TNS-BMRB Poll - Mixed Fortunes for SNP

There is a new poll out from TNS-BMRB (formerly TNS System 3) in The Herald today.

With a meaty sample of 983, the Holyrood voting intentions are:

Constituency
SNP - 40%
Labour - 32%

Regional
SNP - 37%
Labour - 29%

A rock solid lead for the Nationalists and they look set to take a commanding lead in the 2011 election on this evidence.

However, it is a remarkably different picture for the Westminster voting intentions and it seems that Salmond's narrative of a strong bloc of Scottish MPs standing up for Scottish interests is not getting through to the public or, worse, it is getting through and is being soundly rebuffed.

The Westminster voting intentions are:

Labour - 39%
SNP - 25%
Tories - 18%
Lib Dems - 12%

A 14% lead is enormous, even with 43% undecided and with a trend of the SNP slipping away from Labour in YouGov subsamples for months now.

So is it a rogue poll? Perhaps but I would say very, very unlikely and I do like to think that the SNP make up one half of the majority of those undecideds.

Mind you, I have overheard and been party to several conversations in the last few weeks (involving non-political types) which have all involved the line 'well, only Labour or the Tories can win it' with the clear conclusion that their vote will go to either of those parties.

That's the dagger in the heart for Team SNP and deep down, even though they'll fight it tooth and claw, they know that it will hurt them to a certain extent in the end but is also the reason why the Scottish Parliament elections are the key determinant for the party's fortunes.

It seems the classic 3rd party squeeze is already underway with voters wanting to vote for a winner. Nick Clegg understood it when he repeated his wish to be Prime Minister and Tavish Scott understood it when he suggested he could be First Minister in the aftermath of coalition discussions back in 2007.

The public already likes the SNP, that much is clear from the Holyrood voting intentions in this poll, so it's not the party's achievements that have to be sold so much as the party's relevance. On current evidence, it seems the only way the SNP can make the 20+ MP breakthrough that it so craves is to make Scots believe that the party that wins the highest share of the vote in Scotland will be 'the winner'.

Maybe more Salmond vs Murphy press releases are required? I don't know but in a UK election with only a miserly slice of the electorate believing in independence and viewing the result via strictly a Scottish prism, that will be a very tough sell indeed.

We're on a road to nowhere

The news that there is strong support for rewiring the existing Forth Road Bridge as opposed to simply building another one is surprising but very welcome. The £2.3bn (and the rest) that has been earmarked for the new bridge should be seen as an excellent opportunity to investment a heck of a lot of money elsewhere.

I should say that in the past James has been quick to say that when a rival party does polling they pay their money and they get the answer they were looking for so it would be remiss of me not to suggest that this could very well be the case with this Scottish Green Party, Friends of the Earth and Forthright Alliance co-commissioned poll. Furthermore, for this poll there seems to be a suggestion that the sample population was more or less asked 'Would you rather your Government spent £122m or £2.3bn?' when most individuals perhaps won't fully understand the engineering concepts that underpin the question.

However, James and I do agree 'up to our elbows' on this particular topic so I am happy to believe that the Scottish population are beginning to see through the white elephant that is the additional Forth Road Bridge, even the SNP supporters over 50% of whom prefer repairing rather than replacing. And, despite not being an egnineer myself, I have read a fair bit of the detail of the issue and the question does indeed pretty much boil down to whether we'd rather spend a couple of hundred million or a few billion.

Granted, a few billions gets us two bridges as opposed to one with the hundred million but a very quick value for money calculation clearly shows the single road bridge approach is best.

Taking a wider view, one aspect of transport policy that I have found intriguing is the spending on the rail network vs the spending on motorways.

It is surely generally accepted that the preferred long-term solution for travel across the UK is not more and more cars, it's not cheaper and cheaper flights, it's not bigger and bigger bridges but smoother, greener, affordable rail travel.

However, as far as I am aware, investment in the rail network comes out of the profits of the private companies that run the rail franchises which means, in turn, that users of the railway pay for improvements to the track through ticket prices and fines. We've already seen the first £1,000+ rail fare and the Government has promised high increases in fares when it takes over the East Coast line. Perhaps the increase in fares is inevitable given the mess National Express made of the operation but if the semi-nationalisation of the trains goes down as a missed opportunity then it will be unforgivable at this absolutely crucial juncture in our long-term approach to how we get around.

So far, the news that Glaswegians won't be able to get a direct rail service to London doesn't bode well for the UK Government's strategy. Honestly, how long can those poor people in the West stomach being ripped off by a party they've returned to power decade after decade? I guess we'll find out on Thursday...

In terms of our road network (not to mention seemingly unnecessary £2.3bn bridges), funding comes from our taxes and not just road taxes. So those who don't drive, indeed those who go out of their way to ensure that they follow the long-term public transport solution rather than a short-term quick fix of a shiny new car, are heavily penalised.

Surely it is preferable to have roads improved strictly from road taxes and use the public money that had hitherto been paving the way for new motorways up and down the country to increase the investment in the rail track and reduce train fares? If it means motorways improve at a snail pace then so be it. The area that needs a fast-track solution is rail travel.

For a start, we can do away with the price elasticity system as favoured by Megabus and Easyjet. When one buys a train ticket one shouldn't need a super-duper advanced saver to get a decent deal. We should simply divide the cost of the service by the number of seats on the carriages and make that the price of a ticket, regardless of whether one purchases it 1 year or 1 day before travel. And we should increase the number of carriages to keep the prices as low as possible while we're at it.

If those who were horrified at the decision to scrap GARL truly do believe that the provision of 1-mile of track for 1300 jobs is a worthwhile investment to make at this time then let them reproduce the investment on a UK-wide scale and make the improvements that were sadly lacking over the past few decades. Meanwhile, the boast from the SNP that it is ploughing hundreds of millions into the M74 extension seems rather hollow to me given how wasteful that money sounds. We should not be stretching our purse strings to breaking point to appease frustrated drivers when the overall strategy should be to get them out of their cars.

Turning a 4-lane into a 6-lane (or whatever the project involves) and the induced traffic that will inevitably follow is exacerbating a problem that neither the Scottish nor the UK Government nor even the UK Goverment-in-waiting seem intent on tackling head on. Are the tax receipts from petrol so vital to our public coffers that a sensible environmental policy is simply unaffordable? It seems that is the conclusion that has been drawn by all and sundry.

Let's leave no-frills investment to Michael O'Leary, let's leave vanity projects to Donald Trump, let's leave 8-lane superhighways to the highways and let's get serious about a real, lasting solution to sustainable transport by focussing squarely on affordable rail travel.

Cameron's Claim of Right act

There seem to be a lot of referendums around at the moment.

David Cameron this week announced he would hold a referendum on anything that moves in Europe, Ben Bradshaw believes not having a referendum on electoral reform would be a "missed opportunity" and there have been a few referendums on gay marriage in the USA (with an unfortunate but wholly expected result in Maine).

But it is the promise of never-endums on Europe and the Conservatives' general stance on the EU that I think deserves a closer look, particularly from a Scottish angle.

The Tory leader's decision not to hold a referendum on the wider question of the UK's relationship with the EU has horrified some members of his party with Dan Hannan mercifully exiting the scene (stage right, of course). Bizarrely, the lack of a referendum has encouraged Labour politicians to criticise the stance taken by Cameron.

Miliband's quote from yesterday (shown below) was eyebrow-raisingly childish for a man aiming to hold the prestigious office of 'High Representative' within the EU, not to mention hypocritical given his party's shocking U-Turn on an EU Referendum despite their 2005 manifesto commitment:

"British people now know what to expect when they hear a cast-iron guarantee from David Cameron on Europe: nothing.

"This is not about taking back powers from Europe; it is about transferring power to the Eurosceptics on his backbenches."

A bit petty I reckon, certainly from the Richard Baker book of political retorts rather than the reasoned, intelligent synopsis of one of our country's greatest minds, which a Foreign Secretary should ideally be.

In terms of what Cameron will do, I suspect the Sovereignty Bill will ultimately be as successful as the USA's much-maligned Patriot Act. Similarly knee-jerk, similarly over-reaching and similarly needlessly meddlesome.

The Tories are going to protect Britain's constitution from European influence seemingly irrespective of one tiny, insignificant detail - We don't actually have a constitution.

With this proposed Bill, there are unavoidable constitutional questions to be raised. How will the Scottish people (a relatively strong pro-EU bloc as poll after poll has shown) feel about a Tory Government with only a few MPs from Scotland bringing in a Sovereignty Bill that includes Scotland and makes us second class in Europe? On the outside looking in once again?

We should be driving the agenda in Europe not, as Eddie Izzard amusingly puts it, cleaning the windows. The British great and the good have this superior mindset where they think that if we don't get Blair in as EU President then we should at least get Miliband as High Representative, as a consolation prize. We used to rule the world don't you know.

We can't sit outside the Eurozone, have a ruling party in a mad, fringe, right-wing Parliament grouping and expect the EU to take us seriously. The current EU President, Sweden's Fredrik Reinfeldt, said: "I hope he (Cameron) will feel comfortable in working with other European leaders. He will need us. To address this issue he needs European leadership, not only British leadership." but it's patently not the case.

Cameron is distinctly uneasy about working with European leaders. You can barely fit a rizla between Reinfeldt and Cameron on domestic and foreign policy and yet their parties sit in separate European groupings, to the Tories' detriment. Such misguided logic regarding the EU is what we have to expect for perhaps a generation to come.

European solitude is the future we are headed towards under a Tory Government and Cameron's Sovereignty Bill will rubberstamp our pariah status within the EU.

Furthermore, if this Bill will ensure the primacy of Westminster, will there be an impact on Holyrood? It is necessary for the Scottish Parliament to be answerable to Westminster, that is the nature of devolution after all, but there is an opportunity here for Cameron to belittle the Scottish Parliament by artificially inflating the prestige of Westminster.

So what if the Scottish Government were to introduce its own variation of a Sovereignty Bill? Yes, a non-sovereign nation bringing in a sovereignty bill.

Crazy? Perhaps, but the State of Oklahoma has brought in exactly that, a Sovereignty Bill to fend off the unwanted reach of the Federal Government.

So what if the Scottish Government was to introduce a 'Claim of Right Bill', confirming that the Scottish Parliament would always consider the interests of the Scottish people "paramount". How could all 129 MSPs not sign up to such a notion? Gordon Brown has already signed up to it in 1989.

Wording of the Claim of Right includes:

We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.

It would of course be a political ploy from the SNP to raise 'the sovereign right of the Scottish people' while Cameron is defending the 'UK rights of UK people'. But what a ploy. Nationalists would be seeking to exacerbate the West Lothian question, faint anti-Scottish grievance down south and also crucially make Scots think about how they want to be represented, at home and abroad, and by whom.

David Cameron passing a Sovereignty Bill when he does not have a satisfactory mandate to govern Scotland and is opposed by a Scottish Government that has a very different idea of how sovereignty should be will make for a very interesting scenario indeed.

Party Poopers

We really are entering dangerous terrain when a party to celebrate the Homecoming festivites on Scotland's patron saint's day is deemed an "insult" and "a party political stunt". The oddness of Iain Gray's petulant claims is compounded when you learn that Homecoming was Labour's idea in the first place!

I admit the tartan and shortbread rhetoric of Homecoming should have been drastically dialled down and a more modern edge tacked onto core events such as the Clan Gathering and St Andrew's Day festival but come on, Scotland isn't allowed to have Scottish celebrations any more?

What if Venice's Biennale was deemed too Italian and had to end? Or France's Bastille Day deemed too Nationalist? Or Pamplona's running of the bulls too overtly Spanish? What a sad loss any of the above would be.

It's nonsensical to say that Scotland can't hold Scottish-based shindigs because it might make people think about where they live and how they see themselves. Labour - the anti-cathartic party. It doesn't make for a good slogan (particularly because it looks a bit like "the anti-Cathcart party" which Tom Harris would never go for)

The gradual, seemingly unavoidable descent into the silliest of arguments forever orbitting the question of independence is surely reason enough to have a referendum on the matter and put it behind us for a generation or, perhaps, forever.

Then, finally, we can get the kilts on, paint our faces and have some fun without any petty political squabbles be it in an independent Scotland or still as part of the UK.

Could you jump banks?

I must admit I didn't initially realise how stringent the changes are for RBS.


The most surprising was that RBS are to sell their English RBS branches (and customers) and sell their Scottish Natwest branches (and customers)


I bank with Natwest up here and have a mortgage with them. Apart from the insane amount of letters they send out on nothing particularly important, they have been very good. Easy to get in touch with online or by the phone, good banter in the branches and, crucially, free of any screw-ups in my accounts.

However, with the news that the market is being prised open to allow another couple of banks in, one can't help but wonder if one should move elsewhere.

We may have Tesco Bank, Virgin Money, a foreign big name or a brand new start up bank run by a consortium of Scottish businessmen on our High Street before too long.

The question is, would any of the above move you to move bank and do business with them?

If there's a new Scottish bank I reckon I would feel a duty to support it by moving my accounts and mortgage to it. (I can't say I'd feel the same about Tesco Bank, needless to say). But would I be in the minority and would the lack of customers ultimately freeze out any new entrants to the market?

And, stretching this even further, would the sight of a new Scottish bank, run by successful Scots, getting off the ground and being successful help to turn the tide of opposition to independence? A new 'can do' attitude?

Another by-election in Scotland?

I've not had a chance to read the Kelly proposals in full but thanks to Gerri Peev over at The Steamie I have just learned that the proposals include an end to dual mandate MPs from 2011.

In a Scottish context, this means that we cannot have a politician working as both an MP and an MSP at the same time. The decision may be a slight rebuke to Alex Salmond who has held both roles since 2007 but as Alex is not standing in the 2010 election he will not be directly affected.

Currently, as far as I am aware, there are no politicians who are both MPs and MSPs but John Lamont is standing for the Tories in the Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk Westminster constituency and is already an MSP for the Roxburgh & Berwickshire Holyrood constituency. John has a very good chance of being an MP and an MSP come May 2011.

It is surely inconceivable, if the Kelly proposals are accepted in full (as they surely will be), that John Lamont could stay on as an MSP if he is elected next year as an MP. A Scottish Parliament by-election would have to be called immediately if Westminster has already rubberstamped the new rules.

So, looking ahead, the result in the 2007 election was as follows:

John Lamont (Tory) - 10,556

Euan Robson (Lib Dem) - 8,571

Aileen Orr (SNP) - 4,127

Mary Lockhart (Labour) - 2,108

Of course, the Tory candidate, whoever he or she may be, could take the seat and the make up of the Scottish Parliament would remain unchanged but given Lamont was only selected as a Westminster candidate once Chris Walker stepped down unexpectedly, one has to think the Tories are running out of volunteers in the area. And of course being from the area is the be all and end all for by-elections these days, apparently.

If the Lib Dems or the SNP won the seat, then their combined number of MSPs would boost to 64 and, along with Margo, they would total the magic of number of 65 that is needed to form a majority.

In other words, the Kelly proposals today could spell very bad news for the currently influential Green party in the dog days of the Scottish Parliament as they would lose their opportunity to win concessions from the ruling SNP, in the above scenario.

UPDATE: From today's Scotsman:

The SNP pointed out that John Lamont, the Tory MSP for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, and Alex Johnstone, a Tory MSP for North East Scotland were standing for Westminster seats.

The Tories said both would quit Holyrood at "the first electoral opportunity if … elected to the British Parliament".

I'm not sure what "the first electoral opportunity" really means but it suggests there'd be by-elections.

Kelly's Jobs for the Boys

Sir Christopher Kelly's proposals on how to improve MPs' allowances or expenses are due be set out later today with one of the most controversial reforms being MPs not being allowed to hire their husbands.

Politicians have been pleading their case that due to the long hours involved, due to the good working relationship married partners have and due to couples working together often being the only way to keep their marriages going, that this proposal should be dropped.

One MP was on GMTV this morning saying that 'any other family business' has to work long into the night and this couldn't reasonably be expected with someone who wasn't related to the politician. The MP's assistant, who was also on the breakfast programme, promised to prove thousands of letters had been answered and the role was being filled competently. They were also insistent that noone out there could do a better job.

I am amazed that so many politicians can so spectacularly miss the point.

In any other industry, if a recruitment drive had been completed and the result was the interviewer's husband got the job, they would be laughed out the room and probably disciplined. It shouldn't be any different for Westminster and, incidentally, it shouldn't be any different for Holyrood.

It is a massive conflict of interest for an MP to hire her husband or son in an assistant role and even Nick Clegg's talk of the medicine being "hard to take" misses the point.

Not only should they accept these proposals, MPs should have the broad-mindedness to see that they are steeped in common sense.

When a woman is elected as an MP she has won 1 job. Not 2 or 3. And definitely not a 'family business'.


(*Note that these proposals also affect male MPs. Not that you would know from the reporting in the press going on about 'husbands and sons' all the time.)

Cast Iron Guarantee

Alastair Campbell is making great hay out of David Cameron's 2007 "cast iron guarantee" quote relating to a referendum over on his blog.

Far be it from me to defend the Tory leader but here is the quote in full:

Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.

No treaty should be ratified without consulting the British people in a referendum.

The Lisbon Treaty came out of the negotiations so the 'cast iron guarantee' was to have a referendum on it and it alone. Now that the Treaty is ratified, the guarantee has expired.

To continue to hold Cameron to it, Alastair Campbell is looking embarrassingly desperate.

Referendum No More

OK, let's be clear, to suggest that the Conservatives should hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty after it has been ratified is ridiculous. Surely on that we can all (save for Dan Hannan) agree.

Vaclav Klaus has signed the Treaty bringing an end to the policy of the Tory party to hold a referendum on our own ratification. So what policy is next for the Conservatives?

A referendum on the UK's place in the European Union? Perhaps, Cameron has to keep the poised UKIP party at bay somehow, not to mention sweeten the anti-EU majority element in his party.

Accept the status quo? I would suggest so. It's not Cameron's fault that Labour reneged on its promise to hold a referendum so surely this is a reasonable stance for the Tory leader to take, irrespective of how rueful he allows himself to be (or act).

Speaking of EU referendums that were promised but we'll never receive, check out the incredible hypocrisy from John Prescott MP on his Twitter feed:

Looks like Cameron's cast iron guarantee has gone rusty! RT @DavidWooding Hague confirms Tories will NOT hold referendum on Lisbon Treaty.

Settle down John, there's still only one party that holds a monopoly on disappointing the public with regard to EU referendums.

It's an intriguing quandary that the Tories find themselves in but our position in Europe should not be compromised by Cameron's 'sop to the party's Europhobes'*. He needs to face them down and argue UKIP into not being an electoral threat in the General Election campaign if he has to have any credibility on Europe.

We need to integrate further with Europe, not shy away. We should start off by joining the Euro as the past year alone has shown how dangerous it is to be outside of the common currency. Infact, if Labour were brave and smart, they would adopt the policy of joining the Euro immediately after the General Election, turning the contest into a referendum on leaving Sterling rather than a referendum on deciding just how bad Gordon Brown is as Prime Minister.

So the ratification is bad news for the Tories, good news for Labour, bad news for John Prescott (who has shown far too much hubris), excellent news for Dan Hannan (who won't be off our screens for the next month) and woeful news for this poor chap.


(* that line was lifted from David Aaronovitch's excellent article this morning)


UPDATE:

Ha, I swear I didn't know he was coming on, but 5 minutes after writing this post Dan Hannan popped onto Channel 4 News.

Key quotes include:

"it would be curious for us to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty"

"I would much rather have a wider referendum on the repatriation of powers to the United Kingdom"

Also, during the Tory Conference Hannan had this to say (via the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg):

Daniel Hannan tells me Cameron is 'working privately' to encourage Czechs and Poles not to ratify the Lisbon treaty#cpc09

I guess that goes down as a fail from DC then...

Empty stores does not a new bank make

Unavoidable Nationalist overtones to one side, the loss of HBOS was a bitter blow to Scotland's external reputation and its internal self esteem.

The calls from some quarters that Bank of Scotland should be reinstated are silly and lack an understanding of just how integrated HBOS and Lloyds really are. Sadly, this bank is not for turning and will be slowly swallowed up by its dominant partner for years to come.

Anyway, what is the point in spending billions putting two banks together only to spend more billions pulling them apart. There is a recession on after all. Nick Clegg should think his burgeoning policy through or alternatively stop cheaply trying to win the SNP's votes with empty rhetoric:

"I believe we could and should try to give the Bank of Scotland back its independence rather than letting it be permanently lost in the leviathan of the Lloyds Banking Group."

For those with a more realistic view of how another Scottish bank could emerge, many will embrace the news that Ben Thompson looks likely to be trying to make it third time lucky in taking the shell of Lloyds TSB stores in Scotland and creating a business plan backed by a Scottish consortium. Tantalising stuff and a wonderful example of ambition and ingenuity.

What I don't understand though is why the option to buy old TSB retail space presents more of an opportunity for a new High Street bank any more than the availability of old Woolworths stores?

As new Government money goes into these banks and old stores are being flogged off, one has to wonder if the problem is really being fixed. Let's be honest, RBS and Lloyds are embarking on a period of cost-cutting so they would arguably have been getting rid of stores anyway. Why would Lloyds need an HBOS and a TSB on the same street for example? This EU ruling merely gives them the perfect excuse to crack on sooner rather than later.

Lloyds and RBS still have the capital, still have the customers and still have the dominant position which is dangerously close to illegal in the EU's eyes.

I'm not convinced that, despite some Scottish businessmen's best efforts, this EU ruling really changes much.