The Flag in the Wind
A weekly online newspaper bringing you information on the political scene in Scotland: part of the monthly Scots Independent.

Home | About Us | Subscriptions | Archives | SNP | Ad Rates | Features | Adverts | Events | Links

Lots of great information to read and enjoy under our Features Section:
Scots Language | Scottish Food | Dates in History | Scot Wit and lots more!

Tony Blair and the Labour Party chose a song of this name as their campaign theme for the 1997 General Election when they came into power in the UK. It was the time of New Labour, Cool Britannia, and Tony saying "Trust me, I’m the Prime Minister". The events of this last week must surely have had Tony trying to reassure himself on a daily basis that there would be an upturn in the fortunes of himself and his colleagues and some respite from the attention of the media. Now the House of Commons has gone into recess and they can all go off for a little rest and recuperation. I know journalists need their holidays too but I hope the media will continue to focus on how this UK Government has brought public trust in politicians to a very low point.

The row between the UK Government and the BBC trundled on this week. Tony Blair’s office at 10 Downing Street told us that Dr David Kelly of the Ministry of Defence must be the person who told the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan that the "dodgy dossier" from UK Intelligence services had been made more exciting before being published. Dr Kelly told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that he was not. I heard some pieces from the Committee’s interview including a question from an MP that went something like, "Do you accept that you have been set up to divert us from following other lines of enquiry?" Dr Kelly "was unable to comment". Meanwhile the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were interviewed in secret by a special committee which deals with intelligence matters. This committee is chosen by the Prime Minister and reports back to him. What a farce! Surely the Government must see that there has to be a judicial inquiry to sort out this mess.

And the argument spilled over into a spat between MI5 and the CIA about the source of some dodgy bits about Iraq that got into Mr Bush’s State of the Nation speech. I almost feel sorry for Tony because he is now off to see Mr Bush in the US and there are so many arguments going on that it will be quite a stressful visit. Although I hear that Mr Blair’s standing could be higher in the US than it is in Britain. An American interviewee on radio told us "Prime Minister Blair is much admired in the US as the man who took his country to war in support of the US". Maybe if Tony had listened more to the electors of the UK and his European colleagues, and had been more open and transparent about his intentions, he would not be in this position today.

Over in Iraq they still have not found any Weapons of Mass Destruction. Mr Blair changed the script again, a little bit –but an important bit. He seemed to accept that such weapons might not be found but was sure that traces of programmes for such weapons would be. So are they now also searching for bits of paper outlining programmes for weapons? And might they find them?

In Baghdad the death toll mounts in the aftermath of the war and allied soldiers are having a difficult time persuading the Iraqis that they have been liberated. Nor do they seem optimistic about how long their stint in Iraq will be. The cartoon in the Herald yesterday showed an American soldier in Iraq painting a slogan on a wall – Yankee go Home!

No, I’m not about to discuss European holidays. I’m in a state of wonderment. Medical authorities in Poland can apparently offer an operation package for a hip or knee replacement followed by 14 days in a spa resort and throw in the cost of a return flight. The total bill will, it seems, be less than it would cost the NHS to undertake replacement surgery in your local hospital. The poles have approached the body that deals with waiting lists, and those who have been on a waiting list for more than the designated period, to make such an offer. Presumably we are a target sector of the market because we need to meet Executive targets.

No doubt the relevant Scottish Executive minister(s) will consider this offer. I think we should be able to deal with our own Health matters but one wonders how this Polish offer can be possible? What have they got that we haven’t? Is it just cash or are they more efficient at managing their resources? What is happening in the NHS? My personal experience tells me that on the ground in my part of Glasgow – in the wards, in the clinics, in the Accident and Emergency departments - there are great medical teams doing a great job but they are working under pressure and tell me life would be better if they had more staff. I read of a shortage of nurses and of hospitals having to pay exorbitant prices for Agency nurses to meet the shortfall.

Then I read about the Greater Glasgow Health Board’s transport policy and I can’t make up my mind whether it’s a helpful contribution or the equivalent of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. Apparently the policy paper includes subsidising bus and train fares to encourage staff to travel by public transport. Of course this may be because they also include proposals to charge staff as well as patients and visitors for parking at hospitals. If you are a Health Board employee of a very brave disposition there are plans for interest free loans to buy bicycles and there will be a person appointed to liase with local bus and train companies. I don’t know what they intend to call this person but without a doubt they will think they need a department to deal with transport co-ordination. I don’t know the timescale for implementation but I’d like to know how much staff time has already been spent on this project. How many cleaners could you get for the money involved? Or what kind of a pay rise could you offer nurses?

The Boundary Commission – an independent body which deals with deals with the detailed work on Parliamentary constituency boundaries – has proposed that in the post-devolution situation Scotland should have 59 Members of the UK Parliament instead of 72 which is the current position. The proposals have been out to consultation and most are agreed. But a bit of doubt has crept in. We heard rumours that the changes would not be implemented in time for the next Westminster elections. We know that the Scottish Labour Members of the UK Parliament are not very happy about the changes. 13 of the constituencies that we now recognise for Westminster will disappear; some Labour MPs will either have to find a new constituency or "retire". I imagine that there has been much discussion and manoeuvring among the Scottish Labour members to agree who is going to do what and no doubt it’s not finished yet. Add to that the benefit to the UK Government of Scottish Labour MPs who are prepared to assist the Government by voting on matters that are particular to England and the plot thickens.

The changes are not exactly news. The proposal for 59 Westminster MPs was in the Scotland Act that set up the Scottish Parliament. We should all have had plenty of time to come to terms with it. The SNP think that the changes should be made in time for the next set of elections for the Westminster Parliament. At Prime Minister’s Questions on Thursday, Tony Blair said that the Boundary Changes proposed for Scotland will be implemented - but he didn’t say when this would happen.

Alex Salmond, the SNP MP for Banff & Buchan has now written to Mr Blair seeking an assurance that the changes will be made in time for the next election. He has asked for a "categorical assurance that the boundary changes will be implemented in time for the next general election and not delayed as some kind of reward to Scottish Labour MPs for saving the Government last week by voting in favour of Foundation Hospitals in England". We’ll have to wait to see what happens now.

I see that the Employment Tribunal office in Glasgow say that 980 men have lodged sex discrimination complaints over the issue of dress code – they have to wear a shirt and tie no matter what the weather is like or how informal the attire of their female counterparts. Over the years the gender battles in the workplace have been mainly about equal pay and equal opportunity but although this sounds trivial they may have a case.

I have never seen the point of wearing a tie whether you are male or female. Personally I only ever wore one as part of a uniform. The only reason I could see for wearing a school tie was to let the rest of the world know which school I attended (I never could see the point of that). The tie I wore with my Girl Guide uniform could, in the olden days (as my granddaughter calls my youth), double as a triangular bandage, which was going to come in very handy if I ever met a person with a broken arm who needed a sling to support it.

I don’t know what the significance of wearing a tie at work is. Does it make you more respectable? Does it change your attitude to clients / customers, or theirs to you? Or does it just add to the stress and discomfort of a poorly ventilated office on a hot day. If you impose a shirt and tie dress code on men, what is the equivalent code for women? A smart blouse and a silk scarf? I suppose that’s why corporate dressing came in. I never liked the thought of working for a company that forced me to dress the same way every day and the same as all my colleagues but then I never liked wearing a uniform at school either.

I thought that a lot of these strict dress attitudes were disappearing with "dress down" days and more men appearing on television and in photographs dressed in a less formal way but obviously there are a few managers – allegedly in the Civil Service - who disagree.

I believe that there have to be agreed standards of dress. But they have to be reasonable. And they have to be appropriate to the environment in which you work. And it has to be seen to be fair to all concerned.

SYNOPSIS

SCOTS COURTS SHOULD HEAR SCOTS CASES
Monday 14 July 2003

STURGEON CALLS FOR END OF APPEALS TO LONDON

Scottish courts should hear the final appeals in Scottish cases, Shadow Justice Minister Ms Nicola Sturgeon MSP said today, as she called for an end to the archaic practice of cases being referred to London.

Speaking after Lord Falconer unveiled the terms of the consultation on the proposed Supreme Court, Ms Sturgeon said:

"It is obvious that Labour's plans for a Supreme Court have not been thought through. In the chaos of the reshuffle, they announced their plans without even consulting the Scottish Executive and are at sixes and sevens over the whole issue, with Lord Falconer falling out with Gordon Jackson.

"It's time to stop referring cases from Scotland to London for appeal. We have a separate legal system from England and the final court of appeal for criminal cases is already here in Scotland.

"Labour should now recognise that there is no good reason why the final appeal in civil cases could not be heard by the Scottish courts. Sending cases to the House of Lords was a practice that was set up to deal with the constitutional landscape of the eighteenth century. It has no place in a modern legal system.

Westminster Home Affairs Spokesperson Ms Annabelle Ewing MP said:

"Today's consultation paper has been a huge missed opportunity for the Westminster Government.  Rather than seizing the chance to repatriate Scottish justice to Scottish Courts, these new plans only embed the power of appeal in Scottish Law with English judges.

"This is further evidence that Scottish Ministers are sidelined from the major decisions taken in London which effect Scotland.  Contrary to their own Concordats between Holyrood and Westminster, which state that consultation should take place before any announcement which effects Scotland, no consultation took place before these plans were announced.  The Scottish legal system is too important to be treated as an afterthought by London Labour."

Speaking after the Parliamentary Statement in the House of Commons today [Tuesday] by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on the situation in Iraq, the Scottish National Party's Westminster leader Mr Alex Salmond MP said:

"The Government's position is incredible and unbelievable. They published false information as a pretext for war - which Ministers are refusing to apologise for, and are now claiming wasn't important anyway.

"If the dodgy dossiers used to justify the war weren't important, then the war itself wasn't necessary.

"Tony Blair clearly said that Saddam's possession of weapons of mass destruction - as falsely detailed in these Government documents - was the sole justification for war.

"A Government apology for dragging an unwilling country into war on false pretences is the least that is needed. Tony Blair should also be considering his position for his deceit and dissembling over Iraq and weapons of mass destruction."

Note: Mr Salmond's question to the Foreign Secretary was as follows /

"If the decision to go to war was not based on intelligence information, then why did the Government keep providing it in the form of dossiers to this House and to the United Nations before we had made decisions? And if the Prime Minister of Australia is prepared to apologise, and the head of the CIA is prepared to take the rap for believing British intelligence, then why does the Foreign Secretary stick doggedly to his story about the reality of uranium imports from Niger to Iraq? And if that story has caused so much embarrassment in the falsified and forged documents, to the Government, to the Prime Minister, and to the Foreign Secretary, what inquiries have been made to find out who forged and falsified these documents?"

In response, Mr Straw said that the Government's intelligence assessments, "weren't at the heart of the argument" for the war.

Robertson welcomes votes for 16s inquiry
Westminster, 15 July 2003

Moray SNP MP Angus Robertson is backing a new inquiry which is considering votes for 16 and 17 year-olds in a shake up of the electoral system. Concern over falling turnouts has prompted the Electoral Commission, which advises the government on how elections can be modernised, to consider reducing the voting age from 18. At present a 16 or 17 year-old can pay tax, get married and join the armed forces, but he or she cannot vote in elections and has to wait until reaching the aged of 21 to stand as a candidate.

Now, in its consultation document: "Should electoral life begin at 16, 18 or 21?", the commission is considering cutting the age at which people can take part in elections, both as voters and candidates.

Moray SNP MP Angus Robertson, who is Scotland's youngest MP is calling for people to take part in the consultation and help lower the voting age:

"The views of young people need to be taken seriously and this consultation is extremely important in helping to bring about change".

"Over recent years less and less people have even bothered to vote, and by lowering the voting age and taking young people seriously we can help start to reverse the worsening turnout trend.

"For a long time the SNP has supported the reduction of the voting age to end the anomaly that 16 and 17 year olds can pay tax, get married and join the armed forces but cannot vote.

"I felt so strongly about this issue that it was the subject of my maiden speech when I was first elected to the House of Commons in 2001. Since then I have held regular events at schools and youth cafés to listen to the views of younger people in Moray. In recent weeks the first series of youth internship have been completed at my constituency office which will be continued at the start of the new school term.

"The consultation on lowering the voting age is set to run for the next 4 months and I am strongly urging as many people to take part as possible.

PUBLIC SLATE ABOLITION OF 110 DAY RULE
Tuesday 15 July 2003

PLAN COULD "DESTROY LIVES" SAYS CONSULTATION

The public believe abolishing the 110 day limit on bringing court cases forward could "destroy people's lives; their family life, their working life" according to the results of a government consultation that shows people want the limit reduced not increased.

The proposal to extend the 110 day limit to 140 days, contained in the recent Bonomy Report, were outright rejected by the public and heavily criticised by Sheriffs Principal, the solicitors' WS Society, the Law Society and the Scottish Law Agents Society.

The report's authors concluded that they "would not recommend extending the 110 day time limit to 140 days".

The focus groups reveal that the public share the SNP's view that we must concentrate on improving the efficiency of the system instead of changing the 110 day rule to accommodate inefficiency. Comments from the public included:

[The proposal to extend the time limit] "could destroy people's lives; their family life, their working life."

"We're in administrative difficulties here, aren't we?"

"Why don't they just change it so that within 110 days both sides have to have their pieces prepared...?"

Commenting, Shadow Justice Minister Ms Nicola Sturgeon MSP, called on the Executive to dump their plans and listen to the public. She said:

"The Scottish Executive has got things back to front and the public know it. Justice delayed is justice denied and this consultation shows that far from wanting to see the 110 day rule extended, the public want justice done more quickly.

"It's not good enough to throw your hands up and say we have to abolish an ancient legal safeguard simply because this government has proven incapable of sorting out the system.

"The public are not alone in attacking these proposals. Sheriffs, solicitors and the Law Society all slate the plan. Let's listen to the public and the professionals; concentrate on improving the court's efficiency and drop this dangerous plan."

WINDOWS SCREENSAVER

Download our Windows Screensaver here!

18 July 1290
Treaty of Bingham between Scotland and England for marriage of Margaret, 'The Maid of Norway', to Edward, son of Edward 1, King of England: the Treaty safeguarded rights of Scotland though with some ambiguity. 

 

19 July 1940
First daylight raid by the German Luftwaffe on Glasgow: little damage was reported.

 

20 July 1651
A Royalist force supporting King Charles II failed to halt the northward progress of the English Cromwellian army and were heavily defeated in the Battle of Inverkeithing on north shore of the Firth of Forth.
 

16 July 1745
Prince Charles Edward Stewart, 'The Young Chevalier', set sail from the mouth of the River Loire, France, for Scotland on board the French ship Le du Teillay, accompanied by a ship borrowed from the French Navy L'Elisabeth. After an encounter with a British ship-of-the-line, Lion, the badly mauled L.Elisabeth had to return to France.

MEN OF BUTE COMMEMORATION

 

The annual Men of Bute Commemoration ceremony in memory of Sir William Wallace, Sir John Stewart, and the men from the Isle of Bute who fought and died at the Battle of Falkirk (22 July 1298) will be held on Saturday 19 July 2003 in Falkirk. The ceremony begins at 12 noon at the Bute Cross situated in the graveyard of Falkirk Old Parish Church. The Kirk is just off Falkirk High Street.

 

Organised by The Men of Bute Commemoration Group the speakers will include David R Ross, Convener of The Society of William Wallace.

 

Those wishing to participate in the short march prior to the Commemoration ceremony from the Cow Wynd, near the bottom end of the shopping precinct, to the Bute Cross, should assemble at the Cow Wynd at 11.30am for the 11.45am march-off. On behalf of The Men of Bute Commemoration Group Marion McMillan advises those coming by car to allow plenty time for parking as this is difficult in Falkirk on a Saturday morning.

 

The residents of the Isle of Bute intend to erect a memorial to the Men of Bute who fought at Wallace's side at the Battle of Falkirk. The Memorial Stone will be placed on the sea front at Rothesay. Donations toward the cost of the Memorial would be welcomed and should be sent to :-

 

Men of Bute Appeal

Evelyn Smithies

23a Craigmore Road

Rothesay

Bute

PA20 9LB

 

Cheques should be made payable to- Men of Bute Memorial Fund.

See Dates in History in our Features Section

SING A SANG AT LEAST
(compiled by Peter D Wright)

SCOT WIT
Enjoy a Scottish Joke every week and listen to it as well