After David Cairns recently setting his face against the devolution of broadcasting to Scotland, we now have Des Browne refusing to accept the notion of the Scottish Parliament having legislative competence over its own elections.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.1993120.0.Ministers_set_to_clash_over_running_elections.php
It seems to me that this whole unionist commission to discuss the devolution of extra powers may turn out to be a bit of a damp squib.
Looks like the UK cabinet will rule out every conceivable area that might be devolved before it even has its first meeting!
Saturday 26 January 2008
Friday 25 January 2008
Debate on Organ Donation - 24th January 2008
Debate on Organ Donation - 24th January 2008
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I thank the Presiding Officer for accepting the motion without notice to extend the debate so that more members could participate in the debate. I am sure that I am not alone in being grateful for that.
Like others, I congratulate George Foulkes on tonight's motion. There is much on which George Foulkes and I will disagree, but on this issue we find ourselves agreeing. I feel strongly about this issue. I have a friend who suffers from cystic fibrosis. He is presently in pretty good health and in pretty good shape, but it is quite conceivable that, some day, he will need a lung transplant. At my friend's prompting, I was happy to host an event in Parliament last year on behalf of the live life then give life campaign. Many members attended that event, and some of them are here tonight. Just as we have heard moving testimony from members in this debate, people at the event were able to hear moving testimony from a young woman whose life has been absolutely transformed by a lung transplant. Perhaps even more moving was what we heard from a young woman who was desperately ill and needed a lung transplant. No one at the event could have failed to have the need for change to our organ donation system impressed upon them. I hope that we are all agreed on at least that much.
I appreciate that this is an emotive subject. In the debate, and in the run-up to it, I heard the views of those opposed to a system of presumed consent, including members of my party. As sincerely held as those views are, none sway my opinion that the time is right to move to a system of presumed consent. Mary Scanlon and Mike Rumbles suggested that we cannot presume consent. I understand where they are coming from and I accept that, in the short term, presumed consent offers some problems, primarily in the confusion that would arise in the move from the present system to the new one. However, in the long term, a system of presumed consent will be accepted and readily understood.
Christine Grahame and Malcolm Chisholm suggested that a system should be adopted that allows for people to opt in and opt out. That is an interesting idea, but I am not sure that it would work. Members of a certain vintage, including George Foulkes, will recall the 1979 devolution referendum, in which those who did not vote effectively voted no. The statistics show that even though the vast majority of people are happy to donate their organs, they never add their name to the register. In an opt-in and opt-out system, those who do neither effectively opt out. That would be little or no improvement on the current situation.
In the run-up to the debate, I heard concerns expressed that doctors would allow certain patients to die in order to use their organs for a patient waiting for transplant. I cannot conceive of a situation in which a doctor would do that; it runs counter to the Hippocratic oath. Why would a doctor, concerned to save the life of one patient, not be concerned to save the life of another?
I understand Roseanna Cunningham's point about the incentive to publicise the opt-out. However, it is not beyond our collective wit, as legislators, to devise a system that necessitates such publicity. Indeed, it is the only way in which presumed consent will work with legitimacy. Equally, it is not beyond us to design a system sensitively, taking the interests of the donor family into account. When it is all thrown up in the air, I do not see the strength of the argument against presumed consent. All I see are hundreds of patients slowly dying on the transplant waiting list. We have it in our hands to help save their lives. I hope that when the time comes we will move towards a system of presumed consent and help those people.
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I thank the Presiding Officer for accepting the motion without notice to extend the debate so that more members could participate in the debate. I am sure that I am not alone in being grateful for that.
Like others, I congratulate George Foulkes on tonight's motion. There is much on which George Foulkes and I will disagree, but on this issue we find ourselves agreeing. I feel strongly about this issue. I have a friend who suffers from cystic fibrosis. He is presently in pretty good health and in pretty good shape, but it is quite conceivable that, some day, he will need a lung transplant. At my friend's prompting, I was happy to host an event in Parliament last year on behalf of the live life then give life campaign. Many members attended that event, and some of them are here tonight. Just as we have heard moving testimony from members in this debate, people at the event were able to hear moving testimony from a young woman whose life has been absolutely transformed by a lung transplant. Perhaps even more moving was what we heard from a young woman who was desperately ill and needed a lung transplant. No one at the event could have failed to have the need for change to our organ donation system impressed upon them. I hope that we are all agreed on at least that much.
I appreciate that this is an emotive subject. In the debate, and in the run-up to it, I heard the views of those opposed to a system of presumed consent, including members of my party. As sincerely held as those views are, none sway my opinion that the time is right to move to a system of presumed consent. Mary Scanlon and Mike Rumbles suggested that we cannot presume consent. I understand where they are coming from and I accept that, in the short term, presumed consent offers some problems, primarily in the confusion that would arise in the move from the present system to the new one. However, in the long term, a system of presumed consent will be accepted and readily understood.
Christine Grahame and Malcolm Chisholm suggested that a system should be adopted that allows for people to opt in and opt out. That is an interesting idea, but I am not sure that it would work. Members of a certain vintage, including George Foulkes, will recall the 1979 devolution referendum, in which those who did not vote effectively voted no. The statistics show that even though the vast majority of people are happy to donate their organs, they never add their name to the register. In an opt-in and opt-out system, those who do neither effectively opt out. That would be little or no improvement on the current situation.
In the run-up to the debate, I heard concerns expressed that doctors would allow certain patients to die in order to use their organs for a patient waiting for transplant. I cannot conceive of a situation in which a doctor would do that; it runs counter to the Hippocratic oath. Why would a doctor, concerned to save the life of one patient, not be concerned to save the life of another?
I understand Roseanna Cunningham's point about the incentive to publicise the opt-out. However, it is not beyond our collective wit, as legislators, to devise a system that necessitates such publicity. Indeed, it is the only way in which presumed consent will work with legitimacy. Equally, it is not beyond us to design a system sensitively, taking the interests of the donor family into account. When it is all thrown up in the air, I do not see the strength of the argument against presumed consent. All I see are hundreds of patients slowly dying on the transplant waiting list. We have it in our hands to help save their lives. I hope that when the time comes we will move towards a system of presumed consent and help those people.
Debate on Biodiversity Strategy - 24th January 2008
Debate on Biodiversity Strategy - 24th January 2008
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Mike Russell said at the beginning of the debate that he was concerned that he might hear a lot of scientific terms and complicated words. I suspect that his comments were directed at colleagues such as Dr Bill Wilson, given his expertise and understanding of those matters, rather than at me, but I give Mike Russell an undertaking that I will keep such references to a bare minimum — for my sake, if not for his.
Biodiversity is important, and our Government has certain obligations to meet in respect of it. Those obligations, as set out in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the EU target to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as well as domestic initiatives, are reflected in Scottish policy and legislation.
It is important that the Parliament has a chance to scrutinise how well we are doing in ensuring that biodiversity in Scotland is maintained, so I welcome today's debate. It is clear from the minister's opening speech that much has been achieved in the past three years, since the adoption of the Scottish biodiversity strategy. Those involved in that work deserve our thanks.
The Scottish biodiversity forum is a clever approach to the maintenance of Scotland's biodiversity, combining as it does the Government and its agencies, representatives of those who work our land and seas, local government and, vitally, the well-established bodies in the third sector that have an interest in biodiversity. Those who invest their efforts in ensuring the maintenance of Scotland's biodiversity are to be congratulated.
However, while congratulations on the work thus far undertaken are due, much remains to be done. Members will have received the briefing for the debate from Scottish Environment LINK, which rightly points out that
"The loss of wildlife is not just of importance to scientists and enthusiasts. The loss of genetic diversity, species, and damage to habitats and ecosystems affects us all, in many ways we are only beginning to understand".
The first thing that must be done is to build on the good work that the minister has mentioned and ensure the continued rich diversity of our land and waters. I understand that the Scottish biodiversity forum is due to consult on the next three years of the biodiversity strategy. I look forward to seeing what emerges from the consultation, and trust that it will seek to build on what has gone before.
The minister set out some of the many challenges that exist for the future. He rightly pointed out that climate change is prime among them. Earlier today, I spoke in Patrick Harvie's members' business debate on the subject. I welcome the Scottish Government's hugely ambitious aim to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by midway through the century.
I look forward to any marine bill that emerges from the Government. I am interested in how it may play a part in protecting biodiversity.
It is clear to me that the task of maintaining biodiversity is taken seriously by our Government, and that, as the minister mentioned, it is building on the work that began under the previous Administration, which also deserves congratulations.
I commend the activities that are being undertaken in Scotland to protect biodiversity and I commend the Government motion and the two amendments.
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Mike Russell said at the beginning of the debate that he was concerned that he might hear a lot of scientific terms and complicated words. I suspect that his comments were directed at colleagues such as Dr Bill Wilson, given his expertise and understanding of those matters, rather than at me, but I give Mike Russell an undertaking that I will keep such references to a bare minimum — for my sake, if not for his.
Biodiversity is important, and our Government has certain obligations to meet in respect of it. Those obligations, as set out in the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the EU target to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as well as domestic initiatives, are reflected in Scottish policy and legislation.
It is important that the Parliament has a chance to scrutinise how well we are doing in ensuring that biodiversity in Scotland is maintained, so I welcome today's debate. It is clear from the minister's opening speech that much has been achieved in the past three years, since the adoption of the Scottish biodiversity strategy. Those involved in that work deserve our thanks.
The Scottish biodiversity forum is a clever approach to the maintenance of Scotland's biodiversity, combining as it does the Government and its agencies, representatives of those who work our land and seas, local government and, vitally, the well-established bodies in the third sector that have an interest in biodiversity. Those who invest their efforts in ensuring the maintenance of Scotland's biodiversity are to be congratulated.
However, while congratulations on the work thus far undertaken are due, much remains to be done. Members will have received the briefing for the debate from Scottish Environment LINK, which rightly points out that
"The loss of wildlife is not just of importance to scientists and enthusiasts. The loss of genetic diversity, species, and damage to habitats and ecosystems affects us all, in many ways we are only beginning to understand".
The first thing that must be done is to build on the good work that the minister has mentioned and ensure the continued rich diversity of our land and waters. I understand that the Scottish biodiversity forum is due to consult on the next three years of the biodiversity strategy. I look forward to seeing what emerges from the consultation, and trust that it will seek to build on what has gone before.
The minister set out some of the many challenges that exist for the future. He rightly pointed out that climate change is prime among them. Earlier today, I spoke in Patrick Harvie's members' business debate on the subject. I welcome the Scottish Government's hugely ambitious aim to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent by midway through the century.
I look forward to any marine bill that emerges from the Government. I am interested in how it may play a part in protecting biodiversity.
It is clear to me that the task of maintaining biodiversity is taken seriously by our Government, and that, as the minister mentioned, it is building on the work that began under the previous Administration, which also deserves congratulations.
I commend the activities that are being undertaken in Scotland to protect biodiversity and I commend the Government motion and the two amendments.
Waste Announcement - 24th January 2008
Waste Announcement - 24th January 2008
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Does the cabinet secretary agree that taxation can be about more than just the economy and that, if it is used properly, it can boost environmental initiatives? He spoke about landfill. Does he believe that control over the landfill tax should be the preserve of the Scottish Government and this Parliament? Does he believe that the unionist parties should consider that issue as part of their tripartite commission that is investigating the devolution of more powers to the Scottish Parliament?
Richard Lochhead: Of course I believe that if this Parliament had greater options to work up eco-taxes—if we had the fiscal powers to do so—that would greatly help our environmental and waste strategies. Unfortunately, for the time being, we do not have those powers. Perhaps that is something that the other parties in this chamber can reflect on. The environment is far more important than the unionist parties' obsession with the constitution.
Control of the landfill tax should be devolved to this Parliament. It is estimated that, of the roughly £1 billion that the United Kingdom raises from landfill tax, perhaps—I say "perhaps" because Scottish figures are not published—up to £100 million is generated in Scotland. That will not be reflected in our Barnett consequentials, so we are paying a net fund to the UK Treasury under the landfill tax. Of course, we should be able to retain that resource in Scotland in order to invest it in the future of Scotland's environment.
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Does the cabinet secretary agree that taxation can be about more than just the economy and that, if it is used properly, it can boost environmental initiatives? He spoke about landfill. Does he believe that control over the landfill tax should be the preserve of the Scottish Government and this Parliament? Does he believe that the unionist parties should consider that issue as part of their tripartite commission that is investigating the devolution of more powers to the Scottish Parliament?
Richard Lochhead: Of course I believe that if this Parliament had greater options to work up eco-taxes—if we had the fiscal powers to do so—that would greatly help our environmental and waste strategies. Unfortunately, for the time being, we do not have those powers. Perhaps that is something that the other parties in this chamber can reflect on. The environment is far more important than the unionist parties' obsession with the constitution.
Control of the landfill tax should be devolved to this Parliament. It is estimated that, of the roughly £1 billion that the United Kingdom raises from landfill tax, perhaps—I say "perhaps" because Scottish figures are not published—up to £100 million is generated in Scotland. That will not be reflected in our Barnett consequentials, so we are paying a net fund to the UK Treasury under the landfill tax. Of course, we should be able to retain that resource in Scotland in order to invest it in the future of Scotland's environment.
Debate on Educational Institutions (Environmental Performance) - 24th January 2008
Debate on Educational Institutions (Environmental Performance) - 24th January 2008
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I congratulate Patrick Harvie on bringing the motion to the chamber and facilitating the debate. I was happy to lend my support to the motion.
People & Planet has been active since my time at university, although my experience is rather more recent than that of many members in the chamber. That said, one notable exception is Richard Baker, who was the president of the National Union of Students in Scotland when I was the senior vice-president of the University of Glasgow student representative council.
Those involved in People & Planet are to be congratulated on their activism. In a day and age when cynicism seems to run rampant, those involved in People & Planet scotch the myth that the young, including students, lack the social concerns of their forebears. I challenge anyone to turn up at an event that it has organised and go on to assert that student activism is dead.
The young may identify less with traditional party politics, but the big issues of our time—whether the drive for environmental change or the anti-war movement—continue to attract support. It is important for those of us who went down the traditional party-political route to engage with and support such extra-parliamentary activity. Today's debate is an important part of that process.
This Government and previous Administrations have stated their desire to use universities as a driving force for economic development. I have no problem with that—indeed, I support it. However, as much as being drivers for economic growth, our universities must be exemplars when it comes to environmental management. They must make the best use of the resources that are available to them.
Therefore, it is with some disappointment that I note the relatively poor performance of Scottish higher education institutions in the People & Planet green league for environmental performance, which is the league table to which Patrick Harvie referred. The league table is a clever idea: it ranks the performance of universities by traditional university grade.
Congratulations are due to the two Scottish universities that achieved a first: the University of Edinburgh and the University of St Andrews. Given the commonplace suggestion that almost all students come away from university with a 2:1—and before any member asks the question, I include myself in that category—it was with some surprise that I noted that no Scottish university achieved that grade. It was also with some disappointment that I noted that my alma mater, the University of Glasgow, achieved only a 2:2, although I take solace from the fact that we finished just ahead of the University of Strathclyde. That should just about see us through.
Joking aside, we have to think about why Scotland ranks so badly among United Kingdom universities. Are our sights as a nation lifted high enough? In the past, did our universities not receive the support that they needed? Would it not be better for our university principals to direct some of the thousands that they awarded themselves in the recent pay increase towards ensuring best environmental practice?
I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say on these matters. Climate change is the great challenge of our time. Nowadays, students may be the ones who rise to meet the challenge. Today, we need to encourage them. I congratulate People & Planet on the positive role that it plays.
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): I congratulate Patrick Harvie on bringing the motion to the chamber and facilitating the debate. I was happy to lend my support to the motion.
People & Planet has been active since my time at university, although my experience is rather more recent than that of many members in the chamber. That said, one notable exception is Richard Baker, who was the president of the National Union of Students in Scotland when I was the senior vice-president of the University of Glasgow student representative council.
Those involved in People & Planet are to be congratulated on their activism. In a day and age when cynicism seems to run rampant, those involved in People & Planet scotch the myth that the young, including students, lack the social concerns of their forebears. I challenge anyone to turn up at an event that it has organised and go on to assert that student activism is dead.
The young may identify less with traditional party politics, but the big issues of our time—whether the drive for environmental change or the anti-war movement—continue to attract support. It is important for those of us who went down the traditional party-political route to engage with and support such extra-parliamentary activity. Today's debate is an important part of that process.
This Government and previous Administrations have stated their desire to use universities as a driving force for economic development. I have no problem with that—indeed, I support it. However, as much as being drivers for economic growth, our universities must be exemplars when it comes to environmental management. They must make the best use of the resources that are available to them.
Therefore, it is with some disappointment that I note the relatively poor performance of Scottish higher education institutions in the People & Planet green league for environmental performance, which is the league table to which Patrick Harvie referred. The league table is a clever idea: it ranks the performance of universities by traditional university grade.
Congratulations are due to the two Scottish universities that achieved a first: the University of Edinburgh and the University of St Andrews. Given the commonplace suggestion that almost all students come away from university with a 2:1—and before any member asks the question, I include myself in that category—it was with some surprise that I noted that no Scottish university achieved that grade. It was also with some disappointment that I noted that my alma mater, the University of Glasgow, achieved only a 2:2, although I take solace from the fact that we finished just ahead of the University of Strathclyde. That should just about see us through.
Joking aside, we have to think about why Scotland ranks so badly among United Kingdom universities. Are our sights as a nation lifted high enough? In the past, did our universities not receive the support that they needed? Would it not be better for our university principals to direct some of the thousands that they awarded themselves in the recent pay increase towards ensuring best environmental practice?
I look forward to hearing what the cabinet secretary has to say on these matters. Climate change is the great challenge of our time. Nowadays, students may be the ones who rise to meet the challenge. Today, we need to encourage them. I congratulate People & Planet on the positive role that it plays.
Thursday 24 January 2008
A Hain in the Backside for Wendy
The talk of the steamie is the resignation of Peter Hain as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Secretary of State for Wales due to the Electoral Commission referring the issue of the undeclared financial contributions to his (unsuccessful) Labour Party deputy leadership campaign.
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jR2l2427vLfvIsTaC48dBkIl8LNg
The big question now is will this affect Wendy Alexander and the investigation into the illegal donation she admits receiving during her (successful, but then she was the only candidate) Scottish Labour Party leadership campaign.
Well, I suppose time will provide the answer to that question, and I have no idea whether it has any implications for Wendy. I have successfully managed to avoid personal speculation on this matter on this blog thus far, and you won't hear any bold predictions from me about likely outcomes.
Certainly though, the news of Peter Hain's resignation caused a bit of a media scrum (or a stramash as Arthur Montford might have had it) around Wendy Alexander at the Parliament today, and as you might expect there is much speculation amongst the press on this matter.
I must say though, it would be odd if the Electoral Commission referred only Mr Hain's situation to the police and not any others. But then it is a strange old world we live in.
http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jR2l2427vLfvIsTaC48dBkIl8LNg
The big question now is will this affect Wendy Alexander and the investigation into the illegal donation she admits receiving during her (successful, but then she was the only candidate) Scottish Labour Party leadership campaign.
Well, I suppose time will provide the answer to that question, and I have no idea whether it has any implications for Wendy. I have successfully managed to avoid personal speculation on this matter on this blog thus far, and you won't hear any bold predictions from me about likely outcomes.
Certainly though, the news of Peter Hain's resignation caused a bit of a media scrum (or a stramash as Arthur Montford might have had it) around Wendy Alexander at the Parliament today, and as you might expect there is much speculation amongst the press on this matter.
I must say though, it would be odd if the Electoral Commission referred only Mr Hain's situation to the police and not any others. But then it is a strange old world we live in.
Wednesday 23 January 2008
The Soup Incident
I am not going to make a habit of blogging about this woman, but after having a bit of fun talking about my pal Aileen Campbell's fan club on my blog recently (http://520votes.blogspot.com/2008/01/aileen-campbell-fan-club.html) I should point out that today she had a nasty accident with some soup in the Parliament canteen.
Here I should make some obligatory gag about "Campbell's Soup", but I shall resist (or did that count as me having made it), but I can put her fan's worried minds at rest. After a wee trip to hospital to get her wound bandaged she was back within a couple of hours to play her part in seeing the SNP budget through stage one of its process at Parliament.
She has even managed to get some press coverage out of the whole incident:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7205502.stm
The lengths some people will go to get a bit of publicity, eh? Maybe I should go jam my hand in the nearest door and see if I can get some of this coverage too!
Then again, maybe not.
In all seriousness though, glad the accident wasn't too nasty and Aileen is on the mend.
Here I should make some obligatory gag about "Campbell's Soup", but I shall resist (or did that count as me having made it), but I can put her fan's worried minds at rest. After a wee trip to hospital to get her wound bandaged she was back within a couple of hours to play her part in seeing the SNP budget through stage one of its process at Parliament.
She has even managed to get some press coverage out of the whole incident:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7205502.stm
The lengths some people will go to get a bit of publicity, eh? Maybe I should go jam my hand in the nearest door and see if I can get some of this coverage too!
Then again, maybe not.
In all seriousness though, glad the accident wasn't too nasty and Aileen is on the mend.
BBC News Shows SNP Success
The two headline stories on the BBC Ten O'clock News this evening made for interesting viewing.
First up we had news that Council Tax bills in England are set to rise by around 4% in the coming year. This news was of course reported whilst simultaneously pointing out that in Scotland a freeze in the level of Council Tax is very much on the table.
This was followed by news of disgruntled cops have taken to the streets of London to protest the failure of the London Labour government to fully see through their independently agreed pay rise. And this news was also supplemented by pointing out that the pay rise has been fully awarded in Scotland.
Aside from meaning that people in England may soon be asking if the SNP can form their next government, this news will probably have the Daily Mail screaming about how we in Scotland live in a land that is a type of paradise at the expense of all those who live within the area bounded by the M25.
This avoids pointing out some hard truths such as Gordon Brown having relied on Scottish oil revenue to plug the gap in his government's budget over the last number of years, and whilst things are definitely improving in Scotland under the SNP government, I think it would be stretching it to say that we live in a Caledonian paradise.
What the pieces run on the news indicate though is how great a job the SNP is doing, particularly in comparison to the Labour government in London. It is appropriate to point out on the day that the SNP saw through its first ever budget bill at stage one in the Scottish Parliament that this was achieved against the backdrop of the tightest financial settlement ever received by a devolved administration in Scotland.
Just imagine what we could achieve in Scotland if we had full control over all government expenditure and were able to draw upon all of Scotland's resources rather than having to throw a huge slice of this at the illegal war in Iraq, new nuclear weapons or a pointless phony ID card scheme.
First up we had news that Council Tax bills in England are set to rise by around 4% in the coming year. This news was of course reported whilst simultaneously pointing out that in Scotland a freeze in the level of Council Tax is very much on the table.
This was followed by news of disgruntled cops have taken to the streets of London to protest the failure of the London Labour government to fully see through their independently agreed pay rise. And this news was also supplemented by pointing out that the pay rise has been fully awarded in Scotland.
Aside from meaning that people in England may soon be asking if the SNP can form their next government, this news will probably have the Daily Mail screaming about how we in Scotland live in a land that is a type of paradise at the expense of all those who live within the area bounded by the M25.
This avoids pointing out some hard truths such as Gordon Brown having relied on Scottish oil revenue to plug the gap in his government's budget over the last number of years, and whilst things are definitely improving in Scotland under the SNP government, I think it would be stretching it to say that we live in a Caledonian paradise.
What the pieces run on the news indicate though is how great a job the SNP is doing, particularly in comparison to the Labour government in London. It is appropriate to point out on the day that the SNP saw through its first ever budget bill at stage one in the Scottish Parliament that this was achieved against the backdrop of the tightest financial settlement ever received by a devolved administration in Scotland.
Just imagine what we could achieve in Scotland if we had full control over all government expenditure and were able to draw upon all of Scotland's resources rather than having to throw a huge slice of this at the illegal war in Iraq, new nuclear weapons or a pointless phony ID card scheme.
Tuesday 22 January 2008
Independence is Straightforward, Devolution is a Muddle
I was interested to read in the Herald earlier today that Scotland Office minister David Cairns has set his face against the devolution of broadcasting powers, believing that this would be luddite.
Afraid I can't find a link folks, but there is a bit at the end of the following Scotsman piece about this (scroll past the bit about Nature programmes to find it):
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Nature-programmes---an.3695652.jp
In itself this is interesting enough. It is a pretty clear statement from a UK government minister that he doesn't believe Scots are competent enough to manage their own media adequately, despite numerous countries across the globe similar in size or smaller than Scotland proving themselves quite capable of doing so. His use of the term "luddite" is thrown in to try and indicate how backwards anyone who believes otherwise is.
All perfect nonsense of course. We could quite capably manage our own media, and in doing so we might even get our fair share of TV license revenues raised in Scotland.
However, this was interesting in a wider way too.
Much is being made by the three unionist parties of their tripartite approach to establishing a commission to determine what extra powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I would have thought that control over broadcasting would have been an obvious option. After all it hardly seems likely that the UK government are about to suggest devolution of foreign affairs or defence to Holyrood, and I would have thought broadcasting would be more likely than any major devolution over taxation and benefits. After all, Gordon Brown has already ruled out devolution over corporation tax. So, you might, like I, have considered that something like broadcasting might be on the cards.
Not so it seems after this latest broadside from David Cairns.
What then might be offered by this Commission? What is up for discussion?
The first problem they face is that the three different parties involved will all have different ideas about what should be devolved. This will involve to-ing and fro-ing and horsetrading between them I would imagine. But it is clear that there is no concise unified approach to further devolution.
The second problem that any devolutionist faces in wrenching greater powers from the British state is that control over these matters is the preserve of the Westminster Parliament. It will take legislation from London to devolve further powers. Given Mr Cairns' outburst regarding broadcasting there are no guarantees that such legislation will be willingly brought forward to comply with an initiative from the unionist parties in the Scottish Parliament.
That is why I believe it is actually a far easier process to move to independence than it is to secure further devolution. If a devolved government with the backing of the Scottish people can move us towards independence then it is much smoother than a drip by drip process of accumulating additional powers.
Sure, it is right that strictly speaking the Scotland Act reserves such matters to Westminster in the same way it does the devolution of powers in a piecemeal fashion. However, the realpolitik of a scenario in which a devolved government with the full backing of the Scottish people has moved the country to independence transcends any such reservation of powers.
That is not so much the case with the devolution of this power here and that power there. In such a scenario you are still very much beholden upon Westminster granting such powers.
This is why I believe the process of moving to independence, far from being the huge difficulty unionists make it out to be, is actually far simpler than the acquisition of extra powers to the Scottish Parliament in the context of devolution.
This is to say nothing of the fact it is more logical.
I can never understand why someone would say that they believe we should control this or that thing here in Scotland but not have control over foreign affairs and defence. If we can adequately take care of any extra powers the unionist Commission proposes, then we are more than capable enough of adequately administering an independent state.
But logic has never been high on the unionist agenda. Even though they won't admit it, this Commission is born out of fear of the SNP forming the government in Scotland and moving us towards independence.
The unionists will just have to get used to that though!
Afraid I can't find a link folks, but there is a bit at the end of the following Scotsman piece about this (scroll past the bit about Nature programmes to find it):
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Nature-programmes---an.3695652.jp
In itself this is interesting enough. It is a pretty clear statement from a UK government minister that he doesn't believe Scots are competent enough to manage their own media adequately, despite numerous countries across the globe similar in size or smaller than Scotland proving themselves quite capable of doing so. His use of the term "luddite" is thrown in to try and indicate how backwards anyone who believes otherwise is.
All perfect nonsense of course. We could quite capably manage our own media, and in doing so we might even get our fair share of TV license revenues raised in Scotland.
However, this was interesting in a wider way too.
Much is being made by the three unionist parties of their tripartite approach to establishing a commission to determine what extra powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I would have thought that control over broadcasting would have been an obvious option. After all it hardly seems likely that the UK government are about to suggest devolution of foreign affairs or defence to Holyrood, and I would have thought broadcasting would be more likely than any major devolution over taxation and benefits. After all, Gordon Brown has already ruled out devolution over corporation tax. So, you might, like I, have considered that something like broadcasting might be on the cards.
Not so it seems after this latest broadside from David Cairns.
What then might be offered by this Commission? What is up for discussion?
The first problem they face is that the three different parties involved will all have different ideas about what should be devolved. This will involve to-ing and fro-ing and horsetrading between them I would imagine. But it is clear that there is no concise unified approach to further devolution.
The second problem that any devolutionist faces in wrenching greater powers from the British state is that control over these matters is the preserve of the Westminster Parliament. It will take legislation from London to devolve further powers. Given Mr Cairns' outburst regarding broadcasting there are no guarantees that such legislation will be willingly brought forward to comply with an initiative from the unionist parties in the Scottish Parliament.
That is why I believe it is actually a far easier process to move to independence than it is to secure further devolution. If a devolved government with the backing of the Scottish people can move us towards independence then it is much smoother than a drip by drip process of accumulating additional powers.
Sure, it is right that strictly speaking the Scotland Act reserves such matters to Westminster in the same way it does the devolution of powers in a piecemeal fashion. However, the realpolitik of a scenario in which a devolved government with the full backing of the Scottish people has moved the country to independence transcends any such reservation of powers.
That is not so much the case with the devolution of this power here and that power there. In such a scenario you are still very much beholden upon Westminster granting such powers.
This is why I believe the process of moving to independence, far from being the huge difficulty unionists make it out to be, is actually far simpler than the acquisition of extra powers to the Scottish Parliament in the context of devolution.
This is to say nothing of the fact it is more logical.
I can never understand why someone would say that they believe we should control this or that thing here in Scotland but not have control over foreign affairs and defence. If we can adequately take care of any extra powers the unionist Commission proposes, then we are more than capable enough of adequately administering an independent state.
But logic has never been high on the unionist agenda. Even though they won't admit it, this Commission is born out of fear of the SNP forming the government in Scotland and moving us towards independence.
The unionists will just have to get used to that though!
Monday 21 January 2008
Richard Littlejohn: One of Lifes Great Idiots
I was reading the blog of Bethan Jenkins, Plaid Cymru member of the Welsh Assembly, when I read her latest posting:
http://bethanjenkins.blogspot.com/2008/01/murder-of-ipswich-women-daily-mail.html
As Bethan writes about, it seems that Richard Littlejohn has been spewing forth more of the venomous bile for which he is so handsomely rewarded. Some will recall that he was the imbecile who took great delight in denigrating Scotland on Question Time. However, that is not what I am so worked up about. His latest piece is by far more disgraceful.
The latest brunt of his attack has been the victims of murder in Ipswich. These victims happened to have been prostitutes. For some reason this has led Mr Littlejohn to believe it is acceptable to write the following article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=423549&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=322
However, whilst these women happened to be prostitutes, they were above all human beings. They were somebodies daughter.
That is why I cannot fathom why any decent minded individual would think it acceptable to write the following of their murder, "in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss". But that is exactly what Richard Littlejohn has written folks.
I suppose the crux of the issue is that I said I cannot fathom why any decent minded individual. Richard Littlejohn can be described as many things, but decent minded is not uppermost among them.
Mr Littlejohn suggests that the death of the women is no great loss because "they weren't going to discover a cure for cancer or embark on missionary work in Darfur". Neither is he likely to do so any time soon either. What is his point then? That only certain human lives are valuable, or some are more valuable than others?
His logic in this article is appalling. He dehumanises the victims to the point where their deaths are meaningless. It is this kind of thinking that leads to the writing off of innocent victims of war as acceptable "collateral damage". I don't think it is stretching the point to say it is this kind of thinking that allowed a band of murderous zealots in the mid twentieth century to try an exterminate an entire people as "Untermensch".
Anyway, I have probably spent too much time writing about this idiot, but had to vent my spleen somehow!
http://bethanjenkins.blogspot.com/2008/01/murder-of-ipswich-women-daily-mail.html
As Bethan writes about, it seems that Richard Littlejohn has been spewing forth more of the venomous bile for which he is so handsomely rewarded. Some will recall that he was the imbecile who took great delight in denigrating Scotland on Question Time. However, that is not what I am so worked up about. His latest piece is by far more disgraceful.
The latest brunt of his attack has been the victims of murder in Ipswich. These victims happened to have been prostitutes. For some reason this has led Mr Littlejohn to believe it is acceptable to write the following article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/columnists/columnists.html?in_article_id=423549&in_page_id=1772&in_author_id=322
However, whilst these women happened to be prostitutes, they were above all human beings. They were somebodies daughter.
That is why I cannot fathom why any decent minded individual would think it acceptable to write the following of their murder, "in the scheme of things the deaths of these five women is no great loss". But that is exactly what Richard Littlejohn has written folks.
I suppose the crux of the issue is that I said I cannot fathom why any decent minded individual. Richard Littlejohn can be described as many things, but decent minded is not uppermost among them.
Mr Littlejohn suggests that the death of the women is no great loss because "they weren't going to discover a cure for cancer or embark on missionary work in Darfur". Neither is he likely to do so any time soon either. What is his point then? That only certain human lives are valuable, or some are more valuable than others?
His logic in this article is appalling. He dehumanises the victims to the point where their deaths are meaningless. It is this kind of thinking that leads to the writing off of innocent victims of war as acceptable "collateral damage". I don't think it is stretching the point to say it is this kind of thinking that allowed a band of murderous zealots in the mid twentieth century to try an exterminate an entire people as "Untermensch".
Anyway, I have probably spent too much time writing about this idiot, but had to vent my spleen somehow!
Sunday 20 January 2008
Scotland vs Sweden
Apparently John McTernan, senior aide to Des Browne, who some of you may be aware fulfils a role apparently designated Secretary of State for Scotland (whilst he can find the time between running the Ministry of Defence at the same time), considers our country to be "narrow, Presbyterian and racist". Seemingly he made this comment in an e-mail to Labour MSP Karen Gillon five years ago. He wrote the whilst an employee of the Scottish Arts Council, who have released the documents. This is written about in an article in the Scotland on Sunday:
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Des-Browne-aide-Scotland-is.3691744.jp
He made the comment in light of Karen Gillon apparently preparing to visit Sweden on holiday, when he said, "If you've not been to Sweden before I think you'll really like it. It's the country Scotland would be if it was not narrow, Presbyterian, racist, etc, etc. Social democracy in action."
First, it is fair to say that of course Presbyterianism and racism exist in Scotland, and there are people with narrow viewpoints as well.
I am not quite sure why Presbyterianism should bear the brunt of such hostility from Mr McTernan, any more than any other branch of Christianity and I imagine there will be many members of the Church of Scotland pretty insulted by the suggestion that it falls neatly alongside racism and a narrow viewpoint. Indeed, wouldn't it be interesting to know what Prime Minister Gordon Brown - who makes great play of the fact that his moral compass is derived from his Presbyterian upbringing - thinks of John McTernan's outburst?
Equally racism and other forms of bigotry do exist in Scotland, but I think to characterise it as a national characteristic for Scotland is somewhat ludicrous to say the least.
I have been to Sweden, and Mr McTernan is right to praise it. I agree that it is a viable demonstration of "social democracy in action". I want our country to emulate the experience of Sweden and the other Nordic countries. These countries have amongst the highest standards of living in the world.
However, I am sure that racism exists in Sweden and the Nordic countries. Indeed, Sweden and Denmark have had more problems of the far right than we have in Scotland. Furthermore, I am sure that there are those who are "narrow" in Sweden too. And even though Sweden is Lutheran and not Calvinist like the Church of Scotland, I am sure you might find the odd Presbyterian located here or there in Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmo.
It is a nonsense then to characterise Scotland as any more narrow or racist (maybe Presbyterian in fairness to Mr McTernan, but I still don't get the insult) than any other country on the planet.
It is true that we have greater levels of deprivation, a poorer quality of life, lower life expectancy and lower wages than Sweden, but Mr McTernan's own party - in government for coming on eleven years in Scotland - might want to look in to themselves for some of the blame there.
As I said, I have been to Sweden, just as John McTernan seems to have been. If I were to tell anyone of it I would say this, "If you've not been to Sweden before I think you'll really like it. It's the country Scotland could be if it was independent. Social democracy in action."
Wonder why John McTernan didn't say that?
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Des-Browne-aide-Scotland-is.3691744.jp
He made the comment in light of Karen Gillon apparently preparing to visit Sweden on holiday, when he said, "If you've not been to Sweden before I think you'll really like it. It's the country Scotland would be if it was not narrow, Presbyterian, racist, etc, etc. Social democracy in action."
First, it is fair to say that of course Presbyterianism and racism exist in Scotland, and there are people with narrow viewpoints as well.
I am not quite sure why Presbyterianism should bear the brunt of such hostility from Mr McTernan, any more than any other branch of Christianity and I imagine there will be many members of the Church of Scotland pretty insulted by the suggestion that it falls neatly alongside racism and a narrow viewpoint. Indeed, wouldn't it be interesting to know what Prime Minister Gordon Brown - who makes great play of the fact that his moral compass is derived from his Presbyterian upbringing - thinks of John McTernan's outburst?
Equally racism and other forms of bigotry do exist in Scotland, but I think to characterise it as a national characteristic for Scotland is somewhat ludicrous to say the least.
I have been to Sweden, and Mr McTernan is right to praise it. I agree that it is a viable demonstration of "social democracy in action". I want our country to emulate the experience of Sweden and the other Nordic countries. These countries have amongst the highest standards of living in the world.
However, I am sure that racism exists in Sweden and the Nordic countries. Indeed, Sweden and Denmark have had more problems of the far right than we have in Scotland. Furthermore, I am sure that there are those who are "narrow" in Sweden too. And even though Sweden is Lutheran and not Calvinist like the Church of Scotland, I am sure you might find the odd Presbyterian located here or there in Stockholm, Gothenburg or Malmo.
It is a nonsense then to characterise Scotland as any more narrow or racist (maybe Presbyterian in fairness to Mr McTernan, but I still don't get the insult) than any other country on the planet.
It is true that we have greater levels of deprivation, a poorer quality of life, lower life expectancy and lower wages than Sweden, but Mr McTernan's own party - in government for coming on eleven years in Scotland - might want to look in to themselves for some of the blame there.
As I said, I have been to Sweden, just as John McTernan seems to have been. If I were to tell anyone of it I would say this, "If you've not been to Sweden before I think you'll really like it. It's the country Scotland could be if it was independent. Social democracy in action."
Wonder why John McTernan didn't say that?
Friday 18 January 2008
Questions (Rail Services and Older People) - 17th January 2008
General Questions - 17th January 2008
Rail Services
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Does the minister agree that decisions by John Prescott and the Labour Government have thus far prevented direct links from Scotland to Europe via the Channel tunnel? Will the Scottish Government continue to ensure that its welcome upgrades to the railway system in Scotland always take into account the potential for links to the wider European network and not just the UK network?
Stewart Stevenson: The member highlights the significant investments that we are making to improve the railway system in Scotland, thus addressing many of the difficulties that we have inherited. It is a shame that Charlie Gordon was not sufficiently persuasive when he talked to John Prescott, but I am certainly not going to overly criticise him for that.
Health and Wellbeing Questions - 17th January 2008
Older People (Lifestyles)
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to promote active and healthy lifestyles among older people. (S3O-1946)
The Minister for Public Health (Shona Robison): "All Our Futures: Planning for a Scotland with an Ageing Population" sets out a framework for supporting older people to live life to the full. A healthy and active life is central to that. A range of measures are in place to promote good physical and mental health and active lifestyles among older people, including community walking initiatives for older people, such as the paths to health walking programme.
Jamie Hepburn: Does the minister agree that older people are a vulnerable group in our society? Of late, we have heard much from certain quarters about a concern for vulnerable groups. Although publicly run leisure facilities are primarily a matter for local government, does he share my concern about the removal of discounted swimming for pensioners by Labour-run North Lanarkshire Council? Does that not undermine the health and well-being of vulnerable older people in North Lanarkshire?
Shona Robison: The Government would never want to undermine older people's health and well-being. Although that matter is for the local authority, we expect local authorities and health boards to take account of the recommendations of "All Our Futures" when they develop leisure and other services for older people, and to ensure that those services are accessible and affordable.
Rail Services
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): Does the minister agree that decisions by John Prescott and the Labour Government have thus far prevented direct links from Scotland to Europe via the Channel tunnel? Will the Scottish Government continue to ensure that its welcome upgrades to the railway system in Scotland always take into account the potential for links to the wider European network and not just the UK network?
Stewart Stevenson: The member highlights the significant investments that we are making to improve the railway system in Scotland, thus addressing many of the difficulties that we have inherited. It is a shame that Charlie Gordon was not sufficiently persuasive when he talked to John Prescott, but I am certainly not going to overly criticise him for that.
Health and Wellbeing Questions - 17th January 2008
Older People (Lifestyles)
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to promote active and healthy lifestyles among older people. (S3O-1946)
The Minister for Public Health (Shona Robison): "All Our Futures: Planning for a Scotland with an Ageing Population" sets out a framework for supporting older people to live life to the full. A healthy and active life is central to that. A range of measures are in place to promote good physical and mental health and active lifestyles among older people, including community walking initiatives for older people, such as the paths to health walking programme.
Jamie Hepburn: Does the minister agree that older people are a vulnerable group in our society? Of late, we have heard much from certain quarters about a concern for vulnerable groups. Although publicly run leisure facilities are primarily a matter for local government, does he share my concern about the removal of discounted swimming for pensioners by Labour-run North Lanarkshire Council? Does that not undermine the health and well-being of vulnerable older people in North Lanarkshire?
Shona Robison: The Government would never want to undermine older people's health and well-being. Although that matter is for the local authority, we expect local authorities and health boards to take account of the recommendations of "All Our Futures" when they develop leisure and other services for older people, and to ensure that those services are accessible and affordable.
Thursday 17 January 2008
Fisheries Statement
I am aware that some of my fellow blogging MSPs post excerpts from their contributions in the Scottish Parliament chamber. Whether this is an exercise in vanity or not, I thought I would give it a go. It provides easy material after all and allows me to maintain my new year's resolution to blog more often.
We will see how long this new endeavour lasts!
----------------
Fisheries Statement - 16th January 2008
Question by Jamie Hepburn MSP to Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, Richard Lochhead MSP
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): The Government announced last year that it will set up a Scottish fisheries convention and a Scottish fisheries council. In light of the fisheries talks and the associated agreement, will the minister tell Parliament what those bodies will do and when they will meet?
Richard Lochhead: The Scottish sea fisheries council meets for the first time next week, and the convention on the future of Scotland's fishing communities will meet in two or three months' time. We feel that the community dimension of fisheries policy in Scotland needs more attention. I am sure that the Parliament agrees that fisheries policy is about not simply TACs and quotas but the impact that it has on real, living, working communities on our shores. That is why it is important to recognise the community impact, as well as the cultural and social impacts, of decisions that are taken in Brussels. The purpose of the convention on the future of Scotland's fishing communities is to bring together local authority representatives with organisations around Scotland that might not be directly related to fisheries management issues but which have a clear interest in the future of our fishing communities.
We will see how long this new endeavour lasts!
----------------
Fisheries Statement - 16th January 2008
Question by Jamie Hepburn MSP to Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, Richard Lochhead MSP
Jamie Hepburn (Central Scotland) (SNP): The Government announced last year that it will set up a Scottish fisheries convention and a Scottish fisheries council. In light of the fisheries talks and the associated agreement, will the minister tell Parliament what those bodies will do and when they will meet?
Richard Lochhead: The Scottish sea fisheries council meets for the first time next week, and the convention on the future of Scotland's fishing communities will meet in two or three months' time. We feel that the community dimension of fisheries policy in Scotland needs more attention. I am sure that the Parliament agrees that fisheries policy is about not simply TACs and quotas but the impact that it has on real, living, working communities on our shores. That is why it is important to recognise the community impact, as well as the cultural and social impacts, of decisions that are taken in Brussels. The purpose of the convention on the future of Scotland's fishing communities is to bring together local authority representatives with organisations around Scotland that might not be directly related to fisheries management issues but which have a clear interest in the future of our fishing communities.
No Nuclear Power Please
An important debate took place in the Parliament today on the future of how we will source Scotland's energy.
During the debate my colleague Joe Fitzpatrick was able to inform the Parliament of the potential for renewable energy in his own city of Dundee. According to Joe, Dundee is the sunniest of all Scotland's cities, making it a likely candidate for harnessing the power of the sun. Mr Fitzpatrick also was able to tell us about the potential for the creation of ethanol from the seaweed in the Firth of Tay on which his home town in nestled.
Mike Russell suggested that this begot the potential slogan "It's Scotland's Seaweed". I actually thought it was more likely that Joe was trying to supplant the traditional "three J's" of Dundee (Jute, Jam and Journalism) with a new "three S" motif, "Sun, Seaweed and the Sunday Post" (the last a nod to the fact that journalism is the one remaining "J" alive and kicking in the city).
Anyway, aside from these nonsensical observations, Joe and many other MSPs were able to point out the huge potential for renewables in Scotland. Unfortunately there were some who were making the case for the continued reliance on nuclear power.
The justification for this varied from the need to maintain a baseload to the need to ensure energy supply beyond the lifetime of more finite sources of energy.
There is no denying that we of course need to maintain a baseload to ensure adequate supply of energy to meet all our domestic requirements. However, the fact of the matter is that nuclear is supplying less of that energy today than it has in the past. Nuclear power stations in Scotland actually generate less energy than the combined amount of renewables generated energy. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of humankind to ensure a suitable mix of renewables sources in the twenty first century to ensure a baseload adequate for our requirements.
Michael McMahon, Labour MSP for Hamilton North and Bellshill for some reason quoted John F Kennedy's "Man on the Moon" speech during the debate. I shall be charitable and avoid snide statements about Labour members being wired to the moon! He was trying to use the speech as some form of justification for nuclear power, as far as I could understand. He failed to make the comparison properly I feel, but it did serve as a useful reminder of the scientific achievements that people have made.
If we can successfully send a man to the moon and return him to the earth, then I do not believe it is beyond us to develop the proper mix of renewables energy in Scotland to meet our requirements.
As for the suggestion that nuclear is needed to breach the gap left by expired finite resources, it fails to pay cognisance to the fact that nuclear power is reliant upon uranium that must be mined from the ground and is itself a finite resource. This is to fail to mention that this uranium is often sourced from some of the most volatile parts of the world.
It is also to fail to mention the fact that still we have not worked out how to safely store nuclear waste. I doubt we ever will. It seems an oxymoron in itself. How can you safely store radioactive waste? This is material that remains hazardous for thousands of years, yet some would have us store it somewhere as yet to be defined. Funnily enough the proponents of nuclear power in today's debate didn't offer a corner of their garden to bury the toxic stuff in. Maybe they're not so keen on it after all?
Anyway, this is all to say that I am proud to be in a party in government that is opposing an expensive and dangerous new generation of nuclear power stations supported by Gordon Brown's Labour government at Westminster. It was pointed out today, that Scotland is a net exporter of energy. That being the case, and it also being the case that we have only begun to scratch the surface of our national renewables potential, I cannot see the logic in building new nuclear power stations in Scotland.
During the debate my colleague Joe Fitzpatrick was able to inform the Parliament of the potential for renewable energy in his own city of Dundee. According to Joe, Dundee is the sunniest of all Scotland's cities, making it a likely candidate for harnessing the power of the sun. Mr Fitzpatrick also was able to tell us about the potential for the creation of ethanol from the seaweed in the Firth of Tay on which his home town in nestled.
Mike Russell suggested that this begot the potential slogan "It's Scotland's Seaweed". I actually thought it was more likely that Joe was trying to supplant the traditional "three J's" of Dundee (Jute, Jam and Journalism) with a new "three S" motif, "Sun, Seaweed and the Sunday Post" (the last a nod to the fact that journalism is the one remaining "J" alive and kicking in the city).
Anyway, aside from these nonsensical observations, Joe and many other MSPs were able to point out the huge potential for renewables in Scotland. Unfortunately there were some who were making the case for the continued reliance on nuclear power.
The justification for this varied from the need to maintain a baseload to the need to ensure energy supply beyond the lifetime of more finite sources of energy.
There is no denying that we of course need to maintain a baseload to ensure adequate supply of energy to meet all our domestic requirements. However, the fact of the matter is that nuclear is supplying less of that energy today than it has in the past. Nuclear power stations in Scotland actually generate less energy than the combined amount of renewables generated energy. I do not believe it is beyond the wit of humankind to ensure a suitable mix of renewables sources in the twenty first century to ensure a baseload adequate for our requirements.
Michael McMahon, Labour MSP for Hamilton North and Bellshill for some reason quoted John F Kennedy's "Man on the Moon" speech during the debate. I shall be charitable and avoid snide statements about Labour members being wired to the moon! He was trying to use the speech as some form of justification for nuclear power, as far as I could understand. He failed to make the comparison properly I feel, but it did serve as a useful reminder of the scientific achievements that people have made.
If we can successfully send a man to the moon and return him to the earth, then I do not believe it is beyond us to develop the proper mix of renewables energy in Scotland to meet our requirements.
As for the suggestion that nuclear is needed to breach the gap left by expired finite resources, it fails to pay cognisance to the fact that nuclear power is reliant upon uranium that must be mined from the ground and is itself a finite resource. This is to fail to mention that this uranium is often sourced from some of the most volatile parts of the world.
It is also to fail to mention the fact that still we have not worked out how to safely store nuclear waste. I doubt we ever will. It seems an oxymoron in itself. How can you safely store radioactive waste? This is material that remains hazardous for thousands of years, yet some would have us store it somewhere as yet to be defined. Funnily enough the proponents of nuclear power in today's debate didn't offer a corner of their garden to bury the toxic stuff in. Maybe they're not so keen on it after all?
Anyway, this is all to say that I am proud to be in a party in government that is opposing an expensive and dangerous new generation of nuclear power stations supported by Gordon Brown's Labour government at Westminster. It was pointed out today, that Scotland is a net exporter of energy. That being the case, and it also being the case that we have only begun to scratch the surface of our national renewables potential, I cannot see the logic in building new nuclear power stations in Scotland.
Monday 14 January 2008
Scrutiny Panel Report Vindicates Monklands A&E Decision
I was delighted to see that the decision taken early on by the SNP government to save the Accident and Emergency Department at Monklands Hospital - which was of course a manifesto pledge - was further vindicated today with the publication of a report by the Independent Scrutiny Panel established to review the decisions of NHS Lanarkshire that led to the proposals to close the A&E in the first place. The Panel was set up by Health Minister Nicola Sturgeon after she reversed the decision by the previous Labour/Lib-Dem administration to close A&E departments at Monklands and Ayr Hospitals.
People deserve a first-class health service, and easy access to accident and emergency services. The report has totally vindicated the decision by the SNP Government to save the department at Monklands and has also been critical of newer plans submitted by NHS Lanarkshire which would still try to close or reduce intensive care services at Monklands. These proposals received short shrift from the consultants who work in A&E in the area, and now the Independent Scrutiny Panel has said that the changing demographics in Lanarkshire "does not necessarily require a reduction in the level of emergency services (such as emergency surgery, intensive care and emergency medical services) currently provided at Monklands Hospital."
It is now incumbent upon NHS Lanarkshire to accept this report and continue to provide the full level of emergency services currently provided at Monklands.
You can read more at the following links:
http://www.independentscrutinypanels.org.uk/resources/Final+Report+Lan.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7186550.stm
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1962449.0.Scheme_to_shut_AEs_strongly_criticised_in_review.php
People deserve a first-class health service, and easy access to accident and emergency services. The report has totally vindicated the decision by the SNP Government to save the department at Monklands and has also been critical of newer plans submitted by NHS Lanarkshire which would still try to close or reduce intensive care services at Monklands. These proposals received short shrift from the consultants who work in A&E in the area, and now the Independent Scrutiny Panel has said that the changing demographics in Lanarkshire "does not necessarily require a reduction in the level of emergency services (such as emergency surgery, intensive care and emergency medical services) currently provided at Monklands Hospital."
It is now incumbent upon NHS Lanarkshire to accept this report and continue to provide the full level of emergency services currently provided at Monklands.
You can read more at the following links:
http://www.independentscrutinypanels.org.uk/resources/Final+Report+Lan.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7186550.stm
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1962449.0.Scheme_to_shut_AEs_strongly_criticised_in_review.php
Sunday 13 January 2008
The Aileen Campbell Fan Club
Seeing as its the weekend I feel a silly post is in order.
At the Parliament my office is adjacent to that of my good friend, Aileen Campbell MSP. Last week Ms Campbell came bounding into my office with a big daft cheeky grin on her face to ask me if I had a fan club.
It may come as some shock to you that I had to admit to her that in fact I did not have any such fan club.
Her response to me thereafter was - with a little more glee in her riposte than I felt was strictly necessary - that she did in fact have a fan club. It almost made me wonder whether this piece of information had formed the very basis of her original question to me to see whether I had such a club!
Someone had e-mailed her to enlighten her of this fact and to tell her that some enthusiastic users of the Bebo website had established such a club. You can see this for yourself at:
The temerity of Ms Campbell! Not only did she deny me the mantle of being the youngest member of the Scottish Parliament by being born a year after me, but now she has gone and got her very own fan club.
Some people command all the attention.
Me, bitter? Never!
Friday 11 January 2008
Close Down Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp
Today marked the sixth anniversary of the use of the American Guantanamo Bay base on Cuba as a detention camp for those captured in the so called "war on terror". We are told that the rationale for this "war on terror" is to protect the human rights and civil liberties that we enjoy in our society. However, this involves the incarceration of hundreds of people without charge or being brought to trial, many of whom are held in isolation for 22 hours in the day in windowless cells at the Guantanamo Bay site. This clearly represents a fundamental breach of the human rights and civil liberties of those individuals and undermines any concept of protecting the human rights of the rest of us.
Human rights are a universal concept, applicable to all citizens of this planet. That is why the United Nations declaration of human rights - which incidentally has its sixtieth birthday this year - is a universal declaration. When any individual has those same human rights denied to them then it is an attack on the human rights of us all, as it undermines this concept of universality.
Clearly this does not concern the American government much at all, but it concerns me.
Thankfully it concerns many other right minded individuals as well, and I was able to gather with over 150 of them today outside the U.S. Consulate in Edinburgh to protest at the existence of the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay and to call for its closure. This was organised by Amnesty International, who deserve great credit for this, and also for the petition they put together for parliamentarians across the world to sign to call for the closure of the camp that will be delivered to the White House in due course. I was happy to sign this petition as were over 1,200 other world parliamentarians too.
John Watson of Amnesty International informed the gathered crowd today that 53 of the members of the Scottish Parliament were amongst the signatories, which apparently represented the highest percentage of any parliament in the world - a fact which was pleasing to hear.
The event today took the form of hundreds of individuals dressing in similar types of the orange jump suits that have become synonymous with incarceration at Guantanamo Bay, kneeling down in silent protest (see attached photo but please ignore the fact that my eyes are shut). John Watson, myself and Mike Pringle MSP then delivered a letter to the U.S. Consul General setting out objections to the continued existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. What a
surprise it was then that the Scottish security guard manning the Consulate came out to tell us that no one was working that day, but he would gladly take in the letter to be handed in later. Funnily enough, no one gathered there thought it a coincidence that no one was working the same day that a protest was organised outside their front door.
surprise it was then that the Scottish security guard manning the Consulate came out to tell us that no one was working that day, but he would gladly take in the letter to be handed in later. Funnily enough, no one gathered there thought it a coincidence that no one was working the same day that a protest was organised outside their front door.It is to be hoped that 20 January, 2009 will see the inauguration of a more even minded and humanitarian President of the United States that the current incumbent, and that the time will soon be up on the horrendous detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.
Ten Steps to "Go Green"
Climate change affects us all – but we can all do our bit to tackle its causes and effects.
Every time we throw away rubbish, get in the car or turn on the lights we are leaving our mark on our planet.
Earlier this week, I took the Christmas cards that Julie and I had received over the festive season to a local recycling point. This coincided with a new initiative to make it all easier for us to take action on climate change.
The ‘ten steps’ launched by the Scottish Government are straightforward ways for ordinary people to make a difference. If we can get as many families and individuals throughout Scotland to sign up, the impact will be tremendous.
The ten Greener Pledges are:
- Recycle household waste using locally-provided facilities
- Turn the tap off when brushing your teeth
- Switch to using energy-saving light bulbs
- Leave the car at home at least once a week and cycle, walk, share a car or use public transport more often
- Use rechargeable batteries instead of disposable ones
- Reuse carrier bags when you shop
- Buy more seasonal and unpackaged food
- Hang your washing up to dry rather than using a tumbler dryer
- Organise or volunteer in an environmental project in your local community
- Pay back the environmental impact of any flights you take and choose not to fly when there's a suitable alternative
Visit www.infoscotland.com/ourfuture for more information.
Monday 7 January 2008
Electoral Ponderings on the Land of the Brave
Here goes my first post of 2008, a week after stating my resolution to post more often - don't know if this counts as much of an upturn in blogging activity, but never mind!
It seems appropriate to write about the dominant theme in the body politic at the moment, that of the American presidential election. Over the course of the 21st Century many nations will come to prominence as their position on the global stage grows. India, China, and Brazil - it has been well commented upon - fall into this category.
However, in this year of 2008, for better or worse, there remains just one real superpower on the planet, the United States of America. That is why we are captivated by their Presidential election. And we are especially captivated by this contest because it is just so interesting.
I happened to have been in America in the Summer of 2004 when they were building towards the election that year. Everywhere I went was captivated by politics, in a way that doesn't seem to happen here, with people really engaged with the electoral process. That contest was hugely enthralling, as feelings were running so high in the aftermath of Bush's decision to invade Iraq. And of course, Iraq is still a factor this time round, but there are other reasons that this election captures our interest.
For the first time since the 1928 presidential election where neither the sitting President or sitting Vice-President has been actively seeking the nomination of their party for the upcoming contest. This, combined with the emergence of Barack Obama on the Democrat side and Mike Huckabee amongst the Republican front runners makes things interesting. Interesting, because they have shaken the preconceptions that party establishment figures would get the nomination.
Obama's bandwagon is now in top gear as they head into the New Hampshire primary contest, which will be held tomorrow. His victory in the Iowa caucus seems to have proven his electoralibility to some previous doubters and it looks as though many former Hillary Clinton supporters in New Hampshire are now moving his way. Two victories in a row will not have it in the bag for Barack Obama, but will certainly do Clinton's chances in particular real damage. Of course, when primary contests move elsewhere we might see different results. In the traditional South, John Edwards might hold more appeal, given he was the Senator for North Carolina. Clinton might be more successful in Florida, given it is the retirement capital of America and of course Bill was the governor for Arkansas, so the family name might see her through there.
It might be the "big states" that decide the Democratic nomination. Hillary is or course the Senator for New York. If she can't win the primary contest in the very state that she represents then it really would be game over for her I suspect. Obama would you imagine carry Illinois. It might come down to states like California. If Obama can build the same kind of coalition that Robert Kennedy was building in his bid to secure the Democratic nomination forty years ago - and it looks as though he is - then you would imagine he may be able to win there.
Anyway, the machinations of the selection of the Democratic nominee are matched in their interest levels by the Republican Party. Huckabee of course won in Iowa on the back of evangelical support, with most of those supporters wary of the Mormon faith of Mitt Romney, and the supposed social liberalism of Giuliani and McCain. In New Hampshire the voters will be wary of Huckabee's social conservatism and most likely back McCain, although Romney hails from close by and will hope this will curry favour amongst some voters. Giuliani will win in New York and similar type states.
The nomination for the Republicans is wide open. Probably wider than that of the Democrats. Given the specific appeal of the various nominees for the Republican candidacy to different regions and wings of the Republican party it may be that they enter their Convention without a clear nominee. That really would be interesting, as that hasn't happened for a while.
Anyway, maybe this speculation is nonsense and there is a far simpler explanation to it all. My friend Anne McLaughlin commented on her blog following the Iowa result that both Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee won their respective contests due to the fact that they contain the combination "ck" in their names, and that people subconsciously associate this with the word "lucky". (http://indygal.blog.com/ - "It's the "CK"s in the lead" - 4th January 2008)
An interesting observation, and I'm off to change my name by deed poll just in case. And yes, I know that in Scotland you don't actually need to do this to legally change your name before any legal pedants make any comments!
It seems appropriate to write about the dominant theme in the body politic at the moment, that of the American presidential election. Over the course of the 21st Century many nations will come to prominence as their position on the global stage grows. India, China, and Brazil - it has been well commented upon - fall into this category.
However, in this year of 2008, for better or worse, there remains just one real superpower on the planet, the United States of America. That is why we are captivated by their Presidential election. And we are especially captivated by this contest because it is just so interesting.
I happened to have been in America in the Summer of 2004 when they were building towards the election that year. Everywhere I went was captivated by politics, in a way that doesn't seem to happen here, with people really engaged with the electoral process. That contest was hugely enthralling, as feelings were running so high in the aftermath of Bush's decision to invade Iraq. And of course, Iraq is still a factor this time round, but there are other reasons that this election captures our interest.
For the first time since the 1928 presidential election where neither the sitting President or sitting Vice-President has been actively seeking the nomination of their party for the upcoming contest. This, combined with the emergence of Barack Obama on the Democrat side and Mike Huckabee amongst the Republican front runners makes things interesting. Interesting, because they have shaken the preconceptions that party establishment figures would get the nomination.
Obama's bandwagon is now in top gear as they head into the New Hampshire primary contest, which will be held tomorrow. His victory in the Iowa caucus seems to have proven his electoralibility to some previous doubters and it looks as though many former Hillary Clinton supporters in New Hampshire are now moving his way. Two victories in a row will not have it in the bag for Barack Obama, but will certainly do Clinton's chances in particular real damage. Of course, when primary contests move elsewhere we might see different results. In the traditional South, John Edwards might hold more appeal, given he was the Senator for North Carolina. Clinton might be more successful in Florida, given it is the retirement capital of America and of course Bill was the governor for Arkansas, so the family name might see her through there.
It might be the "big states" that decide the Democratic nomination. Hillary is or course the Senator for New York. If she can't win the primary contest in the very state that she represents then it really would be game over for her I suspect. Obama would you imagine carry Illinois. It might come down to states like California. If Obama can build the same kind of coalition that Robert Kennedy was building in his bid to secure the Democratic nomination forty years ago - and it looks as though he is - then you would imagine he may be able to win there.
Anyway, the machinations of the selection of the Democratic nominee are matched in their interest levels by the Republican Party. Huckabee of course won in Iowa on the back of evangelical support, with most of those supporters wary of the Mormon faith of Mitt Romney, and the supposed social liberalism of Giuliani and McCain. In New Hampshire the voters will be wary of Huckabee's social conservatism and most likely back McCain, although Romney hails from close by and will hope this will curry favour amongst some voters. Giuliani will win in New York and similar type states.
The nomination for the Republicans is wide open. Probably wider than that of the Democrats. Given the specific appeal of the various nominees for the Republican candidacy to different regions and wings of the Republican party it may be that they enter their Convention without a clear nominee. That really would be interesting, as that hasn't happened for a while.
Anyway, maybe this speculation is nonsense and there is a far simpler explanation to it all. My friend Anne McLaughlin commented on her blog following the Iowa result that both Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee won their respective contests due to the fact that they contain the combination "ck" in their names, and that people subconsciously associate this with the word "lucky". (http://indygal.blog.com/ - "It's the "CK"s in the lead" - 4th January 2008)
An interesting observation, and I'm off to change my name by deed poll just in case. And yes, I know that in Scotland you don't actually need to do this to legally change your name before any legal pedants make any comments!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
