Scottish Political News

Amal Azzudin, 16, originally from Somalia, said: "We thought he had so much power as he's the first minister of Scotland, but now we know he's got no power. I'm ashamed of him."

Pity none of the assorted hacks from the Scotsman, the Herald, BBC Scotland or STV could be so concise.

When my drinking career was at its height in the early eighties George Best was seeing out what remained of his playing career or indeed often not playing career for Hibs at Easter Road. I was even misguided or deluded enough then to take some comfort from the fact that somebody of his stature was having the same troubles as I was, as if that would somehow excuse the heartbreak and damage that drinking was causing for me and those around me.

Why is it then that 20 odd years down the line drink no longer plays a part in my life, a fact with which I am very comfortable, and George, after spending these same years engaged in what the tabloid press are given to present as the ‘battle against booze,’ is dead?

Drink played a hugely important part in both our lives so much so that it warped how we saw the world – drink becoming the main focus, the arbiter of everything we did and just as often didn’t do. The fact that he was a superstar gloriously entertaining those who were lucky enough to see him play and I was an ordinary working guy stood for nothing. We both suffered from blackouts, from illness, missed work, crashed cars, endangered and destroyed relationships – the full Monty really. We were both brought to our knees by a compulsion to drink alcohol. Ok he performed both on and off the field in the full glare of publicity and some would argue that it was this pressure that made him drink but I have the feeling that George Best would have had the same problems had he been a shipyard worker in Belfast like his dad instead of one of the most dazzling football players the world has ever seen.

I think there are two areas that George failed to get his head round in relation to his drinking. Firstly he bought into this whole fight/battle idea. Fighting at times not to drink but probably just as often, if not more so, to prove that he could. Secondly, and as a consequence of that mindset, he could not achieve the depth of change, change which it might not be too fanciful to refer to as being at the level of the soul, which would enable him to envisage even the possibility of a life without alcohol.

Now there are as many and varied theories surrounding alcohol abuse as there are ‘treatments’and I know that we were both exposed to many of them ranging from Alcoholics Anonymous to drug therapies, various forms of counselling, you name it, it was tried. So again, why did I get it and he didn’t? I can’t say I had a ‘Road to Damascus’ experience and indeed, like George I tried to stop drinking many times and failed, I tried to control my drinking many times and failed, but somewhere along the line these organisations I was touching and people I was talking to were rubbing off on me and, even at a subconscious level, were starting to lay the foundations of a platform for change.

Looking back, if I were to try and define a turning point I would have to say that when I came to realise that this ‘fight’ this ‘battle’ that everybody was talking about was, at least for me, one best not entered into, things started to get better.I didn’t need to look any further than my own experience to realise that this particular fighter had climbed into the ring to contest this same ‘mismatch’ once too often and had suffered some fearful beatings in so doing. So why should I expect the result to be any different this time? I simply threw in the towel – I didn’t win the fight against alcohol, I gave up the fight.

A fighter to the last, this was one area of his life where perhaps the competitive streak, the fighter in him, worked against George. We’ve all got our race to run and he should be remembered for his short lived brilliance which, like a comet, lit up the sporting world. And well, at least he should be better placed to sort out that other business next time round.

Charlie Orr
Edin Nov 2005

They said that the Conservative Party would die out, and yet there is a strong atmosphere of progression in the air. The Conservative is not dying, and it never can, because the principles on which it stands are the fundamental cornerstones of prosperity for this country.

Under Michael Howard we took the steps we needed to take to take put our party back on the road to Number 10.

They just don't seem able to see themselves as the rest of us see them, do they? Firstly, McLetchie resigns, then their one potentially competent replacement announces himself quite happy to hide behind the skirts of his scary auntie. Then Brian 'Rimmel beard trimmer' Monteith is drummed out of the party for choosing to trust an employee of Andrew Neil. Then Annabel 'Zelda' Goldie appears on Newsnight Scotland and refuses to say whether or not she believes devolution to be a good thing, whilst drop-kicking the Murdo Fraser-idea of adopting fiscal autonomy out of the park.

We then learn that just about all members of the Tory group have been briefing hacks against The Letch for months, years even. There are only 18 of them to start with; how many factions can people elected on one solitary manifesto divaricate into?

When I composed my previous piece I genuinely felt that the Scottish Tories would take a very long, hard look at themselves and decide to get real; provide some genuine opposition to a bunch of tertiary wee toon cooncillors with no national ambition and a grotesquely inflated sense of their own self-worth. How wrong can you be? The tartan Tories are so dead they wouldn't get elected if you shoved 2000 volts up them. Still equipped with the notion that they are a party of government, they are nothing more than a sad, sorry, dysfunctional joke with a weak punchline in self-interest and a nice side-serving of puritanism. I eagerly anticipate their imminent extinction.

Catalonia is often compared to Scotland in terms of it's constitutional settlement. Like Scotland, Catalonia is a nation with it's own devolved administration within an existing state. The Catalans have a lot more power that the Scottish Parliament already and their relationship to Scotland is akin to that of the Scottish Parliament compared to the Welsh Assembly. The Welsh Assembly look at the law making powers of the Scottish Parliament with envy and the Scottish Parliament looks at Catalonia as a model for what further devolution of powers could achieve.

The Catalan Parliament recently held a vote where the overwhelming majority backed calls for recognition of Catalan nationality and for full control of it's taxation system, or full fiscal autonomy as it is known in Scotland. The Spanish Parliament in Madrid has agreed to open negotiations with the Catalans over the future relationship between the two and the possibility of further autonomy.

This move has been welcomed accross mainstream European nationalist parties who see this as a useful precedent. It remains to be seen whether the First Minister of Scotland will be happy to continue to cite Catalonia in light of this information, which is bound to please the Scottish National Party no end. Further devolution of powers to Scotland is once again firmly on the agenda.

Carole Tongue was an MEP for 15 years spending time between her constituency, Brussels and Strasbourg. For two of those years she was also deputy leader of the UK Labour Party in the European Parliament. She is an advocate of Charter 88 who campaign for a written constitution for the United Kingdon by 2010, has helped draft much EU legislation (including the Television Without Frontiers Directive which has ensured that certain large sporting events such as the 2006 World Cup will be viewable by most people in the UK on free-to-air channels) and is a recognised authority on the functions and structures of European politics.

There is little Carole doesn’t know about Europe and the sometimes fickle British attitude towards it.

Uncle Pauly spoke with Carole who is currently an Associate Director of political consultants Sovereign Strategy.

UP: Carole, via Charter 88 you are a supporter of bringing in a written constitution for the UK yet at the same time you’re in favour of closer European integration. Was the rejection of the European constitution by France and the Netherlands this year therefore a help to Charter 88’s cause?

I had hoped that the EU constitution would be a spur to the adoption of a written constitution in the UK. Sadly now not the case. It is important that citizens have a constitution in writing describing the values, aims and objectives, limits to powers, bill of rights. This goes for the nation state and EU level. I do not think a link with the absence of a UK constitution has been made. The issue is simply not on the agenda at present. Constitutional reform seems to be proceeding gently on an ad hoc basis.

. . . I seem to recall Tony Blair, prior to his victory in 1997, enthusing a great deal more about constitutional change than ‘gently’ and ‘ad hoc’ would imply. Do you think attaining power has tempered TB and the Labour party’s zeal for what were once shared aims with Charter 88? The Freedom of Information project appears to have been ‘bodged’.

This Labour Government has carried out a programme of impressive constitutional reform…devolution to Scotland, Wales and London was a gigantic leap forward coupled with which those chambers are elected by proportional representation with 50 % women representatives. The government has also tried to take regional government reform forward but local people have been less than enthusiastic. Freedom of Information Act could have been stronger but at least we now have one on the books and many, particularly journliasts are making good use of it in the public interest. My one great disappointment is the government refusal to take up the issue of proportional representative for the House of Commons. Brtain’s political culture would be transformed if we had an electoral system with a degree of proportionality in it…every vote could be of equal value, greater pluralism of political parties and better representation of the mix in our society could be just some of the benefits not to mention a proregressive end to our adversarial pantomime political culture. The government also should describe the big constitutional picture for British citizens and explain why all these measure have been taken and why they are important in making Britain a modern democracy.

UP: In a recent lecture to students at the London College of Communications you were critical of the sheer size of the European Constitution while you praised the brevity of the US Constitution. Did EU politicians try to cram too much in? Was this perhaps a factor in its subsequent rejection by two nation states?

The draft EU constitution was much too long. Constitutions should be brief and in 3 parts…short statement of values and objectives as a society then part 2 defining institutions and limits to their powers and part 3 bill of Rights.

I think the length of the constitution may have put some people off. Also some I spoke to in France felt that it was inpenetrable and so simply voted against. There were many reasons for a NO vote however. The strongest NO vote in france matches the map of unemployment. Economic and social insecurities in an age of globalisation coupled with a feeling that one’s government has no response will have been main factors in NO vote.

. . . Non EU member states like Norway enjoy full and effective trading with the EU via membership of the European Free Trade Area. They save a considerable portion of their nation’s wealth by remaining outside the political and legal structures of the EU. Their voice is no less visible on the world stage for remaining outside the EU. What would the UK lose by reverting to a similar status ?

Why do you even put this question? It presupposes we have an advantage in being outside the EU. We simply do not. As a member we are part of the decision making structure of the EU and have influence on all its decisions. Norway does not and has simply to accept EU rules without having had any input. I do not want to simply be part of a free trade area. The EU is much more than that. I want us to be a full partner in its social, regional, environmental, R & D, transport, education and cultural policies which we benefit from enormously,

. . . I pose the question partly as EU-sceptic devil’s advocate and also because during the recent UK election the SNP offered up on several occasions the prospect of an independent Scotland one day assuming a status somewhat akin to Norway. It got me thinking about the EU without the UK as a full member, and instead becoming a member of the EFTA. What would UK citizens lose most from such an arrangement?

The SNP are in favour of an independent Scotland being a full member of the EU, like other small countries ie Ireland and Denmark*. UK citizens have most to lose because they would not be participants in a whole range of EU programmes: the social fund, the regional fund, the education and cultural programmes to mention but a few. Also legislative decisions would be taken without the views of UK representatives reflecting the situation and concerns of the British people. UK citizens would then be subjet to abiding by rules they have had no input to. The future of the European Union is of enormous importance for the future peace and prosperity of the whole world. Do we wish to play a role in shaping our own affairs and acting for peace and understanding in a difficult and dangerous world alongside other powers like the US, China and India or do we not ? That is the question we have to answer.

UP: Like most people in the UK it’s difficult to find the time to keep up with developments in national politics let alone the EU. Only when something directly affects me (e.g.Regulation 261/2004 which came into effect this February allowing air passengers to claim compensation for delayed or cancelled flights) do I tend to take notice. Do you agree the onus is on the EU to rectify this ? What can the EU collectively do to engage a sceptical UK public more ?

The EU is there to serve its citizens. All its actions have this aim in mind. It is not the fault of the EU that the British public doesn’t know more about the EU….we have a eurosceptic written press in the main and little attention given by national radio and television to important EU matters. Local radio and press are much better at carring EU news. We also do not teach the history/politics of the EU in seconday schools despite the teaching materials being available. It should be part of the curriculum.

UP: Often the EU is seen as an elite body who will ‘railroad’ through legislation despite the opinions of national electorates. In 2001 the Irish voted ‘No’ to the Nice treaty. A year later the referendum was held again and the government-favoured ‘Yes’ vote won. Surely a case of governmental bullying? If UK voters rejected the European Constitution in a future referendum can they have confidence that the government will respect the decision and not simply keep holding referenda until it gets the result it wants?

I do not foresee the referendum being put to a vote in this country…so you ask a hypothetical question which I do not believe we will have to face. Better that the EU revises the constitution and produces a briefer text which is more understandable. Then a referendum should be held in every country on the same day.

. . . Hold the referenda on the same day? I never thought of that - avoids inter-country influencing of results. A neat idea I must say. Sounds to me though that you still entertain the idea of a European constitution in some form _despite_ the fact that two prominent nation states have vetoed it. I am aware that several nations approved the constitution but I would contend that unlike the Irish government, we should respect ‘NO’ nation states’ results and conclude that it can now never happen . . . at least not in our lifetime?

It is important that all EU citizens have a document that clearly explains what the EU is about, why we are members, what is does and what our individual human rights are in an EU context. Otherwise, as in the UK, elites know what is going on in the body politic and citizens do not. That does not make for good democracy. Most of the constitution has already been adopted in other instruments in any case. It is now a question of drafting something short, legible, u nderstandable that goes to the hub of the whole enterprise and enables people to make sense of it.

. . . Just today Angela Merkel has confirmed that her coalition will “stand for the European constitutional treaty” so it looks like at least some EU leaders believe the EU constitution can at some point be introduced. I just don’t see any attempt to rerun referenda as anything other than disrespectful to the French and Dutch voters?

That may be your view. 18 countries have already ratified the Constitution and they have views too. It is unlikely that the existing Constitution will be put to the vote again. Elements from it which are new and are required for the better democratic functioning of the EU may be reintroduced in another form. Sadly one thing we may have lost is the Chart of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. Could be that a new Constitution of similar brevity to that of the US constitution could be considered. Hard to see at the moment however.

UP: Carole, on a personal level you are a member of the Religious Society of Friends, aka Quakers, and have close links with the Quaker Council of Europe. Do your Quaker beliefs ever conflict with your campaigning in the European sphere? How do you resolve such conflicts? For example your advocacy of a European Defence Force means you do in theory at least concede that military action must sometimes be taken, yet this would seem to conflict with the Quaker Peace Testimony?

I am a Quaker attender as opposed to a fully fledged Quaker. I wholeheartedly respect the Quaker Peace Testimony. However I am convinced that there are occasions when force has to be used….I would prefer that such multinational force be mandated by the United Nations. A European Defence Force is no problem for me. I want to see the EU playing an important peace keeping role, particularly in the Balkans.

. . . It’s interesting you mention the Balkans. Did the EU miss a chance in the 90’s to show the world that it could deal with European conflict without US military help? There’s no doubt the ‘hardware’ exists but if Europe suffered another ‘local’ war within say, the next few months, do you believe the political will exists to handle it within the EU?

Yes the EU should be able to deal with a local conflict but for that it must have a more developed foreign and security policy and you have people in this country arguing against that. So you can’t have it both ways. You have to empower the EU to act in such matters. Of course the political will exists among the EU Member States on a whole raft of foreign policy issues to act in concert and indeed it does on the vast majority of issues. But then look at the role of the UK in certain areas of the world….we refused to cooperate in a mature way with our EU partners preferring to blindly follow the USA.

. . . An EU Defence force is nice in theory but co-operating on defence matters within Europe means at least normalising some of the defence budgets between certain nation states. The UK for example, spends vastly more on defence than any other EU state. Asking other nation states to stump up more cash for this area often proves unpopular with their respective populations. I just think that until the will is there in countries like Belgium and France to increase defence spending, the EU defence force will remain a pipe dream and reliance on the US a reality. Would you agree?

No I do not agree. There have been huge steps forward in defence cooperation between certain Member States. In my view this can only increase. It does not require greater but wiser, smarter defence spending. More cooperation on defence procurement can reduce costs enormously. Rely on the US for what ? Sycophantic adherence to US Foreign Policy right or wrong has got us into one hell of a mess in Iraq and could do so in other parts of the world. Time we had an open debate on whether the British people agree with the proposition: “America right or wrong..we stand with you.”

UP: Let’s turn to EU enlargement. In many articles I read favouring Turkey’s proposed membership of the EU it is said it’s time for Europe to embrace Islam. I’ve always felt that certain tenets of Islamic government are incompatible with the freedoms we enjoy in Europe. While I’d love to see Turkey in the EU, would you agree that for Turkey to join it’s Islam that must embrace Europe?

I wish to see Turkey a member of the EU. Lets keep religion out of this. It is about future Member States signing up to basic tenets of liberal democracy: belief in the rule of law, universal suffrage and accepting outcome of parliamentary votes, equality between all human beings, separation of church and state (still to be accomplished in UK),separation of powers…independence of judiciary etc. The promised of membership is important in encouraging reforms in Turkey in this direction.

. . . Keeping religion out of it is easy for us to say - we are used to living in a near-secular state. Unfortunately universal suffrage and separation of church and state are a red rag to the fundamentalists. When Turkey finally makes its move, a few elderly Austrian OAPs aside, the push back will come not from Europe but will come from Islamic extremists. I am of course speculating, but this would seem to me to be the biggest barrier to Turkey’s accession . . . ?

Are you saying that we should not do something because of views of religious fundamentalists ? They are not the problem over Turkey’s membership in any case. Problems foreseen by some Member States are political, cultural and economic and can all be overcome over a period of time.

UP: Absolutely not - fundamentalists should not govern foreign policy. I’m suggesting that Turkey’s eventual accession may inflame a small minority of violent people who see any moves towards Western ideals (such as those you mention) as un-Islamic. The point I was getting at was: is the best way of isolating the extremists in the long run to offer the freedom you list to those nations, such as Turkey, which do not enjoy them?

Yes. Offering membership of an EU predicated on democratic freedoms and the rule of law is the best way of guaranteeing that these freedoms will develop in the candidate countries. This will be true in the Balkans.

UP: Thank you for talking to us.

*Carole is correct. The SNP do indeed favour an independent Scotland being part of the EU. However, it didn’t stop them repeatedly and consistently comparing Scotland to Norway during the 2005 election campaigning.

It would be nice indeed to have an economically literate political party that managed to divorce itself from prejudice, high-mindedness and insufferable smugness. Ergo, messrs Fraser, Goldie, Aiken and Monteith, I humbly offer some advice, which if you follow you may just yield some electoral success in Holyrood before Africa and China collide geologically.

Ditch the name. Scottish Conservative and Unionist makes you sound like a late-18th century canal builder. I know it's your traditional moniker, but despite what you may think Scotland is actually a fairly sophisticated place, replete with more university graduates per capita than just about anywhere else. We've had Reformations, Rebellions and Enlightenments: If there is such a thing as a tradition we will sweep it away sooner or later and try to replace it with something new. So ditch the Unionist.

Which brings me to my next suggestion. If you were really serious about actually benefitting the people of Scotland then you would ditch your unshakeble belief in the sanctity of one particular constitutional settlement. By agreeing to trade away our soverignty, unquestioningly and in perpetuity you give the impression of clinging to the sentiments uniquely expressed in Scottish education's private sector that bettering oneself is possible only by geographical relocation: In short, that Scotland is only good for leaving, as responsibility and independence is something practised elsewhere. Of all the European countries who achieved independence and subsequently pursued democracy in the past century, do you know how many saw a fall in overall living standards? I'll give you a clue - it's less than one. That you continue to ignore this suggests your priorities are those of servitude to Westminster, and not to Scotland.

Thirdly, ditch the xenophobia in your European policy. God knows there are a multitude of reasons to oppose the EU, but there exists the suspicion that the detail of its policies and their effects are not your prime motivation in taking a perpetual anti-Brussels stance; you do it because mistrust of foreigners is your default setting. It would be wonderful to see politicians engage in a mature debate on the EU. What we get is a bunch of low-brow no-marks armed and informed by the headline writers of The Daily Mail and The Sun. You'll be familiar with the concept of a headline writer: They don't do subtext.

Still uncomfortable with accepting your xenophobia? Well, howsabout immigration? You can't have your Tuscan villa and eat it. There exists out there a sensible immigration policy. One that doesn't involve teenage Moldovan and Bosnian girls' lives being excoriated from them daily in factory brothels. One that doesn't involve the hotel and agricultural industries and the wider economy (especially London) being unduly subsidised by the labour of illegally underpaid economic migrants. One which doesn't allow the psychological borders of suspicion and jingoism to encroach on the practicalities of recognising that people who move in search of a better life are invariably a greater immediate asset to a country than those who have withered on a diet of dissaffection and failed government and municipal policy. Again, distrust of foreigners rules your policy.

Which brings me to my next suggestion; if foreigners aren't good enough to live here, what are they good enough for? Invading? You see, the Tories have never been shy when it comes to deploying our armed forces at the merest suggestion of a punch-up in a foreign field. Now, I don't know if you are aware of this, but...there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Not even the ones you tried to sanction the sale of in the 1980s. There was no chance at all of an Iraqi attack on the UK, let alone within the time it takes to watch an episode of Lost. So why were you so unquestioning in the face of a lying Prime Minister consistently abusing the mandate of the British people? At what point did you fail to realise that you were The Opposition? At a Scottish level, what right do you think we, as a nation of 5 million people on the periphery of Europe have to send thousands of our forces to illegally invade and occupy a sovereign state? Say what you will about the glories of being British, but by not being British there would be fewer widows, fatherless children and childless parents in Scotland right now. The blood of 100,000 dead civillians would not besmirch our international reputation. And for what? To save oil contract trades being switched from dollars to euros? You rightly harangue the Executive on the largesse of the public sector, but never uttrer a word on the tens of billions this has cost taxpayers. Is it simply unacceptable to Scots' Tories for the public purse to fund widespread inxcapacity benefit but wholly palatable for it to fund the massacre of foreigners in the name of the Queen?

Which brings me to Thatcherism: There exists right now a belief that this was some glorious era, full of enterprise and freedom of the individual. It wasn't, so stop trying to rewrite history. It was an era of rapaciousness, cronyism, grotesque centralisation, failed initiatives and a punitive regional policy. This blog begins with a quote from Macchiavelli's The Prince, as astute a political text as has ever been. Astute, but amoral. He also advises that in order to secure a majority in any newly-invaded country, the invader should divide the country into three, then take all of the wealth from one third of that country and divide it evenly between the remnant. Thus, you have a permanent majority. This, accompanied by a sickeningly large dollop of triumphalism and wrapped in a Union Flag is essentially the reality of Thatcherism writ large. It was this misrepresentation of true capitalism which has led to the unwillingness amongst Scots to fully embrace the economic system they endowed to the world.

Lastly, I would try to drop the smugness and condescencion. You really, really, really don't have anything to be pleased about. David McLetchie was a decent parliamentary performer, but he was unbelievably smug. Admittedly, for an Edinburgh lawyer that is a prerequisite for employment but how do you think it makes you look to the electorate? To be fair, Murdo Fraser isn't terribly smug and seems to have a degree of competence about him, but he does have the demeanour of Gareth from The Office. Since I started writing this, he has declared his intention to serve as Annabel Goldie's deputy, and therein lies his problem: No balls. Brian Menteith oozes self-congratulation from every overly-groomed pore and Bill Aiken seems like a reactionary character from a bad 1970s suburban sitcom. Annabel Goldie? So you've swapped a smooth-talking smug Edinburgh lawyer for a rough-tongued smug Glasgow lawyer who has all the likeability of Zelda from Terrahawks? Well, there goes 2007 then...

Now, just think for a second: If you imposed the necessary changes and advocated independence (no arguments from your English colleagues, believe ,me...) ten years from now, you could find yourself in the position of being...well, liked. Remember that? As the party which campaigned for decades against devolution (in contrast to when you were in opposition) you will always be mistrusted; the nasty party. By pursuing independence, you give that role to Labour.