SBR12: Trident (again), and Labour’s relationship with bloggers

Hello, hello! It’s roundup time again. I know Christmas is just around the corner, but you know what that means — more time for us lot to get blogging. So the normal weekly service will probably continue through the holiday season.

The big news of the week has been Malcolm Chisholm’s resignation from the Scottish Executive over Trident. Davie Hutchison has a few notes about his opponent in next year’s Edinburgh North and Leith Scottish Parliament election.

Scottish Political News makes the point that the whole Trident issue is a reserved matter. So why did Chisholm have to resign? His views had nothing to do with Scottish Executive policy.

I thought the whole purpose of devolution was to allow thinking in Scotland free of the London government? Clearly not.

Meanwhile, Caron takes a look at the Trident issue itself.

Elsewhere, David Farrer has an excellent post pondering the age-old question of why the Scottish independence movement is in favour of EU membership. If you ask me, it is no real contradiction to support being a member of the EU while advocating an exit from the UK. The EU is not a fraction as influential as its opponents seem to think it is, while the influence of Westminster can hardly be denied.

But David Farrer makes an excellent point — that the SNP should really stand for the ‘Scottish Normalcy Party’. And because EU membership is the normal thing for states to do these days, of course Scotland would want to be a member of it. After all, how often do you hear advocates of independence talk about how it would increase Scotland’s influence on the world stage. They talk about votes in the EU Council of Ministers and seats in the UN. That’s what ‘independence’ is about for the nationalist movement.

Bloggers tend to be rather tolerant of other people’s views. After all, what would be the point of blogging if you didn’t want to have a discussion? Debate can be robust, but there is always an underlying respect for fellow bloggers, even when they hold totally opposite views. But there is one blogger who has been pretty much universally criticised by Scottish bloggers.

Councillor Terry Kelly has been condemned by David Farrer, The Devil’s Kitchen and Mr Eugenides in the past. This week it was Will P’s turn. Will P has revealed that he is an SNP supporter — news to me.

It seems as though Councillor Terry Kelly either deletes comments or places them in a moderation queue and doesn’t accept some. Will P isn’t the first one to accuse him of this. It is a pretty big no-no in the blogosphere. Comments by people who hold differing viewpoints should be welcomed, unless they are abusive or spam or suchlike. The only reason why you would delete comments would be to stifle debate. It is bad form to delete comments, but Terry Kelly seems to be a serial offender. As I said, why come into the blogosphere if you don’t want a discussion?

You’ll have noticed that we have never linked to Councillor Terry Kelly’s blog in this roundup before, apart from on the ‘newly discovered’ linklog. That is because this roundup is meant to showcase the quality blogging going on. Councillor Terry Kelly’s blog is nothing more than a collection of badly written, foaming-at-the-mouth rants. Or, worse, just a bunch of slogans strung together by some sentences.

Some parts of Scotland are little more than Labour rotten boroughs. Clearly, many of Labour’s politicians could be doing with their brains sharpened and their minds focussed. It’s just as well the Single Transferable Vote system is coming in.

Meanwhile, our very own CuriousHamster takes a look at government deception, while Mr Eugenides considers sources of ill-feeling towards the government. Are bloggers really to “blame”?

Meanwhile, Holyrood Watcher says, “It is almost impossible to keep track of the mendacity of this government,” but he tries anyway. The Reactionary Snob is just glad that the government is facing a legal challenge over its outrageous decision to step into a corruption inquiry.

Shuggy has come across some interesting research that suggests that the shape of politicians’ faces affect the outcome of an election. The implication being that handsome politicians are more likely to be voted in. So does that make the Scottish Parliament an outlier?

If you don’t mind the sight of politicians’ faces, Cassilis takes a look at a video made by Alex Salmond and Osama Saeed, Scottish spokesperson for the Muslim Association of Britain, and blogger. Cassilis despairs at the prospect of an SNP administration being in control come May. What do you think?

Osama Saeed himself wonders why Artur Boruc blessing himself should cause such offense to anyone.

What is there to get all hot and bothered about with a Catholic performing a very common ritual? Me feels it just confirms a stereotype – which other fans in the world would care if a player did this?

Andrew at Definition Britain advocates the legalisation for prostitution.

Leyton wonders about Scottish banknotes. Just who is Mary Slessor? You must see her every day, but the chances are you don’t know who she is.

Neil Craig observes those calling for a tunnel to be built under the Forth rather than another bridge across it. He reacts very favourably the the idea. In face-to-face conversations here, people also seem to be rather keen on the idea of a tunnel, particularly to take heavy vehicles off the bridge.

Finally, Davo the Bawbag has made a welcome return. This week he writes about all of the fog they’ve been suffering from down south. We haven’t seen a wisp of it in Scotland though!

Right, that’s your lot for another week. The next roundup will be at the usual place, next Sunday morning. But I’ll be popping up again mid-week for a little look back at our roundups so far, because we have been going for a quarter of a year now. Not a grand milestone, I know, but better than nothing. Remember, get your suggestions in by emailing scottishroundup [at] gmail [dot] com. Seeya later, and Merry Christmas!

4 comments

  1. […] I have found, via Will P, that Councillor Terry Kelly has responded to the latest post I wrote at Scottish Blogging Roundup. He claims that he tried to leave a comment but couldn’t work out how to. (It’s dead easy by the way, just follow the ‘Comments’ link and type your comment and hit ‘Submit Comment’.) Anyway, he says he hopes for me to “put the record straight” so here we go. I’ll quote his post in full. The above is a site which comments on other blogs, they seemed in the past to be harmless enough, if a bit pedestrian. Unfortunately I’m writing this on my blog because I’m on my own and have no computer expertise/back up and I couldn’t figure out how to reply to what they have been saying about me. I sometimes check who has visited my site and see what they have been commenting on, mostly it’s predictable right wing/nationalist drivel with a few exceptions, some of the exceptions are in fact right wing, but as yet no nationalists. Anyway I have no problem with that, there is however a pattern emerging which shows a hint of collusion which emerges when several of them accuse me of stifling debate and cutting out comments. I have tried to explain before that I will try to print comments if they are not abusive, in the past couple of weeks I have only removed three of these and printed everything else, no matter how puerile. This site seems to have joined in with these liars and is now, as far as I’m concerned not to be trusted, how easy is it to accuse me of this? they have nationalist stamped all over them, perhaps the site will put the record straight but I won’t hold my breath. I intend to print everything that’s printable. Why wouldn’t I when so much much of it makes my case for me. […]

  2. I’ve just found this site, I read with interest that the author thought that it was a no no to refuse to print readers comments even abusive ones, he accused me of this. I then got to the bit where the author says he doesn’ much care for me or what I write and that consequently I am to be excluded from his site. I’m going back to read it again just in case I got it wrong, no I got it right, wow, beam me up ! janus faced C – – – but at least it’s Scottish c – – – is it worth arguing with people like this?