The Queen
Took a stroll through the Main Hall at Parliament.
Just the usual scene. Reception staff. MSPs meeting constituents. Face painting. Clowns.
Truly, it was a splendid sight, all those children born on the 1st of July 1999, eagerly
thronging their Parliament.
The announcement system which usually signals tedious things like fire alarms and votes on legislation was deployed to advise kids where to go for the official photograph.
And to mop up the odd stray.
The official ceremony to mark ten years of devolution was fine and dandy. The Queen exhorted the Scottish Parliamentarians to strive for a better Scotland in the decades ahead.
This is her sixth visit to the Scottish Parliament, the third to the Holyrood building.
The First Minister delivered a notably inclusive speech in which he stressed that, although there were fundamental differences between the parties in the chamber, they were each motivated by what they believed to be Scotland's best interests.
OK, there's a bit of controversy about the relative paucity of MSPs in the chamber to hear Her Majesty and the FM.
Apparently, 84 had registered to attend - out of a total of 129. Constituency engagements, official business and pre-booked holidays claimed the rest.
Should there have been more there? Perhaps.
Will we remember this fact in ten years time? No, not in ten days.
I will, however, remember the eager anarchy of the July 1 offspring.
C,mon mum, let's join the queue to get a balloon. Aw, dad, everybody else has had their face painted.
Well done, them. And well done to the Parliamentary staff who contrived to attract to Holyrood 143 out of the 163 children born in Scotland ten years ago to the day.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~27~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Brian
But what doom for the Unionists! In 8 years time, all these new voters enthusiastic for their Parliament and all of those presently in the 65+ category in your Devolution Poll who will no longer vote. Oh woe, what will it do for the self regard of those who do not expect to see independence in the next 20 years?
Complain about this comment
I would have liked to see a little of the children's party and the children meeting the queen. The only thing I can find is the queens speech not even Mr Salmond's speech is available.
Complain about this comment
Unless you want to teach those children, or are happy that they learn, that their nationality doesn't deserve them the ability to determine their own future, in the decisions that matter the most, like other nationalities across the globe take for granted, then we must restore to them the decency and normality of their being and living in an independent nation.
They will ask "Why can't we?" and you'd better have a good answer, or they will assume what many Scots already have, we aren't capable, we can't do things on our own.
I want better than that for my children. What do you want for yours?
You get to choose.
Do you want them to be proud, or cringe?
My children deserve to live in an independent nation - and no less.
Complain about this comment
Just listened to your radio blether on ten years of devolution.
I assume the BBC picked these questions because there was nothing about poverty nothing about health inequality and very little about education beyond a discussion led by a teacher.
Surely this is the time to assess whether devolution has delivered any real Changes to the lives of ordinary people. The only question about housing was completely ignored.
Would it not have been better to have this discussion in one of the communities thatvwas supposed to gain the most from Scottish solutions to scottish problems. How about a similar programme in Craigmillar, easterhouse or ferguslie park?
Come on Brian a bit less of the middle class love in and more about what politics can actually achieve.
Complain about this comment
It is observed that the Parliament and the First Minister generally think it is a good idea to be nice to the Queen.
The number of MSPs present today is just a hint that the royal family ought to keep being nice to the Parliament....
Complain about this comment
So only about 65% of MSPs bothered to turn up for the 10th anniversary of Scottish devolution. If MSPs don't care about the Scottish Parliament (which provides them with employment) how can they expect the public to?
Pathetic!!
Complain about this comment
#7 tvkev45
Hi, do we know how many MSPs came from each camp? We know that the anti-independence parties don't really see the Scottish parliament as important as the Westminster parliament...
Complain about this comment
Discourtesy is the word that springs to mind from those MSPs who didn't bother to turn up to welcome the Queen. Whether they disapprove of the union or the monarchy is their affair , but failure to appear is a disgusting demonstration of the lack of common courtesy inherent in some of our politicians. As for the caterwaulling from the minstrel gallery, that was abyssmal and embarrassing , something from Burns apparently but totally indecipherable.
Complain about this comment
Can we have a list of those MSPs who did not attend and the reasons for doing so?
Complain about this comment
Re national identity
According to the the writings of Mazzini, the philosopher of Italian nationalism (he explored many factors which he thought might explain why people felt themselves to be "Italian"), he finally concluded that "a nation consisted of those who feel themselves to belong to it".
Complain about this comment
Oops, wrong thread :-)
Complain about this comment
At the inception of the Scottish Parliament MSPs were mandated to abide by its founding principles eg they were bound to represent their constituents conscientiously; be open and give account for their decisions; be accessible to their constituents. Ten years on these obligations have changed status, in part through the passing of motion S3M-375 on 25 March 2009, from being that of rules to being merely aspirational, ie MSPs are no longer bound to carry out any functions associated with their work as an MSP, performing these duties will be completely discretionary they neednt represent their constituents conscientiously, in effect neednt represent them at all eg by doing casework; through attending committee meetings and meetings of the parliament; answering correspondence; by being accessible; explaining themselves or being open about their decisions; treating their communities and constituents interests as being paramount.In addition constituents have lost their right to complain about the quality of service they receive from their MSPs. Its now possible for an MSP to do absolutely no work at all, during a session of Parliament, receive almost ¼ million pounds, and nothing could be done about that between elections, and the MSP could justifiably say, in his or her defence, that they had done nothing wrong (Where have we heard that before?). Although that is an extreme and unlikely scenario the quality of representation will certainly gravitate to that extreme rather than towards excellence. The ballot box, as MSPs know, does not provide protection for individual constituents from being failed by their MSPs nor does it provide a means ofredress for individual constituents, for in the main the electorate vote for the contents of manifestos, and will typically be ignorant of an MPS dealings with individual constituents and specifics of what the MSP has been doing or not doing. The ballot box as the only course of redress for an aggrieved constituent better protects the interests of MSPs who cant or wont perform conscientiously and or competently.
Ive asked numerous MSPs, the previous standards commissioner and members of the standards committee, why the change in the status of the principles of the parliament was in the public interest and would improve the quality of representation, none have been able to answer those questions. The only group which benefits is that which comprises 129 MSPs. MSPs have brought about a unique employee employer agreement. The employees, MSPs, acting on behalf of their employer, the Scottish public, have given themselves the right to do nothing, but have given themselves the right to receive £1/4 for a session of parliament! No rational employer would agree to this arrangement! So perhaps our MSPs would like to explain why they entered the Scottish people into such an arrangement. And by removing the complaints procedure have lessend the chance of any of misdemeanours being made public and for their constituents to call them to account.
Complain about this comment
Pre-booked holiday? You have got to be joking! How long has Parliament known there was going to be a celebration? Surely long enough to make arrangements to go away at another time. Heck, the Edinburgh Trades isn't until next week, unless they've shifted it from the week after Wimbledon. I agree, it is appropriate to name and shame those who did not attend.
Complain about this comment
#13 Stan_Dards
Welcome newbie. I think you're going way OTT re rules, obligations, et al.
All that's needed to keep MSPs (and MPs, MEPs and AMs for that matter) in check is a rule that a "recall" election must be held on demand from 5 or 10% of the relevant electorate. That would keep them on their toes without complexity.
On topic, I'm surprised that as many as 84 of the 129 turned up to act as supernumeries at a children's party.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
"Just the usual scene. Reception staff. MSPs meeting constituents. Face painting. Clowns."
Clowns?
Easy Brian, Iain Gray, Lord Foulkes and Tavish speak very highly of you.
Complain about this comment
" MSPs ... Clowns. "
You're repeating yourself, good sir!
Complain about this comment
#13 Stan_Dards
Have you got your reference right? I checked the Parliament website for S3M-375, and found only
"S3M-375 Jamie McGrigor: Congratulations to Inverary and District Pipe BandThat the Parliament congratulates the members of the Inverary and District Pipe Band on winning the World Championship at the World Pipe Band Championships in Glasgow; notes that this success comes on top of winning the Scottish and British championships; further notes that this success comes only in the second year of competing in the world championship, and pays tribute to all the participants and coaches and wishes all those involved in the pipe band continued success in the future."
Complain about this comment
This article comes in the "you could not make it up" category.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article6613042.ece
Complain about this comment
#19 dubbieside
Thanks for that link. I wonder if that article will appear in their Scottish edition? I might buy one to find out! On second thoughts ......
Complain about this comment
Comment 20: dubbieside:
Thanks for the link, I laughed out loud. I showed my wife who thought it was a spoof headline, then she also laughed.
Oh how they desperately want him to wave a Union flag and declare that he is so proud to be British.
Complain about this comment
Hey all, its been a while- but some problems my end made my contributions here hard to sustain to say the least. Anyways- the issue at hand.
Devolution 19 years old eh? Isnt it ironic that this very process (devolution) has served to benefit the two parties it was designed to scupper (I speak of the SNP government and the Scottish Cons who would all have died out were it not for Holyroods 17 MSPs).
Judgement as a Tory: I am pleasantly surprised by the Devolutionary process, and I accept that when it was 1998/9 I was entirely missing the mark to originally oppose it. Good work has already been achieved, most noticably for me the end of the outdated feudal system.
But I will say its good to see my Queen present at a traditonally low key ceremony. It is true that we Scots dont do the pagentry of Westminster Palace (and personally I think the queen is thankfull of that)
Complain about this comment
oldnat re 20
It does not come up on the Scotland News/Times on line page. That is too full of anti SNP rants.
Hold your nose and go here.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/
Complain about this comment
sorry that ought to have said 10 years old obviously!
Complain about this comment
#24 deanthetory
Welcome back. You may make typos ;-) You may say little that I agree with! However, you have always seemed an honest Unionist - unlike many of that ilk who briefly post here, then run away.
I hope the problems your end didn't relate to exam results!
Complain about this comment
Also welcome back Dean, hope your end is all better now ;o)
Sadly you'll perhaps not enjoy the new TNS-BMRB poll which is out: details at SNP Tactical Voting. For the link-averse the results are as follows:
(The figures inside the brackets show changes since May 2007)
Constituency Vote
SNP - 39% (+6)
Labour - 32% (-)
Tory - 12% (-5)
Lib Dem - 11% (-5)
Other - 7% (+5)
Regional Vote
SNP - 39% (+8)
Labour - 29% (-)
Tory - 10% (-4)
Lib Dem - 12% (+1)
Green - 5% (+1)
Projected Seats
SNP - 57 (+10)
Labour - 43 (-3)
Tory - 11 (-6)
Lib Dem - 15 (-1)
Greens 3 (+1)
I'll leave the night shift to chew it over...
Complain about this comment
Iain Gray having a nightmare. Coming over terribly.
Good.
Complain about this comment
19. At 10:14pm on 01 Jul 2009, dubbieside:
I'm sure Jimmy Hill would LOVE the England World Cup squad of 1966 to be described as British.
If that is the case, then we can say that actually Scotland won it as well.
The headline will not go down well in England either.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147 re 28
Its the first time that I have ever heard them described as British, to me they will always be English. Same as Tim Henman he was never anything but English, even in the Davis Cup until Andy Murray came along. Mind you I always thought that Henman was a pretty good player but he could not match the relentless hype from the English media.
There is surely something pathetic about a country that has to try to get their sporting success by proxy.
Complain about this comment
Woe! But I shall take refuge in the not all that comforting phrase once said by Sir John Major "the only poll that matters is the one on the day".....
On Murry perhaps the media are turning the poor man into that rare thign many of my erstwhile unionist compatriots have been searching for- the mythical perfect "modern British Man"...
Complain about this comment
I will say that the euros results were good for my lot; despite the national poll shatre falling to 17%- what the result demonstrated was that in all of our seats which our national strategy has targeted where very good showings.
Scot Tories have accepted that this next GE is isolated up here for my lot to Edinburgh, Borders, East Renfrew, Tayside, Aberdeenshire (and city), and maybe - maybe Argyl and Bute. And in these areas we did brilliantly in the euros- coming first in roughly 6 'constituences'.
As a post 1997 young Scot tory you wont be surprised to find me jumping for the joy bottle of chateauneuf de pas if we replicated the euros showing of 17% (but 6 MPs thanks to a solid voting concentration). That euros result tends to me my main refuge in the face of that TNS poll (elections are a better indicator perhaps).
Complain about this comment
I didn't make it to Edinburgh to see Her Majesty today - despite it being an attractive prospect to the Taiwanese ladies i've been dragging/touring around Scotland for the past week (How I spend my holidays!)
Instead we opted for a trip to Stirling Castle because - and I quote "If Prince William (The handsome one) isn't there - we shouldn't go" Least someone has thier priorities straight!
Anyway - to busineess! It was a jolly poor turnout for MSP's indeed for the 10th birthday of the parliament - but i seem to recall Mike Russel of the SNP saying that they had a constitution meeting in Dundee this week to discuss the forthcoming referendum (That's right - the one the ICM / BBC poll proves the people of Scotland want but unionists won't support)
I'm not sure if the constitution discussion was today or not - so before anyone bites my head off - be clear that I'm not accusing anyone!
Interestingly enough - did anyone also catch the recent political "revelation" that Salmond is more popular than Brown or Cameron in Scotland?
One might say it's what happens when you treat the electorate like adults rather than like children.
Complain about this comment
Well said GAberdeen Prince William is the hansome one!
Complain about this comment
Not turning up obediently to hear the latest anodyne utterances of Her Gracious Majesty in the people's legislature is something to be disapproved of? Surely that must depend on one's point of view.
It is, of course, terribly important to know one's place in the still surviving hierarchy of UK society, in which, though you are all theoretically equal under the law, there remains, nonetheless, an elaborate pecking order which constantly adapts to changing circumstances so as to remain essentially quite recognizable. Do you know your place in this anachronistic scheme of things. If you do not, someone will soon be along to sneer at you and try to put you in your place.
The monarchy is, of course, the highest ranking class in English so-called nobility. Her Gracious Majesty, whom God preserve, is the highest ranked, followed by princes and princesses, as you are only too well aware. These are all, of course, inherited titles, signifying exclusive inter-generational transfer of privilege.
Below the monarchy there are five degrees of noble inter-generational transfer of privilege, called the peerage: duke/duchess; marquis or marquess/marchioness; earl/countess; viscount/viscountess; baron/baroness. The peerage titles can only be inherited, not bought or given. Under the peerage there are life peers, baronets and knights/dames. Then there are feudal barons and lords of the manor, two titles that can be bought, apparently. Quite a clutter of titles.
Within the aristocracy, those who occupy the higher rungs look down, as you might expect, on those who occupy the lower ones, and they all look down on the bourgeoisie or middle class. Needless to say, the upper middle class looks down on the lower middle class, and both segments of the bourgeoisie look down on the working class, which is divided into upper and lower segments, under which there is a burgeoning underclass, the least said about which the better.
But that is not the end of it, is it? One could go on and on, but let us cut a long story short. Does the English working class not get anyone to look down on? Ah, I perceive that you are ahead of me. I see that you know your place, after all. As within the UK there is also a hierarchy of component societies, all of the above get to look down on Scotland, which is why, when things go badly wrong, as they are doing at present, Scotland is vilified and ridiculed mercilessly. Still, you can always avoid the worst of it by taking the hint and becoming as anglicized as you can manage and joining the anglo-unionist brigade, from which vantage point you can then look down on all your fellow countrymen and women who decline to do so.
At this point dare one mention the attractions of republicanism? Liberty, equality, fraternity. So much simpler. And so much less sneering involved.
When the French head of state recently addressed a joint session of the National Assembly in the Palace of Versailles, he did so as an executive president, of course, who had something to say that was worth listening to. It is true that he was rather dwarfed by the members of the Garde Republicaine as he made his way to the chamber which had been made ready for the occasion at a cost of some 400,000 euros, I think it was, but nobody seriously quibbled about either of these facts, as the man was chosen by the people to be head of seat, with a massive voter turn-out, and, in any case, no such event had taken place in France since 1848, for reasons which need not detain us. Needless to say, there was rather a good attendance, and it is to be a regular occurrence from now on.
Of all that the President of the Republic said, several matters of substance that are currently of concern to the citizenry are still fresh in my memory. As for what was given to Her Gracious Majesty to impart to elected representatives in a legislature about the existence of which she is not known to be extatic, one gathers that "Your challenge over the coming years is to take the Scottish Parliament forward on the next stage of this journey."
Well, of course, being queenspeak, this means something and nothing at one and the same time - does it not? - and one thing to some and something else to others. Turning up to listen to it at all is of greater significance than the content of the speech itself, as to do so is to accept one's place in the way things are and thus to imply limitation of the scope of change that may be contemplated.
Thank goodness at least some MSPs seem to appreciate this. A Scottish parliament that does not reflect the fact that a proportion of the electorate is not enamoured of monarchy could hardly be said to be truly representative of the nation or to "reflect the priorities and aspirations of all of Scotland's people ".
Complain about this comment
Personally frankly I admire the system of the late polish-lithuanian commonwealth in approaches to monarchy.
Thoughts?
Complain about this comment
#34
In my paragraph 8 "head of seat" should, of course, be 'head of state'.
Complain about this comment
#35 deanthetory
Nice to see you around again, Dean. I was beginning to worry about you.
Before you go on about the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth, about which the population of Scotland is no doubt longing to hear, can we take it that I am aware that Blighty has what is known as a constitutional monarchy, that I was winding you up a little and that my thoughts are at the moment leading less in the direction of the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth than in the direction of the wooden stairway to Bedfordshire, as my eyes are closing? Some other time.
Nighty night.
Complain about this comment
#35 deanthetory
LOL
Complain about this comment
Quaote "Neil_Small147 wrote:
Can we have a list of those MSPs who did not attend and the reasons for doing so?"
Reminds me a bit of the joke about President Hafez Assad of Syria when he reputedly demanded to know the names and addresses of those who hadn't voted for him in his "election". Is Scotland still a democracy and people allowed to chose what they do with their time and not be "named and shamed" for not turning up to an "event" which presumably they had no desire to attend?
Complain about this comment
From the Hootsmon
Who wasn't there - and why
SNP (21)
Gil Paterson Family bereavement
Brian Adam Holiday in Argyll
Richard Lochhead, Ministerial engagement in Campbeltown, Argyll
Roseanna Cunningham Ministerial engagement on canal in Kilsyth, Stirlingshire
Bruce Crawford Ministerial engagement commemorating the First World War dead
Willie Coffey meeting with Diageo in Kilmarnock over job losses
Stuart McMillan Party said his wife was expecting a baby, but office said he was on constituency business
Joe Fitzpatrick No reason given
Kenny Gibson No reason given
Christine Grahame, Boycotted event because she is a republican
Jamie Hepburn No reason given
Adam Ingram Holiday
Stewart Stevenson Opening a new cruise liner terminal in Greenock
Ian McKee No reason given
Shirley-Anne Somerville Family engagement
Dave Thompson No reason given
Bill Wilson Constituency business
Bob Doris Constituency business meeting asylum seekers
Christopher Harvie No reason given
Jim Mather Holiday
Sandra White No reason given
LABOUR (17)
Lord George Foulkes, House of Lords engagement
Sarah Boyack Women's award ceremony
Duncan McNeil Constituency business
David Stewart Constituency business
Charlie Gordon Constituency business
Margaret Curran Constituency business
Richard Baker Holiday in Dordogne
Claire Baker Holiday in Dordogne
Helen Eadie Holiday
Hugh Henry Holiday
Wendy Alexander Holiday
Cathy Jamieson, Holiday
Mary Mulligan Holiday
Des McNulty, Holiday
(Three Labour MSPs cited health reasons, but party refused to name them)
INDEPENDENT (1)
Margo MacDonald Ill health
GREENS (1)
Patrick Harvie Moving office
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS (5)
Jim Hume No reason given
Alison McInnes Personal commitment
Mike Pringle No reason given
Mike Rumbles, below Believed to be on holiday in Italy
Jim Tolson No reason given
CONSERVATIVES (3)
Liz Smith Cricket tour in Somerset with schoolchildren
Gavin Brown His wife had a baby only the previous night
Jamie McGrigor Attending a meeting to discuss inshore rescue
Complain about this comment
39. At 01:32am on 02 Jul 2009, RobDingwall wrote:
"Is Scotland still a democracy and people allowed to chose what they do with their time and not be "named and shamed" for not turning up to an "event" which presumably they had no desire to attend?"
That depends on whether you view it as a social occasion or part of the job. Personally I'm disappointed at the low turnout, but I see it as employees not being fully committed to the job, with some obvious exceptions. But I also think that as the employers we should know who bunked off, so we can decide for ourselves.
Complain about this comment
# 29 dubbieside
They also get their political success (if you can call it that) by proxy.
I'm referring to Brown, Darling and other career Scottish politicians who go down south for a job and run the country for them.
Actually, they deserve a lot better and we, as a nation, should be very embarrassed at the mess they have created.
Regarding the low turn out for the Queen; it's a symptom or the slow but relentless unravelling of the various British institutions that were once held sacrosanct. It's a cross party phenomenom on this evidence and it doesn't end with the monarchy.
Complain about this comment
Frankly the informal nature of yesterday's Holyrood event contrasts well against the ridiculous pomp and ceremony of the opening of the Westminster Parliament.
Recent events on expenses etc shows what happens when politicians have an inflated sense of their own importance and believe they are above the law. The SP is far more accessible than Westminster and that helps to keep our MSPs and ministers feet on the ground.
Saw Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics doing a piece from outside Holyrood, with kids splashing around in the pool in front of the SP. Great sight to see. You'd never see that at Westminster. More power to them.
Re #19 Dubbieside
Good god, I've seen everything now. Notice when John Higgins won the Snooker WORLD Championship this year there wasn't the same attention paid as Murray is getting for reaching the semis of ONE of the grand slam events. Even if he wins it, he won't be the world champion, Higgins is. Mebbes something to do with tennis being a middle class sport and snooker working class? No that can't be right! Or is it because it is in London, not Sheffield? No, the BBC and London broadsheets would never be that parochial, shurely?
Complain about this comment
#22 Dean
Welcome Back!
"Devolution 19 years on..."
You've obviously been gone longer than I thought - How are things in 2018 and how is Scotland faring as an independent nation? ;0)
Complain about this comment
The debate last night was refreshingly balanced, save for one perios when the three Unionists tried to gang up on Nicola. To say she saw them off was an understatement, what a performance she gave.
Gray came out worst of the four panelists, his little party political diatribes didn't go down well, his eye started going again when Campbell pressed him. Something else I noticed before was that Goldie does not perform at all well when put under pressure, it showed again last night.
Question is though why we cannot have such a programme on a regular basis, it was a joy to watch serious political discussion on Scottish politics.
Conclusion: A referendum is on it's way - absolutely no doubt about it.
Oh, why did Iain Gray support the 'bring it on' call if he thought the referendum question was rigged? No one has asked him that.
Complain about this comment
27
Martin, assume you were responding to politics now re the 10yr debate on devolution - wonder if the Greyman maths skills will be brought up by the media, according to him the Scottish Parliament have made significant improvements on child poverty but can do better - it started at 1 in 5 10years ago then they (Labour) got it down to 1 in 4 and now it is 1 in 3! How is that better?
As for the no shows, Patrick Harveys excuse was moving the constituency office!
Complain about this comment
So Foulkes was at the Lords, maybe as there was another chance to stick the boot into the people of Diego Garcia?
Even the Law lords sided with the 'cleared' people of Diego Garcia, calling the British Governments cleansing of them as 'repugnant'.
Is there any way to see who voted in the Lords to refuse resettlement for these people. Of special interest, at least to me, is how one Lord Foulkes voted? Alas, Hansard and the Public whip have not born any fruit....
Perhaps Brian can ask some hard questions at his next interview, but then again Brian doesn't ask hard questions, he and the BBC just provides a platform and camera.
Complain about this comment
#22 Dean,
Welcome back. Hope the exams went reasonably.
A few points from this morning's GMS.
1: Absence of MSPs.
Blown out of proportion a bit I feel. Christine Grahame, fair to her, straight out and says that as a republican she does not want to be seen at events to do with the Monarchy. Can't argue with her on a point of principle and can't argue that she pointed out that she couldn't speak for others.
As Blind-Captain points out in #42 and looking at OldNat's list of reasons from the Hootsmon, this is a cross-party phenomenon and shows that in our devolved Scotland moving towards Independence, "ingrained respect" for the institutions of Union is fading.
However, IMHO, Its not as if HM isn't up here quite a lot and is actually probably more "accessible" to the people of Scotland than when she is down South.
Even if we take the Tabloid view that nearly a third of the MSPs were "snubbing the Queen", isn't that a reflection of our Scottish Democracy that demonstrates that there is a large proportion of the population who are not supportive of the concept of Monarchy ?
2: I'm sure that you'll all forgive me. You know my little pet hate. Noting the absence of His Lordship the List Member for the Lothians (on House of Lords Engagement, GBP280 attendance allowance plus travel), I was stunned today to hear him defending the "unanimous" request of the HoC for the elevation of ex-Speaker Martin to the peerage (in the unelected, unreformed House of Lords). Actually, had I not been in the car, I would have been ROFL as straight-facedly he described his Liberal "Opponent" as a "Political Appointee, a Placeman" and again started banging on about how "The Establishment" (of which clearly his Lordship is NOT a part) has this anti-Glasgow/Catholic/Working Class bent and how ex-Speaker Martin was actually a Living Saint hounded from office by a clique of Old Oxbridgeans who basically couldn't stand the sound of Bagpipes.
(Didn't know that Vince Cable used to be a Glasgow Labour Councillor as claimed by Liberal Lord. Any confirmation ?)
George, time to go and start collecting on some of your pensions.
3: The Murph, suddenly parachuting into Govan and Scotstoun to assure the workers that NuLab is behind them. Murph, it's easy. All you have to do is to either confirm or deny that the UK Government had discussions with BVT to pay for the closure of yards.
That's all it takes, Jim. Simple Question, Yes or No.
Complain about this comment
39. At 01:32am on 02 Jul 2009, RobDingwall:
As a taxpayer I'm perfectly entitled to ask what our public servants are doing.
Our noble Lord was obviously exceptionally busy. Of all people you would expect him to be there. What is so devastatingly important that his presence was required in the House of Lords?
Also, I do believe that Alex Salmond has stated that the Queen will remain head of state. So why is Christine Grahame allowed to remain part of a party when she clearly will not accept a monarch. She's perfectly entitled to her views. (As you can guess I think she is a bit of a loose cannon).
Complain about this comment
#45 I think I should first declare here that I'm not Scottish, I wonder if the reason why Labour won't go down the "bring it on!" route is because they would face accusations of hypocrisy about not having a referendum on The Lisbon Treaty, a clear manifesto commitment which Brown broke? One consistent theme of this government is that it makes decision designed to address a short term problem but which result in bigger problems down the line? I actually give the much maligned Wendy Alexander credit for "bring it on," as she seemed to have realized that it was best to stop being in denial about the constitutional question and to challenge the SNP about it head on. Any good general knows that you seek to fight the battle on the ground most advantageous to you, sadly Wendy's reward for such independence of thought was to have the ground pulled from under her by Brown at that PMQ's! If the Unionist parties had any wit they would take up Salmond's offer of the multi-option referendum, status quo/Calman/independence, they won't primarily because I think Labour are afraid that it will draw attention back to Lisbon and therefore they play into Salmond's hands!
Complain about this comment
#48 Yes he was, he was also Labour's candidate for Glasgow Hillhead in the 1970 GE. I think he defected to the SDP int the 1980's and then joined the LD's.
Complain about this comment
#48 Chiefy1724
In connection with the developing story concerning the defence-related shipyards, it may be worth bearing in mind an interview recently given by Alastair Campbell in the French media on the occasion of the publication in France of his latest work of fiction (a novel entitled It's All in Your Head, or some such thing, about a psychiatrist in need of a psychiatrist).
There are, he confided, certain principles of communication which can be applied to any organization whatsoever: the importance of strategy, the need to understand the way in which the media have changed, their effect on public opinion and the importance of creating a strategic space and thus of imposing an agenda which suits your own objectives.
The Labour Party is gearing up for the upcoming Glasgow by-election - is it not? - by endeavouring to steal a march on the SNP in the creation of a strategic space which suits its objectives.
Complain about this comment
#40, Adam Ingram is Labour not SNP... it's just one I spotted and haven't checked the rest, are you sure the rest are correct?
Complain about this comment
#49 NeilSmall_147
There are not different strands of opinion on various matters in other political parties?
Complain about this comment
#49 Neil_Small147
Christine is one of a long line female, independent thinkers in the SNP and broader nationalist movement (Wendy Woods, Winnie Ewing and Margo MacDonald to name but a few). As a party the SNP is not into the control freakery of some others and allows different viewpoints as long as they fit into the broad aims of the Party. We are the better for people like Christine who is a passionate and dedicated MSP. Her republican views are not party policy, but do not contravene party rules to the best of my knowledge
Complain about this comment
#50 JPSLotus79
You hit the nail on the head, the unionist parties are scared of referenda as they may not get the result they want. The same as far as PR is concerned (with the exception of the Libdems).
According to recent polls 38% of the Scottish electorate suppport independence with 52% against. This is without the campaigns that would accompany a referendum which may well affect the levels of support.
If they are convinced that their case is bombproof, why don't they put it to the test and put independence into the long grass? Because they do not trust the electorate? Can't really think of any other valid reason. It stinks...
Complain about this comment
#52 frankly_francophone
Interesting post. However I think you may be giving too much credit to Brown's strategists. Their recent history has hardly been inspiring.
Personally, I think they will keep Glasgow NE, not because of strategy or policies, just that that constituency is solid Labour. In many ways Glasgow E was a fluke, we (the SNP) shouldn't have stood a chance. Hard work and collosal mistakes by Labour (including losing a candidate) played their part.
With a General Election looming, Brown firmly ensconced in his Downing St bunker, they will play the tartan tory card along with "Vote Labour to keep the tories oot" ploy to bully the electorate. it's worked before, no reason to assume it won't again, as depressing as that thought might be. Hope I'm wrong, but doubt it
Complain about this comment
#53 BoNG0_1
No, he is SNP See http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/MSP/MembersPages/adam_ingram/index.htm.
The Labour Adam Ingram is a MP for E Kilbride, not an MSP
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Was Jim the smurf not there to take unelected control of the proceedings?
I see he is going to learn how to build ships, as he'll need a new one when his own labour ship goes down.
Grim Jim is always there to "reap" any benefits he can get, isn't he?
Complain about this comment
39 Personal opinions do not come into it, the MSP represents his constituents, not himself. The absence is therefore not only discourteous to a guest of the parliament but a slight to the people who elected the MSP and hopefully will be remembered by them.
Complain about this comment
#48 Chiefy1724
I'm always frustrated at the likes of His Lordship and his fellow Labour colleagues in Scotland when they spout this sort of anachronistic stuff.
Maybe it's an idea to understand their world view, as they definitely see the world in a different light. He appears, in my thinking, to see his career as some sort of player in a vast class game. A game where he is The Goodie, playing against the Baddies.
The Goodies are the repressed working class of Scotland, the Baddies are those who would stop the social progress of the Goodies to sit at the top table occupied by the Baddies. At the top table are the Peers, Lords and various other ermine-clads.
Once they get to the top table everything changes, and they adopt the lifestyle and rules of the Baddies.
It's Animal Farm played out in real life. And it would be funny if it were not so sad.
Complain about this comment
#55 scot2010 -
Fair play to Christine Grahame. Personally; I'm fully in agreement with her - the idea that someone should be elevated to 'Monarch' thanks purely to an accident of birth is, to my mind, a bizarre archaism that has no place in the 21st century.
That said, I'm aware some people place considerable importance in the monarch and her public status/ceremonies/whatever and I'm not going to quarrel with that just now.
Just to say then, as I see it, yesterday's attendance/non-attendance reflects the fact that our Parliament has a diverse set of priorities, business and allegiences (just as its constituents do) and I'm pleased that the people's representatives weren't all 'whipped' into line like so many Stepford Wives to greet her Majesty for form's sake.
Honesty's more important than 'form', ceremony or decorum and I'm glad many of our MSPs were honest enough to let it be known that - in greater scheme of things - meeting the Queen's just not that important.
To misquote Hamlet - What's Hecuba to them or they to Hecuba, that they should weep for her?
Complain about this comment
#53 BoNG0_1
Didn't bother checking them - it's verbatim from the Scotsman.
Complain about this comment
#56 Indeed, if you're confident of your argument then you'll have no problem with letting the people have their say on it. With the independence/Calman question, I think it's more a case that Labour has got itself in a total mess because they reneged on their manifesto commitment to have a referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty, having a multi-option referendum or a straight independence yes/no vote on terms most favourable to the Unionists would be a good strategy IMO. But if Brown calls one he will face attacks of "So you let the Scots have a referendum on the constitutional question which wasn't in your manifesto but you won't let the whole of the UK have one on Lisbon which you did promise?" It would be very difficult to refute such an attack so therefore Brown has closed off what could potentially Labour's best strategy for countering the SNP.
Complain about this comment
1st post, hello everyone
#45 greenockboy would like to see programme you mentioned but need a name to find it on i-player. can you help please.
I would just like to add that after reading the blog for the past 5 months I am impressed with the call for more reasoned debate about 3-4 days ago and even more impressed that the majority seem to have responded.
Complain about this comment
#53 BoNG0_1
Adam Ingram is an SNP List MSP for South of Scotland.
A different Adam Ingram is MP for East Kilbride.
Complain about this comment
#57 scot2010
I think that the term "solid Labour" is no longer a useful term. In the days of the Lab/Con duality, it was useful - but those days are gone.
In Glasgow East, Labour voters stayed home, but in that constituency, there is also a significant group of aspirational voters wanting a better life for themselves and their families, who voted SNP in large numbers.
The demographics of Glasgow NE are different - there are only a small number of aspirational voters. You may remember my saying here previously hearing George Foulkes say (in the Theatre Royal) that the voters there "were all underclass".
An objectionable way for Foulkes to put it, but he is right about the depths of despair and deprivation throughout that constituency.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Over an hour (and counting) to get a comment through.
Not exactly realtime discussion, is it.
We would be as well having a discussion with someone at the other side of the solar system.
After a comment has been in for more that 10 minutes, please update the status to:
This comment is still awaiting moderation
Complain about this comment
This moderation is awaiting comment. Please, please, please explain.
Complain about this comment
This moderation is still awaiting comment. Don't bother trying to Explain.
Complain about this comment
First I'd like to say that the low key event was hardly because most Scots dont want a monarchy- I'd content that its more the fact the we up dont seek to make a big fuss hurrah and like low key events. I am convinced that most Scots would say they want a monarchy (as an institution or perhaps its due to public admiration for Queen Elizabeth) but equally they prefer a more informal culture to accompany it.
Sigh- I have to admit that we Scots probably prefer prefer a Scandanavian style rather than the baby-imperial of Westminster Palace.
---
As for the programme last night, only caught the end of it and I shall say how surprised I am at Tavish! He seems unbelievably smarmy (or is it merely how he comes across). Nicola did well confronted by the four unionists behnind the panalist table (Mr Campbell was the fourth for those wondering)- and I have to say Auntie Annie was herself, and displayed the characteristics which we (Scots tories) all love; that she aint a sleek performing proffestional monkey. She fires straight just like Sturgeon.
...leave it for the women to show us men how politics ought to be done. (And I refuse to comment on Mr Grey, my contempt is too considerable)
Complain about this comment
#62 Bandages_For_Konjic
I'm not greatly fussed about ER one way or the other, but I do think that "Parliament Day" should be celebrated every year. It's much better weather for a national holiday than St Andrew's Day!
Complain about this comment
6. At 4:33pm on 01 Jul 2009, minceandmealie wrote:
I am struck by the fact whereas some MSPs might only consider the Queen a foreign VIP, they have advertised their lack of sufficent education to know that one is at least courteous enough to turn up to greet a visitor. And that is so stupid it's shameful. What is so wrong with acknowledging a person who comes to congratulate you? The words surly and ignorant will be being applied both north and south of the border.
Complain about this comment
#34 frankly_francophone
Excellent comment on the existing class structure.
I would like to see it swept away, at least in Wales, and in the UK, as long as Wales is part of it.
I'd prefer to see an elected non-executive head of state, similar to the presidency in the RoI.
Privilege, birth and titles set a bad example for the whole of society. They are essentially elitist.
Complain about this comment
#60 kaybraes
"The absence is therefore not only discourteous to a guest of the parliament but a slight to the people who elected the MSP and hopefully will be remembered by them."
I disagree. The parliament was in recess until 30 August and there was precisely no parliamentary business [See Holyrood's Calendar of Parliamentary Events]. For once, even the ignoble Lord F was probably better occupied on his "other" parliamentary duties.
As Holyrood's News release puts it, the PO said "that he and all the children were delighted that Her Majesty had made time to drop in on todays birthday party".
I do agree that MSPs should be 100% accountable to their constituents [see my #15 above], but doubt that many would feel slighted.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#61 Blind_Captain
No need to understand His Lordship's world view. He has and always will be best summed up by a quote from a late-night texter to Radio 5's Weekend News a few weeks ago.
"Pompous Buffoon"
RE: Christine Grahame et al.
It's not discourtesy. Example. I have several major problems with Religion. People know therefore not to invite me to any religious ceremony - Weddings, Christenings, Funerals, etc. because to me it would be sheer hypocrisy to participate in a religious ritual. Does it mean that I am being discourteous to them ? No, They are being courteous to me in not forcing me into a situation where I would be uncomfortable.
Like it or not, there are a lot of people in Scotland who have no truck with the concept of Monarchy. It certainly doesn't feature in the long-term view of an Independent Scotland that I am fighting for. Christine has at least stood up and pointed at the elephant in the room. Did "Republican Roseanna" ? Come on, a canal opening in Kilsyth ?
The rest of them, either have the guts to say it was because you are Republicans or can we have a bit more detail as to your "constituency business" for the day? NuLab won't of course because it may frighten the horses before the by-election.
Yes, and why was His Lordship at the HoL yesterday ? What was he doing for his constituents in the Lothians, (who, as we know, he represents because there was such a dearth of Directly Elected NuLab MSPs in the Lothians) ? What WAS he doing yesterday to earn his MSP's Salary and Pension ?
But There'll certainly be two Tories facing their constituency chairman and explaining why THEY weren't there :}
Complain about this comment
#62 Bandages_For_Konjic
"I'm pleased that the people's representatives weren't all 'whipped' into line like so many Stepford Wives to greet her Majesty for form's sake."
An excellent post in toto and particularly well said there.
BTW, I see that mod delays are already up over 90 mins by lunch time. Is this a record?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#58 & #63, Sorry, 2 Adam Ingram's... Very confusing *;o)
Complain about this comment
shennachie
the programme is called The Big debate- Devolution 10 years on BBC 1 Scotland last night.
Good for you to join us! Welcome to the club.
Complain about this comment
The debate on BBC Scotland last night was rather disappointing and not a patch on Question Time. For a start the panelists were far too close to each other, almost sitting each others knees and I found it rather embarrassing to see Iain Gray looking up Nichola's nose while she answered a question.
Iain Gray accused Nicola of not allowing him get a word in edgeways but in my estimation he finished up with the most time actually speaking.
Glenn might have given Nicola the opportunity to reply to Gray's rant about the SNP costing the construction industry 20,000. He cut her right off.
Complain about this comment
#64
I see what you are saying re the Lisbon treaty, but knowing Scottish Labour of old, I suspect it is more likely a knee jerk reaction to independence rather than worries about a European referendum. What is more puzzling is the actions of the Libdems and tories who favour a Lisbon Treaty referendum, but oppose a Scottish independence one. In particular, the Libdems rejected coalition with the SNP in Holyrood purely on the issue of the independence referendum, despite having many policies in common with the SNP. Their position seems contradictory
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8129332.stm
Is this the touch of death to Scotland's shipyards from "Skeletor" Murphy.
Gawd Bless the Union Dividend!
Complain about this comment
"Scot Tories have accepted that this next GE is isolated up here for my lot to Edinburgh, Borders, East Renfrew, Tayside, Aberdeenshire (and city), and maybe - maybe Argyl and Bute"
Dean the Tory Boy: you can rule out the last three anyway. Strange you don't want to mention Ayr however; is that already off the Tory wishlist?
Complain about this comment
#67 Oldnat
In the hope that they get the moderation sorted, I'll persevere.
I agree with your comparison of Glasgow E and NE, esp re aspirational voters. That is really what I meant by solidly Labour. They will trot out their old slogans re the SNP and Tories though. And it will probably work.
Hadn't seen the Foulkes quote and it is objectionable. The man really does have permanent foot in mouth disease. Surprised that Brown hasn't made him a minister in the Lords with that sort of talent
Complain about this comment
#67 oldnat
As a Glasgow East constituent, I agree with your analysis, but there were a lot of other factors at play.
The resigning MP, David Marshall (Lab), was in the middle of a mini-expenses scandal of his own at the time, as it was alleged that he claimed for office expenses while listing his office as his home address and his staff as his family (I do NOT know if this is true or false, but these were the allegations at the time).
Secondly, the SNP candidate was John Mason, a well-known and popular local councillor, who had acheived much for his are (I know this, because I live in it). He was leader of the opposition in the Council and received more votes than any other councillor in Glasgow.
Also, the original Labour candidate withdrawing, and the ultimate candidate being the less-than-popular local MSP had a great effect too.
So I'd come to the same conclusion that Glasgow NE is a whole different ball game. And it's most likely a Labour win, by a significant majority.
Complain about this comment
OldNat & Bongo #53 & #63
Really, tut, tut - you don't even know who yer nationalist SG ministers are - all that hot air you spout defending the impact they are making in government and yet you don't even know who they are - absolutely priceless.
Oldnat - will just leave that with you and pop back when I next can be bothered ;-)
Complain about this comment
#82
Murphy to the rescue! Keeping yards going indefinitely with Govt contracts was never a long term solution. Labour has totally failed to maintain, never mind grow, Scotlands engineering excellence and capacity. Yet another reason for Glasgow to wake up and ditch these incompetents.
With them in charge it really is a case of the last one to leave, please turn out the lights...
Complain about this comment
pattymkirkwood re your 82
Is this the touch of death to Scotland's shipyards from "Skeletor" Murphy.
No this is more the start of Jim saved the carriers and the shipyards (see my post on the last topic re this) and thousands of Scottish jobs were saved by Jims timely intervention.
Expect to see an announcement re "shipyard jobs secured by Jim" in the run up to the Glasgow by election. Wee Glen is preparing the ten hour documentary as we speak.
The Labour party have pinched this from Yes Minister, remember Jim Hacker saved our sausages.
Complain about this comment
#85 SinDorei
Spot on with your analysis. Not sure about the "significant majority" but expect them to win with a majority in the low thousands. Is that siginificant in their deepest heartlands? I'm not so sure.
What is more important is the swing and how many softer Labour seats will be at risk come the General Election. Given the collapse of the anti-brown putsch in the PLP, looks like he will be PM come the GE. Will the Scottish Labour vote survive if he looks like delivering a Tory Govt? Or will it drift significantly to the SNP? Here's hoping
Complain about this comment
pattymkirkwood
We are too far behind in Ayr Central and the other three seats to have any hope of taking them in any one election strategy, but they are good future territories- in the euros my lot did manage a first place in south ayrshire.
As for Aberdeenshire, I dont think its all that far out- the LibDem West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine seat for example is winnable; agreed any victory there does depend upon Scot Tories getting 20% in any GE to a LibDem 11% but that was the case according to the YouGov polling data only months ago. So I wouldnt rule Aberdeenshire out; and Aberdeen South will likely break down on the GE night into a four way marginal with the labour vote in free fall and the liberals struggling there (due to being unpopular in the local councils, this will hurt them locally).
Tayside? Again I dissagree (unsurprisingly)- but seriously there is an argument to be made that in Perth & North Perthshire the thin 1,500 odd SNP encumbants majority was due in a large part to anti-tory voting in 2005; that will not apply this time around. But I will conceed that Angus seems problematic especially because of the nonsense being caused by the 'angus alliance' team in the council.
The euros seemed to indicate that its all to play for. Oh and in Argyll and Bute (while I remember) the boundary changes proposed for that constituency does seem to favour the local tory team in what is a three way marginal (LibDem, SNP, Tory). Again dont count us out just yet, the euros demonstrated that in these areas we are able to make some breaks (albeit more work certainly has to be done, granted- especially if my lot ever want to retake the tayside former strongholds)
Complain about this comment
Oh and I forgot about Stirling didnt I, that is another potential victory.
Complain about this comment
I cannot believe so many MSP's "snubbed" the Queen during her visit. She is the Head of State and as such should be treated with respect. I think some of these MSP's need to think about thier future - they all had to swear an oath to the Queen - or did they just do that to get thier salary?
Scotland is part of the UK and hopefully will remain that way - the SNP are kidding themselves and everyone else if they think going it alone is a viable option.
Complain about this comment
#86 salmondella
The confusion was not surprising given that Adam Ingram MP has so many jobs (minimum £145k pa on top of MPs pay and allowances, source House of Commons Register of Interests). None of course related to his previous stint as Armed Forces Minister. Heaven forfend! A Labour MP using his position to line his own pocket, it'd never happen.
FYI the SNP Minister for Children and Early Years, Adam Ingram, has no extra jobs, just gets on with doing tha one he was elected for. What a loser...
Complain about this comment
#86, what's that comment got to do with anything?
and how about you come back when you can be bothered saying something meaningful?
Complain about this comment
Top 20 great things BBC Scotland meant but didn't say:
Number 20: "The SNP's Christine Grahame was one of about 50 MSPs who failed to attend the parliament for the event..."
"...but we are so clearly biased against the SNP we decided to single Christine Grahame alone out of the 50 missing MSPs and try to publicly crucify her whilst refusing point blank to name any Labour, Tory, or Libdem MSPs who also failed to attend."
Complain about this comment
45. greenockboy, I watched the devolution programme on i player today and was impressed with the still finely honed numerical skills of former maths teacher Iain Gray who triumphantly announced the following:
"Has it made a difference? Yes it has. When the Parliament started one in five children in this country lived in poverty. That's now one in three. That's significant progress"
Is that "progress", Labour style then Iain?
Complain about this comment
I see reluctant is back using another of his names Samonella (clever? almost as clever a FEARDOM) best ignored and laughed at I think.
Complain about this comment
#90 and 91, I think Dean still has some Sangria in his blood from his holidays *;o)
In the next General Election, the Tory's will be lucky to win a seat in Scotland. Sorry Dean, but this is the situation as your meagre support is too spread out over the Country and remember, we don't have PR with a GE, so with FPTP voting... ye dinnae stand a chance!
The only seat the Tory's will get is when someone offers you one so ye dinnae fall over in disappointment. *;o)
Complain about this comment
#26 forfar-loon
Re the new TNS-BMRB poll, the full details including age, regional and class splits are now available from the TNS website.
It also has the detailed results for the question "Since the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999, do you think it has achieved a lot, a little or nothing at all?". Overall it went: A lot 20%, A little 53%, Nothing at all 15% and Don't know 12%.
At last, the ICM website now has the official version of the BBC Scotland poll, with some mainly cosmetic differences from the PDF published on this website. I haven't yet gone through every number but the numeric results seem to be the same. It does seem to confirm that "don't know" or "won't vote" was not an option on Q.19 of 20 - the SNP preferred referendum question.
Apologies if this duplicates an earlier posting - slow moderation is to blame.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#92 RJTawse
I completely disagree. Of course the Head of State should be treated with respect, if the said Head of State had been elected, and therefore had a public mandate. The queen simply has the title because she was born into a certain family. This has no place in a modern democracy. Many people are of this opinion in Scotland, and this means MSPs snubbing the queen reflects wider society.
Personally, I would have shown up, even though I am a republican, to celebrate the Parliament's 10th birthday, and listen to some Burns tribute. But the queen's pre-prepared speech would not be the highlight of my day, because she is merely reading what some adviser told her was best to say.
On your second point, yes Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, but I disagree that it is not viable for us to go it alone. Why not? So many other small countries (some a lot smaller than Scotland) have managed fine on their own. So please tell me why it's not viable? I'd really like to know the argument behind this.
Complain about this comment
#88 they will certainly need all the help they can get there, it will make sense.
Dean, I predict you being disappointed in Perth, Stirling, Tayside and Aberdeenshire ... I do predict a "shock" (for you) Tory gain in Ayr, however.
Complain about this comment
92. RJTawse
With all respect I find it harder to maintain a positive rationale for th union simply because the SNP are offering a respectable alternative for the first time in 300 years. I do honestly believe that there is still a positive rationale favouring the union, but less of the "Scotland can't handle independence" rhetoric please.
And what exactly do you expect from MSPs who are republican? Hang them for treason perhaps? Silly nonsense; republicans can't be compelled to be monarchist- its our jobs to convince them!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#92 RJTawse
This may be your first post, but on this blog don't expect to get away with unsupported assertions.
You concatenate a statement of fact "Scotland is part of the UK" (actually we all knew that) with an opinion "and hopefully will remain that way" (which you are perfectly entitled to hold) with a piece of vacuous unsupported nonsense "the SNP are kidding themselves and everyone else if they think going it alone is a viable option."
On that last, produce evidence to counterbalance the considerable quantity of evidence which demonstrates that an Independent Scotland is at least as viable as an Independent rump UK - or spare us such unthinking drivel.
Complain about this comment
#92 RJTawse
Welcome. We've been hoping to hear from some unionists, but had also hoped to hear some positive arguments against home rule.
"I cannot believe so many MSP's "snubbed" the Queen during her visit. She is the Head of State and as such should be treated with respect."
In what sense is not turning up to one's place of business on a day when there is no official business at all a snub? Despite being a republican, I agree that the head of state should be treated with some respect. Her own birth, after all, was not her own fault and in any event introducing democracy is much more urgent than worrying about a figurehead.
"Scotland is part of the UK and hopefully will remain that way - the SNP are kidding themselves and everyone else if they think going it alone is a viable option"
Why?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
The BBC article singling out Christine Grahame with a title of 'MSP 'snubs' Queen to read emails' is desperately biased and crass reporting by the British state media. A brazen, misleading, tabloid headline.
She didn't avoid it to do something she preferred eg Go on holiday, read emails.
She did not want to attend at all, under any circumstance, on a point of principal.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Be thankful that you have a job that allows you to stroll while getting paid for it from our pockets.
I bet you stroll a lot with your Labour buddies these days?
Complain about this comment
Murph Muttering alert !
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8129332.stm
Murph saves the jobs, yards, carriers, Royal Navy, The Union and Glasgow North.
Half an hour early too. Full marks to the BBC Northern Britain Newsroom for getting this out before the usual 4pm mark. Cynics would think that the press release had already been issued from NuLab yesterday and cut and pasted to the web page with undue haste.
Complain about this comment
Christine Grahame has suddenly become one of my favourite MSPs - well done to her for being true to her beliefs and admitting them. It's a shame some of her fellow suppporters of the Republic organisation couldn't be more honest - after all, if you're a supporter of a group that supports the removal of the monarchy, then to attend the event would be a bit of double standards, and to use anything else as the reason for not attending seems silly.
http://www.republic.org.uk/supporters/index.php
As an SNP member, I find it saddening that Rosanna Cunningham couldn't have followed suit and choosing to give a (presumably) false reason instead, as well as Sandra White (although at least she just didn't give a reason). If the Scotsman list is indeed correct, then I'm actually quite disappointed in Ron Gibson and Linda Fabiani for attending the event, despite being affirmed republicans.
Incidentally, Lord Foulkes is also a supporter of the organisation, so could also have just been truthful in his reasoning for not attending. Why am I not surprised that he wasn't?
Complain about this comment
#91 Deanthetory -
You finished 5.7% behind the SNP, in Stirling, in the European Elections. Labour have lost control of the council to the SNP and dissatisfaction with Labour among the electorate should make it easy for the SNP to campaign and win on the basis that it's they and not the Tories who are best placed to put the unloved Anne McGuire out of a job.
So - Fifty quid (GBP50) says the Tories don't win Stirling in the next Westminster Elections. Loser to pay in full, at 8.00pm on the evening after Election Day, at a place of your choosing. (As long as it's a pub)
Money? Mouth?
Complain about this comment
#96 ...
Hmmm ... I recall that not so long ago an MSP (not sure of which persuasion), trying manfully to get to grips with angular geometry, complained that a Political opponent had performed a complete U - turn on some issue or other; the more - or - less verbatim quote was ...
"He's done a full 360 degress ..." ... This demonstration of advanced mathematical ability could explain a number of things ...
No doubt (and hopefully) one or more of you will remember more and better ...
Complain about this comment
It is disappointing that some of our MSPs decided that they have better things to do, I understand they may have holidays planned, but could it not have been arranged around the event? They run the country, pass laws so surely they can manage to arrange for their holidays another time. It's not that difficult.
I am also disappointed that some avoided the event because of their attitude to the monarchy. The event was not about the monarchy, it was about devolution and the Scottish Parliament. If you go to a party and someone else you dislike was there too, what would you do? I'd not talk to the person unless it was a hello, how are you type of conversation. It's called decency and being polite and civil. The Queen, is an equal and at the end of the day deserves to be treated in the same manner as you would like to be treated.
Complain about this comment
#99 Brownedov
For the polling geeks (that's just you and me I suspect!) I had a look at the responses from all (not just the headline figures of committed) respondents.
For those committed to democracy it makes pretty depressing reading.
Party, Constituency, List
SNP, 23%, 23%
Lab, 19%, 17%
Con, 7%, 6%
L-D, 7%, 7%
Other, 4%, 6%
Undecided, 23%, 24%
non vote, 17%, 18%
If EVERY committed voter went to the polls, that would be a 60% turnout (same as the 2001/5 GEs) The last Holyrood turnout was only 48%.
That suggests that the "undecideds" won't vote in either of the Westminster or Holyrood elections (they may be too embarrassed to admit that they don't care), and that the Holyrood elections will depend on which party gets more of its "committed" voters out to the polls.
Complain about this comment
#102 deanthetory
It wasn't till after I'd responded myself, that I noticed the name RJ TAWSE - as someone who regrettably had to use that vicious piece of equipment for a few years, I should have spotted it earlier.
We have a real troll around. Gash on the previous thread, Tawse on this one - posing as English Unionists.
Ignore it and it will go away. Memo to self! Don't Feed the Trolls!
Complain about this comment
In responce to Brownedov's plea here is what I have long proposed (and more than once on this blog).
Fiscal federalism (or fiscal autonomy)
Greater localism through the decentralisation of authority from Westminster to Holyrood (Devolution Mark II) but also devolution of some powers from the Edinbrugh drag net to councils which would also have perhaps local sales taxation powers (by making them financially competitive between councils in regards to tax rates you can make local government more relevant).
All this matched with a political 'new deal' for the United Kingdom- possibly involving some level of constitutionality (written perhaps). As the only alternative to independence is a radically re-shaped UK constitutional set-up.
A possible alternative built up by many days floating various ideas on this blog.
Complain about this comment
#102 deanthetory
Welcome back from me, too, Dean, and thank you for making such a sensible post.
Careful, though, or your fellow unionists will start thinking you're an agent provocateur.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#110 Bandages_For_Konjic
What an unfair challenge! Are you seriously suggesting that a student would have GBP50 to spend on alcoholic beverages?
Complain about this comment
110. Bandages_For_Konjic
You are on mate! 50 quid to the losing side eh, so I get 50 if the SNP fail and the tories succeed and vice-versa then I pay. Sounds fair!
...I'll now be campaigning with Bob Dalyrimple all that harder now...
the albion is a nice pub in Stirling, good for a cheap pint and local company.
Complain about this comment
The obligatory poll awaits your pleasure at Brigadoon: What do you think of the 48 skiving MSPs who "snubbed" HM Queen?
#99 Brownedov: Thanks for the update on the poll details.
Complain about this comment
Very bad news. Alex Salmond has been attacked by Des Browne, remember him?
I bet AS is quaking in his boots.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2517833.0.Diageo_job_losses_Salmond_accused_of_snoozing_on_job.php
Snoozing on the job, makes a change from, meltdown, turmoil etc.
P.S. Dean glad to see you have not lost your sense of humor when you have been away. The Tory tandem is booked to take the MPs to Westminster.
Complain about this comment
#90
With all due respect, Dean, although the Tory vote has risen a bit the SNP vote has risen more so any notuion tha the Tories will overtake an SNP in front of them in any seat is unlikely so i would would right that out of any equation. The unionists parties will increasingly be looking for scraps off each other in the years to come as the SNP vote becomes the "party of government vote".
Perhaps the Tories and Labour can merge (and the LibDem rump) as they are all singing from the same hymn sheet now most of the time anyway.
Complain about this comment
#88 good call dubbieside!
Here is the "World Saved By Murphy" article, (which you predicted!), duly provided by the BBC - and all within a one day news cycle.
Complain about this comment
FAO Moderator
Don't know what your problem is, but please get your act together. The delays on this blog are wholly unacceptable!
Complain about this comment
pattymkirkwood
Enjoyed your letter (I assume) in a popular scottish broadsheet today
Complain about this comment
#113 oldnat
"For those committed to democracy it makes pretty depressing reading."
It certainly does and "which party gets more of its "committed" voters out" will matter more than ever. Such numbers really make the ICM responses available to the likely independence question stink all the more.
Looking on the bright side, I certainly can't see NuLab's fallen membership rolls helping them much in that respect or their policies attracting much new blood with an ideological streak and wanting to become activists. OTOH, if the tories can attract a few more activists like Dean, his projections could just become reality.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#118 Deanthetory -
Excellent. 8:00pm in The Albion it is then. Sometime next June, although I think we all hope for sooner.
Complain about this comment
#125 brownedov and Oldnat #113
I was watching a repeat of the 1979 election coverage on the BBC Parl channel recently. Reminded me that turnouts of 80%plus used to be common. It is truly depressing that public interest in politics has declined so much. Don't know the solution but there needs to be one. Any ideas out there?
Complain about this comment
#127 scot2010
I am frequently a non-voter. I seldom bothered to vote in my union elections, or for the GTC. I'm a Co-op member, but since every candidate described themselves as British, I declined to vote for any of them. I have some shares, and apparently I can choose which board member to vote for. I don't bother.
What do all these elections have in common? I don't think it matters a damn who gets in. I am cynical as to why these people are standing, and reckon they're often out for themselves. Any policy statements are so similar that there is little real information for me to choose between any of the candidates. Does this sound familiar?
I think there are real political choices, but the only ones of importance are the constitutional ones. Independence? Europe?
What makes me vote in political elections? There is an issue which will seriously affect me and my descendants - but I understand why those who reckon they will be ignored anyway, don't bother even then.
Here's a challenge! Persuade me that voting for a member of the Co-op board matters to me. :-)
Complain about this comment
Scot2010 a possible solution might be the teaching of modern studies in all secondary schools through Scotland as part of the manditory curriculum.
This generates awareness amongst younger generations who tend to be the ones growing up failing to vote, or even care about politics at all.
This change could be introduced quickly by any Scottish Executive (they have the power to act), and it would open up many career opportunities for future post grads like myself (while I wait for a winnible Constituency to open up for me).
Complain about this comment
#118 Deanthetory -
So your PPC is the man who came third in the 2007 Holyrood vote? Behind the SNP and Labour? I should have made that a hundred.
Incidentally - your PPC's home page here claims that he increased the Tories' share of the vote in 2007. But the results show a fall of 1.4%. Why is that? Surely you're not lying to the electorate already?
Complain about this comment
Bob was facing a different election in 2007
not least in the fact that the holyrood seat isnt boundary-wise as favourable as the westminster one is. But also there was an SNP-Labour squeeze nationally. Nothing like those problems face him come 2010, not least because in Westminster GE people tend to vote differently than at Holyrood, and seem to see it through a Labour vs Tory prism of campaign news coverage bound to be detrimental to the SNP PR machine.
So, nope I am rather proud to have him as my candidate he is a decent man (who works for the whisky industry, so a handy man to know).
Complain about this comment
#124, Scot2010 - very kind of you to say so.
Complain about this comment
deanthetory re 129
Sorry to hear that you are moving to England, if you do not you will be too old to get a winnable tory seat.
Some people have been asking about the reduction in the tory numbers in the latest Scottish opinion polls, see below,
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2194
May Dubbieside suggest that this a direct reaction to all the TV time that Micheal Forsyth has had over Calman, and that he is a direct link to remind everyone just how "good" for Scotland the nasty party was during 18 long Tory years.
Once independence comes statues of Forsyth should be in every town lest anyone forgets.
Complain about this comment
#115 deanthetory
I suspect you'll have some difficulty selling those ideas to your own party, but those are the very much the areas it will need to address to have a real hope of a full recovery in Scotland, I think.
Re fiscal federalism and fiscal autonomy, I see the really important issue as being how the shared "union" functions such as defence and foreign representation are funded.
If the nations gave a "block grant" to the centre based on their collective will, you would have a confederal solution not dissimilar to Switzerland, which I could probably support until and unless England becomes too eurosceptic.
If the centre retains direct taxation powers and sets its own spending you would have something more like the USA. It works fairly well there because no state has a majority of the population but I would not support it for the UK because the sheer size of England compared to the other nations would mean English policies would always prevail.
Time to move on to the new thread, I think, but the topic is well worth discussing further.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
pattymkirkwood re 122
The sad part is how many Daily Record readers will read it and think it is true.
However I do not think that MacBride would have let them do this so early. This visit should have been the week before the Glasgow by election, unless of course Murphy is planning a follow up visit to "check on progress" with wee Glen by his side.
Complain about this comment
#119 forfar-loon
You're welcome, and thanks for the poll, duly added to. Doubt you'll be getting too many monarchist votes, though.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#130 Bandages_For_Konjic: Ouch! The percentage fell and the absolute vote fell - looking forward to Dean (or even Boab) explaining how 8,081 (24.8%) in 2007 is an increase on 9,158 (25.6%) in 2003 - Gordon Brown himself would be proud of such a statistical sleight of hand! And don't even think about trying any nonsense like comparing it to a previous Westminster election result!
Complain about this comment
Whoops, busy on here tonight, I should have refreshed the page before posting #137. Maybe it's that nice Innis and Gunn I just had, but I don't quite get your explanation in #131 Dean. Your man polled lower in 2007 than the Tories had in 2003 in the same seat, but claims an increase - what gives?
Complain about this comment
#131 deanthetory -
"[T]he holyrood seat isnt boundary-wise as favourable as the westminster one."
Why not? Holyrood omits the Eastern Vilages and Bridge of Allan. Can't see Cowie, Plean and Fallin adding much to your vote. Bridge of Allan includes the University which used to mean fairly solid Labour support - although I doubt it does these days. Still can't see the students voting Tory in significant numbers though.
I reckon you probably had a better chance under the Holyrood boundaries.
"In Westminster GE people tend to vote differently than at Holyrood"
Yes and the differences tend not to be in the Tories' favour. Witness your 17 MSPs (I know, the lists but still . . . ) and your single, solitary Scottish Westminster MP.
On top of which - Scottish voters faith in the 'main' Westminster parties isn't exactly at an all time high in 2009/10. The SNP have sailed through the expenses crisis largely unscathed. Don't think the same can be said of the Tories.
I notice you're pretty mute on the disinformation published on your PPC's homepage too. Maybe the electorate don't trust the Tories for a reason?
Complain about this comment
Bridge of Allan is a major tory voting area (rich suburban territory), and the University has a very vibrant Conservative students society (I ougth to know, I'm Vice President)- so the students who would vote will not be overwhelmingly Labour (their stirling union numbers are in free fall, down from 44 last year to just 19 active members).
As for the error you all point out from our website, I am sure te typer was just mis-speaking is all. No deliberate attempt to lie (what would be the point after all, the real information would be easy enough to find).
Complain about this comment
#127 scot2010
Good post, but no easy solutions, I think. A free lottery might drag a few more people in: 1 voter who voted in person to win £100 in each constituency by lot drawn at the count, perhaps?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#140 deanthetory -
"As for the error you all point out from our website, I am sure te typer was just mis-speaking is all. No deliberate attempt to lie (what would be the point after all, the real information would be easy enough to find)."
Yes, I'm sure your 'typer' sat down intending to write "and decreased the Conservative's vote", slipped and . . . oh michtie me! . . . typed "increased" instead.
Whatever. I'm sure it was an honest mistake, if it was a mistake and bound to be 'within the rules and the spirit of the rules.'
More seriously - I did say I doubted that the University would deliver the Labour support these days that it has previously. What I don't know - and I doubt anyone does - is what it will deliver. Voting intentions polling for 18-25s isn't encouraging so the most likely answer is apathy and abstentions - which won't benefit anybody.
I like your description of Bridge of Allan as "suburban" - although I doubt many of the residents would. I would contest, however, that 'rich' and 'suburban' will automatically mean Tory in 2010. The SNP don't scare the horses like they used to. They're becoming the 'aspirational' party in Central Scotland now.
Complain about this comment
#140.deanthetory
"No deliberate attempt to lie (what would be the point after all, the real information would be easy enough to find)."
Not as openly as this guy then?
Complain about this comment
#140 deanthetory -
And, incidentally, in answer to your question -
"(what would be the point after all, the real information would be easy enough to find)."
The point would be to feed misinformation to voters who don't check everything your PPC says against the facts. Voters who think that because someone's standing for political office, they ought to be trustworthy, they ought not to need to have their every word verified by an independent, third party adjudicator.
Ordinary voters, in other words. The kind who've become so disenchanted with being consistently lied to by politicians they ought to be able to trust.
That would be the point.
Complain about this comment
#135,
Here is another special, Gordon Brown: wait for it, "saved the Black Watch's Red Hackle".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8130164.stm
Complain about this comment
#13 Brownedove
How would the 5% needed be informed of the failings of a MSP?
How would your suggestion deal with miscreant MSPs who arent going to seek re-election or are not particularly fussed about being re-elected?
There would still be the conflict of quality of representation with party manifesto
How would your suggestion ensure redress for an individual whod been failed by a MSP?
Complain about this comment
Oldnat #13
Sorry for error, wasn't a typo on my part, had copied it from a MSP's email, the only one who'd responded to my ask - why the passing of the this motion was in the public interest - and she didn't answer the question.
S3M-03757 Gil Paterson (West of Scotland) (Scottish National Party): Code of Conduct for Members of the Scottish Parliament: Review of Section 8 of the Code of Conduct.
Perhaps you might find it interesting if you were to ask your MSPs why they felt removing all regulations in respect of MSPs' liaisons with their constituents will ensure the highest standards of representation? Specifically, MSPs no longer having to treat their constituents wishes and that of their communities as being paramount; no longer having to be accessible to their constituents eg hold surgeries, answer correspondence; no longer having to give their constituents and employers explanations for what they did or didn't do; no longer having to turn up to work! It's possible for a MSP to do absolutely nothing for 4 years, and absolutely nothing could be done about that as no sanctions can now be applied for failing to represent conscientiously. The principles of the parliament should now be re-written to read
MSPs do not have to be accessible to their constituents
MSPs do not have to represent their constituents conscientiously
MSPS do not have to act with integrity or show leadership
MSPs do not have to be open as possible about their decisions
MSPs do not have to give account for their actions to the Scottish people
What happened on the 25 March is similar to the actions of the Pigs in the novel Animal Farm. When I used this analogy a few weeks before the presentation of the motion the then convenor of the standards committee tried to ban correspondence with me because he found the comparison offensive! He thought I'd likened him and his fellow members to the animal, pigs, not the characters. He hadn't read the book, I doubt if he'd even heard of it - he's now the Schools' Minister!
Complain about this comment
#147 Stan_Dards
You still have the reference wrong btw. It should be S3M-3757.
Since the motion was presented by Gil Paterson on behalf of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, the relevant documentation is actually the proceedings of that committee. A useful summary of the changes to Section 8 can be found here http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/stanproc/reports-08/stprr08-09.htm#anxa in Annex B.
Instead of "blowing off steam", it would be more useful if you simply quoted the subsections of section 8 which you find offensive, and allow us to draw our own conclusions.
Complain about this comment
#146 Stan_Dards
"How would the 5% needed be informed of the failings of a MSP?"
Obviously an independent, crusading media would help, but even in the absence of it, word would spread like wildfire on the internet. Holyrood would merely need to set up a "recall petitions" site, publishing the propositions from voters in the relevant constituency, with a freepost address for registered voters to add their names to the petition. Concerned groups would also be allowed to canvas in the constituency, as would the MSP himself and his party while the petition was "open" - a maximum of 90 days, perhaps. There would be frivolous cases, of course, just as there are on the No.10 petitions site, but they would not attract enough signatories to call a by-election, and no significant costs would be involved until that stage is reached.
"How would your suggestion deal with miscreant MSPs who arent going to seek re-election or are not particularly fussed about being re-elected?"
If they did not want to stand down early, they would have to fight the by-election. If they don't care and don't stand we'll be rid of them sooner.
"There would still be the conflict of quality of representation with party manifesto"
As the recall process would not hinge on breaking of the law, the English courts' interpretation of NuLab's manifesto promises re the "constitutional treaty" as not being legally binding would be irrelevant. If you don't think your MSP is working hard enough to impement the manifesto he or she stood on, simply start a recall petition and if you have enough like-minded neighbours you'll succeed in forcing a by-election.
"How would your suggestion ensure redress for an individual whod been failed by a MSP?"
That's arguably more difficult, but if an individual has been seriously let down by the MSP then their case would be stated in the petition. If it was a reasonably good one, I find it hard to believe that the local council and/or other parties in the constituency would not offer help in preparing the petition and making the problem known throughout the area.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#128 Oldnat
Hope you're typing with your tongue in your cheek (how's that for a mixed metaphor). One reason to vote is to keep the wrong people out! Personally, post independence I don't know who I would vote for. I certainly would not be a member of any political party. I'd hope to vote for the person, not party. Ultimately that's what it should be.
#129 deanthetory
Interesting suggestion. Back in the mists of time I was taught Modern Studies at secondary school. Most of the kids were bored rigid, so not sure it would work.
#141 Brownedov
Now that would be depressing, a lottery for votes. Bribing people to vote hardly encourages thoughtful consideration of the issues or candidates.
My suggestions would be:-
1. Make voting easier by using ATM style machines located near workplaces, shops etc.
2. Taking up deanthetorys point, get kids interested in the democratic process by having school referenda on the running of schools. Shows them that votes matter
3. Get rid of Westminster, and boost the use of devices like the Holyrood Petitions Committee to allow people to interact with Parliament without being part of the political establishment
Any thoughts?
Complain about this comment
#147 Stand_Dards & #148 oldnat -
To add a little context - the Official Report's text of the debate on Motion S3M-3757 can be found here
Complain about this comment
#150 scot2010
If we can vote electronically, then publishing running totals might make more people want to vote on the day. The problem with electronic voting is identity; now there's a use for ID cards!
Complain about this comment
#13 Stan_Dards -
"Ten years on these obligations have changed status, in part through the passing of motion S3M-375 on 25 March 2009, from being that of rules to being merely aspirational, ie MSPs are no longer bound to carry out any functions associated with their work as an MSP, performing these duties will be completely discretionary they neednt represent their constituents conscientiously, in effect neednt represent them at all eg by doing casework; through attending committee meetings and meetings of the parliament; answering correspondence; by being accessible; explaining themselves or being open about their decisions; treating their communities and constituents interests as being paramount."
Crikey that's a long sentence. And it's not true.
Let's take a quick, whistle-stop tour, shall we -
Ten years on these obligations have changed status.
No they haven't. What you're doing is confusing the key principles in the Scottish Parliament Code of Conduct with the rules.
The Code of Conduct can be viewed in full here
The key principles set out in Volume 1 of the Code are, and I quote - "Aspirational in nature. Their intent is to guide and inspire members toward the very highest ethical ideals. The key principles, in contrast to ethical standards, do not represent obligations and do not form the basis for imposing sanctions."
None of this has changed. As it is now, so it has always been.
The rules on the other hand, which set out how "the principles are to be interpreted and enforced in practice" (And which take up Volume 2 of the Code) aren't aspirational and are enforceable by the Standards Committe and the Presiding Officer.
Again - as it is, so it has always been.
What Motion S3M-375 (Which was concerned with reviewing the "rules for the conduct that is expected of members when they work with constituents and one another in their constituencies or regions.") mostly did was -
1. Remove 1 key principle set out in Section 8 of the Code on the grounds that a) "The committee noted that that key principle is [already] contained in volume 1 of the code of conduct" and b) "The retention of a few key principles in section 8, when all the others were moved to volume 1, might have been an oversight."
and 2. Change a second key principle to a "rule that reflects more appropriately the balance between the constituent's wishes and the judgment that an MSP exercises when considering his or her caseload."
And that's pretty much it. Much much less exciting than the way you've written it, I know. But then the truth frequently is rather dull.
Might I suggest that when you "asked numerous MSPs, the previous standards commissioner and members of the standards committee, why the change in the status of the principles of the parliament was in the public interest and would improve the quality of representation" that the reason why "none were able to answer those questions." was because they either didn't understand the question because there has been no change in the status of the key principles of the parliament or because they recognised that your question was a fallacy and didn't want to embarrass you by making you look stupid.
Not embarrassing your constituents isn't a key principle of the Code. It might be a rule, though, I haven't checked.
Complain about this comment
#129 deanthetory
Seriously? Modern Studies a solution?
Don't make me laugh. We were forced to do it for part of the year in S1 and S2, and it just served to put more people off.
I hated the subject, even though me and my friend were top of the class at it. The one thing I remember is our teacher asking us if we should worry about the rights of sheep being transported to a factory for slaughter.
And as much as I despised modern studies, I turned out a politics student at university!
So moddies isn't the solution here.
Complain about this comment
#150 scot2010
"Now that would be depressing, a lottery for votes."
Sad but true. But it would be relatively cheap, need no new technology and put the spotlight on the number of postal votes still cast.
I accept that it might well not increase the quality of the turnout but I'm sure it would increase in quantity.
Another thought is that without making it compulsory as some nations do, a "clean" voting record could qualify the individual for a small discount off taxes, which would also encourage foreign residents to seek citizenship.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#152 Handclapping
Running totals were never part of my idea. However, clearly counts will be much easier. No ID cards needed, just a disposable swipe card with the electoral no on it. If you use ATM style technology, then a photo can be taken of the voter when they vote. This should solve any disputes over id as one could complain if you suspect your vote was used by somebody else. And before you go off on one, no I don't think the swipe card needs a photo or other biometric data on it, only the electoral no. This idea is no worse than the current system as most polling station staff do not know the people voting
Complain about this comment
#153 Bandages_For_Konjic
Thanks for that, from my quick look at the Code changes, I thought it might be something like that.
Clearly Stan_Dards has to improve his interpretative standards!
Complain about this comment
#152 handclapping
"If we can vote electronically, then publishing running totals might make more people want to vote on the day. The problem with electronic voting is identity; now there's a use for ID cards!"
An interesting idea. The data already exists in the form of CHI numbers and EHIC cards.
All that's needed is to link supermarket-style bar codes on the cards to the electoral register, which even Government IT should be able to manage.
There is more of a problem with the voting system itself. Having designed and implemented electronic voting systems myself, I'm very aware that there is a big problem of ensuring confidentiality while ensuring that only eligible voters participated. The old US punched card systems actually solved that pretty well at the cost of a cheap card for each turned-out voter, plus the hanging chad issue, of course, which was more about the age and primitive nature of the card punches used than about the technology per se.
The problem with true online voting is do we really care more about the secrecy of the ballot than the possibility of fraud and whether so or no, who could we trust to implement it?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#156 scot2010
"No ID cards needed, just a disposable swipe card with the electoral no on it. If you use ATM style technology, then a photo can be taken of the voter when they vote."
Fair point, although the magnetic stripe and/or chip technology used in ATMs would make the cards substantially more expensive than they need be. Bar coding, with manual entry when illegible, could be used in the same way to produce identical results on much cheaper cards and in most cases the cards themselves will already exist if CHI or EHIC numbers are used - see my #158.
I do like your idea of the polling-booth photos to minimise fraud.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#127 Scot2010 -
"It is truly depressing that public interest in politics has declined so much. Don't know the solution but there needs to be one. Any ideas out there?"
My twa'penny worth -
1. Proportional representation for Westminster GEs. It's my opinion that one reason for the fall in turnouts since 1979 is the iniquitous majorities delivered by FPTP - usually by a proportionately small number of voters in 'key'' constituencies. This has the effect of demotivating large sectors of the electorate who feel that their votes make no difference.
2. Elections that matter. Turnout in 1997 wasn't that bad - 71.2% according to my research. I'd suggest that this was because a larger than usual proportion of the electorate felt this election really mattered. The Tories had to go. Contrast this with the fall in turnout, in 2001, to 59.2% when the election wasn't seen to 'matter' so much - Labour were expected to win (Bookmakers paid out before election day) and, at that time, were still seen as being the 'best' choice for government.
PR will deliver more elections that 'matter' because it will make it harder for parties to win by huge, 'landslide' majorities. This very basic comparison also suggests that voters will turn out in greater numbers when there is a greater element of doubt regarding the result.
I would expect to see an increase in turnout in 2010 as I suspect the next Westminster GE will also be seen to 'matter', that Labour have to go and that voters will turn out in greater numbers to ensure that they do.
3. Get out on the doorsteps. I have, in the last ten years, only once had a member of any party turn up on my doorstep to speak to me. Too much campaigning, these days, is done via post or by phone. I don't think the electorate have a great deal of trust in these campaigning tools and I don't think they respond positively to them. It's my firm belief that the party that mobilises the most activists to actually campaign on the doorsteps will win the most votes in any given constituency. I don't think it's even necessary to promote a party line - I think voters will respond positively to any party that's prepared to turn up, be questioned and listen.
4. Get to know the voters - Further to the failings of post and phone campaigning; I think we need to stop thinking of (And treating) voters as one homogenous mass. Female voters, in my admittedly limited experience, can often be more motivated to vote than males and respond to the notion of voting as a (relatively recently won) freedom. We need to target 'Get out to vote' campaigns more at 'niche' groups - women, 18-25's etc - rather than firing off general messages to voters en masse.
5. The Internet. Much has been made of Barack Obama's successful 2009 internet campaign but we need to know why it worked before it can be applied here. It's easy to say that 18-25's use the internet more and therefore can be easily reached via this medium but we need to understand what 18-25's use the internet for and what they want from it. Social networks - i.e. a campaign facebook site - don't just magically appear. They need to be user driven, to be aspirational and to have status. Combining the internet with an increase in volunteer activism as described at 4. above will probably have the best results.
Complain about this comment
#159 Brownedov
If voting was electronic, I would want the facility to check later that my vote was recorded for the correct party/candidate!
Complain about this comment
Thank you for your contribution. Are you perhaps a MSP? Want to abide the principle of our parliament of openness and give me your name? At the outset of the parliament openness was mandatory; MSPs dont like being bound to do anything, so along with all the other principles they changed its status to being aspirational ie it will be at MSPs discretion as to whether or not they will be open.
Ten years ago, at the inception of our parliament, the founding principles were NOT aspirational. These principles were rules which formed part of the code and could result in sanctions being applied against those who breached them. At the review of the code, prior to the most recent, these rules had their status changed from being mandatory to aspirational, however, annexe 5 of the code was subsumed into the revised version of code, which meant that conscientious representation from an MSP and access to an MSP would still mandatory and in addition MSPs would still be mandated to treat the interests of their constituents and communities as being paramount. This slip-up, was I believe the catalyst for the most recent review of the code which resulted in to change the status of the 3 aforementioned obligations to being aspirational.
I suggest that you read the original version of the code, the version that existed 10 years ago, and youll see that the principles formed part of the code and were mandatory. I also suggest you read the reports of the standards committee relating to its reviews of the relevant sections of the code, and youll find contrary to your assertion, that what I wrote in my initial contribution to this blog is in fact true.
The following is a letter that I wrote recently, and will perhaps help your comprehension. Hope that sentences arent too long for you
Most people will be unaware that they dont have a right to representation from their MSPs.
At the inception of the parliament, and for 10 years, MSPs were mandated to represent their constituents conscientiously; however the previous Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Dr Jim Dyer, found it problematic to judge on complaints relating to this obligation because of its subjectivity. His proposed solution, rather than suggesting that time and effort be taken to define conscientious representation, was to remove the obligation to represent conscientiously, in effect to remove the peoples right to representation. When he and the standards committee were asked why his proposal would be in the public interest they failed to answer.
On the 25 March 2009, with the passing of motion S3M-375, Dr Dyers suggestion, along with his suggestion to remove the right to complain about an MPS service, were put into practice, so MSPs now have the right to do no work at all, yet retain the right to £1/4 million, from their employer, the Scottish public; and if any MSP chose to do nothing, or very little (some may already do), no sanction could be applied and they could also justifiably claim that they had done nothing wrong when have we heard that before? Perhaps our MSPs would like to explain why this unique, and absurd, employee/employer relationship will improve standards of representation, ensure value for money, and be the interest of the Scottish people.
Hope Ive not caused any embarrassment to you by pointing out that you really dont know what youre on about.
Complain about this comment
#159 Brownedov
I agree. I previously designed a time card system that used a very similar bar code solution.
When I said ATM, I was just trying to get across that electronic voting need not be less secure that conventional but could be more so. Also the machines may not be manned and could be placed closer to where people are, in shopping malls, high street shops, workplaces. I've lost count of the number of people I've met who claim not to vote because "they didn't have time" to go to the Polling Station, so why not bring that closer to them? No excuse then. Also with PR, accidentally spoilt ballots and dodgy cooncils it should give a more accurate vote. Also would allow you to vote at any polling atm, regardless of it being in your constituency
Complain about this comment
#156 - 159 scot2010 + brownedov
The larger the turnouts the less possibility for fraud. Is it not up to the individual voter whether they want their vote to be secret? That some would want their vote to be secret is just and should be catered for, but is it necessary for the whole system to be similarly secret?
Complain about this comment
# 161 oldnat
Are you casting nasturtiums on the systems Brownedov has installed? What about the secrecy implications or should the system e-mail you with what it thinks you voted?
Complain about this comment
#162 - Stand_Dards -
"I suggest that you read the original version of the code, the version that existed 10 years ago, and youll see that the principles formed part of the code and were mandatory. I also suggest you read the reports of the standards committee relating to its reviews of the relevant sections of the code."
Could you save me some time and provide links for some of these documents? Even an indication of which Standards Committee (Session 1,2 or 3?) and which report[s] would help.
Complain about this comment
#164 handclapping
At the moment, any voter's vote can be tracked. When the ballot paper is issued at the polling station, the voters electoral number is written on the stub. Now, as both the stub and paper ave a unique number printed on them,you could find out who somebody voted for if you have access to both. Obviously these are kept securely and will only be looked at if fraud is suspected. Under the scheme I suggest, the same rules would apply.
However, at the moment I could go into a polling station, and claim to be anybody that I know has not voted (the infamous "dead" vote). If I knew my neighbour was away or incapacitated, I could use his vote. I don't even need the polling card. By taking a photo of the person as they vote, if it is challenged the police have a picture to id the culprit. At the moment, it is very hard to id such people.
Complain about this comment
#148 oldnat and bandages
Thanks old nat
You wouldnt get a full understanding of the changes to the code by solely reading that report. I got drawn into the world of standards sometime ago, and Im appalled at what Ive come across. I was naïve enough to believe that MSPs existed to serve Scotlands interests, not their own.
The code allows MSPs to nothing, and even worse, MSPs dont have to explain why they may be doing nothing. A specific example constituent asks MSP to take on a case for them; MSP need not take on case, and worse, does not have to explain why they didnt take on the case (but of course will still receive full salary). and it gets worse, they dont even have to acknowledge the request from the constituent! The Presiding Officer informed me that MSPs will have met their obligation, ooops there I go again, MSPs are not obligated to do anything, will have abided by the principle of accessibility by the provision of an email address. They dont have to answer correspondence received! When I queried this and said failure to respond would go against our entitlement to the highest standards of representation, he said in effect that ignoring correspondence would have not breached that entitlement because MSPs can choose how to respond and no response according to him is a response and beacause beacause of this will have provided the highest standards of representation. If you don't believe me I'll provide the evidence. ooooooooops Ive done it again, the Scottish public are not entitled to anything from their MSPs.
Complain about this comment
#161 oldnat
"If voting was electronic, I would want the facility to check later that my vote was recorded for the correct party/candidate!"
Personally I agree 100%, and think that facility alone would be well worth the loss of secrecy it would entail, for if I could access my own voting record it would be impossible to prevent all others from doing so. It would certainly have ensured a little more "respect" was shown to the Glenrothes register.
Not having studied Hansard for 1871 I'm open to correction, but my understanding is that the argument for secrecy being brought in - and turning plurality voting into sham democracy - was the fear that newly enfranchised day labourers and tenants would be "encouraged" by their employers or landlords to vote for candidates preferred by those employers or landlords. That could still happen, of course, but equally easily be made a crime carrying a stiff custodial penalty. Although proving it may not be easy, similar sorts of problem seem to have been eliminated by the truck acts and I don't see this as a very different problem.
Systems I have designed and implemented have been for clients with a touching faith in secret ballots and, of course, the customer is always right.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#167 scot2010
That's why we have Polling Agents. Not that being a newcomer in my area I had any knowledge of who the voters were in the hour I spent watching but it scared the living daylights out of the staff at the various Polling places I visited. If somebody better kent was to be a Polling Agent, as the perpetrator is likely to be an "enthusiast", it is more likely that the culprit would be caught. However none of this applies to the postal vote, which also allows demented old folk to vote and so totally undermines the aspect of democracy depending on informed votes. Your cameras would have to be good enough to do retinal recognition in Straw's constituency!
Complain about this comment
BANDAGES
Try st cmmtee website, or information office. I suggest you also look at submissions for the reviews of the code. Won't find mine there, mine were surpressed! MSP allowed to make a late submission, but I wasn't. Submission covered the same ground as that covered by the standards comissioner, but mine according to the convenour did not relate to the call for evidence! Other submission was not taken because my request for privacy, like the committee members give themselves when making their contribution to the review was not to be agreed to. One submission was made on my behalf - very poorly presented, MSP couldn't even spell principle properly she spelt it principal. The tenor of your responses indicate very strongly that your an MSP. I'm trying, and it's very difficult, to move my country forward on the matter of standards of representation, and I get abused by you, so typical of the quality of people we're daft enough to elect.
Complain about this comment
#170 handclapping
Polling Agents ain't the solution. half the time there is no polling agent at a Polling Place, never mind at each station. Easily got around if you use your head. Anyway there is a cop in each place and they don't deter it (mind you they are usually trying to work out which type of biscuit to eat next)
On postal votes, don't think you are allowed to vote if you are demented.
And who was talking about retinal recognition? Just a simple pic so the cops have an idea who did it and if it was not the person complaining.
no system is perfect, but the fudge of the current system with mass postal voting and bits of paper in boxes is well past its sell-by date
Complain about this comment
#163 scot2010
"When I said ATM, I was just trying to get across that electronic voting need not be less secure that conventional but could be more so. Also the machines may not be manned and could be placed closer to where people are, in shopping malls, high street shops, workplaces. I've lost count of the number of people I've met who claim not to vote because "they didn't have time" to go to the Polling Station, so why not bring that closer to them? No excuse then. Also with PR, accidentally spoilt ballots and dodgy cooncils it should give a more accurate vote. Also would allow you to vote at any polling atm, regardless of it being in your constituency"
Fair enough, and I take the point about putting them anywhere. If the CHI number were used, the PIN issued for EHICs could also be used to replace postal voting via a secure web interface. You wouldn't have the photos, but you would have the originating IP addresses and the same PIN could be used by the individual to confirm correcting recording of their vote.
#164 handclapping
"That some would want their vote to be secret is just and should be catered for, but is it necessary for the whole system to be similarly secret?"
I'd personally agree. As scot2010 points out, the existing manual system has been implemented in such a way as to be "confidential" rather than truly secret. If you are prepared to accept the continuation of that in an electronic system then it's easy.
#167 scot2010
"At the moment, any voter's vote can be tracked. When the ballot paper is issued at the polling station"
Point taken, but I think we can be fairly confident that the system designer is now immune to criticism. For an electronic system implemented now, the glare of publicity would be pretty hot from day one and the issue of secrecy vs confidentiality would have to be addressed. No small matter given the mistrust of government in general and government IT projects in particular.
"By taking a photo of the person as they vote, if it is challenged the police have a picture to id the culprit."
True. Remote electronic voting could possibly be made more secure by insisting the EHIC PIN only be sent by snail mail in the way that HMRC validate online accounts. The PIN would then be used to initiate an online voting request which in turn would result in a "one vote only" authorisation being sent to a nominated email address. Both the email address and the originating IP could, if necessary, be tracked in the event of suspected fraud.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#173 Brownedov
Since we own the banks (or they own us - who knows? We could always use their ATM network - some of them photograph the user.
That way we could avoid any risk of the Labour Mafia from stealing the election - the Russian Mafia would get there first!
Complain about this comment
#170 handclapping
"Not that being a newcomer in my area I had any knowledge of who the voters were in the hour I spent watching but it scared the living daylights out of the staff at the various Polling places I visited."
Been there, done that, although if I got the teeshirt it would have been a '70s one and rotted away with the speed of a Hillman Avenger. It did scare the living daylights out of the polling staff, though, and is a very valuable safeguard.
I've been auditing systems as well designing them, though, since the '70s and it's in that area electronic voting systems frighten me.
"Your cameras would have to be good enough to do retinal recognition in Straw's constituency!"
LOL, but quite true if burkhas are allowed to be worn in polling stations. Would anyone know if that's the case?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#173 Brownedov
On web voting. Think it would need more security than that, ip addresses won't work in internet cafes etc. To continue the bank analogy, register and ask at least one more question as in online banking would be much better. Also limit it to UK only IPs
On system designers: Fair point, but taking that the system needs to change and IT will be part of it, somebody will need to take it on. One thing's for sure tho, I won't be bidding for the job
Complain about this comment
172 scot2010
Sorry, I was anticipating the loss of postal voting and so all these Muslim ladies in his constituency that "vote" by post would have to turn up and they would, of course, be veiled as they can't vote at present in case they are seen! But then again, are they the ones likely to complain?
Dementia is not a permanent state; someone can be quite lucid when applying for their postal vote and away with the fairies when voting. We rely heavily on the managers of old-folks homes to omit those that they feel are no longer capax or likely to be so by the time an election rolls around. I'm sorry if you thought we lived in a democracy!
A polis in each Polling place? Who are you kidding? Not unless they can drive in and eat their sarnies. And its not their job, they are there to keep the peace and arrest anyone pointed out to them as breaking Electoral Law, as they are no experts.
But I agree the system needs fixing; it's a hangover from the days when every Englishman born into this world alive was either a little Liberal or a little Conservative, with appologies to Brownedov and WS Gilbert.
Complain about this comment
#162 Stan_Dards -
"Are you perhaps a MSP?"
No. Next.
#171 Stan_Dards -
"Try st cmmtee website, or information office."
Thanks. I did. Results to follow.
#13 Stan_Dards -
"Ten years on these obligations have changed status, in part through the passing of motion S3M-375 on 25 March 2009
What bedevilled me, in my 153 above, was your reference to S3M - 3757. I still don't think that motion has a great deal to do with the underlying point of your posts. As I correctly pointed out - S3M-3757 makes no effective change from principles being mandatory to rules being aspirational or anything of the sort. That happened earlier.
I note that, in your #163, you shift the debate from S3M-3757 - the most recent review of the Code to, and I quote, "the review of the code, prior to the most recent[Emphasis my own]
In fact, I think you're right (So there) about the underlying principles but wrong in terms of the legislation you quoted. I think you're talking about this report, published a little over three years ago when Brian Adam was convener of the Standards and Public Appointments Committee.
I think this quote from Mike Rumbles probably sums up your argument -
"It seems to me that the Committee have removed many of the requirements currently applicable to MSPs from the code of conduct altogether. To give but one example: "MSPs have a duty to be accessible to the people of the areas for which they have been elected to serve". This seems to me to be a backward step - putting us back into the same position as MPs where they have no such obligations in their code of conduct."
So, there. You've got a point and I'm happy to concede that. Seems that you and the MSP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine may be fellow travellers on this issue. Perhaps you should be writing to him - you might get more of a response?
I suppose the remaining question - after all this - is, "Yeah, but so what?" Are there MSPs who "do nothing" but "receive a quarter of a million pounds for a session of parliament"? If so, who are they? We really should be told.
You see, regardless of how the rules may or may not be fixed - I think we're all pretty clear on what we expect from our MPs. If we're not getting it - then something needs to be done and I for one would support any action against an MP who (Where it could be clearly demonstrated) did nothing all year. You name names and I'll help round up the villagers and the flaming torches.
Unless you can show that MPs are skiving off and picking up their cheques without getting off their backsides - I'm afraid all we've really got here is a long, drawn out (And I'm as guilty in that as you are) debate about the meaning and import of a set of rules. And, much as I love a good argument, I can't see many other people being that interested.
Finally (And thank God, I hear you cry!)
"The tenor of your responses indicate very strongly that your an MSP."
As I said at the start, I'm not. The tenor of your response, by the way, suggests you're overly paranoid, have a poor grasp of grammar (Paragraphs, please, paragraphs!) and too much time on your hands (As I have had today, otherwise you wouldn't be reading this)
"I get abused by you."
I called it like I saw it. It that bothers you - tough. I've conceded your point - which hardly counts as 'abuse' in my book and I'd be interested to read what you've got on these 'Do nothing all year' MSPs.
Complain about this comment
#177 Handclapping
I maybe out of date but when I was a polling agent in the early 80s there was a cop at each place. I know, cause one threw me out as the uncivil servant who was in charge objected to me asking for poll numbers. My dad was our Election Agent, so he took great delight in phoning the Returning Officer and reminding him of the law. I, of course, took no delight in going back in and telling the wee nyaff to phone his boss or we would be asking for him to be arrested.. Another reason to get electronic voting, useless cooncil middle management not understanding the simple rules
Complain about this comment
#176 scot2010
"On web voting. Think it would need more security than that, ip addresses won't work in internet cafes etc. To continue the bank analogy, register and ask at least one more question as in online banking would be much better."
All good points and fair enough. If we are all eventually going to get chip-and-pin versions of the NECs, then they could copy the miniature Enigma machines my Swiss bank has been using for a decade, now also in use by the Nationwide BS.
"Also limit it to UK only IPs"
That, I would be against as not only do many expats retain the right to vote but IP geolocation is inaccurate to put it mildly. See, for example, craigblaircable's #257 on this website's Changes to international pages threads, about the BBC's own controversial introduction of "separate development" by IP geolocation. I have secure e-banking wherever I am in the world from my UK, Swiss and Spanish (for EURs) banks - why not secure e-voting, too?
"One thing's for sure tho, I won't be bidding for the job"
Snap, but I'd consider bidding for the audit if - as they should - they make that a separate contract unavailable to the successful bidder for the main contract.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#175 Brownedov
Not being a lawyer expert in Electoral Law, in fact not being a lawyer, thankfully, I don't know. I can't remember anything in the booklet about it but both polling staff and Polling Agents, etc. can challenge a voters identity, such as asking who else is registered to vote at the given address, driving licence, etc.
Complain about this comment
#180 Brownedov
Fair point re IP geolocation. I hadn't really thought that through
Anyway folks, I'm watching that great Englishman A Murray fight back against that dastardley yank Roddick.
Away to put on my bowler, break out the Pimms and join in on our national anthem. All together now "There always be an Engurland....."
Catch up with you all later
cheerie
Complain about this comment
Less of the ridicule of England; thats uncalled for.
Complain about this comment
Bandages
What bedevilled me, in my 153 above, was your reference to S3M - 3757. I still don't think that motion has a great deal to do with the underlying point of your posts. As I correctly pointed out - S3M-3757 makes no effective change from principles being mandatory to rules being aspirational or anything of the sort. That happened earlier.
Yes it does, and youll see this if you compare current version of code with version prior to passing of S3M-3757. No mention now of duties to be accessible, conscientiously represent, or treating communities interests and wishes as being paramount. I also wrote that S3M-3757 was only part responsible.
Are there MSPs who do nothing or very little? I can I suggest Lord George Foulkes and Margo MacDonald. When did these 2 last hold surgeries? Margo MacDonald may have actually never held a surgery. Have seen Foulkes expenses for attending the Lords, if being an MSP is a full time job just where does he get the time. Theres others.
MSPs unlike other public employees are not accountable to their employer ie the Scottish public. You cant meaningfully question your employee ie MSP to find out what theyve been doing or not doing, nor do you have access to their records of work. No rational employer would tolerate an arrangement where the employees didnt have to account for their time, yet thats precisely the arrangement MSPs have bound the public to. One set of rules for MSPs another for the rest of us. Margo MacDonald was not in the chamber to vote on motion S3M-3757, Id ask her why not, but from experience shell ignore the question. Would she if she was bound to answer and sanctions could be applied if she didnt?
Can you not use your time more effectively and apply your interest in debating to bring about some more useful end than the intrinsic enjoyment you get from debate? There must be hundreds of issues than you could take on rather than just bloggin.
I think its extremely important that we get the highest standards from our representatives. A major reason we have for the deteriorating numbers turning out to vote is because of the low regard that we have for our politicians.
Re grammar and long sentences. I thought I made fairly judicious use of the semi-colon (comma with moon above) which allows one to link sentences, with common themes and even give a sentence-like structure.
Paranoid most certainly, when it comes to MSPs. I wont detail my experiences of them.
At the moment I do have a bit of time on my hands, but pursuing the standards thing (but I wont let it go), or blogging, are things I dont particularly enjoy. If it wasnt p down with rain at the moment Id be on my bike cycling down for a few beers in Stockbridge.
Complain about this comment
#183 deanthetory
Not ridiculing England, just the press that've "adopted" Murray and are comparing his, potential, victory to the 1966 World Cup
Complain about this comment
Scot2010 that chip on the shoulder must be rapidly becoming a medical condition. What a sensitive constitution you seem to have or is it closer to the truth that you want to find something to get upset at those 'Engurland' folk?
You arent doing Scotland any favours when ridiculing others so childishly.
Complain about this comment
#162 Bandages For Konjic
Bye jingo that Standards chap makes some damn fine points, what? Rather than beratting the poor fellow, bandages chap or is it chapess, ho ho ho, give the fellow a bit of support! Bandages for Konjic, what kind of daft non-deplume, is that, eh?
Complain about this comment
#186 Deanthetory
If you bothered to read my reply, I was commenting, humorously I hoped, on the little Englander attitude of some of the press. It was NOT an attack on England or its people, both of which I have a great deal of respect and fondness. Not to mention I have a number of English relatives and friends who I love.
As far as not doing Scotland any favours, have a wee look at your own parties recent history and try getting off your high horse. Be careful now, it's a long drop
Oh and BTW, your target seats in the next GE, are you joking? We have a long memory of tory policies in Scotland. Aunty Annabel ain't going to make that much of a difference
Complain about this comment
"Anyway folks, I'm watching that great Englishman A Murray fight back against that dastardley yank Roddick.
Away to put on my bowler, break out the Pimms and join in on our national anthem. All together now "There always be an Engurland.....""
----
You fail to mention any news tabloid or reporter guilty of displaying a 'little Englander' attitude (and naturally some do). Your criticism however was not aimed at the press, nor does it make any pretense of doing so.
Read through the above quotation. It is exactly what you wrote.
You think that characturing people and nations is amusing? Have a little more respect.
As for your opinion of my political party; you are entirely entitled to your views.
Complain about this comment
#189 deanthetory
My criticism was aimed at the press, in particular this article (not a tabloid, to my knowledge):
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article6613042.ece
First mentioned in this blog on #19 dubbieside. Which I'm sure most on the contributors realised, so didn't think needed mentioned again. I wasn't characturing any nation or its people, just an attitude amongst a minority which even you admit exists. The bowler wearing, Pimms drinker is a popular misrepresentation of a great people by the same parts of the media. None of my English friends would be seen dead doing either.
I object to your impugning of my character, and would like an apology please.
Complain about this comment
I repeat your words
""Anyway folks, I'm watching that great Englishman A Murray fight back against that dastardley yank Roddick.
Away to put on my bowler, break out the Pimms and join in on our national anthem. All together now "There always be an Engurland.....""
The entirety of what you wrote, dont try back tracking now, your post speaks for itself. Where in that is there any mention of press, or any articals your now digging up? There isnt any.
You thought youd try yur hand at being humerous, you arent.
Personally I find it sad that you need to prove your Scottish patriot credentials by saying things like "Away to put on my bowler" your words not mine.
Complain about this comment
#191, Dean you want to lay off a bit here (tongue-in-check comments, mostly aimed at the standard press coverage as far as I can see) and read some of the "anti-Scotch" vitriol posted on Guido's site under any story ... literally hundreds attacking Murray online as we speak. They seem to think he is either Gordon McBroons son or the same individual entirely.
If you have such apparent self-righteous outrage to spare that is where it should be expended; be sure to tell them you are a loyal subject of her maj, and a unionist to boot first though! That site (the comments posted by visitors) is becoming a very ugly window on to the political mood of some down south, many are about one step away from a joining a lynch-mob it would seem.
Also, please be very careful when using the words "patriot" and "nationalist", they are not the same thing (you should know that). I, for example, am quite happy to be described as a Scottish Nationalist, but "Patriot" brings with it a whole host of unsavory connotations: i.e. anyone who is not a patriot is "unpatriotic". It is a bit like mixing up Conservative and Reactionary really.
Complain about this comment
Britishness before Scotland is independent.
Can I refer readers to my earlier posts on the subject of Britishness and how it contrasts ridiculously with the normal notion of nationality as expressed by others in independent countries (the rest of the world?!)
It is nonsense (and everybody else bar "Brits" knows it) to have to be British aswell as Scottish. Until Scotland is independent, it can only be done if you accept that "Scottishness" has less status than "Britishness", as only one has international representation, and be happy with that.
Can I ask again, how does one feel "proud" if we do that?
(Post independence, "British" merely refers to the history we shared - it's already history! - and the Islands where we are located, like "Scandinavia" etc. refers to that land area. It's very easy really - nothing to fear...)
Complain about this comment
192. pattymkirkwood
Point taken, but its understandable sometimes to mix up Conservative and Reactionary depending upon which internal grouping of MPs your talking to!
Complain about this comment
And very easy to confuse Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem.
Complain about this comment
#194, Indeed.
Complain about this comment
#191 deanthepathetic
I am furious with what you wrote. I was not backtracking or digging out any articles, my post was directly related to the article I mentioned. If I truly thought what you are accusing me of I would not be backtracking. It would take a lot more than the likes of you to make me retreat from a genuinely held belief.
I will take the lead in apologising to anybody who maybe offended about what I wrote, even though no offrnce was meant. Have you the guts to apologise to me? Or, like most tories, have you no shame?
Complain about this comment
#191 deanthepathetic
I am a Scottish nationalist, in an entirely inclusive sense. For instance I was disgusted with the Orange display of bigotry outside my window yesterday, largely by my fellow scots.
As I have said many times before, it does not matter your original nationality, religion or race, if you reside in Scotland you have the same rights as anybody else. I believe this with all my heart and will always stand up for this belief. Can you say the same as a British Nationalist? Or is that patriot?
You are a truly sad individual....
Complain about this comment
9. At 6:11pm on 01 Jul 2009, kaybraes wrote:
Discourtesy is the word that springs to mind from those MSPs who didn't bother to turn up to welcome the Queen. Whether they disapprove of the union or the monarchy is their affair , but failure to appear is a disgusting demonstration of the lack of common courtesy inherent in some of our politicians. As for the caterwaulling from the minstrel gallery, that was abyssmal and embarrassing , something from Burns apparently but totally indecipherable."
Achhh away and give yourself peace.
I liked the Dailay Star take on it. "MSPs Snubbed Queen"
Complain about this comment
scot2010 I accept your apology (as I'm one of the people you offended by your comments).
I shall also take the opportunity to apologise to you, for perhaps taking your comments out of the intended context. But just be more careful with the rhetoric, people can misinterpret as I perhaps did.
Complain about this comment
Honestly, in my opinion, maybe we won't remember this after 10 years - but we certainly will for at least 1! I mean, how often do children get a chance to meet the Queen?
On a side note, I had the opportunity to take a quick look at the kids birthday invitations and they looked amazing!
They should do this more often!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS