Nuclear power generation may or may not appeal to you but it appeals to the Labour government in England. So that's what we're getting (what Labour is getting in return is another question).
Intrinsic to nuclear power generation is nuclear waste disposal. There are two schools of thought:
Do not create nuclear waste (but this is not acceptable to the Labour government or to their nuclear power industry best friends).
If you have created nuclear waste, keep it close, and keep it monitored (this, too, is unacceptable to Labour and its nuclear supporters, for the vitrification of nuclear waste costs profits or even economic viability; and the public display of the other side of the nuclear power coin is bad for business, as well as causing local revolt).
The Third Way is to push it down holes in the ground, preferably where the locals cannot prevent this from being done. Then forget about it. The undesirable consequences - sickness, mutation, disability, death being the most immediate, but there is the over all problem of the blight of any geologically challenged location too - cannot be allowed to stay the march of Progress and Electrification.
It was planned to fill Scottish holes with anything and everything that glows in the dark for aeons. Scotland has developed another kind of power, so Labour can't.
If there are any holes near where you live, and if you are feeling powerless, move.
Showing posts with label Scottish independence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scottish independence. Show all posts
Tuesday, 26 June 2007
Monday, 25 June 2007
Disentangling Scotland
The Civil Service Commissioners (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 provides a blueprint for the separate Scottish Civil Service that is being sought by the Scottish Government.
The Order, signed by Secretary of State Mowlam, provides for an independent civil service in which: '... no appointment shall be made to any situation in the Senior Civil Service, or to any situation prescribed by General Regulations or by directions for the purposes of this Article by the Commissioners with the approval of the Secretary of State, without the written approval of the Commissioners, whose decision shall be final.' In northern Ireland the civil service answers to its own Civil Service Commissioners.
The Scottish executive (that is the civil service working for the Scottish Executive which is the Government of Scotland) answers ultimately to the United Kingdom civil service and its hierarchies. As do those civil servants working in Scotland but for UK home civil service departments, such as Defence.
The prime minister of Scotland, First Minister Salmond, requires an end to all that and a proper Home Civil Service for Scotland, answering to its own Commissioners.
The Order, signed by Secretary of State Mowlam, provides for an independent civil service in which: '... no appointment shall be made to any situation in the Senior Civil Service, or to any situation prescribed by General Regulations or by directions for the purposes of this Article by the Commissioners with the approval of the Secretary of State, without the written approval of the Commissioners, whose decision shall be final.' In northern Ireland the civil service answers to its own Civil Service Commissioners.
The Scottish executive (that is the civil service working for the Scottish Executive which is the Government of Scotland) answers ultimately to the United Kingdom civil service and its hierarchies. As do those civil servants working in Scotland but for UK home civil service departments, such as Defence.
The prime minister of Scotland, First Minister Salmond, requires an end to all that and a proper Home Civil Service for Scotland, answering to its own Commissioners.
Thursday, 14 June 2007
Concurrence, Contagion and Concordats
When they got so clever they cut themselves (and the United Kingdom too) setting up devolution in 1997, the Labour party thought they'd never not rule Scotland.
But they don't. The prime minister of Scotland is First Minister Salmond.
The Concordats foisted onto the Scottish people and their Parliament by the Labour party in 1997 as purely administrative arrangements for determining how conflicts over areas of policy that affected both Scotland and the rest of the UK might be resolved, and how policies adopted by diverse kinds of authority, both geographical and hierarchical, should be ordered, are central.
'That concordats have no base in constitutional law does not mean they are without constitutional significance.', is the essence of the argument that these Concordats should have been debated in the Scottish Parliament, and should have been ratified by the Scottish people; and such changes to our country and our governance should have been put as well to all the people making up the United Kingdom.
The Concordats were drafted by the civil service, drawing on past experience of imperial and colonial possessions moving through dual governance, and concerns for responsibilities to other parts of the governed whole, to separate sovereignty.
That the destination of separate sovereignty would not be reached was to be guaranteed by extant Labour party hegemony, prolonged for more than half a century in Scotland, and the principal Labour party objective of the maintenance of permanency in power in the rest of the UK. As backstop, the European Union fundamental policy of subsidiarity, would exclude Scotland from direct, sovereign state relations with Brussels.
Scotland's sought after separate sovereignty can be contained and masked by accession to the Treaty for a European Constitution which, like all such consolidating treaties, temporarily strengthens the highest level of governance. If the Labour Executive does not accede to the EU constitutional treaty, then the way is left open for Scotland's government to press on alone and do so; for the Concordats are open and justiciable, not aspects of Labour Executive privilege. The meaning and content of Reserved Powers is yet to be determined by the Courts, and Scotland has one of the finest judicial systems, and some of the finest lawyers, in the world.
Either Labour cedes more powers to Europe, or Scotland has a powerful case to choose to leave the United Kingdom.
But they don't. The prime minister of Scotland is First Minister Salmond.
The Concordats foisted onto the Scottish people and their Parliament by the Labour party in 1997 as purely administrative arrangements for determining how conflicts over areas of policy that affected both Scotland and the rest of the UK might be resolved, and how policies adopted by diverse kinds of authority, both geographical and hierarchical, should be ordered, are central.
'That concordats have no base in constitutional law does not mean they are without constitutional significance.', is the essence of the argument that these Concordats should have been debated in the Scottish Parliament, and should have been ratified by the Scottish people; and such changes to our country and our governance should have been put as well to all the people making up the United Kingdom.
The Concordats were drafted by the civil service, drawing on past experience of imperial and colonial possessions moving through dual governance, and concerns for responsibilities to other parts of the governed whole, to separate sovereignty.
That the destination of separate sovereignty would not be reached was to be guaranteed by extant Labour party hegemony, prolonged for more than half a century in Scotland, and the principal Labour party objective of the maintenance of permanency in power in the rest of the UK. As backstop, the European Union fundamental policy of subsidiarity, would exclude Scotland from direct, sovereign state relations with Brussels.
Scotland's sought after separate sovereignty can be contained and masked by accession to the Treaty for a European Constitution which, like all such consolidating treaties, temporarily strengthens the highest level of governance. If the Labour Executive does not accede to the EU constitutional treaty, then the way is left open for Scotland's government to press on alone and do so; for the Concordats are open and justiciable, not aspects of Labour Executive privilege. The meaning and content of Reserved Powers is yet to be determined by the Courts, and Scotland has one of the finest judicial systems, and some of the finest lawyers, in the world.
Either Labour cedes more powers to Europe, or Scotland has a powerful case to choose to leave the United Kingdom.
Sunday, 10 June 2007
Libyans Discover Scottish Government
The new government in Scotland is faced with its first public, though doubtless not first unpublicised, problem with the Labour party Executive in Westminster not grasping what is no longer within its jurisdiction.
The Libyan convicted of involvement in the PanAm Lockerbie plane bomb has been the subject of discussion between the Westminster Prime Minister and the President of Libya. Unfortunately the Prime Minister at Westminster has no say in the fate of a prisoner held in Scotland, convicted in a Scottish court, of a crime committed in Scottish airspace.
Attempts by English Foreign Office civil servants to advise the Labour Westminster Prime Minister that this was a matter for Scottish Prime Minister Salmond were not accepted (or understood).
The Libyans have got it now though and, according to the Sunday Herald, are not best pleased. The Herald notes in a leader,
'...Alex Salmond is using the full authority of his position to challenge Westminster's ways of doing things - from leading talks with Europe on fishing to signing memoranda on prisoner transfer with Colonel Gaddafi. The SNP government will shortly publish its white paper and bill for a referendum on independence.'
The MP for the Scottish constituency of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and Leader-designate of the Labour party is looking ever weirder as candidate prime minister at Westminster.
The Libyan convicted of involvement in the PanAm Lockerbie plane bomb has been the subject of discussion between the Westminster Prime Minister and the President of Libya. Unfortunately the Prime Minister at Westminster has no say in the fate of a prisoner held in Scotland, convicted in a Scottish court, of a crime committed in Scottish airspace.
Attempts by English Foreign Office civil servants to advise the Labour Westminster Prime Minister that this was a matter for Scottish Prime Minister Salmond were not accepted (or understood).
The Libyans have got it now though and, according to the Sunday Herald, are not best pleased. The Herald notes in a leader,
'...Alex Salmond is using the full authority of his position to challenge Westminster's ways of doing things - from leading talks with Europe on fishing to signing memoranda on prisoner transfer with Colonel Gaddafi. The SNP government will shortly publish its white paper and bill for a referendum on independence.'
The MP for the Scottish constituency of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath and Leader-designate of the Labour party is looking ever weirder as candidate prime minister at Westminster.
Thursday, 3 May 2007
Reality and romanticism
The Scottish people go to the polls today to elect their parliament. Undeniably there is the the most pressure to vote in such a way as to open the path for choosing Scottish independence, since the Act of Union was signed 300 years ago.
What is the form that dissolution of a federal state might take? The most recent dissolution of a European federated state was in 1991.
When Yeltsin decided to disband the Soviet Union he did so constitutionally. Russia and the governments of Ukraine and Belarus were parties to the Treaty of the Union of 1922 and, on 8 December 1991, the leaders of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian republics met in Belavezhskaya Pushcha near Minsk and signed the Belavezha Accords ‘declaring the Soviet Union dissolved and replaced by the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).’ Gorbachev described this as an unconstitutional coup, but this was rejected, and anyway it could not be halted.
On 12 December 1991 the legislature of the Russian Soviet Republic formally accepted the secession of Russia from the Soviet Union by ratifying the Belavezha Accords and denouncing the 1922 Treaty on the creation of the Soviet Union.
On 17 December ‘twelve of the fifteen soviet republics signed the European Energy Charter in the Hague as if they were sovereign states, along with 28 other European countries, the European Community and four non-European countries.’
On 21 December 1991 ‘representatives of all Soviet Republics, except Georgia, signed the Alma Ata Protocol, confirming the dissolution of the Union ‘ .. 'all former Soviet republics, except the three Baltic States, agreed to join the CIS.’ Russia was authorised to succeed to the UN membership of the USSR, and take the USSR seat in the Security Council. Russia was accepted as the successor state to the USSR on 31 December 1991.
All powers still vested in the presidency of the USSR were ceded to the president of Russia , Yeltsin, and on 26 Decembe 1991, the Supreme Soviet ‘recognized the extinction of the Union and dissolved itself. By 31 December 1991 all official Soviet institutions had ceased operations and individual republics assumed the central government's role.’ (this is an extensively edited and shortened version from Wikipedia’s excellent entry, and from other sources).
The plainness of this account belies the knife-edge avoidance of descent into open violence and armed repression, involving tanks on the streets, the courage of the White House defenders, military mutiny, and attempts at re -seizing power by Soviet elites.
This is the dissolution of a much larger federated state, it faced different problems and was motivated by only some of the forces driving the desire for Scottish independence; furthermore it was the principal state of the Union, Russia, that sought the dissolution.
The United Kingdom does not face economic collapse, despite the doomsayers; England has no major political force seeking dissolution of the Union, quite the contrary, all parties want its maintenance; Scotland will achieve no economic benefits from secession - pace models of celtic tiger and oil-fired growth - indeed the economic evidence points to relative impoverishment; there will be no ready acceptance of its independent status by supra national states or organisations, other member states of the European Union have no desire for such an example to make good , and the EU policy of regionalism is designed to avoid this kind of member- state fragmentation. Losing a Security Council seat (which would surely happen if the UK broke up) flies in the face of the current UK administration’s entire foreign policy and, presumably that of any opposition party. There is no other part of the UK with which Scotland could ally against the Westminster administration - mutatis mutandis the Supreme Soviet - for Wales and Northern Ireland are no Ukraine and Belarus.
To break up a federated Union, then, requires constitutional routes, external overpowering threat of the order of economic collapse, cultural and historical links and memories, powerful allies , and international acquiesence if not encouragement. Scotland has the third of these requirements, and may have the first.
Independence may require also the facing down of physical threat by the Union state, and there has been a lot of practice in just this - ask the people of Northern Ireland.
What is the form that dissolution of a federal state might take? The most recent dissolution of a European federated state was in 1991.
When Yeltsin decided to disband the Soviet Union he did so constitutionally. Russia and the governments of Ukraine and Belarus were parties to the Treaty of the Union of 1922 and, on 8 December 1991, the leaders of the Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian republics met in Belavezhskaya Pushcha near Minsk and signed the Belavezha Accords ‘declaring the Soviet Union dissolved and replaced by the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).’ Gorbachev described this as an unconstitutional coup, but this was rejected, and anyway it could not be halted.
On 12 December 1991 the legislature of the Russian Soviet Republic formally accepted the secession of Russia from the Soviet Union by ratifying the Belavezha Accords and denouncing the 1922 Treaty on the creation of the Soviet Union.
On 17 December ‘twelve of the fifteen soviet republics signed the European Energy Charter in the Hague as if they were sovereign states, along with 28 other European countries, the European Community and four non-European countries.’
On 21 December 1991 ‘representatives of all Soviet Republics, except Georgia, signed the Alma Ata Protocol, confirming the dissolution of the Union ‘ .. 'all former Soviet republics, except the three Baltic States, agreed to join the CIS.’ Russia was authorised to succeed to the UN membership of the USSR, and take the USSR seat in the Security Council. Russia was accepted as the successor state to the USSR on 31 December 1991.
All powers still vested in the presidency of the USSR were ceded to the president of Russia , Yeltsin, and on 26 Decembe 1991, the Supreme Soviet ‘recognized the extinction of the Union and dissolved itself. By 31 December 1991 all official Soviet institutions had ceased operations and individual republics assumed the central government's role.’ (this is an extensively edited and shortened version from Wikipedia’s excellent entry, and from other sources).
The plainness of this account belies the knife-edge avoidance of descent into open violence and armed repression, involving tanks on the streets, the courage of the White House defenders, military mutiny, and attempts at re -seizing power by Soviet elites.
This is the dissolution of a much larger federated state, it faced different problems and was motivated by only some of the forces driving the desire for Scottish independence; furthermore it was the principal state of the Union, Russia, that sought the dissolution.
The United Kingdom does not face economic collapse, despite the doomsayers; England has no major political force seeking dissolution of the Union, quite the contrary, all parties want its maintenance; Scotland will achieve no economic benefits from secession - pace models of celtic tiger and oil-fired growth - indeed the economic evidence points to relative impoverishment; there will be no ready acceptance of its independent status by supra national states or organisations, other member states of the European Union have no desire for such an example to make good , and the EU policy of regionalism is designed to avoid this kind of member- state fragmentation. Losing a Security Council seat (which would surely happen if the UK broke up) flies in the face of the current UK administration’s entire foreign policy and, presumably that of any opposition party. There is no other part of the UK with which Scotland could ally against the Westminster administration - mutatis mutandis the Supreme Soviet - for Wales and Northern Ireland are no Ukraine and Belarus.
To break up a federated Union, then, requires constitutional routes, external overpowering threat of the order of economic collapse, cultural and historical links and memories, powerful allies , and international acquiesence if not encouragement. Scotland has the third of these requirements, and may have the first.
Independence may require also the facing down of physical threat by the Union state, and there has been a lot of practice in just this - ask the people of Northern Ireland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
