It's perhaps instructive that the SNP and their supporters are trying to deflect Labour's questions regarding the Murdoch and Souter affairs by accusing Labour of hypocrisy and raising the issue of past influence and honours involving Blair, Brown, McConnell et al.
Which is all very well - tell us something we didn't know already - but the SNP do currently form Scotland's government (a fact the Nationalists are keen to point out when it suits) and, for example, excusing the Murdoch schmoozing by claiming that it was all about promoting Scotland and securing investment ignores the likes of the Sun's 'Play it again, Salm' headline, which featured a photo of Alex Salmond brandishing a copy of the Sun. Perhaps self-promotion - for both News International and Mr Salmond - was just as important.
And comparing the number of meetings between the Murdochs and Blair/Brown/Miliband/Salmond is slightly ludicrous. The UK is a G7 nation with a permanent seat on the UN security council, while Scotland is a small, currently semi-autonomous nation and a constituent part of the UK. Which is Rupert Murdoch likely to be more interested in? More to the point, how do the circulations of the News International titles compare north and south of the border?
Likewise, if SNP ministers have no say in the honours nominations and this is handled entirely by civil servants in Edinburgh, then there does seem to be an element of nitpicking about Labour's probing. On the other hand, look at how the SNP approached the likes of the Henry McLeish and Wendy Alexander affairs, leading to the resignations of both over, um, not very much.
And today's Scotsman reveals that a letter sent by the First Minister to a Labour MP said: "The recommendation process and award of UK national honours is dealt with by the UK government. Scottish ministers are not involved in the process at any stage.
Likewise, Kevin Pringle, Mr Salmond's senior special adviser, said in June regarding Scottish Government involvement in the nomination of Mr Souter: "We are just not involved in the process in any way, shape or form."
Thus while Iain Gray's claims that these latest revelations amount to "outright falsehoods" perhaps overeggs things slightly, the whole thing just seems symptomatic of Scotland's elites and their power and privilege broking, with another member of that club - another 'Sir' who manages to straddle the UK-nationalist divide - predictably defending the whole thing in a letter published in today's Scotsman.
Although ultimately the SNP cannot do anything about the UK honours process, they should at least specifically condemn the process generally, and in particular the knighthoods awarded to the likes of Sir Brian and Sir Sean Connery.
But they won't. Of course.
7 comments:
Yeah, lots of hypocrits at CyberNat Central: many a comment about "vermin in ermine" but when Sir Cash Register and Sir Lord High Overlord of the Universe Connery are knights, then it is OK.
Thins are different in Scotland - they do it for the good of the country, which is total bollocks of course!
Gosh, you cannae say that aboot a model of journalistic balance and objectivity!
Alexander and McLeish broke the law, no matter how trivial a matter you might think that is. Are you claiming any SNP minister has broken the law? Do you have any evidence what so ever?
The letter from the cabinet office to Jamieson re Souter's nomination specifically states that Scottish Parliament ministers are NOT involved in the process. Normally that would be case closed but some labour voting numpties, knowing how their own party works, just can't accept that sometimes, as long as Labour aren't involved, black is indeed black and white is indeed white and never the twain shall be confused with one another.
Don,
A typical nationalist attempt at deflection. It's got nothing to do with previous controversies, it's a question of SNP probable double-standards.
Anyway, I can't recall the absolute details of the cases you mention.. in fact I probably couldn't recall them at the time, but I seem to remember Henry's little contrtemps being "cock-up not conspiracy". Wendy's sin was that a donor, not Wendy herself, directed a small but legitimate donation through an illegitimate route...I think. A bit more serious, but hardly extreme felony.
And if you think politicians should resign with every hint of illegality, then can I hear you calling for the resignation of the MSP, who had to pulp all of his first issue election leaflets because they broke election law?
Don, indeed it shouldn't be a matter of simple black and white, even assuming HMc and WA did break what are in the grand scheme of things pretty trivial laws.
For example, do you think any SNP minister who speeds in their car should stand down? Let's face it, I suspect many do it - although getting 'caught out' is another matter - but a few mph over the limit doesn't ipso facto make them unfit for office.
Likewise, I suspect that if Kenny McAskill was done for D&D tomorrow then it might be a good idea for him to stand down, but his actual offence was a long time ago, so I don't really see it as being relevant to his current position.
By the same token, I'm not saying that the SNP has broken any laws vis-a-vis Brian Souter, but in my opinion someone whose business is so dependent commercially on government policies shouldn't be donating to political parties, thus I don't think it's just a question of dismissing the whole issue on the basis of crude adherence to the law. After all, if adherence to a particular law was all that was relevant then there would be not point in parliament at all, because a large part of its raison d'etre is evaluating and changing the law. It's not simply about whether or not people are adhering to it, which is more the domain of the law enforcement authorities and the courts.
As for the honours business and the letter to Cathy Jamieson, that merely underlines the fact that the statements made by Alex Salmond and Kevin Pringle weren't wholly correct, even if it does mean that SG *ministers* weren't involved in the process.
Sorry, its humbug all round i'm afraid.
As I said in my own blog, sure the SNP still have questions to answer, but not as many as New Labour. In the spirit intended by Iain Gray, what shape exactly did the pound of flesh take for the S*n's headline on election day 2007.
Similaraly, the SNP are not the only guilty party in terms of blocking regulation of the busses and honouring those responsible for profiteering. Labour were in power since 1999 and did nothing and nothing was said when Moir Lockhead was enobled.
Mind you Labour have never made a pledge to regulate bus networks, unlike the SNP, who made that promise in the autumn of 2006. Four months before Souter flashed his cash...
Quite right Allan...same old, same old.
Post a Comment