Once the concierge of Parliament's garden lobby (Brian Taylor of the BBC) had introduced this week's FMQs and Iain Gray had asked his first question, it was obvious that this would be one of the more serious FMQs. Iain Gray's continual request for the withdrawal of the Independence Bill met a strong rebuttal from Alex Salmond and, now we know that today's vote has gone against (no surprise there), I somehow feel labour have shot themselves in the foot. Alex Salmond was able to quote some, and there were many, labour party quotes from their officials when they did support a referendum since the SNP were the government.
Annabelle Goldie and Tavish Scott both used the occasion to bring the horrific death of the toddler Brendon to the attention of the country and asked what the Scottish government was going to do about ensuring such children were better protected. Alex Salmond explained the guilt lay with the person who committed the crime and the Parliament should not make judgements before the various enquiries have reported. He supported the child protection system in Scotland and the relevant agencies such as social work, police and health personnel.
No points were scored today by any opposition party who declined to offer suggestions to hastening the improvement for the people of Scotland in the current economic climate, but if I'm allowed a personal comment, I do wish Iain Gray would take some public speaking courses at night school. The few times I've heard Cathy Jamieson speak she was capable, on occasion, of having Alex Salmond stutter, not a lot, but stutter just the same. Of course she wasn't Gordon Brown's choice and too much of her support came from the unions.
Posts
18 comments:
subrosa,
Wee Cathy would have my support in place of Gray any day. She's a lot more versatile, for a start.
I think you're probably right about Labour shooting themselves in the foot - it's just a pity its not a more vulnerable spot.
Did you look at the head-lines in the Scotsman today. Quite frankly, they 've taken to printing down right lies. I think Grahamski is the new editor. Goodness knows what they will conjure up when an election is imminent.
Haven't watched it yet - will watch it online shortly.
Brownlie - the USSR had two major dailies, Pravda (truth) and Izvestia (news). They had a saying:
The Truth is not the News, and the News is not the Truth.
That about sums up the Scottish media.
Brownlie, I hate to say this, but you're right re Cutie Cathy. Her performances during the elections were good but of course she didn't stand a hope in hell of being elected, as the 'chosen one' had already been given the nod.
The Scotsman have been printing lies since I started to read it online instead of buying it, about 2 years ago. I think the SNP supporters protests may soon make them take the comment section off, since everyone know the unionist stooges.
The Scottish media has always been anti SNP scunnert. During my activist days it was so difficult to get the smallest editorial in the Courier here because they are so tory orientated, but then they always have been and wouldn't change their political colours for a brown envelope.
We won the election in spite of the Scottish media and we must continue in the way. I notice is the Times that Alex MacLeod has a balanced article. Sorry I didn't tiny it but I'm sure you'll manage!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article5842053.ece
Followed you here from the Tom Harris blog.
Visit
http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=104
for a few recommendations on what to do about single mums.
(a) deprive a single mother of child benefit if she cannot produce a marriage certificate
(b) fine the single mother for producing an illegitimate baby, say £1000, if she does not name the father
(c) require her parent(s) to pay this sum if she cannot or will not
(d) fine the father of an illegitimate child a sum of money, say £1000
(e) require the parent(s) of that father to pay this sum if he cannot pay it himself
(f) require that the mother give up the child for adoption before more lives are ruined
Your comments invited.
I read the article Subrosa and thought it fair and balanced. If only we could have more of that standard. But the media in Scotland have done themselves in. Few people actually believe what they read and form their opinions in spite of, rather than because of, what they read,
Andromeda thanks very much for that link, goes along with my thinking. Some people say my line of thought is far too right wing because it affects the children (you could read that on Tom Harris's blog) but 50% of these poor babies wouldn't exist if these kids weren't encouraged (which they are indirectly) by knowing all will be provided.
I would think, from a small amount of research I've done, that around 40% of 'mistake' teenage pregnancies wouldn't happen if the issue was dealt with firmly and not just tinkered with at the edges.
There's never been so much free contraception available (even the morning after pill in some schools) and money has been thrown at sex education yet still the unwanted pregnancies increase.
Until these young people learn the meaning of the word responsibility then they shouldn't receive any benefits. Teaching them to take responsibility for their actions, all actions, would be a beginning to their understanding that there is no free ride in this world, everything has to be paid for somehow.
Iaian Grey and the Labour party are 2 faced spivs. The SNP have to publish the bill and hopoe at least the Libs dums will abstain or vote with the SNP. Makes the next election all the more interesting..
Sad to say that the Brandon Muir investigation will possible be a waste of time, but why did Alex Salmond have to pre-empt it by absolving all from blame except the perpetrator of the crime?
If it's that straightforward then why bother with an investigation?
No part of officialdom made even the teensy-weensiest of mistakes?
I didn't interpret it in that way Stuart.
What I took from that was he meant the perpetrator was responsible for the crime from a legal standpoint and I think he was trying to avoid the London scenarios where the yells for heads to roll within minutes of the finish of the court case.
This Dundee case is very different from Baby P I think so. He was commending the standards we have here in social work, police and other agencies connected with children and I think that's perhaps fair.
I think the enquiry should go ahead and it will be interesting to see if it's ALL made public and names are named if there are any errors of substance.
Spook, they don't know how to play it that's the problem. It's perfectly obvious whatever they do will play into the SNP's hands.
Subrosa, yes I would agree that blame shouldn't be apportioned at this stage, but Alex Salmond did the exact antithesis and in effect absolved police and social workers.
Indeed, a report in this morning's Times makes the same point as I did and opens:
Alex Salmond risked pre-empting the inquiries into the Brandon Muir case yesterday when he told MSPs that social workers were not to blame for the child's death.
The First Minister said that it would be “extremely damaging” to hold the profession culpable for the killing of the 23-month-old who was killed by his mother's heroin-user partner.
Speaking at First Minister's Questions, he said: “One thing I would say is that the culpability, the guilt lies with person who perpetrated the crime. It doesn't lie with the social work department or the police.”
Stuart I've just viewed it again and you're right. He may well have overstepped the mark with that statement.
I think he knows quite a bit about this case (and he was referring to this particular case) but he shouldn't have prejudiced any enquiry. I reiterate it was my feeling that he was trying to stop any antagonism towards the relevant agencies but he did it badly.
Let's hope that it doesn't cause problems with the enquiry as Dundee social services need to know if or what they could have done better.
Stuart, I could put something at the end of the post to retract my comment:
'and the Parliament should not make judgements before the various enquiries have reported.'
Or you may think the my comment here is enough, your choice.
subrosa,
My understanding of his remarks was that he was talking of the actual crime as opposed to any blame being attached to social workers or police for not acting sooner. In other words this person was directly responsible for the child's death. Quite often in these cases the part played by the criminal is forgotten in the recriminations that, quite rightly on occasions, follow.
That's my interpretation brownlie but I can see what Stuart means.
I do hope this doesn't give the opposition ammunition as all that will do is mud the waters of the enquiry and we need it to be as open as possible.
Brownlie, I appreciate what you're saying, but on the other hand it's so self-evident that it was Cunningham who killed the boy rather than the police or social workers then why did he feel the need to point this out?
Granted, people may try to heap too much blame on the authorities, but that shouldn't prevent any real failings being exposed, but Alex Salmond's remarks seem to preclude this.
At the very least he should have realised that his remarks would be misconstrued.
What he said won't effect the outcome of the investigations, but his remarks seem at best ill-judged, while at worst are perhaps symptomatic of the usual establishment whitewash.
Subrosa, it's your blog and thus you should do as you think fit, but if it was me then I wouldn't lose sleep over leaving things as they are :0)
My information tells me there will be no whitewash Stuart as the system was working fine. The situation with the mother had changed within hours and the agencies weren't as yet aware of the fact, although they had a meeting planned with all concerned.
As you say Alex Salmond's words were badly expressed.
I shan't lose any sleep over my blog Stuart but I do like to think, if I have written something which is inaccurate, that I'm woman enough to put an editor's note of confession at the end :)
Post a Comment