IN the programme Any Questions broadcast on Friday, the first questioner asked if Scotland could be considered to be a ‘’banana republic’’. The person who submitted the question did not say if it was their own view, but the use of this unpleasant term certainly gave it some unwelcome publicity and clearly delighted the chairman. It raises two questions.
The first is “What is a banana republic?” There are plenty of examples to allow an assessment of their general characteristics. Perhaps the most common is that the head of government immediately tries – and usually succeeds – in suspending or getting rid of the national assembly or parliament. There are numerous instances of this, from Marshall Pétain in 1940 to the Burmese military in the last couple of weeks. A rare failed example was in England after the last election. Not many countries are fortunate enough to have a Gina Miller in their population.
READ MORE: Michael Fry: It’s hard to argue these aren’t dark and dangerous days for Scotland
Should elections be held, despite the odds, the results are simply ignored, even when 62% of voters support a particular policy. There may of course be a token assembly, usually a large one. It will be stuffed full of supporters of the ruling party and even if they express a contrary opinion, they will be ignored, and probably removed, losing all their perks.
The head of government will make it plain that he or she will break the law if it gets in the way of a policy. The civil service will be bypassed in favour of appointed advisers. If any of these should break the law, that will be excused. Judges who dare to express a “wrong” view will be labelled as enemies of the people and are normally removed.
Relative to the country’s finances, a vast amount will be spent on “defence”. There will be a generally sycophantic or self-censoring press. I think that gives a fair idea of a “banana republic”, but the term is probably racist and is best avoided.
READ MORE: Adam Tomkins MSP panned for ‘contemptible’ attack on SNP's John Swinney
The second point that arose has more immediate relevance to Scotland. One of the members of the panel was Dr Neil Oliver, who quoted remarks made by Mr Salmond during his speech to the Holyrood harassment inquiry of the Scottish Parliament. Mr Salmond did indeed mention that some people considered that the recent events indicated that the institutions of government in Scotland would not be fit for purpose in an independent state.
However, he went on to add, very firmly: “I don’t agree with them”. He went on to say that it was not the institutions that had failed but their leadership. These last statements were omitted by Dr Oliver, either by accident or design, leaving listeners with the impression that Mr Salmond agreed with the views expressed by “some people”. Of course, this is in line with normal Tory practice of omission or innuendo, as displayed in the “once in a generation” quote; that was soon elevated by Tory speakers from a casual remark to a solemn promise.
Clearly there are matters of constitutional importance that require attention, though it is only courteous to wait until the First Minister has spoken and Linda Fabiani MSP has reported before pronouncing from the sidelines.
But courtesy is clearly in short supply in the Scottish Tory ranks.
Brian Patton
Foulden, Berwickshire
CALLING for resignations having decided the answer, before neither the committee nor the Hamilton inquiry has finished – just as well Ross is not subject to VAR in his other enterprise (Tories call for Nicola Sturgeon to resign over Alex Salmond legal advice, thenational.scot). Does this mean that Murdo has already decided before hearing the FM? I have no idea how it is all going to pan out, but this is quite juvenile posturing.
Colin Campbell
via thenational.scot
READ MORE: Tories want vote of no confidence in Nicola Sturgeon after legal advice is published
THE UK slashing its aid pledge to war-torn Yemen for a second time has condemned thousands of children to starvation.
Yemen’s brutal conflict has seen four million people displaced and thousands of children killed by famine and disease. The sick irony of all this being that while the UK is cutting aid, it is continuing to license the sale of billions of pounds of arms to Saudi Arabia. It is also the lead country at the UN, the so-called “penholder”, on Yemen.
The ring-fenced aid is less than half the £200 million originally pledged in 2019, which was slashed to £160m and now stands at £87m.
Cutting aid by more than half for the greatest humanitarian crisis on earth, in the middle of a global pandemic, is disgraceful. It also breaks a key pledge in the Tory manifesto that it would maintain overseas aid at 0.7% of national income, which has now been slashed to 0.5%.
The UK is in fact the only G7 country to cut aid this year, while other G7 countries are ramping up their humanitarian support. It should urgently put this issue to a vote in the House of Commons before it cuts any more lifesaving projects which are clearly in Britain’s national interest.
Despite all the talk of global Britain, it is abandoning its moral obligations, pulling us further away from our allies and stepping back just as the USA steps up.
Alex Orr
Edinburgh
Share