Irish Political News

It’s not clear from either this report or this one who has actually appointed them, presumably the Council, but a trio of supernaturalists, led by former Presbyterian moderator the Rev John Dunlop, are to “search for appropriate wording on a shrine to the victims of the Real IRA attack [in Omagh] in 1998.” Omagh Council has been wrangling over the proposed wording on the memorial stone for some time - as the minutes from November 2006 indicate. [Not so with other memorials - Ed] But perhaps the Council could explain what problem they have with the wording mentioned in this November 2006 BBC report

The words proposed [by relatives of the victims] for the monument were to read: “To honour and remember 31 people murdered and hundreds injured from three nations by a dissident republican terrorist car bomb.”

THE row over the Pride of the Raven (see vid) flute band’s controversial parade planned for November 24 continued on Talk Back just now. Band spokesman ‘Nigel’, said the band’s intention to walk down Donegall Pass (after a protest at the Parades Commission’s offices) was to reach Alliance Assembly member Anna Lo‘s office. The reasons why are detailed here, but the spokesman denied the accusation that this was to intimidate the Chinese community. He also refused to comment on the BNP jumping on the bandwagon, after the party lent its support to the band and had a dig at Lo. Responding, Lo appealed for the march to be called off, and said a letter from the band to Chinese residents explaning their march would probably cause even more fear in that community. She also denied that she had placed the matter in the public domain, saying the band had generated the publicity itself, which she was asked to respond to. Lo also revealed that her initial letter to the band organiser - which the recipient claimed compromised his security - was suggested by the police, who provided her with the bandsman’s address, although the band makes numerous appearances on Youtube. The band seems to be blaming everyone but the Strandtown police, who are the only party in this dispute not to have made any comment on the matter, despite having a central role in the whole affair.

Today marks the final day of discussions on the classroom assistants dispute and, as a previous BBC report noted, a confidentiality clause had been agreed between the sides during those talks.  But the BBC are also reporting that “there appears to have been little progress in the pay and job evaluation dispute.” NIPSA meanwhile have organised meetings for their members to be held tomorrow [pdf file] to discuss any new offer.. and, no doubt, whether to resume the strike. Update The talks didn’t last until midnight, and they didn’t reach agreement. Adds Interestingly, in the updated BBC report, the Education minister, no longer “delighted”, is pointing back to the earlier offer of September 28th and the Education Boards representative has described the last two week of talks as being about explaining that offer - which wasn’t the understanding of the unions going into the talks.. That offer, btw, included an additional one-off payment rather than discussion of the points the Assembly had voted to be on the agenda..

The Eames/Bradley consultation may be intending to pass responsibility for “the substantive task of dealing with the past” to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive… but the Police Ombudsman’s Office continues to look at some parts of that past.  As reported here, and here, a statement has been released by the Ombudsman on the investigation of complaints about the police investigation into the murder of two brothers in 1993 - full statement here [pdf file] - and, as well as finding “There is nothing to suggest that the security forces colluded in the brutal murders”, the Ombudsman has recommended that the Historical Enquiries Team undertake a complete review of the police investigation.

The Impact of Salmond The West Lothian Question is hardly a new concept. It has been around since the 1970s " yet for the first time its implications have changed it from a hypothetical question to a very real one. It has taken eight years since devolution was first passed down to Scotland for it to really become an issue " but why has it taken so long? The obvious answer is because the English are fed up with the Scots getting the better deal. But if that was the case, why has it taken so long to get to this point? The answer is because Alex Salmond is now the First Minister of Scotland. Propaganda Merchant On the surface it does seem deeply unfair that Scottish MPs get to vote on English matters but not vice versa. But this was just something that bothered a few people and in practice it didnt really make much difference. The reason that the debate has now really picked up is because Alex Salmond is pushing the boundaries, exaggerating the unfairness and causing an unpalatable friction between England and Scotland. He knows that there is not enough appetite north of the border for independence " hence he didnt win a majority government and why the polls consistently tell us that most Scots want to keep the union. Therefore his best hope is to push the boundaries of the system and make the English want rid of the Scots. (more…) Previous in series

A thought that occurred while listening to a programme this morning about longhand letters sent by a member of Scott’s polar expedition of 1912. Personal video is the new longhand. It is now the only form of communications that takes time to do, cannot be read without concentrating, and that we actually keep for posterity. Tags: quote of the day, political blogging  

There’s a piece in to today’s Irish News about the police investigation into comments left on Slugger on one of the more recent threads on what increasingly looks like a campaign against property owned by the Orange Order. A spokesman for the Order said: “We are surprised that a website with such a good reputation allowed its space to be used by people supporting and encouraging the attacks and actually singling out a property to be targeted”.  It seems to me there are two questions raised by this issue.

A

A

Whether it’s a reaction to the UUP’s weekend conference - and the appearance there of the NI Minister for Social Development [RealPlayer file] - or whether it’s a reaction to previous events within the Assembly and the Executive [or even somewhere else? - Ed], the statements from Sinn Féin and the DUP criticising their smaller partners in the Executive, the UUP and the SDLP, should make interesting reading for anyone contemplating the role of the opposition in this “indigenous" deal. Firstly from SF’s John O’Dowd

“This is politics being made to work. People would prefer the SDLP and UUP to swallow their pride and get on with the job of playing a constructive role in the delivering for our communities through the Executive rather than behaving like small children in a huff.”

And from the DUP’s Michelle McIlveen, in a statement titled “Yes - Stranglehold on Executive exactly what DUP want.”

It may not suit the SDLP but we established Government in Northern Ireland to see the province succeed and strengthen the Union. That’s why we were determined to introduce accountability to the institutions and bring an end to the ability of freelance Ministers to act in defiance of Executive colleagues or the Assembly.

[That makes some recent Assembly decisions even more watchable - Ed]

Tony’s Blair’s uneveness and spasmodic nature of constitutional reform left it incomplete. Gordon Brown has stated his intention to carry on with the reforms but continues, as Blair did, to assiduously avoid answering the West Lothian question.  The Conservatives seem to be toying with the idea of an English Grand Committee as an answer and Iain Dale is keen for it to be considered.  However, Jack Straw argues that it is unworkable in practical terms.  Straw points out similar notions have been floated twice before, Gladstone tried to include it in the Irish Home Rule proposals before concluding it couldn’t work and Wilson tried to exclude Ulster MP’s from some votes after parliamentary defeats in the 1960’s (which the Tories then opposed).  However, while the Conservatives may not have found the answer at least they are not ignoring the question.

In his Scottish National Party leader’s speech at the annual conference in Aviemore, Alex Salmond stated that the Treasury receives �32bn a year revenue from North Sea oil revenues based on a price of $86 per barrel. He contrasted Westminster’s financial “squeeze” with the �32 billion a year the Treasury receives from North Sea oil revenues now oil prices are around $86 a barrel. (Scotsman) Bearing in mind that the official forecast for the current year is less than a third of that figure at �10.4bn - and that even that figure is double the �5.2bn figure for 2004-5 - can anyone provide me with a detailed citation and calculations for Mr Salmond’s �32 billion number? Tags: alex salmond, oil revenue forecast, 32 billion

Peter Robinson in a written answer (see below the fold) has confirmed that a Land Value Tax is one of the options being examined as part of the rates review.  Other areas which apply this model include agricultural land but our present rating system does not.  SDLP MLA Declan O’Loan and Ulster Famers Union have stated their opposition to the idea becuase of the potential impact on rural communities.

This morning the Independent has a piece by Stephen Glover about the paper’s virtual reprinting of a Foreign Office Briefing note as pages one and three of the paper, without admitting that this was the case. Stephen Glover comments (retyped because the column cannot be accessed on the web <g>. Technical problem rather than “vanishing”, I think, on this occasion. Update 11:30 - it is back.). I’m reprinting the brief item in full. The original is here. Facts? I don’t think so I should have written last week about the strange case of The Independent and the Foreign Office memorandum. On 18 October, this paper presented “10 myths about the EU treaty” on its front page, and ran an article on page three debunking these myths. A sharp-eyed Eurosceptic named Neil O’Brien noticed that the article was almost a verbatim reprinting of a Foreign Office briefing note. Contrary to his editor Simon Kelner’s reaction: “I am completely unapologetic about our attempt to explode the myths that have been allowed to develop in what has been an extremely one-sided debate,” Mr Kelner told MediaGuardian.co.uk. “What we printed was a collection of facts, which our political editor independently verified. “The source doesn’t really make a material difference. What matters is whether those facts are accurate or not. And no one, as far as I can see, is doubting the truth of what we printed.” Stephen Glover argues: Does this do? I don’t think so. I should declare that, unusually for a columnist on this paper, I am a Eurosceptic, but I don’t think this makes any difference to my argument. The Independent was not, of course, reproducing facts, but an interpretation of facts. Whether this interpretation was correct or not is beside the point. Imagine how we would feel if the Daily Mail or The Daily Telegraph reproduced a Tory briefing note without attribution. Even if we agreed with the interpretation, we would feel that we had been wrongly kept in the dark. How much stronger would we have felt this if these newspapers had passed off an official policy paper as their own work when the Tories were in power? A newspaper is perfectly within its rights in agreeing with the Government of the day, but if it directly borrows its arguments it should say so. Even then it would be preferable, by way of establishing one’s independent credentials, to amplify and refine those arguments oneself. I’ve had a bit of a go at the Indy over the last couple of weeks, but fair do’s to them for carrying the other opinion too. Tags: guido fawkes, stephen glover, independent, foreign office briefing, simon kelner