There was something depressingly familiar about the coverage this week of the government’s latest defeat to its controversial health and social care bill.

At its heart was an amendment which made explicit on the face of the bill that both mental and physical health should enjoy parity within the health system.

It was an important step, a moment that Peers recognised that mental ill health should no longer be treated as the hidden problem it once was, but be right at the heart of the health promotion agenda. Yet despite this, coverage on the amendment focussed not on the issue at stake, but about the political ramifications it had for the government.

When 1 in 4 people will suffer from a mental health problem, ranging from stress, anxiety and depression through to full blown psychophrenia mental ill health will at some point touch us all, be it suffering ourselves or having a friend or family member who suffers.

More startling still, the Prison Reform Trust has outlined that 72 per cent of males and 70 per cent of females sentenced to prison suffer from two or more mental health problems.

And the cost? On a crude, financial level, the Centre for Mental Health has put the figure in England alone at over £100 billion. But more seriously is the personal cost to those who suffer. Alistair Campbell for example, writing of his own depression has put it:

I had a pretty heavy nervous breakdown in 1986, and I’ve had depression on-and-off ever since. With the help of friends and family, sympathetic bosses, a good GP, a psychiatrist, sometimes medication, I have learned to manage it better than I did once.

At its worst, it is like an invisible dark force that first approaches, then envelops, then appears to fill every waking thought. You can escape via sleep, but you wake and find your eyes won’t open, you lack the energy to brush teeth, shave, speak, think anything other than thoughts of emptiness and despair.

When it’s bad, my partner Fiona says it is like living with somebody from a different planet. When you get into that mode it’s very dangerous and corrosive. People ask, “what’s wrong?” and you don’t really know. “What triggered it?” and you can’t answer that either. One thing you do know, there is no way you would wish to have it.

You would not wish to have it. It is that sentence that sums it up. It might not be seen by the naked eye in the same way an operation scar might be, it might be not be as visible as a plaster cast, but it is an illness every bit as serious as being physically ill. Any idea that anyone would want to feel that way is simply absurd.

Yet the sad truth is that the across all sections of society, the stigma remains, the attitude that mental ill health isn’t a real problem remains rife, putting fear into the hearts of those who suffer about coming forward to admit their sense of vulnerability.

Janet Street-Porter’s declaration in the Daily Mail in 2010 that depression was simply the new “trendy illness” and the media’s woeful lack of coverage of Andy Burnham’s important speech on mental health just a few weeks ago demonstrated both an ignorance and reluctance to discuss mental health problems across our mainstream media, a reluctance very rarely shown when discussing issues such as heart or cancer care.

Employers remain in a state of denial about the impact of mental ill health, with research published just before Christmas by the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development showing that just 25 per cent of respondents to a survey said that their organisation encouraged staff to talk openly about mental health problems with only 37 per cent saying that their employer supports employees with mental health problems well.

Summing the findings up, Paul Farmer, chief Executive of the mental health charity Mind, explained:

“This research shows that there is still a long way to go until workers feel able to discuss their mental health openly in work, enabling them to get the support they need.

“With 1 in 4 people surveyed having experienced mental ill health, this is an issue that will touch almost every workplace in the country.

“Supporting staff through a difficult period does not have to cost the earth and can have huge benefits for any organisation.”

All this as stress in the work place continues to increase, with many now finding themselves competing with valued and close colleagues as they face the daunting prospect of having to re-apply for their jobs.

And across society as a whole, the stigma continues. Research points to a partner being four times more likely to leave someone because they have a mental health difficulty as compared to a physical disability. And 27 per cent of sufferers report facing discrimination, with one telling Mind:

“When I was a teenager, I spent time in a child psychiatric unit and when I came out, the kids near where I lived found out. Over the next few years, every time I left the house I would be attacked and have abuse shouted at me. As a result, I started to go out less and less. This led to over a decade of having no social life.”

And the result? A fear within those who suffer that telling other or seeking help will result in being misunderstood and stigmatised, could result in losing their jobs or face mockery and being the butt of jokes.

Sad though it sounds, it is a reality. As a society we need to establish a climate in which those who suffer have the confidence to admit their problem early on in the knowledge that admitting it, being upset, indeed crying, even for men, is a sign not of weakness but of strength, admitting that help is needed.

And at its heart there is an urgent need to halt those cuts which are serving only to embed mental health services as the Cinderella service. Predications last year pointed to over 50,000 mental health posts in the health service being shed, whilst the Independent, writing last year noted:

“Mental health services for society’s most vulnerable people are unfit for purpose, according to the findings of a damning independent inquiry published today.

“Seriously ill patients are subjected to assaults, taunts and overcrowding in over-stretched hospital wards where containment rather than recovery is the priority. Meanwhile, others on the verge of suicide or a manic breakdown cannot access help because crisis teams are too busy or closed outside office hours.

“A combination of rising demand and government cuts is leaving the services at breaking point in some areas.

“The year-long inquiry by the charity Mind found huge variations in the quality and availability of hospital and community crisis services across England and Wales. Evidence from 400 patients and staff found that innovative, humane and responsive services do exist, but only for a lucky minority.”

With economically turbulent times serving to drive up workplace and household stress, loneliness increasing and mental health services stretched to their limit, there has never been a more important time for society as a whole to send a clear message to those who suffer that there is no shame in suffering from mental ill health.

It is time therefore that all sections of society – patients, the medical profession, the media and the politicians form a commission to address once and for all how each can play their own important role in stamping the discrimination out once and for all.

As a society, it is imperative that we are judged by how we treat out most vulnerable. Never have those lines be as appropriate as they are today for the 25 per cent of us who at some stage will suffer from mental ill health.

See also:

• ConHome: Neuter the Health Bill – Daniel Elton, February 10th 2012

• The Financial Times comes out against the NHS bill – Alex Hern, February 9th 2012

• Don’t believe the spin – the health reforms are Cameron’s just as much as Lansley’s – Shamik Das, February 8th 2012

• Miliband goes on attack as fight to save the NHS stepped up – Shamik Das, February 6th 2012

• GP in Cameron’s constituency: “Nobody supports the NHS changes” – Shamik Das, February 1st 2012

To receive The Week Outside Westminster in your inbox, sign up to the email service

Northern Ireland Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness united this week in calling on the people of Northern Ireland to pray as former DUP First Minister, Ian Paisley was admitted to hospital following a suspected heart attack. Uniting in their concern for the health of the man who was an architect of the DUP/Sinn Fein partnership at Stormont, a spokesperson for the current First and Deputy First Minister responded:

“The First Minister and the deputy First Minister have both been in contact with the Paisley family. They have offered their best wishes to Dr Paisley and his family and call on the community to give prayerful support to Ian and his family at this time.

“The First Minister and the deputy First Minister would appeal for the Paisley family to be given the space and privacy they deserve and that their wishes are respected.”

The next moderator of the Presbyterian Church, the Rev Roy Patton meanwhile said of the former Free Presbyterian leader:

“We have had our differences in the past but it would be inappropriate to dwell on those differences at the present time but rather recognise the qualities that Dr Paisley has brought to his ministry, his faith, his pastoral work and his desire to serve in the ways in which we all seek to serve.

“We want to convey to Dr Paisley and to Baroness Paisley and to the family our support and our prayers.”

Meanwhile, as the debate over the future of unionism in Northern Ireland continued to rumble on, Ed Curran warned of the dangers of a two party system emerging at Stormont. Writing in the Belfast Telegraph he observed:

“Surprise, surprise. Peter Robinson has been to his first gaelic match, Martin McGuinness is heading for Windsor Park and the Ulster Unionists have scored another own goal.

“What a shame that attending a sports event in the 21st century should require any religious, political or cultural heart-searching; that a First Minister taking his seat in the stands should still be considered historically ground-breaking and talked about as if he had embarked on a trip to the Moon and back.

“Life is changing in Northern Ireland – and for the better. Not so long ago, any unionist leader who dared to enter a GAA turnstile would have been orange-carded out of his party before he could say Mickey Harte. The big winners in Armagh nine days ago were Peter Robinson, Martin McGuinness and community relations.

“Meanwhile, back at the ranch at Stormont, all is not well yet again with another shade of unionism. But do we really want to see the end of the Ulster Unionist party? Do we really want Northern Ireland dominated by two monolithic power-blocks, the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Fein?

“As the battering-rams of the media attack the gates of the Ulster Unionists, we should not forget one thing: Northern Ireland would not be the place it is today if it were not for the UUP and the SDLP.

“We are in danger now of talking ourselves into a two-party state – unionist and nationalist with a small, ineffective and compliant group squeezed in the middle. Surely, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP have played too significant a part in the development of the new Northern Ireland to allow that to happen?

“Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness are transforming themselves into latter-day moderates, but is it not time that the UUP and SDLP began to fight back and re-assert their important alternative voices in our society?”

Scotland The Scottish Government successfully secured its budget for 2012/13, with an additional £382 million earmarked for 2012-2015 for additional capital spending with support from the Lib Dems. In sketching out the debate that ensued at Holyrood, the BBC’s Scottish Political Editor, Brian Taylor wrote on his blog on Wednesday:

“An intriguing set of responses from opposition parties in the Holyrood chamber this afternoon to John Swinney’s final budget proposals – intriguing not because of their similarity but because of their mutual differences.

“Mr Swinney is adamant that he has done the best with limited resources, emphasising capital expenditure, providing extra money to limit the cuts in housing and reversing to some degree the extent of the cuts faced by colleges.

“Taking the lead from their spokesman Ken Macintosh, a succession of Labour MSPs lined up to attack the budget package in its entirety.Insufficient, misplaced, wrong priorities, not a budget to tackle youth unemployment. In response, Mr Swinney, Bruce Crawford and SNP backbenchers challenged Labour to say what they would cut to meet their spending commitments. So far, so predictable.

“But the criticism from Gavin Brown of the Tories was more nuanced, more modulated. He said that all the extra largesse on offer from Mr Swinney had originated with the UK government (chief proprietor, Mr Brown’s party.) And he condemned in particular the continuing (albeit reduced) levy on large retailers. It would, he said, make Scotland more uncompetitive.

“Then we heard from Willie Rennie of the Lib Dems. Would he too laud the level of cash made available by the UK government? To the contrary, he praised Mr Swinney for coping with a very tight settlement in tough times. His entire speech was a model of gentle, emollient oratory. He praised the partial concession on colleges. He praised the effort to improve the housing market. To be clear, he stressed that the Lib Dems would have done certain things differently, but his tone was one of cautious praise, rather than strident condemnation.”

After week’s meanwhile in which the SNP appeared to be gaining momentum for its plans for independence, new polling revealed that things might not be as rosy for them as might first have seemed.  Outlining the findings of new polling, Robbie Dinwoodie, Chief Scottish Political Correspondent at the The Herald explained:

“TNS-BMRB had just started sampling on January 25 based on the wording it has used since the first SNP administration announced its referendum proposals in 2007. It offers two options: To agree that the Scottish government should negotiate with the UK so that Scotland becomes an independent state, or to disagree with that proposal.

“The survey of 998 adults, between January 25 and February 1, indicated 35 per cent would vote Yes in agreement, down four points on last August, and 44 per cent would vote No, with 21 per cent undecided, down two.

“The poll also repeated a three-option snapshot first taken in October 2011 asking for preferences between maintaining Holyrood’s existing powers, giving the parliament more powers, or full independence.

“Support for the status quo has risen from 29 per cent to 32 per cent, backing for more powers has fallen from 33 per cent to 30 per cent, and backing for independence drops from 28 per cent to 26 per cent.”

Wales David Cameron’s attack on Labour’s handling of the health service in Wales during PMQs this week meanwhile attracted sharp criticism from the Welsh Government, with a spokesperson for Health Minister, Lesley Griffiths declaring:

“The prime minister got his facts about Wales totally wrong. He is clearly rattled by the onslaught on his NHS reforms in England – reforms which are in a complete and utter shambles.

“With GPs, the BMA, nurses, midwives and trades unions and even some in his own party lining up to slam his proposals, it begs the question, does the name ‘Custer’ mean anything to the prime minister? By contrast the Welsh government is proud to have a mandate from the people to run the health service – something the prime minister doesn’t enjoy.”

Dr Stefan Coghlan, chairman of the BMA in Wales responded:

“Consecutive Welsh Governments have diminished the role of the private sector from the NHS, and the purchaser/provider split no longer operates. Doctors in Wales have welcomed this direction of travel and the attempts to ensure NHS Wales follows the principles set out by Aneurin Bevan in a modern setting.

“A health service that remains loyal to Aneurin Bevan’s founding principles for the NHS, remaining free at the point of delivery is the right decision for patients, and the right decision for doctors – it meets the needs of everyone. It remains the BMA position that the Health and Social Care Bill should be withdrawn in England; with an overwhelming amount of professional opinion saying this is deeply flawed, damaging and unnecessary legislation.”

Plaid Cymru leadership hopeful , Simon Thomas pulled out of the race to succeed Ieuan Wyn Jones, giving his backing instead to the former Rural Affairs Minister, Elin Jones as her running mate. Explaining his decision, Thomas concluded:

“Achieving the third in a crowded field has been more difficult. As the most recent Assembly Member in the contest I have had a lot of ground to cover and make up. It’s been gratifying nevertheless to see a great deal of support for me. However, the most signal feature of the current election in Plaid Cymru is the fact that so many branches, constituencies and members are undecided and are seeking real direction.

“It has become clear to me that the majority of our members want a leader who will focus on building our nation’s economy, sustaining its environment and growing the support for independence in a credible way.

“One thing is for certain, Plaid Cymru will not achieve government or electoral success by playing Fisher Price politics with people’s hopes and dreams.

“Both Elin and I offer such a vision. I believe that by combining our experience, talents and different types of appeal we can work together to give the party the kind of direction and leadership it clearly needs. Elin has succeeded in gaining considerable support. I congratulate her on that, and today I announce that I will withdraw my candidacy in order to support her has her deputy on a joint ticket. I ask the party now to trust the next credible generation of Plaid politicians to take us forward under Elin’s leadership.”

See also:

• Sinn Fein plans next moves towards Irish unity - Kevin Meagher, 10th February 2012
• A seperate Scotland will be worse off if it keeps the pound - Matt Pitt,  10th February 2012
• Credit rating agencies weigh in on independent Scotland - Alex Hern,  6th February 2012
• Polls apart? The news for the SNP might not be as good as it looks - Ed Jacobs, 6th February 2012
  

Left Foot Forward’s Ed Jacobs is a member of the Christian Socialist Movement and City Evangelical Church in Leeds and writes in a personal capacity.

As Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov today meets with President Bashar al-Assad in Damascas, the estimated 2.5 million Christians in Syria live in fear, stuck between a rock and a hard place.

As the news of Syrians being slaughtered continues at a relentless pace, it is thought that over one hundred Christians have now been targeted, either killed or kidnapped in brutal ways. Reporting last month, the organisation Barnabas Fund which campaigns on behalf of persecuted Christians has explained:

The Christian community in Syria has been hit by a series of kidnappings and brutal murders; one hundred Christians have now been killed since the anti-government unrest began.

A reliable source in the country, who cannot be identified for their own safety, told Barnabas Fund that children were being especially targeted by the kidnappers, who, if they do not receive the ransom demanded, kill the victim.

And the source provided detailed information – some of which cannot be made public for security reasons – about incidents that have taken place since Christmas.

Two Christian men, one aged 28, the other a 37-year-old father with a pregnant wife, were kidnapped by the rebels in separate incidents and later found dead; the first was found hanged with numerous injuries, the second was cut into pieces and thrown in a river. Four more have been abducted, and their captors are threatening to kill them too.

On 15 January two Christians were killed as they waited for bread at a bakery. Another Christian, aged 40 with two young children, was shot dead by three armed attackers while he was driving a vehicle.”

Perhaps because of such brutality, however clear things might seem, Christians in Syria remain wary of what “change” might mean for their country, looking to Iraq where their brothers and sisters in Christ are now making a mass exodus as a result of the attacks they have faced and Egypt where the prospect of an Islamist government has been matched by on-going attacks on Christians in a way not previously seen under President Hosni Mubarak.

Aware of this, President Assad is now using a policy of fear to court favour among Syria’s Christian communities. In an article published recently in “The Australian”, Richard Beeston explained:

When Father Basilious Nasser got an urgent call to say that one of his parishioners had been shot and needed help, the priest went immediately. As he tried to rescue the man on a street in the city of Hama, the cleric was shot twice by a sniper and died.

It is still unclear whether he was killed by government forces or the opposition, but his death nine days ago has shocked the Christian community.

For centuries, the ancient eastern churches have thrived on their ability to avoid becoming embroiled in the region’s volatile politics. But increasingly, the 2.5 million Christians in Syria fear being dragged into the violence.

There is no end in sight to the bloodshed, and hopes for a foreign-mediated solution dimmed yesterday as UN Security Council members failed to reach agreement yet again on a resolution to end the violence.

The fateful moment for Syria’s Christians can be traced back 10 months ago, when President Bashar al-Assad summoned leaders of the community to his palace and gave them an ultimatum: support me, or your people will suffer.

Perhaps mindful of the plight of the Christians in Iraq and Egypt, who have come under attack since the removal of secular dictatorships over the past decade, the leaders agreed.

As the West continues to look in anticipation at the opportunities that the Arab Spring could present, in Egypt and Iraq to name just two countries, the long lost promise of democratic futures, based on freedoms allowing Christians to pursue their faith free from intimidation, has so far failed to materialise.

Having actively called for President Mubarak to go in Egypt, intervened in Libya and spent years in Iraq we have a responsibility now to use all the muscle and leverage we have secure such freedoms. It is only then that Christians in Syria will truly have the confidence to escape the grip of fear with which President Assad now holds them.

And that goes for our “friends,” for want of a better word, too.

When Saudi Arabia for example finds itself third on the list of countries that persecute Christians, with reports before Christmas of 42 Christians in the country being arrested and tortured, why then did David Cameron’s recent visit to Saudi include a delegation of arms deals?

How perverse that we sell arms to a government that then subsequently used them to persecute Christians among others. Likewise, whilst Afghanistan, a country we supposedly “liberated” from the Taliban is second on the watch list of countries persecuting Christians, coming behind only North Korea, what message does it send when we sign a long-term partnership agreement with them?

In an e-petition I’ve recently established I call for the government to take action on three fronts:

1. To hold a full debate on the floor of the House of Commons on the issue of the persecution of Christians worldwide, mirroring similar debates in the Lords to enable our elected representatives to express their views.

2. That the government should be prepared to use sanctions, such as those related to trade where supposedly “friendly” countries fail to protect Christians from persecution or worse still, perpetrate such acts themselves.

3. To establish a new, annual report on the state of religious freedoms worldwide to highlight and expose those countries that fail to uphold the basic right to allow freedom of religion, free from intimidation.

In his speech marking the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, David Cameron spoke of the UK as a “Christian country” before declaring that should “actively stand up and defend” the values and morals from it that have shaped the UK. It’s time to stand up and stand up clearly for those very same values and moral worldwide as well.

As we look at the hideous position Syria’s Christians now find themselves in, let us remember the words of Martin Luther King:

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends.”

See also:

• Syria: When will the West act? – Shamik Das, January 2nd 2012

• MPs to consider Christian freedoms in Algeria – Ed Jacobs, October 26th 2011

• West must do more to support religious freedom following the Arab Spring – Ed Jacobs, October 11th 2011

• Alexander: Britain should lead North Africa to European companionship – Alex Hern, October 10th 2011

• Faith schools improve social cohesion. Discuss… – Jo Thomas-Corr, January 28th 2010

Scotland is speaking on the issue of independence. What they are saying however remains far from clear.

Sunday saw polling by Panelbase for The Sunday Times and Real Radio Scotland asking the same question as that being proposed by Alex Salmond, namely:

Do you agree that Scotland should become an independent country?

Based on this, 37 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement, while 42 per cent disagree, with 21 per cent declaring themselves undecided. However, of those who argued that they were certain to vote, 47 per cent said they supported independence whilst 53 per cent were opposed.

In declaring her pleasure at the results, deputy first minister, Nicola Sturgeon declared:

After just the first few weeks of the referendum debate, it is abundantly clear that the positive approach towards Scotland’s future is winning over the negative approach from the anti-independence parties – with support for independence now neck-and-neck with opposition.

The poll shows that the people of Scotland are extremely positive about our future as an independent nation – if there was never any doubt that the anti-independence parties are out of touch with the mood of Scotland, this poll proves it.

Dig a bit deeper however and despite the rhetoric from the SNP, the numbers aren’t quite as rosy for them as Ms Sturgeon would suggest.

Polling since the new year, whilst showing significant support for independence, doesn’t yet seem to have achieved the break through the SNP would need if they were to succeed in their ambitions for Scotland.  The Herald meanwhile today carries details of a TNS-BMRB survey suggesting that any hint of a tide in favour of independence might, if it ever existed, have been fairly short lived.

Outlining the findings, Robbie Dinwoodie, the paper’s chief Scottish political correspondent writes:

TNS-BMRB had just started sampling on January 25 based on the wording it has used since the first SNP administration announced its referendum proposals in 2007. It offers two options: To agree that the Scottish government should negotiate with the UK so that Scotland becomes an independent state, or to disagree with that proposal.

The survey of 998 adults, between January 25 and February 1, indicated 35 per cent would vote Yes in agreement, down four points on last August, and 44 per cent would vote No, with 21 per cent undecided, down two.

The poll also repeated a three-option snapshot first taken in October 2011 asking for preferences between maintaining Holyrood’s existing powers, giving the parliament more powers, or full independence.

Support for the status quo has risen from 29 per cent to 32 per cent, backing for more powers has fallen from 33 per cent to 30 per cent, and backing for independence drops from 28 per cent to 26 per cent.

Chris Eynon, head of TNS-BMRB Scotland goes on to conclude:

“From the initial skirmishes, it would appear that the independence bandwagon has currently lost its momentum, in spite of the poll timing coinciding with the high-profile launch of the consultation in Edinburgh Castle on Burns Day.”

For those, including myself, who have long argued that Alex Salmond cannot be underestimated in what he is capable of achieving, today’s findings provide a crumb of comfort. It is beholden on those supporting the union now to provide a positive alternative, vision for the future of Scotland that does not rely solely on a negative critique of independence.

See also:

• Scottish independence would leave Trident dead – and the MoD don’t care – Kate Hudson, February 1st 2012

• The Week Outside Westminster – Answering the West Lothian question – Ed Jacobs, January 21st 2012

• Cameron got it wrong on Scotland, and he probably knows it – Ed Jacobs, January 10th 2012

• SNP: Cam’s “economic uncertainty” argument is nonsense; we’ll stick to our timetable – Humza Yousaf MSP, January 9th 2012

• Referendum on Scottish independence? Time to ‘bring it on’ – Ed Jacobs, June 5th 2011

To receive The Week Outside Westminster in your inbox, sign up to the email service

Northern Ireland

In the week that David McNarry declared himself to feel “abused” by the way he was dumped by UUP leader Tom Elliott, the Conservatives announced their plans to enter the world of Northern Irish politics on its own, a development which received a lukewarm reception at best.

In an editorial, the Newsletter argued:

“If the ‘new’ party is to survive then it will need a new and articulate team of spokesmen and candidates: and it really must be very careful not to become a refugee camp for disgruntled and electorally unsuccessful former members of the UUP.

“But the ultimate test will be the next round of elections. For if it doesn’t breach the eight per cent barrier and start winning seats it won’t be given a second chance to get it right.

“The brutal reality is that this really does represent the last - slightly desperate - throw of the dice for ‘Conservatives’ in Northern Ireland.”

Former UUP staffer Michael Shilliday, meanwhile, declared on the Slugger O’Toole blog:

“The Conservative Party has no hope in Northern Ireland without an existing local base, the best fit being the UUP. The UUP is visionless and increasingly rudderless without the Conservative Party (the real one that is, not what passes for it in Northern Ireland). Seems obvious what to do really.”

Amidst the on-going debate over the future of the Union, meanwhile, Sinn Fein deputy first minister Martin McGuinness argued that a referendum on whether the North wanted to join with the Republic could be held by as early as 2016.

Speaking to the Irish Examiner he concluded:

“It just seems to me to be a sensible timing. It would be on the question of whether or not the people of the Six Counties wish to retain the link with what is described as the United Kingdom, or be part of a united Ireland. It could take place anytime between 2016 or 2020-21.

“I don’t see any reason whatsoever why that should not be considered. I think, in all probability, the people who have got the power to put that in place won’t even contemplate it this side of the next Assembly elections, which conceivably could be 2015 or 2016.”

DUP MLA Peter Weir dubbed the remarks “unrealistic”.

Wales

Having received the most number of nominations for her campaign, Plaid Cymru Leadership hopeful Leanne Wood told of her aspirations for independence.

Writing in the Guardian, John Harris explained:

“Leanne Wood is rather different from most of the UK’s politicians.

“Forty years old and a mother of one, she still lives in the same street in the Rhondda Valley where she was born and brought up.

“She thinks the crash of 2008 should have “resulted in the rejection of capitalism and many of its basic economic and political assumptions”, and that the UK’s coalition amounts to a “hyper-competitive, imperial/militaristic, climate-change-ignoring and privatising government”.

“She is also a proud republican, who refuses to attend the kind of official events at which the Queen turns up, and was once thrown out of the Welsh Assembly for referring to the reigning monarch as “Mrs Windsor”. If any of this chimes with your general view of what’s wrong with the world, it’s fair to say that you’d like her.

“If Wood pursued her political career in Westminster, her opinions might ensure she was kept safely on the fringes. But in her home country, she is a high-profile voice - and the current favourite to take over the leadership of Plaid Cymru, the nationalist party who, until 2011, shared power in Wales with Labour.

“With the result due on 15 March, Paddy Power has 4-5 odds on to win; in her Cardiff office, there is a sense of quiet expectancy.

“The prospect of life as party leader is not the only reason for her air of energised enthusiasm.

“Being a senior Plaid Cymru figure, Wood believes in Welsh independence. And with Scotland set to vote on whether to stay part of the UK in 2014 and the future of the union being argued over as never before, Wood and her fellow Welsh nationalists think there is an unprecedented opening for the most fundamental of their beliefs.

“Certainly, if Scotland makes the leap and leaves a rump United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (“Little Britain”, as it has recently become known), Wales’s marginal position will be self-evident: it will have 30 Westminster MPs to England’s 502, and bump against the political and economic dominance of the English south-east as never before.

“With that grim prospect on the horizon, Wood thinks these could be fertile times for her and her party.”

Health secretary Andrew Lansley, meanwhile, was snubbed by the Welsh government over demands that they let him know before the press, about their decision to fund both the removal and replacement of PiP breast implants.

In a letter seen by the BBC, Lansley wrote to Welsh health minister Lesley Griffiths:

“I would… like to take this opportunity to seek your assurance that in the future you will inform my department if the Welsh government decides to take a contradictory approach to a public health issue before we learn of it through the media, which was the case in relation to your comments regarding the replacement of PIP breast implants on the NHS.”

Responding, a spokesperson for the Welsh government declared:

“Andrew Lansley’s letter is arrogant and patronising. Behaving like devolution never happened flies in the face of the respect agenda so often talked about by the prime minister.”

Scotland

Ed Miliband used a speech in Glasgow to argue that social justice was best achieved with Scotland staying in the Union, arguing:

“I say let’s confront the real divide in our society.

“Not between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. But between the haves and the have-nots. So I am not here to tell Scots that Scotland cannot survive outside the United Kingdom. But I am here to tell you that we need to make Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, a fairer, more just, place to live.

“And we can do this best together.”

Assessing the speech, George Eaton at the New Statesman wrote:

“Buoyed by his victory on Stephen Hester’s bonus (he accused Cameron of failing to act as a “responsible shareholder”), Miliband presented his own brand of social democratic Unionism.

“The crux of his argument was that “the real divide” in Britain is not between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom but between “the haves and the have-nots”. The task of creating a “more equal, just and fair society” is one best performed by the nations of the UK working together, he said.

“He spoke of the Scotsman who founded the Labour Party (Keir Hardie), the Englishman who led the “most successful Labour government” in history (Clement Attlee) and the Welshman (Nye Bevan) who founded the NHS.

“In his Hugo Young lecture last week, Alex Salmond argued that an independent Scotland could serve as a “progressive beacon” for the rest of the UK, but Miliband turned this claim on its head.

“Scottish secession, he warned, would trigger a “race to the bottom” on bank regulation, wages and conditions at work. For instance, citing the example of Ireland, Salmond has pledged to slash corporation tax should Scotland win fiscal autonomy.

“Perhaps partly for this reason, Miliband argued for a single-question referendum, excluding the possibility of a “devo max” option.

“There are some in Labour, citing Donald Dewar’s echoing of devolution as “a process, not an event”, who argue that the party should embrace devolution max, which is favoured by a majority of Scots, as a positive alternative to independence.

“The danger in leaving devo max off the ballot paper, they note, is that Scottish voters conclude that the only way to win fiscal autonomy is to vote for full independence. But Miliband, like Cameron, seems wedded to the high-risk option of a one-question referendum.”

As “Fred the Shred” this week lost the “Sir” to become “Mr Goodwin”, Alex Salmond outlined his regrets at previous support for him.

He told the BBC:

“If we all had our time again we’d look at things differently. I think there are very few people who can justifiably say that they anticipated the full extent of the financial collapse – the financial crisis.

“I mean I know some people claim they did but I think if you examine the record you’ll find there’s very few people on the planet – and I am certainly not one of them – who anticipated it.

“So, yeah, of course, if we had the benefit of hindsight we’d do things differently and I am sure that is true of lots and lots of people.”

Also this week:

• Sign up to receive our weekly summary of the news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, The Week Outside Westminster

• Swinney on Scotland currency – more questions than he answers? – Ed Jacobs

• “She calls her town a ‘s***hole’”: Irish newspaper smears Polish migrants – Alex Hern

• Conservatives in Northern Ireland – what’s the point? – Ed Jacobs

• Scottish independence would leave Trident dead – and the MoD don’t care – Kate Hudson, CND

• McGuinness in Irish unity poll call – Kevin Meagher

• UUP infighting as McNarry says he feels “abused” and has been “kicked in the teeth” – Ed Jacobs

• Miliband to outline vision of a fairer Union – Ed Jacobs

Amidst the ongoing air of crisis in Brussels over the future of the Euro, John Swinney is this evening expected to rule out an independent Scotland joining in the euro for at least a decade.

Publishing extracts of his lecture at the David Hume Institute in Edinburgh the Scotsman reports that the Scottish finance secretary will say to those gathered:

“I can’t foresee a set of circumstances that will see the economic conditions being correct for the euro for some considerable time. It would be difficult to define that but it feels neither to me like the short term or the medium term.”

In reiterating the SNP’s policy that independence should mean Scotland should retain sterling as its currency with the Bank of England as its central bank, Mr Swinney, the Scotsman reports will outline how he is planning for a “lengthy and solid agreement” with the Bank of England as Scotland’s lender of last resort.

Meanwhile, seeking to make contrasts between an independent Scottish government and the economic path taken by the UK coalition, Swinney today argues in a guest piece for the Scotsman:

My vision of an independent Scottish economy is one in which monetary policy acts to underpin price and macroeconomic stability, supported by fiscal and economic flexibility to promote growth and create jobs. Price stability is the key to creating an environment that is conducive to trade, investment and economic growth.

Indeed, this is one reason why all major industrialised economies including the UK, the Eurozone, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA have established independent central banks with the core focus upon maintaining price stability.

Scotland would continue with such an arrangement post-independence in a sterling zone with the Bank of England responsible for monetary policy.

But monetary policy cannot directly tackle youth unemployment, promote innovation, boost skills, target overseas investment or promote investment in key sectors. To address these issues we need greater fiscal powers and an opportunity to use them.

This vision, he said, compares with George Osborne’s plans which, he declares are:

“Proving to be self-defeating with borrowing now rising.”

The finance secretary’s remarks come as Whitehall appears to be in some state of confusion about whether Scotland would or would not be able to keep the pound.

Speaking just last month to the BBC in Scotland, Scottish secretary Michael Moore made clear that he did not see any legal problem with Scotland maintaining sterling. This as George Osborne gave an implicit threat to ban Scotland from keeping the pound.

Assessing Swinney’s thinking on the issue meanwhile, the Scotsman’s editorial has argued that his remarks raise more questions than they answer, concluding:

The more we learn of the Nationalists’ plans for an independent Scotland, the less we know for sure.

That is the only conclusion to be drawn from the interview with finance secretary John Swinney, which we publish today. Mr Swinney, a respected figure less prone than some colleagues to resort to the politics of assertion, has revealed significantly more about the SNP’s economic thinking. But for every answer, more questions arise.

Take the issue of the currency Scotland would adopt after independence. We learn, surprisingly, that the SNP believes Scotland will be part of the sterling zone for at least a decade.

On the face of it, this is welcome clarity with Mr Swinney ruling out any attempt to join the eurozone and stressing his determination to bring certainty and financial stability to a newly- independent Scotland.

Yet this attempt not to scare the unionist horses raises further policy questions. What will Scotland’s relationship with the Bank of England be exactly? How will it interact with and influence what will in effect become a mini-European Central Bank, the central bank for the nations of the former United Kingdom?

See also:

• Scottish independence would leave Trident dead – and the MoD don’t care – Kate Hudson, February 1st 2012

• Miliband to outline vision of a fairer Union – Ed Jacobs, January 30th 2012

• Salmond’s Scottish referendum is a textbook example of a leading question – Alex Hern, January 27th 2012

• Questions multiply over financial status of an independent Scotland – Alex Hern, January 20th 2012

• SNP: Cam’s “economic uncertainty” argument is nonsense; we’ll stick to our timetable – Humza Yousaf MSP, January 9th 2012

Sign up to our weekly “Week Outside Westminster” email service summarising the week’s news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

Since the announcement in 2008 that the UUP and Conservatives would look to form closer links with each other, David Cameron has made it a mission to enter the world of electoral politics in Northern Ireland in a belief that a truly unionist party needed to contest elections in every part of the country.

In 2010, the electoral pact between the parties was a disaster to say the least, leading as it did to the resignation of the UUP’s only MP in Westminster, Lady Sylvia Hermon, in protest.

Indeed, at the time, former UUP deputy leader John Taylor, now Lord Kilclooney, declared, somewhat unflatteringly, the partnerships to be akin to a “mongrel relationship” whilst the then Conservative chair of the Northern Ireland select committee, Patrick (now Lord) Cormack, dubbed it “odd” and “inconsistent”.

Having had advances to re-establish a pact rejected by UUP leader Tom Elliott, the Conservatives have instead decided to go it alone and establish a Conservative party in Northern Ireland completely separately of any other party.

Announcing the plans, the party’s co-chairman Lord Feldman declared:

“For too long politics in Northern Ireland have been built around sectarianism and division. We want to move past the politics of the peace process to a more normal state of affairs where everyone in Northern Ireland has the opportunity to vote for a modern, centre-right, pro-Union party.

“This new political party won’t be encumbered by the conflict and divisions of Northern Ireland’s past. We want to reach out to everybody in Northern Ireland, regardless of their background.”

On the face of it, at a time when the debate over Scottish independence rages on, the idea of bringing Northern Ireland out from the cold and into the mainstream of UK politics might seem appealing to unionists. Dig deeper, however and it’s not hard to realise how difficult a move it could be.

Firstly, how can David Cameron ever now hope to be able to act as an independent arbiter in Northern Ireland politics when he will now have his own electoral chances to consider?

As shadow Northern Ireland secretary, Vernon Coaker, has argued:

“The Conservative party in Northern Ireland has been relaunched more times than the Big Society.

Instead of prioritising their party’s self-serving misadventures in Northern Ireland, the prime minister and the Secretary of State should concentrate on meeting their responsibilities to help secure the peace process and build a shared future.”

Secondly, it has to be questioned how timely the move is for the Conservatives to be entering the world of Northern Ireland politics at the exact same time as even Tom Elliott himself has admitted that he is exploring how the DUP and UUP can better co-operate to give unionism in Northern Ireland a stronger voice. What role does the Conservative Party have to play in this?

Indeed, given their accusations that the proposed boundary changes in Northern Ireland, spearheaded by the Conservatives, amount to “gerrymandering”, the DUP will not be in any mood to give Cameron et al an easy ride.

And finally, just how new is the proposal? As former UUP staffer, Michael Shilliday, has observed on the Slugger O’Toole blog:

“Let’s be clear, there is to be no “new party” in Northern Ireland. They are not farming off their existing branch, they are attempting to tart it up a bit. And what are these momentous changes? They MIGHT get a seat on the Conservative party board (hardly a sign of a new party is it?), they MIGHT be allowed to elect a leader, and they will be allowed to have a Chairman (so what has Irwin Armstrong been doing all this time?)

“It all begs the question, what is the point? It sounds a bit like they will attract a few failed UUP candidates, but is that together with some semantic dressing up really going to turn an electorally insignificant and utterly failed group into the vanguard for liberal Unionism?

“The Conservative party has no hope in Northern Ireland without an existing local base, the best fit being the UUP. The UUP is visionless and increasingly rudderless without the Conservative party (the real one that is, not what passes for it in Northern Ireland). Seems obvious what to do really.”

With the UUP having made crystal clear that it cannot foresee a new electoral pact with the Conservatives, Cameron’s foray into the world of Northern Ireland’s politics is the wrong move at the wrong time.

See also:

• Tories and UUP split over merger deal – Ed Jacobs, January 5th 2012

• Has the UUP/Tory link hit the rocks? – Ed Jacobs, February 3rd 2011

• Northern Ireland: The challenges facing Mr Cameron – Ed Jacobs, May 17th 2010

• UUP-Tory alliance a “mongrel relationship” – Ed Jacobs, March 12th 2010

• Cameron accused of “sham marriage” with Ulster Unionists – Ed Jacobs, March 10th 2010

UUP MLA David McNarry has declared that he feels “abused” over how he has been treated over revelations about discussions between the UUP and DUP over potential future co-operation, describing his treatment as akin to being “kicked in the teeth”.

On Friday it emerged that the UUP leader, Tom Elliott, had taken the decision to remove him from his position as vice chair of the Assembly’s education committee, while last Monday, McNarry used the Belfast Telegraph to reveal that top level meetings had taken place between the UUP and DUP over forging closer ties to maximise the unionist vote, with suggestions he had minutes of such meetings to prove his case.

Speaking of the decision to effectively sack McNarry from his job on the education committee, Elliott said yesterday:

“There was no issue with him talking to the DUP – I had him as a liaison with the DUP so there was no issue around that – it was because he went beyond his remit.

“Quite clearly once you see someone talk about the possibility on the future of the DUP holding the first minister position and the Ulster Unionist Party holding the junior minister, that’s way beyond the remit.”

The affair prompted Elliott to write to party members to reassure them over the nature of the talks with the DUP, declaring the party’s aim to do no more than to “explore areas of cooperation for the benefit of unionism in general”. McNarry duly resigned the party whip in the Assembly.

Hitting back at the weekend’s development, however, McNarry has argued that Elliott himself was at the very meetings that looked at greater co-operation between the UUP and DUP.

Speaking to the Newsletter, McNarry declared:

“I took notes in my own handwriting, in the one book. They follow consecutive dates and are just reports of what was taking place. When Tom wasn’t at a meeting I reported to him what had happened.”

Addressing the way he had been treated since his revelations in the Belfast Telegraph became public, he continued:

“I felt abused; I felt that somebody had trespassed over me here and I felt that unless Tom is prepared to tell people what has been happening it makes it very difficult for me because I’ve been protecting him.

“The notebook protects my integrity and at the moment my integrity is under the microscope. If it continues to be under the microscope then I will have to consider where I am.

“I had the utmost respect for everybody who was involved in what was going on.”

And turning his attention to Danny Kennedy, the UUP’s sole minister in the Stormont government - who gave very public support for Elliott’s decisions - McNarry concluded:

“Danny Kennedy and I are unionists from the same oak and I appreciate the public position he has taken. But it is not what we have talked about in private.

“I’ve had support from other MLAs by telephone and text message. I’ve gone for honesty and transparency and I’ve been kicked in the teeth.”

Just a few weeks ago, Left Foot Forward asked what the point of the UUP actually was. This week’s developments will serve only to compound the problem, making all the more difficult Tom Elliott’s efforts to carve out a distinctive identity for his party, eclipsed as they remain by the much larger DUP as the principle force of Unionism in Northern Ireland.

See also:

• What’s the point of the UUP? – Ed Jacobs, January 19th 2012

• Preview 2012 – Northern Ireland – Ed Jacobs, December 30th 2011

• Should Northern Ireland football scrap God Save the Queen? – Ed Jacobs, December 13th 2011

• UUP renew calls for opposition at Stormont – Ed Jacobs, October 25th 2011

• Time for normal politics in Northern Ireland? – Ed Jacobs, May 10th 2011

In a speech in Glasgow later today, Ed Miliband will seek to go beyond the process-driven debate over independence for Scotland, seeking to make a positive case for Scotland to remain within the Union.

In a direct response to first minister Alex Salmond – who last week used the Hugo Young Lecture to argue social progress north and south of the border would best be achieved by enabling an independent Scotland to become a “beacon for progressive opinion” – Miliband will say:

“I say let’s confront the real divide in our society. Not between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. But between the haves and the have-nots.

“So I am not here to tell Scots that Scotland cannot survive outside the United Kingdom. But I am here to tell you that we need to make Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, a fairer, more just, place to live. And we can do this best together.”

Speaking of his “humility” at the scale of the task confronted by Scottish Labour, the Leader of the Opposition will add:

“I come here today with humility about the scale of challenge for Labour – just nine months after we lost the Scottish elections.

“With admiration for Johann Lamont – the first leader of Scottish Labour – who has shown she understands the scale of the challenge and Labour’s need to change. And with determination to play my part supporting her in the long campaign for the United Kingdom.”

Miliband will deliver his speech following a weekend of yet more debate and discussions over Scotland and its future.

* Speaking to the Sunday Mail in Scotland, former chancellor Alistair Darling gave the biggest hint so far that he is ready to take a leading role in the campaign against independence, declaring:

“I am ready to do everything I can. It is something I believe in. I am passionate about this.”

* The Scottish Sunday Express carried a poll showing 51% of people in Scotland support independence, coming days after the New Statesman put the ‘yes to independence’ campaign just one percentage point behind those against.

* After Alex Hern wrote on Left Foot Forward on Friday of Alex Salmond’s proposed referendum question being a “textbook example of a leading question”, the Daily Record said of polling it had commissioned:

“We tested two different questions asking if Scotland should be independent.

“Support for independence was just 36 per cent using a Labour version which asked: ‘Do you want Scotland to be an independent country or not?’

“But it rose to 46 per cent when we posed Salmond’s proposed question: ‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?’”

* Salmond’s vision of an independent Scotland attracting global investors with ultra-low corporation tax was dismissed as “a fantasy”.

Quoted in the Herald, Professor John Kay, who served on the first minister’s Council of Economic Advisers during the last Parliament declared:

“No-one is going to allow Scotland to have a low corporation tax. That’s just a fantasy.

“If Scotland’s an independent country, the EU will not allow it. It’s a non-starter. What has happened on corporation tax is Ireland has this low rate and everyone around the EU is determined that that should never happen again.

“So Scotland would have to negotiate EU membership – it wouldn’t be difficult, everyone’s going to have Scotland as a member – but you can be absolutely sure that one of the conditions is that you don’t have a 12.5% corporation tax rate.

“Since a fuss has been made in Scotland about doing that, it would be inevitable that you would get the determination on the part of the Europeans that you do not have it.”

See also:

• Salmond’s Scottish referendum is a textbook example of a leading question – Alex Hern

• Progressives need a positive vision for Scotland – Ed Jacobs

• Déjà vu as Scottish referendum campaign turns nasty – Mike Morgan-Giles

• Salmond has questions to answer, because the evidence doesn’t support him – William Bain MP

• Hughes makes the case for an English Parliament as Salmond faces fresh scrutiny – Ed Jacobs

To receive The Week Outside Westminster in your inbox, sign up to the email service

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) published research (pdf) this week pointing to a growing sense of grievance in England to the devolved nations.

Summing up the results, IPPR director Nick Pearce concluded:

“English identity is on the rise and it is increasingly expressed in terms that are resentful of the devolution settlement… Our mainstream political parties need to embrace Englishness.”

Scotland

Another week and the same issue continued to dominate Scottish politics, as the Alex Salmond independence band wagon continued at speed.

Having used the Hugo Young Lecture on Tuesday to argue that an independent Scotland would provide a “beacon of progressive opinion” for the rest of the UK, Burns Night saw the Scottish government publish its consultation on a referendum.

With polling for the New Statesman pointing to those in favour of independence being just one per cent behind those against, the Herald’s editorial on Thursday concluded:

“This consultation document and its Westminster cousin offer a vital opportunity to test public opinion on this most compelling of matters: the future of the United Kingdom and Scotland’s relationship with its constituent parts.

“It has suited the Westminster government to cast doubt on the credibility of a plebiscite organised by the Scottish government.

“The true test of that credibility, however, now lies with Mr Salmond. Having opened his proposals to public consultation, he and his Government must take on board the comments and criticisms and heed the will of the Scottish people whose interests he holds so dear.

“Scottish Labour’s new leader Johann Lamont made the point yesterday that the first minister does not speak for all the Scottish people. It is a valid point, given that he does not miss an opportunity to assert that the SNP expresses the will of Scots. Yet, until today’s New Statesman survey, the polls had continued to show that a minority favour independence.

“Mr Salmond has had his first big say. The opposition parties at Holyrood must now engage in making a positive case for the Union. There is a will to make sure that the referendum is legal, fair and decisive.

“It can be so as long as many people as possible make their views during the consultation period. The opportunity must be seized so that there is no room for dubiety or dispute when the people of Scotland take part in the most momentous vote in 300 years.”

At the Guardian, meanwhile, the paper’s Whitehall correspondent, Polly Curtis sought to establish how fair the SNP’s proposed question (Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?) was.

She explained:

“The experts I heard from don’t believe that the SNP’s question is the fairest phrasing on the question.

“Asking people to agree with something is more likely to elicit a positive response than asking them to disagree. The emerging “no” campaign would prefer to campaign on a question that asks people whether they would like Scotland to remain in the union – their favoured outcome. For the same reasons, this also wouldn’t be the fairest option.

“The fairest way would be to give the two options – independence or remaining in the union – and let people decide.

“However, John Curtice said that the phrasing of the question in this referendum is unlikely to have a very profound impact. Phrasing is far more important on issues that people don’t understand the ins and outs of, such as the AV referendum. With the Scottish referendum on independence people are likely to be well versed in the debate.”

Elsewhere, independent MSP Margo MacDonland reignited the debate over assisted suicide by reintroducing a bill on Tuesday to allow it in Scotland.

Summing up the difficulties the proposals will cause, the Herald wrote on Wednesday:

“With the exception of abortion, it is hard to think of a more emotive and contentious area of public debate and medical ethics than assisted dying.The rest of life demands of us few more agonising choices than those surrounding birth and death.

“In late 2010 Margo MacDonald’s end of life assistance bill was rejected by 85 votes to 16 at Holyrood. Yet yesterday the Independent MSP was back in the chamber with a new bid to legalise assisted suicide.

“Her return to this issue, so soon after her first bill was so decisively rejected, testifies to her impressive campaigning zeal on this issue, a zeal intensified by her own Parkinson’s diagnosis.

“It is also a reflection of the way the ground is shifting in this debate. With new members making up one-third of the Scottish Parliament and opinion polls suggesting growing support for the right to be helped to die, it would be a mistake to write off her chances of success this time around.”

Wales

First minister Carwyn Jones used a press conference to distance himself from Ed Miliband’s support for a cap on public sector workers pay.

Arguing that such a policy would be fundamentally unfair, he told journalists:

“I think it’s absolutely crucial that people see that those who are paid the most in financial services, those who the public believe were responsible for our current economic difficulties, pay their fair share as well.

“I don’t believe that this is being done and as a result I think it’s very difficult to say to those who work in the public sector, who didn’t cause the economic difficulties, that we have to bear the brunt of pay cuts when it isn’t happening in those sectors which are more appropriate.”

As the Scottish parliament grappled with the issue of assisted suicide, in Wales leaders of the main Christian denominations made clear their objections to the government’s proposals for a system of presumed consent for organ donation.

Outlining their fears, the Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, George Stack, the Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, and The Very Reverend Archimandrite Father Deiniol, of the Wales Eastern Orthodox Mission, argued:

“Pastors, theologians and church leaders of all denominations agree that offering organs for donation is a significant act of charity, and a reflection of God’s freely-given love and care for us, including the gift of life.

“The positive ethos of donation as a free gift is endangered by an ill-judged if well intentioned proposal to move from voluntary donation to presumed consent.

“It is of extreme concern that while responses are being invited on the proposals in the white paper, the central proposal, which is the shift from donation to presumed consent, is presented as a fait accompli.

“There is a real danger that a change in the law would alienate a significant proportion of the public and undermine the positive image of organ donation and the reputation of Wales.”

Responding to the concerns, health minister Lesley Griffiths argued:

“We have made great progress in Wales in increasing the number of actual donors. However, there is still a shortage of organs and this is something the Welsh government wants to change by introducing a new way of making a person’s wishes known.

“International evidence shows organ donation has risen in other countries which have opt-out systems. I believe introducing a soft opt-out system in Wales, together with an ongoing public awareness campaign, will help increase the number of organs available.”

Northern Ireland

After it was claimed that the UUP and DUP had held secret meetings over a possible merger, one DUP strategist and blogger argued for a debate about the potential for such a move.

Writing in the Newsletter, Lee Reynolds, a councillor for north Belfast, concluded:

“Unionism has two electoral challenges - falling turnout and the need to expand its electoral base beyond its traditional community (without alienating the existing base).

“There is the political challenge of making Northern Ireland a beacon of political, social and economic success within the Union and regaining the global presence it once enjoyed. None of these tasks are easy.

“There are also shifts in voter attitude going on among the electorate that unionism needs to be conscious of.

“The present structures, relationships and attitudes among the unionist parties have been shaped by the peace process. Northern Ireland’s politics has begun to move on from the politics of the peace process.

“As we look forward to the centenary of Northern Ireland in 2021, would focusing our efforts on these challenges and changes not produce greater benefits for the Union and unionism than finding arguments for the sake of them?

“Unionist unity could be an opportunity to create something new and better. This is its litmus test. If after a thorough, intense and constructive debate the conclusion is that we can create something better then we should proceed.

“If it doesn’t then we shouldn’t. The debate itself is something no unionist or anyone else in Northern Ireland should be fearful of.”

In a sign of further progress meanwhile, Sinn Fein deputy first minister Martin McGuinness declared that he still hadn’t ruled out the possibility of meeting the Queen.

Reflecting on her visit to Dublin last year, he told BBC Ulster’s “Inside Politics” programme:

“I’ve made it clear that the visit of Queen Elizabeth of Britain to the south, was something that we looked at with considerable interest.

“And I think the fact that she was prepared to recognise the importance of the Irish language; that she was prepared to stand in a very dignified way to honour those patriots who struggled in 1916 to bring about a free and independent 32-county Irish Republic, that made an impact upon me.

“So that’s an issue that I will ponder and I wouldn’t rule anything out.”

Also this week:

• Sign up to receive our weekly summary of the news from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, The Week Outside Westminster

• Regressive of the week: Alex Salmond – Shamik Das

• Salmond’s Scottish referendum is a textbook example of a leading question – Alex Hern

• Progressives need a positive vision for Scotland – Ed Jacobs

• Déjà vu as Scottish referendum campaign turns nasty – Mike Morgan-Giles

• Salmond has questions to answer, because the evidence doesn’t support him – William Bain MP

• Hughes makes the case for an English Parliament as Salmond faces fresh scrutiny – Ed Jacobs