Tha an casg air stòbhaichean na eisimpleir a-rithist air droch phoileasaidh

Faodaidh sinn a ràdh le cinnt nach eil an Riaghaltas a dh’aona-ghnothach a’ cur dhaoine ann an tuathal len cuid phoileasaidhean, agus le sin, ‘s e droch chomharra a th’ ann nuair a thathas a’ dèanamh na h-uimhir a' bhutarrais dha bhith a’ mìneachadh ghluasadan bunaiteach air laghan na dùthcha.

Co-dhiù, le Achd nan Eucoir Gràin, tuigidh tu gu bheil deagh-rùn air choireigin air a chùlaibh; ged a bha an connspaid agus an duilgheadas a thàinig leis furasta gu leòr fhaicinn a’ tighinn.

Ach, tha e buileach duilich ciall a dhèanamh dhen chasg air stòbhaichean a bhios a’ losgadh fiodha.

Tha an Riaghaltas a’ cur na coire air na pàrtaidhean eile airson an troimh-cheile adhbhrachadh (nach iad a tha crost’ a' dol an aghaidh an Riaghaltais!) ach nuair a tha am fiosrachadh aca fhèin cho caochlaideach, mì-shoilleir agus loma-làn mhì-thuigse, ‘s dòcha gu bheil a’ choire na laighe beagan nas fhaisge air an taigh aca fhèin.

Nuair a chaidh innse dhan mhinistear a tha an urra ris a’ chasg air stòbhaichean, Pàdraig Harvie, gum biodh seo a’ toirt droch bhuaidh air na sgìrean iomallach, ‘s e thuirt e: “Gabh sibh air ur socair, chan eil e ach airson toglaichean ùra.”

Agus chan eil sin ach a’ sealltainn cho beag tuigs' agus a th’ ann mu ghnothaichean an iomaill le daoine nach eil a’ toirt cas a-mach à Dùn Èideann.

Ma tha thu a’ fuireach air an tuath, tha e ciallach gu leòr stòbha a bhith agad bhon a tha, fiù san là a th’ ann, an dealan cunnartach a dhol dheth. ’S e an fhreagairt a bh’ aig Pàdraig Harvie ri sin ach teasadair beag a bhith agad am broinn an taighe. Bu chòirear a ràdh ris: thalla fhèin is feuch e ma-thà.

Fiù ‘s air bunait na h-àrainneachd, chan eil ciall aig an rud. San t-Suain, tha e mì-laghail GUN stobha a bhith agad an cois phumpaichean-teasa, bhon a ghabhas an cleachdadh nuair a thig an rud ceàrr agus tha fiodh, mar chonnadh, maireannach.

Mar neach-poileataigs bhon Phàrtaidh Uaine, bu chòir fios a bhith aig Pàdraig gur iad na coimhearsnachdan iomallach as fheàrr a th’ ann a thaobh truailleadh na h-àrainneachd; ‘s iad as lugha a tha a' dèanamh cron. Ach aon uair eile ‘s iad an fheadhainn a tha a’ dol a dh’fhulang as motha.

Mar-thà, tha iarraidh ann airson am poileasaidh a tha seo a tharraing air ais agus cha bu chòir dhan sin a bhith ro dhuilich. Chan eil e ag iarraidh ach cead sònraichte dha cuid a sgìrean agus dh’fhaodadh iad sin a bhith air an comharrachadh gu furasta.

No bu chòir. Mar a tha cùisean an-dràsta, chan eil fhios am b ’urrainn dha na daoine a tha ann an cumhachd fiù ‘s sin fhèin a mhìneachadh gun a dhol ann an cearcallan.

Dhan mhòr chuid, chan eileas a’ sireadh ach beagan ciall is toinisg, rud a tha glè dhuilich a lorg san là a th’ ann. Bu mhòr am beud nach b’urrainn gòraich a losgadh san stòbha. Tha tuilleadh ’s a' chòrr dheth ann.

English-language version:

While the police and politicians tie themselves in knots trying to make sense of what’s a hate crime and what isn’t, another major policy change has been introduced which goes a long way to match it on the confusion stakes. It’s probably safe enough to rule out a deliberate ploy to befuddle the public, in which sense it really takes some doing to make such a hash of communicating the intention and delivery of new legislation.

At least with the Hate Crimes Act, you can appreciate there may be a moral purpose behind it somewhere, even if the controversies and complexities were entirely predictable. However, the ban on solid-fuel stoves in new properties is quite the head scratcher, even in the current shambolic state of legislative chaos.

Scottish Government ministers are keen to blame opposition politicians for muddying the waters – how dare they act in their political interests! – yet when their own instructions are mired in conflicting statements, lacking clarity and understanding, it’s not exactly a difficult task to criticise them.

When it was pointed out to the minister responsible for the solid fuel stove ban, Patrick Harvie, how unworkable it would be for rural areas, where many households rely on them due to lack of alternatives, he said (and I paraphrase, of course): “Chill everyone, it’s only for new builds.” Which simply serves to underline just how out of touch this urban-centred government and their urban-centred approach really is.

In rural and remote areas, it’s sensible to have a back-up to electricity because power cuts, even in this day and age, happen. Patrick Harvie’s answer to that was to have small portable heaters. The response might well be: you go ahead and try it then.

The only possible scintilla of justification for this policy might be on environmental grounds, but even that’s sketchy, to say the least. In Sweden, for example, hardly known for a climate-denying agenda, it is against the regulations NOT to install a wood-burner at the same time as a heat pump on the common sense grounds that wood is a sustainable commodity and a reliable backup.

As a Green minister, it should be perfectly obvious to Patrick Harvie that the rural areas that would be worst affected by this are the very ones who contribute the least to greenhouses gases, yet at every turn – highly protected marine areas being another example – they are being penalised as if they were insatiable coal-guzzling communities spewing out no end of noxious gases.

Already the clamour is on for the solid-fuel stove ban to be rowed back and it shouldn’t need a major climbdown. All it needs is simply a derogation for rural areas which can be easily defined, or should be anyway. But, given recent examples, even that’s likely to cause convolutions. Meanwhile, the overwhelming desire among the public is for common sense and good old-fashioned pragmatism, commodities that seem to be in desperately short supply.