| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| Economist |
Jack......who?http://youtube.com/watch?v=h5PG16p-JLc
Story here: http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/03/jack-mcconnell.html |
||||||||||||||||||||
| wisnaeme |
 
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| darkside |
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politi...nster/display.var.1287159.0.0.php
Patricia Hewitt, Health Secretary, appeared not to know who Scotland's First Minister was yesterday, marring a Labour event intended to show how Westminster and Holyrood were working together. On STV, she extolled the virtues of the smoking ban in Scotland but came unstuck when she repeatedly referred to the First Minister as "Jack McDonald". She said: "People are worried about possible loss of trade but what Jack McDonald was telling me was" She continued: "And one of the most reassuring things I've just heard from Jack McDonald" advertisement The interviewer pointed out her gaffe, saying: "Jack McConnell." Ms Hewitt frowned: "What did I say?" The interviewer replied: "McDonald, I think." Ms Hewitt declared: "Oh God, I'm sorry." She laughed. "Why don't we just do that one again?" An embarrassed Labour aide eased a hand over the lens. Angus Robertson, SNP campaign chief, branded Mr McConnell "the invisible man of Scottish politics". He said: "The fact ministers in London don't even know (his) name makes a mockery of his partnership claims." |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
It's quite funny, but there's not much point making political capital out of a slip of the tongue. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
It is quite funny, yes although it didn't seem like a slip of the tongue to me. No-one really needs to make any political capital out of it, as everyone is aware of the power and influence that Jack McConnell wields in Westminster.......Zilch. Nada. Nothing. This just confirms that for us, when one of the members of the British cabinet can't even name him properly. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| kevin04 |
I don't think it was a slip of the tongue either, you can tell by her listening to the reporter at the end of the clip that she realises she's made a mistake.. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Well it's really the job of Douglas Alexander to make representations on the subject of Scotland to the UK Parliament and Government. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Morph |
oh wait, would that be the same as a secretary of state, you know the one that was there before Scotland had any power. Just shows how seriously the Labour government , or any British government for that matter takes the Scottish Parliament | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
It was never suggested that the Scottish Exec would have any sort of external influence. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Morph |
you would think that devolved powers would mean that they would have infered some kind of 'outside influence' | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Yes, that and wee Jack telling us that he works in partnership with the British Government, would actually require him to have some kind of external influence outside the Scottish Executive devolution bubble, in order for this partnership approach, to work. Indeed, some of his most lauded achievements - Fresh Talent and aid for Malawi (for example) stray outside his boundaries and into the remit of the British Parliament and Government.
Douglas Alexander is too busy making a hash of the English Transport system to fully and effectively represent Scotland's interests in the British cabinet. I would imagine that almost everybody would agree, even if they don't agree with independence, that Scotland should be represented to the UK Government by the Scottish Executive, Parliament and Jack McConnell - well maybe not Jack McConnell per se, but someone else in the capacity of First Minister.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
If he wants to pretend he has influence by virtue of his position, and if UK Ministers want to listen to him, then that's their business entirely. He, as with every citizen, has the right to petition the Crown and its ministers.
Hardly impressive. Didn't he spend more on trips to Malwai than they actually received in the end or something like that? Anyway, that was wrong - and had it not been for the fact that they were fairly well-intended gestures - someone should've brought it up in the courts.
Why not the Secretary of State for Scotland - who, as a cabinet minister, has far more influence and freedom than anyone outside ever could - as has happened for everyone's lifetime. You nationalists are simply associating the Scottish Executive with Scotland - and as such, any affront to its powers or abilities won't even be considered by you. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Nope, I'd have thought it was for the benefit of governing the devolved powers granted to it. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
He doesn't pretend so much he has influence - he tries to make political capital out of it, no doubt part of the "Union dividend". He believes (rightly) that that is what the people of Scotland want to hear him say. Indeed, I've seen speeches from Tony Blair lauding Jack McConnell's influence in Westminster.
I entirely agree his efforts in these areas have been far less than impressive.
That would have been pretty churlish to do so, especially on an issue such as aid to Malawi. Quite low in the "pathetic" stakes, but something I really wouldn't have put past Unionists. I believe a Tory MP in the HoC made a similar point at Scottish Questions today. They just do not learn.
Well, I would have thought it is fairly simple, Aventinian. Cosy constitutional carve-ups aside, the Secretary of State is not a member of the Scottish Executive - the Scottish Government - or the Scottish Parliament. Neither is he appointed by them. Ergo, he (technically) is not responsible for the policy of the Scottish Government. This situation will only augment itself when we have a Secretary of State for Scotland in the British cabinet, who is not of the same political hue as the composition of the Scottish Executive.
Well, it is fairly simple again. Us "nationalists" view the situation from wanting to have a proper government in Edinburgh, representing the interests of this country in all fora. And most importantly of all - people in Scotland, whether they support independence or not, want the Scottish Executive and Parliament to have more power and influence, than it currently does. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Perhaps he's talking about his influence with the Secretary of State, which would be the correct way for him to have any say over matters of importance in the UK government.
Malfeasance in public office is unacceptable, no matter what its intentions.
True, the Secretary of State is to represent Scotland, not the Scottish Executive. And thank christ for that. The last thing we need is yet more power for the four-year electoral dictatorship.
More power, but I don't recall any surveys on influence. And I doubt anyone has any idea what powers they are wanting. I want more powers for the Scottish Parliament too: fiscal responsibility. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
No he was quite clearly talking about his influence at the heart of the Labour Government at Westminster.
A very recent poll, showed an overwhelming majority of Scots (something like 76%) wanted Scotland to control its own International Development policy and have its own influence in this area. I very much doubt this was in anyway improper or illegal.
He is meant to be the guardian of the devolution settlement and spokesperson for Scotland on reserved affairs. To properly represent Scotland, in the political arena, clearly one would need to represent the views of the Scottish Government,. The Secretary of State does not do this.
When it comes to powers, I'd imagine tax and fiscal powers, powers over foreign affairs (eg representation in the EU) - and as the SCIAF poll showed, International Development powers, would probably be what most Scots would like the Scottish Parliament to control. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
And a cabinet minister is at the very heart of government.
If it isn't a devolved matter, than yes, it is of course illegal. As for this survey - I wonder how many people actually understand what 'international development' really means? Equally I wonder if they bothered to consider the point that separate aid structures would involve more bureaucracy (as the Malawi initiative proved) and adversely affect those who it is suppose to benefit. The United Kingdom has already voted how much money it wants given to international development. McConnell has no right to take it upon himself to misuse funds.
The First Minister? Nonsense.
No they wouldn't. The government is one body, as I've said an electoral dictatorship, which represents less than 25% of the people of Scotland who are eligable to vote, and even then "represents" is taken in the looses of terms in coalition government.
When it comes to powers, I'd imagine tax and fiscal powers, powers over foreign affairs (eg representation in the EU) - and as the SCIAF poll showed, International Development powers, would probably be what most Scots would like the Scottish Parliament to control.[/quote] Well of course, that doesn't affect the case as it is now. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| azzuri |
Piss take -
see - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkEUBi_2fHA
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Holebender |
Yet you seem to regard the UK government as legitimate. Remind us... what proportion of the people of the UK eligible to vote actually gave Labour its overall majority in the House of Commons? |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Not any more than the Scottish Executive, democratically speaking. Which is why, for example, I seek far, far more powers for the European Parliament rather than the majority of them resting in member-state ministers or national government appointees in the Commission. |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Economist |
No he is talking about his influence in policy making at Westminster. Not in the policy areas of Scotland or Transport, but in general. Mr McConnell probably has more contacts with Civil Service officials and others including the Prime Minister - not just the Secretary of State.
It is not illegal. It was justified as being within the jurisdiction of DFID and helping with the British Government's policy objectives in that sphere. Ergo, it wasn't illegal. However my point of view, is that constitutional niceties and laws aside, I want Scotland and its Parliament to be able to decide on such policy areas, without scope for recourse from outside parties.
Most I suspect. The question was related to the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Unfortunately for Unionists, if we polled the same question, but asked if people wanted the Scottish Parliament to control Foreign Affairs, a coherent majority would also have said Yes to that too.
It need not require more bureaucracy. Certainly that would be the way the Scottish Executive would
I don't think it requires me to point out the major flaw behind that statement.
I don't think he was. As a Scottish taxpayer, I'd rather Mr McConnell (well, not Mr McConnell obviously, but somebody in the capacity as Head of the Scottish Government) to determine the proportion of the tax revenue, I and others raise, that goes on International Development and such like. It is a bit more accountable to me, and my elected representatives.
No, the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Yes they would, in the situation I am talking about. Rather in the same way the United Kingdom's Representative to the UN, represents the United Kingdom, in the political arena and to do so he clearly requires to represent the views of the UK Government.
Power and influence really go hand in hand, though don't they? It isn't that difficult to see the interrelationships between the two concepts. Many people want the Scottish Parliament to stand up for Scotland. Clearly that would entail a bit more influence than it currently wields. When it comes to powers, I'd imagine tax and fiscal powers, powers over foreign affairs (eg representation in the EU) - and as the SCIAF poll showed, International Development powers, would probably be what most Scots would like the Scottish Parliament to control.[/quote] |
||||||||||||||||||||
| VLK |
I think too much is made out of this episode. If Scotland were an independent country I trust that most government ministers of England would know the name of the Prime Minister of Scotland. After all, everyone knows who Bertie Ahern is. Or at least I think they do. I might overestimate their level of general knowledge. | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
Scotland has no right to a special say on matters that do not affect it.
If the DFID want to make McConnell a 'goodwill ambassador' for the UK government or whatever, fair enough. However if he acts outside his remit and spends funds for matters they were not allocated for, that is malfeasance. If you support that, you must implicitly support government corruption.
Yes, it need. Unless it's going through UK channels then it needs a whole new administrative structure - as we found out with the Malawi situation actually costing more in associated costs than actually went to any good causes.
I think it does, actually. It's UK tax money, assigned by the elected UK Parliament for certain matters.
Your views as a Scottish taxpayer are irrelevant, your views as a British taxpayer are perhaps an issue.
Yes, because our representatives in the United Nations are well-known for being democratically accountable to the British public (!)
It was a slip of the tongue. If any insight is to be gained from it, it is probably that she's been thinking about John McDonnell for the next leader of the Labour Party. |
||||||||||||||||||||