Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Holyrood hopes for remit to run Scots elections

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 07 January 2008
By HAMISH MACDONNELL
SNP ministers hope a majority of MSPs will back plans this week to transfer responsibility for Scottish elections to Holyrood.
Parliament will debate the issue on Thursday as part of the long inquest into last year's voting fiasco which resulted in more than 140,000 spoiled ballot papers.

Ron Gould, the Canadian expert brought in to review the chaos, concluded that resp
onsibility for elections should be handed over to the Scottish Parliament.

This is something the SNP is keen to secure as it would allow MSPs to change the voting system for Holyrood and make the Scottish Parliament more autonomous.

The Gould Report will be debated by MSPs this week and Scottish Government sources made clear last night that they wanted to send a message to the UK government that Holyrood wants control of its own elections.

A senior SNP source said: "The Scottish Government accepts all the report's recommendations. We expect the debate to focus on the need to transfer responsibility for running the Scottish Parliament elections from Westminster to Holyrood, in order to ensure their future smooth operation."

So far, at least, the UK government has made it clear it does not support the proposal. If that continues to be the case it will lead to yet another row between Holyrood and Westminster.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 06 January 2008 9:06 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: The Scottish Parliament
 
1

James,

Dundee 07/01/2008 00:12:57
More than a hope Hamish.

Your beloved Labour Parody are out of step with Scotland on this and every issue!

It must be hard not to cry as you type!
2

,

07/01/2008 00:46:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

glassbenmhor,

07/01/2008 00:51:27
Government for the People by the People,
I fail to see what business Westminster has in Holyrood,this is very,very BIG and will be interesting following the agonising process
4

,

07/01/2008 01:12:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

walter,

07/01/2008 01:41:37
The report did not lay the blame for the shambles in May at the door of any individual or institutions it did lay it at the door of all.
Especially the political parties in Scotland Tory, Lib/dems, Labour and the "SNP" who all put the party first and the voter second.
As the report suggests if a Chief Returning Officer for Scotland is created all operational roles of the electoral commission are transferred, with the commission retaining only an audit and advisory role but will that satisfy certain elements of the Scottish parliament.
They will want to remove any influence the electoral commission has and instill a system favourable to themselves.


6

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta 07/01/2008 04:33:24
4
glassbenmhor,

Hey Dude , when you quote Abraham Lincoln do it correctly

"and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".

Unless you are a Chinese communist , Then you would not understand liberty or freedom.

GC
7

,

07/01/2008 05:32:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

07/01/2008 05:41:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

David MacVicar,

web 07/01/2008 06:09:31
#6 walter
...the political parties in Scotland Tory, Lib/dems, Labour and the "SNP" who all put the party first and the voter second....

You forgot to mention:
The lead role of the UK minister involved Alistair Darling, his office, their approach and the co involved. ALL Labour run.

No major political party is blameless - agreed. Labour, however, stands out as the main instigator AND were ultimately responsible for creating the mess AND as usual nobody resigned, nobody lost a ministerial role. A New Labour Ministerial screw up, broken laws or incompetence = denial/cover tracks or get a side move/promotion or lay low for a while or (usually)a bit of all three.

As the saying goes, they are lower than a snakes underbelly.
10

David MacVicar,

web 07/01/2008 06:10:32
Perhaps the saying should be they are lower than the Scotsmans Editorial ;)
11

Guga II,

Rockall 07/01/2008 07:01:53
The Mouth of the South and her New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party (Scottish Branch) are being remarkably quiet on this topic. I presume they do not wish to upset their masters in Westminster who wish to retain their colonial control over Scotland.
12

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 07/01/2008 07:36:04
There should be no problem with Scottish elections being run from Scotland it makes sense, having said that they will have to get it right this time because they made a complete mess of it last time.
We need less party politics and manipulation and more emphasis on engaging the electorate when it comes to organising the polls.
13

glassbenmhor,

07/01/2008 08:45:28
#7,GlatacticCannabil,Please forgive me,I stand corrected.Hey all of you just come back from the official (skittish)Westmonster Labour Party Website,sent a message asking how much to become a Vicount,and where the Hell is WENDY?????
14

walter,

07/01/2008 09:05:10
#10
I did not forget anyone or institution I said the report blamed all.
I was pointing out that when laying blame it included all political parties in Scotland that's ALL political parties.
Some of the contributors to these comments seem to either not know that, forget it or ignore it and insinuate that the party they support have no blame at all.
15

gus1940,

Edinburgh 07/01/2008 09:24:34
We were told that the revamped Scotsman web site was going to be an improvement on the old one.

Does anybody believe that?

Can any body think of a single area where the new one is better than the old one?

It's a b----y shambles.
16

Jimmy the Pie,

07/01/2008 09:44:55
There should be an appeal to shop Wendy. Someone must know where she and her criminal cohorts are holed up?? She might have fled the country and I have heard rumours that she is holed up at a hoose in Downing Street, London. What about an early morning raid there?
17

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 10:21:09
The organisation of the elections is the important thing here, not who manages (or more importantly mismanages) it. The Labour Party were ultimately responsible for this fiasco as the party in power at the time. The report, however, made it absolutely clear that they were not alone. For any other political party to try and criticise Labour without as much as a mea culpa on their own behaviour smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. The self-righteous indignation of the SNP is becoming something of a lief motif. I suspect I am not the only person in Scotland to be nauseated by it.
18

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 10:23:46
#15 Walter

The report may well have spread the blame. But what did that mean?

Only one party had control over the process, including the power to accept of deny suggestions made by the other parties. The Labour Party of the UK.

Ministers were accused of having behaved in a party political manner, rather than being impartial.

The Labour Party are, in this case and subsequent events, incapable of respecting the demarkation lines between Holyrood and Westminster.

The Scottish Office should remain outside party political interests in its role of engaging with Holyrood, but instead it colludes with Scottish opposition parties in order to destablise the SNP Scottish Government.

This is perhaps the main reason for immediate transfer of power over Scottish elections to the Holyrood Parliament, because the current Labour UK Government cannot be trusted to remain impartial.
19

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 10:30:54
Oh Talorthane you are a card. We have a FM who humiliates Scotland with his constant girning about reserved matters. As a democrat he should be aware that the Westminster Parliament was democratically elected to take these decisions. He was not. Actually, correction, he was elected to take these decisions at the appropriate parliament but chooses not to.
Demarcation lines? Impartial? Alex Salmond?
you have to laugh
20

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 10:37:27
20 Grahamski

"We have a FM who humiliates Scotland with his constant girning about reserved matters."

You are clearly in the minority in that view, given the constant high approval ratings of bith the First Minister and the SNP Government.

"As a democrat he should be aware that the Westminster Parliament was democratically elected to take these decisions."

Very few people will have considered Westminster's self-appointed role in administering elections for a devolved Government when casting their vote for Westmnister elections.

However, maybe they will next time.

And how democratic is it for one Parliamnet to administer the election of a separate Parliament. That is a bit like the European Parliament taking control of Westminster elections.

"He was not. Actually, correction, he was elected to take these decisions at the appropriate parliament but chooses not to."

You are admittedly a bit confused on this one.

"Demarcation lines? Impartial? Alex Salmond?
you have to laugh"

Alex Salmond unashamedly expresses his preference for Scottish interests over those of the UK. This consistent approach seems to be gathering increasing support.
21

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 10:44:06
Westminster's 'self-appointed' role? Westminster was appointed by us the British electorate. The British people have absolute authority, which seems entirely appropriate. The SNP's attempts at undermining British democracy with their snide attacks on our parliament in Westminster will not succeed. The Scottish people will see through this cynical and dangerous attempt to undermine our democratic rights. I suspect if the SNP continue with this the high (40%?) level of support may well diminish.
22

Talorthane,

Lennoxtown 07/01/2008 10:53:33
"Westminster's 'self-appointed' role? Westminster was appointed by us the British electorate."

In case you didn't get that. What I mean by "Westminster's self appointed role" is that in drawing up the Scotland Act it chose to retain the administration of Holyrood elections, rather than devolve the responsibility of electing that Parliament to the Parliament in question.

Now, only Labour disagree that Holyrood elections should be controlled by Holyrood.

"The SNP's attempts at undermining British democracy with their snide attacks on our parliament in Westminster will not succeed."

The SNP do not operate in a vacuum. They are representative of the votes of the public who chose to put them into power. They have the mandate of the voters.

This issue over the elections for Holyrood is clearly not an attempt by the SNP to undermine Westminster, but a principle accpeted by all parties except Labour. And a principle identified by the report that they commissioned into their disastrous attempt to administer the last election.

Will it succeed? Labour are on their own on this one.

"The Scottish people will see through this cynical and dangerous attempt to undermine our democratic rights."

The SNP want the Scottish Parliament to be in control of Scottish Parliamentary elections. How on earth is that an "attempt to undermine our democratic rights"?

I would say it's quite the reverse. If Westminster was to deny Holyrood from controlling its own elections then that would be an attempt to undermine the democratic rights of those who vote in Scottish elections.

"I suspect if the SNP continue with this the high (40%?) level of support may well diminish."

I suspect that if this continues, and that Labour are indeed isolated on the matter, that Labour's high (30%?) level of support may well diminish.
23

Jimmy the Pie,

07/01/2008 11:05:51
Grahamski - various rambling posts.
Just watch the polls this year and see Alex roar away from the rest. Onwards and upwards. Roll on the next election
24

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 11:10:05
Talorthane,
you wrote 'What I mean by "Westminster's self appointed role" is that in drawing up the Scotland Act it chose to retain the administration of Holyrood elections' as if Westminster had no democratic right to do so. It is an entirely legitimate democratic institution who had the right to make this decision yet you imply it doesn't.

You continue
'The SNP do not operate in a vacuum. They are representative of the votes of the public who chose to put them into power. They have the mandate of the voters.' The SNP received around 16% of the Scotland's total electorate. They are a minority administration who do not represent the majority of Scottish voters. To claim a mandate is pushing it a bit, best you can say is that you have a mandate of the biggest minority.

you also make this point:
'The SNP want the Scottish Parliament to be in control of Scottish Parliamentary elections. How on earth is that an "attempt to undermine our democratic rights"?'
The SNP since it has taken office has challenged Westminster's right to decide policy on a number of reserved issues. For a parliament to try and stop another Parliament taking decisions for which it was lawfully and democratically elected is nothing short of an attack on democracy.

This catch-all 'Scotland's interests' should be substituted for the more truthful 'Alex Salmond's interests' the two are not the same no matter what the SNP may claim

25

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 11:20:46
25 Grahamski

You continue to use the argument of democracy when discussing this issue, but fail to see the flaw in your argument.

Westminster elections elct Members of Parliament to Westminster. Westminster controls these elections. Westminster MPs are democratically elected to decide on UK matters.

Then the Scotland Act came along. This devolved a number of issues to Scottish control. Scottish Westminster MPs were no longer democratically elected for these matters but for reserved matters only.

While Westminster had, and continues to have, control over elections for that Parliament, in establishing the devolved Scottish Parliament then decided not to devolve the control of those elections to that Parliament.

This is an anomoly.

To suggest that this anomoly is corrected is not to undermine democracy.

However, to have this anomoly pointed out and to refuse to rectify it is to undermine democracy.
26

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 11:30:00
The Scotland Act didn't simply come along. It was created by an act of parliament voted on by our elected representatives. You may not agree with this but it's not an anomoly - that is how it was written and had a majority backing. All very democratic so far I'm sure you will agree.
If your argument is about the Scotland Act, fine. Just don't attack our Westminster parliament for cheap political point scoring. As British people we should be proud of all our democratic institutions.
27

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 11:49:14
27 Grahamski

"The Scotland Act didn't simply come along. It was created by an act of parliament voted on by our elected representatives."

Of course. It was voted for by the Westminster Parliament.

"You may not agree with this but it's not an anomoly - that is how it was written and had a majority backing."

Because that was the way that it was drawn up does not mean that it is not anomolous. And because it had majority backing does not mean that it is not anomolous.

The Scotland Act is full of anomolies, not least the "West Lothian question". That was also a result of the bill that was drawn up, voted for and passed. It's still a major anomoly.

"All very democratic so far I'm sure you will agree."

I agree that the process to this point was democratic.

"If your argument is about the Scotland Act, fine."

Fine.

"Just don't attack our Westminster parliament for cheap political point scoring."

I have never attacked the Westminster Parliament for cheap political point scoring. I have criticised it for being out of touch with Scottish needs, for placing UK interests before Scottish interests, and for being inflexible in its ability to deal with devolution.

"As British people we should be proud of all our democratic institutions."

I don't consider myself British, and a have no reason to feel pride for Westminster.

I do consider myself Scottish, and have a great deal of pride in the development of the Scottish Parliament.
28

Steve,

Bo'ness 07/01/2008 11:59:10
Oh dear, those evil underhand Scottish Nationalists, eh?
Wanting to devolve more power away from London to the Scottish Parliament? How populist of them.

You would never see the Labour,Tory or Lib Dem Parties following their lead by talking about setting up a commission to to see where more power could be devolved, would you? That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

Oh, wait....
29

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 12:05:44
Talorthane,
Your point:
'I have criticised it for being out of touch with Scottish needs, for placing UK interests before Scottish interests'
What are you talking about? Scotland's part of the UK - the divisions in the UK you attempt to create are non-existant other in the minds of the nationalist movement.
'I don't consider myself British, and a have no reason to feel pride for Westminster.' And there is the crux of this argument. I and I suspect most Scots have no problem with being both Scottish and British. I have a big problem with my British part being denigrated by some in the nationalist movement. You may not consider yourself British but you are and should feel pride in it. Think WW2 when the glorious British people stood against that monster of German nationalism and defeated him. We stood shoulder to shoulder with our British brothers and sisters and you should be proud of that. Heaven help you if your nationalism stops you conceding that point...
30

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 12:06:29
Steve

The unionists here must also believe that Ron Gould is a secret SNP activist, given that he recommended that the Scottish Parliament be responsible for its own elections.

Either that or he has anti-British sentiments that caused him to abuse his position in order to destabilise the institution of Westminster.
31

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 12:11:58
The one lesson here is that no politician should be trusted to run this. Let an independent body without political interference run the elections.
32

frank mcbride,

lusitania 07/01/2008 12:12:44
#29, Steve.

What a very underhand comment.

Surely we should wait for the democratically elected Westminster Parliament to decide Scotland's constitutional future.

That could be the current Westminster administration, with its majority - with the support of 24% approx of the electorate.

But, there again, we could just leave it to the people of Scotland. Maybe, that would be a democratic solution. Maybe we could have a Referendum?
33

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 12:15:14
Referenda? Mussolini's favourite political trick - perhaps we should have one on capital punishment and immigration too, hmmm?
34

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 12:22:28
34. Given that Labour introduced referenda on devolution in Scotland, regional assemblies in England, devolution in Wales, and have a manifesto committment to referenda on the Euro and EU constitutional ammending treaty they seem very fond of them. Are you saying that New Labour are a crypto-fascist organisation beholden to Mussolini's favourite political tricks?
35

frank mcbride,

lusitania 07/01/2008 12:24:50
#30, Grahamski.

I have no pride in Britishness.

You spurious attempt to link the fight against Hitler with Britishness is mindblowing.

If I had been alive, in those perilous times, I would have fought. I would have fought for democracy and humanity, not for Britishness.

Where was this Britishness against Mussilini, Salazar, Franco, Stalin?

Where is this Britishness against the leadership of Saudia Arabia, Zimbabwe, Congo, Russia, China etc., etc.?
36

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 12:25:14
30. I find the peoples of India, Canada and Australia unwillingness to lie back and think of the glories of WW2 and not demand re-unification with the UK shocking. As for those Estonians, not a thought in their wee ungrateful heads about the good old days and what they achieved as part of team USSR.
37

frank mcbride,

lusitania 07/01/2008 12:27:52
# 34, Grahamski.

Spoken like a true member of the glorious BNP.
38

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 12:33:34
34. Immigration referendum - not with people like Blunkett, Margaret Hodge and Gordon Brown going on about "British Jobs for British Workers" and "British Houses for British people" - sounds like the type of thing Mussolini might have said for Italians....
39

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 12:41:22
Labour are not above political chicanery. I repeat for the advocates of referenda, why just for Scottish independence? There is a bigger majority for the re-introduction of the death penalty than independence, why not start with that?
We live in a society where we elect representatives to take decisions on our behalf. That is as it should be.
#38
BNP? I'm not impressed by the fascistic motifs of nationalism, perhaps you should look a little closer to home?
40

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 12:46:10
40. A referendum on independence was part of the SNP manifesto programme.

Have I not seen you post (repeatedly) complaining that the SNP were not fulfilling manifesto committments?

Are you a slathering opportunistic hypocrite?
41

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 12:55:11
#41
It was indeed part of their manifesto. A minfesto supported by a whopping 16% of the electorate. All other major parties opposed the referendum. The majority has spoken. No referendum is the stated wishes of the Scottish people.
Slathering? - probably opportunistic? - hardly alone on that one hypocrite? - hmm I'll leave that to the tartan clad Scottish Liberation Front.
42

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfropolis 07/01/2008 12:55:26
Another day, another accusation of fascistic leanings against the Scottish Government from the Graham in Falkirk.

I swear the little feller won't be happy until FM Salmond introduces a decree that all Unionists must display a Union Jack sewn onto the sleeves of their clothes. Then it'll be off to the salt mines on the Solway.


43

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 12:56:58
30 Grahamski

"Talorthane,
Your point:
'I have criticised it for being out of touch with Scottish needs, for placing UK interests before Scottish interests'
What are you talking about? Scotland's part of the UK -"

The very existence of the Scotland Act and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament were clear recognitions that Westminster does not serve Scottish needs or Scottish interests satisfactorally.

Scotland is currentlt a part of the UK, but that need not be the case forever.

" the divisions in the UK you attempt to create are non-existant other in the minds of the nationalist movement."

I am neither adept in time travel nor over 300 years old. I do not attempt to create non-existant divisions, these national identities, cultures and states were there long before the UK existed.

"'I don't consider myself British, and a have no reason to feel pride for Westminster.' And there is the crux of this argument. I and I suspect most Scots have no problem with being both Scottish and British."

Actually, most Scots see themselves as more Scottish than British, with the trend continuing to move toawrds identification with Scotland and away from being British.

"I have a big problem with my British part being denigrated by some in the nationalist movement."

I have not denigrated your identifiaction with being British, that is for you. I do critise people who do not respect my self-identity and suggest that I should feel British when I do not.

"You may not consider yourself British but you are and should feel pride in it."

Good example!

"Think WW2 when the glorious British people stood against that monster of German nationalism and defeated him."

Lets get rid of the emotional rubbish.

"Think WW2 when the British people stood against German nationalism."

I hope you are not trying to draw comparisons here, between two completely different types of nationalism.

"We stood shoulder to shoulder with our British brothers and
44

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 13:01:24
40 Grahamski

"We live in a society where we elect representatives to take decisions on our behalf. That is as it should be."

If you truly believe this then why do you oppose the Scottish First Minister putting the interests of Scotland before the interests of the UK?

That is his job, we elected him to do so, and if he gave way to Westminster whenever there was a conflict, then he would not be fulfilling his duty.

Yet you criticise him for undermining the UK.
45

Talorthane,

Lennoxtown 07/01/2008 13:04:41
#43 Grahamski

"No referendum is the stated wishes of the Scottish people."

You are actually quite wrong here.

Clearly, people did not vote at the election on the basis of whether there should be a referendum for Scottish independence or not.

When people have been polled on this question, between 75% and 80% agree that there should be a referendum.
46

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 13:13:40
30 Grahamski (continued)

"We stood shoulder to shoulder with our British brothers and sisters..."

What about the French, Dutch, Norwegians, Russians, Americans, etc. etc. etc.

"...and you should be proud of that."

I can be proud that I had some distant relatives who fought for a cause, or even fought for THEIR country, even if I do not identify myself in the same way. That doesn't mean that I have to feel pride in THAT country of THEIRS. It should be remembered that they fought for the only army that was available to them, that it was difficult to choose not to enlist, and that the World has changed a great deal since then.

What about the Czechs and the Slovaks? Are the unable to feel pride in relatives who lived (and died) as Czechoslovakians? Are they denied from having pride in the fact that the government of the country that they were a part of during WWII were also among the allies?

This is a red herring. No-one is suggesting that, upon independence, all history books have any reference to the UK removed.

"Heaven help you if your nationalism stops you conceding that point..."

????
47

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 13:17:43
Talorthane,
#46
All MSPs were elected to run the devolved parts of Scotland according to the Scotland Act. They were not elected to try and destabilise our country. Nor were they elected to pick fights with the democratically elected parliament which reflects the wishes of the people across our country. That is arrogant and anti-democratic.
Again you (deliberately?) confuse the interests of Alex Salmond with the interests of Scotland.
#47
It is not for us to decide why people voted for a particular party. you have no way of knowing until the next election how important a referendum is to the electorate. until then the parties should stick to their promises and manifestos. (Or as near as any politician can keep to their promises!)
48

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 13:19:50
Talorthane,
To deny British unity was a factor in the defeat of Hitler demeans your politics. I simply pointed out that there was some things about being British even a nationalist could be proud of. Apparently not. Shame on you.
49

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 13:31:05
49 Grahamski

"All MSPs were elected to run the devolved parts of Scotland according to the Scotland Act."

And even at that time, devolution was viewed "as a process not an event". It was not the finished article, but a starting point.

"They were not elected to try and destabilise our country."

The SNP were elected on their manifesto commitments, which included having more powers devolved to Scotland and the completely transparent commitment to an eventual independent Scotland.

"Nor were they elected to pick fights with the democratically elected parliament which reflects the wishes of the people across our country."

And MPs are not elected to picj fights with a devolved Parliament. Something that Des Browne, Douglas Alexander, and the rest of London Labour seem to be ignorant of.

"That is arrogant and anti-democratic."

For the Scottish Government to seek more powers for the Scottish Parliament is neither arogant nor anti-democratic. For Westminster to deny Holyrood, should it seek more powers, would be arrogant and anti-democratic.
50

frank mcbride,

lusitania 07/01/2008 13:36:34
#50, Grahamski.

I'm sure that the 350 000 volunteers, WW11, from the ROI will thank you for their Britishness.

#43, Grahamski.

I'm sure that NuLab's electoral support, <25%, is a democratic mandate. You obviously don't!

You hypocrisy is showing, methinks.
51

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 13:38:12
43 Was it not you complaining about the SNP not implementing manifest pledges in other areas? And now you say they have no mandate? Care to make up your mind?

16%? In the same way the UK government got 19%? Elections count the votes of those who voted (to the extent that new Labour partisan shambles allow), and the SNP won. Or do you not like that system now that the unionists are out of power?
52

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 13:38:34
50 Grahamski

"To deny British unity was a factor in the defeat of Hitler demeans your politics."

I said no such thing, as I expressed no view on that particular matter. However, I would suggest there were many more factors than simply "the glorious British people" standing "against that monster of German nationalism".

"I simply pointed out that there was some things about being British even a nationalist could be proud of."

Perhaps in your view, but because others don't agree with you, that does not mean that you are right and they are wrong, or that it is simply a matter of right and wrong.

"Apparently not. Shame on you."

If you want to talk about someone demeaning their politics then it is suggesting that people should be ashamed for not sharing the same political views as you.

And if you want to talk about arrogance then you need look no further.
53

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 13:39:48
49 Graham says "until then the parties should stick to their promises and manifestos."

An indepedence referendum was in the SNP manifesto. Is it just me, or is anyone else having trouble following Graham's cart-wheeling, Kafka-esque convulsions of non-logic and hyprocrisy?
54

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 13:42:57
The Westminster politicians have not been guilty of encroaching on devolved issues-something which cannot be said of the SNP ministers encroaching on reserved matters. How difficult is this for the nationalists to understand? Mr Salmond was not elected to deal with reserved matters, furthermore he has no democratic madate to do so. The government ministers were elected with a popular mandate to take these decisions.
I note your use of London Labour when referring to Scottish MPs - that may play well at meetings of the Alba Popular Front (Inverstoorie Branch) but in the real world it's neither big nor clever.
55

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 13:46:14
50 Grahamski

sorry, I ran out of mind bending hallucinigens before fully contemplating your various missives.

Explain what Hitler and Mussolini have got to do with administration of Scottsih elections by Holyrood? Do tell, have you lost the way back to the wardrobe and are now wandering in the nether regions of some shock induced dissociative Unionist Narnia?
56

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 13:48:36
56. Mmm, that deal to send the Lockerbie bomber back to Lybia seemed to impinge on devolved matters....

AS for London Labour, the UK labour party supreme body is its NEC, based in London. The "Scottish" Labour party has to get approval from London to recruit staff and even to redecorate its Scottish office. Hence "London Labour".
57

BrianHill,

Edinburgh 07/01/2008 13:58:42
This is a major headache for Labour, they seem to be the only ones out of step in Holyrood. The last thing they need is to be seen backing London against Holyrood, especially when everyone else is going with the flow.

So far their excuses for dragging their feet have been flimsy, to put it kindly. But they better get used to being in this position because the very nature of this SNP Government is to strengthen Scotland's position at the expense of London's power. Time and again the opposition generally and Labour in particular will have to choose who to support.

Running the elections is so obvious there is no valid argument as to why Scotland shouldn't run its own elections.....other than the fact that perhaps we are not quite up to the mark?

Yes, an interesting line of reason for the opposition to take. May we have the first kami kasi MSP up to the rostrum please! Ms Baillie? Ah, Mr Kerr? Ms Alexan....of course not, sorry...em anyone?
58

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 14:00:24
#57
I make the point that use of referenda was a favourite of Mussolini. It does not always equate with democracy. As regards who should run the elections? I answer a resounding anybody but the politicians!
#58
Since when has international treaties between the UK and other countries been a devlolved issue?
I'm not here to defend the Labour Party's internal structures but I'd imagine since it's a UK-wide party it would have its HQ in London. So what?
As regards the decoration of its Scottish HQ, get a grip will you. Who cares? Pathetic.
59

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 14:04:35
60. Scottish law, legal system, prisons and prisoner transfer are devolved matters. The UK government ignored this when it agreed to transfer the Lockerbie bomber without consulting Scottish Minsiters or law officers.

AS regards the Labour party, indeed pathetic - a party which claims to be "Scottish" had to get London approval to wall paper its offices? What does this tell us about Labour's attitude to devolution and Scottish decision making?
60

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 14:07:15
56 Grahamski

"I note your use of London Labour when referring to Scottish MPs - that may play well at meetings of the Alba Popular Front (Inverstoorie Branch) but in the real world it's neither big nor clever."

I hope you were being ironic here. If not, then you have my sympathy.
61

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 14:18:03
#61
From memory the UK Govt made no such agreement 'about the Lockerbie bomber'. It was an international treaty, the nature of which does not make reference to specific individuals. The SNP's claim that the bomber should have been named in this treaty shows them up to be painfully naive or horribly cynical.
Anyway, it has been made clear on numerous occasions that the decision to transfer any prisoner in Scotland rests with the executive because that is a devolved matter. How much clearer can that be?
As regards your attempted barb at Labour Party. Again I say, so what? It says nothing about devolution unless you have a particularly shallow understanding of politics or have a chip on your shoulder...
62

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 14:19:11
Talorthane,
Of course I was being ironic, I know the Alba Popular Front are splitters and the real freedom fighters are the Peoples Front of Alba.
63

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 14:24:22
#63 Grahamski

That's ok on the face of it.

However, the Libyans have revealed that they were led to beleive (by Blair) that the MoU would cover Al Megrahi. In fact, they saw no other purpose for the MoU than for his release.
64

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 14:27:34
#63 Grahamski (continued)

But that's not the point; what the MoU did or did not cover, in the view of either the Libyan or UK Government.

The question was about whether the staement: "Westminster politicians have not been guilty of encroaching on devolved issues"

The problem is that Blair pursued this matter, where it clearly had an impact on devloved Scottish issues, without consulting with the Scottish Government, or even making them aware of it.
65

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 14:31:01
#65
Talorthane,
It has been revealed has it? You are funny. The Libyans (those upstanding defenders of truth) were 'led to believe' by the duplitous and evil Blair. Something like that is it? My goodness what a topsy turvey world the nationalists inhabit. So concerned are you to get a good kick in to your political opponents at home, you'll take anybody's side against them abroad.
I can't begin to comprehend the cynicism needed to take such a position, or believe such nonsense.
I'll leave it to you.
66

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 14:35:01
#66
The Scottish Executive's role was unchanged as regards their responsibility. They would have the final say on prisoner transfer. They have no jurisdiction on international matters like this. It was a UK reserved matter. The UK government did not encroach in the Executive's responsibilities.
Again, the SNP sought to make political capital out of this and ultimately ended up looking ridiculous.
67

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 14:38:54
#67 Grahamski

"It has been revealed has it? You are funny. The Libyans (those upstanding defenders of truth) were 'led to believe' by the duplitous and evil Blair. Something like that is it? My goodness what a topsy turvey world the nationalists inhabit. So concerned are you to get a good kick in to your political opponents at home, you'll take anybody's side against them abroad.
I can't begin to comprehend the cynicism needed to take such a position, or believe such nonsense.
I'll leave it to you."

It was a position shared by Blair's advisors who told him that he must inform the Scottish First Minister, but Blair refused to do so.
68

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 14:47:13
Talorthane,
You claim that Blair's advisors said that this was about Megrahi? I really don't think so. Is this coming down to when the executive were told now? I really don't know about the specifics of inter-government communication but I suspect the lack of integrity shown by Mr Salmond when dealing with Whitehall in the past made sure that our UK government thinks twice before entrusting the nationalist ministers with anything of a delicate or security-sensitive nature in the future.
69

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 14:47:38
#67 Grahamski

From the article below:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20070610/ai_n19291979

I presume that you would view the UK Foreign Office are cynical, opportunist, Scottish nationalists.
70

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 14:51:24
Talorthane,
I can't be bothered looking, what's your point?
71

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 14:52:46
#70 Grahamski

Again:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20070610/ai_n19291979

"THE prime minister, Tony Blair, ignored advice from his own officials that Alex Salmond should have been consulted on the secret deal with Libya that could lead to the transfer of Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi."

"FCO officials also told the Libyan government during the Sirte talks that Scotland was a "minor complication" on prisoner transfer which Libya did not need to "worry about", senior sources have told the Sunday Herald."

"The claim was allegedly made to Libyan officials who questioned whether the UK government had the powers to order the release of prisoners in Scotland during negotiations leading up to Tony Blair agreeing the deal last month."

"The Libyans had believed the document would automatically bring al-Megrahi home from the 27-year-minimum prison term he is serving for the 1988 bombing that left 270 dead."

"Two sources close to the bilateral talks have also claimed Scotland's role in the prisoner talks was downplayed to Libyan officials who wanted the transfer of al-Megrahi, but who questioned whether the UK government could deliver their priority."

"Despite repeated denials from Downing Street and the FCO that al- Megrahi had nothing to do with the now infamous memorandum, one source close to the Tripoli negotiations said: "The Foreign Office were more or less taking the line there is the minor complication of the Scottish courts, but don't worry about that, it is the UK government that will decide these things [on prisoner transfers]."

Source: The Sunday Herald.




72

,

07/01/2008 14:52:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
73

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 14:59:23
#73
Thanks for reproducing this. So what's your point? Both No 10 and FO categorically deny these assertions. Again you choose to take the word of international pariahs over your own government and for what? Cheap political point scoring.
74

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 15:05:22
74 Doonhamer

i fear you may be right. I had charitably put his historical confusions and illogical fabulations down to a particularly heinous acid over dose in the 60's. That he is doing it on purpose strikes me as a tad sad. Perhaps he is lonely?

What do you make of Labour refusing to accept the first Gould recommendation and what does this say about their committment to further devolution?
75

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 15:06:01
74. Reading 75, he does sound (write) and awful lot like AM2. An awful lot.
76

Talorthane,

07/01/2008 15:08:32
#75 Grahamski

You are revealing a character trait that perhaps explains your misunderstandings of history and modern politics.

The evidence has been presented to you, but you either choose not to read it, or interpret it in a way that makes it more palatable.

The quotes I posted were not from Libyans, but from UK Government officials.
77

James,

Dundee 07/01/2008 15:33:08
It's the turn of AM2ski today.
Tomorrow it'll be back to the fake Ayrshire Scot™ ,
78

James,

07/01/2008 15:36:15
#67 Nah, Eric Joice is 'Cockney Rhyming Slang' for 'English Voice'
79

James,

Dundee 07/01/2008 15:55:45
A parallel from history.

The Scottish Office is basically the 'Scottish High Commission'.

Place Des Browne in the role of Sir John Kerr and Alex Salmond in the role of Gough Whitlam.

0ver the top comparison?

No, Australia nominally had its own government, but the UK still reserved powers.

UNTIL SCOTLAND runs and has full control over it's own government NEVER underestimate the ability of Westminster to interfere and 'control'


80

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 16:11:59
81. Lol. Nice one. hadn't thought of that. They similarly pompous
81

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfropolis 07/01/2008 17:06:31
It is odd that we rarely, if ever see them posting at the same time. Could they possibly be related?
82

An English Voice,

Back from his hols 07/01/2008 17:41:35
Ah, just thought I'd check the playground to see what the SNP youth are whining about now......and the answer is 'lots' as usual!

And the irony of the nats accusing others of having multiple usernames. Have any of you ever considered growing the f**k up?

By the way, have you all read the news that the UK economy has passed the USA in the 'GDP per capita' table and is now the richest of all the world's major economies?

Good news, eh.

Does Salmond STILL believe he can do better?
83

BMeister,

07/01/2008 17:44:41
85 EV
A Happy New Year to you.

'And the irony of the nats accusing others of having multiple usernames. Have any of you ever considered growing the f**k up?'

So that would be you accusing them of the same thing. Spot of your own advice required?
84

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/01/2008 17:55:42
85. I am beginning to think EV's parents should demand a refumd from that charm & finishing school they sent him to. For all the world he seems to come across as a pompous, poorly educated poltroon.

Was it not Mr/ Miss EV who stated a couple of weeks back "multiple user names are harder to register now on the new site" - one wonders how he knows?

Please don't grow up EV. Your Harry Enfiled Tory Boy style self-important bursts of scrivenly flatulence on here do provide a sporadic chuckle.
85

Eve,

Scotland 07/01/2008 17:58:04
Aye heres hoping!!!!

It would step in the right direction, for Holyrood to run the Scots elections!!!
86

An English voice...,

07/01/2008 19:15:03
85 is a fakey. Salmond is doing a good job.
87

An English Voice ,

07/01/2008 19:36:55
I've decided to switch sides. C'mon Alex
88

An English voice:::,

Ukania 07/01/2008 19:44:14
No English Voice for ages then three appear.
They were 'summoned'

You can add Devil worshippers to the SNP catalogue, Tartan Taleban, and Nazis....

Hey maybe Fr David Cairns can 'exorcise' Alex Salmond.
Saviour of 'The Union'.
89

An English Voice,

07/01/2008 20:05:02
Too many fakeys here
90

An English Voice,

07/01/2008 20:27:44
I may be wrong but it would appear that the ballot papers organised by Holyrood for the council election were without controversy and the ballot papers for the Holyrood election were controversial.

This leads me to believe that Holyrood is more than capable of organising its own elections. More so than Westminster it would appear.
91

puskas,

East Kilbride 07/01/2008 20:40:20
AM2 is never far away. Scarlet pimpernel.

There is no viable reason why the Scottish Government should not organise elections in our own country

I'm sure you would agree AM2.
92

Grahamski,

Falkirk 07/01/2008 21:57:08
Their behaviour at the last election should make them (with the rest of the body politic in Scotland) inelligible. Let's have a non-political body organise the elections. There is no political party in this country untainted by this.
93

Ï,ï,&fecknose,

07/01/2008 22:10:18
Does anyone know why Labour should be trusted to organise anything else ever again?

fecknose
94

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 07/01/2008 22:49:33
So, voting it is then.

Personally having never voted, upon trying I was amazed to find that one could not walk in to a polling station brandishing a current passport, a drivers license, a bill with my address on it and of course my self, that I could not vote! Ignorance was bliss.

So we could start vote reform by the above being allowed.

Multiple votes by large property owners not counted.

Anyone who doesn't live here permenantly is not allowed to vote.

Don't know votes not to be counted.

Simple voting card.

Weekend voting time.Say Friday evening to Saturday 8PM.

One man one vote.

The removal of campaigning, at least a severe restriction of it.

Going back to the first point, as you can buy a house with the above identification, or anything else for that matter, why is voting such a registered census load of bullocks.



95

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 07/01/2008 22:51:31
Do I get a prize for keeping on topic ?

Independence will do, with a fair voting system of course.
96

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 07/01/2008 22:54:53
Jist a wee peck on the cheek?


C'mon y saunsie lass.
97

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 07/01/2008 22:57:14
As long as a hundred men are left we will never submit to the power of the english. It is not for glory, riches or honour that we fight but only for liberty.

Independence for our destiny.
98

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/01/2008 09:56:57
Can't wait to see Wendy try to square this circle!

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Politics

More Politics >>

More The Scottish Parliament

More The Scottish Parliament >>

Features

Online Supplements
Paperboy Paperboy Customised news
Scottish Business Briefing Scottish Business Briefing ...Sign up today


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.