If you ever find yourself reading a post by Tom Harris and sense that it's highly objectionable in some way, but can't quite put your finger on exactly what the problem is, you probably need look no further than his cavalier attitude to The Meaning Of Words. Orwell would have had a field day with some of Harris' contributions to the AV referendum debate, and his latest article for Labour Hame is in much the same vein. As a public service, I thought I'd provide you with a cut-out-and-keep Tomspeak-to-English translator...
"So why, after Labour’s second defeat at Holyrood, are we being told that we must abandon our support for the devolution settlement?"
Translation : Why are we being told that we must start supporting devolution in a meaningful way for the first time since 1999?
"let’s try to make devolution work."
Translation : Let's keep the devolved Scottish Parliament as weak as possible.
"The 1999 devolution settlement was not some kind of half-hearted compromise."
Translation : It was an imperfect compromise hungrily embraced by a country that had been totally starved of self-government for almost three centuries.
"On the contrary, the White Paper, “Scotland’s Parliament”, published by Scottish Secretary Donald Dewar weeks after he took office, impressed all sides of the debate."
Translation : It impressed some sides of the debate (roughly half).
"And yet, ever since the overwhelming “Yes” vote in the referendum, the SNP have done everything they can to belittle and undermine that devolution settlement."
Translation : After being an indispensable part of the campaign that won the overwhelming Yes vote, the SNP have built on that success by doing everything they can to strengthen the powers of the devolved Scottish Parliament.
"So, a question for the nationalists: what is it about Scotland that makes us so incapable of making devolution work?"
Translation : What is it about Scotland that makes us incapable of being ruled by others?
"What are the peculiar defects of Scottish political culture that make us incapable of taking full advantage of our devolved parliament?"
What peculiar defects of Scottish political culture make us unhappy about being ruled by others?
"Are we too small?"
Are we too small to be dependent on others?
"Too weak?"
Too weak to be dependent on others?
"Not confident enough?"
Not confident enough to be dependent on others?
"Too easily bullied?"
Too easily bullied to allow our natural resources to be exploited by others?
"Not capable of running our nation efficiently while taking a full part in the United Kingdom?"
Not capable of sitting back and allowing our nation to be run inefficiently by others?
Aye - we ken doublespeak.
ReplyDeleteTom Harris is the worst possible type of Quisling. A Tory in Labour clothes! What do ambitious right leaning politicians do in Scotland these days? Can’t join the Tories, they are poison and that is a dead end. So join New Labour and get yourself a Glasgow seat, where the unthinking drones would, hitherto, elect a cabbage with a red rosette. Then you can safely be anti every possible socialist idea: anti-immigration, anti-electoral reform, pro-tax avoidance, sneering about welfare bums (i.e. constituents), shamelessly self-promoting, belittling of Holyrood and totally anti-Scottish and pro Westminster. Not bad for a would be journalist who reached the dizzy heights of the East Kilbride News and the Paisley Dailey Express before finding a quicker way to a better gravy train through the National Union of Journalists and the Labour Party. Add in a series of unfortunate events, like being sacked by Gordon Brown from the Department of Transport in 2008 for being a Blairite, giving up blogging to concentrate on getting into the Shadow Cabinet but backing the wrong Milliband brother and getting left out in the cold. Now back to blogging for a bit of publicity. No doubt he will be expecting “Labour Hame” to win loads of prizes in the usual beauty contests for blogs.
ReplyDeleteAbout 2 blogs ago, long before anyone paid the slightest attention to what he wrote, Harris gave the game away when he said that he had absolutely no interest in Scotland's constitutional arrangements.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that is still his true position, but he now recognises that he cannot ignore the situation as the removal of Scottish MPs from Westminster threatens him personally. In that attitude he personifies the true attitude of the treacherous "Scottish" Labour Party.
I am particularly attracted to your interpretations of Labour Hame. (God, I hate to be patronised by this "hame" in a blog written more or less in standard English!)
ReplyDeleteI don't read the original, but I get the just of the matter, interpreted for me, and with all the b******s filtered out.
The truth of the matter is that more or less every MSP wants more powers for the parliament. Having achieved a position of some influence in the affairs of the country, each MSP wants to be able to wield more power. It's a pride thing. For some, a pride in the country's ability to govern itself and a belief in that right; for others it's personal pride. Who wants to be a part of a toothless talking shop?
Harris's position is obvious. The more power devolved to Edinburgh, the less power retained in London (in the hands of Harris and his colleagues).
Already something of an irrelevance, a Scottish Labour MP during a period of Liberal/Tory English dominated government, Harris and his ilk see themselves becoming less and less relevant...and finally totally redundant.
I'd love to ask him all of these questions about independence.
What is it about Scotland that makes us incapable of being an independent oil-rich country? Are we too small, too stupid, too weak, too lacking in confidence...
What do you think Tommy?
"Can’t join the Tories, they are poison and that is a dead end."
ReplyDeleteYes, I've always been slightly baffled as to why someone of his views joined Labour in the first place - that's probably the reason.
Ah, but the question is, was Harris Interpriting to the Ned's or for the Neds (ah-lah the Chewin The Fat sketch)?
ReplyDelete