Today's papers are full of reports about a new political party in Scotland. Archie Stirling, "famous" for having once been married to Diana Rigg, has established Scottish Voice as a new right wing party. I say they are right wing because this has how they have been popularly ascribed in the mainstream press, but as today's reports so succinctly describe, Mr Stirling has been rather quiet on detailing any form of policy for his new party (see http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1223456.0.0.php.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1223456.0.0.php). His reticence means that Scottish Voice are rather short on details as to what policies they will put before the electorate, making it quite difficult to accurately place them anywhere on the political spectrum. I suspect that the press have tagged this new party as being right of centre given Mr Stirling's history of donating to the Conservatives, which he equates with donations he has given to "save the whale" (a quite unfair comparison Archie, saving the whale is a noble cause, the Tories less so).
I had to laugh though at the reported comments of Archie Stirling who was reported in the Herald as saying, "I believe there is a genuine dissatisfaction with Holyrood and people seem to react favourably to the idea that a group of people, if elected, would hold them to account." Doesn't Mr Stirling realise that if he and his cohorts were elected as Scottish Voice candidates (admittedly this is a highly unlikely prospect, of which more later) then they would become part of "Holyrood"? Who would hold them to account for holding the others to account.
Mr Stirling seems to be tapping into what is a perceived dissatisfaction with the existing political parties. I cannot deny that such exists, although I think this is exacerbated by 24/7 media that perpetuates itself in being cynical about all people who involve themselves in politics. However, the answer is not blithe and anodyne comments - for that is all that Mr Stirling has offered us. The answer is to actually empower the Scottish Parliament so that it can make real differences to the people of Scotland. The only way to really achieve this is with independence, but apparently the raison d'être of the founding of Scottish Voice is to oppose constitutional change.
It is pretty ironic then that this party has chosen the name Scottish Voice given they seek to deny any form of distinctive voice for Scotland in the international community.
At any rate, I rather suspect that Scottish Voice will gather more headlines than votes. They remind me all too much of the Scottish People's Alliance that contested the Scottish Parliament election in 2003, which beyond providing a platform for a couple of Tory MSPs who had slipped down their party's rankings achieved next to hee haw. I firmly predict a similar outcome for Mr Stirling's new party.
If you fancy a gawp at the website of this new "force" in Scottish politics (and it won't take you long as there is precious little there to read) then go to http://www.scottishvoice.net/
Meanwhile, in the real world, today's Scotsman reports continued strong polling for the SNP in their latest ICM opinion poll (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=311452007) which all indicates to a fantastic election night for my party. I won't be resting on my laurels though. Still plenty of campaigning to be done in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth in the remaining 64 days till polling.
I had to laugh though at the reported comments of Archie Stirling who was reported in the Herald as saying, "I believe there is a genuine dissatisfaction with Holyrood and people seem to react favourably to the idea that a group of people, if elected, would hold them to account." Doesn't Mr Stirling realise that if he and his cohorts were elected as Scottish Voice candidates (admittedly this is a highly unlikely prospect, of which more later) then they would become part of "Holyrood"? Who would hold them to account for holding the others to account.
Mr Stirling seems to be tapping into what is a perceived dissatisfaction with the existing political parties. I cannot deny that such exists, although I think this is exacerbated by 24/7 media that perpetuates itself in being cynical about all people who involve themselves in politics. However, the answer is not blithe and anodyne comments - for that is all that Mr Stirling has offered us. The answer is to actually empower the Scottish Parliament so that it can make real differences to the people of Scotland. The only way to really achieve this is with independence, but apparently the raison d'être of the founding of Scottish Voice is to oppose constitutional change.
It is pretty ironic then that this party has chosen the name Scottish Voice given they seek to deny any form of distinctive voice for Scotland in the international community.
At any rate, I rather suspect that Scottish Voice will gather more headlines than votes. They remind me all too much of the Scottish People's Alliance that contested the Scottish Parliament election in 2003, which beyond providing a platform for a couple of Tory MSPs who had slipped down their party's rankings achieved next to hee haw. I firmly predict a similar outcome for Mr Stirling's new party.
If you fancy a gawp at the website of this new "force" in Scottish politics (and it won't take you long as there is precious little there to read) then go to http://www.scottishvoice.net/
Meanwhile, in the real world, today's Scotsman reports continued strong polling for the SNP in their latest ICM opinion poll (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=311452007) which all indicates to a fantastic election night for my party. I won't be resting on my laurels though. Still plenty of campaigning to be done in Cumbernauld and Kilsyth in the remaining 64 days till polling.
No comments:
Post a Comment