Comment posted Scottish government’s mad plan for rural parliament by newsroom.
For Jamie McIntyre: You’re very welcome to contribute to For Argyll – and we wish Ardnamurchan was still with us on paper as well as in spirit.
Everyone interested in doing so is ‘entitled’ to contribute here as they wish – and is welcome. Neither we nor our readers are parochial and everyone is interested in informed discussion and variety of positions.
newsroom also commented
- That would be interesting – what a constituency to cover.
- Think about it.
We’ve got a parliament. It’s not good enough. How will a Division B team help? We have to assume the A team has the best available.
A second outfit can only take some of an already slim talent pool out of Holyrood – the one supposed to represent the entire country, listen to it and govern it. It has to be more productive to ensure that the one we’ve got raises its game to deliver this.
A country the size of Scotland cannot have two parliaments – and pay for two parliaments (one to govern and one just to talk???) – without being a broke ruritania with no time to produce and no production revenues to pay for the talking shops.
And when did you last hear any Scottish serving parliamentarian say anything in or outwith a Holyrood debate that was seriously worth paying to listen to or to remember?
The argument for devo max or independence is largely based on the sense that ‘they’ don’t understand us. But if we don’t or won’t understand each other within a small country, why change anything?
On the brink of considering independence, if we cannot imagine rural and urban folk coming to know and respect each other without ghettoised talking shops – which would quickly be seen as the smart crowd and the teuchters – why do we pretend that the sales ploy of an integrated country with a common purpose is anything other than a decoy bride?
- We agree with Barmore2 and Iain S MacLean that LAs as we know them are showing their age and inability.
But this hot-bath notion is not to be a layer of government so it cannot replace LAs – which are metropolitan and urban as well as rural. And a parliament is not a management structure but a debating chamber.
This expensive folie de grandeur is not one to be ‘wished down’. It is one to be put down.
We do not need more empty talk. We need to start making things.
Recent comments by newsroom
- Welcome for movement on the Oban CHORD project money
Could not agree more.
The council’s management [?] of the CHORD project will go down as one of the longest shaggy dog stories in local authority history.
- Michael Russell’s message to Argyll
Curriculum for Excellence was indeed introduced by Mr Russell’s predecessor, Fiona Hyslop.
He is not responsible for its origins but he is responsible for implementing it.
The one who finally hits the ‘Go’ button is the one responsible for the consequences.
It is immediately obvious that CfE is a content free zone and a jargon riddled notion,
You have only to go to its website and try to make sense of what it says about itself and try to make reason of it.
Mr Russell as the incoming Education Secretary had the opportunity and the authority to bin CfE – but did not.
It is Scotland’s young people and Scotland’s future who will pay for the patent inadequacies of CfE imposed upon it through the superficial engagement of these two ministers.
- New Bute-built landing craft for Scottish Salmon Company – and a name tied to Tarbert
Quite correct. North Bute Primary is in Port Bannatyne and is the only primary school there – and we took a descriptive short cut. Apologies.
- Oban Winter Festival neglected in government promotion of Scotland’s Winter Festivals
So why not include the existing rail service from Glasgow to Oban within the Winter Festival rail access promotion?
- Russell gazumps new First Minister’s Cabinet reshuffle announcement
‘Leaving government’ simply means no longer having a ministerial post.
powered by SEO Super Comments