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
- As he moves to Cabinet, former Transport Minister tells McGrigor options for the A83 ‘will be kept under review’
Thee are sections of the A83 at Rest and Be Thankful and at Achnatra, where this looks to be an issue.
- ‘And how much would this have cost an independent Scotland?’
Agreed. It was a very serious mistake to insist in the full face of the evidence that the prospectus was correct.
This produced three negatives:
- distrust in competence – because the logic of what was ging to happen was clear [and was spelled out, for example, in For Argyll's own 8-piece series from independent research of the worldwide oil and refining sectors] and denying that logic looked clueless and ham handed;
- distrust in integrity, where competence was assumed;
- resentment at being takes for idiots.
Had the lies on the possession of legal advice on Scotland’s potential EU membership not been told; had the prospectus not been calibrated on endless oil money to pay the bills for extravagant additional increases in benefits, with no increase in taxation; and had there been a well conceived alternative currency proposition, together those would have been worth at least another 5%.
- Clegg dreams of threesome coalition for Westminster in the face of the Groper’s revenge
Thank you db. Corrected to ‘…take some seats from both Labour and the Lib Dems’.
And re yours and Lowry’s remarks on Alan Reid’s position, he lost nearly 5% of his vote last time but both the Conservatives and Labour candidates were between him and the SNP candidate Mike Mackenzie, in fourth place.
This time, Alan Reid has nothing to thank his Leader for tonight.
Clegg’s declaration that the Lib Dems would happily shack up in a Labour coalition with the separatist SNP may well cause the fairly numerous Argyll pro-union voters [alarmed by the growth of support for the SNP since they failed to win the independence referendum] to find a safer place for their votes than the Lib Dems.
Where this happens, we would see the majority of those votes going to the pro-union Labour candidate rather than to the Conservative one, since that party is fielding a candidate untried at this level, from the islands and not widely known across Argyll and Bute.
The SNP in Argyll have too much to purge from the chaos of their betrayal of their electoral support in the local authority election in 2012. They may improve their vote but here, on evidence, they cannot be trusted to put local before party interests and are unlikely to take the seat.
The best bet is on either Alan Reid or the Labour candidate, Mary Galbraith – and it would be a foolish person who wrote off Alan Reid too early.
He may issue silly self promotional material and have developed in his public speaking a shouty manner than does not suit him – but he has been an intelligent, dedicated, unshowy hard working constituency MP whom people will not want to let down.
We do not see the SNP taking Argyll. We would see the Conservative vote fall after Gary Mulvaney’s impressive candidacy last time; but we cannot call it between Alan Reid and Mary Galbraith.
- Gigha community ownership on brink of failure
While noting the continuing ambiguity in your statement – that you had ‘nothing whatsoever to do with the authorship of the final report’, which is not the same thing as having written a part of it, we will nevertheless accept your statement above, while reserving the right to revisit the matter in the future should there be reason to do so.
We are happy to apologise for any and all of what you assert are inaccuracies.
We would point out that there is nothing malicious in seeing your status as being capable of a request to write part of so important a document, had you indeed done so; nor do we imagine that you would see an invitation to deliver such work as embarrassing to you or demeaning of you.
- Gigha community ownership on brink of failure
You have repeatedly refused to clarify which part of what we said is incorrect.
The situation therefore remain unclear until you do so.
We have removed the sentence from the article as you asked.
All you have to do is simply to say that you wrote no part of the final report issued by the LRRG.
As we have consistently said,if you do so we will accept that without hesitation.
And where you point directly, as we have asked you to do, to a specific inaccuracy, such as this, we will be happy to apologise for it.
At the moment we can have no idea exactly what you would wish us to apologise for.
powered by SEO Super Comments