WE have been told by numerous Unionist politicians that all efforts have to be on recovery from the pandemic and the energy crisis, this is not the time for Scottish independence, yet Labour are apparently intent on bringing about the largest restructuring of the Westminster government for several centuries in under five years.
Consequently Labour’s primary task in government will be the rescue and stabilisation of the UK economy, perhaps also making an early start on Sir Keir Starmer’s promised replacement of the House of Lords with an elected second chamber.
The restructuring of parliament and dispersal of the civil service would have to be completed before embarking on the massive legislative programme required to implement the much greater expansion of devolution envisaged by Gordon Brown for the regions compared to the present situation.
READ MORE: Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Gordon Brown's constitution schtick might prove alluring to some
The upheaval caused by replacing the House of Lords with an elected senate and dispersing the civil service has hardly been mentioned, although it would require a complete overhaul of the parliamentary, governmental and departmental communications computer, telephony and personal networks.
Government and legislation will inevitably suffer a period of confusion and delay until communication links are restored or built between the old and new areas of the reformed government structure.
When does Gordon Brown expect parliament to begin debating his radical decentralisation and greater devolution of power from Westminster to the countries, regions and local authorities in the UK?
READ MORE: Alyn Smith: Keir Starmer's view of Scotland in the UK is flatly wrongheaded
The devolved parliaments have nothing to gain from this process as devolving more powers from Westminster to local authorities will increase the ties between local councils and the UK Government, at the same time increasingly bypassing the governments in Holyrood, the Senedd and Stormont.
The surreal presentation of the proposals in Edinburgh by Gordon Brown, Sir Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar fooled no-one; it is pure fantasy with not the slightest possibility of ever coming to fruition.
Gordon Brown’s proposals will have to lie on the table until long after Labour eventually returns to power; Scotland can be taking its place in the world as an independent country long before the UK recovers from the trauma of the struggle to replace the archaic House of Lords.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
AS usual, Mr McKenna is spot-on with his take on the resurrection of Gordon Brown by the Labour necromancers (The Labour Party’s Three Amigos – or should that be the Three Amoebas?, Dec 7). That they trot him out to lend some “gravitas” to their shoddy machinations shows the utter contempt in which they hold Scots.
I long ago accepted as truth the old saw that politics is a dirty game played by dirty people, however I harboured a hope that some principles might still linger, however faint and hidden, among established politicians. Surely they can’t always be lying charlatans all of the time? Can they?
McKenna’s comment that Brown may have been the last decent politician the Labour Party ever had made me think of a random conversation I had some years ago with an old school and university chum of Brown’s.
READ MORE: Labour MSP defends 'thin gruel' in Gordon Brown's UK reform report
Without rancour or bitterness, this man talked briefly about the Gordon Brown he’d known way back. He commented that Brown’s father was a very well-respected and decent man, but the consensus in the son’s university circle was that oor Gordon was a chancer, a backstabber with an eye to the main chance and most definitely not to be trusted. In other words, a man who would succeed in politics.
Hearing this did not brighten my day – all it did was reinforce my misgivings about the types drawn to politics. People like Brown, Starmer and their like do not have principle to their name, aside from their adherence to the Union, which I’m not sure even qualifies as a principle.
Any fond imaginings that somewhere there might be a spark of decency among these people have long ago vanished. How insulting to be patronised by the likes of Brown. At least the Scottish Greens, Alba and the SNP are, regardless of the faults or failings of their politicians, parties with a principle – Scottish independence.
Jim Butchart
via email
WITH the conjuring up of Gordon Brown’s latest deceptive illusion it must be clear to most of the remaining Labour Party supporters in Scotland that should it become the largest party at Westminster after the next General Election it will neither pursue re-joining the European Union nor, if it has an overall majority, support Scottish parliamentary democracy in enabling a second independence referendum. The Scots founders of the Labour Party would be turning in their graves.
Fortunately, should the Tory UK Government in the meantime continue to deny that democracy by refusing a Section 30 Order, principled socialists in Scotland will have the option of voting for the SNP or the Greens, or another independence-supporting progressive party, in a de facto referendum. A win-win situation for true socialists.
READ MORE: Brexit-backing Labour 'gave up' on Scotland but won't admit it, John Curtice says
Should a majority of voters in Scotland support these parties then the UK Government will be obliged, at the very least, to grant an immediate referendum if it is still not prepared to follow democratic principles and enter into independence negotiations (which would undoubtedly deliver progressive governance in Scotland and probably an early return to the European Union).
Should the Labour Party not win a single seat in Scotland but together with the SNP represent a majority of seats within the Westminster parliament then the Labour Party would be bound to pursue its socialist policies and replace the House of Lords with an elected second chamber of government enabling more democratic governance (hopefully including proportional representation for England and Wales after Scotland again becomes an independent country).
Stan Grodynski
Longniddry, East Lothian
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel