Scotland
in the
heat
The Cafe 3
I agree with John Cameron (15 March) and the many pundits that have appeared on TV and radio recently, that there is a need to check the health of drivers, but there is a problem.
The solution has been to concentrate on the things that can reliably be measured. Eyesight is relatively easy, memory and reaction time less so and distractibility and mental attitude very difficult. Perhaps these tests will become more reliable in the future, but there is an even more important issue which is not currently addressed. These actions will help with what used to be called ‘accidents’ but do not address the more serious issue of the small number of irresponsible drivers who wreak a disproportionately high level of damage and carnage on themselves and other drivers.
We regard a driving licence as a right. It is not – it is a privilege. If you speed excessively, take large amounts of drink or drugs or engage in other driving activities which put others’ lives at risk there should be compulsory high-level retraining after a period of licence suspension and any repeat should lead to a compulsory life ban.
Most of us watch police chase programmes with horror as they follow reckless drivers, only to be shocked even more by the quiet intonation of the host saying: ‘The driver who has multiple previous convictions was disqualified for two years’. I have seen a handful of these serial offenders who have returned behind the wheel only to kill themselves or others. The most extreme is an individual who had been implicated in three separate fatal incidents who still is allowed to legally drive. These cases are predictable and preventable.
We, the public, should be raising a civil rights case to protect our right to life and health. All drivers are human and may make mistakes; we need a system that corrects this and helps them, but persistent irresponsibility is different and needs strong action, not necessarily by locking someone in jail for a long time, but by removing the lethal weapon, the car, from their reach.
Chris Brittain
Retired GP who attended hundreds of road accidents
The Cafe
Unlike many publications SR doesn’t have an online comment facility – we prefer a more considered approach. The Cafe is our readers’ forum. If you would like to contribute to it, please email islay@scottishreview.net
Today’s banner
Spring lambs, Ayrshire
Photograph by
Islay McLeod
That’s the trouble
with devo-max.
It works
Ronnie Smith
As we all know, the referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland is due to be held two and a half years from now. On the face of it, this seems to be an extraordinarily long lead-in time for such an exercise but we must remember that the electorate has seemed relatively undecided for some time and deep down both sides are happy to have such a long campaigning period to make their respective cases.
On current polling information, the strongly pro-independence lobby still has around 20% points to make up to secure a majority and these voters will be the hardest to convince. Despite this, the unionists have started their campaign badly in the midst of difficult and uncertain political and economic times for them and, despite their bluster to the contrary, must be relieved that the vote isn’t going to be held in a few months’ time.
However, both parties represent relatively extreme positions when we consider where most of the Scottish electorate probably are at the moment. That place is called devo-max – where the future Scottish Parliament is enhanced with greater fiscal and economic autonomy within the United Kingdom. Most people have arrived at that point having found themselves’ surprisingly satisfied with the performance of the Scottish Parliament as it is, following the somewhat Brezhnevian stagnation imposed by the Labour Party during the years of Jack McConnell’s first ministership. The SNP administration has introduced the necessary dynamism into the governance of Scotland and has reaped the deserved electoral reward as a result.
However, the SNP’s success in the Scottish Parliament has created some difficulty when it comes to persuading enough people to support full independence at the referendum. This is one of a number of ironies surrounding the creation and development of the Scottish Parliament.
The option of devo-max has not yet been offered to the referendum electorate by either the full independence or unionist lobbies and both parties would prefer that the concept simply didn’t exist. The full independence lobby sees devo-max in simple terms. It may well be the most popular option and, as such, it will force its life-long objective of an independent Scotland to run into the buffers.
The unionists still hope to push the ‘separatists’ into a corner by making the people choose between one new and untested extreme – an independent Scotland – and their own extreme of an unchanged union. They know that the full independence lobby will find it very difficult to close the gap in the polls as the referendum date approaches and that is why their campaign is such a negative one. They still believe that fear will be the deciding factor and they are committed to ramping it up; they seem to have no plan B. Unfortunately for them the union is currently an unconvincing mess on virtually all fronts and a very good plan B is exactly what they need.
Devo-max destroys the unionists’ current campaign because it effectively provides the best of both worlds – a more economically stronger and responsible Scotland within the union.
The unionists, now very much on the back foot, may be forced to fall back on the federal trigger of devo-max as the only way in which they can save their precious union and secure access to more oil revenue for the UK exchequer.
Why don’t the unionists want this apparently popular solution? Firstly, because the powers at Westminster do not want to have to deal with a fiscally stronger Scottish partner when it comes to distributing the proceeds of any oil production to the north and west of Scotland. This is where Scotland simply resembles the Falkland Islands as far as the British state is concerned.
Secondly, devo-max is very much a federal solution and a federal constitutional settlement is one that the British state has been trying to avoid all along because it conceivably includes English regional autonomy and the collapse of the current London/Westminster-dominated union.
Instead, with devo-max, we could be looking at a Swiss cantonal future with severe consequences for the vested interests that govern the current United Kingdom, including the two major political parties whose power-bases would be broken up. Devo-max is the beginning of that process and just because a majority of the Scottish electorate may favour it being placed on the referendum ballot paper does not mean that it will be made easily available. David Cameron’s limp speech in Edinburgh shows this to be true. In some ways this is the most important campaign to be won between now and the day of the referendum – the campaign to have the devo-max option put on the ballot.
New Labour set up the Scottish Parliament to ring-fence its anti-Tory electoral hegemony in Scotland. Who would have guessed, in the days of Donald Dewar’s great triumph, that the Labour Party in Scotland would have squandered his legacy so profoundly? Who knew then that the parliament that was created to answer and control Scottish nationalist ambition would become the vehicle for the SNP’s extraordinary growth and a referendum on Scottish independence in such a short period?
Now, through genuine success in government and by becoming the strongest political force in the country, the SNP has probably shown, to a majority in the referendum, that full independence isn’t necessary. Who would have guessed that running the Scottish Parliament would prevent the SNP from achieving its one ultimate objective? The unionists, now very much on the back foot, may be forced to fall back on the federal trigger of devo-max as the only way in which they can save their precious union and secure access to more oil revenue for the UK exchequer.
All of this is what happens when the combined forces of a country’s political leadership close their eyes and hope that they can solve complex constitutional issues reactively and entirely to suit themselves. Devo-max probably gives most people involved in the debate on the constitutional future of Scotland most of what they want and it probably provides the best blueprint for a sustainable United Kingdom.
The problem with devo-max is that it makes sense. Does anyone think that our great and good will easily understand and accept this? They can’t even reform the House of Lords.
Ronnie Smith was born in Largs and now lives in Romania, working as a professional training business consultant and communication coach. He is also a teacher of political science, a political and social commentator and a writer of fiction
