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.
|
Peter Dow
|
Should Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott go?
Prescott admits to affairs with royalty
Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott with Prince Charles
On Monday 1st May, I called for the resignation of Deputy Prime Minister John 'two shags' Prescott - live on BBC Radio Scotland, Morning Extra with Gary Robertson - but not for the reason that he has had an affair with his secretary.
Click here to hear Peter Dow calls for John Prescott to resign on BBC Radio Scotland (Zippyvideos)
Transcript of Peter Dow’s comments on BBC Radio Scotland 1st May 2006.
Morning Extra with Gary Robertson
Gary: Peter’s standing by in Aberdeen. Morning Peter.
Peter: Morning Gary.
Gary: Hi there. How are you?
Peter: I’m well. I think Prescott should resign because he’s failed as Deputy Prime Minister which is a very important job dealing with the big issues of state.
Gary: And in what respect has he failed?
Peter: Well, for example, Labour is supposed to be a democratic socialist party yet we still have the absurdity of a kingdom, of a monarch as head of state and I think the politicians …
Gary: … well hang on if somebody had to - politicians had to resign for the fact that we are still a monarchy then every politician for the last several hundred years should have resigned.
Peter: Well I think they should. There are some of them who have made a point of protesting - making it very clear that they are republicans - those are the ones who should stay in. So, for example, that would be, in the Scottish Parliament, the S.S.P. and a few others but most of them should resign - they are a disgrace.
Gary: So … just to pick up on the point that has been a couple of times this morning by emailers and by callers - is your need for him to resign politically motivated?
Peter: Yes absolutely but that’s what his job is - a political job - a very important political job - and he’s failed to do it. He’s …
Gary: … well hang on, he wasn’t elected on a platform to get rid of the Queen … so you can’t say that he has failed to do that … because he never said he would do it.
Peter: Well they failed in the sense that they’ve said they’ve been democratic and it’s not democratic to have a Queen as head of state but I’m telling you what my view is.
Gary: OK
Peter: He’s tried to do some half decent things like try to bring in a referendum in North-East of England but looking at the example of Scotland, which hasn’t been a great success, the people of North-East England turned that down and John Prescott was seen to have a had a reverse there but what he’s got to understand - in order to make the Scottish Parliament work, you need to have a democratic state, you need to have a President. That’s going to make the Scottish Parliament a fantastic success. Then you are going to see the English regions saying - “we want that too because look at the success Scotland is making”.
Gary: Is it irrelevant to you, who he is having sex with on the side?
Peter: No, I mean, I’m not going to be a hypocrite, you know, I’ve had sex with a married lady, you know, but I’m not going to tell you who it was because I don’t want to embarrass people. You know, I think sex-lives are irrelevant.
Jack McConnell’s nick-name on the internet is “Shagger” but I haven’t criticised him for that, I criticise him for not doing a better job of Scottish government - for not democratising the state, not giving us elected judiciary, elected Chief Constables. There is a big democratisation that the Labour Party, in its principles, supports but whenever the politicians get in to parliament and they give the oath of allegiance to the Queen - that’s what they remember.
Gary: So when it comes to the extra-marital affair issue here then and those who call for resignations as a result of that, do you think they are wrong doing that because they’re maybe expecting too much from our politicians - they’re expecting high standards that they themselves couldn’t live up to?
Peter: I don’t know. I think probably people who don’t have an accurate political analysis get a general feeling that something isn’t right with the system and they know our politicians are failing somehow but they can’t quite articulate what the problem is. They don’t perhaps have a republican socialist analysis like I have and therefore, you know, they pick on things and say “Well I think that’s wrong and we’ll criticise them on that” but really it’s tittle-tattle. It’s not really that important.
Gary: OK Peter thank you very much indeed.
|
Wolf of Badenoch
|
 Yon Radio Scotland invites onybody oan noo i see.
|
azzuri
|
I'd rather ask folk the question, should Peter Dow go?
|
Cymro
|
Peter, your unbelievable. No one cares what you said on Radio Scotland. You aren't exactly key to these debates and the attitudes of Scotland. We defninatly don't need transcripts!
|
Aventinian
|
I'm just amazed that he has a telephone... oh, no, wait, he's got his mobile phone strapped to his ear. Pay as you go, eh?
|
parkhead_rfb
|
what a self obsessed dobber 
|
Neil
|
| Quote: | Gary: … well hang on if somebody had to - politicians had to resign for the fact that we are still a monarchy then every politician for the last several hundred years should have resigned.
|
He nailed you.
In the latin countries any politician who isn't shagging would be considered pretty pathetic. In Britain we desperately claim that if they did it on government furniture we are entitled to the juicy detials.
|
Peter Dow
|
| Neil wrote: | | Quote: | Gary: … well hang on if somebody had to - politicians had to resign for the fact that we are still a monarchy then every politician for the last several hundred years should have resigned.
|
He nailed you. |
I felt no nails.
What part of -
| Peter Dow wrote: | Peter: Well I think they should. There are some of them who have made a point of protesting - making it very clear that they are republicans - those are the ones who should stay in. So, for example, that would be, in the Scottish Parliament, the S.S.P. and a few others but most of them should resign - they are a disgrace.
|
Didn't you understand?
Cromwell and the roundheads had the right idea when they chopped off Charles the I's head. After that things went into a bit of a political reverse.
Now at times of extreme political crisis there might be an argument for waiting for a few years before resigning and then making a political come-back as a born-again republican.
So for example, in May 1940, we needed Churchill - not after the war was won.
|
Neil
|
So because Her Maj is still on the stamps everybody but the SSP & their close friends should be turfed out of Holyrood leaving the SSP to form Executive & Opposition.
Knowing the SSP they could make a go at doing at least the 2nd part.
Good caveat about not having to wait till Churchill went republican however.
|
Peter Dow
|
| Neil wrote: | | So because Her Maj is still on the stamps everybody but the SSP & their close friends should be turfed out of Holyrood leaving the SSP to form Executive & Opposition. |
"Asking to resign" is different from "violently turfing out".
We should ask royalist MPSs to resign - only the voters should be able to throw them out.
Not even the majority of MSPs should be allowed to throw out any other MSP.
Remember when 4 MSPs were excluded from parliament for a month? That was a unconstitutional violation that any good president would have had to overturn - if necessary by escorting the excluded MSPs back into parliament - with an armed escort if necessary.
I have explained on my website.
To identify and to flag up Scotland's current command authority.
(See the coloured boxes below for advice on acting sovereignty and constitutional ranks.)
| Quote: | Welcome back to the Scottish Parliament.
Following the end of the highly undemocratic and unconstitutional exclusion of 4 MSPs from the Scottish Parliament's premises for the whole month of September 2005, presumably now the full and free parliament is now reconvened with the authority to appoint all constitutional ranks.
For future reference, some of the normal constitutional ranks as advised here would not apply so long as any MSP remains excluded. Ranks that are subject to possible suspension and consequently would become constitutionally inoperative during periods of exclusion of MSPs, are indicated by a grey RANK number.
Advice on acting sovereignty and constitutional ranks.
Acting sovereignty means here the authority of the parliament to enact law and to appoint and to maintain officers of parliament and of state whose high rank is recognised here by numbers coloured grey in the above table.
Only the full and free parliament can act with the sovereignty of all the people
Acting sovereignty can be properly exercised by the full and free parliament only - that is, without any member of the parliament being excluded from the meeting of parliament by a decision of the majority of MSPs.
Democrats assert that sovereignty rests with the people because democracy means "government by all the people". Excluding any MSP from parliament is no less than an undemocratic assault on the governing rights of those people who elected that MSP.
A meeting in parliament excluding any person duly elected to the parliament - excluded by a decision of the other MSPs - is not a meeting of the full and free parliament. Such an exclusive meeting in parliament cannot therefore act for all the people, nor can it exercise the people's electoral mandate to act with the sovereignty of the people.
Undemocratic cliques of MSPs
So the constitutional advice here is that Scots are under no particular constitutional obligation to recognise a decision of a meeting of some MSPs excluding any other MSP as a decision of the Scottish Parliament, per se. An undemocratic clique of MSPs should not be mistaken for a democratic parliament.
Each elected MSP maintains always their own mandate from their own electorate but no clique of MSPs can outrank any other single MSP - only the full and free parliament can outrank individual MSPs or promote and support MSPs in higher ranking office.
How excluding any MSP adjusts the ranks of all MSPs
In terms of the constitutional rank table given here, excluding any MSP from parliament leads to the following interpretation of the advisable constitutional rankings -
An exclusion of any MSP from meetings of the parliament, would derogate those grey numbered ranks to the subordinate red numbered rank.
That is to say, rank numbers 3 to 9 would be derogated to rank number 10
In other words, from the perspective of someone wishing to defend a Scottish democratic constitution,
the Presiding Officers would no longer have the authority to preside,
the First Minister would no longer have the authority to be first among ministers,
nor would any minister have ministerial authority
and indeed the whole Scottish Executive, from Permanent Secretary to ordinary civil servants would be in abeyance.
Rank numbers 11 and 12 would be derogated to rank number 13
In other words, from this Scottish constitutional viewpoint
the courts and the police would be Scottish constitutionally equivalent to any other group of Scottish citizens carrying out citizen arrests and detentions,
there would be no special authority of police arrest
and questions about whether the police arrest citizens or citizens arrest police officers would be purely matters of force majeure.
Although I guess that the police and the courts would try to claim legitimacy as they do now under the UK's constitution from hell, or perhaps under another non-Scottish constitution such as that of the European Union.
Dangerous instability
In summary, one consequence of excluding any MSP from parliament is to undermine the legitimacy and the unity of the Scottish state. While some disunity may be unavoidable in some situations, only a foolish anarchist or an enemy of Scotland would rejoice at this degree of disunity.
Exclusions potentially destabilizing
Thus exclusions of MSPs are highly undesirable and can lead to destabilizing constitutional contradictions while all MSPs' ranks are levelled (here down to rank number 10).
Suppose one excluded MSP decides to order, say, the assassination of the UK head of state and further suppose that then other MSPs decide to countermand that assassination-order. What then as neither the order nor its countermand is clearly constitutionally superior to the other?
One could imagine then one faction of Scots trying to assassinate the Queen (they'd get my support as a ferocious republican!) while another faction of Scots is trying to save the Queen (boo, damn royalists!), and both factions could construct a constitutional rationale for their actions!
Such violent disunity among Scots is the danger of unconstitutional exclusions of MSPs from parliament.
Stabilize by not excluding
The easy way out of risky constitutional dilemmas is for the full and free parliament to meet promptly, not excluding any MSP, and then for the newly validated Presiding Officer or First Minister to countermand the now inferior conflicting orders.
Thus the lesson for MSPs is that, unless they want to risk such things as the Queen being assassinated by Scottish military patriots carrying out a valid Scottish constitutional order from an MSP of the highest currently recognised rank, DON'T EXCLUDE ANY MSP FROM PARLIAMENT! |
So the violent turfing out should be done to the Queen, Prince Philip and Prince Charles - all of whom have acted to usurp the position of Scotland's head of state - mainly by lording it over the Scottish parliament on special occasions - like the official opening ceremonies.
But not only should we turf them out of the parliament - in order to establish once and for all that Scottish sovereignty now rests with the people, Scottish patriots should turf the three of them out of Scotland for ever - or do a "Lord Mountbatten" on (assassinate) them if they resist by using the UK states forces etc. to thwart Scottish democracy.
| Neil wrote: | | Knowing the SSP they could make a go at doing at least the 2nd part. |
I do know the SSP - and in Aberdeen, the party is dominated by Stalinist-style control-freaks who exclude me from "public" meetings.
By excluding a Scottish National Standard Bearer like me from their meetings, the SSP is more or less admitting they don't have anyone in their party who is up to the job of President.
Hiding away from good advice as the SSP in Aberdeen anyway does is declaration of failure.
The best I see Tommy Sheridan and Colin Fox amounting to is Scottish Minister.
| Neil wrote: | | Good caveat about not having to wait till Churchill went republican however. |
Thanks.  He had plenty of faults but appeasing Nazis wasn't one of them. 
|
Neil
|
| Quote: | | "Asking to resign" is different from "violently turfing out". |
Ask away. | Quote: | I do know the SSP - and in Aberdeen, the party is dominated by Stalinist-style control-freaks who exclude me from "public" meetings.
By excluding a Scottish National Standard Bearer like me from their meetings, the SSP is more or less admitting they don't have anyone in their party who is up to the job of President.
Hiding away from good advice as the SSP in Aberdeen anyway does is declaration of failure |
I have a similar problem with the stalinists of the Liberal Democrats. See the entries 16th to 19th Feb on my bloghttp://a-place-to-stand.blogspot...._01_a-place-to-stand_archive.html you may be amused. I am.
|
Peter Dow
|
Unfortunately, Neil the references you have given - I started reading at the 16th of February - assume some background knowledge by the reader of what it is all about.
It is therefore difficult to follow and I don't have the time to research everything about you - particularly as I would not be surprised by control-freak conduct by any political party, university, work-place or anywhere really. The tendency to control-freakery is everywhere.
If you really want to interest anyone - you will need to produce maybe a 500 word summary of the whole matter - assuming the reader has no knowledge of you or anything about you - other than your name is Neil Craig.
Here's what I said about the Liberal Democrats on my website.
Scottish Liberal Democrat Failings
| Quote: | Nicol Stephen - no-mark
Newly elected Scottish Liberal Democrat leader and therefore the new Deputy First Minister - Nicol Stephen MSP - represents no change from the dismal record of Jim Wallace. After all, Stephen was uncritically loyal to Wallace throughout. Also as my local MSP, I've never known him to take a stand on any issue. Sure, he will ask for this, that or the other for you, but, for example, he never stopped supporting his Scottish Executive government while I was unjustly imprisoned and you can be sure that if YOU were imprisoned, he'd still want to remain part of the government that was imprisoning you.
Stephen is an unprincipled, back-stabbing no-mark. He'd wish you well as you were being forcibly taken to be exterminated in the gas chambers.
Paddy Ashdown - welcome home, standard bearer
I sometimes wonder why Paddy Ashdown bothered to come up to support Stephen's election campaign in Aberdeen South - duty as party-leader I suppose. I can't have been the only one here in Aberdeen who was initially sympathetic to Stephen only because Ashdown was supporting him.
Now Ashdown is a man who has shown how to take a stand. OK he may be a royalist (Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon!), but Ashdown is one of their best.
I dread to think how things would have gone in the former Yugoslavia without the fighting leadership of men and women like Paddy Ashdown. I heard Paddy is retiring from his Bosnia "vice-Roy" job this Christmas and I, for one, wish to express my thanks for all he has done for Europe's future.
No doubt Paddy will get the usual further royalist honours but I would have thought that even Irish Republicans could credit the man as a standard bearer of sorts.
Anyway the Irish can speak for themselves, so by flying the harp here I'm NOT making any kind of claim to the Irish National Standard
Rather from my viewpoint, as a Scot, in my humble opinion, Ashdown has done exceptionally well for Ireland (he did live in Ulster and had an Irish accent at one point, apparently, hence the nickname "Paddy"), Britain and Europe.
Anyway, Paddy'd do any standard proud, so if he wants to borrow the lion rampant any time, he is welcome to that too!
Jim Wallace - remember him?
Jim Wallace, Lloyd George and Adolf Hitler
There are some genuinely liberal and democratic people in the Liberal Democrats but Jim Wallace MSP, the long-running Deputy First Minister and Scottish Executive linchpin is not one of them.
As the former Justice Minster, Wallace presided over a cruel and tyrannical legal system - courts, prisons, police and state mental hospitals - all illiberal to the point of being grotesquely fascist.
It is not liberal to do as Jim Wallace does - to give an authoritative nod of approval to a fascist police state - and then disclaim responsibility by saying that judges must be independent, police must have operational independence and so on.
Wallace gives the thumbs up to the state independently to take away the liberty of almost any Scot at any time on the flimsiest of pretexts.
Wallace would never have led a campaign or a fight for liberty - he simply did not care about anything other than his ministerial office and perks like being saluted by the police.
So long as the police are not torturing Wallace and his close friends, or the prisons jailing his friends, or the state surgeons doing compulsory brain surgery on his friends then the liberties of the people of Scotland are of absolutely no concern whatsoever to Jim Wallace.
Jim Wallace is not therefore a "liberal" in the true sense of the word but he is a Lib-Dem party man.
Somehow the party of yellow posters, of the bird logo, of "us" ("uz" as Charlie Kennedy would say) has, in Scotland anyway, ditched every liberal and democratic principle for the pursuit of office. How sad that is.
As Justice Minister, Jim Wallace allowed the state to continue to strangle the Scottish economy - by preventing high profile protests against the mismanagement of key economic institutions such as the universities.
As the Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Minister, Wallace continued to cause the economy to stagnate by turning a blind eye, as the state extinguished any sign of liberty and democracy from the key economic institutions.
Other Lib Dem ministers have a similar contempt for genuine liberty and democracy. Expect them all to deliver nothing significant and worthwhile. Don't believe a word they say when you check out the Scottish Liberal Democrats' web site. |
|
Neil
|
Thanks i may do a sort version now that it is over.
My opinion of Ashdown is infinitely lower than yours since I do not approve of the openly genocidal & ex-nazi rulers of Craotia & Moslem Bosnia he & we assisted.
My opinion of LLoyd George is much higher. He won WW1, not quite on his own but it couldn't have been done without him & very many respectable people in the 1930s were much more pro-Nazi than he. Chamberlain for one.
|
Cymro
|
SPAM!!!!
Nothing of use just plain old spam
|
|
|
|