Except in fairly extreme circumstances, it's probably a bit silly to call for a boycott of anything. But from a personal point of view, I might find it necessary to give the Yahoo UK home page a wide berth in future if there's any repeat of what happened today. Basically they've taken a Telegraph opinion piece from a man who evidently holds the entire nation of Scotland in sneering contempt, and summarised his main argument ("there is a fatal financial contradiction in the Scottish National Party's plans for independence") on the home page as if they were reporting 'news' or 'fact'. Why Yahoo have even chosen to republish such a rambling and utterly unoriginal diatribe is rather baffling (can we look forward to an article putting forward the alternative view, and if not, why not?), but at a minimum we were entitled to expect a disclaimer that this was merely one man's opinion, not a truth being passed down from God.
Anyway, let's take a quick look at Jeremy Warner's article itself, starting with the title -
"Why would Scotland turn itself into Greece?"
I don't know. This, and a number of other questions equally unrelated to the subject of independence, are likely to remain an impenetrable mystery. Why, for example, would Cat Deeley want to turn herself into the Taj Mahal? Why would a mauve bison want to materialise on Jupiter and start singing the greatest hits of Girls Aloud? We quite simply DON'T KNOW.
"What Scotland will in fact be voting on is whether to give its devolved government a mandate to negotiate independence."
No, it won't, actually. That was the wording of the original proposed 'consultative' question that the Scottish government could have asked with or without the UK government's consent. The actual question will be much more direct.
"Now obviously, Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister, has his wish list. It goes something like this. You keep all the national debt, we keep all the oil..."
Sigh. No, Jeremy. What Mr Salmond is actually proposing is as follows -
* Scotland 'keeps' only the oil in its own sovereign waters.
* England, meanwhile, keeps the oil in its sovereign waters.
* Scotland 'keeps' a share of the national debt in proportion to its share of the UK population.
Tell me, Jeremy, exactly what is so unreasonable or unrealistic about this 'wish-list'? You wouldn't be the first unionist who appears to think that London should have proprietorial rights over the natural resources of another sovereign state, but it would be no less entertaining to hear you attempt to justify such a startling proposition.
"Salmond is demanding a whopper of a divorce settlement, even though he is, as it were, the guilty party."
Yes, folks, you heard that right. If you want to exercise your right under international law to self-determination, you are 'wronging' someone else. You must consequently make financial reparations for your 'guilt'. There speaks the authentic voice of unionist journalism in London.
"To put it mildly, to vote for fiscal and political separation, but for the continuation of monetary union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, is a contradiction in terms. If there is one thing we have learnt from Europe’s experiment in monetary union, it is that it won’t work unless accompanied by fiscal union and political federalism."
And if I've learned one thing in my life, it's that "2+2=22"-type assertions by the assistant editor of the Telegraph are not necessarily the same thing as hard fact. But in any case, what is actually meant by "federalism"? Is this an example of the Eurosceptic worldview that cannot distinguish between the actual meaning of the word "federal" (entrenched decentralisation of power) and the dystopian fantasy of a centralised "superstate"? In a genuinely federal UK, for example, Scotland could be expected to enjoy considerably more self-government than it currently does, and all the powers held by Holyrood would be far more entrenched. At present, the Scottish Parliament could theoretically be abolished at any time by Westminster, which also retains an unrestricted power to "legislate for Scotland".
"In Europe, the strategy has been to start with monetary union, and then, however implausibly, make everyone march in lockstep towards fiscal and political union....
Scotland would be doing the whole process in reverse. It starts with fiscal union, and then… well, who really knows? I’m damned if I can figure it out."
Then why allow yourself to be handsomely paid for wittering on about a subject you openly admit you don't understand? All the same, you seem to be implying that an independent Scotland that is fiscally constrained by being part of a sterling currency zone could end up enjoying even less autonomy than it currently does under devolution. Let me give you a small hint here - it wouldn't. Seriously. I suspect you know that, Jeremy, in spite of all this disarming self-deprecation about your lack of knowledge.
"The point is that monetary union doesn't work unless those involved are in pretty much perfect economic, fiscal, monetary and political alignment. We are therefore left with one over-riding question about Scottish separation: beyond bravado and grandstanding by a small cadre of senior politicians, what precisely is the point of it?"
Well, let's be ultra-generous and suppose for the sake of argument that Jeremy's assumption of a need for "perfect alignment" isn't the utter tripe we all know it is. What could an independent Scotland still do under the extreme type of economic constraint he implies? Well, how about this for starters -
1. It could get weapons of mass destruction off its soil.
2. It could opt out of London's illegal wars.
3. It could decide its own immigration policy.
4. It could tighten restrictions on the ownership of guns.
5. It could revitalise Scottish public service broadcasting.
6. It could decide its own law on abortion.
7. It could settle its own overseas aid budget.
8. It could reach its own extradition agreements, ending the outrage of the UK's unequal agreement with the United States.
9. It could properly control energy policy and the railways.
10. It could end the war on the poor and vulnerable by assuming control of its own welfare budget.
OK, we give in, Jeremy. Quite plainly the stuff of trivia, every last one.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Sing it out, every song is a cry for love
From the Telegraph's 'report' on the seemingly imminent resolution of the referendum stand-off -
"Mr Cameron told the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham that the Olympics highlighted the depth of feeling for the UK, adding: “Whether our athletes were English, Scottish, Welsh or from Northern Ireland, they draped themselves in one flag."
I know. It would have been even more touching if they'd all done it of their own free will.
"Now, there's one person who didn't like that, and he's called Alex Salmond."
Er...make that two, David. Don't suppose there's a third out there somewhere, by any chance?
"I'm going to see him on Monday to sort out that referendum on independence by the end of 2014."
Ah, you mean you're sheepishly going to make a string of concessions in order to secure the one and only thing you've been hellbent on achieving from the word go - ie. being clearly seen by all Scots as the person who has denied them the full range of choices on their own constitutional future. Masterfully done, as ever. Don't worry - I doubt if there's a single Devo Max supporter who will now feel driven to vote for independence as a result of your antics.
"Let's say it, we're better together and we'll rise together..."
You raise me up, so I can stand on mountains.
You RAI-AISE me up, to walk on stormy seas...
"Mr Cameron told the Conservative Party conference in Birmingham that the Olympics highlighted the depth of feeling for the UK, adding: “Whether our athletes were English, Scottish, Welsh or from Northern Ireland, they draped themselves in one flag."
I know. It would have been even more touching if they'd all done it of their own free will.
"Now, there's one person who didn't like that, and he's called Alex Salmond."
Er...make that two, David. Don't suppose there's a third out there somewhere, by any chance?
"I'm going to see him on Monday to sort out that referendum on independence by the end of 2014."
Ah, you mean you're sheepishly going to make a string of concessions in order to secure the one and only thing you've been hellbent on achieving from the word go - ie. being clearly seen by all Scots as the person who has denied them the full range of choices on their own constitutional future. Masterfully done, as ever. Don't worry - I doubt if there's a single Devo Max supporter who will now feel driven to vote for independence as a result of your antics.
"Let's say it, we're better together and we'll rise together..."
You raise me up, so I can stand on mountains.
You RAI-AISE me up, to walk on stormy seas...
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Mad World Part 2 : it's "anti-women" to agree with the views of millions of women
You might remember the tagline of Mr Eugenides' old blog was "holding back the rage". I sometimes used to think that could also apply to this blog when I find myself in full-on rant mode, but I now realise that I'd be hard-pressed to match Edinburgh Eye on that score, judging by the strength of her reaction to my last post -
"Alex Neil isn’t fit to be Health Secretary if he thinks he can express such anti-women, anti-healthcare views in public. He should either retract or resign, since if Alex Salmond continues to keep him as Health Secretary, it’s a clear indication that to Salmond, Alex Neil’s views aren’t objectionable...
Oddly enough, my first stumble across the story was in James Kelly’s blog instructing me that what Alex Neil thought about abortion didn’t matter and shouldn’t affect my views on independence and I must be “thick” if I thought it should.
Other SNP defenders suggested that it didn’t matter what Alex Neil thought because as Health Secretary he didn’t really have anything to do with abortion. Or that it didn’t matter that Alex Neil was only as bad as David Cameron because Jeremy Hunt was much worse. None of these are good defenses, because none of them deal with the real problem – the SNP has appointed a man who holds anti-choice views on abortion to be Health Secretary: instead they create a huge problem, which is that with every defence of Alex Neil, the SNP is building itself up to be the anti-choice party in Scotland, the party not to be trusted on human rights."
Well, of course I wasn't 'instructing' anyone to do or think anything. Quite the contrary, in fact - I was objecting to the idea that all women must dutifully hold the views on abortion and independence prescribed for them by the Labour party. So I decided to set the record straight, and it developed into the following exchange...
Me : “Oddly enough, my first stumble across the story was in James Kelly’s blog instructing me that what Alex Neil thought about abortion didn’t matter and shouldn’t affect my views on independence and I must be “thick” if I thought it should.”
Actually, I didn’t say that, and I suspect you know I didn’t say that. I said that Labour must think that women are thick, based on a suggestion from one of their activists that practically every woman would now desert the pro-independence cause simply because of what Alex Neil said.
“Other SNP defenders suggested that it didn’t matter what Alex Neil thought because as Health Secretary he didn’t really have anything to do with abortion.”
He doesn’t. It’s a fact. Abortion law is wholly reserved to Westminster, and if it was ever transferred to Holyrood it would continue to be decided by a free vote. This is the point you’re missing – the Scotland on Sunday article was indeed misleading, but not because Neil was misquoted. It was their interpretation that “the government is signalling a change” that was misleading – or, to put it more bluntly, a lie. By definition, a free vote means that the government will not be taking a collective view on this at all, let alone signalling a change.
In one very limited sense you’re right – Alex Neil’s personal view DOES matter, but only because he has one vote out of 129. That’s it.
Edinburgh Eye : "I said that Labour must think that women are thick, based on a suggestion from one of their activists that practically every woman would now desert the pro-independence cause simply because of what Alex Neil said."
Yes. And the follow-on from that is that any woman who does reject independence because its adherents are all rallying round to support Alex Neil, must be thick.
Thanks so much.
"It was their interpretation that “the government is signalling a change” that was misleading – or, to put it more bluntly, a lie. By definition, a free vote means that the government will not be taking a collective view on this at all, let alone signalling a change."
Yep. The SNP had the option of avoiding this implication by promptly sacking Alex Neil as Health Secretary. They opted not to.
Me : "And the follow-on from that is that any woman who does reject independence because its adherents are all rallying round to support Alex Neil, must be thick."
Nope. This slipperiness isn't doing your argument any favours. First of all I wasn't talking about women who reject independence for the reason you suggest ("its adherents are rallying round"), and neither was the activist I responded to. He was suggesting that women would reject independence simply because they didn't like Alex Neil's personal views, and yes, if he really believes that, he must think women are pretty stupid.
I certainly wouldn't describe someone as stupid or thick because they turn against independence on the grounds that they don't like the SNP's support for Alex Neil, but I do think such a reaction is demonstrably irrational. The SNP is not independence, and independence is not the SNP. There will be an election to decide which party or parties governs an independent Scotland. If you have an issue with the SNP, vote for another party in that election.
A second aspect to the reason why that activist must think women are stupid is that he evidently perceives them as herd-like, with entirely uniform views. He believes diversity of opinion and individuality of thought on the subject of abortion is a male preserve. That's what I was getting at (as made abundantly clear in point 1 of my blogpost), so it just doesn't make sense to claim that it's a 'follow-on' from what I said that any individual woman must be thick if she reacts in a certain way.
"Why didn’t it occur to the vast majority of the SNP supporters, even those who say they disagree with Alex Neil, to actually step up and say that Alex Neil should cease to be Health Secretary?"
Well, I can't speak for other SNP supporters, but I'll tell you why it didn't occur to me. I not only think that Alex Neil is a fit and proper person to be Health Secretary, I think it would be utterly outrageous if he was sacked for simply expressing a perfectly legitimate and mainstream view that is also held by a significant proportion of the public, and indeed is held by more women than men -
"Polls consistently show the opposite – that women are more likely than men to support a reduction on the abortion limit. In the 2011 YouGov poll 28% of men supported a reduction, 46% of women did. In the 2012 YouGov poll 24% of men supported a reduction, 49% of women did. In the Angus Reid poll 35% of men supported a reduction in the limit, 59% of women did. In the ICM poll 45% of men supported a reduction to 20 weeks, 59% of women did."
Is it really "anti-women" to express support for the political views of millions of women?
* * *
One other point is worth making. Margaret Thatcher supported the reintroduction of capital punishment during her entire eleven-and-a-half years as Prime Minister. For most of that period, her party had a Commons majority of over 100. This was also a time when, unlike now, membership of the Council of Europe and the European Community would not have precluded the return of the death penalty. Mrs Thatcher of course sometimes expressed her personal view in public, just as Alex Neil has now done on an equivalent matter of conscience, and it did not lead to a rebellion against her leadership. On Edinburgh Eye's logic that means there was an "implication" that the Thatcher government was collectively in favour of capital punishment. But that logic is wrong, as a succession of parliamentary votes in the 1980s handily demonstrates.
The views of individual political leaders really are neither here nor there on the matters of conscience that are traditionally decided by a free vote. If control over abortion law is transferred to Scotland, it will be exclusively a matter for parliament, not for the government, and certainly not for the Health Secretary acting on his own initiative.
* * *
UPDATE : And some more...
Edinburgh Eye : Alex Neil is anti-choice: he's been appointed Health Secretary: the SNP supporters are rallying round to defend having a Health Secretary with anti-choice views: this turns me off independence because I don’t want to live in a country run by people like that.
And your reaction is to say you think I'm pretty stupid. You're still not being convincing.
Why defend Alex Neil and attack his opposition?
Me : "Alex Neil is anti-choice"
He isn't. That simply isn't true, and won't become true no matter how many times you repeat it. He favours a small reduction in the time limit on abortion. If simply being in favour of ANY time limit on abortion is "anti-choice", then practically the entire population of this country is anti-choice.
"this turns me off independence because I don't want to live in a country run by people like that."
And thus you prefer to live in a country run by people like Jeremy Hunt who, er, wants to cut the time limit on abortion much further than Alex Neil does. Yup, that makes perfect sense.
"And your reaction is to say you think I'm pretty stupid."
The one and only thing I think is stupid is your determination to convince yourself that I've called you stupid, in spite of repeated explanations that I've done no such thing.
"Why defend Alex Neil and attack his opposition?"
Probably because I think he's a principled man who has expressed an entirely appropriate personal view on a subject that is not covered by collective cabinet responsibility. I've "attacked his opposition" because they appear to be intolerant zealots who think there ought to be no place in public life for someone with the "wrong" views on a matter of conscience.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this.
"Alex Neil isn’t fit to be Health Secretary if he thinks he can express such anti-women, anti-healthcare views in public. He should either retract or resign, since if Alex Salmond continues to keep him as Health Secretary, it’s a clear indication that to Salmond, Alex Neil’s views aren’t objectionable...
Oddly enough, my first stumble across the story was in James Kelly’s blog instructing me that what Alex Neil thought about abortion didn’t matter and shouldn’t affect my views on independence and I must be “thick” if I thought it should.
Other SNP defenders suggested that it didn’t matter what Alex Neil thought because as Health Secretary he didn’t really have anything to do with abortion. Or that it didn’t matter that Alex Neil was only as bad as David Cameron because Jeremy Hunt was much worse. None of these are good defenses, because none of them deal with the real problem – the SNP has appointed a man who holds anti-choice views on abortion to be Health Secretary: instead they create a huge problem, which is that with every defence of Alex Neil, the SNP is building itself up to be the anti-choice party in Scotland, the party not to be trusted on human rights."
Well, of course I wasn't 'instructing' anyone to do or think anything. Quite the contrary, in fact - I was objecting to the idea that all women must dutifully hold the views on abortion and independence prescribed for them by the Labour party. So I decided to set the record straight, and it developed into the following exchange...
Me : “Oddly enough, my first stumble across the story was in James Kelly’s blog instructing me that what Alex Neil thought about abortion didn’t matter and shouldn’t affect my views on independence and I must be “thick” if I thought it should.”
Actually, I didn’t say that, and I suspect you know I didn’t say that. I said that Labour must think that women are thick, based on a suggestion from one of their activists that practically every woman would now desert the pro-independence cause simply because of what Alex Neil said.
“Other SNP defenders suggested that it didn’t matter what Alex Neil thought because as Health Secretary he didn’t really have anything to do with abortion.”
He doesn’t. It’s a fact. Abortion law is wholly reserved to Westminster, and if it was ever transferred to Holyrood it would continue to be decided by a free vote. This is the point you’re missing – the Scotland on Sunday article was indeed misleading, but not because Neil was misquoted. It was their interpretation that “the government is signalling a change” that was misleading – or, to put it more bluntly, a lie. By definition, a free vote means that the government will not be taking a collective view on this at all, let alone signalling a change.
In one very limited sense you’re right – Alex Neil’s personal view DOES matter, but only because he has one vote out of 129. That’s it.
Edinburgh Eye : "I said that Labour must think that women are thick, based on a suggestion from one of their activists that practically every woman would now desert the pro-independence cause simply because of what Alex Neil said."
Yes. And the follow-on from that is that any woman who does reject independence because its adherents are all rallying round to support Alex Neil, must be thick.
Thanks so much.
"It was their interpretation that “the government is signalling a change” that was misleading – or, to put it more bluntly, a lie. By definition, a free vote means that the government will not be taking a collective view on this at all, let alone signalling a change."
Yep. The SNP had the option of avoiding this implication by promptly sacking Alex Neil as Health Secretary. They opted not to.
Me : "And the follow-on from that is that any woman who does reject independence because its adherents are all rallying round to support Alex Neil, must be thick."
Nope. This slipperiness isn't doing your argument any favours. First of all I wasn't talking about women who reject independence for the reason you suggest ("its adherents are rallying round"), and neither was the activist I responded to. He was suggesting that women would reject independence simply because they didn't like Alex Neil's personal views, and yes, if he really believes that, he must think women are pretty stupid.
I certainly wouldn't describe someone as stupid or thick because they turn against independence on the grounds that they don't like the SNP's support for Alex Neil, but I do think such a reaction is demonstrably irrational. The SNP is not independence, and independence is not the SNP. There will be an election to decide which party or parties governs an independent Scotland. If you have an issue with the SNP, vote for another party in that election.
A second aspect to the reason why that activist must think women are stupid is that he evidently perceives them as herd-like, with entirely uniform views. He believes diversity of opinion and individuality of thought on the subject of abortion is a male preserve. That's what I was getting at (as made abundantly clear in point 1 of my blogpost), so it just doesn't make sense to claim that it's a 'follow-on' from what I said that any individual woman must be thick if she reacts in a certain way.
"Why didn’t it occur to the vast majority of the SNP supporters, even those who say they disagree with Alex Neil, to actually step up and say that Alex Neil should cease to be Health Secretary?"
Well, I can't speak for other SNP supporters, but I'll tell you why it didn't occur to me. I not only think that Alex Neil is a fit and proper person to be Health Secretary, I think it would be utterly outrageous if he was sacked for simply expressing a perfectly legitimate and mainstream view that is also held by a significant proportion of the public, and indeed is held by more women than men -
"Polls consistently show the opposite – that women are more likely than men to support a reduction on the abortion limit. In the 2011 YouGov poll 28% of men supported a reduction, 46% of women did. In the 2012 YouGov poll 24% of men supported a reduction, 49% of women did. In the Angus Reid poll 35% of men supported a reduction in the limit, 59% of women did. In the ICM poll 45% of men supported a reduction to 20 weeks, 59% of women did."
Is it really "anti-women" to express support for the political views of millions of women?
* * *
One other point is worth making. Margaret Thatcher supported the reintroduction of capital punishment during her entire eleven-and-a-half years as Prime Minister. For most of that period, her party had a Commons majority of over 100. This was also a time when, unlike now, membership of the Council of Europe and the European Community would not have precluded the return of the death penalty. Mrs Thatcher of course sometimes expressed her personal view in public, just as Alex Neil has now done on an equivalent matter of conscience, and it did not lead to a rebellion against her leadership. On Edinburgh Eye's logic that means there was an "implication" that the Thatcher government was collectively in favour of capital punishment. But that logic is wrong, as a succession of parliamentary votes in the 1980s handily demonstrates.
The views of individual political leaders really are neither here nor there on the matters of conscience that are traditionally decided by a free vote. If control over abortion law is transferred to Scotland, it will be exclusively a matter for parliament, not for the government, and certainly not for the Health Secretary acting on his own initiative.
* * *
UPDATE : And some more...
Edinburgh Eye : Alex Neil is anti-choice: he's been appointed Health Secretary: the SNP supporters are rallying round to defend having a Health Secretary with anti-choice views: this turns me off independence because I don’t want to live in a country run by people like that.
And your reaction is to say you think I'm pretty stupid. You're still not being convincing.
Why defend Alex Neil and attack his opposition?
Me : "Alex Neil is anti-choice"
He isn't. That simply isn't true, and won't become true no matter how many times you repeat it. He favours a small reduction in the time limit on abortion. If simply being in favour of ANY time limit on abortion is "anti-choice", then practically the entire population of this country is anti-choice.
"this turns me off independence because I don't want to live in a country run by people like that."
And thus you prefer to live in a country run by people like Jeremy Hunt who, er, wants to cut the time limit on abortion much further than Alex Neil does. Yup, that makes perfect sense.
"And your reaction is to say you think I'm pretty stupid."
The one and only thing I think is stupid is your determination to convince yourself that I've called you stupid, in spite of repeated explanations that I've done no such thing.
"Why defend Alex Neil and attack his opposition?"
Probably because I think he's a principled man who has expressed an entirely appropriate personal view on a subject that is not covered by collective cabinet responsibility. I've "attacked his opposition" because they appear to be intolerant zealots who think there ought to be no place in public life for someone with the "wrong" views on a matter of conscience.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
It's official : Labour think women are thick
Or at least that's the impression you'll have got if you've been viewing Labour activists' tweets over the last few hours. Here are two particular gems -
"If any thinking person wants another reason not to vote for Scottish independence, Alex Neil has just provided it."
"Just wondering if @womenforindy will be shortest lived indy support group ever?"
It seems what we're supposed to infer from the latter comment is the following -
1) Every single woman in Scotland has an identical view on abortion. The apparent diversity of views on the subject is an aberration caused entirely by the existence of the male gender.
2) Women who are both pro-choice and pro-independence are too feeble-minded to believe they can actually win the debate on abortion in a democratic independent Scotland. Alex Neil has pronounced, therefore the only option left for females of the species is to look to strong London men for protection. Step forward Jeremy Hunt. Talking of whom...
3) The fact that the Scottish Government's Health Secretary doesn't want to cut the time limit on abortion by anything like as much as the UK Government's Health Secretary is all a bit too complicated for pro-choice women to grasp. They're bound to get it entirely the wrong way round, and conclude that they'd much rather put their faith in Jeremy Hunt and co to make the best decision.
4) Women are not capable of understanding the concept of a free vote in parliament - or else they're under the impression that the idea works fine in Westminster, but for some reason not in Holyrood. Up here all free votes go the way Alex Neil wants.
Of course in spite of Scotland on Sunday's creative attempts to sensationalise it, this is a story about abortion, not about independence. Yes, Mr. Neil was talking about his views on what should happen if abortion law is transferred to Holyrood, but that eventuality is not contingent on independence - Northern Ireland already decides abortion law for itself. David Steel, the proposer of the liberalising 1967 legislation, attempted to have control over abortion law transferred to Holyrood in the late 1990s. It was pointed out at the time that Scotland is not Ireland, and that there was absolutely no way of guessing whether the Scottish Parliament would be more or less likely than Westminster to tighten the law. That remains as true now as it was then. Regardless of whether the decision is taken in London or Edinburgh, there will be a mixture of pro-choice and pro-life unionists voting on it, along with a mixture of pro-choice and pro-life nationalists.
But heaven forbid that anyone should actually engage with the substance of Alex Neil's personal view, rather than inviting women to shut down all thought and chant "INDEPENDENCE IS UN-FEMALE" to themselves every night before they go to bed.
"If any thinking person wants another reason not to vote for Scottish independence, Alex Neil has just provided it."
"Just wondering if @womenforindy will be shortest lived indy support group ever?"
It seems what we're supposed to infer from the latter comment is the following -
1) Every single woman in Scotland has an identical view on abortion. The apparent diversity of views on the subject is an aberration caused entirely by the existence of the male gender.
2) Women who are both pro-choice and pro-independence are too feeble-minded to believe they can actually win the debate on abortion in a democratic independent Scotland. Alex Neil has pronounced, therefore the only option left for females of the species is to look to strong London men for protection. Step forward Jeremy Hunt. Talking of whom...
3) The fact that the Scottish Government's Health Secretary doesn't want to cut the time limit on abortion by anything like as much as the UK Government's Health Secretary is all a bit too complicated for pro-choice women to grasp. They're bound to get it entirely the wrong way round, and conclude that they'd much rather put their faith in Jeremy Hunt and co to make the best decision.
4) Women are not capable of understanding the concept of a free vote in parliament - or else they're under the impression that the idea works fine in Westminster, but for some reason not in Holyrood. Up here all free votes go the way Alex Neil wants.
Of course in spite of Scotland on Sunday's creative attempts to sensationalise it, this is a story about abortion, not about independence. Yes, Mr. Neil was talking about his views on what should happen if abortion law is transferred to Holyrood, but that eventuality is not contingent on independence - Northern Ireland already decides abortion law for itself. David Steel, the proposer of the liberalising 1967 legislation, attempted to have control over abortion law transferred to Holyrood in the late 1990s. It was pointed out at the time that Scotland is not Ireland, and that there was absolutely no way of guessing whether the Scottish Parliament would be more or less likely than Westminster to tighten the law. That remains as true now as it was then. Regardless of whether the decision is taken in London or Edinburgh, there will be a mixture of pro-choice and pro-life unionists voting on it, along with a mixture of pro-choice and pro-life nationalists.
But heaven forbid that anyone should actually engage with the substance of Alex Neil's personal view, rather than inviting women to shut down all thought and chant "INDEPENDENCE IS UN-FEMALE" to themselves every night before they go to bed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)