Economist
|
Jack McConnell - Was he all that bad?I've not long finished reading the autobiography of Jack McConnell by Lorraine Davidson (it was only £4.95 with p&p from Amazon when I was ordering a whole load of other books - how could I resist? )
I know it was written by a Labour party apparatchik, and was pretty partisan in loads of areas, but you do get the impression that perhaps Jack McConnell was hamstrung by a Labour Party that was totally divided plus the malign interference of the current Prime Minister. One area that shone through was the total lack of regard or warmth that Tony Blair had for Scotland (contrary to perceived wisdom), the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Parliament or devolution. Possibly that was the result of him being less than enthusiastic about the whole devolution idea, even though he is happy to claim it as part of his legacy.
One thing that amazed me was all the competing little sects and fiefdoms and campaigns that existed in the Scottish Labour Party together with the "feuds" between many of its members. I suppose it is like this in every political party, but the effect of Gordon Brown seemed to polarise the party more than most?
Don't get me wrong, I think McConnell was a pretty ineffective First Minister and no statesman. But how much of that can be blamed entirely on him?
|
Holebender
|
| Quote: | | I've not long finished reading the autobiography of Jack McConnell by Lorraine Davidson |
Just a wee pedantic point here; an auto biography is a biography written by the subject him- or herself. If the book has been written by someone else it is a biography.
|
Economist
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Quote: | | I've not long finished reading the autobiography of Jack McConnell by Lorraine Davidson |
Just a wee pedantic point here; an auto biography is a biography written by the subject him- or herself. If the book has been written by someone else it is a biography. |
Yeah I know and I know the difference too, thanks. I suppose that's what happens when you post when half asleep. Nonetheless, I guess I just can't contain my excitement for when he does actually release his autobiography which is in the pipeline apparently
|
October1974
|
Re: Jack McConnell - Was he all that bad?Sorry - but the same book is on sale in a discount bookshop in Dundee for 99pence
| Economist wrote: | I've not long finished reading the autobiography of Jack McConnell by Lorraine Davidson (it was only £4.95 with p&p from Amazon when I was ordering a whole load of other books - how could I resist? )
I know it was written by a Labour party apparatchik, and was pretty partisan in loads of areas, but you do get the impression that perhaps Jack McConnell was hamstrung by a Labour Party that was totally divided plus the malign interference of the current Prime Minister. One area that shone through was the total lack of regard or warmth that Tony Blair had for Scotland (contrary to perceived wisdom), the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Parliament or devolution. Possibly that was the result of him being less than enthusiastic about the whole devolution idea, even though he is happy to claim it as part of his legacy.
One thing that amazed me was all the competing little sects and fiefdoms and campaigns that existed in the Scottish Labour Party together with the "feuds" between many of its members. I suppose it is like this in every political party, but the effect of Gordon Brown seemed to polarise the party more than most?
Don't get me wrong, I think McConnell was a pretty ineffective First Minister and no statesman. But how much of that can be blamed entirely on him? |
|
Economist
|
| October1974 wrote: | Sorry - but the same book is on sale in a discount bookshop in Dundee for 99pence |
It'll probably be free with the Daily Record next.
|
RadgeJougal
|
Yes. He was.
|
Jimbo
|
Jack McConnell - Was he all that bad?
Yes!
|
jimtrot
|
| Jimbo wrote: | Jack McConnell - Was he all that bad?
Yes! |
Ditto
|
Aventinian
|
He certainly wasn't. A bit devoid of ideas, but by no means a bad First Minister. Kept things ticking over quite reasonably, pleasant enough; bit too much of a Nat for my liking though.
|
Economist
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | He certainly wasn't. A bit devoid of ideas, but by no means a bad First Minister. Kept things ticking over quite reasonably, pleasant enough; bit too much of a Nat for my liking though. |
I agree with the first part, I don't think he was a "bad" FM, just extremely ineffective. He was certainly policy lite - but the justification given for that in the book, is that he was steadying devolution after the crises of the death of Donald Dewar, the Officegate saga with McLeish and the continuing problems of the Scottish Parliament building. Another point, is that he didn't have a clear direction of where he wanted to go - a bit like Gordon Brown. Perhaps why he was so ineffective.
On him being too much of "Nat" for your liking, Aventinian, obviously this will be a flaw you see in most Heads of Government in Britain - including the estimable Mrs Thatcher, who could teach Alex Salmond a few things about nationalism - and dare I say the word - patriotism.
|
Aventinian
|
| Economist wrote: | | I agree with the first part, I don't think he was a "bad" FM, just extremely ineffective. He was certainly policy lite - but the justification given for that in the book, is that he was steadying devolution after the crises of the death of Donald Dewar, the Officegate saga with McLeish and the continuing problems of the Scottish Parliament building. |
Yes, that seems like a fairly good explanation. It raises an interesting point about small-c conservatism: would the people generally vote for someone who has no new policies, but instead promises simply to respond effectively to events, continue established trends like attempting to make efficiency savings in government, but generally just wanted to have the country tick over without rocking the boat too much?
I'd suggest that, while still a fairly sensible position, it doesn't win votes.
| Quote: | | On him being too much of "Nat" for your liking, Aventinian, obviously this will be a flaw you see in most Heads of Government in Britain - including the estimable Mrs Thatcher, who could teach Alex Salmond a few things about nationalism - and dare I say the word - patriotism. |
Quite so.
|
mairead
|
Was nhe bad? yes, worse than that, he was almost unbearably awful.
|
Lewis
|
Was he all that bad, well it wasn't the bad things he did, it was the lack of things that he did I seem to recall was his lowest point. He was not the charismatic leader that a nation needed. McConnell did not take enough opportunities and risks, those are what makes a leader great and McConnell I felt didn't fit the job.
|
Shagpile
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | bit too much of a Nat for my liking though. |
Yep, a 'British' Nat. I agree.
|
Shagpile
|
| Lewis wrote: | | well it wasn't the bad things he did, it was the lack of things that he did |
How very true.
|
Aventinian
|
| Shagpile wrote: | | Aventinian wrote: | | bit too much of a Nat for my liking though. |
Yep, a 'British' Nat. I agree. |
I was actually meaning a Scottish nationalist. I certainly don't think he was a British nationalist; he was roughly akin to Ian Paisley in constitutional terms: he was a Home Nation nationalist, but also a Unionist.
|
voiceofourown
|
Aventinian wrote: | Quote: | | he was a Home Nation nationalist, but also a Unionist. |
So, a belief in independence is neither a sufficient nor indeed a necessary condition of being a nationalist?
I agree.
Ergo, if you can be a a Scot-Nat without believing in independence, you can also believe in Scottish independence without being a nationalist.
I think that's where I, and many other independistas, find ourselves.
Perhaps we can all be friends now Ave?
|
Aventinian
|
| voiceofourown wrote: | Aventinian wrote: | Quote: | | he was a Home Nation nationalist, but also a Unionist. |
So, a belief in independence is neither a sufficient nor indeed a necessary condition of being a nationalist? |
Oh definitely not. I'd actually say a good chunk of Scottish nationalists are Unionists; they're more or less the SNP's target market.
| Quote: | | Ergo, if you can be a a Scot-Nat without believing in independence, you can also believe in Scottish independence without being a nationalist. |
Well that doesn't logically follow. I can believe my statement correct without having to necessary believe yours.
And to be frank, despite a few localists and socialists who simply want to ride the back of nationalism to destroy the state, I believe that almost every Scottish independence advocate is a nationalist.
|
Holebender
|
It's all belief and dogma with you. Evidence has no place in your scheme of things, does it?
|
voiceofourown
|
I'm afraid, Aventinian, that if you accept my first point (that a belief in independence is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition of being a nationalist), you obviously agree that the essence of Scottish (or other) nationalism lies outwith a belief in independence. That being the case, the conclusion that you can believe in Scottish independence without being a nationalist is inescapable. You concede as much when you say | Quote: | | I believe that almost every Scottish independence advocate is a nationalist. | (my italics)
P.S. By destroying 'the' state, do you mean the British state? - my point being that those who wish to destroy the British state are not necessarily anarchists or anti-statists. I must admit that the idea of my contributing to the demise of our corrupt and exclusive UK establishment is a delicious conceit. The kernel of this centuries old nut-cluster was formed long before most people either dared to (or had the equipment to) question its legitimacy. So how wonderful to have the opportunity to see the formation of a new establishment - in the glare of the modern media and an educated populace not afraid to point the finger.
|
Red Justice
|
And to be frank, despite a few localists and socialists who simply want to ride the back of nationalism to destroy the state, I believe that almost every Scottish independence advocate is a nationalist.[/quote]
Not true Av I would advocate Scottish independence to secure more democracy in Scotland. I am socialist and would not like to be described as a nationalist. I have seen some Scottish nationalists , don't like what I see, and I would not want them ruling this nation.
My other argument would be independence creates easier conditions to try secure a socialist society. (I do not believe in the British Communist analysis in a British road to socialism being credible or realistic.)
Wanting independence does not make me a nationalist but a patriot which I am proud to be. If being patriotic gives out nationalist feelings then fine I still have my socialist beliefs to fall back on to remind me it is the more credible way to organise our society.
|
Economist
|
| Lewis wrote: | | Was he all that bad, well it wasn't the bad things he did, it was the lack of things that he did I seem to recall was his lowest point. He was not the charismatic leader that a nation needed. McConnell did not take enough opportunities and risks, those are what makes a leader great and McConnell I felt didn't fit the job. |
Totally agree. Couldn't put it better myself.
|
Reluctant Hero
|
More about McConnell in today's Sunday Herald. Apparently he clashed with Brown over the 10p tax rate.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/...ell_clashed_over_10p_tax_rate.php
|
Shagpile
|
If McConnel new about these plans, then surely it must be reasonable to assume that other Liebour elected politicians did also. So why the revolt?
Why the Brown 'coronation'?
Has the McConnell camp not stopped spinning yet? Too little and too late! More rhetoric in lack of substance from our departed FM.
|
Holebender
|
What do you mean if he knew? We all knew about these plans; Gordon Brown stood at the dispatch box on Budget Day 2007 and told the whole worlds about it... and Labour's MPs cheered and subsequently voted for it.
|
Shagpile
|
| Holebender wrote: | | What do you mean if he knew? We all knew about these plans; Gordon Brown stood at the dispatch box on Budget Day 2007 and told the whole worlds about it... and Labour's MPs cheered and subsequently voted for it. |
Oops, I thought it was Darlings' budget!
|
Lothian Sky
|
| Red Justice wrote: |
I am socialist and would not like to be described as a nationalist. I have seen some Scottish nationalists , don't like what I see, and I would not want them ruling this nation.Wanting independence does not make me a nationalist but a patriot which I am proud to be. If being patriotic gives out nationalist feelings then fine I still have my socialist beliefs to fall back on to remind me it is the more credible way to organise our society. |
"Nationalism" is not the goal of the SNP.
Independence is the goal of the SNP.
And without it, we will always get a society of someone elses choosing.
When independence comes, we can be a normal nation state once again. I equate the SNP's "nationalism" with confidence, self determination and self beleif in Scotland, nothing more. I don't want to invade anyone, and I dont care what your gene pool consists of. I couldn't give a f*** how people describe me. I don't think I'm any more of a "nationalist" than a Norwegian or a Finn. It's not like I sleep under a saltire in my tartan jammies at night. I like most SNP supporters are European in outlook.
As for socialists, I've seen a few scary, nasty and aggressive SSP activists in my time, so maybe we should just forget it with the stupid labels, eh?
|
Lothian Sky
|
As for Jack, he just did what he was told.
It's the unionist way.
Do what you're told, and don't ask too many questions.
That's what happens when you vote Labour.
What kind of leader just does what he's told?
He never, fought Scotland's corner. Not once.
|
kevin04
|
Lothian sums it up perfectly for me,
Out with Politics, Jack seemed like a decent lad and a bit of a laugh and knew how to take a joke often heard him on 'off the ball' with Tam ripping into him about supporting 3 different teams etc, he was never made up to be leadership material and either is Wendy.
|
|
|