The home of democracy
Posted on
January 18, 2013 by
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Not sure this one really needs much in the way of explanation, but the top part refers to the democratic proportionality of the Scottish Parliament (a “dictatorship of one man” according to Mr Sarwar), and the bit in the middle illustrates the democratic proportionality of Scottish representation at Westminster.
The most interesting thing about the lies Scottish Labour MPs tell, we think, is their sheer transparency. They really do think you’re that stupid.
Also worth considering: Were elections to the Scottish Parliament decided on a first past the post basis, as they are at Westminster, what would be the composition of the Scottish Parliament today?
How are you going to explain that one Anas min?
I have prepared a pedagogical aid for Mr. Sarwar:
link to fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net
[Rev – can you delete my previous post? ]
I was watching Sarwar during Wishart’s speech and got the impression that he couldn’t understand what was going on. Labour and the No campaign want to get into a mudslinging fight with the SNP and Yes Scotland to bring them down to their level. The fact that it is not happening really confuses them.
“Also worth considering: Were elections to the Scottish Parliament decided on a first past the post basis, as they are at Westminster, what would be the composition of the Scottish Parliament today?”
Assuming all the constituency seats were the same,
SNP – 53 seats
Labour – 15 seats
Conservative – 3 seats
LibDem – 2 seats
Perhaps Mr Sarwar would like to suggest that the Scottish parliament could become more democratic by adopting Westminster’s system in the future? No? Thought not.
Sarwar is typical of a career politician (especially from Nu Labour), he is not interested in democracy he’s only interested in self preservation.
It seems to me that the Labour party in Scotland really does believe it has some natural right to power and influence. When Labour is elected, all is well with the world. When Labour is not elected, then it should be quite clear that the government should listen to them and defer to tham and make decisions according to their advice and wishes.
The fact that the SNP government is behaving like a government and actually, you know, governing, rather than tugging its forelock to its Labour masters, has fermented in them this bitter notion that somehow this isn’t “democratic”. I suspect Sarwar really believes it, because that’s what all his friends think.
“perhaps Mr Sarwar would like to suggest that the Scottish parliament could become more democratic by adopting Westminster’s system in the future?”
With the best will in the world, one cannot help but be drawn to the obvious conclusion that the boy was born with a silver foot in his mouth. He exhibits the cognitive awareness of a deranged ocelot and the political acumen of a cold mince pie.
Why would anyone deliberately destroy their own credibility with such cosmically dumb statements?
@Morag
I just read a photography question you asked a couple of weeks ago about this photo. The answer is it’s HDR photography.
Apologies for interrupting the thread but sometimes my inner school teacher comes out.
I find it rather frustrating that the likes of Anas Sarwar, Johann Lamont, Margaret Curran and Jim Murphy (especially Jim Murphy) are given such an easy ride by the BBC and Scottish press. Any serious reporter could easily rip these false prophets to shreds and expose their lies. It would take seconds. Such are their limitations as politicians. Unfortunately, the MSM seems to be determined to keep their “star performers” in bubble wrap during interviews. The problem with bubble-wrap, however, is that people can see though ti and it often pops!
Any serious reporter could easily rip these false prophets to shreds…
I think I see the problem.
Labour do have a sense of entitlement to the Scottish vote – but they didn’t really become the dominant force in Scottish politics until the 70’s onwards. Prior to that they vied with the Scottish Unionists for the Scottish votes. Go back far enough, and they simply didn’t exist. To a character from the Dark tower “they forgot the face of the their fathers” – keir Hardie would have been spinning when they decided to shift to the right from the late 90’s onwards under blair and later Brown. Even milibands one nation labour is firmly stuck on the right of the political spectrum.
From a purely political viewpoint you can understand why Miliband would shift to the right. But for Lamont to try it here, beggars belief. I’ve mentioned before on a few posts on this site and elsewhere, that there is a systemic incompetence within Slab, brought on by the sheer dearth of talent that has been promoted two levels too high to function properly. We can’t ignore that they had become so used to the Scottish vote, that they took it for granted, and when it deserted them they simply have not coped well. This incompetence coupled with their inability to shift to changing realities has to led to this perfect storm.
Watching new labour now is like watching “in the Loop” without a Malcolm Tucker to spice it up. Their inability to adapt keeps cropping up in FMQ were they don’t seem to be able to abandon a pre-scripted attack, despite the fact that events have rendered it worthless. Lamont let off a huge brainfart attacking universalism and siding with the tories, only to have her own leader then turn around and defend it. Their attacks are purely ad-hominem assaults on reason. The compliance of the MSM is the only reason they are not ridiculed for it. It’s come down to sites like this and other blogs were their dreary awfulness is discussed in full.
But what is lacking and is quite striking for it, is the lack of policy alternatives. Apart from cuts that is, they have no vision for Scotland except cuts. When they attack Scotlands ability to go it alone, its veers from the surreal to the Scottish Cringe and our “learned helplessness” as a nation. And without an appreciation for Irony they call it “Better Together”.
Two days ago a labour MP – Tom Harris i believe, had a tweet exhange with Owen Jones, were he insisted that Thatcherism and sectarianism did not lead to the defeat of the tories in Scotland. Owen was dumfounded and appalled. But it made sense to me in a way. After all when you are about to adopt the failed tactics of an opponent to find some way to attack the SNP, you don’t want to admit to others and yourself that it might be a terrible mistake.
A sensible person might take stock and change direction. A party that is leaderless, adrift and bereft of policy on the other hand, might think any harbour is safe in a storm. That it is a storm battered harbour and has been for a long time, doesn’t seem to have entered their heads at the moment.
All thats left is the un-edifying spectacle of watching them piss in the well that they drink from.
@Christian Wright
On behalf of ocelots everywhere, I object to the comparison with a less intelligent species. And what have you got against mince pies?
Sarwar is a gonk, he’s nothing more than a soundbite politician.
Nice photo An Duine Gruamach, its unfortunate but I do think some of our so called representatives do need such simplistic pictoral guidance.
You will no doubt notice I am now including the letters I have after my name in my signature, I have a BA, which in my case stands for Bugger All.
I wish we had a clip of Union Jack McConnell’s, I’m sure oft regretted, hubris when he admitted, with much self-satisfaction in evidence to boot, that the proposed d’Hondt system for the Scottish Parliament was selected to ensure the SNP never got a majority.
To paraphrase Zebedee: “And we did it deliberately”.
@Luigi
I find it rather frustrating that the likes of Anas Sarwar, Johann Lamont, Margaret Curran and Jim Murphy (especially Jim Murphy) are given such an easy ride by the BBC and Scottish press. Any serious reporter could easily rip these false prophets to shreds and expose their lies. It would take seconds. Such are their limitations as politicians. Unfortunately, the MSM seems to be determined to keep their “star performers” in bubble wrap during interviews. The problem with bubble-wrap, however, is that people can see though ti and it often pops!
I imagine these are the MSM salad days for Lamont, Curran and Murphy etc. If Scotland votes Yes in 2014, I suspect, for them, it will be back to “Salt and vinegar on yer chips?”
@Yesitis
I imagine these are the MSM salad days for Lamont, Curran and Murphy etc. If Scotland votes Yes in 2014, I suspect, for them, it will be back to “Salt and vinegar on yer chips?”
Personally, I think they’ve already had their chips!
Yesitis, Jeannie,
“Salt and vinegar on yer chips?”
That could explain those long, sour faces.
Within Mr Sarwar’s rather narrow perspective, I suspect a parliament is only democratic if a) his party dominates it or b) he occupies a place on its benches.
The problem for the unionist media is that they cannot give Scottish Labour politicians a prominent platform whilst at the same time hiding the true qualities of both.
What has the Union ever had to do with a democratic mandate of the people, it was signed over 200 years before universal suffrage. Not only did women not have representation, neither did those who did not own land and property. IMHO, nothing much has changed, only the definition of social “classes”.
*Low-information” voters might well be the key, but they will not be persuaded to the Yes cause, if they hear themselves being described in such a disrespectful manner. How would you like to be called clueless? To a large extent, the lack of awareness that is alluded to, is as a result of the social and economic violence perpetrated on them by the British state. I think we need to adopt a more inclusive and respectful demeanor, as one might when dealing with the rehabilitation of an abuse victim.
As bad as the voting system is at Westminster (and it is awful) for me the main democratic defecit at Westminster and the reason why I wouldnt describe what we have as a Democracy is, one person is essentially given power in leui of a feudal monarchy. This allows one person to essentially make drastic policy decisions without even being required to consult parliament let alone vote on it.
@pmcrek
You make an interesting link between our current “democracy” and feudal monarchy. I was having a discussion with an independent British film maker, about whether anarcho-socialism has ever been practiced in the UK. I don’t think he liked my argument as I didn’t hear from him afterwards. I hope you do not think me attention seeking for re-posting my comment to him, but see what you think. Although the first paragraph is not particularly relevant, it does set the context of our discussion. The second paragraph will hopefully lead the reader to ask, what is fascism?
Right, back to enclosure and its use by the English State. Remember, Scotland has always had its own legal system and a somewhat different history to England. I think we can probably agree though, that the Tudor and especially the Elizabethan enclosures marked the beginning of the end for the “commons” in England. As such, the preceding Middle Ages was the period when the “commons” played their most significant roll as a readily accessible stock of resources. Whilst I am admittedly no expert on the middle ages, can I suggest that you may be failing to acknowledge two very significant characteristics of medieval society. To me, the nature of land tenure and the civil status of the peasantry were such that I can not see how anarcho-socialism was possible (given that my understanding of the later comes directly from Wikipedia).
I do not mean this to be anti-English, but a relatively small force of colonising Normans managed to make pretty short work of conquering England. This was largely due to William the Conqueror announcing the beginning of a new “demesne”, claiming “all” land in England as his own private property under “allodiall” right. This provided legal justification for the creation of a new English state, which would be governed in a feudalistic fashion through the manoral system. This enabled William to exert his authority across all of England, including the commons. It imposed strict regulation over land use and on the peasantry’s freedom of movement and association. Manoralism regulated every aspect of the peasantry’s daily life, such as the type and place of their employment, as well as the times and ways in which they were “allowed” to make us of the commons. This was possible because the peasantry were not free, they were “adscripti” (bound to the soil), and could be described as “servus et colonus” (both slave and worker). As such, all legal use of the commons was sanctioned by the state, and was carried out by peasants who were not free.
This to me undermines the claim that the peasantry’s legal use of the commons constituted anarcho-socialism in practice, no matter how communal the subsistence farming was. However, I think the Levelers and the Diggers can definitely be described as anarcho-socialists, as they rejected both the Elizabethan state’s authority and claim over land tenure. Unfortunately though, these were small fringe groups based around London and had very little influence or effect across wider English society.
I wonder if this is the same Anas Sarwar who was reported in the Private Eye along with 5 other MP’s(4 Lab and 2 Con) who took a 5 day £3500 per head junket in November to that modicum of democracy the United Arab Emirates ?
Maybe after visiting a real dictatorship at that dictatorship’s expense he came back better educated…..or maybe not.
Extract from Members interests under Mr Sarwar from 12-Dec-2012
Overseas visits
Name of donor: Government of the United Arab Emirates
Address of donor: c/o Embassy of the UAE, 30 Princes Gate, London SW7 1PT
Amount of donation (or estimate of the probable value): costs of visit; value £3,500
Destination of visit: Abu Dhabi and Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Date of visit: 23-28 November 2012
Purpose of visit: to meet with Government ministers, Members of the Federal National
Council, UK diplomatic and armed forces personnel, senior UK and Emirati business figures
to better understand the regional security perspective, the state of the bilateral relationship and
the scale of UK-UAE trade, investment, security and cultural ties, to strengthen the political
relationship and identify opportunities to promote the trade and investment relationship.
(Registered 5 December 2012)