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
- Here’s how the ‘BT Broadband Security’ scam works – a victim’s narrative
If only it were, Jake.
- Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
Not in my control and hadn’t noticed this myself [so thanks] – and will pass on your concerns.
This us likely to be one of the consequences of recovery from recent outages which were beyond our control.
- Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
It is worth noting that in its judgment the Supreme Court said:
‘“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.’
- Bute refugees suffer from inadequately considered placement
Eveything you say above applies justly to those who radicalise – but not necessarily to those who are vulnerable to be radicalised.
When you are young, everything in life is understood in simple binary oppositions. It is only time and broad experience that introduces and embeds the tonalities of understanding.
Many of the young everywhere, from the need to belong and from the acceleration of peer pressure, are also prone to follow the accepted behavioural norms or fashions of their peers.
This is why radicalisation is most easily effected in cities and amongst the large cultural enclaves that can form there.
The young, in their uncluttered understanding, are also idealist – and extremism is a form of idealism perverted.
What you say about the safety and security that relocated refugees now possess is also correct – but is amended by two considerations.
One is the automatic perception of all refugees as having the education to hold such an understanding of their situation. Many will be educated – some very highly indeed – but by no means all will have had the opportunity of education.
The second is that, as may be the case with some of the Bute families, if they feel and look ‘different’ from everyone around them and if they cannot communicate, some will feel uncomfortable and vulnerable, even intimidated – and it is unrealistic to assume that refugees will be universally made welcome in any locality.
We had assumed that the acceptance of such refugees here would mean the automatic employment of those qualified to teach English as a foreign language and that such classes would be taught in a regular and compulsory schedule.
This would be a responsible and necessary provision if integration is to be a realistic achievement.
We do not know if such provision has been made and there seems to be no mention of it.
- Turkey’s military coup raises issues to be confronted here in Britain
This is another issue – a procedural one – and one which clearly needs to be resolved while the need can be immediately understood.
It remains a mystery why, when political party leadership elections require set percentages well above 50% to secure a win, politicians would not have reason and wit to see that decisions taking a member of a significant political union out of that union, changing the nature of the larger union [helpless to prevent that] as well as the nature of the departing member, that decisions of such weight and permanence cannot sensibly be taken by 50% + 1 single vote of an electorate.
The opportunity for due revision was not taken following the Scottish Referendum, which was run under this rule.
Something like a 60% threshold would guard decisions against the percentage of transient whim – and/or of misunderstanding and/or of misinformedness – in any vote; and these are the things that that can help to create very narrow majorities on very profound issues.
Opinion polls declare that their results are subject to a 3% margin for error.
In the EU Referendum, a 2% change of mind would have produced an even tinier – but legally acceptable – majority in the opposite direction.
powered by SEO Super Comments