(I understand I said this would be up on Friday, but forgive me – things have been a little busier than I had planned).
The last in my series of posts on the state of the Scottish parties at Holyrood looks at the juggernaut that is the SNP. I don’t know that there is any more to add to the post-May media avalanche of “how the hell did they do that?” which hasn’t already been said. The party single-handedly re-wrote Scottish political history in one night, winning seats in places where they had never… (yes, okay – there’s a danger of falling into hyperbole here). There really has been enough written about that night, suffice to note here that it was historic, likely unmatched and probably the most impressive electoral performance in Scottish history. I’m not going to dispute that.
But since then – what have the party done?
On that note, I tend to the view opined by my more enlightened blogging colleague, the right noble Lallands Peat Worrier Esq, when he says:
‘After May’s triumph, we’ve had incompetence, bungling, a bitter, melancholic atmosphere apt to convince no one of the virtues of independence. […] Lurching from their inflammatory, contemptible denunciation of Cadder and Fraser to the vulnerable reactiveness and vaguery which has informed the Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill, for me, post-election, the SNP have presided over a political period which has been by turns despairing, girning, partisan, vacuous and dreary. What a squandering of possibilities; what a waste; what folly.’
And this, can I point out (since I’ll likely get it in the neck for being negative about the SNP) is from a blogger who considers themselves “a Nationalist” and who campaigned “for a Nationalist government”… and who now finds himself “astonishingly depressed.”
Look – it’s not like things aren’t all rosy in the SNP’s garden. They’ve got a majority in the Scottish Parliament – something considered previously impossible by most political commentators (and which, subsequently, led previous enthusiasts of the system to call for a change). They have five years to run the Scottish Government in a manner which they see fit. And, crucially for the party, they will get the opportunity to have their referendum on Scottish independence. You can’t fault the party on these things.
And yet, and yet. As the noble Peat Worrier points out, with the possibilities open to them, May’s victory seems like an age ago. The party has failed to take advantage of the situation – of the opportunities open to it.
I’ll focus on two examples – the second attempt at Anti-Sectarianism legislation, the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Behaviour (Scotland) Bill, and the return of Minimum-Pricing to Holyrood.
On the first, no one – well, no with any sense – would deny that sectarianism is a scourge of Scottish society, and dealing with it in a comprehensive and extensive manner is long overdue. But when this legislation originated, it did so from a position of bluster, of “here’s a problem, we’ve got to be seen to be doing something about it, so we’ll do something about it” without any thought of how to do so, and most especially, how it would or could be policed. Consider, for example, Roseanna Cunningham’s comments that “aggressively crossing yourself” or “singing the national anthem” could be construed as offensive, but without definition of what sectarianism is or in what circumstances these actions are acceptable/ not acceptable, the law becomes an entirely subjective business. And while that was during the discussions on the original bill, the updated version – after consultation, discussion, amendment – was improved only marginally from it’s “gesture politics” origins. Don’t get me wrong – I applaud the sentiment. I just think it has been approached with the less-than-usual level of professionalism that we have become accustomed to when viewing the SNP.
On the issue of Minimum Pricing, my concerns are more political I think. The issue was defeated in the last parliamentary session because the opposition parties were united in their cynicism at the evidence in support of the motion. But now the party has a majority, the temptation is to use that majority to bulldoze the proposal through (well, hardly bulldoze, since they have a democratic mandate – but you see the point). Here was an opportunity to build on some of the personal relationships made during the last parliamentary term when cross-party consensus was required. The SNP could have said “look, we know you disagree with us on this – but we think it’ll help Scotland. Let’s try to work together, see if we can present a united front to tackle this issue”. Whether it would have done any good (especially with regards to working with Labour) is debatable, though Tom Harris has suggested he would have been open to a bill with a sunset clause to see how it worked in practise – 1.41 into this video. And though the party as a whole hasn’t been keen to work with the Scottish Government, individual MSPs (like Malcolm Chisholm) have been involved with Scottish Government initiatives. This, I’d argue, would have been a stronger strategy on Minimum Pricing (and on other, not-necessarily-popular initiatives where a broad base across parties could help sell the issue to the Scottish public.
The more cynical side (what, me? Never!) of me would suggest that this would also be quite wise in building towards the independence referendum. If the public see a party which is consensual, willing to take on board opposition views, open to new ideas, then they might be more inclined to support the party’s constitutional preference. Of course this might be the strategy for later in the parliamentary session, when the SNP are building towards the vote. In the meantime, the idea might be to get the controversial legislation (the sectarianism stuff, minimum pricing and equal marriage) out of the way long before the referendum, so they can spend the years closer to the vote building a consensus in parliament on other issue, making themselves look a reasoned and measured government – a government that people couldn’t possibly vote against in a referendum…
Well, perhaps that is the case. But for the moment, the SNP’s 7 months as a majority government have left a rather hollow feeling. As a political student and commentator – and also as someone who lives and works in Scotland – I can only hope that there is a measured improvement in the next four years.
Addendum: The good RevStu has gotten all melancholic over my views, reckoning saying things like this will tear the delicate wee flower that is the nationalist movement in Scotland apart! Michty me. Constructive criticism? Apparently not. I guess “Unpopular Thoughts” was an appropriate title!
Jeff
Dec 06, 2011 @ 08:37:26
Pretty fair Malc. I’d only really disagree with your assessment of the minimum pricing situation. We had a Parliament for four years that did naff all on the important issue of alcohol due to opposition for opposition’s sake from all but the greens.
What blessed relief that we don’t have to have another five years of making sure your political enemy doesn’t get its way. The SNP has police, BMA, nurses, alcohol support groups and, now, a democratic majority on its side. I don’t see why, on this particular issue, it needs to mollycoddle any of the opposition MSPs just to make them feel better. They had their chance and they blew it.
Malc
Dec 06, 2011 @ 08:42:32
The reason I disagree is more of a longer-term issue for the SNP. Sure, it looks good to the public when you can stuff your opposition on big issues short-term. But I think it builds good-will and shows willing to try for consensus – even if ultimately that fails. And both of those things are important to the SNP long-term, when it comes to the referendum.
I suppose I’m less bothered about whether they have success in persuading opposition parties to support them on issues and more interested in seeing them publicly trying.
Bugger (the Panda)
Dec 06, 2011 @ 10:34:34
The problem Malc, with building bridges is that they work better when someone on the other side is building a bit of it too. All last Parliament, the three opposition unionist parties opposed nearly everything that the SNP proposed, including, on one occasion, their own amendment to a budget!
The debating chamber at Holyrood was constructed as a horse shoe in order emphasise the co-operative nature of the Parliament. There was, I believe, a desire to allow MSPs free seating. How long did that last? It was also designed to give the unionist parties and permanent majority by way of coalitions against the SNP. How long did that last?
The Scottish manifestations of the Tories and LibDems are largely irrelevant in Holyrood and they brought that on themselves. What is there solution; more of the same. This is driven by a narrow Westminster confrontational culture and is getting greater rather than less.
Labour is now a party of failed ideology and has nothing to offer the people of Scotland except even more of their opposition to everything and anything. To lift a metaphor from David Malone’s Golem XIV economics blog, they see everything in terms of a hammer and a nail. When that doesn’t work, and they could consider screws, joints, saws, glue etc, the call for a bigger hammer.
Turning now to what the SNP has been doing in the past few months and their lack of rabbits out of the hat.
I think they were taken aback at their margin of victory in May and hadn’t factored that in to the post election strategy. They instinctively know that to charge around imposing bills would be counter productive if they cannot take the opposition with them. I have no inside track to Holyrood but my guess is that the same as before cloth lugs, in LibDemToryCon, means that this is not going to happen until these parties can actually sort themselves out and define what is they are there for.
The LPW is impatient about lack of advancement but these are all legal based bills, where his mind is happiest. It is his meat and two veg and I am sure that given an boiled egg he could give it a good Curate’s dissection.
A propos the Alcohol Bill, my opinion is that it will not work as intended. This is my opinion based on 25+ years working with getting people drunk, usually by helping them circumvent prohibition. However something must be done, or seen to be done. They real gain in tackling alcohol abuse will come from longterm social “education / engineering”.
It is curious that the opposition parties criticise the SNP for daring to talk about independence when we are in the midst of the biggest economic crisis to see the world, ever. Then when the SNP try to look at the domestic scene it is all greetin and moanin and stamping of feet.
The opposition really are not worthy of the people of Scotland and do not have our Nation’s best interests at heart. They are too wedded to getting back into power and fitting themselves into the Punch and Judy model of Westminster.
That is their weakness and it is a killer for the SNP. Steady as she goes.
RevStu
Dec 06, 2011 @ 10:59:30
I must admit to being completely baffled by the wave of negativity from some nationalists lately. Personally I’m fully behind just about everything they’ve done in the last 7 months, and Labour’s disgraceful opportunism over the sectarianism bill and their continuing refusal to act constructively over either that or minimum pricing is far more worthy of opprobrium.
I wonder if it’s necessary to live outside Scotland to appreciate just how urgently serious action needs to be taken over the former in particular. Having lived down south for a number of years now, it simply never occurs to me to consider whether someone might be Catholic or Protestant, because it’s never, ever an issue here. In 20 years I’ve never once been asked. .But stumble into a discussion with people living back home and I instantly feel slightly dirty and ashamed as pious Celtic fans argue that it’s all the nasty Huns and that their innocent “folk songs” of Irish history should be left alone, while the Rangers fans angrily assert that it’s perfectly fine to wave Union Jacks and sing songs of “Britishness” because they live in Britain, and it’s the manky Tims who need to be curtailed by the law.
The proposed law may be imperfect, but then all laws are, and all laws are subject to unintended consequences. If we get the basics in place, we can sort out any wrinkles in time. But the truth is that I haven’t heard any decent arguments for the bill being flawed anyway, just wild and borderline-hysterical extrapolations of what MIGHT happen if our police and courts spontaneously lose all grasp of sanity.
Every one of us knows what sectarianism looks like when it happens. We all know what’s intended if a Celtic supporter crosses themself in the direction of Rangers fans, and we all know that the singing of “God Save The Queen” at the opposition isn’t a simple expression of shared British pride. I haven’t a clue why we’re all pretending we don’t, or that this is some kind of “freedom of speech” issue. Freedom of speech already excludes shouting “FIRE” in a crowded theatre, because it would be likely to lead to violent disorder and injury or death, and Old Firm fans provoking each other comes under the same principle.
Malc does at least note that maybe the SNP are just getting the unpopular stuff out of the way first in order to have a clear run towards the big prize. But I don’t actually think anything they’ve done so far is unpopular with the Scottish electorate as a whole anyway, just the loud vested interests of a minority in Glasgow puffed up by a Glasgow-centric media. (Basically, if you’ve got Michael Kelly AND Rangers supporters clubs furious with you, you must be doing something right.) Ironically, the only thing that might actually cost them votes is the gay-marriage consultation, and I’m sure we’re all completely in favour of that.
I just don’t see for the life of me where anyone is getting “despairing, girning, partisan, vacuous and dreary” from. The SNP have stayed positive and upbeat in the face of a relentless negative onslaught from the opposition and media, constantly highlighting new investment and new employment. Politically they’ve played an absolute blinder, somehow manoeuvering Labour off the devo-max ground and forcing them into a corner with the Tories, and already achieving very significant progress in polls on independence.
Vacuous? They’ve put forward three of the most substantial and brave pieces of legislation of any Scottish Government in the shape of the three already mentioned, as well as action on rape and releasing the documents over Megrahi. The only arguable misstep was the overheated reaction with regard to the Supreme Court, which might explain why LPW is so huffy at the perceived professional slight but doesn’t seem to present much reason for anyone else joining in – I certainly don’t for a second think the Scottish public was the least bit upset.
I really, really hope the broader nationalist movement isn’t going to be overcome with Scottishness and tear itself apart with silly, nitpicky, factional infighting just when it’s finally in sight of the greatest possible prize. One Argentina 1978 in a lifetime is more than enough for me.
Bugger (the Panda)
Dec 06, 2011 @ 11:40:49
I was in Mendoza some years back, long after the debacle of 1978.
On the drive out to a vineyard I saw a huge rock, maybe 5 m high and 3 wine with white painted writing. As we passed it I was able to read the writing.
It said “Wullie and Tam.” All that was missing was the “forever”
I am wondering if maybe if the Scottish football supporters were away ahead of the proposed new same sex marriage proposals?
To balance my observation I saw a fair few red headed youngsters. Must have been a training retreat for some Irish Football Team?
Malc
Dec 06, 2011 @ 13:54:24
I’m pretty sure the phrase I’m looking for is… “Eh?”
Bugger (the Panda)
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:32:26
Wrong thread
Bugger!
Doug Daniel
Dec 06, 2011 @ 13:05:29
As soon as the SNP got their majority, I knew this would happen. It’s human nature for commentators of the same political persuasion as an incumbent government to become slightly over-critical of that government, partly to help make sure the power doesn’t go to their heads, but mainly so that they can’t be accused of ignoring problem areas due to partisan bias. It’s probably particularly bad amongst nationalists, because no one wants to be accused of being a swivel-eyed Cybernat, so many feel a need to highlight their impartiality by pointing out problems with the current government’s strategy – this naturally leads to making minor quibbles out to be far bigger than they actually are, and a propensity for glossing over the positives to avoid looking like a cheerleader. There’s also the problem that blogging encourages people to have an opinion on anything, due to the ongoing search to find things to blog about. It’s often easier to write a negative blog than a positive one, and they’re always the ones that generate the most comments.
Combine this with the fact that it’s always easier to keep everyone “on message” when you’re striving to reach somewhere. Once you’re there, people feel there is less need to quash dissent, and start pulling in different directions. It’s the main reason bands split up – whilst striving for success, the members put up with each other’s various foibles, because they are insignificant in comparison to the main aim of “making it”. Once you’ve made it, you start noticing how annoying the other members are, and start having arguments.
The problem is, we’ve not made it yet. Yes, the SNP are in government, but the SNP was not formed with the principle aim of forming a government; we haven’t “made it” until Scotland is independent. That’s not to say bloggers should avoid all criticism of the SNP until we’re independent – that would be ludicrous – but perhaps there is a need to consider how important it really is in the grand scheme of things to highlight every little thing the government hasn’t gotten 100% spot-on. After all, there is no such thing as a government that gets everything right all the time.
(That said, I do think that in LPW’s case, as Bugger points out, it does seem like there’s just been a lot of things relating to the justice system going on in a short space of time, which is naturally going to have him getting a bit animated.)
RevStu
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:13:46
Wise words as ever from Doug. Nobody is saying we shouldn’t criticise the SNP where it’s appropriate, for the exact reasons he notes. The last thing we want is for the FM to get the idea he’s infallible. But it’s not our job to be the opposition just because Labour, the Lib Dems and the Tories are doing such a terrible job of it, and much of the criticism voiced by Malc and LPW just seems to me to be going out of its way to look for problems and blow them up out of all proportion.
Malc
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:22:52
Rev Stu,
I can assure you – in my case anyway – that’s simply not the case. I’m just looking for competent governance. Everyone was all ears when I was criticising Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems and the Greens. Now I’ve moved onto the SNP and suddenly I’m blowing problems out of all proportion? Staggering. And I thought I’d picked something relatively minor.
RevStu
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:31:23
“Everyone was all ears when I was criticising Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems and the Greens.”
Well, unless you block comments from their supporters, that either means that none of them read the blog, or that they all agreed with your criticisms. Clearly those of us who back the SNP (and I’m not a member of the party) are most likely to post disagreement when it’s the SNP you’re criticising. There’s nothing sinister or hypocritical about that. And, y’know, on a purely statistical level there are more of us than there are of them, so you’re likely to get more comments…
The bottom line is, all those other parties are in decline at the moment, so it’s self-evident that they have big problems. The SNP, on the other hand, just won a staggering victory the scale of which nobody ever dared imagine. Does that mean they’re perfect? Of course not – the railways document is ample proof of that. But it must mean they’re getting a lot more right than wrong.
Malc
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:35:23
Dammit – I should have mentioned the railways thing. It was awful.
Indy
Dec 06, 2011 @ 13:56:29
I think you need to look at this in a more long term way.
It’s clearly not a coincidence that the SNP’s first actions in government have been quite unpopular among different groups of people. There has been no repition of the first 100 days etc. Whether it is minimum pricing, the football related behaviour bill or same sex marriage a number of very thorny issues have been grasped and some groups of people have been very vocal in their objections.
But notice it’s not the same group of people objecting to the same things. Some who might support same sex marriage might object to the clampdown on sectarian behaviour but might also support minimum pricing – there are a number of permutations possible but the objections aren’t across the board if you know what I mean. It’s not as though there is a big body of opinion which is against same sex marriage AND clamping down on sectarianism AND minimum pricing.
There are two reasons why I think the Government has made the right choices here. One is that, as you say, it makes sense to get contentious issues out of the way first before the run-up to the referendum.
The second is more nebulous but I think possibly even more important and it is that these issues, in their own way, all address something quite bleak and destructive in Scottish society – homophobia, sectarianism and alcohol abuse are all kind of related in a way and they show us at our worst, like the opposite of the progressive country we are pushing to become – and they are things which many people have taken a kind of fatalistic approach to and some still do. As though somehow it’s just the dark side of being Scottish. And I personally think it sends out quite a powerful message for the SNP to be seen to take them on. Because firstly it’s time, secondly it undermines accusations of shallow populism and thirdly if we can change (or at least reduce the impact) of stuff like homophobia, sectarian violence and alcohol abuse what else can we change?
I am not saying that the SG would have deliberately sat down and said let’s focus on these three things initially so we can send out that message. But I think they will have considered the arguments for and against each measure and come to a conclusion that the majority of Scots would support the overall aim of what they are trying to achieve and that it would make people more rather than less likely to support independence. Obviously time will tell whether that judgement is correct.
Malc
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:20:04
Indy – this is a very constructive comment, thanks!
I broadly agree. And my problem isn’t with the issues at all. I’m delighted the Scottish Government is moving on sectarianism, on alcohol abuse and on homophobia, and showing that government won’t tolerate any of them. Whether they are popular or not – action is required. And irrespective of whether they are good for the independence campaign or not, they are good politics issues, and the government is right to take on the issues.
So I’m happy with the fact they are going after the issues – my issue is with HOW they have been addressed. The sectarianism stuff has been (as I said, and as Lallands argued) bungled from the start – it’s an ill-thought out idea. Minimum Pricing, while broadly supported by health agencies etc is not an argument which has been won either with opposition parties or the wider public – and trying to build a consensus, perhaps with a sunset clause to test the legislation, would have been better than saying “well, we’ve got a majority now – we’ll do it this way”. And they haven’t done equal marriage yet – though with Nicola Sturgeon in charge, it may well fare better.
I’m not losing sight of the SNP’s broader goal. I do think that competence in government helps to build a case for independence (which was the logic the party worked with for the last 4 years) and it has been slightly lacking in these two cases).
Indy
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:45:13
Well, people actually voted for minimum pricing in exactly the same way that they voted for the council tax freeze and the referendum on independence. As a policy, it wasn’t hidden away in the manifesto – it was actively promoted. So I would argue that it would be wrong to fudge it now.
On same sex marriage – that was slightly hidden away in the manifesto and I am not sure if the SNP would have chosen to give it so much prominence in the media etc, that may have been the result of friendly fire from certain backbench MSPs, but once it became a major issue I think it’s been handled well.
And on the football related behaviour bill. I don’t understand half the arguments frankly.Aggressively crossing yourself for example can be – and has been – considered an offence under breach of the peace so it’s not like a brand new idea, they are just clarifying as far as can be clarified the kind of behaviour which should be considered acceptable in and around football games so that everyone knows where they stand and what they are likely to get their collar felt for.
The argument against the bill seems to me to encompass some directly contradictory points – e.g. that there is not enough definition of the proposed offences which makes it too subjective but – simulataneously- existing legislation (mainly breach of the peace) is fine even though as an offence breach of the peace is surely more subjective than what is proposed under the bill. So who knows what is even being argued really, I don’t. My measurement of its effectiveness will be if it actually reduces trouble around football games – by which I mean people getting battered, not whether particular songs get sung any more. If we come back in 5 years and it has made no difference I’ll be the first to say that the SG got it wrong. If on the other hand it has made a difference I wonder if people will still argue it is the worst thing since sliced bread.
Malc
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:57:56
I don’t really want the SNP to “fudge” the Minimum Pricing legislation. I just want to see some further attempts to get Labour on board. Which, I will grant you, is much easier to say than to do.
On the sectarianism stuff. I’m entirely agreed that we need to do something. Like I say, I fully support the sentiment. I just want it to be more fully considered – otherwise you might well have police who are standing at Old Firm matches without the requisite knowledge of what constitutes an offence and what doesn’t. Like you Indy, I don’t really care for the singing (I don’t think we have a right not to be offended) but we need to define properly what “aggressive singing” or “aggressive signing” is. Because prosecuting on the basis of one witness saying “I think it was an aggressive act” when the defendant says otherwise, could lead to some difficult ground. But Lallands knows more about legalities than I do.
Indy
Dec 06, 2011 @ 15:12:03
But the measure will be – as it is at present – whether it was aggressive enough to potentially lead to public disorder.
What do you think police have in the way of requisite knowledge of what constitutes an offence and what doesn’t now when they are policing a match and, more importantly, afterwards? For the most part it is breach of the peace which I guess could be aggravated by various factors. And how clearly defined is breach of the peace?
And that is where I get lost because you hear people saying it would be wrong to create an offence which is not 100 per cent defined down to what exact songs or exact gestures are allowed especially when there is existing legislation which is effective even though the offence is hardly defined at all except just as conduct likely to lead to a breach of the peace. Just doesn’t make sense to me but we will see how it all comes out in the wash.
An Duine Gruamach
Dec 07, 2011 @ 10:28:41
Malc, as you know getting Labour on board is like drawing blood from a stone. They even voted against their own amendments to the budget in the last session, after all.
loveandgarbage
Dec 06, 2011 @ 17:20:56
You have made this point on a number of blogs. You seem to be arguing that the offensive behaviour at football bill was a deliberate attempt to deal with a difficult issue early in the parliamentary session to get it out of the way. If that is the case why is there nothing in the manifesto?
Indy
Dec 07, 2011 @ 16:10:38
Cos the joint action group was set up in March 2011. Shortly thereafter Parliament was dissolved and the ministers went into purdah, as it were. But the workstreams continued chaired by civil service officials.
I don’t see that the SNP could have put something into the manifesto when the joint action group was still working – it was that process that led to the drafting of the bill as I understand it.
Indy
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:08:13
I should clarify that I don’t think objecting to same sex marriage automatically makes a person homophobic incidentally in case I get picked up on that. But some of the language that has been used has been homophobic. And clearly part of legalising same sex marriage is about reinforcing the normality and acceptability of same sex relationships.
Malc
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:11:56
All,
I agree that it helps when the opposition are amenable to consensus. All I’m saying is that the SNP should have extended the olive branch – as Salmond said post-election: the SNP did not have a “monopoly on wisdom” (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13317382) – wise words, which might have been worthwhile heeding.
On the criticism thing… well, you could always try shutting down the internet, see how that works. Kim Jong Il can probably testify to it’s effectiveness.
But seriously – because a party has a constitutional aim, its membership, and those who support those aims, are supposed to keep schtum when they think the party is doing something wrong, because it might harm the outcome in the long run? Even when you think that the thing which you consider to be wrong will have more of a negative effect on your preferred outcome than your criticism?
You are really suggesting that there should be no internal criticism – none – of a government?
If that is how you feel, I may (politely, of course) suggest that you might not want to return to this site. For though I am broadly in favour of independence, I’m not an apologist for anything done “in the name of the campaign”. I will be critical of the SNP, the campaign for independence and anyone else that I think is doing things badly. Of course, I’m delighted that you are reading my stuff, and commenting on it – but don’t expect me to bend to the party line. For one thing, it’s not my party.
RevStu
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:23:21
“But seriously – because a party has a constitutional aim, its membership, and those who support those aims, are supposed to keep schtum when they think the party is doing something wrong, because it might harm the outcome in the long run? You are really suggesting that there should be no internal criticism – none – of a government?”
No. Absolutely nobody has suggested anything remotely close to that. We’re politely disagreeing with you on the specific issues you’ve raised, giving reasoned arguments for doing so. Nobody at all has said that you should shut up.
But the SNP *have* offered the olive branch, above and beyond the call of duty. On the sectarianism bill they could have said “Get stuffed, we’ve got a majority and we’re pushing it through”, but they stopped and delayed it for months in an attempt to get some consensus. Their reward? Labour sat back and sulked, offering not a single amendment to the bill, and all that happened was that a load of time got wasted.
On minimum pricing, they’ve actually managed to *achieve* some consensus, with the Lib Dems now supporting the policy.
Even on the constitution, against a relentless and bitter attack from the Unionist camp, they tried to constructively improve the Scotland Bill with six additions which were ALL backed by at least one of the opposition parties, but were rebuffed.
I mean, what is it you want from them?
Malc
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:34:28
Doug’s suggestion that “perhaps there is a need to consider how important it really is in the grand scheme of things to highlight every little thing the government hasn’t gotten 100% spot-on” is, I think, “remotely close” to what I said. He’s suggesting that if I care about the “grand scheme” (independence) then I shouldn’t really criticise the “little things.” Thus, I think my comment was justified.
On the sectarianism bill – the olive branch wasn’t the issue. The issue was it was badly done. It was badly done before the summer – it was bungled – and even afterwards, when they gave it longer, they still didn’t do things as well as they could have. As “Nil By Mouth” how they feel they were treated on the issue. They didn’t slow down to get parliamentary consensus – it was because the police told them they couldn’t work with the proposed legislation in time for the new football season. So my criticism here wasn’t anything to do with an olive branch to other parties.
On minimum-pricing… well, I suppose I could have been a bit more generous there. I think wider parliamentary support on this issue is necessary to sell it to the public. I guess if the Lib Dems are vaguely supportive that helps (though that is only another five votes). For me getting Labour on board would be a big deal – but if Labour aren’t keen then there’s not much the SNP can do. Though again, as I said in the post, considering a sunset clause would have gotten Tom Harris on board – and if he ends up leader, then Labour could have supported it based on that minor concession. That’s the kind of politics we need to see.
RevStu
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:44:24
“Doug’s suggestion that “perhaps there is a need to consider how important it really is in the grand scheme of things to highlight every little thing the government hasn’t gotten 100% spot-on” is, I think, “remotely close” to what I said. He’s suggesting that if I care about the “grand scheme” (independence) then I shouldn’t really criticise the “little things.” Thus, I think my comment was justified.”
Okay, really last one – I have important fancy-vinegar shopping to do.
“Maybe you shouldn’t go in heavy on all the little things” isn’t nearly the same as “You shouldn’t criticise anything at all ever, even on major policy issues”.
I’m still waiting for anyone to come up with a convincing, non-mad explanation of what’s actually wrong with the sectarianism bill – which is supported by both the police and the public, outside of Celtic Park and Ibrox – but I suspect I shouldn’t hold my breath on that one. And no, LPW’s absurd Orwellian fantasy of two blokes being lifted by the polis on the basis of a quiet private conversation at a bar doesn’t count.
Doug Daniel
Dec 09, 2011 @ 12:22:44
Nnnnggghh… I see what you’re saying there Malc, but what I was trying to get at was that sometimes people can indulge in a bit of naval-gazing and start going a bit over the top in their criticisms of what are minor unfortunate situations. A bit like when Alan Partridge says “I will not have uncleansed coffee cups in Peartree Productions – you’re fired!” in series 1 episode 2 of I’m Alan Partridge.
incidentally, I wasn’t actually referring to you anyway, or LPW for that matter, as i think both of you have raised credible points – just a pervading sense of nit-picking I sometimes feel when I read some blogs.
RevStu
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:34:27
Oh, and one other thing before I go, or I’ll be here all day – with regard to making more overtures to the likes of Chisholm, does it not occur to you that maybe Chisholm is more useful to the SNP if they don’t discredit him in the eyes of his own people with too much praise from the enemy?
Malc
Dec 06, 2011 @ 14:38:20
I really don’t follow that one, I’m afraid. Malcolm Chisholm has no pull in Labour because he occasionally sides with the SNP. It makes no difference to him, or to his position in the party, if he supports the SNP occasionally, since he has already stood up to Labour leadership (on Trident, on al-Megrahi).
All I’m saying is, there are people on the Labour benches – and on others – who could work constructively with the SNP. We saw it occasionally last term. Despite the majority, it’d be worthwhile trying for it again this term.
Colin
Dec 06, 2011 @ 22:43:42
It’s a funny thing but right after the election there were a whole bunch of people worrying that the SNP’s majority meant they would have too much power and be able to effect too much change. Now we have people worrying that they have not done enough. Odd.
In a speech a while back, a comment was passed on the power Government that has that stuck with me. The speaker noted that “Government’s tend to overestimate what they can do in the short term and under estimate what they can do in the long term.”
I suspect that comment is true so the fact that the SNP has stuck with its manifesto, not gone pulling massive rabbits from the policy hat (cf the Tories health reforms) and not allowed the majority to influence its ambition, seems to me to be a good thing.
Either way, seven months in is far too soon to be passing judgement. I appreciate that you are more focused on how the SNP is conducting the business of Government more than on what they are doing but even here I feel any judgement is rather premature. To offer too much of an olive branch on issues where they have a clear mandate from the electorate would be to compromise that mandate and break faith with the electorate.
I would instead suggest that the time to judge whether they are offering enough of an olive branch is when they face a major, unforeseen issue that requires hard choices and fine judgements. An example in the last Parliament might be the fallout from the Cadder ruling. Here was a thorny legal issue with the rights of the individual (the accused) had to be balanced with the demands of justice (or the rights of society) in light of a new interpretation of the law. On this, grudging as the opposition parties were at times, the SNP managed to get a reasonably broad consensus (if memory serves, only the Libs voted against).
If that issue came up now, it would be a good test of whether they still had the political sensitivity to bring enough opposition people together in the same way. I am confident they would but until we have an issue of this nature, I simply think you are being a little hasty in your judgements.
Malc
Dec 07, 2011 @ 08:26:17
Well Colin – I cannae make the time go faster! I was judging all the parties on the basis of the 7 months this year. I appreciate that the party will take a little while to get to grips with majority government. And I think on those issues I have mentioned, they haven’t done so that well.
Wings over Scotland | Ally’s Self-Harmy Army
Dec 07, 2011 @ 10:48:20