tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post7128376750781863722..comments2024-03-28T07:16:39.621+00:00Comments on Lallands Peat Worrier: Fact: assisting suicide isn't a crime known to the law of Scotland.Lallands Peat Worrierhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18276270498204697708noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-55764652085192495762009-08-10T21:54:45.209+01:002009-08-10T21:54:45.209+01:00Thanks for the comment, oh Watcher of the British ...Thanks for the comment, oh Watcher of the British Logos. <br /><br />I can absolutely see your point. While using a factually inaccurate discourse of "Britain" can be simple symptom of diddydom and lack of devolved competence among the press, it can also be employed tactically to conceal the real scope of a policy.<br /><br />As a well-balanced Scot, with chips on both shoulders, I suspect I'm more used to seeing it from the northward end of the Union-Jack stitched veil of Maya. As Alex Massie noted in his comments on the "assisted suicide" point over at the Spectator, frequently the Scottish example is a rebuke to the social analysis apparently driving a reform which strikes only in England and Wales.<br /><br />Another excellent example of this is are discussions concerning the fitness of juries to address "complex fraud" cases. While the proponents of this in the UK have frequently sounded shrill, the relative absence of comparative pressure in Scottish fraud cases puts to the question the factual verities of the basic claims of the English and Welsh reformers.Lallands Peat Worrierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07238432265194046726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-52038157303715718972009-08-07T18:40:59.413+01:002009-08-07T18:40:59.413+01:00"Their comments reflect the proprietorial sen..."Their comments reflect the proprietorial sense that they’re talking about England – and that Scotland is already occupying alternative conceptual space. We’ve stopped being us. Equally, however, the macro-United Kingdom is generally identified legislatively with Westminster."<br /><br />I was as annoyed as you about the media's lazy presentation of the Debbie Purdy ruling as one that applied to 'Britain', which it clearly doesn't (and thanks to 'Dougthedug' for sending me a link to your post). However, I view the media's behaviour slightly differently from you. I think the generalisation from laws and political events that relate only to England (or, in this case, England and Wales) to 'Britain' is caused by either a) genuine ignorance on the part of journalists who simply take it as read that what is presented as UK- or Britain-wide (but is in fact England-specific) IS UK-wide: a symptom of outdated, pre-devolution 'Anglo-British' thinking; or b) deliberate suppression from news reporting of the fact that the laws or story in question relates to England only, as part of a more sinister agenda to keep English people ignorant about the democratic deficit they are under post-devolution: laws and policies that apply to England only (or at least, not all of the UK) being decided on by MPs from across the UK, without a reciprocal say for English MPs in devolved matters. <br /><br />Your example of tuition fees is a perfect case in point: applies only to England but was passed only because Scottish Labour MPs voted for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1638916042737526171.post-28310266553134304732009-08-04T12:24:10.330+01:002009-08-04T12:24:10.330+01:00This is one of the most interesting and well argue...This is one of the most interesting and well argued blog posts I`ve ever had the pleasure of reading.<br /><br />Splendid stuff.Anseohttp://www.northtoleith.comnoreply@blogger.com