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.
 



       Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Forum Index -> UK and Ireland Politics
Rinty

Sheridan Challenges Powerless Parliament.

Tommy Sheridan has challenged the legality of a ruling his bill to nationalise Scotland's railways. Sheridan belives the unwillingness of the executive to exercise powers and to test grey areas is confirmation of the need for us to have a "real parliament in an independent Scotland".

www.solidarityscotland.org
SLG

I think you mean www.solidarityscotland.org
Cado

How do you mean 're-nationalise'?

As far as I'm aware Network Rail is fully owned by the Govt, it can operate as a Limited Company but its the Govt that own all the shares. Thereafter its the Rail Regulator which exercises control over the other concessionary companies - to my knowledge in any case.

My point being that it is very much in 'State' control, as it was in the days of Railtrack. Though I think that the management of the Railways within Scotland have been devolved to Scotland.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this would be - though having now read the link - he would appear to be proving the limitations of the present devolution arrangement.
Rinty

y

The Bill proposes the public control and ownership of running the railways as part of w wider publicly owned integrated transport system.

We had the powers to run the railways devolved us to us earlier this yera. Yet it now looks as though we dont have the powers to chooose how to run it. We can run it, as long as we run it the way westminster tells us.

This is a grey area and the parliament should always be willing to test the grey areas. IMO the SNP should be joining in on this one to highlight the limitations of McConnels and his cronies.
Neil

Is the purpose of this purely to test (to destruction?) devolution or does Tommy actually have some serious idea about how to run the railways better?

Or is that a stupid question?
Rinty

y

It is a bill put together by academics in the field and sponsored by the RMT union. The legal advice all the wayb through has been that it is entirely within the Parliaments powers to change the franchise. The intention was to change the running of the railways back to public ownership at the ending of the next franchise, so it is a stupid question.

Perhaps you do not know how much time and effort goes into preparing a bill, Tommy and the others who prepared this would not waste two years of their time just to have a press statement calling the parliament powerless.
Neil

So in what specific way would the railways be run better?
Rinty

y

They would have more money invested, the money that is currently taken out by the private operator, and the public would have control over the railways through the democractic accountability of the government department that runs it.

Currently we subsidise the private operator and all investment comes from the public purse anyway.

Whether that is better or not in detail would be for someone else to answer who has more knowledge than me.
Avatar

Rinty - just curious as to whether or not Solidarity or the SSP support Nationalising the oil industry?
Reluctant Hero

I don't think that they should stop at trying to nationalise the railways. They should go for nationalising all aspects of public transport so that we can get an integrated transport network instead of every company looking out for themselves.

An integrated public transport network at cheap prices would offer a real alternative to the current climate where the car is king. In turn this would cut down on carbon emissions etc and enevitably benefit the environment.
Shadowman

Perhaps if the railways stopped having to shuttle coach loads of air between Thurso and Dingwall, our railways could run without government subsidy.
Rinty

h

I think both do support nationalisation of oil avatar.

Interestingly, the SNP support Tommy Sheridans idea re railways yet Fergus Ewing exercised the party whip barring any SNP MSP from supporting the bill and SNP MSPs opposed at going forward.

That's what happens if you put a tartan tory in charge of transport eh?
Neil

Quote:
They would have more money invested, the money that is currently taken out by the private operator
So the private operators would be nationalised without compensation (since otherwise the nationalised rail would have a hefty whack to pay off). Has it ocurred to you that the day before the nationalisation bill passed all the moveable assets, like trains & carriages, would be in Carlisle?

How would this improve the service?

Personally I would think it likely that Richard Branson would be better at running our railways than Tommy Sheriden but I realise you Rinty will disagree.
Rinty

m

Quote:
So the private operators would be nationalised without compensation (since otherwise the nationalised rail would have a hefty whack to pay off).


No you don't understand how the rail privatisation works. There is no compensation as the franchise ends in 2011 when Tommys bill proposes replacing the private operator with the publicly owned operator.

Quote:
Has it ocurred to you that the day before the nationalisation bill passed all the moveable assets, like trains & carriages, would be in Carlisle?


In no case since privatisation has the outgoing franchisee refused to hand stock to the new franchisee. What makes you think that it would happen in this case? And why Carlisle?

Quote:
Personally I would think it likely that Richard Branson would be better at running our railways than Tommy Sheriden but I realise you Rinty will disagree.


No I do agree, there are people who can manage Services and that is not Tommys job. His bill is sponsored by him, researched and written by academics and the workers in the industry who are members of the RMT alongside Tommy. When politicians propose changes to any service we surely do not expect them to be able to run them personally.
Neil

Quote:
Quote:
Has it ocurred to you that the day before the nationalisation bill passed all the moveable assets, like trains & carriages, would be in Carlisle?


In no case since privatisation has the outgoing franchisee refused to hand stock to the new franchisee. What makes you think that it would happen in this case? And why Carlisle?
I think you will find that in no case has the outgoing franchisee refused to SELL their rolling stock to an incomer. Since you have specificly said this proposal would not have to pay anything to anybody they could not buy (or lease or borrow the money to buy) such stock.

The point about moving stock outside the juridiction of a Solidarity government was in the suspicion that the comrades might wish to take the stock without payment. Nationalisation without payment has been openly suggested on many different occasions. Even if you assure us that Tommy has developed a more petite bourgeouis attitude to other people's property it is still possible that the owners might choose not to risk it.

I am glad to see that Tommy & co are to have no role in running the thing because they aren't capable - which leads back to my original question of in what way are they going to improve it?
Rinty

j

Quote:
The point about moving stock outside the juridiction of a Solidarity government was in the suspicion that the comrades might wish to take the stock without payment.


The bill was for the Scottish parliament not a Solidarity Government Rolling Eyes

Quote:
I am glad to see that Tommy & co are to have no role in running the thing because they aren't capable - which leads back to my original question of in what way are they going to improve it?


I didnt say that MSPs wouldnt have a role, of course they have a role in deciding overall policy and elected representatives have a role in managing depratments. In a publicly owned situation the MSPs are also accountable if they get it wrong.
Neil

Yet again
Quote:
which leads back to my original question of in what way are they going to improve it?


Also you didn't answer where are they going to get rolling stock if they won't buy it from current farnchisees?
Rinty

y

The improvements will come from the extra money currnetly taken out by the privateers, it would be for the managers of the industry to decide on the specific improvements in 2011. The bill is about who owns the services and who is accountable.

As for the rolling stock, how did the current franchisees get their rolling stock? Find the answer to that and you will find out how the transfer of stock works. They only own it for the duration of the franchise and all of it is purchased by the public through fares and subsidies.
Neil

Are you claiming that currently, as a matter of law, Virgin rail & the others don't own their rolling stock? That as a matter of law they could not move this property to carlisle because they don't own it?
Rinty

t

I dont think it is a matter of law as such.

Almost all rolling stock in the Uk is leased and usually leased for a term that equals the time of a franchise. All of Scotland's rolling stock is leased not owned by the train operators and the lease ends in 2011 when the franchise does. A new nationalised train operator would lease as well at first, probably from the same companies and possibly even the same actual trains.

Virgin do not hold the Scttish franchise!
Neil

So by your contention, with some limited exceptions which they would presumably have to buy, Holyrood rail would have the same rolling stock cost "at first" (which implies that they would also spend money buying stock).

Their profit would come entirely from running the business cheaper & more efficientenly under the "overall policy" & "department management" of Tommy & his cronies than the return on capital (almost zero capital according to you) achieved by First, Branson etc.

So once again it comes down to the theory that nationalised industries under the political management of Tommy & co must be assumed more competent than Branson & co. A theory to which the Parliament building & many many other politically run projects seems to prove the opposite.

Can you produce 2 examples of politically controlled organisations which have been more successful than the market average?

If not - once again - where is the benefit to us?
Rinty

g

Quote:
So by your contention, with some limited exceptions which they would presumably have to buy, Holyrood rail would have the same rolling stock cost "at first" (which implies that they would also spend money buying stock).


No they would simply lease the same stock from the same company that the current franchisee does, at the same cost.

Quote:
Their profit would come entirely from running the business cheaper & more efficientenly under the "overall policy" & "department management" of Tommy & his cronies than the return on capital (almost zero capital according to you) achieved by First, Branson etc.


It would be a not-for-profit organisation so the money used for profit to shareholders and directors currently would then be used by the rail franchise to improve services. Tommy and his cronies would not run it, the Scottish Executives transport dept would employ managers who would run it, Tommy does not expect to be in power and running the parliament in 2011 and It is a red herring to suggest that he would be. The important factor is that it would be democratically accountable.

Quote:
So once again it comes down to the theory that nationalised industries under the political management of Tommy & co must be assumed more competent than Branson & co. A theory to which the Parliament building & many many other politically run projects seems to prove the opposite.


I did not say that nationalised industries are more competent and did not say that they would be under the political management of Tommy Sheridan. Competency would be judged on service delivery not profitability. There are very few that argue that privatisation of rail has been a success, the theory behind privatisation is that competition provides the efficiency. In rail only one operator gets the monopoly on each franchise and only one train can be on the rails at any time so the competition theory doesn't come into it. I didn't say that all industries should be publicly owned but I believe that the railways would be better run for public need than private greed.

Quote:
Can you produce 2 examples of politically controlled organisations which have been more successful than the market average?


It depends how you judge and measure "successful". I would say that France's government owned railway system SNCF is far superior to our railways and that the NHS is a very good example of how government management can lead to a vast improvement on what went before it.

Quote:
If not - once again - where is the benefit to us?


The benefit would be in having a rail system run to suit the needs of the people not the few who profit from it. I cant get a train to Glasgow on a Sunday as it is not profitable, during the week I can only get one every 2 1/2 hours as it is more profitable to allow freight trains to run. We can make decisions based on what is best for all, if more trains are running then potentially less cars are running, this gives an environmental benefit thats a responsibility of government but not the private companies whose responsibility is to it's shareholders to turn a profit.

Currently the private companies are guaranteed a profit, they cannot lose and take no risk, which is supposed to be one of the benefits of privatisation, that the risk takers take risks! The equation for franchises is Profit + costs - revenue = subsidy. The proposal in Tommy's Bill would miss out the first part freeing it up for investment.
Aventinian

Neil wrote:
So once again it comes down to the theory that nationalised industries under the political management of Tommy & co must be assumed more competent than Branson & co.


*Chokes on his mouthful of tea*
Neil

Quote:
Quote:
So by your contention, with some limited exceptions which they would presumably have to buy, Holyrood rail would have the same rolling stock cost "at first" (which implies that they would also spend money buying stock).


No they would simply lease the same stock from the same company that the current franchisee does, at the same cost.
Apart from the "at first" (your phrase) that is what I said.
Quote:
It would be a not-for-profit organisation so the money used for profit to shareholders and directors currently would then be used by the rail franchise to improve services. Tommy and his cronies would not run it, the Scottish Executives transport dept would employ managers who would run it, Tommy does not expect to be in power and running the parliament in 2011 and It is a red herring to suggest that he would be. The important factor is that it would be democratically accountable.
By definition if the bill gets passed Tommy has a serious influence at least in government. If the Scottish executive are going to higher civil servants to take the place now held by directors, whom you single out as a major expense, they will probably have to pay them
Quote:
I did not say that nationalised industries are more competent and did not say that they would be under the political management of Tommy Sheridan. Competency would be judged on service delivery not profitability. There are very few that argue that privatisation of rail has been a success, the theory behind privatisation is that competition provides the efficiency. In rail only one operator gets the monopoly on each franchise and only one train can be on the rails at any time so the competition theory doesn't come into it. I didn't say that all industries should be publicly owned but I believe that the railways would be better run for public need than private greed.
Since franchieses can be & are lost competition does come into it & you must know that usage went up following privatisation.
Quote:
It depends how you judge and measure "successful". I would say that France's government owned railway system SNCF is far superior to our railways and that the NHS is a very good example of how government management can lead to a vast improvement on what went before it.
I'll give you the NHS.
French rail is heavily subsidised - give the same money to Virgin orv First & see how they compare.
Quote:
I cant get a train to Glasgow on a Sunday as it is not profitable, during the week I can only get one every 2 1/2 hours as it is more profitable to allow freight trains to run. We can make decisions based on what is best for all, if more trains are running then potentially less cars are running, this gives an environmental benefit thats a responsibility of government but not the private companies whose responsibility is to it's shareholders to turn a profit.
Well now we know where the improbable "profits" would go. Running trains on Sundays when there is little demand but some political lobbying. That would put up running costs less than 1 full days worth but not much less. So you get your occasional Sunday train subsidised, paid for by the rest of us.

I wonder how many "policy decisions" like that it would take it would take to bankrupt rail again - or would it be an infinite number because Solidarity would be willing to vote any tax increase to cover it?
Aventinian

Re: t

Rinty wrote:
Virgin do not hold the Scttish franchise!


What? There are Virgin trains pulling out of Glasgow Central all the time.

Anyway, the profits from Virgin transport companies are presently invested by Branson in combating global warming: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5368194.stm - so it's not all the profiteering gluttony the totalitarian socialist would like to make out.

If anything, that would seem to suggest that it is not the operators who are nt investing in the network, but rather the already state-owned parts.
Rinty

n

Quote:
By definition if the bill gets passed Tommy has a serious influence at least in government. If the Scottish executive are going to higher civil servants to take the place now held by directors, whom you single out as a major expense, they will probably have to pay them


No Tommy would have the same influence as he currently has in Government unless you are predicting that Solidarity suddenly have a massive increase in their vote. They would hire managers as the franchisees do, preferably ones with transport exerience, it might even be the same managers Rolling Eyes The inbuilt guaranteed profit can either be used to invest in rail or simple have the same service as the private operators have and take the profit as a saving.

Quote:
French rail is heavily subsidised


So is the Uk ones but part of our subsidy goes straight into director and shareholders.

Quote:
Well now we know where the improbable "profits" would go. Running trains on Sundays when there is little demand but some political lobbying. That would put up running costs less than 1 full days worth but not much less. So you get your occasional Sunday train subsidised, paid for by the rest of us.


We might not get Sunday trains, and I pay taxes too, but we would be able to make decisions based on what is best for all of us. We all pay currently, and we pay an inbuilt guaranteed profit to the private franchisee. Do I hear you telling the directors that they get a merc paid for by the rest of us? But you object to rural passengers getting a service paid from the same money that currently goes to privateers?

Quote:
I wonder how many "policy decisions" like that it would take it would take to bankrupt rail again - or would it be an infinite number because Solidarity would be willing to vote any tax increase to cover it?


Tommys rail bil proposed no extra spending just the reallocation of spending from a gauranteed profit to the franchisee into services.

It would be for the peoples elected representatives to decide if more money was to be spent, those representatives can be voted out by us and therefore accountable for spending, unlike directors of companies who can only be voted out by their shareholders, or do you prefer a democracy where a handful of shareholders make the decision on where outr taxes go?

I will repeat the equation:

Profit (paid by us) + costs (paid by us) - revenue (fares paid by us) = subsidy.

Under Tommys bill the equation would be costs (paid by us) - revenue (paid by us) = subsidy. The profits then become either a saving to the taxpayer or frees up money for investment in rail.
SLG

Re: n

Rinty wrote:
Under Tommys bill the equation would be costs (paid by us) - revenue (paid by us) = subsidy. The profits then become either a saving to the taxpayer or frees up money for investment in rail.

Makes perfect sense to me. The only complicating factor is whether the private sector can run the service more efficiently than the public sector. Will the government employed managers be able to stop the 'costs' in the equation from rising without the pressures of losing the franchise and unhappy shareholders that the private sector bosses have to worry about?
Neil

That is precisely the complicating factor all round the world. Do we trust a politicaly appointed management approved by the SSP to run the bisness efficiently or will they, as Rinty suggests, raise costs by about 10% by running lots of los making Sunday services.

Will the people's elected representatives build a Parliament within budget?
Will the R100 (private enterprise) crash the way the R101 (built by the Air Ministry & certified airworthy by these elected representatives) did. No - nobody knows about it because it worked perfectly? (Nevil Shute who worked on the R100 wrote a book on thesubject)
Will the governments multi-billion pound computer system for the NHS/legal system/DVLA work as efficiently as independent large companies regularly manage?
Would you trust the average politician to run a whelk stall or even to choose the best manager to run a whelk stall?

To play devils advocate the other public business that works efficiently is Singapore Airlines but Singapore seems to have particularly competent leaders.

Also, despite the spin on Branson's investment in renewables - it is an investment not a donation & in fact renewables is a case where profits really do depend on subsidy because renewablity is driven by politics not economics. I like Branson but his spin machine is just a little to good.
Rinty

t

Quote:
That is precisely the complicating factor all round the world. Do we trust a politicaly appointed management approved by the SSP to run the bisness efficiently or will they, as Rinty suggests, raise costs by about 10% by running lots of los making Sunday services.


Neither I nor Tommy Sheridan are in the SSP, the bill was put to a parliament that has a very small representation from the SSP so I think you are pushing a straw man on that one. The bill proposed using the funds saved from the handout to privateers not increasing costs. It didnt propose specific improvements and instead left that to the professional management of the service. The Sunday service was my personal moan at how it is failing now, not a proposal of the bill.

Quote:
Makes perfect sense to me. The only complicating factor is whether the private sector can run the service more efficiently than the public sector. Will the government employed managers be able to stop the 'costs' in the equation from rising without the pressures of losing the franchise and unhappy shareholders that the private sector bosses have to worry about?


The goverment employed managers might even be the same people who manage for private sector companies - why not? And the costs will be allowed to rise in the equation as their will be leeway from the savings made.
SLG

Why doesn't Tommy propose that a state backed not for profit organisation and bid against the private enterprises. That way they would have to show they can out-perform the private sector and do so on a regular basis as the franchise. That would give the best of both worlds.
Neil

Rinty I apologise for suggesting you were still in the SSP. Since the "workers united can never be defeated" I assume you are now engaged in Solidarity with the increasingly small whelk stall of the organised leadership of the working class in their classic struggle with the infantile cult of personality obsessed revisionist splitters of the SSP.

That you have now withdrawn the only proposal for actually changing things we are left with the same people, using the same rolling stock but under the direction of the people that blew £430 million on the Parliament building.

I think we can sees why SLG's sensible suggestion that you actually show some ability to match the performance of the hated capitalists will not be taken up.
Rinty

j

Quote:
That you have now withdrawn the only proposal for actually changing things we are left with the same people, using the same rolling stock but under the direction of the people that blew £430 million on the Parliament building.


You are deliberately misquoting me Neil. I didnt say it was the same people, I said it could be. A new franchise would or could mean a new management team, they can come from the private sector or not, they could be the good/bad managers of the previous franchise or not.

This is basically about you arguing whether private or public is better and we are going around in circles.

Your argument is better informed now that you know about rolling stock being leased when you clearly thought that it was owned by the franchisee and could or would be held back from the new franchise. You came into this debate knowing very little about the proposal in the bill or how privatised railways work as you oppose public ownership and believe in the free market.

The parliament building, as you know, was inherited by the Scottish Parliament, Westminster decided on the building, the plans, the site, the architect and the contract.

Tommy Sheridan, by the way, suggested that the parliament should be housed in the former Strathclyde Regional Council offices in Glasgow, available at the time for £10m with a big enough debating chamber and enough office space to cover the whole shebang. That building has lay empty since and is now, I believe, being demolished.
Neil

Quote:
I didnt say it was the same people, I said it could be
That could be described as quibbling rather than admit that what you have proposed is a purely idealogical position which may well turn out to be another government white elephant & for which even you cannot show any credible benefit.

Thank you for accepting I have outargued you despite, as you correctly point out, your greater initial knowledge of the details of your proposal. The secret is to always start off from the sensible side. On those rare occasions when I find I haven't I always say so & change.

The private enterprise alternative to Holyrood building the Parliament was not Dewar & Holyrood building it - it was the offer put forward by the Leith developers to build it on the waterfront there for a fixed £40 million. I must admit to not knowing what Tommy said about that but would be fairly confident it was unsupportive of such capitalist exploitation.
Rinty

t

Quote:
Thank you for accepting I have outargued you despite


You could have possibly even had a chance of outarguing me but returned to the old left stereotypes about Solidarity/SSP. Stereotypes are a clear sign that an argument has been lost.

I repeat that the current equation is profit (paid by us) + costs (paid by us) - revenue (paid by us) = subsidy (handed to private companies).

I think it is clear that the profit is the inefficiency in the equation.
Neil

Or that the inefficiency is the loss, assuming one is allowed to suggest our beloved politicians not very erricient.

You know how stereotypres happen. Because everybody recognises an essential truth. The "leftist" who wants to run the world but isn't competent to run a whelk stall is a steroetype for obvious reasons.
SLG

Re: t

Rinty wrote:
Quote:
Thank you for accepting I have outargued you despite


You could have possibly even had a chance of outarguing me but returned to the old left stereotypes about Solidarity/SSP. Stereotypes are a clear sign that an argument has been lost.

I repeat that the current equation is profit (paid by us) + costs (paid by us) - revenue (paid by us) = subsidy (handed to private companies).

I think it is clear that the profit is the inefficiency in the equation.

Ok, so is that inefficiency greater than the inefficiency that would arise by taking the running out of the hands of the private sector?

Possibly IMO, but there is no way to be sure. The only way to be sure would be to have a state funded body compete against private enterprise and prove that it is more efficient. And to be forced to do this on a regular basis.
Rinty

h

Quote:
You know how stereotypres happen. Because everybody recognises an essential truth. The "leftist" who wants to run the world but isn't competent to run a whelk stall is a steroetype for obvious reasons.


Do stereotypes make you feel comfortable? I would say that I am probably what you would label a "leftist" yet have run many businesses in the private sector and currently am a Director of limited company that is doing quite well and is a bit bigger thanh a whelk stall. I think we could all find examples of right wing people who couldnt run a whelk stall and private sector enterprises that are incompatent. I think it is ludicrous to suggest that no "leftist" is capable of running an organisation efficently.

It is equally ridiculous to suggest the the Scottish Executive are "leftist".

I know I would rather have my Christmas money in the local credit union or co-op bank than in Farepak!
Neil

Quote:
I think it is ludicrous to suggest that no "leftist" is capable of running an organisation efficently
Only you said no leftist. I would not be so dogmatic though, as the steroetype suggest, it is the way most people would bet.

The Co-op is not nationalised.

Whether the Labour party, who dominate the Executive are a party of the left or right in your view depends, I suppose, on where you stand. Either position is arguable but to say that it is "ridiculous" to say Labour is on the left is a fairly weird view. Basicly you are saying "everybody's out of step except our Tommy".
agentmancuso

Re: h

Rinty wrote:

It is equally ridiculous to suggest the the Scottish Executive are "leftist".


No it isn't. The Scottish Executive (in both senses) is very 'leftist', as far as certain basic assumptions go. Most political commentators in Scotland share these assumptions.
Aventinian

Re: j

Rinty wrote:
Tommy Sheridan, by the way, suggested that the parliament should be housed in the former Strathclyde Regional Council offices in Glasgow, available at the time for £10m with a big enough debating chamber and enough office space to cover the whole shebang. That building has lay empty since and is now, I believe, being demolished.


Ah, some good old Stalinist architecture there.

SLG wrote:
Why doesn't Tommy propose that a state backed not for profit organisation and bid against the private enterprises. That way they would have to show they can out-perform the private sector and do so on a regular basis as the franchise. That would give the best of both worlds.


Interesting. I wonder how much would be needed to start such a franchise and if there would be any way to do it as more of a private charity than a hole for public money.

Get the National Lottery to buy 'em out.
Rinty

j

Quote:
The Co-op is not nationalised


??? I thought that you were talking about left management. The Co-op is the most famous probably of all the worker and member controlled organisations to emerge from the left over the years. You have a very narrow idea of "left" if you think it just means state ownership.

Quote:
No it isn't. The Scottish Executive (in both senses) is very 'leftist', as far as certain basic assumptions go. Most political commentators in Scotland share these assumptions.


Are you sure? Most commentators? Which Ones would describe the Scottish Executive as leftists? Is it left wing to privatise public services, to have schools and hospitals owned by PFI companies? Apart from a few free-market libertarians I have never heard any political commentator describe the Executive as left.

Can you elaborate on you assertion that they are "very" leftist? And can you tell me what these "basic assumptions" are?

Quote:
Ah, some good old Stalinist architecture there.


Smile Certainly was, although I believe that behind the front facade on St Vincent St, the India St part, where the chamber is, was an old school from the 1900's.

I think there is some debate to be had around SLG and Aventinians idea on a not-for-profit company, the Executive pay a lot of lip service these days to the social economy and they may be likely to at least look at it. In fact, I think they are maybe already looking at it.
Neil

Quote:
??? I thought that you were talking about left management
Then you have seriously misread. I was talking about the importance of having a structure where there is an active incentive to making decisions for economic rather than political lobbying reasons. Profit is the only such which has been proven to work over the long term. You have claimed personally to be both lertist & a manager & I made no criticism of that - didn't you notice?

I stand by what I said about saying Labour are a party of the left being reasonable.

I note you haven't answered the question about what Tommy said about a £40 million free enterprise Parliament building.
Rinty

u

Quote:
Then you have seriously misread. I was talking about the importance of having a structure where there is an active incentive to making decisions for economic rather than political lobbying reasons. Profit is the only such which has been proven to work over the long term.


The co-op is not for profit!

Quote:
I note you haven't answered the question about what Tommy said about a £40 million free enterprise Parliament building.


That is because I have no idea what he said!
agentmancuso

Re: j

Rinty wrote:

Quote:
No it isn't. The Scottish Executive (in both senses) is very 'leftist', as far as certain basic assumptions go. Most political commentators in Scotland share these assumptions.


Are you sure? Most commentators? Which Ones would describe the Scottish Executive as leftists? Is it left wing to privatise public services, to have schools and hospitals owned by PFI companies? Apart from a few free-market libertarians I have never heard any political commentator describe the Executive as left.

Can you elaborate on you assertion that they are "very" leftist? And can you tell me what these "basic assumptions" are?


Few political commentators would describe the Executive as leftist, precisely because these commentators share the same leftist assumptions

The policies you mention are all primarily economic policies. One of the biggest lies peddled by Marxists is that all politics - all life even - is about economics. It isn't. Economics is only one of the many elements that make up political life or life generally.

The Socialist parties that sprung up in Marx's wake had a whole raft of non-economic threads running through their policies. Most critically, these concern the relationship of the individual to the state. The moral authority of the state to interfere wherever it chose to do so was taken for granted. The validity of any policy adopted in the public interest was assumed. The right of the individual to live his life as he please without interference from the state was crushed. The beneficence and efficacy of the (massively corrupt, massively over-blown, massively inefficient) state bureaucratic machinery was taken at face value. Envy, anti-elitism and the pursuit of the lowest common denominator were transformed into virtues.

When Socialist parties like Labour began to finally realise that they would never regain power until they had 'modernised', this meant jettisoning their socialist economic policies, such as the nationalisation of industry etc. It did not mean a rejection of any of the other leftist assumptions outlined above. These assumptions are so so prevalent within Scottish politics that most people don't even notice they are there. There is no distinction to be found between the SNP and Labour on any core political issue, other than the tribal issue about so-called independence. The only other differences are policy wrappings. Maybe that's why they hate each other so much.

Meanwhile, in Scotland we have the biggest public sector in Western Europe. Government tenticles spread ever further into our private lives.( See http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/...ple-we-pay-to-watch-the-watchers/
for more on the Labour state's tightening grip.)
Rinty

m

Who are these leftist commentators? Is the size of your public sector the measure of how left a govt is?
Avatar

Quote:
There is no distinction to be found between the SNP and Labour on any core political issue, other than the tribal issue about so-called independence. The only other differences are policy wrappings. Maybe that's why they hate each other so much.


That doesn't say much for the Lib Dems then does it.
Aventinian

Avatar wrote:
Quote:
There is no distinction to be found between the SNP and Labour on any core political issue, other than the tribal issue about so-called independence. The only other differences are policy wrappings. Maybe that's why they hate each other so much.


That doesn't say much for the Lib Dems then does it.


Nope. Vote Conservative!

Anyway, as to our leftist Scottish Executive (if only that Katie person was around to throw the 'Trots' label about a bit...) I do think that describing them as such is looking at the matter in too narrow a fashion. When that political compass thing came out, it rather revolutionised the way people think when labelling political parties, particularly in relation to internet based discussions. Even that, to my mind, is far too narrow.

The Labour Party is always going to have its roots in leftieism and will always have that heritage, particularly in Scotland; but Thatcher did win the ideological battle in this country, and as she herself pointed out "Mr Blair and the Labour Party sound too much like us" - the problem with this is that while Labour started to understand traditionally Conservative economics and the ideas of business, they did remain essentially socialist (or social democratic in the modern language). They are nothing compared to what they were and, if you looked from a 70s perspective, they're certainly not left wing. But a deeper analysis certainly reveals the left-wing tradition to still be a major influence on Labourite thinking.

Anyway, I'm well over the drunk in charge of a keyboard limit, so I'll take this opportunity to bugger off for the evening.
Neil

Left "wing" implies a rough balance between the sides not specific policies (the US "left" is less opposed to private enterprise than the North Korean). Nobody ever saw a pigeon with different sized wings.

Thus a Scottish "left wing" containing only Tommy &/or the SSP & a "right wing" of Labour, SNP, SLD, Tories & probably Greens is self contradictory.
Rinty

y

I would say the Scottish left would be seen as SSP, Solidarity, significant portions of the trade union movement and the Greens, who believe in a social economy and not for profit industry, as well as a handful of SNP and Labour MSPs who lobby for left positions in their party.

The Scottish right would be the Tories, the business community, the main newspapers and the leaders of labour and the Lib Dems in Holyrrod and New labour MPs in Westminster.

There is of course vague descriptions such as "centre right and "centre left" which probably encomopasses many who are MSPs.

But the Executive are essentially a market based party who believe in some social policies (usually just to appease the unions rather than from any point of belief) so they would be centre right in most peoples eyes and right wing from my point of view.

I dont think anyone would have caleed the Tories leftists at anyn point in their history yet many of the social reforms in our country and much of the council house building was the result of previous Tory govts. Spending money on public services is not a measure, in my opinion, of left or right, it is down to what informs and drives your political decisions.

The SSP, Greens and Solidarity would challenge the idea that growth in the economy and business success drives the agenda, Labour and the Executive will have the market, growth etc as the fundamental starting point.
Neil

This thinking shows how, in their hatred for "business success" the self styled "left" have betrayed what socialism once stood for.

"Socialism is Soviet power plus electrification of the whole country." according to Lenin.

Now according to supporters of "solidarity" socialism is the destruction of our electricity supply & deliberate economic failure. It is running down our infrastructure for cheap political goals like giving Rinty extra trains on Sunday. It has nothing to do with building a better society for the next generation but entirely about helping the "leftist" Greens reintroduce medievalism.

This is not the socialism that Marx or Trotsky or ANY early socalist stood for.
agentmancuso

Avatar wrote:
Quote:
There is no distinction to be found between the SNP and Labour on any core political issue, other than the tribal issue about so-called independence. The only other differences are policy wrappings. Maybe that's why they hate each other so much.


That doesn't say much for the Lib Dems then does it.


Not sure I know what you mean?
Rinty

t

Quote:
This thinking shows how, in their hatred for "business success" the self styled "left" have betrayed what socialism once stood for.


I checked back as I am sure I didnt say "hatred" and I was right. What I pointed out was simply my personal (not solidarity's) view of a measure of left and right in Scottish politics, I said that the left would be those who didnt see business growth as the fundamental starting point for policy. At no point did I say that I "hated" business growth.

Quote:
Now according to supporters of "solidarity" socialism is the destruction of our electricity supply & deliberate economic failure. It is running down our infrastructure for cheap political goals like giving Rinty extra trains on Sunday. It has nothing to do with building a better society for the next generation but entirely about helping the "leftist" Greens reintroduce medievalism.


Are you taking part in a different conversation altogether Neil? I never mentioned any part of the Solidarity energy policy and talked only about investment in rail infrastructure not running it down. Solidarity do not have a policy of extra sunday trains for me, I personally pointed out where I think one area of investment could be in linking rural communities such as where I live to the rest of the world on a Sunday but that was not part of the bill tommy sponsored and a solidarity policy.

Local businesses in my area have been calling for more trains and stations for some time, they would disagree with you that having more trains equals economic failure.

Solidarity DO have a policy of supporting investment in coal fired power stations and continued investment in the production and use of the indigenous coal industry, which definitely helps "electrify" the country, in fact, Longannet alone provides the electricity for 2 and a half million homes at full capacity. Solidarity MSP Rosemary Byrne was an active supporter of the plans to develop an electricity station at the paper mill in her constituency and that is now going ahead, securing and increasing that particular businesses future and adding to the power generation in this country.

I also dont see where I said that I or Solidarity support "deliberate economic failure" I simply pointed out how I would see the difference in classifying left/right in Scottish politics. I would hope that my own business would be very succesful, obviously.
Rolling Eyes

You do your argument no favours by attacking straw men Neil.

I know that you are trying to turn this (once again) into an argument of wind vs nuclear as it is your pet subject but I really cannot see where you get this from the discussion we are having here.
Neil

I am not limited in the words I use to ones you have used first & while you did not use the word hatred to describe the extreme leftist attitude to capitalism I don't think many people would say it was ian ncorrect term to use of the (former) SSP's attitude to capitalism

You did say that your collective support of the Greens was because of your opposition to "growth in the economy and business success", which does require an, at least, cheerful attitude towards failure, poverty & ultimately medievalism.

I was once present at a Euro election hustings where the SSP candidate said thet "the SSP exists to roll back all the economic progrees of the last 2 centuries because it was made by capitalism". He may have been a straw man but he was also an idiot.

The original socialists, none moreso than Marx, believed very strongly in technological progress, indeed that is a theme of his writing. So yes - a genuine socialism would support wealth creation, technology & progress, including nuclear & would have nothing to do with the Ludditism that so swamps your movement that you think a minature coal fired generator is the height of progress.
Avatar

Quote:
Not sure I know what you mean?


Well if the Lib Dems and SNP are the same, then it doesn't leave much room for the Lib Dems in between being that they have alot of the same views as the SNP and are in coalition with Labour.
Rinty

h

Quote:
You did say that your collective support of the Greens was because of your opposition to "growth in the economy and business success"


It seems that if you cannot have the debate that you want you will simply make up another imaginary converstaion. I said "The SSP, Greens and Solidarity would challenge the idea that growth in the economy and business success drives the agenda". You have completely made up the idea that I or any of the parties I mention are in "opposition" to growth in the economy.

I said this, in a side debate about how we would clssify parties in the Scottish parliament on a left/right basis. You have taken it out of this context and placed in some weird assertion about "medievalism" whatever that is.

Quote:
The original socialists, none moreso than Marx, believed very strongly in technological progress, indeed that is a theme of his writing. So yes - a genuine socialism would support wealth creation, technology & progress, including nuclear & would have nothing to do with the Ludditism that so swamps your movement that you think a minature coal fired generator is the height of progress.


You are off on a tangent again and, as I supected, are trying to turn a debate about the powers of the scottish parliament re rail travel into the only debate you are capable of having, the nuclear vs wind debate.

I will refrain from telling you the many idiotic things I have heard from individuals from all parties at hustings as we have no way of checking whether my claims of an idiots statement (or yours) actually happened. I will say though that I have never taken one sentence form one cadidate at a hustings as evidence of that parties exact stance on everything.

Do you consider Longannet to be a "minature coal fired generator"? Did I say it was the "height of progress" It has been there for quite some time but progress would be the investment and development in the station that IS a Solidarity policy, even though it is privately owned!

Marx suppored nuclear power? I will certainly need to see evidence of that.

You are really something Neil, a one trick pony. You only have one debate - the nuclear vs wind debate. So you attempt to turn a debate (and every other debate) into that one. Can't you just start another thread on this subject? You're string of stereotypical "luddite" and other pathetic attempts to avoid the issues are tiresome.

It is quite easy to see why the Lib Dems kicked you out. Did you go to debates on education and call everyone a luddite who didnt want to talk about nuclear power? Rolling Eyes
agentmancuso

Avatar wrote:
Quote:
Not sure I know what you mean?


Well if the Lib Dems and SNP are the same, then it doesn't leave much room for the Lib Dems in between being that they have alot of the same views as the SNP and are in coalition with Labour.


I don't think the LibDems and the SNP are the same. The LibDems have a coherent political philosophy, built around an awareness of the relation of the individual to the state and of the critical importance of liberty of conscience and action for the individual citizen. The SNP have very little political philosophy at all: they have only policies. Hence they are essentially a populist party attracting a protest vote. In essence, the SNP are filling the 'old Labour' void, and sharing even this with the SSP.

On the other hand, the SNP and LibDems do share certain significant policy positions, e.g on Council Tax, and nuclear power. And it would be good for devolution, and for Scottish politics as a whole, if we were to make maximum use of this common ground.
Economist

agentmancuso wrote:
I don't think the LibDems and the SNP are the same. The LibDems have a coherent political philosophy, built around an awareness of the relation of the individual to the state and of the critical importance of liberty of conscience and action for the individual citizen. The SNP have very little political philosophy at all: they have only policies. Hence they are essentially a populist party attracting a protest vote. In essence, the SNP are filling the 'old Labour' void, and sharing even this with the SSP.

On the other hand, the SNP and LibDems do share certain significant policy positions, e.g on Council Tax, and nuclear power. And it would be good for devolution, and for Scottish politics as a whole, if we were to make maximum use of this common ground.


LibDems and coherent in the same sentence, seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me Laughing . The LibDems are anything but coherent. I don't see them sticking to their so called liberal principles anywhere and as for policies, they seem to change as often as the weather! It is they that are the perpetual populist party of the protest vote , and will always be so (after all they are only the 4th largest party in Scotland). I can scarcely think that you can call the 2nd largest party and official opposition in the Scottish Parliament a party of the protest vote. Whatever happens in May, the SNP are still likely to be at least the 2nd largest party there and having at least the 2nd highest share of the vote. It would be unhealthy in a democracy if the opposition party didn't get a shot at power, at some point. Whether that is 2007 or not is still hypothetical, at this time.

agentmancuso wrote:
Meanwhile, in Scotland we have the biggest public sector in Western Europe. Government tenticles spread ever further into our private lives.( See http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/...ple-we-pay-to-watch-the-watchers/
for more on the Labour state's tightening grip


Oh so you just blame Labour for that now, forgetting that the LibDems have been part of the Executive for the last 7 years? How convenient. They are just as much to blame for that state of affairs as their Labour counterparts.
Avatar

Quote:
I don't think the LibDems and the SNP are the same. The LibDems have a coherent political philosophy, built around an awareness of the relation of the individual to the state and of the critical importance of liberty of conscience and action for the individual citizen. The SNP have very little political philosophy at all: they have only policies. Hence they are essentially a populist party attracting a protest vote. In essence, the SNP are filling the 'old Labour' void, and sharing even this with the SSP.

On the other hand, the SNP and LibDems do share certain significant policy positions, e.g on Council Tax, and nuclear power. And it would be good for devolution, and for Scottish politics as a whole, if we were to make maximum use of this common ground.


Sorry I meant to say Labour instead of Lib Dems in that first sentence. I agree with much of what you say there about the SNP, however as Economist points out the Lib Dems aren't exactly known for sticking to their political philosophy or beyond going for the populist vote in orde to get their mits in the trough.
John MacLean

[quote="agentmancuso"]
Avatar wrote:
Quote:

The SNP have very little political philosophy at all: they have only policies. Hence they are essentially a populist party attracting a protest vote.

Moving away from that perception is one of the biggest challenges that the SNP face. I guess we will find out in May next year as to whether the SNP are finally seen as something other than a protest vote.
Neil

Having driopped your claim that I said you said "hatred" to describe SSP feelings towards capitalism - you were lying I said no such thing - you are now claiming I lied when I said you said that your support og the Greens was because or your joint disapproval of "growth in the economy and business success". You claimed I had made up that quote which was another lie as anyone here can see.

I note your contention that neither Solidarity, the SSP or indeed the Greens are in practice usually opposed to growth. Even excluding the quote (& it is a strange position to say that your parties chosen candidate should not be believed when he makes an absolutely unqualified statement on party policy) these parties consistent opposition to anything smacking of economic success is obvious.

I don't know what qualification you have to speak for the party but I do know that your idiotic candiidate was qualified to speak for your party & that he did wish if not medievalism at least the standard of living of the 18th century which he believed to be pre-capitalist. I cannot agree with you that political candidates should not be held responsible for the promises they make at elections.

Regarding the power station you have lied again. The specific example of a power station supported by the SSP was NOT Longannet but "Byrne was an active supporter of the plans to develop an electricity station at the paper mill " which is quite obviously by comparison, miniature. Again anybody can plainly see this lie.

I did not say, for reasons that should be obvious that "Marx supported nuclear power" but did say that Marx did support technologic progress. Indeed I will go further & say that there is no political philosopher, not excluding Adam Smith, who was more supportive of the "growth in the economy" you present day "Marxists" so oppose. I note that you cannot dispute this betrayal of Marxism & instead tried to divert it in a discussion of nuclear power.

I ask you to withdraw these lies.

Since you are so keen on getting back to basics I ask you, yet again, to give a tangible example of how nationalising the Railtrack franchises under the control of Holyrood would improve it.
Rinty

j

Groan Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

I am not an SSP member, neither is Rosemary Byrne, I am not opposed to growth in the economy, I dont support the Greens or the SSP (I merely mentioned them in a side debate on who we would classify as right/left in the scottish parliament and why) and the privately owned station supported by Byrne in Ayrshire is a biomass station powered by waste from the production process in a paper mill (not coal as you state) that will power half of the mills needs therefore making that private company more economically viable, increasing Scotland's energy capacity and securing jobs and growth in the Ayrshire economy.

Quote:
I cannot agree with you that political candidates should not be held responsible for the promises they make at elections.


Again, I didnt say this. I clearly said that one idiots statement in a hustings during election campaign does not always equal that party's policies or position. I am sure when I heard Phil Gallie at an election hustings in 2003 in Cumnock call for the reopening of deep mines that it was not Tory party policy. Personally, I accept this happens at hustings, you seem to live in a planet where every statement during a debate can then be used as an example of the beliefs of someone else entirely, in a different party, four years later!

I am qualified to speak for Solidarity but not the SSP or the Greens, I repeat I only mentioned those parties re a debate on who would be called left or right among the Sxcottish parliaments parties.

I am certainly not qualified or capable of defending or replying to an anecdotal story of a candidate of the SSP four years ago or more, unless I was that candidate? Was it me?

However, in this forum, I am speaking for myself not Solidarity and am expressing my own views, although I can confirm Solidarity's policies and political positions if required.
Neil

So you suggested I was lying when I called it a miniature power station compared to Longannet & now admit it was a
Quote:
private biomass station powered by waste from the production process in a paper mill
Looks like another apology due. Longannet is actually quite big.

Your objection to being linked to the SSP in this could only be honest if you were not an SSP member 4 years ago. This may be a wild guess but I suspect you were. I have already identified the quote as coming from the SSP EU candidate. I don't think he was called Rinty but it is possible that is not your birth name.

I repeat that I believe candidates speaking at election meetings should indeed be held responsible for their promises. You say you are "qualified to speak for Solidarity" & I would say that candidates are at least equally qualified. I would certainly believe in the propriety of mentioning Phil Gallie's remark which you mentioned even though you would never dream of mentioning it.

I note, despite your eagerness to get back to the original point you yet again havem't answered the original question.
Rinty

h

Quote:
So you suggested I was lying when I called it a miniature power station compared to Longannet & now admit it was a Quote:
private biomass station powered by waste from the production process in a paper mill
Looks like another apology due. Longannet is actually quite big.


Yes I know that Longannet is quite big, I clearly stated it's generating capacity. I questioned you calling it miniature as you said "the Ludditism that so swamps your movement that you think a minature coal fired generator is the height of progress".

It was you that was mistaken. The two specific examples of the Solidarity position I gave, was the new planned biomass station at the paper mill in Ayrshire AND investment in the coal fired power station at Longannet. You mistakenly read it as being a coal generator at Ayrshire, I was mistaken in thinking that the miniature coal station you referred to was longannet, I made that mistake as the only coal generator in the conversation was Longannet.

As I said before I am not in the SSP, these are examples of SOLIDARITY's policies, not the SSP. I have no idea whether or not the SSP support Longannet but I don't think that they do, I know they have a policy of an end to open cast mining which would suggest an opposition to coal power, something not shared by either Solidarity or Rosemary Byrne or me. I think that the greens would close all coal fired power stations.

To repeat (again) I do not oppose business growth, I support, and Solidarity supports, the new biomass plant at the paper mill and investment in Longannet, both privately owned businesses, both assisting with business growth and growth in the economy and neither in keeping with your stereotype of me or Solidarity being luddites.

Are you incapable of reading or is it that your prejudice view of the left means that you read what you want me to have said rather than what I actually said?

To get back to the original subject. I am not qualified, in my opinion, to judge what specific improvements would improve the whole network of Scotland's railways. That would be for managers of the network to suggest and politicians to endorse (or not). The improvement I would see from the bill is that the managers of the service would have more money to play with and therefore could address improvements, and that the whole network would be democractically accountable.

The bill was written, as I understand, by two professors, two parliamentary researchers a lawyer and the RMT union, as is the case with many bills. Tommy Sheridan like other MSPs SPONSORS the bill, he doesnt write it.

In my opinion, the devolution of the running of Scotland's rail network to Holyrood last year should mean that Holyrood also has the power to decide HOW to run it, not just to run it on the basis of decisions made in Westminster. That was what this thread was about, not about your pet subject wind vs nuclear, and I am glad we have come back to the subject.

I am sure that we all have lots of ideas of how the rail service could be improved with our own local bias. I would like to see investment in the line from Glasgow to Carlisle via my home station (auchinleck) by upgrading ALL lines to double track instead of the current situation where much of the line is single track limiting the capacity. I would also like to see a train station at Mauchline as the town has doubled in size over the last decade due to new housing and economic growth. AND I would like to see extra trains on a Sunday and more trains linking the dumfries-ayrshire line to prestwick airport (encouraging growth) and a late train at night instead of the current 10pm last train allowing more people to access glasgow for shift work and cinemas, theatres etc without missing the last train or the last half hour of a gig.

All of those are personal wishes from someone who lives in a rural area and not Solidarity policies, whether or not they are policies of any other party, I have no idea, despite you trying to link me with other parties. I know that most people would have similar wishes for their own area and I would hope that all locals would lobby for improvements, whoever owns the network, but think that Tommys bill would have provided more cash to at least consider such improvements.
Neil

You gave one specific instance of an instance of ecnomic progress which your party, whishever one) & tht was the biomass ststion atached to a mill. That is quite obviously a minaiture station. You mentioned Longannet only in connection with the non-specific policy of not wanting to currently close down our grid which your policies are sensible because you recognise water as being wet.

I stand by what I said about the disunited left's practical opposition to any measure really aimed at economic progress (putting priority on miniature biosmass burners is an example|). It is a betrayal of what used to be socialism.

I'm sorry you aren't qualified to defend rail nationalisation. I suggest that while you are "sure that we all have lots of ideas" the best time to think about this was at the start. It reinforces my opinion that theis brought forwrd because Tommy had any innovative ideas but just due to a purely idealogical commitment to nationalisation at absolutely all costs.
Rinty

u

Quote:
You gave one specific instance of an instance of ecnomic progress which your party, whishever one) & tht was the biomass ststion atached to a mill. That is quite obviously a minaiture station. You mentioned Longannet only in connection with the non-specific policy of not wanting to currently close down our grid which your policies are sensible because you recognise water as being wet.


Solidarity have a specific policy of investment in Scotland's coal industry and investment in coal fired power stations to make them more viable and sustainable. I mentioned Longannet in reply to your assertion that I wanted to see a medieval future with no electricity power generation. We do not oppose the planned decomissioning of the other coal station at Cockenzie provided that jobs are guaranteed in the mining industry and that investment in Longannet or the building of a new station of similar size is guaranteed.

Quote:
I stand by what I said about the disunited left's practical opposition to any measure really aimed at economic progress (putting priority on miniature biosmass burners is an example|). It is a betrayal of what used to be socialism.


There was no "priority" of miniature stations. There was an innovative proposal from a business that was supported by the constitunecy MSP! I know it doesnt fit your stereotype of Rosemary Byrne being a luddite against growth. Solidarity, me or Rosemary Byrne were not the architects of the idea, nor do we promote miniature stations as a priority, she and the party stood by a local business who wanted to develop and grow, just as we do with businesses in the coal industry and elsewhere. Would you have opposed the paper mills proposals to generate some of their own power using waste from their own production processes?

There are many marxists who would say that Solidarity supporting privately owned businesses IS a betrayal of socialism, we see it as supporting jobs and communities and innovation, I am surprised that you stand with those who take the opposite view!

Quote:
I'm sorry you aren't qualified to defend rail nationalisation. I suggest that while you are "sure that we all have lots of ideas" the best time to think about this was at the start. It reinforces my opinion that theis brought forwrd because Tommy had any innovative ideas but just due to a purely idealogical commitment to nationalisation at absolutely all costs.


Why should I have thought about this at the start? I had no role in this bill and no part in it! The bill was brought foward to improve the efficiency of rail services in Scotland, Tommy is not the sole architect of the bill. MSPs do not write bills, they sponsor them.

FFS Neil, why should all bills have to wait for me to think about them, why would they? I am not Tommy Sheridan, I am not one of those who drew up the bill, either one of the academics, workers representatives or reserarchers.

I didnt say that I wasn't qualified to defend rail nationalisation, are you incapable of replying to the points I made? I said I wasn't best qualified to detail what specific improvements would be best for the network ,either under a privatised or publicly owned service. All I can do, like you, is say what I would like to see. Why should I have to have knowledge of any of these things to be able to have an opinion that the parliament should have the powers to decide how to run the rail network?

I would say that Tommy does have an ideological commitment to public ownership, I wouldnt say that it is at all costs though and I wouldnt say that it then automatically means that he wants to shut down the electricity grid either. How would electrified train lines run if he did that? Laughing
agentmancuso

Economist wrote:
agentmancuso wrote:
I don't think the LibDems and the SNP are the same. The LibDems have a coherent political philosophy, built around an awareness of the relation of the individual to the state and of the critical importance of liberty of conscience and action for the individual citizen. The SNP have very little political philosophy at all: they have only policies. Hence they are essentially a populist party attracting a protest vote. In essence, the SNP are filling the 'old Labour' void, and sharing even this with the SSP.

On the other hand, the SNP and LibDems do share certain significant policy positions, e.g on Council Tax, and nuclear power. And it would be good for devolution, and for Scottish politics as a whole, if we were to make maximum use of this common ground.


LibDems and coherent in the same sentence, seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me Laughing . The LibDems are anything but coherent. I don't see them sticking to their so called liberal principles anywhere and as for policies, they seem to change as often as the weather! It is they that are the perpetual populist party of the protest vote , and will always be so (after all they are only the 4th largest party in Scotland). I can scarcely think that you can call the 2nd largest party and official opposition in the Scottish Parliament a party of the protest vote. Whatever happens in May, the SNP are still likely to be at least the 2nd largest party there and having at least the 2nd highest share of the vote. It would be unhealthy in a democracy if the opposition party didn't get a shot at power, at some point. Whether that is 2007 or not is still hypothetical, at this time.

agentmancuso wrote:
Meanwhile, in Scotland we have the biggest public sector in Western Europe. Government tenticles spread ever further into our private lives.( See http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/...ple-we-pay-to-watch-the-watchers/
for more on the Labour state's tightening grip


Oh so you just blame Labour for that now, forgetting that the LibDems have been part of the Executive for the last 7 years? How convenient. They are just as much to blame for that state of affairs as their Labour counterparts.


I notice that you have made no attempt to define the SNP's political philosophy. Or are you still looking?

The Sharpener article relates to the UK government, which we are in no position to influence. And while we are in coalition with Labour in Scotland, we do not control that coalition entirely. Do you think a majority Labour government would have been a better option for the past 7 years? Don't you think our presence has had some beneficial effect? Not even STV, which may very shortly make the SNP the largest party in local politics? It could never have happened without the LibDems. You ought to be more greatful.
agentmancuso

Avatar wrote:

Sorry I meant to say Labour instead of Lib Dems in that first sentence. I agree with much of what you say there about the SNP, however as Economist points out the Lib Dems aren't exactly known for sticking to their political philosophy or beyond going for the populist vote in orde to get their mits in the trough.


I see what you mean. It's true that Scottish politics can be stiflingly uniform at times.

I'd be interested in some examples of what you mean by LD's not sticking to their political philosophy?
Neil

Some years ago they voted, in my opinion correctly, to look at downgrading canabis. This was on the liberal principle that individual freedom is good thing. They got a lot of stick from the other 2 for this at the time but after Labour got in they did downgrade canabis.

By comparison the smoking ban is clearly illiberal.

As Rinty pointed out I was expelled from the party for holding traditional liberal views on economics, not invading other countries & views on nuclear power which postdate the formation of liberalism.
agentmancuso

Neil wrote:
Some years ago they voted, in my opinion correctly, to look at downgrading canabis. This was on the liberal principle that individual freedom is good thing. They got a lot of stick from the other 2 for this at the time but after Labour got in they did downgrade canabis.

By comparison the smoking ban is clearly illiberal.

As Rinty pointed out I was expelled from the party for holding traditional liberal views on economics, not invading other countries & views on nuclear power which postdate the formation of liberalism.


I disagree that the smoking ban is illiberal. It is perfectly compatible with classical Liberalism to restrict behaviour which is damaging to others. As I'm sure you are aware, Mill says that this is the only grounds on which restriction of another's liberty is permissible. The vast bulk of medical opinion holds that passive smoking kills people, which has to count as damaging them.

On the other hand, at the last LibDem conference a motion to raise the age at which cigarettes can be purchased from 16 to 18 was rightly defeated, on the grounds that it would be illiberal to restrict the behaviour of adults to kill themselves this way should they so choose. Unfortunately both Labour and the SNP favour this unnecessary intervention by the state into the citizen's life, so it will become law.
Economist

agentmancuso wrote:
Economist wrote:
agentmancuso wrote:
I don't think the LibDems and the SNP are the same. The LibDems have a coherent political philosophy, built around an awareness of the relation of the individual to the state and of the critical importance of liberty of conscience and action for the individual citizen. The SNP have very little political philosophy at all: they have only policies. Hence they are essentially a populist party attracting a protest vote. In essence, the SNP are filling the 'old Labour' void, and sharing even this with the SSP.

On the other hand, the SNP and LibDems do share certain significant policy positions, e.g on Council Tax, and nuclear power. And it would be good for devolution, and for Scottish politics as a whole, if we were to make maximum use of this common ground.


LibDems and coherent in the same sentence, seems like a bit of an oxymoron to me Laughing . The LibDems are anything but coherent. I don't see them sticking to their so called liberal principles anywhere and as for policies, they seem to change as often as the weather! It is they that are the perpetual populist party of the protest vote , and will always be so (after all they are only the 4th largest party in Scotland). I can scarcely think that you can call the 2nd largest party and official opposition in the Scottish Parliament a party of the protest vote. Whatever happens in May, the SNP are still likely to be at least the 2nd largest party there and having at least the 2nd highest share of the vote. It would be unhealthy in a democracy if the opposition party didn't get a shot at power, at some point. Whether that is 2007 or not is still hypothetical, at this time.

agentmancuso wrote:
Meanwhile, in Scotland we have the biggest public sector in Western Europe. Government tenticles spread ever further into our private lives.( See http://www.thesharpener.net/2006/...ple-we-pay-to-watch-the-watchers/
for more on the Labour state's tightening grip


Oh so you just blame Labour for that now, forgetting that the LibDems have been part of the Executive for the last 7 years? How convenient. They are just as much to blame for that state of affairs as their Labour counterparts.


I notice that you have made no attempt to define the SNP's political philosophy. Or are you still looking?

The Sharpener article relates to the UK government, which we are in no position to influence. And while we are in coalition with Labour in Scotland, we do not control that coalition entirely. Do you think a majority Labour government would have been a better option for the past 7 years? Don't you think our presence has had some beneficial effect? Not even STV, which may very shortly make the SNP the largest party in local politics? It could never have happened without the LibDems. You ought to be more greatful.


I couldn't give a stuff what the "political philosophy" of the SNP is. Similarly I couldn't give a fudge whether they have one or not. I'd rather a party that was pragmatic and more committed to getting things right, than attempting (very badly) to ape some kind of far-off political philosophy.

Whether or not a party has a political philosophy with which to be guided attracts me less to a party, than a party that is guided by principles and attempting to get things right, unencumbered by some blinding "philosophy".

[And I'm not saying the SNP are any of these things btw]

Labour haven't been good at sticking to their "philosophy"
Neither have the Tories
And it is such a chuckle to believe that the LibDems have a philosophy, as they'll jump on any bandwagon.

The LibDems are one and the same in the Executive. This Executive has been responsible for some of the most statist, illiberal and nanny state policies ever seen in Scotland - and it has restricted peoples' freedoms. The LibDems have given the Executive supply to implement many of these policies. There would be no "majority" Labour Executive if the LibDems weren't in coalition, we'd have a minority Labour Government, that would have to tread very very carefully. The LibDems have propped up a failing Labour. They're as much (if not more) to blame for the failures of the Executive than anyone else. I hope when voters cast their ballots in May, they remember that.
Neil

I disagree that there is clear evidence that passive smoking is kills at all let alone being so significant we should be spending more on it than stopping MRSA in hospitals. In any case had that been the problem the first option would have been to make pubs have good air extractors. Perhaps passive inhalation of canabis may be equally harmful, indeed I suspect it is.
Avatar

Quote:
I'd be interested in some examples of what you mean by LD's not sticking to their political philosophy?


Well theres the tuition fees issue, though im sure you'll argue thats a policy not a philosophy Wink Again the Smoking ban - I can see your point that it also involves the liberty of non smokers, but again there could have been better ways of dealing with it. As Neil points out there is no clear evidence that passive smoking causes cancer, infact theres no proof that smoking causes cancer. Theres also their continued propping up of perhaps one of the most authoritarian parties we've had.
agentmancuso

Economist wrote:

Whether or not a party has a political philosophy with which to be guided attracts me less to a party, than a party that is guided by principles and attempting to get things right, unencumbered by some blinding "philosophy".


I think you mean the same thing by principles that I mean by political philosophy.

Economist wrote:

The LibDems are one and the same in the Executive. This Executive has been responsible for some of the most statist