As I write, a rally is being held at an East Belfast Orange Hall, probably announcing David Vance as the Traditional Unionist Voice candidate to take on Peter Robinson (who is bound to lose his seat to someone, it merely remains to be seen to whom, exactly), and certainly addresed by Vance, by Party Leader Jim Allister, and by Party President Willie Ross.
Vance was previously Deputy to the arch-integrationist Bob McCartney in the United Kingdom Unionist Party, and Ross, in his days as UUP Chief Whip at Westminster, was Chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Monday Club. Even Allister, erstwhile Paisley protégé, is now opposed to the devolution of Policing and Justice in terms that are really opposed to devolution itself.
The DUP is now effectively led by one of the integrationist asylum-seekers from David Trimble, but even he is now an active Conservative Party Peer, while Lady Sylvia Hermon is for all practical purposes a New Labour MP. The DUP is offering a free run, in two seats where such a candidate is bound to be the first past the post, to a UUP now subsumed into mainland Toryism.
Suddenly, integrationism is the new black, to the point of being on the brink of taking Northern Ireland's most westerly seat straight from Sinn Féin. And all just as the Assembly seems set to collapse, leading to the reintroduction of direct rule at everything short of the explicit public request of Dublin.
When, and it is surely now "when", direct rule is reintroduced, then it should be accompanied by an Act applying all Westminster legislation to Northern Ireland unless, within a suitably brief time, it is specifically disapplied by a suitably weighted majority, perhaps sixty per cent, of the Assembly. That would keep out the likes of abortion, which would never have been introduced anywhere in the United Kingdom if the Kingdom had not been partitioned in 1922, but which would exist throughout these Islands if Sinn Féin had its way.
The Assembly would continue to exist for that purpose, and for the purpose of a fortnightly, or if possible weekly, Question Time with the Secretary of State, but for no purpose beyond those two. If it made people feel better to call this a temporary arrangement, then so be it. But in practice, it would be no such thing.
Something similar would probably secure majority support within the minority that would vote at all in any referendum on the matter in Wales. In fact, rather more people than would otherwise bother might very well turn out specifically to vote for this, at least if it also contained the right to enact subordinate legislation subject to ratification by both Houses of Parliament and Royal Assent, as the General Synod of the Church of England also relates to the Crown in Parliament.
And Scotland? The devolution legislation presupposes that the Parliament of the United Kingdom should continue to legislate overridingly in all policy areas, if perhaps not quite so frequently. People who think that they were voting for something else in the devolution referendum are like people who think that they were voting for "a free trade area" called "the Common Market". That is simply not what the legislation itself says. So, let that legislation be implemented in full.
In the coming hung Parliament, it will be, with Tory, Lib Dem and indeed Labour MPs from the Highlands, Islands and Borders happily accepting Westminster's attention to their local communitarian populist causes, also the stance of their brethren from North, Mid and West Wales: "If Holyrood or Cardiff won't deliver, but Westminster will in return for our votes in the tight divisions several times per night, then Westminster is welcome to do so, the Government is therefore welcome to our votes, and the SNP and Plaid Cymru are welcome to try and explain how this is what we have to do in order to get anything done in our localities."
In fact, Plaid Cymru might even adopt the same approach. On such a basis, both of its MPs voted against the SNP with a view to saving the Callaghan Government in 1979, just as two Ulster Unionists did, whereas both Irish Nationalists abstained.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your fantasies about tanks surrounding Holyrood continue I see. What you propose would be a gift to the SNP wrapped up in a tartan bow.
ReplyDeleteThe STUC has made it clear that any attempt to get rid of the Scottish Parliament would mean it co-ordinating a general strike. In those circumstances, where are you going to jail the strikers?
Sovereignty of Parliament etc. Yes, Mother India and Uncle Sam yawn increduously when the Mother of Parliaments nags. And parliament house in Canberra gives a two-fingered salute. And parliament hill in Ottawa chuckles.
The absolute rule of Westminster does not darken their door. And if the Scots choose the same then it will be so.
How many people do you propose to shoot?
Who mentioned getting rid of it? Implementing the devolution legislation in full - which is all that this would be - would simply allow the thing to wither away. I think that it was specifically drafted with that in mind, actually.
ReplyDeleteThe STUC assumed a Labour Executive when it came up with that on. One could say that about almost everything to do with devolution, including the fact of it at all. The unions' response in the changed circumstances would depend on the specific policies in question; they could expect more out of a Tory Government, never mind a Labour one, than they could ever hope for out of the SNP.
You mention Australia. It is more than a decade since the Australians voted comfortably to retain the Crown, with only as many votes for abolition, as a proportion, as there would have been here in this post-Diana days. We are not now in those days, and nor are they; there as here, the anti-monarchist side would now be lucky to get thirty per cent. Not that there is ever going to be another referendum. Who wants one? Who really wanted the last one? Rather like the Godot-esque independence referendum in Scotland, in fact.
In Canada, New Zealand and several other places, there has never even been a referendum, because there is no demand. Absolutely none. More than ten years ago now, the Irish Republic gleefully renounced all claim to Northern Ireland, where develution looks set to be "suspended indefinitely" (abolished) having been taken over by someone who never really believed in it in the first place.
If there is a referendum on further devolution in Wales, then there will be a No vote; but there will probably be no referendum, because no one really wants one. And the SNP, elected to do precisely one thing, still shows no practical sign whatever of doing it, with Salmond et al essentially drawing salaries to do nothing all day.
So one could go on. Such ties as still exist within the Union and the Commonwealth, especially the inner Commonwealth retaining the monarchy, are now for ever. The period of their dissolution is in the past. Those who wanted to go have gone. Those who are still here, are here to stay.
Er, you may have noticed but Canada, Australia etc are fully independent nations which happen to choose to continue to use Brenda as head of state. It nothing to do with colonialism by the back door.
ReplyDeleteAny claim London had with Canada was scrapped with the abolition of the British North America Act and the new Canadian constitution signed by Brenda herself in front of Trudeau (the piroetting PM whose long, slow death from prostate cancer I am sure you welcomed for mocking Brenda on several occassions during his term in office - why did she not have him sacked through her rep the GG?).
It rather illustrates the point that a Prime Minister of Canada couldn't behave like that now. The ties that still exist, long beyond the age of decolonisation, are permanent. Just wait for the Diamond Jubilee to see it. The monarchy was unpopular, not least in Australia, earlier in the Victorian period. But Victoria lived long enough to see it all off. The present Queen has done the same.
ReplyDeleteThe SNP was not only elected to do one thing, the SNP was not elected at all. It was either a draw with Labour or a massive pan-Unionist defeat of Nationalism, look at it either way. Their media lackies declared an SNP victory regardless of the outcome. Also there remain very serious questions about the conduct of that election.
ReplyDeleteMuch like the Welsh devolution referendum. There'll never be another, not while there is breath in the bodies either of Labour MPs from Wales or of the 10 to 12 Welsh Tory MPs whom there would be in the event of a Tory overall majority.
ReplyDeleteYou are right about the Lib Dems from rural Scotland, Wales and the South-West. They already have their local schemes drawn up as the price of their votes in a hung Parliament and to hell with Edinburgh or Cardiff. What good are they of they don't deliver these things and we still have to go begging to Westminster for them? What good is Brussels either, as the many Lib Dems with fishing seats are especially starting to notice? The next Parliament is going to have a cataclysmic affect on the Lib Dems.
ReplyDeleteAs a party, they were always going to have the most trouble surviving either it or any change in the electoral system.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what The Aberdonian is complaining about, this way he gets what he voted for when he voted yes to devolution. Not bad considering more people either voted no or abstained than voted yes.
ReplyDeleteExactly. If this wasn't what he wanted, then he should have voted No. Or abstained, on the Jim Sillars principle that devolution is an internal Unionist dispute, of no interest to true Nationalists.
ReplyDeleteMmmmh, still making people up to back up your point of view. You have an extremely bad reputation for it - Martin Miller, Clive Staples, Alexander Stephen etc. Can you not defend your views yourself without making up imaginery friends? You just invite yourself to ridicule.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, if the case in Canada is apparently the case then why did the deputy prime minister criticise the notion of a hereditary head of state in the late 1990's.
Devolution referendum etc - we have been here before. The majority of those who voted (on a health turnout) voted for devolution. You yourself have admitted you would not complain about a similar vote if it was a vote in favour of the UK withdrawing from the EU. By your own admission you are saying a Scottish vote is an inferior one.
Be very careful with that first paragraph. People are now being arrested for writing things like that.
ReplyDelete"why did the deputy prime minister criticise the notion of a hereditary head of state in the late 1990's"
Exactly. He couldn't get away with it now.
You clearly can't actually answer the referendum point - that you should have voted No if you wanted independence rather than devolution (the full and correct operation of which is as I set out), or else abstained on the grounds that the question was irrelevant to you.
But on an EU referendum, there is no need, just as there is none for renegotiation. All that is necessary is a single-clause Bill or amendment restoring the supremacy of British over EU law wherever the two conflict.
On Scottish devolution, however, I propose no change whatever to the law as it stands, but only the implementation in full of that law, for which you voted. I confidently predict that that will happen in the coming hung Parliament.
After all the fuss over so many years leading up to devolution, I'd love to see your definition of an unhealthy turnout.
I remember when it was widely believed that all the Nats were the same person, making up names and addresses to send letters to the papers.
ReplyDeleteThe point at 17:51 about the Lib Dems is true, they are looking forward to it and so are their constituents. I have lots of links to the Highlands so I know about these things. They are looking forward to being part of a state again. They have not been since Salmond took over or even since devolution first happened.
Here in Glasgow social security spending is as big as health or education so Westminster matters to us as much as Holyrood. Our Orange are Orange, and our Green have no desire to live in the all Protestant Scotland, also all white for our Asians, envisaged by the SNP.
The points about the actual voting figures and the actual difference between devolution and independence are vitally important. I would only add that even the vote in favour of devolution was before it had happened and before it had been taken over by the Tartan Tories, the most Thatcherite party in Western Europe.
Keep up the good work.
It is also very important that the SNP did not win the Holyrood Election, and that that Election was as dodgy as hell, anyway. Even on the declared outcome, they drew with Labour and were beaten to a pulp by Unionism as a whole. But their media fixers declared them the victors regardless.
ReplyDeleteIf The Aberdonian believes that, then he needs to read http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/01/03/the-kamm-scam/
ReplyDeleteIndeed so. And if he believes them, then he must also believe that there were WMD in Iraq and that Iraq was linked to 9/11.
ReplyDeleteBut back on topic, please.
Yes David, very good with the Highland Hamish and the Glaswegian etc. They even write like you.
ReplyDeleteCalling someone a liar is not a criminal offence. If it was then this blog would have been shut down long ago and you a guest of at Brenda's B&B around the back of Durham Castle -. I think the Krays gave it three stars.
I will take my place at the back of a very long queue of people who have accused you of this.
(If you are inferring about "Bloggergate" by the way - the guy was charged with blackmail, not accusing Russell of lying).
Yes, that's right, everyone who doesn't agree with you must all be the same person. What an extraordinarily subculture Scottish Nationalism is.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder that it is death's door, preparing to be wiped out in the forthcoming General Election and simply ignored by whichever government that produces. Ignored, moreover, pursuant to legislation for which the SNP vigorously campaigned, voted in Parliament, and voted in a referendum.
The prison is not behind the castle, although I suppose it depends from which direction you are looking. But there is, for one thing, a whole river between them.