are showing signs of drying up. Recently even the German government was unable to raise the sum it wanted at a debt auction, and bond offerings by the Belgian and Spanish governments have had to be abandoned.
What happens if the UK government cannot raise the huge loans that it says it needs by issuing bonds?
It is being speculated that something major is in the wind and that that something may be more than the expected 20 billion pounds worth of loan guarantees for small businesses that the Tories proposed and that are apparently about to be announced by the UK government.
It is being speculated that negotiations have been taking place with the International Monetary Fund, the lender of absolutely last resort. A loan from the IMF in itself may have economic and political consequences of a very serious nature. You may remember that it was a Labour UK government that had to borrow from the IMF in the 1970s, when strict conditions were attached to the loan. The UK government may be about to lose control of its economic policy.
As for what the political consequences of what may be about to happen may be, Ben_Lomond and Mystic Meg at #20 may be right. At all events, the ground is moving.
Complain about this comment
#23, 25, 27
Thank you for dignifying my unscientific analysis with a response!
To quote a quote used recently on here by a poster I admire (that charming ole baddie, Anglophone), obviously "Tis the tale told by an idiot - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"!
I shall therefore peruse Nick Robinson's blog, as I have not before done so. :-)
PS Glad I posted #20 - scored a bit of an education! ;-)
Complain about this comment
#27
If the IMF takes control of economic policy, then is that not likely to force a hold on any independence moves, regardless of the result of a referendum?
The reason I ask is if the IMF controls the UK economic policy, then would Scotland not be tied in?
Could this be what Gordon Brown actually wants to happen? He knows he is likely to lose the next General Election anyway, but by preventing independence for several years it may allow Labour to recover. In doing so he might be hoping that the SNP will lose popularity, which you have to accept is possible.
Probably a far-fetched theory, but in politics anything is possible.
Complain about this comment
If any poster has any doubt that something big and quite likely catastrophic for the UK economy is about to happen, they should have a look at this weeks Sunday Times, and todays Daily Telegraph.
The anti Scottish propaganda is heating up and the whiff of Labour panic is in the air.
Could be that their own internal polls have fallen of a cliff, or that they have been told that their projected bond offerings have no hope of meeting their objectives. Whatever it is there is panic in the air and Labour press releases are spinning out of control.
An example The Scotsman and The Times both had a bridge funding story yesterday that were almost identical. One poster at The Scotsman thought that both "reporters" were briefed by the same spin doctor at the same time and followed the press release almost verbatim.
Expect more of the same as the Labour panic continues. The Murphy sleeping in a drawer story is due another outing, as is the CBI Labour mouthpiece in Scotland presenting his personal view against local income tax, being presented as CBI policy.
Complain about this comment
One of the considerations becoming more and more evident in these discussions is how much independence is the best and only way for Scotland to escape both Westminster's mishandling of the current crisis and immunise Scotland as much as possible from the worst consequences of these events in future.
Complain about this comment
#29 Neil_Small147
"(...) if the IMF controls the UK economic policy, then would Scotland not be tied in?"
Of course it would, if Scotland were to remain in the UK, and doing so may present itself as a serious problem so far as the Scottish electorate is concerned, particularly if skilfully led to that conclusion by the SNP.
With UK economic policy subject to IMF constraints, the ability of the UK government to respond flexibly to the funding challenges presented by the Scottish Government in an historically severe economic crisis may be expected to become even more constrained than it evidently is already. This in turn may allow the SNP to strengthen its position in the run-up to a UK general election.
For the moment, however, I think we should probably take one step at a time. Let us see what happens tomorrow before we delve too deeply into what may or may not happen the day after tomorrow. We are in agreement that in politics anything is possible.
Complain about this comment
#29 Neil_Small147
IMF constraints on UK economic policy may be binding on Scotland within the UK and have economic and political consequences of various types, but they could not serve as a basis for preventing Scotland from choosing independence, as that is an option which it is entitled to exercise regardless of any agreements entered into by the UK government with the IMF, other international organizations or, indeed, other states.
Complain about this comment
OMG Brian, you really need to be more responsible with your blog topics. The prophets of doom are now among us and it is all down to you and your casual browsing of the SG website!!??
But to be fair, these Scottish Nasty Party people don't need much encouragement to gather like a bunch of rabid dogs wishing extreme hardship on the British people, shame on them.
Complain about this comment
#23 Ben_Lomond
Right, read whole of Nick's 'Economy...' blog!
Interesting what they are saying re it hitting the fan, IMF etc.
Lessons for our political leaders:
- Don't cheese off your business people.
- You don't have to be stupid to see that Gordon Brown et al's fiscal plans are stupid, and scary.
- Englanders think they subsidise Scotland and are very insulting about it. They ought to know that the Derek poster does not represent all Scots.
And I'd love to expose the gaping hole in the UK's finances that has been there since pre-Thatcher (probably WWII) and let them realise how Scotland has actually fitted into that, as smugness would soon vanish. (I don't delude myself that the answer to every problem is oil - it's not my big reason for independence - though I feel it has been used as such in a way that would really surprise most voters.)
The blog network shows there are a lot of articulate, interesting people 'out there'! (Thank goodness.)
Complain about this comment
Post 30, dubbieside;
Yes, I noticed the ramp up of anti Scottish stories in the English press a few days ago.
Something is indeed happening in UK politics and by extension Scottish politics.
The sad and frustrating part of this is that the Scottish press appear to be completely unaware of what is happening. Either that or they are so hamstrung that they are unable to comment or analyse.
As these events and unfolding we are instead treated to a daily dose of Labour press releases that offer nothing constructive to political debate but provide a never ending straem of headlines attacking all things SNP.
There is no doubt that the economic constraints placed on the Scottish government should now be top of any political commentator's agenda.
Complain about this comment
32. At 12:12pm on 13 Jan 2009, Robin__Banks wrote:
It will already be an unholy mess - this extra dimension, if it does come, will only be another bit to sort out.
So although it might sound foreboding, I'd say that compared to the unpicking of Scotland and England's finances as they already stand, this will not look nearly as significant.
That is another reason why the SNP will have to be cannier than canny, as in the mess, and the probable difficult climate, of course English representatives will try to wangle the most favourable deal for them - at the expense of Scots. (They will - no offence.)
Complain about this comment
The Herald appear to be quietly removing the comment facility from many of it's articles.
At the moment only one article is open for comments, the ridiculous 'PFI Parking' from Michael Martin's MSP son.
Complain about this comment
Ben_Lomond
An aside, but this post echos what I was getting at too (From Nick's blog). Interesting.
"369. At 11:23am on 13 Jan 2009, delphius1 wrote:"
One difference of course is that oil is not about to be discovered?
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7825213.stm
2.4% shrinkage in the UK economy in the coming year!? Likely, the longest-lasting recession in the developed world!?
I thought incompetence-Broon promised us we were well placed economically?
The economic stability of Ireland and Norway are going to look pretty wonderful to the Scottish electorate in 2010 if the professional predictions flying about on the UK economy are even half true!
Broon would be mad not to cut and run in the next couple months! Then again, he most likely is ... and is very "risk-averse" to put the best shine on it!
Complain about this comment
#34 salmondella
I knew you'd resort to that so I held off mentioning that I wasn't doom mongering. My earlier post #20 could have easily been discredited (!) as substantiated, as I purposely did not offer any proof. Go ahead though...
Complain about this comment
#34 - "wishing extreme hardship on the people"
eh, no - Gordon Brown and his government of all the talent-less is in the process of bringing the WORST economic hardship that will be experienced in the developed world down on "his own" people.
... clearly that is the fault of the opposition parties at Westminster, and not his and Lie-bour's staggering incompetence!
"FACT"
Complain about this comment
#41 aye_write
Derren Brown eat yer heart oot ;-)
Complain about this comment
#34
Reality bites whether you or BBC Scotland choose to ignore it or not. To face up to reality is not to be nasty, even if one is Scottish. It is to be realistic.
Scottish governance, which is the subject of this thread, does not exist in a vacuum; nor does the funding of it. It may suit unionists, not least Labour Party supporters, to get us to put our heads in the sand. You are, of course, welcome to do so, but sensible chaps don't do that sort of thing.
As a matter of interest, even minimally competent scrutiny of the posts here will reveal that what is being discussed reflects concerns being aired widely elsewhere. But we are to shut up, are we? No, thank you.
Complain about this comment
#35 aye_write
Glad you enjoyed the NR blog. It is pretty crowded in there, and challengingly anglocentric, but it can be worth the effort of putting up with that, as you have apparently found.
Complain about this comment
#43 salmondella
Laugh. :->
(You imply I'm a fraud!)
Watch out, I might put a spell on you...
"salmondella, you WILL vote SNP..."!!
Complain about this comment
Re the economy.
As I've said before, the smaller housing bubble in Scotland will probably limit the damage, compared to London and elsewhere. Scotland also has more scientists per head than England, that will definitely help.
That's not to say Brown shouldn't be booted out as soon as possible, of course.
As Salmond, if he confines himself to Homecoming, he might not too much harm. No pushing faith schools or whatever. Are we going to be rid of him for a while around Tartan Day?
Complain about this comment
#46 aye-write
alas that may well be beyond your undoubted psychological talents, you have more chance of getting me to eat and become addicted to big mouldy onions ;-)
Complain about this comment
#34 an unhelpful statement, I personally wish no one any hardship in the current economic climate partly masterminded by the great Gordon Brown the miracle worker who ended boom and bust, by making us all bust.
Complain about this comment
34 salmondella
I dont quite understand here.
As a relatively newly immigrated English Scot, I cannot understand why our First Minster has not just stood up in Parliament and declared independence for Scotland, and asked the UN to send in a load of blue berets to patrol our side of the wall, while the practical issues are just sorted out.
Scotland generates more than enough money to sustain its 5 million population, we have oil and all the jobs/companies which go with it, pharmacueticals, farming etc. Add to which we have the resources of the next generation wind and wave power, plus water (the next black gold). I'm sure that the English do do not to loose control of these for the future.
yes Salmondella I voted for the Scottish Nasty Party at the last election because it just makes so much sense. My loyalties are with those I live with not some fuddy duddies living south of the Wall.
Complain about this comment
#50 goforit99
Round of applause.
Complain about this comment
Actually regarding the Scottish Government website their appears to be an identity crisis! The website is still peppered with current references and links describing itself as the Scottish Executive. Ideed if you google Scottish Executive the Scottish Government is still registered under it's previous name. Despite emails to the web management they refuse to change it to Scottish Government.
Complain about this comment
#34 salmondella
Can you explain how did Mandy buy his £2.5 million Regency villa? please.
Complain about this comment
#50 goforit99
Unfortunately, on reflection, I think we really do need to wait for the referendum, but the sentiment is appreciated.
Complain about this comment
#48 salmondella
Well, to be fair I could have predicted that!
;-)
(I might as well be as predictable too.)
"you have more chance of getting me to eat and become addicted to big mouldy onions"
But why?
Status quo is better?
Proposed changes/SNP are bad?
Is there an ideal??
Complain about this comment
#53 cynicalHighlander
'your point is caller'!! No, but seriously.. my guess is that he dipped into oor north sea oil revenues, the bad man that he is ;-)
Complain about this comment
Well said goforit! We should just go for it indeed and the UN and EU would be on our side for sure.
Complain about this comment
Note that Populus's latest poll puts the Tories 10 point ahead again. This is significant because Populus is noted for not being friendly to the Tories in past polls.
GB is now painted completely into a corner. Having been reinforced in his position as Labour Leader by a media that want a lame duck Labour leader and with all sign of revolt in the Labour party effectively squashed the media will now do Gordon in, but not too quickly.
All the worst news should flow in on Gordon's watch to give the Tories a clean sheet. If Gordon goes for an election in the next couple of months he will lose. If he waits he will lose even worse.
I suspect we will run the whole term unless he decides to surrender. What a choice!
Complain about this comment
31. At 11:31am on 13 Jan 2009, bluelaw wrote
Quite right, kick those damed English out
I mean:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IaE3EaQte78
Complain about this comment
#56 salmondella
Feel free to dismiss as you obviously wish to and have no concern that those in government conduct themselves in such a manner. Speaks realms of how contemptuous this government is of those that pay their wages.
I wonder how much overtime the printers are doing for the BoE trying to convince people that there's lots of money in the system, nay probs everythings hunky dory and we are going to discover lots of mmmm? buried under our feet which will pay of the national debt.
Complain about this comment
#59. CarrotsneedaQUANGO2
"Quite right, kick those damed English out"
I don't think anyone has used that language or implied that sentiment here!
Complain about this comment
#59 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2
Hello there 'Carrots'.
(Perhaps I should be honoured by the presence of such a prolific member of the blog network!)
Assuming you were after a response:
So, can you tell us, what has England done for Scotland?
:-)
Complain about this comment
Further to my #60
Letter from MP
Complain about this comment
Sneckedagain:
I believe that Labour will definitely have an election in May/June this year. It will work two ways; Either they scrape a win and Brown carries on until the worst of the recession is over and then he is jettisoned.
The alternative is Labour lose and Brown is jettisoned immediately whilst the tories have to deal with the mess Brown has left behind.
For me, the May/June election is a certainty.
cynicalHighlander:
We may never know how much money the BOE are printing as the 175 year old law compelling them to publicise the amount was removed recently.
Also:
Given the rabidly anti SNP headlines we have seen in the press this last week or so, is there anyone who still doubts the bias within the Scottish press?
Didn't someone predict this just over a week ago?
Complain about this comment
#59 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2
Return to the dark benighted zone from which you came. How is Derek, by the way? Still wittering? No wonder, considering the company he keeps.
Complain about this comment
47. At 3:20pm on 13 Jan 2009, Anaxim wrote:
As Salmond, if he confines himself to Homecoming, he might not too much harm. No pushing faith schools or whatever. Are we going to be rid of him for a while around Tartan Day?
No politician should be pushing state-funded faith schools.
I thought we were trying to eliminate bigotry in Scotland. Faith schools only help to reinforce it.
Don't believe me? A certain RC cardinal was quoted in my local paper that the RC secondary school should not have any non- denominal pupils as this would cause problems.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#66 Neil_Small147
Everything causes problems. Even completely secular state education does so. Where that exists, parents who otherwise might consider state education take refuge in the private sector. In a free society faith schools will contrive to exist and indeed flourish. If you banish them from the state sector, however, only children of the better-off will be educated in them, and so faith-based education becomes institutionally associated with privilege. Is this what you want? Is that progress? As I said, everything causes problems.
Personally, I am in favour of secular education in the state sector as a matter of principle. Is it fair, however, to deny faith-based education to the children of people who cannot afford private eduction while allowing it for those whose parents can afford that?
If you solve this problem by banning faith schools in the private sector too, assuming that that is feasible, do you still have a free society? Is it worth sacrificing freedom in order to eliminate bigotry? Will the resulting state of affairs be preferable to the one you started off with?
Problems, problems. And I have only scraped the surface. There are more, and lurking behind those there are more still.
Complain about this comment
#68
I'm not against faith schools in the private sector. But I am against restricting choice for taxpayer-funded education, especially when the number of schools has been reduced.
Religious education should be taught, if only to develop more tolerance.
You don't sacrifice freedom by removing faith schools in the public sector.
Complain about this comment
Religion and tolerance is a contradiction in terms. faith schools are the scourge of the Scottish education system. I would ban them all tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
Scottish independence isn't 'kicking the English out'. It's about putting Scotland on an even footing with the rest of the UK and indeed the world.
Complain about this comment
#64 greenockboy
I'd go for May for an election.
It would be a damage limitation exercise.
My view is that Gordon Brown is hoping to scrape a win. It's possible. That way he struggles for a couple of years then if the economy recovers in time for the next election he highlights Labour policies.
Or.....
He expects to lose, but not as many seats as at a later date. Conservatives win, SNP make gains in Scotland. Economy fails to recover quickly, Tories get the blame. SNP win majority in Scotland but independence referendum split in the middle. Economy slow to recover in Scotland, SNP get the blame. Labour recover lost ground.
Maybe he is thinking that way, maybe not.
Who knows.
But if you look at the situation from a totally neutral point of view it is probably his best option.
Complain about this comment
#70, Bluelaw,
+1 to that!
Complain about this comment
#68 frankly_francophone
Fankly, I usually think your comments are very sensible (I know that may seem like applause form a clown!). However, this time I have to disagree.
In my opinion 'faith' and 'school' should not go together - in any sector. It is dangerously mainstream at the moment. In my sons' non-faith primary they spend a lot of time on Christianity (and get too much homework, but it's not the only cause) and worryingly it is taught as fact.
This is my problem with it. By all means inform pupils about religion, but point out clearly that it is opinion.
Regarding your comments, I would be quite happy for those who feel the need to choose a faith based school to be seen as nearer the fringes of society. Their paying for the priviledge wouldn't make it much more respectable as it seems you think. :-)
Complain about this comment
#71
bluelaw - I'm sorry but I have answered your critic over on Nick's blog! Hope you don't mind :-)
Complain about this comment
#75
aye-write
Jeez! thats a big spoon your stirring.
Flap, Flap, Flap.....little girl?
Complain about this comment
#69 Neil_Small147
"You don't sacrifice freedom by removing faith schools in the public sector."
Your assertion that freedom is not sacrificed by removing faith-based schools from the state sector is no answer to the argument which I deployed: those people whose children go to faith-based schools in the state sector at present would be deprived of the freedom to have their children educated in such schools if they cannot afford private education. Freedom is maintained, of course, as I indicated, but only for the more prosperous. This produces a problem, not least for minorities for whom faith-based education is important.
When a state restricts faith-based education to the private sector, it is only a matter of time before faith-based education becomes associated with privilege, as I suggested. Picture an apartment block, for example, the prosperous occupants of which send their children to faith-based schools in the private sector (state education being secular in France, of course) while the concierge and her husband cannot afford to do so, although they have the same preference for faith-based education as have the bourgeois residents whom they serve. Does the poor concierge have the same freedom of choice as all the others? Of course not. This is the problem which I sought to bring to your attention. It exists as a reality and as an enduring political theme regardless of my or your preference for secular education in the state sector. The question of faith-based education is inseparable from the question of freedom, I am afraid, whether we like it or not.
So-called religious instruction in a non-denominational state-school environment, in so far as it still exists as such in Scotland, is an interesting issue but one which is distinct from the topic of faith-based schools. The instruction on religion which children may expect to receive in non-denominational schools in Scotland, as in the rest of the UK, is far from being comparable to or a substitute for faith-based education in schools dedicated to that, as any representative of the Roman Catholic Church will tell you, I dare say.
Abolish faith-based schools in the state system by all means, if that is the will of the electorate, but be aware that this will produce consequences beyond those which are intended, as has been discovered in societies which have adopted this approach.
Complain about this comment
#76 derekbarker
Ejected from the Nick Robinson blog, were you? One gathers you have been "pushing water uphill" there. Just as pointless an exercise here, old chap.
Complain about this comment
#78
Hello, Defying the law of gravity?
And smoking cuban cigars on these steep hills....old chap. laugh...laugh.
Complain about this comment
#77 franc
Firstly, let me point out that I have never been christened or baptisted - my parents left it up to me what religion, if any, to choose.
I have to disagree with your post here.
What you are effectively saying is that everyone should be entitled to attend a state funded faith school.
But we have many religions in Scotland now. How many schools do you want?
The problem is that bigotry is still rife in Scotland. It will take decades to root this out. Faith schools simply cause a division.
Now I know most people are very tolerant, but a substantial number are not.
I lived in many areas of England for 11 years. Not once did I encounter bigotry, although racism is a problem in some places.
Religion should only be in education to teach about a religion, not to promote it.
Complain about this comment
#76 derekbarker
Well, indeed being a young(ish) female as you've pointed out, 'stirring', if that were my game (it isn't) I can of course execute with all the effort of a shrug - using any size spoon. :->
I see that you have noticed me. I'll take that as a compliment. I'm not sure however you'll like what you'll get, as others will now too.
Well, perhaps you seek to emulate.
;->
Complain about this comment
#81
aye-aye watch out Aunty Bloomers is about.
What exactly is a conservative nationalist?
Are you just making it up as you go along?
Complain about this comment
#82 derekbarker
"What exactly is a conservative nationalist?"
Em, something you just made up?!
(A bloomer of your own there?)
Look, I'm already married...
Complain about this comment
#82 derek
Glad to see you back.
In my day a conservative nationalist was a tartan tory but the SNP has gone all social democratic on us now
Complain about this comment
#80 Neil_Small147
With respect, you may just conceivably, to some degree, be misconstruing my post, the purpose of which is not to advocate a course of action but to draw attention to some implications of a course of action which has been advocated:
"Abolish faith-based schools in the state system by all means, if that is the will of the electorate, but be aware that this will produce consequences beyond those which are intended, as has been discovered in societies which have adopted this approach."
I have stated to you explicitly that I am personally in favour of secular education in the state system. It would appear that we are in agreement on that.
I have been making the point that this an extremely complex issue, more complex than may be apparent. Furthermore, it is not clear that the abolition of faith-based schools within the state system is something which politicians of any party will be prepared to take on unless they can be convinced that the benefits of doing so will outweigh the disadvantages.
Aside from any other consideration, there is one which has not been mentioned yet but which politicians cannot afford to ignore, I imagine, as, I dare say, you are in fact aware: any political party that tries to take away faith-based schools will probably find the Roman Catholic Church breathing down its neck and hinting heavily that it will instruct its adherents to vote for other parties.
No doubt the last point explains why politicians and political activists would be overjoyed to see their opponents taking up this challenge. The Roman Catholic Church has been defending faith-based schools in both the public and private sectors all over the world for a very long time. There is nothing that it does not know about how to protect its interests in this area. FACT, as someone said here recently. I remember seeing it mobilize action against the socialo-communist government in France in the early 1980s. Out into the streets came the bourgeoisie en masse in support of faith-based schools and "liberty" when the Savary law threatened what remained of such schools there (in the private sector), and out went the government's proposals. Faith-based schools still survive in the private sector in France, but there is no more socialo-communist government or any prospect of one.
Your final sentence is one with which I personally would not disagree, as I have indicated: "Religion should only be in education to teach about a religion, not to promote it." This is, of course, a defensible view, but you offer no defence of it. Others differ. The Roman Catholic Church begs to differ with you, as do many of its adherents and many of the adherents of other religions, of which, as you rightly say, there are many in Scotland. One should not just wave them and their deeply held convictions aside as if they did not matter because they disagree with you or, for that matter, me. That would hardly be tolerant.
I am aware of the old problem of bigotry in certain areas and do not underestimate the viciousness of it. It may be that abolishing faith-based schools is necessary if that is to be rooted out altogether, although this may need to be proved. Easier said than done. Expect opposition, although not from me.
Complain about this comment
#83
No one is denying you your right to marriage and an opinion(havent times changed)
I think you dont hide the fact you would prefer an Independent Scotland, I'm pretty sure you also said that in an Independent Scotland Annabelle Goldie would probably get your vote. Yes!
So what is a conservative nationalist, does it have any similarities to the likes of BNP?
Complain about this comment
65. post_meridiem wrote:
Return to the dark benighted zone from which you came. How is Derek, by the way? Still wittering? No wonder, considering the company he keeps.
Now dont be like that, I just followed bluelaw up north given his comments about the parasitic English down South.
I also wanted to see Derek Bs home turf
Weve grown to love him down here.
Complain about this comment
#74 aye_write
Sorry, I hadn't noticed your post before submitting my #85, which may go some way towards responding to your one.
No system is perfect. Although I believe in secular state education and am tempted to favour sweeping away faith-based schools even in the private sector, which I do not care for either, I have not in point of fact sought to present either my prejudices or advocate a particular policy in respect of faith-based schools anywhere. Merely teasing out ideas for the sake of it.
As for practical measures in Scotland, I hear what is being said and am not disagreeing. General principles still apply, however, and cannot be escaped from. Furthermore, have you considered the potential electoral consequences of a policy of abolishing faith-based schools in the state sector? It may be the thing to do. But politics is the art of the possible, is it not? The thing to do can be done if the timing is right. The Catholic Church does not care whether Scotland becomes independent or not, but you do. For a political party this has to be not only a question of principle but of priorities . . . and timing.
My remark concerning the association of faith-based schools with privilege in a society in which state-sector faith-based schools do not exist is based on observation. That is what has happened in France, regrettably, where secular state education is avoided by those who disdain to send their children to a state school but who can afford to send them to one in the private sector, where faith-based schools proliferate and are much favoured by the privileged. An unpalatable fact but one which I know from personal observation to be only too true. If Scotland is to enter into that sort of scenario, it is as well to look before you leap, so that you know what you are getting into. That is all I am saying, in a nutshell. Voila.
PS Thank you for your kind words. The same to you.
Complain about this comment
#87 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2
OK. Take him back, then.
Complain about this comment
OK, pack his food, bed and lead, Ill send some one up.
Complain about this comment
It was only a matter of time until the confusionists started on "faith schools" which apparently are responsible for bigotry in Scotland (but nowhere else in the world).
Bigotry is community and home engendered and has little if anything to do with faith schools.
I have lived for the last twenty years in two parts of Scotland where everybody goes to the same schools and have regularly witnessed occasions of bigotry and bigoted violence , almost always as result of predjudice lubricated by drink and usually (but not always) associated with the progress or otherwise of two certain football teams.
When I was growing up I stood at the bus stop with all my friends every morning on our ways to school. We were going to eight different secondary schools in the Glasgow area. Three of them were ?faith schools?, four of them were fee-paying. We went our separate ways and then met each other every evening to play football or go to the café (or chase girls) with no thought whatsoever to anybody?s religion or what school they went to.
There was very evident bigotry in Glasgow in those days but not one us imagined it was anything to with anything we got in school. Let us examine this peculiar notion - this completely unsubstantiated proposition that going to different school makes people dislike each other. I think we can kick that out straightaway. The implication then is that the syllabus in non-denominational schools promotes bigotry, or that the syllabus in our Catholic schools encourages the pupils to dislike non Catholics.
Utter bullsh*t.
I had the privilege to teach for nearly a decade in a Catholic secondary school in Lanarkshire. There were a significant number of non Catholic teachers on the staff. More significantly there were quite a few non Catholic children on the roll sent by parents who felt the ethos in the school was rather more what they were looking for. All the pupils were in the school because their parents choose to send them there. They were perfectly entitled to send them to a local non denominational school. Many Catholic parents now do so in fact. It is about choice. We are not yet in a soviet tyranny and in this country parents still have the choice to spend their income on paying school fees rather buying other comforts or sending their children to a school which has a religious ethos with which they agree. And I know of no instance of any form of sectarianism being promoted in any of our schools
It was an act of huge generosity by Scotland to include the penurious Catholic schools into the public system in the 1918 Education Act. We should be proud of that. And we should resist taking away the excellent Catholic schools from our Catholic compatriots.
It is true to say that if we were starting now we probably wouldn?t set up faith schools in the public network of schools but to take them away now for the wrong reasons would be disgraceful. The sectarianism in Scotland is actually of political source. It represents the often violent and very often completely mindless and confused attitudes of some in our society to the long running dispute about constitutional matters on the adjacent island of Ireland.
Sort that and you sort our problems (in time).
Complain about this comment
91. At 7:23pm on 14 Jan 2009, sneckedagain wrote:
sneckedagain, I can't believe I'm disagreeing with you!
I don't think faith schools are responsible for bigotry particularly. There is a lot more to it. But that doesn't mean its ok that schools should be 'religious'. Portraying religion as something other than opinion is misleading - and the opposite of what a school should be about?
My two eldest have been so brainwashed in primary 2 and primary 3. They come away innocently with some profound generalisation referencing God that they've obviously heard from an adult in authority. I'm not up in arms but not particularly comfortable with it either.
But the reason they so readily accept, that they are young, is the reason I can wait and see a little bit before I perhaps correct their balance. But should I have to? I rather resent it, in 2009.
I don't think faith schools are necessary in an ideal world. Religious guidance/tutoring could be available outside the curriculum. As for depriving some from excellent Catholic schools, is the answer not to take a look and seek to make all schools similarly excellent? Then choose. Faith is not necessary in this.
(Is having duplicate schools not also unnecessarily expensive theoretically?)
#88 frankly_francophone
No problem. Your point about the church bothering over any changes re religion in schools is no doubt valid. I'd say it is a reason to keep it out of things! But it's in, so there we go.
Also in little Scottish country schools (what I am familiar with) often the head teacher and other teachers are religious. They are good souls who believe in doing good work - you get my drift. Which is good, but also scary - the religious side of school hasn't changed since I was there! It's out of date. (It was well out of date then.)
Lastly if, as you say, the elite in France attend faith school, could Scotland, knowing that, seek to avoid the same happening if we ever change schools in that way?
These (whole post) are just thoughts. I'll let them go now!
:-)
Complain about this comment
#92
aye-write, dont be a catalyst? get back and finish your argument on the NR blog.
The Manchurian on a chariot, (suffragette)
Complain about this comment
#77 - frank, you appear to think that a founding pillar of a free society is the tolerance of faith-based schools. But, who's freedom are we protecting? The children's? With less generous commetators likening religious indoctrination with child abuse, should the allowance of faith-based schools be the default position? How many recoiled in horror when that pillar of virtue, Phony B.Liar, defended the private Creationist school set up by a NuLab funder? A school where science took second place behind superstitious nonsense that even Papel doctrine rejects.
Yes, religious education in non-denomination schools hardly compares to that in Roman Catholic schools, and comes nowhere near being a substitute. However, though you view that as a a bad thing. many do not.
Complain about this comment
#85 - Frank, the power of the Church is greatly diminished these days. Although it still holds "some" power in the central belt, the only man in black that holds sway with the majority of Scots (or at least the male portion) runs a pitch with 22 footballers. After all, in the run up to Glenrothes, we had priests and cardinal decrying NuLab as immoral in an attempt to encourage the faithful to vote for other parties. The result, NuLab's vote increased.
There is a problem in attempting to abolish state faith-based schools, in that they, or at least the Roman Catholic variety, are guaranteed by Scots law. Does Holyrood have the power to reverse that or would it need to go to Westminster? Westminster, who have no real experience or appreciation of "Scotland's Shame", would be reluctant to spend the time or attract the negative press involved in repealing such legislation.
Complain about this comment
93. derekbarker
Derek, were missig you down South.
Come back soon
Complain about this comment
#96
Carrots, how's that rotten going on, are you all mushy and soft, well! I doubt that you were ever hard and crisp.
So what bring the bright eyed one here.
O' i SEE point scoring....nibble....nibble
Complain about this comment
#92 sneckedagain
It is good to see the point being made that taking faith-based schools out of the state system in Scotland now would involve unfairness. This is, I think, an important consideration. I too have been concerned about the assumption that the existence of faith-based schools is responsible for bigotry. Before that is accepted, it would clearly need to be proved. To accept it without proof would also be unfair. It is unfair, furthermore, as you suggest, to fail to take account of the importance attached to faith-based schools by those who have faith in them, if I may put it in that way.
Any reform within a system should arguably be in conformity with the essential nature of the system as a whole. In Scotland the educational system clearly values freedom of choice, whether that be freedom to choose to opt out of the state system or to opt for state-system faith-based education. That being so, it would seem to be inconsistent to deny freedom of choice so far as faith-based education in the state sector is concerned while allowing it in the private sector or even while allowing people to have their children educated privately at all.
If the system were to be reformed, consistency would be required for the reformed system to turn out to be coherent. Thus abolition of state-system faith-based schools would need to be accompanied by abolition of private-sector faith-based schools also. Otherwise consequences should be expected along the lines of those which have resulted from the re-introduction of faith-based schools exclusively in the private sector in France in accordance with the law of 15th March 1850, which brought the "ecoles libres" into existence, to which I have referred in previous posts.
In the last analysis, whatever works best is best, and, if it ain't broke, don't mend it. Faith-based schools probably cannot in any case be removed from the state system without tremendous upheaval and unquantifiable damage to any political party that would be so foolhardy as to attempt it without first having established a broad-based coalition for that purpose across practically the entire political spectrum.
#94 and 95 ForteanJo
I note your comments and will bear them in mind. Actually, although, while exploring what seem to me to be some of the complexities of the issue, I have not been interested in expressing a personal view of what is desirable. Nevertheless, I have found it unavoidable to indicate that my personal position is that I am, in fact, in favour of secular state education as a matter of principle while deploring questionable consequences of prohibiting faith-based state schools at the same time as allowing them in the private sector. Essentially, anomalies and systemic incoherence bother me, although I appreciate that they are to some extent inevitable, not least in the UK.
PS. Surely all educational matters are devolved?
Complain about this comment
#95 ForteanJo
"There is a problem in attempting to abolish state faith-based schools, in that they, or at least the Roman Catholic variety, are guaranteed by Scots law."
Interesting. Watch that church. :-P
Fortean, were you on YouTube answering questions posed to atheists? If not, somebody is impersonating you! ;->
Complain about this comment
#86 derekbarker
"I think you dont hide the fact you would prefer an Independent Scotland, I'm pretty sure you also said that in an Independent Scotland Annabelle Goldie would probably get your vote. Yes!
So what is a conservative nationalist, does it have any similarities to the likes of BNP?"
Yes, it is. Kind of.
All men are rounded up and made to do my and Annabel's bidding (no offence there Annabel). If you don't chant "SNP/Tory for me!" you are deported for being a traitor, to a labour camp (you see, 'labour.'..'camp'...?!). All Labour supporters are branded on the bum, with a sickle (good name), pointing in the direction of where they should be kicked.
Sorry, I hope I'm not turning you on...
:-(
Complain about this comment
#99 aye_write - Yep, hands up. That was me. But don't tell everybody!! ;-)
Complain about this comment
#100
He..Hee...Heeee, O' behave
Kind of] concern there?(really)
Hey! you did well to return to the NR blog
You might just have a pair!
Complain about this comment
#102 derekbarker
"Hey! you did well to return to the NR blog
You might just have a pair!"
OK, I'm bored.
Thanks. (This is spooky). A pair of what? Is it a playing card reference?
Complain about this comment
#101 ForteanJo
No fear! I was subtley trying to ask Neil_Small before I pounced on you, as he'd said something about wanting to put names to faces, but it wooshed straight by (too subtle?), so I'll let it go!
:-)
Complain about this comment
#92
As I said if we were to start again I don't think we would provide state funded faith based schools.
US education system is secular but seems to have had no effect on cooling the ardour of the rag bag of religious zealots and head bangers who disfigure the whole of the electoral process there.
Remember however all schools in Scotland were faith based at one point and it as in fact the Church of Scotland that insisted that free education should be provided for every child long before the resat of the world did this.
You children don't have to have religious education if you don't want them to.
That's parental choice.
But my main point is that the schools are not responsible for the bigotry and to argue this is sloppy thinking.
And that as long as we have a democracy parental choice in education must be paramount
Complain about this comment
#105 sneckedagain
Yes, I learned about the history of schools and the church. The church's story is certainly central to quite a lot!
My kids would be singled out if I were to go a bit nutty and say no to the Minister's assembly chats etc. That seems more unfair - as I'm not sure how they would do it! Besides I want them to know about religion, just not be indoctrinated by it.
We must work with the system we've got and for all that, it's not that bad (pretty good round here).
While you're on, do you know if there is there a way to e-mail the SNP via their website? I'm not saying I'm planning to do this but if I or someone else was, is there? As if so, I can't see it. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
OK Nationalists... a serious question,
Bluelaw has been ranting on NRs blog that Scotland will be much better off as a saparate state when they get 90 percent of the oil.
He posted this article as proof of his point
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3954031.ece
Given that the rtaher obvious huge hole here (this article was written when, and I quote "Many oil analysts believe the cost of oil will rise soon to $150 a barrel and could reach $200 by 2010, because of demand from China and India")
Does this mean that bluelaws plan to live the life of luxury is over? or will you all still be quids in.
Im interested in the figures.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
oldnat, where are you?!!!!!
Complain about this comment
#106 aye_write
Moderation is getting rather strange I posted a link for you but I have been told it has nothing to do with this blog's subject!
In ref your last paragraph does this help
Complain about this comment
107 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2
I haven't yet amassed a database of all the documentation, as I think others have (- others, psst!).
I've got some...
But for a start... ;-)
http://www.tomgriffin.org/the_green_ribbon/2007/01/state_papers_on.html
http://www.tomgriffin.org/the_green_ribbon/2007/01/state_papers_on_2.html
(There's lots more.)
:-)
Complain about this comment
#110 cynicalHighlander
Thanks - I was 'moderated' for I think mentioning e-mails from Tony Blair on the other blog!
I shall look again. Do you just mean the tech support address? I saw that. Of course I could ask them to add a normal 'contact us' link. I'll re-look first.
:-)
So you need a blogging tool of some sort to make hyperlinks show as phrases, if you know what I mean!
Complain about this comment
Silly question, Bluelaw
The SNP policy has always been the same as that adopted by Norway. When the oil price is high you put aside the surplus into a permanent fund from which you can use the accrued interest.
Norway now has accumulated an oil fund of around £200,000,000,000 which represents £50,000 per head for every Norweian (as opposed to the £50,000 debt now round the neck of every UK person).
This gives Norway a daily income on a huge level while not diminishing the capital sum at all.
I am surprised that there are still some people who can't seem to grasp the import of this, but then again as the sloppy thinkers have swallowed lies from Westminster and from Scottish unionist politicians for about forty years perhaps I shoudn't be.
It is only the UK Government that blows the benefits of the revenue from the high price of Scotland's oil by spending it as it gets it.
When the oil price is low, pf course, it has huge benefit to the economy in other ways
Complain about this comment
#107 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2
(I quote a previous poster)
"The
2007 IMF analysis of Norway's situation
reported that it's non-oil fiscal deficit was in line to meet it's plan to be 4% - ie an amount fully funded by income from its Government Petroleum Fund. NB not the oil revenues themselves!
Norway has the second highest sovereign wealth fund in the world. Even the USA decided to set up a sovereign wealth fund based on Alaskan oil. The UK decided to treat oil as a revenue source and still ran at a fiscal deficit!
The top 8 overeign wealth funds are as follows (in billions of dollars)-
UAE, 875
Norway,373
Singapore, 330
Saudi Arabia, 300
Kuwait, 250
China, 200
Singapore, 159.2
Russia, 133
Thatcher's decision (followed by every UK Government since) to use oil as a revenue stream instead of an investment has been disastrous.
It's not Labour or Tory that destroyed the Scottish and UK economies, but the UK itself and its pitiful attempt to be a "world power".
(Tell me when you get fed up...)
Complain about this comment
114. aye_write
Oh I agree with all that.
But we are where we are now.
So keen to see more figures about how Scotland would be better off.
Also how the oil and gas fields get split up. I assume there are various arguments about this.
Complain about this comment
CarrotsneedaQUANGO2:
#107.
"Given that the rtaher obvious huge hole here (this article was written when, and I quote "Many oil analysts believe the cost of oil will rise soon to $150 a barrel and could reach $200 by 2010, because of demand from China and India")"
You have failed to look at the larger picture. Oil prices rose when the worlds economy was growing, what do you expect to happen to energy demands when millions are going out of work and demand for luxury items fall dramatically world wide?
Also the world poplation is growing quickly like usual. Maybe not in your life time, but certainly mine, the world will have almost doubled in size (in human population terms). Billions more needed to be kept warm and fed...
And years ago Governments never had to order energy three or four months in advance. I am not sure if Governments are worried about reserves or security but as far as I know Gov's have still ordered what they need far in advance then usual...
Many points that you have not even considered or taken into account.
I guess we will have wait and see whgen the world economy is in better shape to predict the type of energy demands we will have in future.
Complain about this comment
#115 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2
OK. Maybe #111 did not have the correct links.
I'll see what I can dig out - or else I am getting into deep water, ha!
You'll have to be patient unfortunately! Things are getting busy here.
:-)
Complain about this comment
#115 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2
If you have a solution to Her Majesties Loyal Town Of Berwick, will you let us all know.
And then we may be able to stop another war 8-)
Complain about this comment
115 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2
One reason is to get away from one of the most undemocratic governments called Westminster known in the civilized World.
We're building a second mountain of debt.
What price the Cairngorms?
Complain about this comment
115
The oil and gas get split up exactly as they always get split up. That which is in Scottish territorial waters belongs to Scotland . That which is elsewhere belongs elsewhere. It's exactly the same as Norway, Texas, Nigeria and all the others places with oil and gas reserves in their waters.
Scottish territorial waters are already defined by the internationally accepted formula for this.
You're obviously new to this as your questions are old hat, have been answered on hundreds of occasions and have been tried out by a variety of opponents of independence for years
Complain about this comment
116. Thomas_Porter
Really not trying to look at the picture, really interested in numbers. I accpet there are lots of argument and rehetoric.
As sneckedagain says Im new to the argument and sorry if they are old hat up here, they never really get a mention down here.
I was looking for fact and useful links, Im obviously here cos I figure you guys would have them.
But Sneckedagain, be assured of one thing Im not against Scotland going it alone and I think youll find most of the English feel the same way. You should do what you want to do.
Ill read the links when i get to a PC
Oh yes and aye_write; stop winking at me, Im starting to feel uneasy!
Complain about this comment
119. cynicalHighlander
Well even Im with you on that one, and from the blogs I read most of the english would like to escape Westminster too.
You guys should swarm on labours new web site, youd like it.
labourlist.org
Complain about this comment
#121 CarrotsneedaQUANGO2
"Oh yes and aye_write; stop winking at me, Im starting to feel uneasy!"
Very funny - I'm rude (to Reg), now I've got a twitch - can't win!
;-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-);-)
I think I know where to find some relevant info. regarding your question - will post later if time.
Complain about this comment
112. aye_write and 110 cynicalHighlander
http://www.hyperlinkcode.com/make-hyperlink.php
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS