Tuesday, 14 August, 2007
- 14 Aug 07, 05:40 PM
From tonight's presenter,
North of the border
We begin tonight with the First Minister of Scotland Alex Salmond's plans for a referendum on independence.
In their election manifesto the nationalists promised a white paper on a referendum within 100 days of an SNP administration. But the opposition parties have ganged up on the minority administration to oppose any referendum, and without the support of a substantial grouping (and so a majority) it’s hard to see how a referendum could become a reality.
Alex Salmond has called for a "national conversation" and the White Paper encompasses not only the independence option but what's been nicknamed the "devolution max" position under which the Scottish Parliament could have a range of new powers including, for example, fiscal powers, energy policy, or broadcasting.
At the same time the three opposition parties will now jointly review the devolution settlement opening the way to the accrual of further powers.
So it is a potentially dynamic situation which poses a number of questions for the Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Will there be constructive engagement? Tonight I'll be interviewing Alex Salmond. Then, to discuss Scotland’s next step, I’ll be talking to Lord Forsyth, the Conservative former Secretary of State for Scotland, who urges the Conservatives to back the referendum in order to shoot Alex Salmond's fox for once and for all. I’ll also be speaking to Lord Steel of the Liberal Democrats - he was the first Presiding Officer of the Parliament - and the Labour MSP and former Scottish Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson.
Pakistan’s anniversary
Pakistan celebrates 60 years since partition. We'll be hearing live from Islamabad and from author and former Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú correspondent Mark Tully – he has made a film for Newsnight to coincide with India's anniversary of independence tomorrow. He'll be looking at how the country has changed, whether it is as tolerant as it likes to think it is and whether the caste system is such a prominent feature of Indian society today as it was 60 years ago. He'll also be assessing how diverse a culture exists in this democracy, whether America's influence is too pervasive and if religious tolerance is actually on the wane.
Lord Biffen remembered
"A great parliamentarian and respected Leader of the House of Commons." That was the Prime Minister's tribute to the former Conservative Minister John Biffen who died early today. Lord Biffen was in Mrs Thatcher's Cabinet first as Chief Secretary to the Treasury but famously fell out with her whereupon he was described as a "semi-detached" member of the Cabinet. Lord Heseltine said that description referred to his ability to see both sides of the argument and that he was a very cerebral politician with a fine mind.
Comments Post your comment
Looking forward to watching the cosy chat between old friends Alex and Kirsty and then on You Tube for weeks after.
Complain about this post
Dear Newsnight
But will it be a national conversation? a conversation being a two way dialogue but isnt one of the criticisms of a lot of politics is that it is one-way like a telephone call when you never have the chance to say something back,
Do Political people -really- care what others think -go on be honest -do you, well some do but many just want their view accepted by others
but why? who wants to impose anything on anyone else and why would someone want to do this, what does this mean about the personality type involved
to be really honest I think you should invite Raj Persuad onto the show and ask him for a critique of what really is going on here-
that said I do agree with the Scot Nats left leaning brew, re Indepedence I'm not sure, what would be best, maybe Scotland would be stronger standing alone, at least the rest of the World would benefit -uncoupling it from the UK might make it harder for us to wage war on other countries?
(if) Alex Salmond does have a conversation with his people in the truest sense of the world and they say that they would rather keep things the same, where does he and his party go from there?
If you believe in something strongly enough isnt there a temptation to try to see that view prevail even if the current Scots people might hold a kinder view of the rest of us than those of William Wallace and Scots in the past?
and do the dispora get a say in any of this and would I get half a vote?
many questions not much time tonight
Bob
Complain about this post
wheres Paxo...havnt seen him in ages
Complain about this post
Presumably 'devolution max' would result not only in more powers for Scotland, but more funds from central government? I support the referendum and hope it's for full Independence for Scotland as this may finally mean independence and greater recognition for England as a 'sovereign' country.
We've surely had enough of the anomaly of Scottish members and Ministers at Westminster, the constant demand for more central funds for devolved administrations, and the fact that a seemingly unstoppable flow of alien ideologists can now call themselves British, without having contributed anything to our economy or history. I will continue to sign myself as 'English' having paid my dues for 75 years, served my country, and lost ancestors who fought for our independence.
Complain about this post
Salmond gets her again?
to be fair kirsty has to declare an interest?
or have some not been on the weekend Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú 'trust and the public' course yet?
still we'll know what mood she's in by the outfit. I'm thinking Joan of Arc.
Complain about this post
Just one other thing
What is your position on Beavers? question for Alex Salmond tonight, is there a place for Beavers in this brave new Scottish homeland you dream about?, if not in certain ministers hearts?
a close friend mentioned this to me tonight
By the way when I was researching my family tree I found that one of my possible forbears Sir Hector Maclean was betrayed by a man called..... Blair, funny thing that, it must run in the family
best wishes
Bob
Here is the Beaver story I was referring to-
Conservationists say that these "river engineers" build lodges, dams, canals and pools that attract a host of wildlife, such as kingfishers, fish and dragonflies.
However, Rhona Brankin, the deputy environment and rural development minister, rejected the application on concerns about damage to part of the wood, which is a European special area of conservation, and SNH's "exit strategy" to remove the beavers, if necessary, which included shooting them. As a protected species, this would be illegal.
Ms Brankin said: "The door is not closed to future reintroduction and I would expect part of the new strategic approach on the conservation framework to include evaluation of possible species reintroduction, as well as work on perceived threats, including those from the introduction of invasive non-native species."
A SNH spokesman said it was disappointed that the application had been turned down. And a source close to the decision said the exit strategy could easily have been altered to include a licence to cull a protected species.
Simon Milne, the chief executive of the Scottish Wildlife Trust, said: "The decision ignores the benefits to ecology and tourism from the project, disregards strong public support, overwhelming scientific evidence and the fact that there have been numerous successful beaver reintroductions across the rest of Europe.
"If the Executive really wanted to undertake this trial, then there are no practical issues that would prevent this. The reasons for rejecting this trial are deeply flawed."
Web links
Scottish Beavers Network
Scottish Wildlife Trust
Scottish Natural Heritage
Complain about this post
For a change, it looks like the most sensible person in this debate is Lord Forsyth. I don't think Scots would vote for independence if they were all offered a tenner to do so! They can all see the benefits of the union, so holding a referendum now and shooting the Scot Nats "fox" now would be good for all concerned.
Complain about this post
Oh dear, oh dear. Why are you and the opposition policiticians giving this man the 'oxygen of publicity'. I suspect it's is because you think you are all brilliant tacticians - but you are strategically inept (which to give Mr Salmond credit he is not). Thus the chattering classes have all fallen into his trap to get you talking about this sterile debate - to the advantage of the Scots Nats (fancy that)! What idiots you are. Can I have a refund on my licence fee - we could take it out of your (overpaid) salaries. Also why don't the Scottish people ask the Auditor General to investigate the use of public funds for party political purposes - which this so called White Paper so obviously is?
Can we please get back to proper and serious news and not another silly season article?
Complain about this post
Oh dear, oh dear. Why are you and the opposition policiticians giving this man the 'oxygen of publicity'. I suspect it's is because you think you are all brilliant tacticians - but you are strategically inept (which to give Mr Salmond credit he is not). Thus the chattering classes have all fallen into his trap to get you talking about this sterile debate - to the advantage of the Scots Nats (fancy that)! What idiots you are. Can I have a refund on my licence fee - we could take it out of your (overpaid) salaries. Also why don't the Scottish people ask the Auditor General to investigate the use of public funds for party political purposes - which this so called White Paper so obviously is?
Can we please get back to proper and serious news and not another silly season article?
Complain about this post
As a Labour member I think Lord Forsyth has got it right. We English should have a vote on whether the Scots go independent. No more subsidies from us, no more Scots voting on English matters, in fact no more Scottish MP's (sorry Gordon!) and why we English will never have that opportunity. Too many Scotish MP's in the English trough.
The Scots know which side of their bread is buttered and what is financing their more favourable matters on Education and health care-we English.
And if they ever did get independence then they will close Faslaine, losing jobs; will they need the Scottish regiments-who are they going to attack? a Navy and Airforce-for what? and they will need a passport to come into England.
When their oil revenues run out, assuming the multi-nationals will let them own them, to get money the Scots will revert to what they do best, raiding the English for money South of the border.
Home rule for Scotland I say, so long as we English don't have to pay for it. Bring it on Alex!!
Complain about this post
A really good Newsnight. Valuable and refreshing perspectives brought to bear in all the reports. Plenty of food for further thought and consideration.
Many thanks for this approach.
Complain about this post
Certainly many attacks aimed at the Scottish people coming from those south of the border. It seems England needs to spend more money on education as so many seem to believe that Scotland isn't pulling it's weight financially
-it may be true that more is spent per head of population for Scotland, but it is also true that we put more money into the UK than we take back
- the McCrone report explicitly talks about England *needing* the money from the North Sea oil (the UKs economy only started to pull out of its slump during Thatcher years when the oil started to bring in the cash)
- many may take a different view, but being Scottish doesn't make one bone idle. Scotland has been mismanaged for a long time so there is a lot of poverty here, just as there is in other parts of the UK (especially the north of England) which should be addressed regardless of the outcome of this debate.
Of course Scotland contributed to England's history, we were at each others throats for centuries! Saying otherwise is just silly talk. And the Scottish lost ancestors when fighting the two great wars too.
Only twice in the past century has their been a party put into parliament that Scotland voted for, ten years of devolution and England is already complaining that Scotland has too much power in Westminster. Be thankful that SNP does not vote on English only matters, and realise that what England feels now is only a hint at how Scotland has been feeling for far longer. Remember that English MPs have far more power over those reserved areas that affect Scotland than we do. Do you think we're happy? Independence isn't and shouldn't be about hating anyone, but there seems to be a lot of hate coming from England.
Remember, if Scotland should leave the UK the rest of the UK will risk losing various permanent seats and rights to veto, would be out of the G8 and (should Europe decide the new UK would have to re-apply for membership as has been suggested) may have to finally accept the Euro.
Finally, I wish the unionists would stop telling us what we want ("it's what the people want"). It's been a labour line for a long time and surely people are getting tired of it. They were wrong when Blair said (on Trident II) "the people want the UK to continue being a military might", they were wrong (in Scotland) on the Edinburgh trams project, and for a lot of people they are wrong on this debate too. It's not right that people make such a decision as independence of continuation of the union on media myths, a national conversation is just what is needed so long as it ensures it informs people of the truth in both advantages and disadvantages.
Btw one last thing, if Scotland goes independent is the rest of the UK leaving Europe? I keep hearing that we will need passports to visit England. Hehe, hate does a lot of things but it certainly doesn't think.
Complain about this post
COUNTRYSIDE VERSUS (NEW) CITY?
The latest contribution to the debate on the housing crisis has crystallized thinking around the decision as to whether countryside – and especially green belts – should be used for new housing.
Part of the answer seems reasonably clear, in as much as green belts have protected us from the urban sprawl which has blighted megacities from Mexico City to Tokyo. What is needed here is better use, and protection, of these green belts for the population of the cities they serve rather than the industrial farmers they may profit.
However, it is also clear that something needs to happen in the housing market. We are not providing enough housing, and what is provided is too expensive. So why is this?
As usual the government is blamed, but then it is blamed for everything. In the case of housing policy it is certainly true that Margaret Thatcher changed the ground rules; by allowing sale of council houses, and effectively barring any replacement of the social housing which had led new hosing starts through the 1960s and 1970s. At the same time the iron lady kicked off the new values of the property owning democracy – and in the process undermined any hope of affordable housing for those not on high salaries. This meant, at one extreme, later governments could no longer use the public sector to kick-start housing growth and were dependent upon self-interested developers whose profits zoomed as housing became scarce. At the other extreme the general public indulged in their new, and voracious, demand for an investment on the recently invented property ladder. The rented housing in which we so many of us started our married lives a generation or so ago was no longer acceptable and council housing for the less well off was taboo.
Indeed, the main factors determining the position of the market are now cultural rather than practical. Not least is the almost religious fervour with which individuals fight to maximize their investment in bricks and mortar; seeing only the upside, the massive boom in prices, but not the potential disaster any collapse in the ludicrously inflated prices would cause – even when the US market is so dangerously close to failure and sub-prime lending threatens to bring a new recession worldwide. The end result is to be seen in the new dependence of almost all families on two incomes; with all that means for children’s upbringing. But other cultural factors have also become important. Houses now have to have en-suites and, if they can be afforded, they must be detached – albeit by a few inches. However the need for flexibility to handle future demands, reasonable office space to support home-working and granny flats for our aging relatives, is swamped by the latest fashions.
It is true that the resulting sprawl of unlovely (private) housing estates should be laid at the door of the developers, who only have to look to the profit demanded by their backers rather than the quality of life desired by their customers, rather than the architects, who are usually excluded from involvement in these mass domestic markets. They, on the other hand, should not turn their backs on the rest of us – longing for the return of the Italian hill town or the vertical city soaring, quite literally, as their favoured ivory tower.
Mixed in with all this debate, as the report of the Social Market Foundation shows, is the fetish of the ‘countryside’. Thus, it is argued, every bit of ‘farmland’ has to be protected; even if it is only a decommissioned airfield covered in turkey sheds.
All this land is romantically categorized as areas of natural beauty where we are free to roam and absorb the fresh air and glorious landscapes; even in a piggery with 10,000 inhabitants. Now let us be clear. If we really want to preserve this land so that we can feed our population then we must look to the farm factories, with their acres of poly-tunnels, which now are so much more efficient than traditional hedgerows and copses.
If, instead, we are genuinely looking to give individuals the chance to roam through open spaces which provide the rest and relaxation they need then surely forcing them to travel dozens of miles to find these must be counter-productive; and certainly not ‘green’.
Perhaps, then, at least some of the lessons to be learned should be those from the last time we managed to start large numbers of houses; in the 1960s. Then, of course, the fashion was for self-contained new towns; rather than anonymous mass housing to be spread across the whole of the south east.
I must declare an interest. As you can see on the website at I live in Milton Keynes. As the leading example of city planning from the 1960s, this was – contrary to current fashions - deliberately designed as a ‘low density city’. Covering 100 square miles it now very successfully houses a quarter of a million people; and will grow to house half a million. What was lost in the process was some relatively unproductive farmland but almost nothing which would have been attractive to city dwellers.
Instead, in addition to the massive amounts of new housing, what has been created has been homes which are each no more than a hundred yards from extensive tracts of open space. The families, and especially their children, can daily use this open space without any need to take a car to find it. What is more they can use it safely.
As modern tastes change, Milton Keynes is building high density blocks of flats in its city centre to cater for those young professionals who prefer proximity to night-life. It is even building even higher density ‘retirement villages’ for those in their third age. But those with young families still have a wide choice of less dense housing with access to green spaces.
With this almost uniquely successful example in mind, I would, therefore, counsel against government setting just one target; of ever higher numbers of housing starts – and ever denser building levels. We need to think about the quality of life these should encompass; as well as the new requirements – of home offices and granny flats. Otherwise we will just recreate horizontal versions of the tower block slums of the previous generation; but inefficiently covering vast tracts of land in concrete.
Complain about this post
Good comment from Mr.Davidson with some of his views coinciding with mine. The consequences to which he refers may or may not happen but the belief South of the Border, whether true or not, is that Salmond can spend the money on better education and reducing tolls etc. providing the English continue to subsudise it.
As to the "Labour Line" he is spot on. As a life long socialist and Labour activist it's about time the party recognised its failures in Scotland and started to put in a workable alternative to what I would regard the worst for both Scotland and the UK,- independence. I suspect the majority of Scots don't want independence but so long as the other parties refuse to suggest an alternative, eventually they will in time say "sod it" let's give it a try.
However,in this current climate we English still are getting tired of all the Scottish MP's and ministers telling us what to do. In a perverse logic we have a Scottish Parliament and devolution down here!!
Complain about this post
India a model of multiculturalism?
why do we read in lords hansard that the indian government blocked the visa of the UK Charity Commissioner investigating if money raised in the uk by hindu groups is being used for ethnic cleansing?
Complain about this post