Dear Prime Minister,
Being a white, Etonian, heterosexual, with a Royal bastard in your ancestry you have probably never suffered from having your Human Rights violated.
However, I am a white, homosexual, Northern Irish man with very working class roots and without European judgements I would probably be locked up right about now. Or trying to stay away from the place I call home.
You see without the European Court homosexuality would still possible be illegal in Northern Ireland. Or quite possible only up until 1997, but by then I would have acted illegally in the interim and so would have had a criminal record for loving someone. You see it was only when Jeff Dugeon's case made it to the European Court that the UK Parliament felt it had to act over the wishes of every Northern Irish MP at the time. At least at the present that is not the case, but we do have a situation where even a simple majority of our MLAs being in favour of advancing LGBT legislation here one mighty party has enough MLAs on its own to lodge a petition of concern and veto that advance.
David will no doubt tell us that we have legal recourse within Northern Ireland and the UK.
However, when the ministers of said party appeal every judgement that a High Court Judge in Northern Ireland makes that speaks in favour of LGBT people we have an issue. Of course some will say we have the Supreme Court of the UK. But they have intimated that they will be wary of making a judgement on a area of legislation that's power has been devolved.
So as a Citizen of the European Union (yeah it says that on my passport) I would like to retain full access to the powers of being in that Union. I don't want a majority Conservative Government making judgements as to what should be in that British Bill of Rights. Looking at recent comments from many about the "awkwardness", "unnecessariness" of same sex marriage, I have doubts if left to their own devices such a Bil of Rights would be fully inclusive all in the LGBT+ spectrum the way that the ECHR is.
I have a feeling that they may well be something akin to the DUP "consciousness clause slipping in there somewhere, allowing people of faith to refuse service to someone that they find in conflict with their faith. Raising freedom of religion away from merely the freedom to practice, observe and be treated fairly into the right to use that freedom to counter other freedoms that also need equal billing. That Bill of Rights may well be an Orwellian "some are more equal than others".
So Dave stop bowing to Nigel Farage and knee jerkingly doing away with some of the good bits of Europe, but start to look at the things that even the most ardent Europhiles say need reform.
Friday, 3 October 2014
Saturday, 27 September 2014
The new ethical quagmire for journalists
Before today, even if you happened to live in Braintree, the chances are you hadn't paid much attention to the career of the Minister for Civic Society, Brooks Newmark. But now we all know his name.
It appears that a journalist has ensnared him to show a picture of him in his Paisley pyjamas which revealed rather more than most people should reveal in a clothed picture but a great deal less than some of the pictures recently leaked from iCloud.
The fact is that the married, father of five, who is MP for Braintree has resigned from his Government post on the eve of his party's conference. But the only person that this story may have been of interest to would surely have been his wife, and even then we cannot prejudge the nature of the marital relationship between the Newmarks. There are all sorts of possibilities that such a relationship may have been totally okay with this. They may be in a consentual open marriage. It may be that the marriage is beyond repair but they are staying together for the sake of the children and/or his or her career. It may of course be that his has done this against her wishes and without her knowledge and he is in deep trouble with the woman he married who still loves him.
The only reason that this could have been a public interest story is if there were anything illegal going on, or he was being hypocritical in his behaviour and his speeches in Westminster. If the journalist was entrapping him because of something illegal that Newmark had previous on why not take that evidence to the police? The reason of course is that there wasn't anything illegal, this male journalist impersonated a young woman to entrap the MP to get a story for the weekend of party conference.
The ethics of our journalists were under trial over phone hacking and this is a new depth. Posing as someone they are not to entrap either through text messages, or maybe online, into revealing images that could damage such people's careers. In other words impersonation, entrapment and then blackmail like releasing the story. New depths appear to have been sunk to to gather this story.
Journalists are not law enforcement, judge and jury of people's actions. Nor are they the arbitrator and curator of people's private lives. As when numerous ordinary people tweeted at The Last Leg on the issue of nude selfies, many more ordinary people are actually doing exactly what Mr Newmark did. Many of them will be readers of the newspaper this journalist works for. Some of them will undoubtedly be married to someone who isn't the recipient of that text or photo share via Skype, a website or email. But unless a law is being broken what they are doing or what Newmark was doing isn't actually illegal. It may not be part of your normal daily behaviour, it may be behaviour that you do not consider participating in but that doesn't make you the moral compass for everyone else.
Update Buzzfeed appear to have unearthed the Twitter account that the journalist used to flirt with a number of Conservative MPs. This is looking a lot more like a honey trap what was set far and wide.
It appears that a journalist has ensnared him to show a picture of him in his Paisley pyjamas which revealed rather more than most people should reveal in a clothed picture but a great deal less than some of the pictures recently leaked from iCloud.
The fact is that the married, father of five, who is MP for Braintree has resigned from his Government post on the eve of his party's conference. But the only person that this story may have been of interest to would surely have been his wife, and even then we cannot prejudge the nature of the marital relationship between the Newmarks. There are all sorts of possibilities that such a relationship may have been totally okay with this. They may be in a consentual open marriage. It may be that the marriage is beyond repair but they are staying together for the sake of the children and/or his or her career. It may of course be that his has done this against her wishes and without her knowledge and he is in deep trouble with the woman he married who still loves him.
The only reason that this could have been a public interest story is if there were anything illegal going on, or he was being hypocritical in his behaviour and his speeches in Westminster. If the journalist was entrapping him because of something illegal that Newmark had previous on why not take that evidence to the police? The reason of course is that there wasn't anything illegal, this male journalist impersonated a young woman to entrap the MP to get a story for the weekend of party conference.
The ethics of our journalists were under trial over phone hacking and this is a new depth. Posing as someone they are not to entrap either through text messages, or maybe online, into revealing images that could damage such people's careers. In other words impersonation, entrapment and then blackmail like releasing the story. New depths appear to have been sunk to to gather this story.
Journalists are not law enforcement, judge and jury of people's actions. Nor are they the arbitrator and curator of people's private lives. As when numerous ordinary people tweeted at The Last Leg on the issue of nude selfies, many more ordinary people are actually doing exactly what Mr Newmark did. Many of them will be readers of the newspaper this journalist works for. Some of them will undoubtedly be married to someone who isn't the recipient of that text or photo share via Skype, a website or email. But unless a law is being broken what they are doing or what Newmark was doing isn't actually illegal. It may not be part of your normal daily behaviour, it may be behaviour that you do not consider participating in but that doesn't make you the moral compass for everyone else.
Update Buzzfeed appear to have unearthed the Twitter account that the journalist used to flirt with a number of Conservative MPs. This is looking a lot more like a honey trap what was set far and wide.
Wednesday, 24 September 2014
New Minister of Health
So who have the DUP gone and replaced Edwin Poots with as Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Why none other than their member for South Down Jim Wells.
The question is whose health etc will be looking after?
In 2011 the new Health Minister said that the behaviour of those who took part the march at Belfast Pride was "totally repugnant". Now that he is a minister he should not be judging and without evidence generalising such a group of LGBT Northern Irish people, plus their families and supporters. He should be providing health and social services to them without discrimination as well as working to improve their public safety. So yeah this does include proper sex education and that included MSM sex as well as disease prevention. he may not condone the activity but he has budgetary responsibility for the consequences.
But that is that the only group whose health in now in the hands of this man. The following year he said that victims of rape and sexual assault should not be exempt from the strict Northern Irish laws banning abortion. His plan instead, contrary to the opinion of many medical professionals, is that such traumatised women should carry the child full term and offer it up for adoption. This of course means that the trauma of the assault would have to be revisited 9 months after the incident as well as the various times during that period that the mother has to go through pregnancy.
What is worse of course is that Mr Wells made these comments while Deputy Chair of the Health Committee and has long been muted as the replacement for Mr Poots. It looks like we have lost one science sceptic from the health department for one just as, if not more so, sceptical person. Who seems to ignore medical advise, scientific evidence and has a way with language that is ill thought out and offensive to groups which he now has some say over key elements of their well being.
We live in interesting times, but then so was the days of the dinosaurs.
The question is whose health etc will be looking after?
In 2011 the new Health Minister said that the behaviour of those who took part the march at Belfast Pride was "totally repugnant". Now that he is a minister he should not be judging and without evidence generalising such a group of LGBT Northern Irish people, plus their families and supporters. He should be providing health and social services to them without discrimination as well as working to improve their public safety. So yeah this does include proper sex education and that included MSM sex as well as disease prevention. he may not condone the activity but he has budgetary responsibility for the consequences.
But that is that the only group whose health in now in the hands of this man. The following year he said that victims of rape and sexual assault should not be exempt from the strict Northern Irish laws banning abortion. His plan instead, contrary to the opinion of many medical professionals, is that such traumatised women should carry the child full term and offer it up for adoption. This of course means that the trauma of the assault would have to be revisited 9 months after the incident as well as the various times during that period that the mother has to go through pregnancy.
What is worse of course is that Mr Wells made these comments while Deputy Chair of the Health Committee and has long been muted as the replacement for Mr Poots. It looks like we have lost one science sceptic from the health department for one just as, if not more so, sceptical person. Who seems to ignore medical advise, scientific evidence and has a way with language that is ill thought out and offensive to groups which he now has some say over key elements of their well being.
We live in interesting times, but then so was the days of the dinosaurs.
Tuesday, 23 September 2014
In the cold light of a post referendum day
When it comes to matters of self determination I am what I would call an economic realist. You may well ask what do I mean by that? Well let me explain.
My degree is in economics so I know to look at the bigger picture for the nation, how that affects individuals and how the ability of a nation to look after its individual is best served. Therefore it does not make be either a nationalist nor a unionist when such matters are discussed.
Therefore in the 80s, 90s and early in the 2000s if there had of been a border poll in Northern Ireland I would likely have voted for a united Ireland. Especially during the 80s and 90s Northern Ireland seemed to be overlooked by Westminster and the economies of scale that being one quarter of a booming Ireland as opposed to one fiftieth or so of the United Kingdom meant that we probably would have had a better deal.
The situation with the Scottish Referendum is that I as an internationalist who studied European Economics for two years as a part of my degree did not only believe that the question were not being answered, but that the Yes side didn't fully understand the questions. Yes there was currency, there was Scotland's place in Europe, there was financial institutions that cross borders. I know how these things work in Ireland, but they are compartmentalised. There were too many grey areas and to be honest there wasn't honesty on the part of Alex Salmond a fellow economist in how to deal with many, many such questions.
However, to be called a fool who has been taken in is something I find insulting. Just because I did not come to the same conclusion as someone else does not make me a fool, that would lead to a very insulting image of our political system where there are so many parties not any of which I agree with 100% of the time. I am a member of the party that most closely reflects what I believe. As decisions within that party are mostly decided by as democratic vote I will be able to back those to the hilt, where some decisions are made that ignores the will of conference then I will continue to speak up and speak out. Indeed up until March of this year I was still on the register to vote in Scotland (due to 6 month residency requirement to transfer back unto the Northern Ireland register of electors)
The constant complaints about a fixed ballot when I have seen tweets from Yes groups, and blog posts from them and people who were there either as count agents of staff is beyond disrespectful to fellow Scots (and yes as I have spent more than 10 years there in the white paper I'd qualify for a passport). I have been to many, many counts across Scotland, I know that the election staff both in polling stations and at the count are second to none. That those of us who on a regular basis spend a long day getting out the vote following by long hours at the count are always impressed by how they handle themselves and we know that if there is something that we think has not been done right it will be investigated when we raise that.
The fact that on my 45th birthday many people started to put the 45 image on their profile pics is a cause for concern. That 45 is diverse, that 45 comes from all the main political parties and on many issues that 45 disagree. They are not homogenous. The same applies to the other 55% we are not all the same.
I'm proud that many people wanted to get involved in politics many for the first time, I know that many of them have joined one of the parties of the Yes side, that is loud and clear as they are all shouting about it. I also know that Scottish people have over the past two years joined the parties on the side of No as well. Is it good that they want to carry on the political conversation it is just that they need to know that the conversation in politics often moves on. Yes there are times that all of us in politics miss out on getting something and have to regroup,but they we have to make the best of what we can do.
That is where we are now. I've seen some say that the No side of the debate were triumphant. If I were an alien looking in I would be hard pressed to see that. Most of my friends who had No banners on their pages had taken them down within 24 hours of the result, the same is not true of my friends from Yes and yes they are still friends.
We need political leaders on both sides to speak sanely and calmly, change always takes time. It cannot be achieved in a weekend, a week, or even a month it will take time to make a change and make it correctly. There was a timetable laid out for presenting the additional powers, just as the SNP has laid out a timetable for delivering the referendum.
We know that the SNP took 7 years from first entering Government to bring about the referendum they had promised all their political lives, so a few extra months and a shorter timescale to make further changes isn't too great a time to wait, but everyone needs to take ownership of the process, get behind it and now that not all your dreams will come true, but you can make it the best package that you can.
My degree is in economics so I know to look at the bigger picture for the nation, how that affects individuals and how the ability of a nation to look after its individual is best served. Therefore it does not make be either a nationalist nor a unionist when such matters are discussed.
Therefore in the 80s, 90s and early in the 2000s if there had of been a border poll in Northern Ireland I would likely have voted for a united Ireland. Especially during the 80s and 90s Northern Ireland seemed to be overlooked by Westminster and the economies of scale that being one quarter of a booming Ireland as opposed to one fiftieth or so of the United Kingdom meant that we probably would have had a better deal.
The situation with the Scottish Referendum is that I as an internationalist who studied European Economics for two years as a part of my degree did not only believe that the question were not being answered, but that the Yes side didn't fully understand the questions. Yes there was currency, there was Scotland's place in Europe, there was financial institutions that cross borders. I know how these things work in Ireland, but they are compartmentalised. There were too many grey areas and to be honest there wasn't honesty on the part of Alex Salmond a fellow economist in how to deal with many, many such questions.
However, to be called a fool who has been taken in is something I find insulting. Just because I did not come to the same conclusion as someone else does not make me a fool, that would lead to a very insulting image of our political system where there are so many parties not any of which I agree with 100% of the time. I am a member of the party that most closely reflects what I believe. As decisions within that party are mostly decided by as democratic vote I will be able to back those to the hilt, where some decisions are made that ignores the will of conference then I will continue to speak up and speak out. Indeed up until March of this year I was still on the register to vote in Scotland (due to 6 month residency requirement to transfer back unto the Northern Ireland register of electors)
The constant complaints about a fixed ballot when I have seen tweets from Yes groups, and blog posts from them and people who were there either as count agents of staff is beyond disrespectful to fellow Scots (and yes as I have spent more than 10 years there in the white paper I'd qualify for a passport). I have been to many, many counts across Scotland, I know that the election staff both in polling stations and at the count are second to none. That those of us who on a regular basis spend a long day getting out the vote following by long hours at the count are always impressed by how they handle themselves and we know that if there is something that we think has not been done right it will be investigated when we raise that.
The fact that on my 45th birthday many people started to put the 45 image on their profile pics is a cause for concern. That 45 is diverse, that 45 comes from all the main political parties and on many issues that 45 disagree. They are not homogenous. The same applies to the other 55% we are not all the same.
I'm proud that many people wanted to get involved in politics many for the first time, I know that many of them have joined one of the parties of the Yes side, that is loud and clear as they are all shouting about it. I also know that Scottish people have over the past two years joined the parties on the side of No as well. Is it good that they want to carry on the political conversation it is just that they need to know that the conversation in politics often moves on. Yes there are times that all of us in politics miss out on getting something and have to regroup,but they we have to make the best of what we can do.
That is where we are now. I've seen some say that the No side of the debate were triumphant. If I were an alien looking in I would be hard pressed to see that. Most of my friends who had No banners on their pages had taken them down within 24 hours of the result, the same is not true of my friends from Yes and yes they are still friends.
We need political leaders on both sides to speak sanely and calmly, change always takes time. It cannot be achieved in a weekend, a week, or even a month it will take time to make a change and make it correctly. There was a timetable laid out for presenting the additional powers, just as the SNP has laid out a timetable for delivering the referendum.
We know that the SNP took 7 years from first entering Government to bring about the referendum they had promised all their political lives, so a few extra months and a shorter timescale to make further changes isn't too great a time to wait, but everyone needs to take ownership of the process, get behind it and now that not all your dreams will come true, but you can make it the best package that you can.
Saturday, 20 September 2014
Some fact and figures from #IndyRef
Ok we have all seen the conspiracy theories but here are some of the facts that would have to have been different if the Yes side really had to overcome the silent majority to win. I started to crunch these numbers when someone actually said the result wasn't a landslide to which someone else used the Politico definition:
But I decided to look at it this way. What would have been required out of the available votes remaining to turn the election around. As we know on Thursday the electorate was engaged and apathy wasn't was a winner. We have to assume that everyone's vote was counted correctly, yes there may have been a few that somehow missed all the observers and the counters attention, but with the vote split 11 to 9 this would statistically have been an error that was have affected both sides equally.
So where there enough votes left that Yes could have won?
Yes finished some 383, 979 votes behind no on a 84.59% turn out.
Yes secured 1,617,949 votes which at 37.77% of the total registered voters would have won most elections in recent times. If it were not for the 2,001,928 votes that No secured which was 46.74% of all those registered to vote. That is astounding that they came so close to having 50% of all those who could have voted, but they didn't so more could have been swayed and persuaded to vote.
So lets look at those that didn't vote, there were only 663,515 of these in the whole of the 4,283,392 registered from the age of 16 upwards who could vote. Which in itself was 97% of those eligible to vote.
Therefore we can see there were still enough votes available that could have seen a different result.
But how well would Yes have had to do with that available number of voters?
To secure to 383,980 additional votes that Yes would have needed to win by a single vote would have required 57.87% of those that didn't vote to ALL vote yes. Which would have taken turnout up to a even more incredible 93.47%.
Even if all of those who didn't vote could express an opinion 78.93% of them or 523,748 of them would have had to vote yes. and that would have give Yes a majority of 2 votes as there was actually an even number of registered voters.
If we were to assume that the % of rejected ballots (0.0947%) in the remainder of the voters that percentage there would be 629 less votes available. They would then need only 523,433 of the remainder, however that is 78.96% of those that would be available. So even if there had been 100% turn out yes would have needed 4 out of every 5 votes from those that did not vote to win when they were achieving 9 out of 20 from those that actually did.
So therefore can we put the conspiracy theories aside. There was a 10 percentage point divide at the end. Some Yes campaigners are saying it felt closer than that. Opinion polls said it felt closer than that. But when you consider that some vocal Yes supporters were calling No voters cowards, traitors or whatever and calling for some of them to go home, saying those born elsewhere had no right to vote and some were threatening people that they'd have to move, face a day of reckoning etc is it not possible that some people who would vote no were scared to tell anyone that in public and would say they were voting yes.
As the last weeks polls seemed to suggest that it was withing 4% even if the margin of error of 3% on a individual poll would only take that to 7%. But that there were a large number of polls in that last week to a fortnight that showed it was that close there would appear to have been maybe a 1% margin in those polled, but certainly not all of them were possibly giving their true intentions and that could well have applied to Yes canvassers especially if those people voting no felt that the threats might come to something should there be independence.
a landslide election win is one in which the winning candidate beats his opponent by at least 10 percentage points.
But I decided to look at it this way. What would have been required out of the available votes remaining to turn the election around. As we know on Thursday the electorate was engaged and apathy wasn't was a winner. We have to assume that everyone's vote was counted correctly, yes there may have been a few that somehow missed all the observers and the counters attention, but with the vote split 11 to 9 this would statistically have been an error that was have affected both sides equally.
So where there enough votes left that Yes could have won?
Yes finished some 383, 979 votes behind no on a 84.59% turn out.
Yes secured 1,617,949 votes which at 37.77% of the total registered voters would have won most elections in recent times. If it were not for the 2,001,928 votes that No secured which was 46.74% of all those registered to vote. That is astounding that they came so close to having 50% of all those who could have voted, but they didn't so more could have been swayed and persuaded to vote.
So lets look at those that didn't vote, there were only 663,515 of these in the whole of the 4,283,392 registered from the age of 16 upwards who could vote. Which in itself was 97% of those eligible to vote.
Therefore we can see there were still enough votes available that could have seen a different result.
But how well would Yes have had to do with that available number of voters?
To secure to 383,980 additional votes that Yes would have needed to win by a single vote would have required 57.87% of those that didn't vote to ALL vote yes. Which would have taken turnout up to a even more incredible 93.47%.
Even if all of those who didn't vote could express an opinion 78.93% of them or 523,748 of them would have had to vote yes. and that would have give Yes a majority of 2 votes as there was actually an even number of registered voters.
If we were to assume that the % of rejected ballots (0.0947%) in the remainder of the voters that percentage there would be 629 less votes available. They would then need only 523,433 of the remainder, however that is 78.96% of those that would be available. So even if there had been 100% turn out yes would have needed 4 out of every 5 votes from those that did not vote to win when they were achieving 9 out of 20 from those that actually did.
So therefore can we put the conspiracy theories aside. There was a 10 percentage point divide at the end. Some Yes campaigners are saying it felt closer than that. Opinion polls said it felt closer than that. But when you consider that some vocal Yes supporters were calling No voters cowards, traitors or whatever and calling for some of them to go home, saying those born elsewhere had no right to vote and some were threatening people that they'd have to move, face a day of reckoning etc is it not possible that some people who would vote no were scared to tell anyone that in public and would say they were voting yes.
As the last weeks polls seemed to suggest that it was withing 4% even if the margin of error of 3% on a individual poll would only take that to 7%. But that there were a large number of polls in that last week to a fortnight that showed it was that close there would appear to have been maybe a 1% margin in those polled, but certainly not all of them were possibly giving their true intentions and that could well have applied to Yes canvassers especially if those people voting no felt that the threats might come to something should there be independence.
Please Sir, do Northern Ireland have to take more? Part 2
I wrote yesterday about some of the powers that Northern Ireland wanted to have added to Stormont. It may have been because I was lacking sleep, or maybe because I didn't think anybody really realistically wanted to bring either of these two into our control that I left them off that piece. However, yesterday I was reminded that my piece was lacking a couple of things.
Firstly in light of the referendum Sinn Féin have called for a similar choice here in Northern Ireland, only for it to be should Northern Ireland become part of united Irish state rather than a question of independence. There is provision and regulation for this set out in the Northern Ireland Act. It is in the gift of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and another "border poll" cannot be called for at least seven years. Of course unlike Scotland the Northern Ireland First Minister says such a poll is not needed.
However, Peter Robinson better be careful of not falling into a trap of assuming something that isn't necessarily the case as some of the Westminster leaders failed to do so. Labour and Conservatives while being part of the Calman Commission in Scotland didn't really take the issue further. The Liberal Democrats of course with their previous Steel Commission and subsequent study by Ming Campbell had discussing such issues in their party DNA and have had debates about further devolution elsewhere as well in recent years.
The option is there to have a poll and it may be worth considering as part of sorting out the long term nature of the UK before you start to work out or agree upon the devolutionary package for all the constituent parts. If Robinson is so confident of winning, especially if more powers are on the way, then what does he have to fear? Apart from seeing how close unionism is to losing, instead of how far nationalism is from uniting Ireland. This of course would not be a question of better alone or better together but rather one of better in one nation or another.
The other thing that I do not believe Northern Ireland politicians seriously think we are ready to have devolved to us is welfare payments. The reason I cannot believe this one is being talked about is the fact that over the last year and more they have been unable to come to a settlement on the little control they have of this themselves to fit into the budget that is being set for them from Westminster. To then even hand over the complex nature of the budgeting of such payments would lead to a quagmire into which the most needy in our society will see the reforms to the payments they relay on disappearing into the indecisiveness of our political "elite".
As I said yesterday if the MLAs at Stormont want to be given more power they must also accept some radical adjustments to the way that they currently work or else the whole thing will grind to an almighty halt. The question still is are they ready to give up some of that unequal power that currently exists to allow us to have more power that is the way with normal procedures across these islands.
Firstly in light of the referendum Sinn Féin have called for a similar choice here in Northern Ireland, only for it to be should Northern Ireland become part of united Irish state rather than a question of independence. There is provision and regulation for this set out in the Northern Ireland Act. It is in the gift of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and another "border poll" cannot be called for at least seven years. Of course unlike Scotland the Northern Ireland First Minister says such a poll is not needed.
However, Peter Robinson better be careful of not falling into a trap of assuming something that isn't necessarily the case as some of the Westminster leaders failed to do so. Labour and Conservatives while being part of the Calman Commission in Scotland didn't really take the issue further. The Liberal Democrats of course with their previous Steel Commission and subsequent study by Ming Campbell had discussing such issues in their party DNA and have had debates about further devolution elsewhere as well in recent years.
The option is there to have a poll and it may be worth considering as part of sorting out the long term nature of the UK before you start to work out or agree upon the devolutionary package for all the constituent parts. If Robinson is so confident of winning, especially if more powers are on the way, then what does he have to fear? Apart from seeing how close unionism is to losing, instead of how far nationalism is from uniting Ireland. This of course would not be a question of better alone or better together but rather one of better in one nation or another.
The other thing that I do not believe Northern Ireland politicians seriously think we are ready to have devolved to us is welfare payments. The reason I cannot believe this one is being talked about is the fact that over the last year and more they have been unable to come to a settlement on the little control they have of this themselves to fit into the budget that is being set for them from Westminster. To then even hand over the complex nature of the budgeting of such payments would lead to a quagmire into which the most needy in our society will see the reforms to the payments they relay on disappearing into the indecisiveness of our political "elite".
As I said yesterday if the MLAs at Stormont want to be given more power they must also accept some radical adjustments to the way that they currently work or else the whole thing will grind to an almighty halt. The question still is are they ready to give up some of that unequal power that currently exists to allow us to have more power that is the way with normal procedures across these islands.
Friday, 19 September 2014
Post Salmond
So this afternoon Alex Salmond has announced that he stepping down as leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister of Scotland. So as well as asking what next for the UK nation as a whole we are now asking what next for the SNP?
Firstly as has long been muted Salmond himself has already been grooming his successor, it was she who had a major role in planning the referendum agenda and steering the Yes Campaign. Nicola Sturgeon the MSP for Glasgow Southside has been the Deputy First Minister since 2007 and been the Depute Leader of the SNP for the last 10 years. If she were to fulfill what many see as her destiny, if a little earlier than they expected she would be the first women to lead any devolved power in the UK.
But the question is would there be a coronation or would there be a challenger? If the latter who might the competition come from.
One possibility is like Alex Salmond an alumni of Linlithgow Academy and with his was also expelled from the party for being part of the 79 Group his long term friend Kenny MacAskill. While Alex has mellowed on the demand for a republican socialist stance, MacAskill has said that once Scotland voted for Independence there would be a referendum on whether to keep the monarchy. He stepped down from standing with Sturgeon on a joint ticket to be her Depute when Salmond decided to restand for the leadership himself on a ticket with her instead. It is possible that that loyalty may be repaid with him become her deputy ten years on so that may be one reason why he wouldn't want to upset the apple cart.
Another alternative might be John Swinney who had been leader between Alex Salmond and Alex Salmond from 2000-2004. Since 2007 he has been the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth a job which many within the party would say he has be great at. Especially in his first four years when he had to get through his budget as a minority administration. He is closely associated with the gradualist wing of the party, which in light of the failure to secure independence might come to the fore of people's thinking as something that is needed to make the most of the negotiations that will ensue for more powers for Scotland. The down side to a Swinney bid is that in his previous term in charge, unlike Salmond who had been successful first time, he saw the parties fortunes slump.
The only other person with potential serious intent to lead the party is the man who challenged Swinney back in 2000. Alex Neil had the backing of the fundamentalist wing of the party. Instead of looking for a gradulaist approach it may be that some within the party are seeking a figure head to keep up the fundamentalist approach, if so Neil would be the natural figurehead for such feelings. Some may well feel that Salmond wasn't seeking to separate enough from the rest of the UK and was really fighting on a ticket of keeping the best bits of being in the UK and therefore the voters knew it wasn't real independence. Only if that is the case would Neil stand a serious chance of taking the leadership but it is the mood of the party that is important.
Nicola is in pole position, but as she also was heavily involved in the referendum campaign it is unlikely that she will go totally unchallenged from within. It depends which wing of the party is most angry with the way the referendum campaign was built up to be a success only to fall 10% short that may well decide who will take her on, and such a challenge may even come from both wings.
One thing though is certain. We live in interesting times.
Firstly as has long been muted Salmond himself has already been grooming his successor, it was she who had a major role in planning the referendum agenda and steering the Yes Campaign. Nicola Sturgeon the MSP for Glasgow Southside has been the Deputy First Minister since 2007 and been the Depute Leader of the SNP for the last 10 years. If she were to fulfill what many see as her destiny, if a little earlier than they expected she would be the first women to lead any devolved power in the UK.
But the question is would there be a coronation or would there be a challenger? If the latter who might the competition come from.
One possibility is like Alex Salmond an alumni of Linlithgow Academy and with his was also expelled from the party for being part of the 79 Group his long term friend Kenny MacAskill. While Alex has mellowed on the demand for a republican socialist stance, MacAskill has said that once Scotland voted for Independence there would be a referendum on whether to keep the monarchy. He stepped down from standing with Sturgeon on a joint ticket to be her Depute when Salmond decided to restand for the leadership himself on a ticket with her instead. It is possible that that loyalty may be repaid with him become her deputy ten years on so that may be one reason why he wouldn't want to upset the apple cart.
Another alternative might be John Swinney who had been leader between Alex Salmond and Alex Salmond from 2000-2004. Since 2007 he has been the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth a job which many within the party would say he has be great at. Especially in his first four years when he had to get through his budget as a minority administration. He is closely associated with the gradualist wing of the party, which in light of the failure to secure independence might come to the fore of people's thinking as something that is needed to make the most of the negotiations that will ensue for more powers for Scotland. The down side to a Swinney bid is that in his previous term in charge, unlike Salmond who had been successful first time, he saw the parties fortunes slump.
The only other person with potential serious intent to lead the party is the man who challenged Swinney back in 2000. Alex Neil had the backing of the fundamentalist wing of the party. Instead of looking for a gradulaist approach it may be that some within the party are seeking a figure head to keep up the fundamentalist approach, if so Neil would be the natural figurehead for such feelings. Some may well feel that Salmond wasn't seeking to separate enough from the rest of the UK and was really fighting on a ticket of keeping the best bits of being in the UK and therefore the voters knew it wasn't real independence. Only if that is the case would Neil stand a serious chance of taking the leadership but it is the mood of the party that is important.
Nicola is in pole position, but as she also was heavily involved in the referendum campaign it is unlikely that she will go totally unchallenged from within. It depends which wing of the party is most angry with the way the referendum campaign was built up to be a success only to fall 10% short that may well decide who will take her on, and such a challenge may even come from both wings.
One thing though is certain. We live in interesting times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)