There'll Not Be Another Culloden, David Cameron!

A few years ago we pitched our gear into the back seat of a Bo Peep blue rental car in Newcastle and hit the high road for Scotland.

The last town on the English side of the border, along our route, was a bland little agricultural village named Wark.  Honest.

We crossed the border.  The very first town on our route, a charming village with an old, old kirk and ancient walls of stone and tilty cottages with thatchen roofs was named . . . Wark. Honest.

A short walk back toward the border stood the remains of the castle of Wark. (Not to be confused with Warkworth  castle 40 or so kilometers northeast.) In the days of border wars and black helmets a noble scoundrel  who occupied the Wark castle was known to have a keen sense of which monarch -- England's or Scotland's -- had the stronger army and greater support abroad.  It  was that monarch to whom the sire of Castle Wark swore his loyalty, an oath worth exactly nothing since he hopscotched his fifedom and fealty back and forth across the border according to how the winds of power blew.  Thus the two villages Wark, one on each side of the border.

I invoke all of this to substantiate my right to speak out on the matter of a referendum on Scottish independence, which boils on the political stove in the United Kingdom at the moment.  In further support thereof, I am a member in good standing of the Clan Sutherland Society through marriage to a rabid Scot whose forebears lived in the shadow of Dunrobin, the Sutherland castle overlooking the sea outside Golspie, near Dornoch. Need I sing a rousing chorus of Loch Lomond to further bolster my claim?  Nae.

So hear this, David Cameron: Back off!  You're perilously close to igniting another Hanoverian v. Jacobin conflict and, by the Mighty, we Scots will win this one. 

Never mind that the issue of Scotland's independence has been around since almost forever.  The point is that now the Scottish National Party has sufficient clout to demand a referendum on the question.  All of Scotland seems to support the idea of a referendum.

David Cameron, the Tory British P.M., and his Labour lapdog, Ed Miliband, oppose the idea, insisting that the U.K. can only remain strong by remaining united. Since the Scottish government claims an electoral mandate to hold a referendum, Cameron says he'll let them have one, but only on his timetable, and only if its outcome is binding rather than advisory.

He said, "I sometimes think it's not a referendum (the Scottish National Party) want, but a never-endum."

Angus Robertson, an SNP member of the British parliament, retorted, "The Scottish Government was elected with an overwhelming mandate to deliver an independence referendum in the second half of the parliamentary term. The Conservative Party has less Members of parliament (in Scotland) than there are giant pandas in Edinburgh Zoo."

The core issue is a constitutional one.  The Scots say they have the legal right to call a referendum on their own terms and timetable.  The Brits say the Scots can't act without permission of the national government in London.

Although I know haggis about the Brits' constitution -- haven't read a word of it! -- I'm with the Scots on this one.  Alex Salmond, the SNP first minister, insists  there is a strong legal case for Scotland being able to hold a referendum without asking London first, and hasn't relaxed his view that the vote should be held in the autumn of 2014.  He said Cameron "suddenly this week decided to start pulling strings and setting conditions."

What Scot worthy of the kilt would stand by and let a Brit pull his strings? To the bridge, I say, with dirk and broadsword!

Sarasota Update: Halifax Backs Off

Here, courtesy of various correspondents, is an update on the Sarasota Herald Tribune situation that was the subject of a recent Pianist post:


Following a 45-minute meeting between Michael Redding, chief executive officer of Halifax Media Group, and Sarasota Herald Tribune staffers, publisher Diane McFarlin announced that the controversial non-compete clause in new employment agreements would be scrapped.


From: McFarlin, Diane
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 6:04 PM
To: !STHQ-Sarasota Users
Subject: good news

Everyone:

Michael Redding has decided to waive the non-compete clause and the family relationship policies for all existing employees. In other words, you have been “grandfathered in.” This means you do not have to sign the non-compete agreement and, if you are working in the same department as a spouse, sibling or other immediate family member, you can continue to do so.

I am sure there will be more information forthcoming, but I wanted you to receive this news immediately.

It should be noted that these policies will apply for all new hires going forward.

Thanks to all of you who participated in today’s town hall. Clearly, Michael heard your concerns and considered them carefully.

Onward!
Diane

     *     *   *

Redding met with the Sarasota staff for 45 minutes and plans to visit the three other Florida papers now owned by Halifax tomorrow.  The first question he took up, as relayed to him by Publisher McFarlin:  What about the non-compete clause?

"We want to pour money into your career," Redding said, "and as you get better, what we are not interested in is you becoming our competition.  We want you to have long careers . . . and I'm sure many of you have been here 10, 20 years.  It isn't that you don't trust us, that isn't it at all.  To the point that someone who is here now, and let's say in the next 30 days or the next 60 day you sign the non-compete and then for some reason your job isn't here, the last thing we're going to do is tell you that you can't go get a job here.  We're going to rescind that non-compete.  That's just not fair, that's not how I would do it, that's not how we think."

Half an hour later, clarification was sought that the contract would be waived for the first 60 days (Halifax is also installing a 60-day probation period for all employees).  "We have agreed with the [New York] Times that anyone no longer with the company within a certain period of time that they will receive a severance package paid in the same manner as the folks that we didn't hire at close.  So that piece is there.  The second part is, as we are evaluating this, we're getting questions and we want to be responsive to those questions.  We want to re-evaluate if 60 days is the right number, maybe it is 90 days, maybe it is 120 days.  We're looking at that.  We want to make sure that you have confidence in what you are signing.  This is not a grab people, pin them to the ground and take advantage of them -- that's not the purpose of this document.  I'm looking for feedback . . ."

     *   *   *

OK. FEEDBACK: Odd, isn't it, how a bit of light in a dark corner causes creatures of the night to scurry?