Why I back Newt

The man to beat Obama? 

Mitt Romey is the man to beat to take the GOP forward into the Whitehouse, but Newt Gingrich is New-Right's own choice


Newt 


Romney has seen numerous challengers to his lead in the GOP selection process rise and fall. First came Michelle Bachmann, then the man-from-texas, and finally Herman Cain. Each of them has fallen - or begun to fall - into the wayside, as Romney continues to survive as the front-runner.
Along the way a man called Newt saw his campaign all but collapse, and his team leave. Newt himself went on a holiday...

So what has changed to turn this ex-GOP big-hitter into the new Lazarus?

Experience
Newt Gingrich has a solid political record of delivering. Albeit clouded during the Clinton vs Congress episode all those years ago. The point is, Newt understands how politics is fought in the highest tier of US party games.
A man who has been there, and a man with a record. It counts, especially when the US core conservatives up and down the Republic desperately want No-Drama out of the big white house.

Credibility
Unlike other 'anyone-but-Mitt' candidates, Newt has credibility. Not just from his experience in the past, but also his ability to actually think on his feet. It may sound like a basic prerequisite, but it has proven to be the bane of the previous anyone-but-Mitt challengers.

Besides, Newt has a functioning brain which can offer an alternative vision for the GOP, one which isn't sure-fire guaranteed to sent all those independent-voting Americans back into the arms of the socialists...sorry Democrats!

History
He has history. Some of it negative, some of it good. But the point is, he has a profile, and he has depth.

Voters, no matter what the pollsters say, yearn for political candidates who they can relate to. Newt can be related to.  Whether it be his history with marriage, or his no-nonsense discourse. Main thing, voters don't see him as just another managerial-type candidate.

He seems real, he is real. 

Mitt Romney cannot energise the GOP grassroots into going that extra mile to turn out at the polls. The Democrats cannot be permitted to retain the Presidency, following their foreign-policy failures and economic weakness.
Newt seems to be the only viable alternative to Mitt 'Socialised Healthcare' Romney. Besides, he is also a man with a plan.

Pensions reform and the disabled

Campaigners in Scotland are fearful that many disabled on benefits are suicidal over coalition policy to get more people back into work


Getting more people off of benefits and into productive work is something all of us can support. The division is caused by what your method is to achieve that.

And coalition policy seems to be withdrawing benefits, and pushing (that seems to be the correct descriptive) benefit recipients into part-time work. Part time work. After all, according to coalition policy, 'work will be considered work', even if it isn't a long term source of employment. Add to that the serious upheaval which can be caused to those on the breadline by transferring them from stable benefit-sourced income they can count on, to hapazard part-time (sometimes bank register) work... no wonder many in Scotland fear for their ability to pay next years bills.

The real crux of the issue for me however, is the total failure of the coalition to join the dots. Benefits reform cannot happen in isolation to all other factors.

To adequately reform benefits, you first need to get your macroeconomics right. And the coalition hasn't. They are cutting public sector spending in the economy just when consumer confidence and spending power is dropping to an all time low. That is known in the business as stupid.
On top of that, their policy toward our major export market - the eurozone - seems to be 'pretend it isn;t our problem'...mainly because Cameron et al are in hoc to the ignorant  europhobes on his own backbenches.

Under these circumstances one can ask: what jobs are they expecting these legions of so-called benefitistas to move into? There aren't any jobs! None that would provide stable, long term employment for those in need of security to keep paying that mortgage. And then there are the costs of living ... school uniforms ... and for the disabled, we're talking their very ability to remain independent.

Still think we need to rush into this absurd pensions reform right now?

But don't worry Scotland, all our MSPs need to do is pass an act which refuses to allow Westmidden to legislate in this are of devolved polity. Sorted.
Just wish we could say the same for the poor sods in England, who have no protection from the barbarism of the coalition pensions and economic agenda...

"Corrosively" anti-English?

Scots law is independent of English law. I'd like to keep it that way.

The Sunday Herald leads with the stunning comments from Lord Hope, deputy President of the Supreme Court. Are his comments hitting a nail on the head, or simply a political-legal assault on the Holyrood government, and High Court?


Politics and Justice


The exercise of justice ought not be a political affair. Indeed one would seek to ensure it was always the opposite, by removing the daily cycle of politics, and electoral processes from the courts. The persons of justice and law ought to be learned, meritocratic. So I find it hard to square Lord Hopes' intervention with this goal I'd prefer to see realised.

And his comments were political. When he defends the role of the Supreme Court (his employer), as it interferes in Scots criminal cases via the back-door access of interpreting European human rights legislation, it can't be anything other than political.

Paul McBride QC is correct in his interventions in recent hours:

"While I have the greatest respect for Lord Hope, I cannot accept for a moment that there is a corrosive anti-English sentiment in Scotland's courts"

If you, as I do, take this view yourself - then we must face the question. Why would Lord Hope make such a statement. I for one don't seriously believe for a second that Lord Hope can be that out of touch of modern Scotland that he'd believe any of this hogwash.

Detecting his real motivation, all we need to do is check out his intervention wording.

Lord Hope said, "You may think that the suggestion that the Supreme Court has been regularly interfering has been somewhat exaggerated".
Spot what he did there? That is a veiled attack on the Holyrood government. After all, it was Kenny MacAskil who 'suggested' that the Supreme Court was interfering. (I happened to agree with him at the time, they were - and I still think this too).
Question: why is an (unelected) Law Lord (based in London, England) making statements attempting to contradict the set view of our Scottish government (and majority of Holyrood MSPs too)? Might it have something to do with the fact that the Supreme Court is his paymaster? Might it be that he wants to have some semblance of relevance, as a Scots law jurist, in what would otherwise be a strictly English law court?

Heaven forbid that I may wish to speculate about the motivations of his Noble Lordship!

All I know is this: the High Court, in Edinburgh, has been and should continue to be the only court able to act as final ruling for Scots criminal cases. And yes, this should extend to matters involving the interpretation of human rights rulings and legislation vis-a-vis Scots criminal case-law. For the Supremes like Lord Hope to seek to use what is clearly a legislative loophole, to extend their tentacles into our Scots law. It is intolerable. And it rather diminishes my respect for his noble Lordship.

Racism and world football (soccer)

World Footie has a poor record on equality-related topics, much like global sport in general. Just how can the West continue to tolerate the blatant anti-equality relating attitudes so prevalent in world sport?


Sporting attitudes


While one would never single out one particular sport, we should start with what is dominating the sports news-cycle. And Sepp Blatter has really placed global sport in the spotlight, again. This time it was his cavalier attitude regarding racism in their sport. Blatter argued that any accusations of racism could be settled with "a handshake".  Naturally enough we have seen the general outpouring as a result.

Yet the problem is that none should be surprised. It wasn't that long ago that Gareth Williams, the Wesh ruggers player, came out as gay -- and exposed the shocking discriminatory thinking in sport relating to gay rights. So everyone with half a brain must have known that that sort of 1950s perceptions extended beyond rugby, and well into other forms of professional sport like football.

Williams coming out revealed just how inhibited he felt working in professional sport, and being gay. So much so that he felt unable to 'come out'. Quickly the experts and academics explained that - statistically - there had to be many more gay players feeling totally unable to come out publicly. Questions became raised on the issue. Now, hopefully the same can happen to football vis-a-vis racism. Equally, lets hope that no one sees it in the 'footie only' perception filters.

 At the end of the day, when all is said and done; our societal progress to generate progress on equality-relating thinking is still capable of being undermined. Youngster may be told in school about the importance to tolerate and accept - but its an indeterminate struggle. Enlightened notions taught in school can die a death if theatres of role-models like sport continues to expel a distinctly 1950s Britain attitude.
And it does. 'Gay-boys' 'Blacks', 'Women at home' all seem to remain all too acceptable topics in sport. Believe me, living as I do in Glasgow. Sporting culture tends to be macho, and frankly absurd at times. An absurdity caused by the complete failure of our society to make any impression in the avenue of ideas.

To put it simply, discrimination continues to flourish in sport. Blatter's complacency simply shows just how true this sadly is. Much like Williams coming out did last year.

There needs to be more work done to tackle the macho, and discriminatory thinking which continues to pervade sports.

Sport is for all of us, not just the white beer guzzling men in flat-caps -- who have a problem with blacks, gays and outspoken women. 

Sing us a Song

Sing us a song, said the piano man. But just what does it mean for us here in Britain, if the SNP fail to explain the details of their referendum?
.
"Billy, I believe this is killing me"
.
Is the smile running away from your face? It is for me. But then, when it comes to referendums, I am always totally impatient. I prefer to see them as the ordeal that they are, as well as the affront to parliamentary democracy which they are.

Yet, let us all be fair. If the SNP play their cards close to their chests - does it really mean anything?

I am a Unionist, a strongly pro-devo max one as it happens. But I can function, pretty well as it happens, if the Independence (or Separatist, as you chose) plebiscite doesn't happen now. Or even isn't spelt out for the next couple of years. And I for one am pretty sure Scotland is the same.

Impatience yes, but let us not as Unionists pretend that Scotland will somehow be harmed if Alex doesn't explain his piano concerto ahead of the performance (Bannockburn anniversary anyone?).
.
Talking Scotland down
.
It does happen to be an over-used political tactic of the assailed. But it is still a relevant debate point.

When my fellow Unionists, like Chancellor Ozzy, say that the possibility of an Independence plebiscite (however loathed) may happen - as somehow undermining external investment in Scotland. It is pure trivia.

Sorry, but it is. When one appreciates that Scotland controls 2/3 of EU raw oil and gas domestic output, and has its other new tech industries - there is no way in heck a businessman would avoid investing because of a likely referendum in 3 years time (maybe 4). After all, what alternatives is there?

Check out the EU information pages. Scotland is, putting it mildly, a strategic centre in the energy industry of tomorrow (and today). Plus, I can't see tourism being hurt by talk of independence (or Separation, take your pick). Now ... Westminster cuts on the other hand ...

Europe at the crossroads

Europe and the future direction it takes is at the crossroads. On the one hand there is the ideal which built up the edifice of peace out of the ashes of war and genocide. On the other, is conflict and petty nationalism


Disclaimer: Stark. The choices facing us all are indeed this stark. I am a devout pro-European, and I make no apology. This marks out the tenor and tone of all that is to follow. If you can't open your ears to listen, then please, read no further.


When one thinks of the critics of the European Ideal currently, one is reminded of story Pyramus and Thisbe. In it Pyramus mistakenly believed Thisbe had perished, and killed himself - falling on his own sword. In fact she wasn't dead, but in his melodramatic act, killed her by forcing her suicide.
If one listens to the Europhobes, this tale should stand out. The John Redwoods, and the Nadine Dorres in parliament who find so much to be melodramatic about are at risk of doing a Pyramus, and falling on their swords. They spend so much of their waking hours attacking the European Ideal that when they believe it to be dead, and gone, they will find that their political life is over.

If one considers them all for a moment, you can quickly see through them. So much of their criticisms are either flawed or simply diversionary tactics to distract. We must all ensure that we think, unlike Pyramus, before acting recklessly.

I'd like to point out some relevant facts at this point.

Britain is economically struggling. Why is that? No, don't listen to the puerile bile of the Tory backwoodsmen. It isn't due to that pesky Eurozone and the fickle ideal backing it up intellectually. Its really due to their insistence on adhering to Blatcherite economics. The economics of cutting expenditure during recessions (even when this undermines, rather than strengthens demand in the economy).
It is due to the coalition slashing infrastructure projects across the regions. Just take a look at the region agencies which were abolished, and the ones new organisations replacing them. The new organisations aim to fulfil the same role as the previous ones, only their budgets are less than half of the Labour-created ones outgoing.

Thus, before anyone is too eager for the Eurozone masters and Eurocrats to fall on their swords, just remember; much of the allegations that its all their fault we fail to see growth is nonsense. Many of the problems in our domestic economic performance is due to economic decisions taken at home, by the coalition government.

The lets talk about ramifications. If one listened to the likes of Bill Cash et al in parliament, one could be forgiven for thinking that if only the Eurozone didn't exist - there would be no problem. Oh, how the English garden would be smelling of those home-counties roses again!
Yet this too is nonsense. Don't be so quick off the mark my EU friends and plunge yourselves into your swords. Our Thisbe isn't dead. Not really.
Europe, its ideal, and all its stands for does live on. And it marches on too.

The tagline that I think best sums up what being a pro-EU is all about is simple:

Europe, United in Diversity

Yes there are problems. Not least the issues of transparency. But isn't this a universal challenge to all organisations, governments and parliaments? Our own English garden isn't quite such a charming little vision on transparency issues either. MPs expenses anyone?

So let us work to reform our Ideal, and not chuck it out. Thisbe isn't dead, and if we destroy the EU and the intellectual ideals it stands for - "United in Diversity", then we all will find ourselves rather like the erstwhile lady, and chucking ourselves onto our swords. And a Europe with a collapsed eurozone, with economic meltdown and socio-political fragmentation isn't anything worth hoping for. Even if the Europhobes do.

Good Luck, and Good Night

Ruth Davidson has one the Scottish Tory leadership contest, and I wish her the best of luck


Good Luck


Ruth has a tough battle on her hands. She comes to the leadership, for the first time as leader of the entire party north of the border.
On the one hand, she has to try and heal a bitterly divided party; after a harsh leadership contest. Then she has to try and set out her agenda that can appeal to all of us who voted for reform - with Murdo. Can Ruth really take, what seems like to entirely opposed magnets, and put the genie back in the bottle?

Good Night


But no, lets not pretend she can. Ruth, to be honest, will make an excellent leader. But just not of a party that I voted to be part of. In this leadership contest, I voted to end the Heath merger. I voted for the Scots centre-right to be masters in their own house again. I wanted our new force, lead by Murdo Fraser, to seek alliances with the 'Conservative Party' rather than be owned by that - distinct - political force.

Can Ruth really, as the 'Conservative Party' candidate reconcile those of us who are passionate 'Devolutionists' with her traditionalist vision?

Forgive me Ruth, or any of her supporters. But the plain answer is no, for me at least.

When it comes down to it, I voted for something so different for the movement which I love; that it is no longer credible to follow loyally under Ruth. She seems opposed to the very essence of what I openly campaigned for within the party. Whereas I sought fiscal autonomist principles, coupled with a new sense of policy independence from Westminster Tories; she offered the absolute opposite.

Am I the only Murdo fan tonight who can see that this puts people like me in an impossible position?

Thus I come to do it: a future under Murdo, and reform is gone. The party majority wanted a continuation of a 'stagnation' policy. Fine. But I on principle cannot remain apart of that wasteful non-vision. The time has come to irrevocably and permanently renounce my wish or desire to be in the 'Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party'.
For me, that party, led by Ruth, is the obstacle to the renewal of a genuinely appealing and popular Scottish centre-right. I thus will now undertake to stand neutral, and this blog will no longer be a 'Scottish Tory' blog.
Rather, it will be a Scottish Independent conservative blog ... if that isn't too much of a mouthful.

Regret? A little. But when I stop to think about it, I realise that there are a heck lot more of us 'Independent conservative' Scots, without a political home than were ever members of that dying party.