A very welcome post from Ken Macintosh, Labour MSP for Eastwood and frontrunner in the party’s ongoing leadership contest.
What kind of society do we want to live in? What kind of future do we want to see? What kind of country do we want Scotland to be?
Prosperous, healthy and safe, undoubtedly, but I think we would want more than that.
How about more equal, fair and just? In fact, I hope most of us would go further still: more caring, honest and more trusting.
You see, I believe our task in the Scottish Parliament is not just to secure good government and a sound economy, but to build the good society, a happier, kinder and more confident Scotland.
Scotland’s Labour Party may have lost the election but we have not lost sight of our values or our ambition for the country Scotland can be.
It was the Labour Party that devolved power to Scotland. It was Scotland’s Labour Party that introduced the smoking ban and concessionary travel, delivered free personal care and took on the difficult issues like Section 28 and the scourge of sectarianism.
These are the actions of a party with a vision and our task now is to remind both ourselves and our potential supporters across the country of that vision.
My vision for Scotland’s future starts with us getting the simple things right. I want a country where every young couple starting out in life can find the home they want in a safe community; where our children can go to a school that raises their ambitions; where we are looked after when we are ill and cared for when we are old.
I want to live in a country where everyone is able to better themselves because of their talent and ability; a country where if you work hard and do well, you are able to enjoy your success.
The Scottish Parliament can help us be that country and it has already given us the confidence to take charge of our own destiny. We have decided we don’t want to see smoking as an everyday part of life. We are fed up with our reputation as hardened drinkers. We are changing our lifestyles and diet to reduce our risk of cancer. These deliberate steps towards the society we want to be and the healthy lives we wish to lead have been helped by a Parliament in which our own voice is heard.
But we can do so much more. The powers of the Scottish Parliament are not an excuse for why things can’t be done; they are a liberator to release the potential of our nation.
Education is entirely devolved and it is up to us here and now to improve the opportunities offered our children. Health is entirely devolved and it is already up to us to ensure the care older people receive does not vary depending on where they live. It is not good enough to blame others or hide behind the constitution when we can change lives for the better starting today.
There may be no individual policy which by itself will deliver the good society, but I believe the pursuit of full employment comes close. Having a job gives people self-esteem and a sense of purpose. It helps tackle dependency and poverty, it makes our country more productive and each of us more prosperous. Full employment can help give everyone a stake in our society and provide an antidote to a range of social ills. It may be that governments by themselves cannot create full employment but we can provide the education and training to make people more employable. We can create the conditions for business and enterprise to thrive. Above all we can make the pursuit of full employment the overarching aim of public policy.
There are other policies we need to develop too, from the economically essential such as expanding child care, to the culturally vital such as promoting sport and the arts. And of course we have to contrast our vision for Scotland with the limited aims of the SNP to be simply “competent” in Government, while leading us down the dangerous path to separatism.
The SNP claim to defend Scotland’s interests but separatism is clearly not in Scotland’s interests. I firmly believe that most Scots want us to decide our own affairs as we do in the Scottish Parliament, but to do so within the United Kingdom. We want to continue to enjoy the best of both worlds.
I am a patriotic Scot first but our shared British identity is equally important to me. I am proud of the NHS. I like having the BBC. I am more interested in the many things we have in common with our neighbours in the rest of the UK than in the few areas that supposedly separate us.
I consider myself to be a devolutionist and I believe devolution has given Scotland the opportunity not only to get the simple things right, but to be the shining light for others: a caring society where we look out for one another, not just ourselves; a society that values ambition but not greed; a society where selfishness is balanced out by selflessness.
The conclusions of Scottish Labour’s review and the forthcoming leadership election provide Scotland’s Labour Party with the opportunity to renew and refresh our relationship with the Scottish people. We need to attract support from all sections of society and to build a progressive alliance here in Scotland. We need a new voice, one that people will warm to.
Above all we need speak up and speak out on behalf of the people of Scotland.
I want to lead that progressive alliance and in the forthcoming campaign I intend to be a new voice for Scotland’s Labour Party, a voice for Scotland’s future.
#1 by Indy on September 24, 2011 - 9:19 am
I am afraid this article doesn’t really say anything at all.
It is quite astounding that, of all the contenders for Labour leadership, Tom Harris is the only one who really has anything to say and appears to have a grip on things.
There’s a sentence I never thought I’d write!
#2 by Bobby Fabulous on September 24, 2011 - 9:23 am
“The SNP claim to defend Scotland’s interests but separatism is clearly not in Scotland’s interests. ”
Clearly? Once again, you appear to have rather embarrassingly forgotten to include the argument which leads you to that conclusion. I am not aware of any SNP plans to abolish the NHS in an independent Scotland. Can you direct us to anywhere such a suggestion might be made?
#3 by Aidan on September 24, 2011 - 11:12 am
Can you direct us to where he says the SNP plan to abolish the NHS? He’s saying that the NHS and the BBC are British institutions to be proud of.
#4 by Bobby Fabulous on September 24, 2011 - 11:50 am
…which implies they’d be absent in an independent Scotland. Otherwise what’s the point of mentioning them in this context? Would we be any less proud of a Scottish NHS?
#5 by Aidan on September 24, 2011 - 3:24 pm
Because they’re some of the many positive British things.
#6 by Scotsfox on September 24, 2011 - 4:09 pm
The BBC? Positive? Some people are easily duped obviously.
#7 by Indy on September 24, 2011 - 12:48 pm
He referenced the NHS – alongside the BBC – as a shared British institution.
But the reality is that the NHS is going in very different directions north and south of the border so it’s not a very good example of a shared institution.
#8 by Bobby Fabulous on September 24, 2011 - 9:28 am
But while you’re here, Ken, I may as well put to you the question I’ve put to countless dozens of Labour MPs, members, activists and supporters, and still never had an answer to:
Why, as a Labour MP, do you think it is in Scotland’s interests to be subjected to regular Tory governments in Westminster, rather than be governed as an independent nation by the left-of-centre parties Scotland has consistently voted for for the last 40 years?
#9 by Aidan on September 24, 2011 - 11:16 am
There’s a clear difference between supporting devolution, which already includes complete control over most of the things that matter to people such as health, education, justice etc. and should be further strengthened and supporting Tory governments.
The benefits Scotland gets from being part of the UK – control over our currency, defence, much greater foreign policy clout – can be retained while mitigating some of the costs without independence.
#10 by An Duine Gruamach on September 24, 2011 - 1:10 pm
It can never be called “complete control” over those things until we have complete control of raising funds to pay for them. Otherwise it’s really just adminisrative contol.
And I’d argue that Iraq and Afghanistan haven’t been much of a benefit.
#11 by An Duine Gruamach on September 24, 2011 - 9:47 am
“I am a patriotic Scot”
Then why are you against teaching Scottish history in schools?
#12 by Aidan on September 24, 2011 - 11:09 am
He’s not, Scottish history is already taught as part of, errr, history…
#13 by Scotsfox on September 24, 2011 - 4:12 pm
Well, I’m 57 and have learned nearly ALL of my Scottish history in recent years. We had no such thing at school and I’d be amazed if that’s changed since the 50s & 60s.
#14 by JPJ2 on September 24, 2011 - 10:31 am
This article brought a smile to my face. Is this really the best challenge that Labnour can make to the SNP?
Ken says “The Scottish Parliament can help us be that country and it has already given us the confidence to take charge of our own destiny.”
As Bobby Fabulous has pointed out it is ludicrous for Labour to accept that Scotland should be governed about 60% of the time by Tory led goverments that is now opposed by around 80% of the voters.
Yes, Scotland is gaining confidence all the time under the SNP.
If the Tories win the next Westminster election you may find yourself campaigning to retain Tory control over Scotland rather than seeking the normal status for Scotland as an independent nation-that stark and foolish position will fail.
#15 by Aidan on September 24, 2011 - 11:10 am
Scotland is governed by the Scottish Parliament Labour delivered.
#16 by Don McC on September 24, 2011 - 11:24 am
Are you claiming, Aidan, that Westminster has no control over Scotland? Can’t pass laws that affect Scotland? Can’t impose budget cuts that affect Scotland? Can’t set taxes that affect Scotland?
#17 by Bobby Fabulous on September 24, 2011 - 12:01 pm
Labour delivered the Scottish Parliament out of self-interest, believing it would kill the nationalist threat to their heartlands “stone dead”. But even if we decide for the sake of argument that it instead came from the most honourable of motives, it’s clearly not enough for the Scottish people, who overwhelmingly want significantly more powers – be that in the form of independence or devo max. So why aren’t Labour enthusiastically campaigning for the latter at the very least, rather than trying to take us backwards with the sneaky, damaging Scotland Bill?
And once again, no answer to the question of why it’s better to be in the Union at all.
#18 by Indy on September 24, 2011 - 12:50 pm
No Aidan.
Scotland is governed by a Scottish Parliament that the Scottish people delivered.
How you give yourself away sometimes.
#19 by Don McC on September 24, 2011 - 10:37 am
Ken, if “separatism” is clearly not in Scotland’s interests, how about explaining why it isn’t for those of us too blind or stupid to reach such a conclusion. (We’ll leave aside the argument that it’s only the desperate Unionists who talk about separatism, everyone else talks about democracy and being a normal modern country).
How about, for once, coming up with a good positive argument for remaining in the Union.
For god’s sake don’t give us the impression that all we’re going to hear from a Scottish labour under your leadership is more empty rhetoric and negativity.
#20 by Jeff on September 24, 2011 - 11:14 am
Thanks for the post Ken.
It may be somewhat disappointingly light on policy (as noted in other comments) and a bit too ‘tone at the top’ (dare I say wishy washy?) for my liking but, one, it is early days in the campaign and in terms of setting out a stall for a positive vision I think this is very good. And another thing, I think it shows a bit of a risk for the SNP.
Ken is clearly making a big issue of not just employment but full employment. An impossible dream some would say but as Swinney frantically tries to top up the capital spend budget with whatever’s available and Tories/Lib Dems stick to their Plan A, Labour will be within its rights to point to any increasing unemployment stats and job losses and claim it can do better.
Being in opposition at both Westminster and Holyrood and free from responsibility may be the best thing going for the next LOLITSP, allowing all sorts of promises to be made – full employment for example.
#21 by Aidan on September 24, 2011 - 11:27 am
Yeah, I’d really like to see some detail on how we’re going to try and achieve full employment – bashing the Phillips curve bad, education is very long term, innovative business support good..
#22 by DougtheDug on September 24, 2011 - 11:24 am
Not much here is there, apart from a wish list of buzzwords.
Equal, fair, just, sound economy, caring, honest, trusting, happier, kinder, more confident, full employment and a caring society. All good things to aim for but it’s a politician’s wish-list which anyone could make up given an hour and a little trolling through the anodyne speeches of other politicians.
In essence the article is based on a wish-list of aspirations and a swipe at the SNP. Devolution good, independence bad and Labour will make it all better but no mention of how they’ll make it better under a Tory Westminster Government. It’s a Tory Block Grant Ken. Did you fight in 2011 to keep Scotland under a Tory Westminster Government? Of course you did.
If you removed the four sentences which contain the word Labour you wouldn’t be able to work out which unionist party wrote it.
Little things ring alarm bells. The NHS is held up as a totem of Britishness but the NHS has always been split along national grounds. Devolution of powers has been good for Scotland, having our own parliament has been good for Scotland but there’s no thought that perhaps that that is a pointer that independence would be even better for Scotland.
It’s a clear marker of how the SNP is different from the three British parties in Scotland. The SNP has an aim and a vision for Scotland while the other three are writing stuff like this.
#23 by Observer on September 24, 2011 - 11:30 am
”There’s a clear difference between supporting devolution, which already includes complete control over most of the things that matter to people such as health, education, justice etc. and should be further strengthened and supporting Tory governments.”
What devolution does not give us is control of fiscal economic policy. That still resides in Westminster.
I completely agree with Ken that full employment should be one of the principle objectives of the Scottish government. Unfortunately, as ever, that is not a view shared by the current UK Tory led government, & they control the dosh.
Watching George Osborne clinging on to his disastrous policies, so ably ripped apart by Ed Balls before the Tories were elected Aidan, is like watching a slo mo car crash, but we will all crash too, regardless of the control we have over health or education.
Scotland needs control of fiscal policy Aidan. That is the vital area that devolution left out. That is the vital policy issue that Ken missed out too. How can a candidate for the Labour leadership not talk about this?
#24 by Aidan on September 24, 2011 - 11:43 am
Absolutely agree that Scotland needs more control of fiscal policy, some of that’s being delivered in the Scotland Bill (which I hope will be substantially improved from it’s current position) but there’s a very strong case for moving further.
Amazingly, the constitution isn’t actually the very top thing for most Labour members and it’s very early days in the leadership contest, so that’s not so surprising really.
#25 by Dubbieside on September 24, 2011 - 11:36 am
Its hard to know where to start with this, how about housing.
“I want a country where every young couple starting out in life can find the home they want in a safe community” That will be why Labour built the massive total of SIX new council houses in eight years in government.
What about alcohol,
“We are fed up with our reputation as hardened drinkers” Thats why Labour voted against minimum pricing for alcohol against all medical advise. How is the Labour commission on that scourge of Scottish society caffeine going?
NHS.
“I am proud of the NHS” Thats why Labour voted to close hospitals in Scotland, and start with privatisation, remember Stracathro hospital near Brechin.
A more equal and just Scotland, that from the party that doubled the starting rate of tax a move that directly impacted on the poorest in society. How did all the Labour Scotish MPs vote on that one?
The bottom line with Labour is still the fact that they will vote for Scotlands finances to be controled by Tory governments in Westminster rather than by Scots in a Scottish elected parliament.
The article just like Labour a policy light vacuum.
#26 by Jamie Maxwell on September 24, 2011 - 11:41 am
Aiden,
If you haven’t already – and I suspect you haven’t – you should read Neal Ascherson’s Stone Voices to get an idea of the mix of indifference and hostility with which many Labour activists approached the devolution debates in the late 70s and late 90s. It’s an eye opener – to people of our generation anyway.
As regards one of your earlier points, MacIntosh in clearly implying that the NHS is a distinctly ‘British’ institution founded on distincly ‘British’ values and as such independence and nationalism pose a threat to it.
Jamie
#27 by Craig Kelly on September 24, 2011 - 11:58 am
I opened this article with genuine interest and hope that I was about to read something new, fresh, and perhaps, just maybe, even a little bit inspiring. I’m sorry to say that it failed on all counts.
Wonderful aspirations for a more equal society, but how? Yes guys, you’ve guessed it, by attacking the SNP with whimsical, illogical, and frankly hypocritical slander. If this is the best the Labour Party have to offer then they thoroughly deserve to be removed from the political map of Scotland. I agree, a progressive, innovative block of Scottish politicians who put social equality first and foremost would be a wonderful thing to see. Clearly, we won’t be seeing it from the Labour Party.
Apologies if this post seems like a rant but this article has really annoyed me. It just makes me despair for any hope of an effective opposition to the SNP majority in Holyrood.
Oh, and Aiden, on the Scottish history front: it was only hitherto taught in passing as part of an extremely anglocentric syllabus. Until recently, young Scots were not taught even the most broad brush strokes of their own history. This has had a devastating impact on Scottish history at university level, where students are more likely to opt for German, Italian, or – in most cases – English history. You can’t blame them, it’s what they know best. The result has been a complete lack of understanding, interest, and a striking ignorance of Scottish history.
To oppose Scottish history being implanted into the Higher syllabus is at best a manifestation of the dreaded Scottish cringe.
#28 by Bobby Fabulous on September 24, 2011 - 12:03 pm
Mm. I studied History at both O-Grade and Higher level (that’s how old I am), and was taught absolutely nothing of Scotland. The vast majority of it comprised the two World Wars and the Industrial Revolution.
#29 by Jeff on September 24, 2011 - 12:12 pm
Em, Scotland fought in both Wars and were part of the Industrial Revolution. How is that not part of Scottish history? Have you not been to New Lanark?
Maybe it’s William Wallace studies that people are looking for? (who I was actually taught about at school)
#30 by Indy on September 24, 2011 - 1:07 pm
It is the way it is taught Jeff. I was taught about the Toplpudle Martyrs in a school that was just a hop, skip and a jump away from Sighthill Cemetary- but I had left school by the time I even found out who the 1820 Martyrs were, never mind that thete was a monument to them in Sighthill Cemetary.
Never mind debates about nationalism and unionism – the key to getting people interested in history and indeed culture is to show how it relates to their life and to their experience and to their heritage.
Winnie Ewing, for example, when she was an MEP used to do visits to schools and she told me how she used to get the teachers to bring the children out to meet her at the local war memorial – and you know what it is like in all these highland and coastal towns and villages, the war memorial usually has a central place. And she would get the children to read the names on the memorial, very often they were the same names as their own, and then she would tell them this is what the European Union – or Common Market it would have been in those days – is about, it’s about making sure that none of your names ever end up going onto a European war memorial.
Of course it’s also about a lot of other things and, knowing Winnie, she would not have been backward in denouncing the things she disagreed with like the CFP, but she still managed to show them what it really meant to them to live in a peaceful Europe, something their grandparents and great grandparents etc did not know.
#31 by An Duine Gruamach on September 24, 2011 - 1:14 pm
It is a disgrace that children can go through all their years of schooling and never hear a word about the Reformation, the Covenanters, the Picts, David I and the Enlightenment. What other nation would accept that?
#32 by Aidan on September 24, 2011 - 3:31 pm
That’s a problem with the way history is taught, overly focusing on the things that happened recently and shape the modern world, rather than 12th century kings who ruled over bits of England and Scotland.
#33 by Observer on September 24, 2011 - 6:29 pm
That was called modern studies when I was at school/
#34 by Aidan on September 24, 2011 - 10:26 pm
Modern Studies when I was at school (mid 90s) was politics and economics – where we are, rather than history which was how we got here.
#35 by Doug Daniel on September 24, 2011 - 1:16 pm
You were quite lucky then, Jeff. At my school, there was no emphasis on Scottish history at all, which is quite startling for a country with such a rich history. Wars of Independence, Jacobite Revolution, the Scottish Enlightenment, the Reformation, the Union if the crowns… there’s a wealth of stuff to teach kids there and get them interested in history, but I had to learn all that stuff from my dad and from books (and, erm, Wikipedia…). Neil Oliver’s series about the history of Scotland was absolutely fascinating, and I hardly got taught any of that stuff at school.
#36 by Scottish republic on September 24, 2011 - 9:06 pm
Then you are one of the rare ones who heard about Wallace. A while back in Elderslie (one possible town of his birth), people were asked who Wallace was – they didn’t know. eventually, one wee boy was asked and he said, ‘I think that’s the man that the statue is for’.
So an individual’s experience does not a mass system of education make.
#37 by Bobby Fabulous on September 24, 2011 - 9:09 pm
Yes, we went to New Lanark. It was pretty boring. The Industrial Revolution and the wars are WORLD history – by your argument the American Civil War is Scottish history too, because Scotland and the US are both part of the world.
I had to wait another 25 years to discover how Scotland even came into being, when the BBC finally made a TV show about it. Was pretty interesting.
#38 by Scotsfox on September 24, 2011 - 12:48 pm
“How about more equal, fair and just? In fact, I hope most of us would go further still: more caring, honest and more trusting.”
This from a representative of the party that presided over the biggest inequality between rich and poor ever. As for honest and trusting…The worst for expenses fiddling by far and the party that wanted us all to carry ID cards. Sorry Ken but your party is not fit to represent the Scottish people.
#39 by Ian Smart on September 24, 2011 - 12:51 pm
I am all in favour of more teaching of Scotland’s role in the defeat of Nazism. Particularly if it focuses on the attitude of the SNP to that heroic struggle. Somehow however I don’t think that’s what the Scottish Givernment has in mind as “history”.
#40 by Doug Daniel on September 24, 2011 - 2:53 pm
I like your thinking, Ian – perhaps when schoolkids are being taught about what a “great” leader Churchill was, they should also be told that he was a man who was in favour of using poison gas, and was one of many people in Britain who believed in the same eugenics that people conveniently pretend only the Nazis believed in. We should also tell them that the former King of England was a Nazi sympathiser.
Somehow I don’t think that’s what the UK government has in mind as “history”.
#41 by CW on September 25, 2011 - 12:14 am
Well funnily enough that happens to be generally be covered in Scottish history departments at our universities, where that very issue was mentioned during my own studies in the unit on Scotland and nationalism. It simply cannot be ignored, as it led to the party splitting between factions led by Douglas Young and John MacCormick. I do not see why Scottish studies in schools need necessarily be any different. If what you are arguing for is ignorance rather than the wide view of the good, bad, and inbetween that the study of Scotland’s history necessarily entails (like that of any other country), then I think that is very much regrettable. As a mature country, we should be able to consider our history in all its complexity, and I find it very strange that anyone would believe otherwise.
#42 by Christine on September 24, 2011 - 12:56 pm
Like others, I had high hopes for this article, but was disappointed. As much as I enjoy living in a Scotland with an SNP majority, we NEED a decent opposition in Scotland. I’d like to think the ‘frontrunner’ for Leadership would have more to offer beyond hopeful rhetoric about a happy and fluffy Scotland.
What are Labour offering the people of Scotland besides fearmongering about independence?
#43 by Doug Daniel on September 24, 2011 - 1:00 pm
Oh Ken, this is exactly the sort of article I would have expected from you. So many words, so little substance. A thoroughly enjoyable read, with so much to pick holes in that it’s difficult knowing where to start and when to stop.
“There may be no individual policy which by itself will deliver the good society, but I believe the pursuit of full employment comes close.”
I remember my Modern Studies teacher at school (the late, great Dicky Ewen) telling us that you couldn’t get “full” employment, because the economy relies on there being a constant pool of unemployed people. After all, what’s the point of creating new jobs if there’s no one to fill the role? The economy would stagnate, unless of course the government of the time introduced a policy of encouraging mass immigration to Scotland. Ah, that could work, actually.
Oh, wait a minute, no it wouldn’t. I forgot – immigration is reserved to Westminster, and no UK government is ever going to introduce a policy of encouraging mass immigration.
Here’s a little link for you Ken, it’ll explain in very simple terms why 0% unemployment is actually undesirable. Have a quick read of it before you spout such basic, uninformed, meaningless nonsense again. As I say, I was in school when I was taught this – about 13 or 14 – so it’s good to see the bright lights of Labour in Scotland are educated to such a high standard.
“The SNP claim to defend Scotland’s interests but separatism is clearly not in Scotland’s interests. I firmly believe that most Scots want us to decide our own affairs as we do in the Scottish Parliament, but to do so within the United Kingdom. We want to continue to enjoy the best of both worlds.”
You’re quite right Ken, separatism clearly isn’t in the best interests of Scotland, since it would imply cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world. However, independence would not be about that, and if this is what you refer to (and it must be, because the SNP do not believe in “separatism”),then you might want to tell us why it isn’t in Scotland’s interest, because it isn’t “clear” to me at all. I’m really chuffed for you that you “believe” that most Scots want us to decide our own affairs, albeit within the UK; however, believing is not the same as knowing the truth. Fundamental Christians in America “believe” that God created man and that evolution is a myth; that belief doesn’t stop them from being wrong. Have you actually asked everyone in Scotland what they think?
“We are fed up with our reputation as hardened drinkers.”
Is that why you voted against minimum pricing in the last parliament?
“I am a patriotic Scot first but our shared British identity is equally important to me. I am proud of the NHS. I like having the BBC.”
It’s good to know that you’re more concerned about being able to catch up on Eastenders than on Scotland having proper job creating powers. You’re proud of the NHS? Good on you mate, so am I. It’s a shame the past two UK governments have been so hell-bent on destroying it. Luckily, we have the SNP looking after things here, and they truly believe in universal free health care at the point of need.
Incidentally, there’s no reason why Scotland should suddenly stop getting the BBC upon independence, and even if we did, BBC programmes are transmitted throughout the world, so I wouldn’t worry too much. We might not get River City any more, mind…
“The powers of the Scottish Parliament are not an excuse for why things can’t be done; they are a liberator to release the potential of our nation.”
You know something Ken? I totally agree with you here. Yes, let’s release our potential. A good starting block might be to increase the top rate of income tax. What are the Scottish Parliament waiting for? Let’s DO IT!
Oh, hold on, we’re not allowed to. UK Government says “no”.
#44 by Aidan on September 24, 2011 - 3:30 pm
In economist-ese “full employment” now really means NAIRU which is a perfectly sensible thing to work for. But well done destroying your own straw man there.
Also, the power to raise the top rate of tax is included in the Scotland Bill (usual disclaimer about it needing imrpovement). So it’s actually that the UK government says “ok, get some legislation through”.
#45 by Doug Daniel on September 24, 2011 - 4:03 pm
Oh, I see. So the Scotland Bill has suddenly been amended to provide powers to allow the top rate of tax to be raised without the standard rate having to be raised by the same amount?
I must have missed that announcement. Quite surprising really, given that it would be a pretty major change.
As for NAIRU, yes, you’re quite right. Bearing in mind how fleshed out and precise the stated aims in the rest of his article are, it’s bizarre that I mistakenly thought Ken was spouting fluffy nonsense and really did literally mean FULL employment, rather than just as close to the natural rate of unemployment as possible. That’ll teach me to be a sarcastic sod!
#46 by Dr William Reynolds on September 25, 2011 - 1:17 pm
Of course seperation is not in Scotlands interest.That is why we need independence.Independence ends Scotlands absence from the worlds institutions and allows Scotland to speak to,and coloborate with other nations on the world stage.I am currently on business in Bangladesh and I noticed in yesterdays newspaper that the Palestinians are applying for full UN membership.Well good luck to them.Hopefully day Scotland will be up there on the world stage as well.
Since Scotland is also seperated from more than 80% of the income that it raises then it is arguable that the proponents of seperatism are actually unionist politician,such as ken McIntosh.It is time that the misleading rhetoric was challenged.I prefer the term Inclusion because that is what the propnents of independence seek.We already have a seperate parliament.The problem is that its powers are too limited.
#47 by John on September 29, 2011 - 12:36 pm
As DougtheDug says, this is just a wishlist of buzzwords. It could have been written by – or for – any Labour candidate over the past forty years. Note the use of the scary word ‘separatism’, which he has used elsewhere: he evidently hasn’t realised that it no longer has its shock effect.
It’s quite astonishing that Mr Mackintosh thinks that this plodding, humdrum effort will advance his appeal amongst the Scottish electorate. Maybe he believes that this is the sort of ‘intellectual’ approach which, he has claimed, won Labour most of the arguments in the last Parliament. Sorry, laddie: the spelling and grammar are OK, but it’s dull and lacking in any spark of originality or incisiveness in thought, or felicity in expression. B minus, at best: we need A scores in Scotland.