THE Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s decision to remove the “abolition of the death penalty” as a priority may not seem much to worry about. They have replaced it with a “broader” priority on “human rights”. The priority, a Government spokesperson has claimed, is now a strategy.
You’d be forgiven for thinking this is nothing more than a rebranding, but it is much more worrying than that. Those who care about civil liberties and human rights should be concerned.
The Conservatives were, to their own surprise, returned with a majority in May’s General Election. They had not planned for a majority. But a majority they have.
What makes this supposedly slim majority of 12 even more powerful is the complete lack of opposition from the Labour party.
The Tories in 2015 have more power than they’ve had since the 1980s. Yet again the Labour party spent most of yesterday tearing strips off each other rather than opposing the Government.
If senior figures in the Labour Party could spend as much time attacking the Tories as they do attacking Jeremy Corbyn, then this government might actually be held to account.
There is five more weeks of this Labour Party navel gazing. And that is why the change in language on the FCO’s website matters.
In a bid to cut the deficit by £20 billion over four years, Government departments have been tasked with making savings of up to 40 per cent.
Those savings are going to come from where they’re not noticed by the voters the Tories care about.
There are few votes in Britain spending money on anti-death penalty projects in Jamaica or Bangladesh.
There are few votes in giving refused asylum seekers with families financial assistance until they can be returned.
Although the Government have said they will not breach their promise to spend 0.7 per cent of Gross National Income on aid, there has already been proposals to pare back projects abroad.
Expect to see more. More cuts to welfare, more “priorities” becoming merely “strategies”. Except when it comes to opposition from the Labour party. Then you should expect to see less.
Tory cuts threaten our renewables progress
SCOTLAND’S outstanding progress in the use of renewable energy – as witnessed by the latest figures from WWF Scotland – is in danger of being undermined by UK Government decisions to cut support for solar projects and onshore wind developments, and abandon the Green Deal and Zero Carbon Homes plan.
Green MSP Patrick Harvie has written to two Holyrood conveners urging them to launch an inquiry into the impact of the Tory decisions.
SNP MSP Mike Mackenzie has already warned of the dangers of Westminster’s decision to cut onshore wind subsidies, which includes a loss of up to £3 billion in investment and more than 5,000 jobs being put at risk.
We agree with Mackenzie’s assertion that Scotland can be a world leader in renewables and we share the worry that our progress is being put at risk by decisions taken at Westminster.
Cameron and his cronies should take note of what we have achieved, and not continue to further their already reckless and regressive approach to the renewables sector.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here