THE TORY McMAFIA
The recent sacking of the Glasgow born MP for Wiltshire North, James Gray, as shadow Scottish Secretary, highlights yet again not only the Tories’ willingness to sell out English interests, but also the need for both an English parliament and an English party to represent English interests.
James Gray, who had only been in post for 8 days, was sacked for adhering to long-standing personal views that the Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) should be abolished and replaced with the existing Scottish MPs who would sit up in Holyrood (the Edinburgh parliament) for a couple of days a week. That he be sacked, was ‘demanded’ by the ‘furious’ Scottish Tory leader, David McLetchie MSP. The demand was meekly adhered to by Michael Howard.
Other senior Tories are also angry that James Gray had even been appointed, given his views and that he had complained about a ‘tartan mafia’ in the House of Commons last year.
In a recent interview, James Gray had also said that it was ‘difficult to justify’ Scottish MPs heading English departments.
The majority of Tory MSPs are firmly in favour of the constitutional status quo regarding devolution.
The SNP’s response has been to denounce the Tories as being ‘anti-Scottish to the core’. They had tabled a motion in the House of Commons and the party’s constitutional spokesman, Pete Wishart, complained that: ‘These outrageous comments by the shadow Scottish Secretary could normally be dismissed, but this is the man chosen by Michael Howard to represent the Tories on Scottish issues in the House of Commons’. The SNP leader, Alex Salmond, said that the Tories had descended ‘from comedy to farce’ and that: ‘They either want to cut Scottish spending, abolish the Scottish parliament or think Scotland is an unattractive place to live’.
This is despite the sacking and a Tory spokesman emphasising that James Gray’s opinions were not Tory party policy. As usual, the Tories are apologising.
Quite why there should even be a Scottish Secretary (or Welsh one for that matter) given the devolution of power to a Scottish parliament is not explained. There is no English Secretary.
This latest brouhaha follows the failure of the Tories to make any headway in Scotland in the general election (there is only 1 Scottish Tory MP), and the anger of the Tory MSPs concerning Michael Howard’s allegedly tough policy on immigration.
Most immigrants move to London and the south east of England. The ethnic minority population in Scotland is less than 1% compared to around 8% in England. This is another example of “I’m All Right, Jock”.
The so-called Tory modernisers are now calling for the link between the Scottish and UK party to be cut. This call is supported by Murdo Fraser MSP, the man tipped to succeed David McLetchie, who has explained that a split ‘would entail a separate party, separately funded, with separate responsibility for policy. There would be two parties united by conservatism’.
However, Lord Laidlow has threatened to withdraw his financial support if there is any such split. The Scottish Tories are dependent upon that support.
It is also believed that a separate Scottish party would be less right wing than the current English dominated Tory party. The implications of this are far reaching unless there is the creation of an English parliament if, as seems likely, the lefty Scottish Tories would not be willing to support their English counterparts in the current British parliament. This would deny the English Tories of a working majority to govern. It means that England will continue to suffer from Scottish anti-English influence even if the Tories ‘won’ a British general election.
However, David McLetchie is opposed to any such split: ‘It defies belief that a party that regard themselves as the prime unionist party would sue for divorce from their partner’. This view was supported by Sir Malcolm Rifkind who said: ‘Murdo (Fraser) and anyone who feels like him should remember that we are not only a Conservative, but also a unionist party. Any ideas should be framed around that principle’. Sir Malcolm does of course now represent a safe English constituency.
Bruce Mackie and Neil Powrie, the leader and deputy leader of the Conservatives in Dundee, have written to Michael Howard questioning the dismissal of James Gray. They said that the sacking had showed that the Tories were afraid of the ‘Edinburgh political establishment’ and that: ‘Members of the party are frightened to open a debate on the consequences of devolution for fear of incurring the wrath of the assorted bag of passengers on the Holyrood train. The parliament is maintained by and for the Scottish political elite and the Scottish Conservative Party appears to have gone entirely native’.
The problem of the West Lothian Question will continue to fester. As the next elections to the Scottish parliament loom in 2007, the antagonism in England is likely to overshadow those elections, which will undoubtedly lead to yet more Scottish Tory criticism that they are being hamstrung by their association with the UK Conservative Party.
The Tory leadership is trying to appease its Scottish members by selling out the interests of England, yet again. Their proposal about having English days in the current British House of Commons is not a credible policy when the leadership takes its orders from Holyrood and sacks British ministers/shadow ministers on demand. This proposal is a fudge and not a solution (a typical Tory response).
Meanwhile no one is looking at the interests of the English, or how the need for an English parliament can be realised, or what powers that parliament should have and how it should be funded. Alternatively, how should the British parliament be funded given that the English are currently funding everything/everyone. There is no reason for a British prime minister or chancellor to be taking all of England’s tax revenue and then deciding how much of it England might be allowed to have back. It may be better for England to decide how much it will allocate for the expenditure of the British parliament (which would still be responsible for defence and foreign affairs, for example) and keep full control of its own internal tax receipts and responsibility for its own internal expenditure, without any interference from, say, Gordon Brown.
As the next elections to the Scottish parliament are due to take place in 2007, then surely that would be a good opportunity to have a referendum in England on the creation of an English parliament. The arrangements for that English parliament could then be put in place before the next British general election expected in 2009.
The creation of an English parliament should be a positive move to address the West Lothian Question and the democratic deficit in the governance of England. We have just witnessed a rigged general election and the creation of an illegitimate Labour government over England.
The Tories are willing to see the English fobbed off with the leftovers from the dead carcass of a British parliament, after it has been picked over by the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish, the politically correct judiciary, the EU, and a whole host of neo-communist quangos.
THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
James Gray, who had only been in post for 8 days, was sacked for adhering to long-standing personal views that the Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) should be abolished and replaced with the existing Scottish MPs who would sit up in Holyrood (the Edinburgh parliament) for a couple of days a week. That he be sacked, was ‘demanded’ by the ‘furious’ Scottish Tory leader, David McLetchie MSP. The demand was meekly adhered to by Michael Howard.
Other senior Tories are also angry that James Gray had even been appointed, given his views and that he had complained about a ‘tartan mafia’ in the House of Commons last year.
In a recent interview, James Gray had also said that it was ‘difficult to justify’ Scottish MPs heading English departments.
The majority of Tory MSPs are firmly in favour of the constitutional status quo regarding devolution.
The SNP’s response has been to denounce the Tories as being ‘anti-Scottish to the core’. They had tabled a motion in the House of Commons and the party’s constitutional spokesman, Pete Wishart, complained that: ‘These outrageous comments by the shadow Scottish Secretary could normally be dismissed, but this is the man chosen by Michael Howard to represent the Tories on Scottish issues in the House of Commons’. The SNP leader, Alex Salmond, said that the Tories had descended ‘from comedy to farce’ and that: ‘They either want to cut Scottish spending, abolish the Scottish parliament or think Scotland is an unattractive place to live’.
This is despite the sacking and a Tory spokesman emphasising that James Gray’s opinions were not Tory party policy. As usual, the Tories are apologising.
Quite why there should even be a Scottish Secretary (or Welsh one for that matter) given the devolution of power to a Scottish parliament is not explained. There is no English Secretary.
This latest brouhaha follows the failure of the Tories to make any headway in Scotland in the general election (there is only 1 Scottish Tory MP), and the anger of the Tory MSPs concerning Michael Howard’s allegedly tough policy on immigration.
Most immigrants move to London and the south east of England. The ethnic minority population in Scotland is less than 1% compared to around 8% in England. This is another example of “I’m All Right, Jock”.
The so-called Tory modernisers are now calling for the link between the Scottish and UK party to be cut. This call is supported by Murdo Fraser MSP, the man tipped to succeed David McLetchie, who has explained that a split ‘would entail a separate party, separately funded, with separate responsibility for policy. There would be two parties united by conservatism’.
However, Lord Laidlow has threatened to withdraw his financial support if there is any such split. The Scottish Tories are dependent upon that support.
It is also believed that a separate Scottish party would be less right wing than the current English dominated Tory party. The implications of this are far reaching unless there is the creation of an English parliament if, as seems likely, the lefty Scottish Tories would not be willing to support their English counterparts in the current British parliament. This would deny the English Tories of a working majority to govern. It means that England will continue to suffer from Scottish anti-English influence even if the Tories ‘won’ a British general election.
However, David McLetchie is opposed to any such split: ‘It defies belief that a party that regard themselves as the prime unionist party would sue for divorce from their partner’. This view was supported by Sir Malcolm Rifkind who said: ‘Murdo (Fraser) and anyone who feels like him should remember that we are not only a Conservative, but also a unionist party. Any ideas should be framed around that principle’. Sir Malcolm does of course now represent a safe English constituency.
Bruce Mackie and Neil Powrie, the leader and deputy leader of the Conservatives in Dundee, have written to Michael Howard questioning the dismissal of James Gray. They said that the sacking had showed that the Tories were afraid of the ‘Edinburgh political establishment’ and that: ‘Members of the party are frightened to open a debate on the consequences of devolution for fear of incurring the wrath of the assorted bag of passengers on the Holyrood train. The parliament is maintained by and for the Scottish political elite and the Scottish Conservative Party appears to have gone entirely native’.
The problem of the West Lothian Question will continue to fester. As the next elections to the Scottish parliament loom in 2007, the antagonism in England is likely to overshadow those elections, which will undoubtedly lead to yet more Scottish Tory criticism that they are being hamstrung by their association with the UK Conservative Party.
The Tory leadership is trying to appease its Scottish members by selling out the interests of England, yet again. Their proposal about having English days in the current British House of Commons is not a credible policy when the leadership takes its orders from Holyrood and sacks British ministers/shadow ministers on demand. This proposal is a fudge and not a solution (a typical Tory response).
Meanwhile no one is looking at the interests of the English, or how the need for an English parliament can be realised, or what powers that parliament should have and how it should be funded. Alternatively, how should the British parliament be funded given that the English are currently funding everything/everyone. There is no reason for a British prime minister or chancellor to be taking all of England’s tax revenue and then deciding how much of it England might be allowed to have back. It may be better for England to decide how much it will allocate for the expenditure of the British parliament (which would still be responsible for defence and foreign affairs, for example) and keep full control of its own internal tax receipts and responsibility for its own internal expenditure, without any interference from, say, Gordon Brown.
As the next elections to the Scottish parliament are due to take place in 2007, then surely that would be a good opportunity to have a referendum in England on the creation of an English parliament. The arrangements for that English parliament could then be put in place before the next British general election expected in 2009.
The creation of an English parliament should be a positive move to address the West Lothian Question and the democratic deficit in the governance of England. We have just witnessed a rigged general election and the creation of an illegitimate Labour government over England.
The Tories are willing to see the English fobbed off with the leftovers from the dead carcass of a British parliament, after it has been picked over by the Scots, the Welsh, the Irish, the politically correct judiciary, the EU, and a whole host of neo-communist quangos.
THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
posted by erc @ 3:00 pm
<< Home