Two parties agree to form a minority administration for South West Scotland Council.
By Liam Bailey
My county council is set to be run by a minority coalition of the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. Labour had previously run the council as a minority. As a staunch Labour voter, I can't say I am happy about the council being run by the Lib Dem's and Conservatives. But the Lib Dem's and Conservatives combined have only 21 wards out of 47, and will rely on "constructive opposition" from the Scottish National Party to get measures through. Labour won sixteen wards in the election and the SNP took ten.
Because of the decades long party rivalry a Conservative/Labour coalition was and will never be on the cards. So, obviously the strongest coalition for D&G council, with the capability of passing its own measures independently of the other parties would have been an SNP/Labour or SNP/Conservative coalition. However, leader of the SNP group Robert Higgins said:
"The SNP cannot have a formal alliance with the Tories, that is the bottom line. We will take it on an issue by issue basis."
As it is, the minority council will only be able to pass measures agreed by either the SNP, Labour or both. In some ways Dumfries and Galloway council decisions will be a scale model of decisions at Holyrood -- Scotland's parliament, ran by a minority coalition between the Scottish National Party and the Green Party. Combined the coalition holds 49 seats out of 129, over Labour's 46 and the Conservatives 34. The Holyrood coalition cannot pass its own measures without the support of at least one of the other parties. And the other parties must enlist the coalitions support or put rivalry behind them and seek the each other's support in order to pass their measures. In some ways it is a good system.
Robert Higgins added: "But there are quite a lot of parallels between all groups on what they would like to do for Dumfries and Galloway."
D&G council has been without administration for three weeks since the election, as the first meeting to hammer out a ruling group failed. So, it will be good to finally know someone is in charge of things. Contrary to the theory that the local elections mirrored the Labour backlash of the Scottish Parliamentary elections, Conservative group leader Ivor Hyslop claimed that their winning of 18 wards showed people wanted a change in the way things were run. He also said:
"I'm delighted that a new partnership has been found that can shortly begin work on resolving the problems faced by Dumfries and Galloway Council."
"As the largest group of councillors, Conservatives take seriously our obligation to put together an administration."
"They wanted it to be more local, more accessible, more focused, better value for money and less chaotic."
"With our Lib Dem partners, we will now set about delivering on that agenda."
Lib Dem group leader Cllr Sandra McDowall said she looked forward to working with the Conservatives to "take the council forward".
"I'm pleased that an accommodation has been reached, so that we can now set about facing up to the big challenges ahead," she said.
Leader of the Labour group Ronnie Nicholson ended the impression of a council unified in striving only for what's best for the county. He said the parties involved had put "positions before principles". Adding:
"The Labour group will form a principled opposition, holding this new regime to account at every opportunity."
"Above all else we will fight to protect the most vulnerable in our community who will suffer most from the extremes of a Tory council backed by the SNP."
The full council of Dumfries & Galloway is meeting May 24 to discuss the administration's plans for the county.
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scotland. Show all posts
Thursday, 24 May 2007
Thursday, 17 May 2007
"Parliament of Minorities" Good For Scotland
The new government is taking shape. No party having a majority makes voting a fair process.
By Liam Bailey
Leader of the Scottish National Party, Alex Salmond made history as the first nationalist to gain power in the party's 73 years, when he was elected First Minister of Scotland May 16. He immediately attempted to silence those who doubt he can form a viable government by announcing his cabinet.
His election was a sign of how most votes might go in the parliament, with no party having a clear majority. But it also displayed that the S.N.P. is the only party that is truly putting what [they believe] is best for Scotland first, and not what is best for their party -- even if the S.N.P.'s view of what is best for Scotland differs from most Scots.
The S.N.P.'s main aim is a referendum on Scottish independence, allowing Scots to vote on splitting Scotland from the United Kingdom and going it alone. They believe that with the main power base in Westminster, Scotland isn't equal to England in the union, and that Scotland is not benefiting equally from council schemes, tax systems and most importantly profits from Scotland's off-shore oil-fields. Therefore the S.N.P. believe strongly that Scotland should split from the U.K. and be the independent state that thousands of our ancestors died painfully for.
The Green party agrees with them, but the other three main parties all disagree. As do I, having seen their policies made to look foolish by MP's opposing the split. But right or wrong I truly believe the S.N.P. is seeking independence because they believe it is best for Scotland.
It is their desire for a referendum on independence that has made the Scottish Parliament a "parliament of minorities" as Alex Salmond called it. If the S.N.P. leadership was vainly seeking to put their party in a majority government of Scotland, they could have dropped the referendum in order to secure a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dem's sixteen seats added to the Greens 2 seats, would have given the S.N.P. a one seat majority, with 65 seats vs. the 64 shared between Labour and the Conservatives. But they held firm on the referendum; putting Scotland before the party.
As such S.N.P. leader Alex Salmond was elected First Minister by a margin of only three, 49 seats to 46. His 49 votes came from the 47 elected S.N.P. ministers and the 2 Green Party ministers. The 46 against came from Labour's 46 seat holders. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives abstained. Knowing, that with Green support for the S.N.P., their abstention would still mean Salmond would become First Minister. No doubt the result they wanted, with their rival, Labour leader Jack McConnell waiting in the wings for another term as First Minister, should Salmond fail in his endeavours to lead the government. So why not put their weight behind Salmond's bid and ensure the people's faith in the new "parliament of minorities"? Because they don't support independence and they couldn't put Scotland having a viable government that the public has faith in before party political issues.
Mr Salmond said: "We will appeal for support policy by policy across this chamber."
His Predecessor, Labour's Jack McConnell said: "He will have our support when his decisions are right. We will, of course, not oppose for its own sake. But we will bring forward to the chamber, for robust debate, the policies in which we believe too."
So, this might be how every policy before the parliament goes. No party has a majority and there is of course the staunch rivalry between the Lib Dem's, Labour and the Conservatives, preventing them from maintaining a definite front against the S.N.P.'s and Greens, except perhaps on the independence issue. So, no one will really be able to predict whether policies will be voted for or against. Even the parties will rarely be able to predict what way the other parties will vote. This reduces the chance of party rivalries or other dynamics affecting the vote.
For once in U.K. or international politics for that matter, the Scottish Parliament should be able to vote on policies, based only on how good they believe the policies are. So, perhaps a government of minorities is best for Scotland.
By Liam Bailey
Leader of the Scottish National Party, Alex Salmond made history as the first nationalist to gain power in the party's 73 years, when he was elected First Minister of Scotland May 16. He immediately attempted to silence those who doubt he can form a viable government by announcing his cabinet.
His election was a sign of how most votes might go in the parliament, with no party having a clear majority. But it also displayed that the S.N.P. is the only party that is truly putting what [they believe] is best for Scotland first, and not what is best for their party -- even if the S.N.P.'s view of what is best for Scotland differs from most Scots.
The S.N.P.'s main aim is a referendum on Scottish independence, allowing Scots to vote on splitting Scotland from the United Kingdom and going it alone. They believe that with the main power base in Westminster, Scotland isn't equal to England in the union, and that Scotland is not benefiting equally from council schemes, tax systems and most importantly profits from Scotland's off-shore oil-fields. Therefore the S.N.P. believe strongly that Scotland should split from the U.K. and be the independent state that thousands of our ancestors died painfully for.
The Green party agrees with them, but the other three main parties all disagree. As do I, having seen their policies made to look foolish by MP's opposing the split. But right or wrong I truly believe the S.N.P. is seeking independence because they believe it is best for Scotland.
It is their desire for a referendum on independence that has made the Scottish Parliament a "parliament of minorities" as Alex Salmond called it. If the S.N.P. leadership was vainly seeking to put their party in a majority government of Scotland, they could have dropped the referendum in order to secure a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dem's sixteen seats added to the Greens 2 seats, would have given the S.N.P. a one seat majority, with 65 seats vs. the 64 shared between Labour and the Conservatives. But they held firm on the referendum; putting Scotland before the party.
As such S.N.P. leader Alex Salmond was elected First Minister by a margin of only three, 49 seats to 46. His 49 votes came from the 47 elected S.N.P. ministers and the 2 Green Party ministers. The 46 against came from Labour's 46 seat holders. The Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives abstained. Knowing, that with Green support for the S.N.P., their abstention would still mean Salmond would become First Minister. No doubt the result they wanted, with their rival, Labour leader Jack McConnell waiting in the wings for another term as First Minister, should Salmond fail in his endeavours to lead the government. So why not put their weight behind Salmond's bid and ensure the people's faith in the new "parliament of minorities"? Because they don't support independence and they couldn't put Scotland having a viable government that the public has faith in before party political issues.
Mr Salmond said: "We will appeal for support policy by policy across this chamber."
His Predecessor, Labour's Jack McConnell said: "He will have our support when his decisions are right. We will, of course, not oppose for its own sake. But we will bring forward to the chamber, for robust debate, the policies in which we believe too."
So, this might be how every policy before the parliament goes. No party has a majority and there is of course the staunch rivalry between the Lib Dem's, Labour and the Conservatives, preventing them from maintaining a definite front against the S.N.P.'s and Greens, except perhaps on the independence issue. So, no one will really be able to predict whether policies will be voted for or against. Even the parties will rarely be able to predict what way the other parties will vote. This reduces the chance of party rivalries or other dynamics affecting the vote.
For once in U.K. or international politics for that matter, the Scottish Parliament should be able to vote on policies, based only on how good they believe the policies are. So, perhaps a government of minorities is best for Scotland.
Thursday, 10 May 2007
Scottish Parliament: Feverous Nationalism Held at Bay – For Now
By Liam Bailey
It doesn't look like The Scottish National Party's plans to hold a referendum in 2010 and let Scots decide whether or not to split from England and the United Kingdom are going to become a reality -- despite their impressive victory in the Scottish elections. Nobody knows whether the estimated 140, 000 votes being scrapped because they were improperly filled out or otherwise inadmissible would have changed the overall result. I for one don't want to see an independent Scotland, after all, if something ain't broke don't fix it, so I am rather glad hopes of such a vote are at least postponed.
No, my reasoning for fearing independence is not based solely on that old proverb, but on listening to countless debates in the run up to both the 2003 and the recent election, where Labour and other anti-independence MP's made the nationalist policies sound unworkable and the ministers foolish.
Also, though I can not speak for all nationalists, all the people I have spoken to in favour of an independent Scotland don't care whether the policies of the S.N.P are workable, or whether the Scottish economy can survive alone, or that the E.U. might reject our application for membership, or if the whole nation collapses into anarchy and poverty -- as long as it's independent chaos.
Their desire for an independent Scotland has been passed down through the generations, and comes from a Braveheart like patriotism, mistrusting of English rule and more often than not hatred for the -- stereotypical -- "English". Don't get me wrong, if I lived in Scotland during those times I would have been at Wallace's right shoulder with whatever I could lay my hands on as a weapon, but times have changed. My dad is English and my mum Scottish so I have relations on both sides, I have also lived both sides of the border.
In England when Scotland are playing in the football World Cup qualifiers on pub TV's, most of the English people in the pub are supporting the Scotland side, as part of the U.K.. The same goes when Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Wales are playing. Obviously this would change in the later stages if one of the other sides were competing for the same place as England. But in Scotland, if England are playing on pub TV's, there is raucous support for whatever side is against England and abuse is hurled at the English side from the first game -- even after Scotland are out of the competition.
It was the same when I moved back to Scotland from England and went to a Scottish primary school, complete with the strong Yorkshire accent I had picked up. There was one boy who openly agreed with me that we should support all teams from the U.K. in the world cup, including England -- all the rest said they would support any team but England. I have lived in Scotland for most of my life including currently, but I am happy to be part of the United Kingdom and enjoy easy access and shared currencies when visiting relations over the border -- and all the other advantages unity brings. So, when I heard that the SNP had won the most seats in the recent election I was decidedly worried.
Thankfully, Scotland's electoral system is proportional representation. So, although the SNP had the most seats outright with 47 out of 129, 20 more than 2003 and one more than Labour with 46, with the Conservatives only managing 17, the S.N.P. needed to form a coalition with one of the other parties with 18 seats or more. A coalition was quickly agreed between the S.N.P. and Scotland's other pro-independence party -- the Green party --, who had secured two seats in the election. But the S.N.P. needed another 16 to form a majority government.
The S.N.P began to approach the Liberal Democrats with 16 seats, seeking a coalition with them, which would have given the S.N.P. a majority government by 1 seat. However, the S.N.P. wanted the coalition on the grounds that the independence referendum was guaranteed. The Lib Dem's said they would not meet to discuss such a coalition unless the S.N.P. dropped the plans for the independence referendum. As the S.N.P. attempted to lure the Lib Dem's to the table with offers to be flexible over the issue, refusing outright to drop the policy before talks were held, all hopes fizzled out.
The S.N.P. has retired -- on the surface quite happily -- to set up a minority government with the Greens.
As a minority, the S.N.P would be presenting the plan for a referendum to the house, almost guaranteed to get 49 votes for and 80 against. Suffice to say an independence referendum won't be held anytime soon. But given the growth of the S.N.P.'s vote, as feverous nationalism is passed down through generations of families growing larger and living longer, I fear that the longer the other parties can hold the S.N.P.'s plans at bay, the more likely that Scotland will become independent if a vote is ever held.
It doesn't look like The Scottish National Party's plans to hold a referendum in 2010 and let Scots decide whether or not to split from England and the United Kingdom are going to become a reality -- despite their impressive victory in the Scottish elections. Nobody knows whether the estimated 140, 000 votes being scrapped because they were improperly filled out or otherwise inadmissible would have changed the overall result. I for one don't want to see an independent Scotland, after all, if something ain't broke don't fix it, so I am rather glad hopes of such a vote are at least postponed.
No, my reasoning for fearing independence is not based solely on that old proverb, but on listening to countless debates in the run up to both the 2003 and the recent election, where Labour and other anti-independence MP's made the nationalist policies sound unworkable and the ministers foolish.
Also, though I can not speak for all nationalists, all the people I have spoken to in favour of an independent Scotland don't care whether the policies of the S.N.P are workable, or whether the Scottish economy can survive alone, or that the E.U. might reject our application for membership, or if the whole nation collapses into anarchy and poverty -- as long as it's independent chaos.
Their desire for an independent Scotland has been passed down through the generations, and comes from a Braveheart like patriotism, mistrusting of English rule and more often than not hatred for the -- stereotypical -- "English". Don't get me wrong, if I lived in Scotland during those times I would have been at Wallace's right shoulder with whatever I could lay my hands on as a weapon, but times have changed. My dad is English and my mum Scottish so I have relations on both sides, I have also lived both sides of the border.
In England when Scotland are playing in the football World Cup qualifiers on pub TV's, most of the English people in the pub are supporting the Scotland side, as part of the U.K.. The same goes when Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Wales are playing. Obviously this would change in the later stages if one of the other sides were competing for the same place as England. But in Scotland, if England are playing on pub TV's, there is raucous support for whatever side is against England and abuse is hurled at the English side from the first game -- even after Scotland are out of the competition.
It was the same when I moved back to Scotland from England and went to a Scottish primary school, complete with the strong Yorkshire accent I had picked up. There was one boy who openly agreed with me that we should support all teams from the U.K. in the world cup, including England -- all the rest said they would support any team but England. I have lived in Scotland for most of my life including currently, but I am happy to be part of the United Kingdom and enjoy easy access and shared currencies when visiting relations over the border -- and all the other advantages unity brings. So, when I heard that the SNP had won the most seats in the recent election I was decidedly worried.
Thankfully, Scotland's electoral system is proportional representation. So, although the SNP had the most seats outright with 47 out of 129, 20 more than 2003 and one more than Labour with 46, with the Conservatives only managing 17, the S.N.P. needed to form a coalition with one of the other parties with 18 seats or more. A coalition was quickly agreed between the S.N.P. and Scotland's other pro-independence party -- the Green party --, who had secured two seats in the election. But the S.N.P. needed another 16 to form a majority government.
The S.N.P began to approach the Liberal Democrats with 16 seats, seeking a coalition with them, which would have given the S.N.P. a majority government by 1 seat. However, the S.N.P. wanted the coalition on the grounds that the independence referendum was guaranteed. The Lib Dem's said they would not meet to discuss such a coalition unless the S.N.P. dropped the plans for the independence referendum. As the S.N.P. attempted to lure the Lib Dem's to the table with offers to be flexible over the issue, refusing outright to drop the policy before talks were held, all hopes fizzled out.
The S.N.P. has retired -- on the surface quite happily -- to set up a minority government with the Greens.
As a minority, the S.N.P would be presenting the plan for a referendum to the house, almost guaranteed to get 49 votes for and 80 against. Suffice to say an independence referendum won't be held anytime soon. But given the growth of the S.N.P.'s vote, as feverous nationalism is passed down through generations of families growing larger and living longer, I fear that the longer the other parties can hold the S.N.P.'s plans at bay, the more likely that Scotland will become independent if a vote is ever held.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
