‘Colonial’ deal may safeguard Scottish Parliament

SCOTLAND could be handed a similar deal to former UK ­colonies through a “charter of autonomy” to guarantee ­Holyrood’s constitutional ­future, MSPs have been told.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Some people might be rather surprised, perhaps even shocked, to find Bruce Crawford suggesting such a “post-colonial” solution to the problem of making the Scottish Parliament constitutionally secure. I think he has rather cleverly highlighted the sheer ludicrousness of the situation and the fact that independence is by far the simplest and most effective way of protecting our parliament from a British establishment which sees Scotland’s democratic institutions as a threat to the integrity of the “divinely ordained” British state.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1I9aOSs

Jim Murphy to call for ‘devo max within Scotland’

LABOUR leadership candidate Jim Murphy will today call for “devo max within Scotland”, arguing that transferring powers from Edinburgh to local communities can help his party win back trust.

Peter A Bell's insight:

The first thing that we notice is that Murphy’s primary concern is, not how local devolution would affect the governance of Scotland at all levels, but how it might help “his party”. The tribalism runs so deep in his veins that he doesn’t even notice it any more and would probably be totally perplexed by the suggestion that some things might be considered more important than restoring the hegemonic status of British Labour in Scotland.

But there is an even more insidious and devious agenda behind “Scottish” Labour’s new-found passion for localism. And it sure as hell isn’t about empowering communities. For Murphy and his ilk local devolution is entirely about undermining the Scottish Parliament. It is about driving a wedge between the people of Scotland and their parliament. It is about enabling local authorities controlled by British labour and/or their Tory allies to bypass the democratically elected Scottish Government and deal direct with London.

It is about reducing the Scottish Parliament to the impotent talking-shop that was all it was ever intended to be.

I am very much in favour of devolving power to local communities. But this must be done in the right way and for the right reasons. It must be done entirely under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament. We simply cannot trust Westminster or the British parties with this task. As Jim Murphy has quite brazenly revealed, their objectives have nothing whatever to do with what is best for the people of Scotland.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1yvEV2k

Salmond denounces criticism of Scots Makar over SNP membership

ALEX Salmond has mounted an outspoken defence of Scots Makar Liz Lochhead, who has faced calls to resign after announcing publicly she had joined the SNP.

Peter A Bell's insight:

There is something very curious about the British nationalist attitude to the SNP. Can you imagine that they would have made any fuss at all had Liz Lochhead joined one of the British parties? Of course they wouldn’t! So we have to ask ourselves what it is about the SNP which makes it so unacceptably “other” in the eyes of these british nationalists.



It cannot be the nature of the party itself. As political parties in these islands go, the SNP is a model of democratic openness and accountability.



It cannot be that the SNP is seen as some kind of fringe party. It is not only an established party of government, it is also by far the largest party in Scotland. And, indeed, the third largest party in the UK.



It cannot be because the party embraces some extreme ideology. The SNP’s platform is an entirely reasonable mix of policies such as might be found in any social democratic party. One might disagree with some of those policies. But one could never sensibly describe them as extreme.



It surely cannot be the party’s commitment to independence. After all, this too is no more than a perfectly reasonable constitutional position founded on a right to self-determination that the British state has already conceded. Again, one might hold a contrary position on the constitutional question, but so long as one allowed that the matter could only be settled according to the will of the people of Scotland, would be obliged to acknowledge that both options were legitimate political aims.



The clue to why British nationalists regard the SNP with a mixture of contempt and horror is, perhaps, to be found in the fact that, while it is impossible to imagine any outrage had Liz Lochhead joined one of the British parties, it is almost as easy to imagine such a fuss being made had she joined the SSP or the Scottish Greens.



The main thing that these parties have in common, aside from their support for independence, is that they are distinctly and unmistakably Scottish. They are Scottish parties. And THAT is the root of British nationalist objections. Because, in the context of British nationalist ideology, nothing that is distinctly Scottish can ever be quite proper. To the British nationalist mind, that which is distinctly Scottish is unquestionably inferior, and deeply suspect.



Liz Lochhead is being slated because she has done something which is “just not British”.

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1I3MvW2

SNP suspends councillors over Smith report burning

The SNP has suspended a group of councillors over the burning of a copy of the Smith Commission report which was filmed on YouTube.

Peter A Bell's insight:

The burning of a copy of the Smith Commission’s report is a trivial matter. It cannot be other than a trivial matter because the report itself is trivial.

Far more serious is the fact that the mainstream media continues to lie to us about the report.

The Scotsman is as guilty as any of the rest of the British media. The above article states that,

"The report hands Holyrood power over income tax rates and bands, as well as Air Pssenger Duty (APD) and some welfare controls."

This is a brazen lie. The report hands Holyrood absolutely nothing. It is merely a list of recommendations. And a pretty unimpressive list of unambitious recommendations at that. There is absolutely no guarantee that any of these recommendations will be implemented. And, given the record of the Westminster elite, every reason to expect that no more than some watered-down mish-mash might be delivered, at best.

The Smith Commission did not becoame sacrosanct simply because the SNP was involved. The Scottish Government was obliged to cooperate under the terms of the Edinburgh Agreement. That does not alter the fact that it was yet another talking-shop controlled by the British establishment and intended to serve only the interests of the British state. There is absolutely no reason why any of us should respect the outcome of such a process.

While I fully understand why the party had to take action, as an SNP member I will actively oppose any stringent sanctions against the councillors involved in this demonstration of distrust of the Westminster elite which, after all, is no more than a reflection of the way many - perhaps most - people in Scotland feel. - Peter A Bell

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1vMDXxx

A new track: Westminster invites Scots minister to represent UK in Europe

Scotland’s new education minister Angela Constance has been invited by the Westminster government to represent the UK at a key EU meeting.



The UK Government wants to “reset” its relationship with the Scottish Government following the divisive independence referendum and “reposition” its work in Scotland.

Peter A Bell's insight:

We are right to be suspicious of anything that is represented in the British media as the largesse of the UK Government. It is, after all, barely a fortnight since Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Richard Lochhead, was unceremoniously snubbed by Cameron.



Does this concession to Angela Constance mark a change in the Westminster elite’s sneeringly condescending attitude towards Scotland? Or is it merely a sop that the media can play up as if it was actually significant? I suspect the latter.

Either way, I am surely not alone in finding it offensive that a government we rejected at the polls has the power to dictate whether or not Scotland’s voice is heard in the EU. I look forward to the day our democratically elected representatives take their place in the forum’s of Europe and the world as of right. That day cannot be far off.

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1yNIxeR

Revealed: how civil servants had 14,000 hits on Yes blog before indyref

CIVIL servants visited a controversial nationalist blog almost 14,000 times in the six months before the independence referendum.





Figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats through a Freedom of Information request show that the Scottish Government employees, who must be politically impartial, accessed the Wings Over Scotland site on average 77 times per day.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Willie Rennie really needs to grow up. Is he even capable of realising that this “prescribed nationalist reading list” is entirely a figment of his own diseased imagination?

And what is “controversial” about the Wings Over Scotland website? Other than the fact that it challenges the almost entirely British nationalist-oriented mainstream media? I can honestly claim to have read almost the entire output of Wings Over Scotland since it was launched. I have yet to see anything that was even remotely “abusive”. Unless, of course, exposing the lies, deceits, prevarications and dissembling of British politicians and their media cronies is to be considered “abuse”.

What offends Willie Rennie and his British nationalist ilk is the fact that Wings Over Scotland subjects them to the kind of critical scrutiny which they cannot endure. The kind of rigorous analysis which the old media so abysmally fails to provide. The kind of scrupulous examination which tends to leave Rennie and the rest exposed as liars or fools or both.

But there is another aspect to Rennie’s latest infantile outburst. Something more insidious. Something which relates to the warnings given before the referendum about the way in which the British establishment would respond to a No vote. What might seem at first to be no more than petulant railing against a website which has consistently embarrassed Rennie and his pals in the other British parties, is also an attempt to undermine the credibility Scotland’s democratic institutions.

I, among many others, warned that this would happen if the forces of rampant British nationalism were emboldened and empowered by a No vote in the independence referendum. I warned that the full force of the British state would be brought to bear on the institutions which it considers a threat to its continued existence - not least, the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.

Make no mistake, as far as the British state is concerned, Scotland is the enemy. Willie Rennie may be one of the Westminster establishment’s more insignificant pawns, but he is at least a reliable pawn who will do his bit in defence of the structures of power and privilege which define the British state, and the ruling elites at whose teat he suckles.

See on heraldscotland.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1yPzpY1

SNP wants more power for supporting Labour

Nicola Sturgeon has warned that Labour must up the powers on offer to Scotland in the Smith Commission as the price of SNP support to form the UK government in next year’s election.

Peter A Bell's insight:

Given that it is highly unlikely that either Red or Blue Tories will honour their “vow” by delivering more than a massively diluted mockery of the Smith Commission’s recommendations, there is absolutely no realistic possibility that British Labour will deliver more than the paltry offering that is already on the table. Sturgeon is, of course, perfectly well aware of this. But it is right that she should use whatever power may be granted to the SNP by the electorate to advance Scotland’s interests.

There was a time when British Labour supposed that it a right to demand the unconditional support of any left-of-centre party. Those days are long gone. It is only the lack of an SNP-like alternative party in England which allows British Labour to survive at all in the context of UK politics. The Westminster elites will have to accept that there is a price to be paid for continued survival. Curiously, that price is likely to involve honouring principles which were once the very basis of British Labour’s existence.

See on scotsman.com



via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1rMD5JL