The Scottish Government began the national conversation on Scotland's independence shortly after winning the last Scottish general election. The discussion, open to all and conducted on the net, in public meetings and with contributions from all and any interest, has been lively, informed, and innovative while displaying remarkable understanding of the history of Scottish politics, their future settlement both within Scotland and in Scotland's relations with the rest of the world and, particularly, with the federal United Kingdom. An acute grasp of Scotland's economic exploitation and possible independent development is present too.
The form of devolution in Scotland adopted in the last century embodies the effective independence of Scotland when all of its measures are fully implemented. However Scotland's government has decided to consult the Scottish people formally in a referendum, which it will hold in 2010, on whether fully-developed devolution or a more precipitate step into independence is what they choose.
This is driving the United Kingdom Labour regime barmy, in bringing with it the certainty of their own demise, indeed the demise of the United Kingdom as we know it. Cack-handed is a fair description of the New Labour Project's constitutional rearrangements all those wasted years ago.
So Brown set up the Calman Commission on the future of Scottish devolution intending to use the usual focus group post-democratic practices to let the Scots down gently in frustrating their clear intention of de-coupling from the the Honecker-style United Kingdom - Honecker you should be with us at this hour, what a pity you died utterly shamed hiding in Chile - nightmare. Things are going from bad to worse for Brownism, (such an unfortunate colour in the horrid history of authoritarianism).
The sub-committee set up to consider ways in which the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution can engage with the public and gain feedback has found that the public will not engage appropriately. The minutes of the public engagement group, (doubtless tax-payer funded, where do these money-grubbers spring from?), chaired by Murdoch MacLennan, chief executive of Telegraph Media Group (who chose him?) recommended it should not hold "town hall" meetings across Scotland and open to the general public, (even John McCain wants precisely these kinds of meetings, together with Obama, in the interests of democratic engagement) at least while gathering information. "Such meetings would be difficult to manage...". Fears that the internet site is 'unhelpful' also, (this kangaroo sub committee calls the weight of expressed opinion so far 'hijacking' by 'nationalists' who are, no doubt, shortly to be state-redefined as 'terrorists' together with the 'other critics' mentioned) rules internet consultation out too.
The Commission is, however, to take public evidence during parliament's summer recess, from former First Ministers (otherwise known as Scottish Labour crawlers) Jack McConnell and Henry McLeish, and from George Reid and Lord David Steel, the ex-Presiding Officers, (that is Speakers except in the devolution denigrate-speak adopted by the Westminster Establishment), reports the Herald cheerily. So that's all right then, two Labour time servers and a pair of ex politician quangoistas dependent on the Brown regime for their life style sound as if they might be reliable enough to have their views recorded.
Commission members are also concerned about inviting contributions on the website, because that "carried considerable risks if not approached with caution". It is suggested there should be an online questionnaire only, offering limited answers as options.
It must be remembered, the Calman Commission was set up by the Brown regime with a remit that excludes independence as an option in Scotland's future.
Conservative and Liberal Democrat party leaderships, to their detriment, were foolish enough to have initially allowed themselves to be drawn in. The quicker they abandon Calman and his dishonest 'commission' to its fate, the better.
[Affirming the narrative is the reason for presenting here some arguments made in earlier Angels' posts.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
...has found that the public will not engage appropriately..
That, HG, is the euphemism of the century and deserves a place in the Private Eye hall of fame.
I thought you might like 'affirming the narrative' too, Nomad. There is a complete wonderland of management speak, a corporate verbal prudishness, that deserves development with imagination and enhanced input.
Actually, I was going to give you a yellow card, HG, for "narrative" (despite assumed irony!).
In the New Labour (New Stasi) context, the word makes me want to puke. I don't want an 'effing narrative!
Read Cranmer recently?
It is difficult to remark on the behaviour of the bishops of the Church of England, S, for anyone brought up in the conviction that not only are they wrong but determined in their wrongness.
Cranmer has a lot on his plate.
Post a Comment