It seems that in the absence of anything meaningful to offer the populace, and despite being given a kicking of the first order at the polls, Scottish Labour has decided that it’s groundhog day.
Carping, sniping, empty posturing. That’s what the people rejected, so we’ll give them more of the same.
How else do you explain the shitstorm its elected representatives have been trying to generate in the last few weeks? First, with tongue firmly not in its cheek, it demanded to know just how close the SNP and Alex Salmond had got to Rupert Murdoch and his News International empire in Scotland. In an extremely linear approach which would keep no person out of jail, Paul Martin determined that because the Scottish Sun had supported the SNP in the last election, ergo this was damning evidence of the SNP being in Murdoch’s pockets.
So the Scottish Government duly publishes a full list not only of First Ministerial contacts with the media since 2007 but those of key Cabinet members AND copies of correspondence between Eck and Rupe. The latter ain’t pretty and caused many toes to curl in discomfort. Yes, the First Minister might have been really, really trying to portray himself as the global media mogul’s equal and really, really trying to persuade Murdoch to become a Caledonian champion. But frankly if there had been anything to hide, the goverment would have hidden it.
But like much of its interventions in the last year, Labour might well have scored an own goal. Disclosure of Labour leaders’ contacts with the media has been asked for and… we’re still waiting. Oh why are we waiting? What’s so hard about pulling together a list of all the meetings, lunches, receptions, letters etc exchanged between the Scottish Labour leadership – Iain Gray, Wendy Alexander in opposition and Jack McConnell and Henry McLeish during their time as First Minister – and Scottish media representatives? The longer they take, the worse it looks, even if there is nothing untoward at all. But they started it.
But the real can of worms opened up by Scottish Labour recently involves the insinuation that the SNP Government offered Brian Souter honours for political donations. They haven’t actually come out and said it, but the inference is of cash for honours on our ain doorstep. Siller for hallions no less.
A whole webpage has been set up over at Scottish Labour’s website – the Souter files, powered exclusively with righteous indignation, over-wrought hyperbole, and rank hypocrisy and inaccuracy. Cathy Jamieson MP suggests that “The First Minister and his party must look seriously at the relationship they have developed with wealthy individuals handing them large sums of cash. The public will rightly be asking what’s next on Mr Souter’s shopping list and waiting for the First Minister to deliver.”
Individuals plural. Who exactly? Apart from Souter’s admittedly eye-watering donation in 2011, other donations to the SNP were five figure sums, the vast majority of its donations far, far lower. The SNP does not have that many supporters with deep pockets: Souter’s donation was matched by hundreds more, much smaller ones by members and supporters. The only person who out-donated Brian Souter was the late Edwin Morgan through a bequest in his will. What’s that? Nothing nasty to say about the Makar appointed by a Labour First Minister? Oh.
Apparently, Souter’s donation(s) are why the SNP has not re-regulated bus provision in Scotland. I acknowledge – it’s a policy that makes sense and it should be done. But then again, I don’t recall Labour-LibDem Scottish Executives, in power for double the time the SNP has been, rushing to re-regulate. Indeed, in four years of opposition, I don’t recall Labour making this a big issue and pushing for it to happen. How curious.
So let’s overturn the can and see what comes wriggling out. What’s this? A number of individuals – all of them wealthy, some of them longstanding Labour supporters or who have donated to the Labour party and bestowed honours while Labour was the lead partner in the Scottish Executive and Ministers were involved in nominating people for honours.
Moir Lockhead is one such, Willie Haughey is another, as is Duncan Bannatyne and Tom Hunter. All of them distinguished businessmen in their own right, who have also made huge charitable contributions during their lifetime. These are the reasons their honours were bestowed but following Scottish Labour’s current logic, all were given awards at the time they were active supporters and/or donors to the Labour party. Though historic, the worms in its can are far more juicy than the ones in the SNP’s.
Frankly, the Scottish public doesn’t give a damn. It holds all politicians and political parties in equally low esteem. Labour might think it is landing blows on the SNP but all such activity achieves is to confirm what people think of all parties, its ain included. In May the people spoke loud and clear – the SNP was the party they liked better or at least, disliked least. Given the current electoral mood, Labour will continue to come off second best if it persists in pursuing this kind of puerile politics. Making the road back to electoral credibility a whole lot harder.
#1 by Alasdair on August 10, 2011 - 1:17 pm
My thought exactly. Well said.
#2 by CassiusClaymore on August 10, 2011 - 1:43 pm
It has been reported that everyone who gave (or ‘lent’) Labour £1m or more received either a peerage or a knighthood.
Everyone!
If they really want to talk about this, then they can bring it on – as someone once said (before she had to resign for accepting an illegal donation…….)
CC
#3 by DougtheDug on August 10, 2011 - 1:54 pm
“Carping, sniping, empty posturing. That’s what the people rejected, so we’ll give them more of the same.”
It’s a rather more fundamental problem for Labour in Scotland than simple bad tactics. Labour have no primary aim or vision which can be used to fuel the content of their policies since they ditched socialism and smelt the ermine a long time ago. This is not at a regional Scottish level but at the very top of the party.
British politics has come very close to the US model where the difference between the two main parties is only on some domestic issues. Iraq, Afghanistan, privatisation, propping up the banks, the EU, the current tax regime and the shape of British society and the establishment have caused no major rifts between Labour and the Tories in the last 14 years.
In Scotland it means that Labour have no radical UK wide policies to scottify for Holyrood and as a Labour region they simply don’t have the power to offer radical solutions of their own even if they wanted to do that.
As the party of the Union and British Establishment in Scotland it is dangerous for Labour to implicitly criticise the British state by offering Scottish solutions to British problems because the continuance of the British state has become the primary cause of the party in Scotland and to follow the SNP down the road of putting Scotland first is also dangerous for them because that again leads down the road towards the idea of Scotland as something separate from Britain.
All they’ve got left is “Carping, sniping, empty posturing.”
#4 by Richard Lucas on August 10, 2011 - 3:09 pm
An excellent summary. I asked the folks at Labour Hame to explain how bus deregulation would work – I specifically wanted an assurance that the cross subsidy to unprofitable services wouldn’t increase fares. Tom Harris MP and his team were unable or unwilling to answer, so I still don’t know whether to support a policy I’m instictively drawn towards. Meanwhile, I was treated with such hostility that I will abandon all thought of ever supporting Labour again.
I would commend a study of “To a Louse” to those rallied beneath the flag of deepest red:
O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion:
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
An’ ev’n devotion!
#5 by Daniel J on August 10, 2011 - 10:16 pm
Funnily enough I know plenty of SNP members who support greater control of the buses.
#6 by Tormod on August 10, 2011 - 4:01 pm
Ian Gray has competition in the shape of Wille Rennie for the most glaikit gowk category in parliament.
I see they are both at it again this time over the GMS interview this morning. They may as well have I hate Eck Salmond tattoed on their collective heids.
Still it does demonstrate the immense distance between the SNP and the others.
#7 by Munguin on August 10, 2011 - 4:09 pm
Excellent post. Labour hypocrisy just knows no bounds..they really ought to check their own lawn for dog mess before pointing it out on others!
#8 by Jeff on August 10, 2011 - 4:55 pm
“But they started it.”
Indeed. Is it not the case though that at some point soon the SNP is going to have to find answers to challenging questions that don’t involve either ‘Labour do it too’ or ‘Why didn’t Lab/Lib coalition do it between 1999 and 2007?’?
#9 by Tormod on August 10, 2011 - 5:09 pm
Hold on Jeff, there is a major difference between nominating a person for a gong and those who actually control the mechanics.
It was the control of the mechanics that got the westminster parties in the brown stuff.
#10 by Jeff on August 10, 2011 - 5:18 pm
Well, without wanting to suggest that I care for a moment who gets these gongs and who doesn’t Tormod, if the Scottish Government nominating BS for a bauble makes no difference to the process, why did they bother doing so in the first place?
#11 by Indy on August 10, 2011 - 5:34 pm
The Scottish Government did.
The SNP didn’t.
It is, as they say, complicated.
SNP ministers can’t nominate people for peerages or awards – against party policy. So it is done by a committee of the great and good and there is no ministerial involvement.
#12 by Jeff on August 10, 2011 - 5:42 pm
Fair enough Indy, though I don’t think that’ll help with the sniff test for some. (Again, I must insist how little I really care)
The problem probably isn’t so much that BS received a knighthood, it’s probably more the fact that rich individuals can pay for one half of a party’s election campaign on their lonesome.
#13 by cynicalHighlander on August 10, 2011 - 7:30 pm
Moridura
Question S3W-21587 – George Foulkes ( Lothians ) (Scottish Labour ) (Date Lodged 04/03/2009 ) :
To ask the Scottish Executive what the arrangements are in Scotland for consideration of nominations for honours and what changes there have been since May 2007.
Answered by John Swinney ( 25/03/2009 ):
Nominations are received from a variety of sources, including members of the public, outside organisations and Lord-Lieutenants. Prior to May 2007, Scottish ministers added their own nominations to those from other sources. Nominations from all sources are initially assessed by Scottish Government officials who assist the Permanent Secretary in preparing recommendations for the UK-wide selection committees to consider. Since May 2007, the First Minister has chosen not to exercise the right to approve the recommendations by the Permanent Secretary. The UK-wide selection committees submit their recommendations to HM The Queen through the Prime Minister.
The sooner these nominations end the better.
#14 by Indy on August 10, 2011 - 8:12 pm
I don’t really care either and I agree to some extent on party funding. We should maybe set a cap on how much one individual can donate. £500,000 perhaps?
#15 by Jeff on August 10, 2011 - 9:11 pm
Ha! Love it.
#16 by Aidan Skinner on August 10, 2011 - 5:21 pm
While the mud slinging is unedifying, both sides are as bad – the refrain of “well why didn’t Labour do it when they were in power for a hundred years” is wearing thin.
On the specifics of Souter, bus re-regulation was SNP policy right up until the point that they got a ton of money from him before the 2007 election, and then it was dropped like a lead turd without a word of explanation. It may be entirely coincidental, but it looks exceedingly bad.
#17 by Indy on August 10, 2011 - 5:39 pm
I get really sick of this canard being continually repeated.
The SNP’s manifesto process is open and transparent and consults both internally and externally.
Internally the manifesto went through National Assembly (the SNP’s policy making body) at various drafts as well as past the NEC. Externally we published a pre-manifesto consultation document in 2006 that went to heaps of organisations and bodies – including, as I recall, every community council in Scotland. It was called What Could the Future Bring?
At no point – ever – was it proposed that the SNP were going to re-regulate bus services. It was not dropped from the manifesto because it was never in the manifesto.
That is a matter of public record.
#18 by Jeff on August 10, 2011 - 5:48 pm
I agree with Indy.
Without wanting to sound like a hypocrite, if Labour is worried about bus regulation so much, and believes the public similarly so, then they should have put it front and centre in their manifesto. Simple as that really.
There may well be valid questions around Brian Souter’s indirect involvement in Scottish Politics, but questions involving bus regulation are not one of them.
(PS Bonus points for “canard”)
#19 by Indy on August 10, 2011 - 8:18 pm
Also, if there was an cost neutral way to improve bus services just by legislating I would certainly be in favour of it. But despite much pressing Labour will not spell out exactly how that could be done.
Frankly we gave enough hostages to fortune in our 2007 manifesto in terms of policy commitments that turned out to be unaffordable – class sizes anyone?
Lesson learned! Unless Labour can a) spell out what legislative changes they think could be effective and b) attach some costs to the likely consequences bus regulation is not even approaching being a debate.
#20 by Aidan Skinner on August 10, 2011 - 9:35 pm
It was in the SNPs 2003 manifesto, was affirmed by a vote at party conference in 2006 and then… err.. wasn’t in the 2007 manifesto. It looks bad.
As for Labours stance, Charlie Gordon’s 2008 proposed legislation was.. what? Scotch Mist? http://www.heraldscotland.com/snp-pressed-to-back-bus-bill-and-alienate-souter-1.828900
#21 by Indy on August 11, 2011 - 8:25 am
Scotch mist is a good description because if you can find any specific proposals to amend legislation in there please post them. I have had lengthy discussions about this on Labour Hame and not one person has been able to tell me specifically what changes should be implemented. And his other proposals to extend the natonal concessionary scheme are just not affordable at this time.
#22 by Aidan Skinner on August 11, 2011 - 12:26 pm
There was a consultation http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/bills/membersbills/pdfs/RegulationBusServicesConsultation.pdf
That included a focus on making it possible for councils to use the powers given to them in the form of quality contracts etc. which have never been used.
So, really, given we were in opposition how much more do you want before it mets your test of having done enough to count?
#23 by Indy on August 12, 2011 - 9:24 am
I am aware there was a consultation – that is what I referred to as Scotch mist.
I am also aware that Labour’s policy is to make it easier for councils to use the powers which they have to introduce quality contracts.
The question is – how can it be made easier?
Because making something easier is not in itself a policy.
We would all like to make it various things easier, would we not? We would like to make it easier for people to find a job. We would like to make it easier for families to find affordable childcare. We would like to make it easier for pendioners and other low income groups to afford to heat their homes during winter. We would like to make it easier for businesses to start up and succeed. Etc.
The question is how do you do that? The desire to make something easy is not in itself a policy, is it? So – for about the 100th time of asking – what specific changes are Labour proposing that would make it easier for councils to use the powers that they already have to regulate buses?
#24 by Aidan Skinner on August 12, 2011 - 10:49 am
There was no fully developed bill because it fell at the first phase, with the SNP, Tories and Lib Dems voting down the principle. I think it’s then fair to say that the SNP are opposed to it. The fact that they publically supported it the principle a few months before the 2007 election is also, I think, fair comment.
#25 by Tony on August 10, 2011 - 9:58 pm
“”While the mud slinging is unedifying, both sides are as bad…””
Why is it that parity of blame is always sought to muddy the waters when it is obvious that it is just not true.
Regarding honours, I thought it was SNP policy not to stain their fingers with these baubles of empire so why would they nominate anybody at all.
#26 by An Duine Gruamach on August 11, 2011 - 4:04 pm
It may be wearing thing for you, Aidan, but you’ve still not answered it.
#27 by Aidan Skinner on August 11, 2011 - 6:10 pm
answered what, precisely?
#28 by Tormod on August 10, 2011 - 5:30 pm
Hate to point out Jeff but it wasn’t a minister that nominated Souter it came from the body that handles all nominations in Scotland before they go to the cabinet office.
So again this nonesense is over a nomination.
#29 by Jeff on August 10, 2011 - 5:37 pm
Ah, come on now, you love to point it out 😉
I don’t know much about this story to be fair but my understanding was that it was “government officials” that nominated Brian. Is that a Minister to all intents and purposes? Who knows. It does look pretty suspect but, at the same time, if a businessman as successful as Mr Souter doesn’t deserve a knighthood then who the north of the border does? Cash for honours is one thing but denying perfectly deserving businessmen of honours just for the avoidance of doubt doesn’t seem right either.
I don’t know, and I certainly don’t really care, (nor do I care about bus resgulation either, is there a pressing need for such a thing in Scotland? I can’t remember anyone talking about it in the election campaign) but the yah boo sucks applies on both sides. It doesn’t really matter who “started it” if you ask me.
#30 by Indy on August 10, 2011 - 5:31 pm
Perfect example today– their attacks on Alex Salmond for being “ small-minded and embarrassing†because he said “One of my frustrations yesterday was to see the events being described as riots in the UK…. Until such time we do have a riot in Scotland, what we are seeing are riots in London and across English cities.â€
Small-minded and embarrassing? He was only saying what everybody else in Scotland was saying! And you don’t need to be a nationalist to think that way, it annoyed everyone.
Labour will get their mojo back when they start thinking like ordinary people again instead of like spin doctors.
#31 by Don McC on August 10, 2011 - 11:30 pm
A decent spin doctor can see all the angles and watch out for faux pars. Tom Harris’ rant on Labour’shame shows that no spin doctors are involved. The fact that Iain Gray has fallen into the same trap of saying it’s okay if a few b&b owners lose their business, just as long as we keep England & UK as interchangable terms and Salmond is wrong to claim otherwise.
#32 by Aidan Skinner on August 11, 2011 - 1:30 am
Everybody else? I know plenty of folk that were pointing out that something essentially quite similar had taken place in Kelvingrove Park not that long ago…
#33 by Indy on August 11, 2011 - 8:30 am
Don’t be silly. A drunken rabble in Kelvingrove Park is hardly comparable to what went on in London over Sunday/Monday night. A dozen polis were able to break that up easily enough.
#34 by Gryff on August 11, 2011 - 12:12 pm
Isn’t the point that there is no reason to believe that the issues which caused this, little understood as they are do not apply just as much to Glasgow as to Manchester. I don’t think that the people involved in Manchester have any ‘English’ affinity with Londoners more than they share a similar affinity with the British Residents of any other large British City, such as Glasgow (Or Cardiff, which did have some trouble or Belfast). They will have been seeing the same pictures from London, which were as much all over the Scottish papers as they were the English and British ones.
The distasteful element of the ‘English Riots’ language is the perception, and in many cases just a perception of superiority in it. As if England was somehow getting the rioting it deserved, and that Scotland was uniquely immune to public violence, petty theft, youth unemployment and mindless anger.
If, and it is still not too late, but it is looking unlikely, things do bubble over in Scotland, any one who made too much of a fuss about the language of UK or English, will look a total tit.
#35 by An Duine Gruamach on August 11, 2011 - 4:12 pm
Blethers, Gryff. They’re called “English Riots” because that’s what they are. Riots in England. It’s not about superiority on our part, or just desserts on theirs, it’s simply delineating where they did and not happen.
I know English nationalists get justifiably annoyed by the aversion that many in the media and politics have to the word “England”, but since I don’t share that aversion, I’m happy enough to use the word. English riots. English cheese. English football. English folk music. See?
#36 by Gryff on August 12, 2011 - 8:40 am
Difference between using a term, and objecting to another term though. So I am not going to think that anyone who says ‘English Riots’ is a petty little Scotlander, but I reserve the right to roll my eyes (steady now) at anyone who whinges about ‘UK riots’. Yes they are riots in England, but Yes they are also riots in the UK, to prefer the former phrase is neither here nor there, to get your knickers in a twist about the latter is petty
I’m happy to talk about Britain, England and the UK each in their own part. I am suitably, and dutifully careful to distinguish between the English NHS, the British Government. I understand the frustration at the subsumption of Scotland, Wales and NI, but sometimes there are bigger thinsg to worry about, and sometmes it is just whinging for the sake of it. When 4 out of 5 of the UKs biggest cities are affected, where the underlying causes are UK wide, where the other portions either may be effected later, or have been similarly effected by mindless lawlessness in the not so far distant past, when our friedns relatives and neighbours in English cities have got cars lit up under their windows, is it really the time to say ‘not us, them’.
#37 by Tony on August 12, 2011 - 11:28 am
Gryff
Sometimes we forget that the Britain is England and vice versa fact or fiction idea runs strong in England, even amongst some of the colonised minds in scotland. I for one don’t think that the English mean to tar us, they just don’t consider us at all. I don’t think it is petty to point out what most of us were thinking when the ‘UK RIOTS’ angle was ran with after day 2. Not even worth rolling yir eyes over even, how you could class it as whinging is also perhaps representative of a certain viewpoint distant from reality. There are probably millions of pounds worth of tourist money angling away from Scotland without the distinction, who knows? Never mind being roped in with a society down south that apart from the copycat underclass of the northern English cities we have little in common with. The underlying causes are world wide, poverty, bankrupt society, greed, imperialism etc. but these riots were not occuring in Scotland.
I watched a wee bit of the Parliament debate yesterday and a Labour Scottish MP who’s name I don’t know bowed and scraped……………….obsequious to the core apologised to a Tory PM for the SNP daring to distinguish Scotland from the English riots. He said that there was anger in Scotland at this, anger?!?! Who is angry? and what is there to apologise for? The mumbling and bowing at the end only underlined the servility.
#38 by Indy on August 12, 2011 - 11:42 am
Well you know it is almost inevitable that changes in policing and perhaps to police powers will be implemented following these events – I would imagine it will become easier for the police to introduce curfews for example, there may be some relaxation on the use of water cannon and baton rounds and there may be legislative changes affecting social media.
So my question to you would be whether these changes should also be implemented in Scotland? Because that is the logical conclusion to the argument that the riots were a UK wide event. If the riots were UK wide, then the response should also be UK wide.
Yet I cannot easily imagine any Scottish politician being daft enough to argue for changes in Scotland on the basis of riots that took place in England. Can you?
#39 by Aidan Skinner on August 11, 2011 - 12:27 pm
You’re confusing the number of police able to break that up easily enough with the number injured http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2011/05/02/kelvingrove-park-royal-wedding-party-organisers-face-40k-clean-up-bill-86908-23102529/ three vans had their windows smashed, there were mounted police and one of the horses was injured.
Is it the same? No. Was that “a little local difficulty” as you so blithely dismiss it? Come off it Indy.
#40 by Indy on August 12, 2011 - 9:28 am
No I am not confused. The “riot” was broken up by around a dozen mounted police officers.
#41 by Indy on August 12, 2011 - 9:40 am
Furthermore I feel I have to coment on how utterly desperate an argument comparing a drunken rammy in Kelvingrove Park is to what happened in London really is.
Labour are trying to attack the SNP for somehow being anti-English or even gloating about what has happened but the complete and utter stupidity the arguments you are making shows a lack of respect which is quite breathtaking.
People have died down south. £200 million worth of damage has been caused – folk had to stand there and watch their homes being attacked and business owners had to watch their life’s work going up in flames. The police were nowhere to be seen – when people needed them, they were not there.
To even consider that it is appropriate to compare that with Glasgow polce dispersing a crowd of drunks is just so crass.
#42 by Munguin on August 10, 2011 - 6:26 pm
Its always the same if its good and from down south its an English achievement, if its bad its a British one. And in reverse if its good up here its British if its bad its Scottish. Note for example the collapse of the Scottish banks while Andy Murray is a great British hope.
#43 by The Burd on August 10, 2011 - 10:16 pm
#19 I apologise Aidan, I’d forgotten about Charlie Gordon’s member’s bill. But that still does not explain Labour’s silence on the bus re-regulation issue while running the Executive. Incidentally at a time when First group were cosy cosy and Moir Lockhead in particular.
But enough I’m now engaging in the behaviour I have objected to!
What I wish for is for it to stop. All the mud slinging. There are more important issues to focus on frankly.
As for bus re-regulation, I am a big supporter. Rural areas badly served with bus services unless local authorities prepared to dig deep with subsidies and even then, such services constantly under threat. De-regulation has made some people very rich and we still do not have a public transport system worhty of the name. Re-regulation would go some way to resolving that.
#44 by Aidan Skinner on August 11, 2011 - 1:29 am
See, the thing is that for the most part I think the mud slinging is the result of going to far holding the government to account, and if we’re to err on one side or the other on that I’d rather it fell that way than the other. I also don’t think that it’s only legitimate for an opposition party to only defend their record, and if they didn’t act on something when they were in government they ought to be quiet.
Do I think the manner of the Souter’s Gold attack is appropriate? Not really. But I do think there are legitimate questions to be asked about it, just as there are questions to be asked about the Tories from Ashcroft.
The other thing is that there’s a developing and hardening narrative that the SNP are relentlessly positive, above the old, discredited politics and offering something new. They aren’t. They regularly accuse Labour of being self-serving, corrupt, venal, vapid, vacuous and in need of being driven into the sea, yet this is glossed over and history rewritten to support the narrative that the SNP know what’s best for Scotland and always act in Scotland’s interests something which the other parties cannot do.
Neither of those caricatures is accurate, and in some ways it’s the reverse – for instance over the course of the last parliament Labour worked to secure increased powers for Holyrood (Calman), while the SNP let the existing powers it had lapse (SVR).
#45 by Doug Daniel on August 14, 2011 - 2:02 pm
“Labour worked to secure increased powers for Holyrood (Calman), while the SNP let the existing powers it had lapse (SVR)”
That’s one way of looking at it. Of course, it would be far more accurate to say that Labour’s support for increased powers is just another attempt to try and stop the relentless march towards Scottish independence, and that the exercisable power of SVR had lapsed long before the SNP got anywhere near government.
But why let facts get in the way of a good story?
#46 by Dr William Reynolds on August 11, 2011 - 6:58 am
My understanding is that the SNP government,(Alec Salmond and his ministers) removed themselves from the nomination of people for honours in 2007.Labour knew this since Lord foulkes asked a parliamentary question in 2008 or 2009? that was answered by John Swinney.This is on record somewhere and can be checked.There is an excellent report on this topic in Newsnet Scotland,if anyone is interested in reading it.The article comes with a photo of George Foulkes who asked the Scottish Government what the current arrangements were for nomination of people for honours.
Since that information is available,I do wonder why the mainstream media are ignoring it? In the case of the Scotsman,innacurate reporting contravenes one of their standards.It is either a case of media bias,or lazy journalism.I do understand why Labour have chosen to forget that that SNP ministers withdrew from the nomination process when they took power in 2007.I guess they feel that if you say something often enough,a lot of people will believe it. Negative smear campaigns have failed them in the past but it is possible that senior labour politicians still believe that they can be effective.
Pingback: So you think you can dance? « Better Nation
#47 by Gryff on August 11, 2011 - 10:48 am
Question S3W-21587 – George Foulkes ( Lothians ) (Scottish Labour ) (Date Lodged 04/03/2009 ) : To ask the Scottish Executive what the arrangements are in Scotland for consideration of nominations for honours and what changes there have been since May 2007.
Answered by John Swinney ( 25/03/2009 ): Nominations are received from a variety of sources, including members of the public, outside organisations and Lord-Lieutenants. Prior to May 2007, Scottish ministers added their own nominations to those from other sources. Nominations from all sources are initially assessed by Scottish Government officials who assist the Permanent Secretary in preparing recommendations for the UK-wide selection committees to consider. Since May 2007, the First Minister has chosen not to exercise the right to approve the recommendations by the Permanent Secretary. The UK-wide selection committees submit their recommendations to HM The Queen through the Prime Minister.
It would presumably be easy enough to ask a follow up question asking if anything had changed since March 09, so if anyone was really curious they could badger their MSP to do so. Alternatively that gives enough info on the process for a tight FoI, does it not?
#48 by Indy on August 12, 2011 - 11:45 am
I am not asking for a fully developed bill – just for an indication of what measures could be introduced to make it easier for councils to use the powers that they currently have to regulate buses. Bullet points will do.
Type your comment here