The Commission to Repaint Devolution continues to beaver away, trundling round the country having 'events' (not as in events, dear boy, events, more like free school trips). I'm resisting wondering whether this is a good use of resources - other people think it is and I trust their good judgement.
Anyway, the beachcomber emailed me about the forum on the website, saying
The highly policed forums are about as busy as a hermit's housewarming.
Oh, she's got an acid tongue that one!
Having been prompted thus, I had a wee look. Back at the beginning of October I reported (accurately and faithfully, of course) that there was a grand total of 11 posts in those discussions. I'm delighted to report that the total has now soared to a stunning, a quite magnificent, an incredible .... 11
So, do people not want to talk about the constitution of Scotland? Well, let's have a look at, for example, the Tartan Army Message Board. If you pop in a word search for (just plucking an idea out of the air here) devolution, it throw up three pages of threads where devolution is mentioned - 61 discussion threads - there are 285 replies to the thread titled "Is Scottish Independence Stone Dead?" alone. Change the search term to "independence" and you'll get a message telling you that your search results have been limited to the first 1,000 threads with that word in them.
Some of those threads will, of course, have both words in them. Now, I'll grant you that Scotland's football fans would debate the relative merits of Lorne sausage versus corned beef in stovies (and whether Lorne sausage should be called square sausage), but the sheer extent of the debate on the constitution on the TAMB surely points to the issue being one of some contention?
Why, then, is no-one engaging in the debate on the repainting website? Could it be that the rules of engagement are such that contributions which do not support the target conclusions will not be published? Such a policy is perfectly acceptable in a private space like a blog but is surely not acceptable where public money is being used.
There is a bit more in the submissions received section but it's still a partisan exercise - and not one single contributor has mentioned the absolute need to repatriate to Scotland those powers reserved by 'the Tardis reservations' - L5 and L6 of Schedule 5 - or E3 and E4 (surely necessary to think global and act local).
Since the public events are being set up to exclude anyone of a nationalist persuasion, I doubt whether there is much scope for greater light to shine forth from the repainting, but I look forward to them trying to prove me wrong.
How long after Calman would they have to get the paint pots out again?
4 comments:
It seems all discussion has been halted.
How very democratic of them.
Poor darlings must have been swealtering under a rush of posts after reading about it on your blog.
* Since the public events are being set up to exclude anyone of a nationalist persuasion *
That's a serious charge. Any evidence?
Certainly:
Have a look at paragraph 11 of its rules of engagement - http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/uploads/2008-05-15-minutes-engagement-task-group.pdf
Paragraph 3 of its policy on handling submissions: http://www.commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk/engage/policy-on-submissions.php
Clarified to journalists as keeping those terrible Nats out:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/article4188569.ece
There's a wodge of anecdotal evidence as well:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.2445212.0.calmans_very_select_committee.php
Of course, you might not trust journalists to tell you what they've been told:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/search/display.var.2353737.0.warning_over_hijacking_of_constitution_meetings.php
Plus - two friends of mine, when applying to attend a meeting, were asked what political persuasion they were of.
Not being shy they replied SNP and were promptly told that the meeting was full up.
Funny they weren't infomred of this BEFORE their political credentials were sought.
Post a Comment