Showing posts with label The Scottish Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Scottish Government. Show all posts

Thursday, 19 May 2016

For Your Information

Cabinet

John Swinney, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills
Derek Mackay, Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Constitution
Shona Robison, Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport
Roseanna Cunningham, Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform
Fiona Hyslop, Cabinet Secretary for Culture, Tourism and External Affairs
Angela Constance, Cabinet Secretary for Communities, Social Security and Equalities
Michael Matheson, Cabinet Secretary for Justice
Keith Brown, Cabinet Secretary for the Economy, Jobs and Fair Work
Fergus Ewing, Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity


Ministerial appointments include:

Mark McDonald, Minister for Childcare and Early Years
Shirley-Anne Somerville, Minister for Further Education, Higher Education and Science
Joe FitzPatrick, Minister for Parliamentary Business
Humza Yousaf, Minister for Transport and the Islands
Paul Wheelhouse, Minister for Business, Innovation and Energy
Jamie Hepburn, Minister for Employability and Training
Aileen Campbell, Minister for Public Health and Sport 
Maureen Watt, Minister for Mental Health
Annabelle Ewing, Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs
Kevin Stewart, Minister for Local Government & Housing
Jeane Freeman, Minister for Social Security
Alasdair Allan, Minister for International Development and Europe


Wednesday, 30 January 2013

THE EXCELLENT RESULT THAT IS, OF COURSE, A HUMILIATING DEFEAT


Another letter from Nicola...


Dear Tris
 
Earlier today the Electoral Commission published its report on the referendum question and campaign spending limits.
 
The Scottish Government is accepting the recommendations in full. So - subject to the agreement of Parliament - the question on the ballot paper in 2014 will be: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” Yes or No.

It’s a minor tweak to the question we had proposed – and is poles apart from what the No campaign wanted. Alistair Darling wanted a question asking “if you want to remain part of the United Kingdom”. Others pushed the idea of asking about a “separate” Scotland (as the Social Attitudes Survey still does). That’s gone too.
 
We are left with a simple 6-word question, approved by the Electoral Commission, which gives the people of Scotland the opportunity to make a clear and informed decision on our constitutional future.


Nicola
******
Seems reasonable to me, even if some are calling it a humiliating defeat for Alex Salmond. Doubtless Lamont will repeat that in the fullness of time, when they let her out of the bunker. 

I've never objected to the Electoral Commission giving its opinion on the question or the conduct of the referendum. I think, though, that the actual referendum, the counting, etc, should be overseen by a more neutral body, something international with no axe to grind in either direction...the UN perhaps, sending in observers to do spot checks, as they do in third world countries. 

I'm happy too with the amount of money that can be spent based on the results of the last election. It is far more than the government had proposed; a sum I thought was a little short. It allows the SNP to spend £1.344m: Labour £834,000. The Tories will be allowed £396,000, the Lib Dems £201,000 and the Greens £150,000.

The SNP has the money to spend thanks to two large bequests and thousands of smaller donations. I'm wondering where the other parties will raise their funds, given the parlous state of their finances. From rich Tories in England, I suspect.

I'm pleased too that the Electoral Commission has proposed that, in order that the referendum be fair, electors must know what they are voting for. So the YES campaign must publish details of what they expect  an independent Scotland to look like.

The down side for the UK is that they must say what will happen if there is a YES vote; and what will happen if there is a NO vote. What would our future be like in the UK. In fact why they think we are better together. 

So the end of the vague promises of Jam Tomorrow proposed by both Cameron, and his Scottish lieutenant Ruth. 

Both sides must be honest and serious about their proposals. This may be interesting because Cameron has completely ruled out any pre-negotiation with the Scottish government, while the Scottish government is quite happy to put its cards on the table. So we will have no idea what their position on many issues will be...

Having for some time now badgered the Scottish government about accepting the suggestions of the Electoral Commission, the UK government now needs to do the same thing.

Wednesday, 16 January 2013

JUST HOW LOW CAN THEIR ARGUMENTS GO?

What can you say about the so-called debate that was held in the London parliament yesterday?

It's hard to put it into words.


The unionists relied for their all their arguments on a catalogue of lies and slanders.

This seemed to centre around the notion that the Scottish parliament and the Scottish government was being run by a dictator who brooked no argument. Comments about the dictatorship were made with a straight face by people who surely must remember the Thatcher government, when any kind of thought independent of the "kitchen cabinet" was crushed by the handbag; or the Blair government which made its decisions on his sofa, with Alistair Campbell running things, and paged updates on policy to MPs and ministers alike so that no one ever spoke out of line. Worse still, some of them served in the Brown government, where a remark of disagreement was likely to result in severe injury caused by dodging a flying mobile phone, or a coffee table hurled into the wall. I bet Alistair Darling knows a thing or two about how to dodge unidentified flying objects.

The Scottish government was elected, against all odds, as a majority government in a system which was designed not to elect majority governments. It was thus elected with 45% of the popular vote. Of course it is likely to win the arguments in parliament, just as the Tory/Liberal government in England is likely to win their arguments in the London parliament. It's called having a majority. It is the way that people voted. Democracy, if you will. Live with it, people.

The incredible ignorance displayed by the members of parliament, mostly Labour and mostly from Scotland, was jaw dropping. But one Tory member from Epping Forest appeared to think that Scotland was already an independent country... Eleanor Laing said: Scotland should be, is and always has been an independent country. It is a non-question. There is no point going through the rigmarole of a referendum, spending hundreds of millions of pounds, to ask a meaningless question.” Jaw dropping, no?

The thug Davidson pointed out that the referendum would take place in the year commemorating the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn which he said " is celebrated mainly because Scots slew large numbers of English people". (No mention of the Scots who were slain, I note.)

Well, firstly, you ignorant idiot Davidson, it is not celebrated because of that. Indeed it is rarely, in my experience, celebrated at all. But it might be helpful for a rounded and reasonable debate to remember that Scotland and England were separate countries in 1314, and the English were in our country. A bit like the Argentinians being in the British Falklands: they were the invaders and we sent them packing.

He continued that the referendum would come after a year of celebrating all this slaughter of our neighbours... but there seemed to be no recognition that, although it would not be unusual to celebrate or commemorate the END of a war, the British government has ordered a year of commemoration in 2014, of 100th anniversary of the BEGINNING of a war in which millions lost their lives, Englishmen, Scots, French, Russians, Germans... and on and on and on...

Of course a commemoration in 2018, when the war finished, wouldn't give the Brit Nats any chance to wave their union flags before the referendum.

Wings over Scotland has done an analysis of some of the most outrageous things that people like Sarwar, Davidson, Curren, Darling et al, had to say. Almost every single one a lie or contortion of the truth. I urge you to read it. 

I'm not sure if they realise how insulting all this is to Scots, or how many people they have driven from "no voters" to  "don't know", with their childish, sorry excuses for arguments.

Anas Sarwar said, when he was appointed to head the Labour campaign for unionism, that he wanted to raise the level of debate. 

I can tell him now that not only has he failed. He has failed dismally.

******
Wings over Scotland has a poll on what kind of Scotland we would like to see after the referendum. I had fun filling it in...

Wednesday, 5 September 2012

THE BATTLE ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE WILL BE OUTSIDE THE PARLIAMENTARY CHAMBER

In the last post, a list of the legislation for the next year at Holyrood, Niko made an observation about the problems that were likely ensue apropos the legislation to equalise the right to marriage for same sex couples on the same basis as heterosexual couples.

Although individual MSPs with strong religious loyalty or beliefs will be likely to vote against their parties' policies as a matter of conscience, just for once, the most likely source of dissension will be outside of the parliamentary chamber, in pulpits of various denominations across Scotland.

Ruth Davidson has already said that she supports gay marriage, and this is unlikely to alter as David Cameron has launched a consultation on the issue in England and Wales  and has indicated that it has his personal support. Ruth doesn't make a habit of going against David Cameron's will.

Johann Lamont is proud that it was Labour that introduced civil partnerships, and in a letter to the First Minister asked him to ensure that the parliamentary motion raised by John Mason, which was signed by a number of SNP MSPs did not reflect the views of the SNP as a whole. Yesterday's announced legislation would, I imagine, prove that, and it would be nice to imagine that Johann is happy, although, somehow I doubt it. She has to square the circle cause by a Willie Bain tweet indicating that Labour never backs SNP proposals regardless of what they are! 

Johann should also, of course, remember that religious views and church pressure have in the past precluded members of her own party supporting  Labour legislation.

Willie Rennie has been more enthusiastic than any other leader, even wanting the First Minister to commit to introducing the legislation before the consultation was complete and Patrick Harvie joins with other Scottish party leaders in supporting the proposals. 


From what I read in yesterday's announcement, the proposed law will put no obligation on religious leaders to carry out these marriages in their churches. As at present, with heterosexual marriages, priests will be free to refuse to marry people for whatever reason. 

I think that this is a fair compromise. 

Although people with deeply held religious views may be required in their jobs, to carry out tasks which they find distasteful, I can certainly see that it would be wrong to force an institution such as the Catholic Church, to go against its principles on a daily basis. 

So, registrars, employed by local authorities, must be obliged to carry out their duties, whether it be marrying gay couples, or registering the birth of children who were born out of wedlock, as doctors or nurses must be prepared to give birth control advice regardless of whether it infringes their personal views. If they feel strongly enough, they have the option to resign their positions. This is different from expecting a whole church to  be complicit in something that they preach against.

We are already in a situation where same sex couples can commit to civil partnerships which are marriage in all but name. It's not like the Bill will give gays any more privileges, or responsibilities... just the right to call their marriage a marriage.

Those with deeply held religious beliefs should surely never have stopped campaigning against everything since sex between same sex couples was legalised, for surely it is sex which is against the world of the Lord, not the fact that they live together in a loving relationship.

One of the things I find most strange about views I've read or heard on this proposed legislation, which, after all really won't change anything except the name of the institution into which gay people who "marry" will enter, is the claim that heterosexual marriage will be devalued by homosexuals having the same rights.


I would have thought that if people were looking for examples of the devaluing of the institution of marriage, they need look no further than say prince Charles and Diana Spencer. Charlie got married one afternoon, and that evening was heard by his new wife, on the telephone to his lover, arranging to meet after the honeymoon. Having promised before the head of his mother's church, that very day, to love her to the exclusion of all others, till death they did part.  He went on having a relationship with this woman, destroying his marriage, his wife's health, and nearly, some would say, the monarchy, and once his wife was dead he married her, despite it going against the teachings of the church that he will presumably one day head. That is all pretty devaluing, don't you think?

Or there is Elizabeth Taylor, who managed to promise life long devotion and fidelity on no fewer than 8 occasions. Or what about Jordan who married a cross-dressing cage fighter, quietly in Las Vegas with just a few friends, including the "Hello" team, and then ditched him shortly afterwards when there was no more publicity to be wrung from him and his weird antics? Lesser known, but no less devaluing is this little tale. Till death, or four days later, us part.

I doubt that gay partnership devalues marriage more that these examples.
I have to say to the likes of ex-SNP leader Gordon Wilson, that if the fact that two women can marry taints someone's marriage, then there is something wrong with that marriage in the first place, and as allowing gay sex hasn't discouraged heterosexual sex, I don't think that gay marriage will discourage heterosexual marriage. 

What may discourage marriage is that statistics show that nearly 50% of marriages in the UK end in divorce. Both marriage and divorce are excessively expensive. Money is tight.  It is economically not worth getting married. 

Tuesday, 4 September 2012

THE PROGRAMME FOR 2012-2013

The government today announced its legislative programme for the next year. Here are a list of the bills to be introduced. The comments are from "YES to an Independent Scotland"

1. Adult Health & Social Care Integration Bill

The bill will reform planning and provision of adult health and social care services, with the aim of introducing "effective integration" between partners to deliver improved, nationally agreed outcomes.

It will establish joint accountability by health boards and councils for delivery of outcomes, integration of budgets, and improved commissioning and planning of services.

2. Bankruptcy Bill

The bill aims to modernise bankruptcy law, ensuring access to "fair and just processes of debt relief and debt management... which takes account of the rights and interests of those involved".

The government said the proposals would ensure that Scottish debt solutions were fair to both the indebted individual and creditor, returning as much as possible to creditors.

3. Better Regulation Bill

The bill will aim to improve the way regulations are applied, with specific measures to further reform planning and deliver a "simpler and more effective" legislative framework for environmental regulation and enforcement.

4. Budget Bill


The annual Budget Bill provides parliamentary approval for the Scottish government's spending plans.

5. Children and Young People Bill


The bill will aim to introduce a "coherent statutory framework" for planning and delivering services for children and young people.

It will include a commitment to delivering a minimum of 600 hours free early learning and childcare provision.

6. Criminal Justice Bill

The bill will reform and modernise the system for investigation and prosecution of crime in Scotland, following the reviews which have been carried out by Lord Carloway and Sheriff Principal Bowen.

This will include measures to abolish corroboration. At present, all key evidence presented in a criminal prosecution has to be backed by two sources - but Lord Carloway described the current system as "archaic".

7. Forth Estuary Transport Authority Bill

The bill will co-ordinate the management and maintenance of the Forth Road Bridge and the new crossing.

8. Land and Buildings Transaction Tax Bill


The bill will set out how the proposed replacement for stamp duty land tax will operate.

9. Landfill Tax Bill


The bill will put in place a replacement for landfill tax in Scotland, establishing the administration, charges and rules governing the new scheme.

10. Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill


The controversial proposals will allow same sex couples to marry, and will also allow civil partnerships to be registered through a religious ceremony.

However, no religious bodies or celebrants would have to take part in same-sex ceremonies against their will.

The government said ministers were "deeply committed to freedom of speech and religion" and that the concerns of those opposed to same-sex marriage would be properly addressed.

11. Post-16 Education Reform Bill


The bill will provide a legal basis for some aspects of government's plans for post-16 learning reform, with the aim of creating a system which is "better aligned to meet the needs of learners and employers, and therefore help drive jobs and growth".

It will examine issues such as college and university structure and provision, college regionalisation and widening access.

12. Procurement Reform Bill


The bill will establish a national legislative framework for "sustainable public procurement to support economic growth".

The government said it would aim to do this by "delivering community benefits, supporting innovation, considering environmental requirements and promoting public procurement processes and systems which are transparent, streamlined, standardised, proportionate, fair and business-friendly".

13. Referendum Bill


The bill aims to clear the way for an independence referendum to take place in autumn 2014.

It will include provisions for the date of the referendum, the franchise and the procedures to be followed.

The bill will also provide for oversight arrangements to ensure the referendum is run to the highest international standards, with the involvement of the Electoral Commission and Electoral Management Board.

14. Tribunals Bill


The bill will establish a new, simplified statutory framework for tribunals which determine devolved matters.

15. Victims and Witnesses Bill


The bill aims put victims' interests at the heart of improvements to the justice system and ensure that witnesses are able to fulfil their public duty effectively.

It will look to widen access to special measures, such as CCTV links to protect vulnerable witnesses, and ensure that offenders contribute to the cost of supporting victims.

Wednesday, 7 September 2011

THE MAIN TASK THIS YEAR WILL BE TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS

The main theme of the government’s programme this year, it seems to me, is jobs. It’s not the only theme, but it matters so much, because by creating employment, we can stimulate the economy of Scotland. So what does that involve?

There is an Opportunities for All scheme which will provide a learning or training place for every 16-19 year old, if they want it. That’s important because once you let a kid leave school and do nothing, it is so much more difficult to get him (or her) motivated in the future. Leisure becomes a habit for some and poverty becomes the norm. And, as Granny would say, 'the dei’l maks work fur idle hans, laddie'.

The government is going to prioritise capital investment, which means creating employment. Remember there was an 11% rise in the construction industry last year in Scotland compared to a 0.2% decrease for the UK and of the 25,000 jobs created in the UK over the last 3 months, 24,000 were in Scotland. Not bad given the size of our population. Businesses are even locating to Scotland from England.

There are infrastructure projects including hospital projects in Glasgow, and the Forth Crossing, a project which in itself will create over 3,000 jobs!! There’s a housing investment programme worth £400 million, supporting more than 15,000 jobs, and building houses which are so desperately needed.

There is a £70 million fund for renewables. OK, many don’t like or want renewables, preferring to rely on gas, oil and coal, but we need to accept that it’s the future and there is interest in it from all around the world. WE need to be in the forefront of attracting the business. Shaking heads and sticking to the 1970s’ technology will only mean that Ireland or Denmark, or England, will pick up the contracts, and engineering and industrial jobs instead of us. You don't have to like it, but like the jobs it creates.

The days when companies were happy to wait for dial up broadband, or indeed work with no internet access at all, were over years ago, but some of our connections are still lamentably slow. So, to encourage companies to Scotland the government will be setting out to get broadband to all. That’s no easy task in a country as big as ours with many isolated communities, but it must, and will, be done, creating jobs by doing it and in the doing of it.

The small business bonus scheme will continue, meaning no rates for small companies. With savings of up to £4,000 a year this is a welcome boost to the private sector.

There is also a policy of no compulsory redundancies and a living wage for all the government’s staff. Lucky them, you might think. But they do matter and them having no confidence in their future is bad for all of us in so many ways. Yes, there will be cuts. There will have to be. We’ve lost billions from the budget, but at least those who don’t want to go, won’t have to. So they can do their jobs without worry, and they can spend their money...

There is, of course, much more, but I was genuinely pleased to see that, when the UK government is doing its best to create unemployment, Edinburgh is working to put people into jobs.

Even if George Osborne doesn’t have a plan B, thank heavens, the Scottish government does. It almost makes you feel as if we ARE all in this together.

(The illustration is, I'm told, British Crown copyrighted and as such acknowledgement must be made to the British Crown for its use. So: Thank you your majesty xx.)