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
- On nationalism
If you’re referring to the author of the letter, you demonstrate the process he is talking about.
If you’re talking about the author of the article, myself – I am a rationalist, not a nationalist. The two are not compatible.
- On nationalism
It has to be doubtful that the egg-lobbers of Kirkcaldy see: ‘a Yes vote about trying to protect what is left of the values and institutions that many of us used to think of as being British’.
There is though a very challenging play by the Irish playwright,Tom KIlroy – Double Cross.
This identifies the double-jeopardy of empire as being that a state newly emerged from empire into independence and forming its own identity, has no template other than empire – and so ‘creates’ itself in the image of its former imperial principal.
What you are saying here carries all of the symptoms of that particular double cross.
How can you know that there never was a better way of doing any of the British things you claim, bizarrely, that a ‘Yes’ vote is designed to preserve? [And the notion that the proposed new Scotland is conceived of as a place of sanctuary for the repository of the sacred artefacts of the Union you would destroy is the laugh of the campaign.]
The NHS, for example, is now a sacred cow by default. It would be a positive advantage to be free to start again in defining, shaping and delivering a national health service free at the point of delivery.
Your stance would be more worthy of respect had you shown an independence of mind that is willing to think newly.
It is also noticeable that you choose the soft option of engaging with the patently honest letter – from the already paralysed victim of the action you support Scotland to take; and that you are sufficiently arrogant to assume that your own idealism is in some way ‘better’ than his?.
You fail to engage with the major issues of the Achilles heels of nationalism – its chauvinism, its utopianism and its incipient racism.
And by the way, the federation that the United Kingdom should move to become and which would without doubt be the most popular option of all – cross-party and across the Union – would not be a ‘unitary state’.
- On nationalism
‘we ourselves’ and ‘ourselves alone’ have the same connotation of comfort in separateness.
- Jim Murphy hit by eggs in Kirkcaldy
On a point of fact: the ‘Seagull Whisperer’ at Mr Murphy’s Oban street session was not an apocryphal incident. We were there. We have the photographs. We christened him. His powers were mesmeric.
- Indy, the banks and the Scottish economy
About 20 months ago, Alastair Darling who was Chancellor at the time of the major period of meltdown in the financial sector in the Autumn of 2008 gave this first hand insight on his experience of the recapitalisation of RBS: ‘All I can tell you is that, on the night of 7 [October] 2008, no one at all anywhere in the world rushed to chip in to bail out RBS, despite the fact that it had a very large trading arm in the United States and many of the losses that it made were there.
‘Obviously the US Fed was immensely helpful in terms of liquidity support and tiding over;it kept RBS going for a whole afternoon when it got into trouble on that Tuesday.
‘When it came to recapitalisation, though — I think that the recapitalisation figure is about 30 percent of Scottish GDP — there was no one queuing up to do it. As Mervyn King said, these banks are global in life but national in death.’
powered by SEO Super Comments