Interview: Jamie Hepburn - SNP

A lot is made these days about the democratic deficit, the yawning gap between the general public and the people that make our laws. Low voter turnout, general apathy and public cynicism all contribute to a disconnect that needs to be bridged before a country can hold a genuinely vibrant and sufficiently deep system of democracy.

I believe that blogging helps bridge this gap albeit in a rather narrow manner. To help fill this democratic deficit further, I decided to chance my arm and contact an MSP to ask them a series of questions. Just an attempt to peel back the Parliament's curtains and get an idea of what is actually going on and what our MSPs think.

And what better MSP to contact than blogger Jamie Hepburn, SNP MSP for the Central area.

I was delighted to get a response and here is the result:

1. Why did you get involved in Politics?
I have supported independence for Scotland for as long as I can remember, but I didn't actually take the step of joining the SNP until I started university. My father was a member of the party and I have vague recollections of delivering the Scots Independent newspaper at the age of four. So you could say that my involvement in politics was in the blood. However, I think that anyone who observes the world and believes that it can be changed for the better has a responsibility to act on that. I think that was the real spur for my involvement in politics and remains to be so today.

2. What are you currently working on?
Your interview! However, when I am not working on that, I have mainly been dealing with constituent enquiries. It is quite interesting as a new member to see more and more people come to you as they become aware of your existence. It takes a while to build your profile I suppose, but people aren't shy about coming to you with the issues they want to bring to your attention once they know you are there, and quite right so. Aside from that I have a few other things up my sleeve, but that is where they will remain for just now.

3. What are the most significant challenges facing Scotland at the current time?

Right now the economic slowdown that we are in the midst of is the most immediate challenge. I only wish we were equipped with the full range of powers that independence brings to meet that challenge more effectively.

4. What has been the high point during your time as an MSP?
I was hugely involved in campaigning for free education as a student, so to be able to vote for the abolition of the graduate endowment was quite fantastic. I have never understood the argument that students should pay directly for their education because they directly benefit by it. To take that argument to its logical conclusion would be the road to laissez faire madness. After all, if I break my leg I would benefit by visiting hospital to have it reset. Should I pay directly for that as well? Or for any of the myriad of services offered by the state? So to reintroduce the principle of free education in higher education was personally important to me.

5. What has been the low point?

There must have been one, but I can't honestly think what it might have been.

6. Do you think blogs have a place amidst the political debate now and/or in the future?
They will never be a substitute for the mainstream media because they are by their nature fuelled entirely by personal viewpoint, although it might be a moot point that the media isn't either. However I do think they add something to political debate and informing people. I avidly blogged myself during the election last year, but find it hard to get the time now, although the blog still exists.

7. Should political parties be funded by the state?

To a large extent they already are with electoral commission money available to the parties for policy development and so on. I think there is a role to be played with state funding and I am open to the suggestion that this be expanded.

8. You were voted in on the d'Hondt system. Do you think this is an appropriate voting model for the Scottish Parliament?

I certainly consider it to be more appropriate than first past the post which I think is an outdated electoral system. There is perhaps scope for considering STV instead, but it isn't a huge burning issue for me. I can't recall it ever being raised with me on the doorstep by a member of the public either.

9. Would Scotland be better served as an independent nation?
Yes. It wouldn't resolve everything overnight and we wouldn't become a utopia, but I do believe we would be far better placed to tackle some of the deep rooted problems we have here in Scotland with independence.

10. Who would make for a better Prime Minister, Gordon Brown or David Cameron?

Tweedledum and Tweedledee as far as I am concerned.

11. How did you spend the night of May 3rd 2007? Do you have any stand out memories?
I spent it largely at Wishaw Sports Centre where the count was taking place. My stand out memory of the night was huge disappointment at not winning Cumbernauld and Kilsyth where I was the SNP candidate. This was not only personally disappointing but made me worry that the SNP wasn't in for a great night electorally. Clearly it didn't work out that way. My own election was announced whilst I was asleep. It was taking so long to come through that I decided to retire to bed and was awakened by a text to congratulate me. That was a fairly odd experience.

12. Given the need for minority Government and a move closer to consensual politics in this term, who is your favourite MSP from amongst the other parties' ranks?

Despite political differences there are various people across the other parties that I am able to get on with. However, to name only one might upset the rest, so I can't really just point to one individual.

In For a Penny, In For 10 Pounds

You know when amateur journalists Hamish McDonnell and Angus McLeod combine to report on a story then it's going to be a bit of a corker. And so it is today with the rather bizarre news that the SNP is not only a political party but a betting syndicate.

If, as is reportedly the case, Labour have been putting bets on to bring their odds closer to the SNP's then it seems only fair that the SNP hit back in kind. That said, I find it very hard to believe that Mrs MacLafferty from number 65 in Markinch High St is just going to go vote for whoever is ahead at the bookies. Labour and the SNP may be embarking on a fun, betting arms race but I'm sure everyone else isn't taking a blind bit of difference. And of course the betting odds hardly told the story of the Glasgow East result.

So whether this fringe lobbying organisation, Mediawatch2008, has put out an email asking its subscribers to put a tenner on an SNP win or not, it really doesn't make a difference either way. It's not "desperation" for the SNP as Labour have lamely tried to picture it. It's (1) little to do with the SNP and (2) seemingly a response in kind from SNP-supporting activists to what Labour have already done. One could argue that the Labour activists got their desperation in first if we want to go down that path.

That said, it's Tory MSP David McLetchie who looks most silly with this quote, pandering as he is to a rather low denominator:

“This is a huge embarrassment for the SNP and it shows the desperate lows to which its campaign in Glenrothes has now sunk. The Nationalists have been caught red-handed, trying to rig the odds.”

Nothing in there stacks up by any stretch of the imagination.

So just another nonsense by-election story from Hamish McDonnell and Angus McLeod that's detracting from the bigger picture.



Still, good banter though....







PS No, I have received no such email urging me to go put £10 on the SNP.

Scotland and Norway

A great scoop for Truth About Scotland in only his 3rd post and I know Calum Cashley and Scots and Independent have already picked this up but this letter from the ambassador of Norway is so crushing for Angus McLeod and the Daily Mail that I had to add my cheering cry to the growing celebrations.

The letter:

Sir,

The article "Salmond Slapped down by Norway Minister" in the Daily Mail on 29 October contained several incorrect and misleading statements attributed to Norway's Foreign Minister, Jonas Gahr Støre.

Firstly, there is no "growing anger in Norway" over comparisons made between Scotland and Norway during the debate in the United Kingdom against the backdrop of the current global financial crisis.

Secondly, no accusations have been made by Mr Støre against Mr Salmond, as alleged in the article. In the interview, the Foreign Minister merely pointed out factual similarities and differences between the challenges presently faced by Scotland and Norway. Inferring from this that Mr Støre is of the view that Mr Salmond has in any way lied or mislead the public, is simply incorrect.

In short, the Norwegian Foreign Minister did not intend to criticise either side in this debate, which is a domestic political discussion. What he strongly emphasised in the interview with the Daily Mail and which, sadly, was simply omitted from the article, was his sincere appreciation of the warm ongoing relationship between Scotland and Norway.

Yours sincerely,
Bjarne Lindstrøm
Ambassador of Norway


Russell Brand was honourable enough to resign. I trust Angus McLeod and relevant staff at the Daily Mail will consider a similar course of action.

Bonus Jonas!

Working as an accountant and an auditor for numerous companies has helped me see into the bones and the nitty-gritty of business and the excesses that come out of it. I've not had the good fortune of enjoying all of the following but I have seen them first hand:

Travelling by business class for no reason other than to enjoy a few beers in the executive lounge.

A corporate code that can be used to take taxis and other freebies, no questions asked.

Individual dinner and overnight expense allowances that could feed a family of 6 very comfortably.

But these are small beer compared to the big bucks that can accrue if you pull yourself up the right ladder.

As an auditor and contractor in my past 5 years, I've not enjoyed the year end bonuses that others have. Generally you have to be specialised and/or permanent staff to receive one. Furthermore, in the world of audit, the scope for large fees being handed down to employees is very rare given most external audits are loss leaders to win other work and gain access to a company.

The real money pit is in Corporate Finance and Transaction Services. The former being the brokering of a deal for one company to takeover or merge with another and the latter being the bringing together of the respective companies' systems and processes after an agreement/price is reached.

Bonuses of 30%, 50%, even 100% of one's already-inflated salary are the norm. If you can land a big deal then the sums only increase.

I say all of this as the HBOS and Lloyds TSB deal seems to be sliding its way towards completion with the near-unanimous backing of politicians and senior management. The lack of checks and balances against whether this really is in the country's best interests is quite scary and I am sceptical what the main motivation is for those involved.

Worrying behaviour includes reports being hurried through governmental departments, Ministers ignoring pleas for reflection and the Government withholding answers from journalists. Three gaping holes in the process that should cause concern. Furthermore, personal financial gain rather than a consideration for the effects on lower level jobs and smaller, local economies will almost certainly have arisen for many of the HBOS and Lloyds TSB staff involved.

If the credit crunch debacle has taught us anything it is that we shouldn't place too much faith in the human, worldly element of decisions taken by senior management in financial companies. As they collect their BA Gold Card points and hob-nob between the world's plushest hotels, it won't take long before their original sense of perspective is skewed and their priorities altered.

The only real chance that the HBOS and Lloyds TSB deal is considered appropriately must come from the shareholders but given a large percentage of this block are the very companies and people who will profit from the bonuses mentioned above, one has to wonder if the relevant parties really are the servants of the people that we will need them to be to avoid any future catastrophes on this scale again.

HBOS and Lloyds TSB returning to core services and serving the many rather than the few needs to be the objective here, regardless of how many pound signs there are in the equation to cloud one's judgement.

Norwegian Would

It seems Angus McLeod of The Times has decided that the SNP and Salmond were 'humiliated' by a supposed rebuke from Norway.



For me, any rebuke that was tenuously derived from the actual comments made could much more easily be laid at the door of Jim Murphy and other unionist politicians/commentators. Barely concealing their delight they have used the phrase 'arc of insolvency' with reckless abandon in describing our European neighbours. Salmond has talked Norway, Sweden and Iceland up, Labour have talked them down. Who do you think the Scandinavians are more displeased with?


However, broadly speaking, I can understand the Norwegian Foreign Minister's concern at having his country kicked around like a political football. It has long bothered me that Scotland has had to say we'd be like so-and-so if we were ever to be independent, though I can appreciate that Scotland somewhat lamentably being the only non-ïndependent country of its size in Europe is a convincing line of argument for the SNP.


At the end of the day though, we shouldn't need to follow a model, we shouldn't need to hang around childishly waiting for someone to give us the answers, a manual on how to make it alone. I'm sure the Idiot's Guide to Running an Independent Country will be printed one day but we shouldn't need it. If we're not clever enough to beat out our own path then we might as well just nestle back into the cosy warmth of the UK's manger and forget about it.


I have seen very little humiliation involved in the quoted text of what the Norwegian Minister has said, perish the thought that Angus McLeod has used the interruption for his own selfish ends but for me, the comments amount to Norway pointing out that the situation with their country is different and comparisons are somewhat irrelevant. The oil history is different, the social sector is different, the structures are different and the timing is different. Basically, there are numerous factors to consider for independent coutries, the majority of which differ substantially from one nation to the next.


So I hope we can one day move on from the bunfights of Scotland being the next Iceland or Scotland on the verge of a Tiger Economy like Irelands. Don't get me wrong, such considerations are certainly an improvement on the tired line of argument that Scotland is too needy and too immature as a state to be successful standing alone, but there's a lack of cold, sober realism in the debate at the moment with both sides seemingly trying to come up with the best soundbite rather than the most convincing argument.


We can't make a considered decision on independence until we have a proper, substantive debate that focusses on Scotland's situation alone. More than anything else, I think Norway were just trying to nudge us back on track to that end.


And who knows, one day we may read in foreign newspapers "why can't we be more like Scotland?" once in a while. Wouldn't that be a refreshing change.


UPDATE: Truth About Scotland has a damning letter from the Norwegian Ambassador slapping down Daily Mail and Angus McLeod.

Winner Takes All

It is testament to how close the Glenrothes by-election is that neither party have taken a breather to try massaging the public's expectations.

Labour had originally tried to write this one off early but now, with a scent of victory, they are throwing everything at Glenrothes, going in full tilt and good on them for rolling their sleeves up and getting stuck in.

The SNP, as they see their odds of winning shortening, could easily have fallen back on the line that reducing a 10,000+ majority to a wafer-thin lead in a Labour heartland would be a great result for them but they've continued going hammer and tongs aswell.

The reality is, it doesn't matter what went before, winner takes all in this game and there's no prizes for second place.

Either Lindsay Roy or Peter Grant will be licking their wounds next week but I suspect it will be one of Gordon Brown or Alex Salmond that will have the sorest headache.

Suspicious Keywords

The Guardian has reached this blog using the keywords "Alex Fergusson" and "Margaret Curran". Newspapers reaching blogs using specific words usually precedes a story the next day.

Does anyone have any ideas?

Short haul for Peter Grant? U-Haul for The Telegraph

I was initially taken in by the misleading headline but this is very poor journalism from The Telegraph if you ask me:

The subheading is:

The Scottish National Party candidate in the Glenrothes by-election (Peter Grant) has admitted that he does not want to be an MP for more than five years because he would get homesick.

The actual quotes are:

"It's important to get the right person to Westminster, but we're going to have a referendum in 2010. Every victory the SNP wins from now on takes us a little bit closer (to independence)."

"I don't want to spend any more time down there than I have to. I would be homesick after more than that."

Clearly what Peter Grant is saying is that he doesn't want to be an MP for more than five years because he hopes Scotland will be independent.


But hey, "SNP Glenrothes candidate reiterates his desire for independence" doesn't make for quite as good a headline.

Joke of the Day

On driving back from the SNP Conference on the Saturday night I made the rare choice of listening to Radio 2 and I was surprised to hear a show fronted by Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand. It turned out it was the very show that all this bally-hoo is surrounding.

I wouldn't say I was driving with tears of laughter down my cheeks but it was highly amusing stuff, classic Brand and Ross humour and the combined effort is greater than the sum of their parts. Furthermore, I certainly don't remember thinking "Ooh, they'll pay for that in the morning."

I accept I'm fairly irreverent myself, I don't get shocked or offended easily and my sense of humour is, well, let's say 'wide ranging' but if Andrew Sachs had volunteered into an interview with the elephant trap that is Jonathon Ross and Russell Brand then Sachs should have seen what was coming.

Ross has already asked if a teenage David Cameron 'enjoyed' posters of Margaret Thatcher and Brand is a self-confessed sex addict with recent form in calling George Bush a retard and slating a boy band for wearing chastity belts (or something like that).

So, overall, I think a lot of people in the UK need to shed the political correctness and find their funny bone once in a while. If you don't like it, change the channel.

Oh, and I agree with J Arthur MacNumpty, what's stand-up extraordinaire Gordon Brown doing getting stuck into the debate? Stick to what your good at Sir, whatever that may be...

Time to dump Trident

With the world facing financial meltdown and everyone from old pensioners to the largest banks having to count their pennies, it's pretty clear that now is not the time to be wasting money on needless expenditure.

Banks are going back to core business and laying off staff, governments will be tailoring all of their policies to reversing the credit crunch and families will be carefully sifting through food bills and electricity bills to find ways to cut costs.

For the Labour Government, I have no doubt that the ID Card proposal will be severely diluted to avoid the expected 11bn expense and the Olympics budget will now be run with an iron fist. But what of the plans to replace Trident at a cost of 25bn? Is this really going to be money well spent? I doubt it. Particularly when one is hard pushed to find anyone who would ever think that a nuclear bomb would ever be fired by a UK Prime Minister? Who exactly would the target be? Al Qaeda? I don't see it somehow. Or are we paying 25bn to keep our permanent seat on the UN Security Council?

Now, I know that if we reverse this ludicrous decision we're not going to have 25bn sitting in a bank account ready to go today but it's widely known that work to replace Trident has been running for 10 years so there are savings that can be made now. And, furthermore, this recession is going to be long and deep so money saved further down the line will be crucial for the next decade and beyond.

Of course, considering the recession for a while, Gordon Brown initially said we had avoided boom and bust, then he suggested the UK would avoid recession despite the global turmoil and then he suggested the recession would be shallow and short. So while Gordon tries to avoid any responsibility for any of this "bust" despite him happy to take the plaudits for the "boom", I'm choosing to trust sources elsewhere. We aren't escaping this recession any time soon.

So how can Labour justify pushing ahead with replacing Trident when the majority of the UK is against it? When businesses are failing through lack of cash? When pension pots are withering away to a pittance? When unemployment is going through the roof?

Replacing Trident in order to keep a few hundred jobs going at Rosyth to deter an enemy that no longer sees such threats as a bona fide deterrent, all at a cost of 25bn, is simply not good enough. 

Furthermore, if the issue was to be raised by a certain SNP party at around Autumn 2010, the future constitutional set-up of this very peace-loving nation could depend upon the population's opinion on the matter.

Jeff the Plumber

I am not ashamed of the brazen boasting I am about to embark on. Indeed this blog is one in a long list of not-so-willing recipients that this story will be told to. A story of heroism, of bravery, of never giving in.

It starts, with a broken toilet.

A broken toilet should be like a frazzled plug or a burst bulb, easily fixed and with the added bonus of getting to walk around like Desperate Dan all day when one solves the problems and is as easily puffed with pride as I am.

So I walked into the bathroom, gallus as all get out and assessed the problem. I pushed, I pulled, I rolled up my sleeve, I wrinkled my nose as I felt things I really didn't want to feel and, ultimately, I was defeated. The little hook for the flush had nothing to hook on to and I was utterly stumped.

I left the bathroom, aware that a little part of my masculinity was gone forever and I checked the Yellow Pages. The modern day equivalent of a white flag. 'Plumbers R Us' could so easily have been called 'Boys R U' such was the depths of ineptitude I was feeling. Inherent in the phrase 'getting a man in' is the charge that one who makes the call is not a man himself.

With hollow eyes and a monosyllabic tone I added my name and address to the list of failures who couldn't even get a flush to work. Thankfully, my tight-fistedness spurred me back into action: "How much is the call out charge?" I asked nonchalanty, momentarily sparked into life by the thought of money changing hands. "£65" came the rather cocky reply, as if daring me to challenge it.

£65! For someone to drive down Granton Road and walk up 3 flights of stairs? I don't care if he has biceps that could crush a walnut and a spanner the size of an oak tree, I'm giving this toilet another crack I thought, before asking 'Plumbers R Us' to be kept on record as I might phone back.

So I faced down my avocado green nemesis once more. Sleeves now rolled up to my shoulder, pushing and pulling reaching a menacing level, roaring with galvanising anguish, the sloshing of water was a rhythmic backdrop and it only faded to a still calm after I found the answer. I found the answer. I kicked the toilet brush across the room in unbridled glee and punched the air, spraying the wall with a suspiciously-coloured water that will need cleaning later.

But, awash with success and flushed with pride, I once again can walk amongst men.

The Prescotts - Car Crash TV

Prescott: The Class System and Me has only been on for 5 minutes but it's abundantly clear what it's twee backing music and idiot-friendly dialogue is there for.

It goes something like this:

John Prescott cheats on his wife, Pauline.

John Prescott is found out by the press.

Pauline hits the roof and makes John be in a TV programme in which she aims to be the star of the show.

Pauline's naked yet shallow ambition is uncovered before the opening credits are over. "I hope we aren't seen to be anything like The Hamiltons. That would be awful." she cries, duplicitously.

Dressed like a china doll and talking with a bizarre accent, Pauline guns for a career in the entertainment industry with John playing the brow-beaten straight man.


That's my prediction anyway. I can't bear to watch the next 50 minutes.

Clean Sweep for Obama?

Let's look at the current state of play of the US Election:

Barack Obama is opening up large gains in national polls.

Barack Obama raised $150m in a single record breaking month, this compares to $84m for McCain although much of this was raised separately by the Republican National Committee.

Barack Obama had 40,000 come to his speech in Albuquerque. John McCain had 1,000 in the same town on the same day.

Sarah Palin's home state newspaper has backed Barack Obama. The VP nominee has gone rogue and is 'off message'.

The Democrat campaign is moving aggressively into Republican territory to force McCain onto the defensive.

Bookmakers have already paid out on an Obama victory. The best bet you can get on a Democrat win is 1/12. And have you ever met a poor bookie?

There has been a lot said about the Bradley Effect, the potential for American voters to suggest they are voting for Obama but are actually voting the other way. But with voters typically enjoying voting for the winner and every last scintilla of momentum sitting in the Democrat camp, is there a chance McCain won't get the vote out and this election could be a clean sweep for Obama?

Could the Bradley effect be replaced by the McCain effect?

I wonder what odds you'd get on that.

Free School Meals

Yes, I know, this blog is becoming a single-issue-website but a thought struck me on a particularly dreary bus ride home. (Can we put the clocks forward now, coming home in the dark isn't much fun.)

Anyway, yes, free school meals.

One of the main charges that's been levelled against the policy is that those who can afford to pay should pay. That may be so and I agree that those who have more spare cash should put more in but the pot for Free School Meals is about £50m so where did it come from exactly?

An equal split from the poorest to the top? I don't think so. Doctors and lawyers and accountants and more well-off families will have already paid more through income tax and inheritance tax and through not taking up NHS/state education but preferring a private health and private schooling system. They won't, of course, pay a higher share through Council Tax as that is yet to be changed. Local Income Tax will be along soon enough to set that right though.

I suspect hard working families already pay enough to ensure that p1-p3 kids can get a free school meal and this argument of 'those who can afford to pay should pay' is something of a red herring.

Some people, and the Labour party in particular, seem to have a bee in their bonnet about more well-off families paying their fair share. But all too often the fact that their share is already a very large slice of the pie already is overlooked.

British Day

I see the UK Government are dropping their plans for a British Day national holiday. That's a shame. I was looking forward to a day off in the rain, watching Countdown, complaining about house prices, drinking beer in the evening, getting into a couple of fights and then having a kebab on the way home.

Glenrothes - The Real Issues

For a few years I worked with a manufacturing company just outside Glenrothes, inside the constituency for this by-election.

I took part in the external audit of the accounts and consequently was lucky enough to see what drives the business, meet with staff at all levels and learn how they make their profits.

Sadly, during the three years that I monitored the figures, the profits turned to losses and the losses resulted in administration. I was saddened to learn on my last visit to Glenrothes a couple of weeks ago that the company is now no longer even trading. In an ironic twist to the tale given the current credit crisis and bursting housing bubble, the area has been sold to property developers to turn the factories into flats.

There were two factors that brought the company to its knees: rising energy costs and pension liabilities.

For the energy costs, the stock items were required to be transported by lorries all across the UK and the steep costs of petrol (mostly made up of Westminster tax) were ultimately too much for this medium-sized company to bear.

For the pension liability, the company had taken payment from its employees for decades running a money purchase scheme. A change to accounting rules (FRS 17) and a need to keep the company trading resulted in the pension gap struggling to be plugged with much needed payments. In the end, what was owed to employees could not be met with the paltry amount of money that was left in the pot.

When I was working there, there were 300 employees at the company, a company that had been going since the 1800s. Now there are no employees. It has been run into the ground on Labour's watch on two issues that they have to bear a large chunk of responsibility for.

There's been a lot of talk about care charges in the area and whether an independent Scotland would go the way of Iceland but Glenrothes is a working-class town and the fundamentals of low pensions and rising energy costs are the issues that reverberate the strongest from what I have seen.

Gordon Brown may be taking cold comfort from a supposed bounce after bailing out bankers and giving speeches in global summits. For my money, it will do him little good amongst the unemployed, the underpaid and the overcharged citizens of Glenrothes.

Local Income Tax steps it up

I have to agree with the comment in the Times article from Lorraine Davidson "Anger at Swinney's U-Turn over Local Income Tax"

As the photo suggests, it seems to be only Labour and Andy Kerr that are mostly angry about it.

John Swinney is showing some common sense and a consensual approach in making the LIT policy work and getting it through parliament. I particularly liked this line:

“And if we decide to do this in due course and we all want to call it a U-turn, I'll call it a U-turn. I'm not fussed about that.”

Well said. The Finance spokesman is referring to the possible compromise in accepting the Lib Dem wish of letting all 32 councils set their rates locally. It makes some sense in light of the free school meals debate and the Edinburgh trams debacle, though I am still somewhat wary.

Overall, the only people I know who have problems with this are those that think that people who earn £100k will pay too much.

I can't imagine that's something that will get Andy Kerr too angry although, on current evidence, it doesn't seem to take much.

A scanner sparkly

I think this has to be a candidate for silliest story of the year:

MSPs have demanded that the Royal Bank of Scotland gift its pioneering medical scanner to the public after the troubled financial giant received a £20 billion bailout from the taxpayer.

Here's the history to this:

RBS gifted a £4m scanner to NHS Lothian earlier in the year on the condition that the bank's staff had preferred access and could use it at least 25% of the time. Pretty nice of them hey? I'm not sure how accountants and doctors can both have a need for a heart scanner but so be it.

Back when the equipment was given, public luminaries from Alyson Pollock to Margo McDonald wrung their hands in anguish at the thought of the private sector helping out the public sector. It seems the old adage of not looking a gift horse in the mouth didn't cross their minds.

Now they've gone one further. Led by that luminary of common sense Christine Grahame and backed up by cavewoman lefty Cathy Jamieson, they are now suggesting that RBS should drop all conditions attached to the scanner and give the equipment to NHS Lothian in full for nothing. (Not that RBS are strapped for cash or anything.)

So contorted with frustration over the idea that a bank can be generous enough to let the public sector borrow its equipment, this quartet are trying to use the economic crisis to scam a scanner from RBS.

Yes, Christine Grahame presumably has fears that RBS is about to be British (post-nationalisation) and this is too much for her too bear so adding a printer to her Scottish Swag Bag (already containing Berwick and Mary Queen of Scots' corpse) will give her some comfort over the deal.

Bizarre. Thoroughly bizarre.

Another Displace in Another Poll

Oh what a circus...!

The SNP, riding high in the Westminster polls for so long, have found themselves lagging behind in 2nd, as close to the Tories in 3rd as they are to Labour in 1st. And yet the Nationalists' share of the vote in Holyrood has held firm, as has support for independence at 31%.

There was some confusion over the Perth Conference as the SNP activists were reported to have had the same buzz and the same energy as the previous year and yet the journalists expected them to be more pessimistic, lacking oomph. Was it a case of 'you only see what you want to see' for SNP members with today's poll perhaps bringing into sharp focus the perils ahead? If Salmond loses the confidence of the public over the economy, how quickly can one reasonably expect him to get it back? Not quickly if you ask me.

Perhaps, now more than ever, the SNP will wish a Tory victory in the next General Election to ensure Brown, for all his faults, is removed from the indendence referendum equation with all that Treasury experience of his. David Cameron or George Osborne would be the type of people Salmond would much prefer going up against in arguing the case for fiscal freedom.

Anyway, on to the numbers:

Westminster:

Labour 38%

SNP 29%

Tory 20%

Lib Dem 11%

So, the Lib Dems free-falling, the Tories continuing to hold on in the 20%s and Labour pulling far ahead of their SNP rivals. It says it all when I choose to insert a huge caveat, we haven't seen the detail yet.

But, with the above, I make that to be:

Labour - 38 seats

SNP - 9 seats

Tory - 8 seats

Lib Dem - 5 seats

The SNP losing Glenrothes by over 4,000, Edinburgh North & Leith by over 5,000 and the likes of Alastair Darling, Jim Murphy, Michael Martin, Anne McGuire and Douglas Alexander would have easy re-election nights. Even Des Browne and Nigel Griffiths would scrape back to London by 17 and 631 votes respectively.

It seems that the Scottish people have gone back to understanding that Westminster is a different barrel of fish to Holyrood and the real fight is between Labour and the Tories, regardless of how successful the SNP have been and continue to be on the home front. Worryingly, I would expect something of a squeeze on the SNP (and the Lib Dems) as any General Election date moves closer.

But then, when it came to Westminster voting intentions and the SNP, Salmond should never have expected the love affair to last.

Gordon Brown and his Back Yard

Well, it's pretty clear what the top story today is, Gordon Brown breaking with the 'convention' that Prime Ministers don't campaign in by-elections by visiting Glenrothes.

The SNP are painting the visit as the PM "running scared" whereas Labour are saying it's important that the PM explains his solutions for the financial crisis to the people.

For me, as someone who has always thought it odd to have a convention where PMs don't campaign in by-elections, it would be hypocritical to now think less of Gordon Brown for making the trip. He has done the right thing. Whether this is a genuine bid to take the argument to floating voters or a stage-managed affair where several Labour supporters pose for the cameras and provide soundbites, much like what happened with Sarah Brown, is another matter.

If there's a by-election in Fife, Gordon Brown should make an appearance. He's done that now and, even though the decision should always have been a no-brainer, the PM deserves respect and praise for making the correct call.

In praise of Rod Liddle

Per the Sunday Times, regarding George Osborne:

Did Deripaska lead him on, perhaps unwittingly, with a stare held for a moment too long or a coy smile? Never mind the fifty thousand quid; I want to know if they kissed. It must be something like that – if, as seems clear, it’s not about the money

The rest is just as amusing and well worth a read.

For all that I despair about biased commentators with regularly poor form, there are some crackers out there of which Rod Liddle is certainly one.

Looking for Andrew

A couple of hits from "Independent Television News Ltd" for "Andrew McFadyen Scottish Labour" on Google this afternoon.

It might be worth staying in for the ITV news tonight. Or maybe they're just going to offer him a job and are checking up....


I would expect the blog post that they linked to can't have helped 'Head of Communications*' Andrew's cause either way.



* A department of one person. So, the head of himself.

Glory Hunter

Hull City are joint top of the Premiership! Who says God doesn't have a sense of humour...


And I couldn't have wished a better present for a nicer man...


Forget Manchester United, I'm a Hull fan now.

Friday Blog Love

I have read in several places today about the imminent death of blogging.

In these difficult times we need to take a Keynsian approach to this crisis and blog our way out of it, more articles and not less.

That said, home time was meant to be 4pm so I'm taking that other approach to a crisi. I'm off to the pub.

Enjoy the weekend!

Blogging revolution

Per the Observer:

"Scotland's first 'virtual' political movement will be launched today by two former Labour activists in an attempt to appeal to disaffected voters and transform democracy."

Before anyone gets too excited, this is The Observer in February 2007, curiously the same date that I started blogging.

Founders Alan Smart and Tommy Sheppard, formerly of the Labour Party, started YouScotland.com in a bid to give "the people of Scotland the chance to contribute to the future of our country."

Critics said that the odds were stacked against a new internet-based movement, claiming it was a method of reaching political anoraks rather than the general public.


Hmm, any news on how they're getting on? My office has a particularly large firewall in place. I can't help but think that the critics may well have called it right.

Still, Doctor Vee gives bloggers plenty of reasons to be cheerful.

Oh dear...

I suspect if the standard of Tom Harris' posts don't improve, we're going to have to start a new version of 'Terry Watch'. His latest effort is very poor indeed and I suspect Tom will be hanging up his keyboard soon as his heart just doesn't seem in the blogging game any more, resorting as he is to cheap digs at the SNP and waffling about Doctor Who/X Factor.

I was particularly surprised that in this latest article he linked back to a post where he suggested the SNP are full of homophobes and gun-nuts, a post I like to think I thoroughly took to task. I thought he might have preferred to brush such irrational poor form under the carpet.

If Tom Harris and Scottish Unionist want to debate at the same level of the ugly swamp of the Scotsman comments section then so be it but the real, grown-up debate is happening elsewhere. They can get onboard and put their positive case for the union calmly and clearly or they can continue with the dog whistle politics with the other Scotsman numpties they seem to thoroughly enjoy being associated with.

We can only hope Scotland's top blogger gets back on his game soon.

Question Time

Here were some thoughts as they happened during last night's show:

Is this some sort of early Christmas present for the SNP? Alex Salmond on Question Time up against Jo Swinson? Not only that, the First Minister is sitting beside the Editor of the Financial Times so they can nod sagely alongside each other further backing Alex's financial credentials.



Was it worth pulling Phil Woolas from Question Time if it meant the guests were then invited to queue up to slag off Labour for doing so?




Oh dear, everyone's talking over Jo Swinson who is doing a lot of "yeah, but"s. Her assertion that China is the only country who has successfully capped immigration is getting roundly rebutted.



Salmond is now talking about sex education at schools and explaining that the reason we don't have compulsory sex-ed classes in Scotland is because we don't have any compulsory classes, the curriculum is not fixed and schools have the flexibility to adapt. I daresay the First Minister is hoping that those in England (and Wales (and Northern Ireland)) like the sound of that approach.



Good line from Roy Hattersley: We shouldn't confuse innocence with ignorance.



"Was it wise for Gordon Brown to say the economy is going into recession?"


The editor of the FT's first line in response is that Gordon has gone from nemesis to hubris (Hubris!? cried Dimbleby)


He goes on to say that politicians really don't have that much say over peoples' spending power. "Boom and bust has not been banished. We've had a very good 10 year party and now we've got to clean up."

Good line from Hattersley. The Tory lady says Roy and her must be living in some sort of parallel universe. "I hope so" says Roy.

And Salmond gets the last word. About Osbourne: Basically, don't take your fundraiser on a Russian billionaire's yacht if you don't want to be accused of dodgy foreign donations.

Fair point!

US Election - Pub Quotes

For all that one can read the FT, Times and CNN for their news and analysis, sometimes the best lines come from a mate down the pub:

"John McCain's the human equivalent of a cough struggling to make it into existence"


The more you think about it, the more fitting it becomes.

Hair today, gone tomorrow

I had wondered if there was going to be a story about George Gordon today, the SNP candidate for the Forth by-election. I received a 'hit' from The Scotsman via Google with keywords "George Gordon SNP".

The last time that happened it was "Linda Fabiani Osama Saeed" and there were a few empty stories in the Sunday papers about some meeting. It's nice to occasionally know what's coming in the news before it arrives.

Anyway, thankfully, this occasion it's just a throwaway tale about Mr Gordon's hairstyle.

Must be a slow news day....!

Setting Scotland free

David Cameron's admission that Scotland can stand alone as an independent country will go down as one of the main turning points on the way to a "Yes" vote in a referendum.

Do you think Stalin would have said "Yes, Ukraine could go it alone", Milosevic "Of course, Bosnia could make it" or in colonial times British leaders would have admitted "Oh yes, the British Empire don't really need us." I doubt it.

And they may seem extreme comparisons but I don't think so.

Many people are stupid. Sorry if any of you are reading this but you really are. Some of the most common reasons for not wanting an independent Scotland are border controls at Gretna and instant financial implosion.

For many Scots, their political masters telling them that independence is just simply not an option is sufficient. They hear this and cosy back into the depths of the UK's safe welcoming arms, insulated from not having to think about it any further.

David Cameron has put a spanner in the works now. The SNP will get a lot of mileage out of this comment from the Tory leader, in this Westminster term and the next. The reasons for blocking an independence referendum have just shortened, the minds of many Scots have been prised open a little bit more and imagination of what could be will have been fired up.

And what money the focus will now shift to Gordon Brown to make the same admission? He'll certainly look a little bit silly the next time he suggests Scotland are "too wee" to make it as an independent nation?

I read with interest a list of countries on Wikipedia. It includes the likes of Eritrea, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Scotland is not on the list.

How long will it be before Scotland will choose not just to "stand alone" but also stand alongside the other 245 countries in the world as an equal partner?

A little less longer thanks to David Cameron today I daresay.

A big fat YouGov poll!

Yes, here I am, football on the TV (come on Villa!), the spuds are on the hob (soon be burned and Domino's shall be called), laptop on the lap and, to my joy, a poll from YouGov/Channel 4 has just passed my eyes with the detail now on Excel.

So, without further ado, let's see what we have....

First of all, most importantly, the turnout is 2,123 and the polling took place between 20th and 22nd. So:

reputable polling company (check!)

big enough sample size (check!)

timely (check!)


The voting intentions are:

Tory 43%

Labour 38%

Lib Dem 12%

No bones about it, Gordon Brown has pulled it out the bag. A 5% gap is a great result and could even relate to a win for Labour in a general election due to voting anomalies.

The Tories can't complain with 43% really, it's the Lib Dems that are letting them down. 12% is abysmal and Nick Clegg and his team need to really think about what they've been doing over the past few months (or not doing).

Note that the sample size for Scotland is a mere 76 and irrelevant, not that it stopped Calum Cashley doing a little dance at the prospect of winning Edinburgh North and Leith given "Other" got a mighty 37% (Labour 32%, Tories 26%). To be fair, the poll did have the Lib Dems on 6% north of the border so maybe the dance wasn't totally in vain.

Remember the days over a year ago when the Tory party was racked with nerves, scared of their own shadow, couldn't come to together on schools or Europe or anything and Cameron looked close to being out on his ear?

I think they could be back with us before too long.


Drilling into the detail a bit more for more information:

41% believe Gordon Brown would make the best PM at the current time. 27% believe it should be Cameron.

This flips around after the general election where 26% believe it should be Brown and 36% believe it should be Cameron.

50% view Gordon Brown's leadership positively while 46% view it negatively. That's a great result for Gordon as very recently he was seriously struggling on this score. The only down side is that 65% view Cameron positively and only 26% negatively.

Nice to see that 58% of people agree Brown bears a lot of responsibility for the financial mess, I would have hoped for higher given he was Chancellor for 10 years. 28% disagree.

A low 23% of respondents think Brown should step down. Only 4% within Labour voters.


Overall, it's a slight win for the Tories but what is clear to me from this poll is this: Gordon Brown's knight in shining armour, the man that will save his job, is David Cameron.


Anyway, I'm off to phone a pizza.


UPDATE: Just for fun, I updated the Westminster predictor model for the polling results of SNP 37%, Labour 32%, Tories 26% and Lib Dems 6%.

It gave the following: SNP 22 seats, Labour 19 seats, Tories 13 seats, Lib Dems 5 seats.

(Calum Cashley would finish 3rd in Edinburgh North and Leith.)

Cameron admits Scotland can "stand alone"

Per The Scotsman:

David Cameron said: "Of course it is possible that Scotland can stand alone – that is true."

I just think it would be better off in the United Kingdom. Better off for all of us.

I don't think we'd ever succeed in saving the Union by frightening Scots to say you couldn't possibly make it on your own.

That's not the way I approach it. The Union to me is about generosity – we're stronger together because we share so much together."

That is definitely progress. Now if only Gordon Brown would be brave enough to say something similar he'd find life might be a little easier for him North of the Border.


Still, DC did repeat this rather odd line today:

"I will work with anyone in the Scottish Parliament and administration who wants to further the benefits and conditions for the people of Scotland."

That is not "vowing to work with the First Minister of Scotland" if you ask me. The conditional approach taken is, for my money, a way of saving face if he chooses not to work with the SNP down the line. After all, why not just say "I'll work with anyone in the Scottish Parliament"?

Cameron's Mum's a bike, apparently

From Michael Settle of The Herald:

"The prize of quote of the day goes to David Cameron on the stump in Glenrothes. Asked if he would sack George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, if it turned out he had not been telling truth about the Deripaska affair, the Tory leader replied: "If my mother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle."

Calling someone's Mum a bike in Fife probably ends up with someone getting their head kicked in. But given Cameron did it to his own mother, he'll probably just about get away with it.


Any idea what 'Dave' is getting at though? I can't work him out...

Opening our eyes to recession

I just read a quite remarkable post from young Yapping Yousuf. It seems the Labour lad would rather the UK Government doesn't mention the looming recession just incase it creates a, um, recession. Not sure if that's going to work. The old "your fly's undone" misdirection trick was clever at school but not so clever in the big boy's world of Global Economics.

People might not have liked Mervyn King's "we're all toast" speech but the man isn't the head of the Bank of England for nothing. It's his job to give us the good news when there's good news and the bad news when there isn't.

Perhaps if Gordon Brown hadn't taken a similar approach to Yousuf, ignoring the warning signs and boasting of how he ended boom and bust, then we wouldn't be in as big as a mess as we are now.

As recently as last year Gordon Brown signed off on his last Budget Speech with the following:

2007 - "This is a Budget to expand prosperity and fairness for Britain's families - and it is built on the foundation of the longest period of economic stability and sustained growth in our country's history,"

Yes, just a shame the bigger the boom, the bigger the bust.

So for all the information and data and business minds that Gordon Brown was privy to, he clearly didn't have one iota of an idea about what financial mayhem was around the corner.

It's like that old joke: A Chancellor and the Economy fall off a cliff.... Boom, boom.

Sadly they're the last booms we'll be seeing in a long, long time, whether you want to face up to the facts or not.

Glenrothes By-Election - 'Brown Trounce'

I read with interest Malc's take on Glenrothes. Given his record in calling unpredictable results correctly, it is making me uneasy that he thinks Labour are in with a chance but the chief reason I remain optimistic and confident the SNP will win is this:

Government's historically don't do well in by-elections relative to General Elections and if this was a GE I would still be predicting Labour to lose:

In 2005 the Glenrothes result was:

John MacDougall (Labour) - 19,395
John Beare (SNP) - 8,731
Liz Riches (Lib Dem) - 4,728
Belinda Don (Tory) - 2,651

Using national trends, the recent polls and a similar turnout which per 2007 Holyrood election for this constituency and Glasgow East result seems to be a reasonably prudent barometer, the
General Election result in Glenrothes would be:

1st Peter Grant (SNP) - 16,800
2nd Lindsay Roy (Labour) - 15,697
3rd Maurice Golden (Tory) - 2,847
4th Lib Dem candidate - 2,715

Furthermore, those close to the canvassing results for Labour are seeing first hand the writing on the wall:

Per Luke Akehurst's Labour-leaning blog:

"having spoken to people with a strategic overview of the campaign I am sorry to say that I have to chuck a bucket of cold water over the flames of optimism.

The overall picture from the doorsteps of Glenrothes is that Labour and the PM are a lot more popular than we were at the time of the Crewe and Nantwich or Glasgow East by-elections, but that this is being trumped by the continued electoral honeymoon of Alex Salmond's SNP administration in Scotland. The chances of us holding this seat are, unfortunately, minimal.

Labour folk from the PLP down need to get their heads round that so that the 6 November result is not a shock or trauma that drives us back into the kind of panic that existed before Conference, but something that as a professional political party we have anticipated, planned for, and can take in our stride."

Yes, it seems the only things standing in the SNP's way at the moment are complacency or a major gaffe.

So is it possible that the PM is making something of a tactical error in allowing this supposed "Brown bounce" idea to get carried away? November 6th will see a 'Brown trounce' and Labour may be frustrated at having a leader that doesn't win elections but is seemingly needed at the helm to face down the recession.


Also, at some point (noting we are 18 months on from the initial event) the "SNP honeymoon" will have to just be called the status quo.

Sarah Brown

Per The Scotsman:

Then came the most extraordinary piece of control freakery of the day. "I want you guys on the green," said the man from the Labour Party. "There will be six or seven guys with guns who will keep you away from her. You may be shot and then it won't be my problem."


It's all a bunch of nonsense if you ask me. A typical unorganic Labour approach to the public and campaigning. Sarah Brown campaigns in Glenrothes but her husband (the Prime Minister) doesn't? And she doesn't take questions from the media who are only grudgingly allowed access to take photos?

What a sham. But hey, at least Sarah's outfit for her day out in Fife didn't cost $2,700. Well, who knows, maybe it did...

You Know You're a Wimp When

RBS shares sit at a tantalising 70p for a few days.

They race up 23% in a day.

You kick yourself for not buying any because they were such a bargain at 70p.

2 days later they drop 23% to 68p.

You still don't buy any.

Not so Global Recession

According to Prime Minister Brown:

"Having taken action on the banking system, we must now take action on the global financial recession."

He said this was likely to cause "recession in America, France, Italy, Germany, Japan and - because no country can insulate itself from it - Britain too".

In 12 months:

The UK pound is down against the Dollar from $2.05 to $1.63.

The UK pound is down against the Euro from €1.44 to €1.26.

The UK pound is down against the Japanese Yen from Y230 to Y162.

You have to ask, if we are supposedly equal partners in this global recession, why is the UK currency uniquely getting such a thorough kicking?

Poll Barge

On 5th September we had the Sunday Times (You Gov) polls:

Westminster
SNP 34%
Labour 32%
Tory 17%
Lib Dem 13%

Holyrood
SNP 42%
Labour 26%
Lib Dem 15%
Tory 13%

We had polls in the two prior months, on 8th August and 10th July, again from You Gov.
So, it begs the question, where is October's poll!? It's knocking on November's door and we're poll-less. On the poll dole. Our soul has no poll, drifting aimlessly with no way of knowing who is up and who is down north of the border.

Furthermore, there's been a ridiculous amount of chat about what we the public should think about independence. But no poll. Why is the debate going on above our heads? Why is noone asking us our thoughts!? We demand to know where we stand on this!!


Right, glad I've got that off my chest. Now I'd better get to work picking up all these toys I've just thrown out the pram.

Boozed Up Scotland

There was some unfortunate news amongst our ranks here in the office the other week.

The most laid-back and friendliest guy you'll never meet was attacked during an afternoon. I asked if the incident was going to disrupt his upcoming trip and his response, in all seriousness was: 'as long as my eyeball doesn't start bleeding again'. Bloody hell. It turned out some drunk neds randomly attacked my colleague's group.

Alarmingly, the incident happened in the city centre, around St Andrews Square which was apparently the scene of an "animal like" attack recently.

From the Edinburgh Evening News:

"We were hanging out and drinking when my sister came up to me and said one of these Spanish guys had felt her up," he said. "Steven went up to them and bam, he lamped one of them. He can be pretty mental, so he's always fighting."

So, both attacks in Edinburgh City Centre from Under 21s full up on booze. I'm not saying it wouldn't have happened if they had been stone cold sober but there is something of a theme.

This is the reality, depressing as it may be. For all that Annabel Goldie enjoys plucking mythical squaddies from her mind, back from Iraq and desperate for a good bottle of wine and for all that Iain Gray loves to hang out with the students for a photo-op 'chanting' "I'm a citizen, not a criminal" (whatever that means); there is a bigger picture that the tightening up of existing rules simply will not fix.

I don't know if the issue of increasing the age to 21 one can buy alcohol will come up again, it is probably correct for the SNP to respect Parliament and put the policy to bed but a part of me sincerely hopes it returns. After all, when one edge of the debate calls the policy "daft" and the other edge of the debate calls the policy "populist", then it's probably not too far off being the middle ground that is required.

Seat Watch - Edinburgh South

I read with interest Calum Cashley's thoughts on the Lib Dem target seats, particularly his thoughts on Edinburgh South:

Well, all the work in Edinburgh will go towards trying to save John Barrett, so there will be no Lib Dem challenge in Edinburgh South, making that a straight Labour/Conservative fight.

I have to say I'm inclined to agree.

With the SNP's woeful result in 2005 I am free from the shackles of having to suggest this one will go to the Nationalists:

Labour - Nigel Griffiths (MP since 1987) - 14,188
Lib Dem - Marilyne MacLaren (Councillor for the Meadows, not very popular) - 13,783
Tory - Gavin Brown (MSP) - 10,291
SNP - Graham Sutherland - 2,635


The Lib Dem vote was riding high in 2005 but has crumbled since then. If the Lib Dems remove this as a target seat then there will be a dramatic drop in their share of the vote. The anti-Labour vote will switch to the Tories. Furthermore, the Lib Dems haven't acquitted themselves too well inside the Edinburgh Council coalition.

The Labour vote, equally, should drop away going by the opinion polls though there is, of course, time for a genuine Brown bounce between now and then. Note that the current Brown bounce seems to have been dreamt up by journalists.

The Tories held this seat prior to Nigel Griffiths and, given it's a Westminster poll, there will no doubt be a significant voting block happy to see David Cameron replace Gordon Brown (crazy, I know).

A somewhat resurgent SNP vote should chip into the Labour and Lib Dem vote.


I don't see this seat going anything other than Tory.

Am I crazy?

Football Crazy, Football Daft

Congratulations to Manchester United in their 3-0 demolition of Norwich City last night.

I didn't realise they showed the 3rd round of the Carling Cup on live tv but it was an enjoyable enough watch.

Anyone know who Celtic were playing in the Champions League by the way? I must have missed the result...

Mini Cooper Adventure

According to Lorraine Davidson of The Times:

"Attempts by Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, and Alex Salmond, to find common ground over Scotland's budget, were in disarray yesterday after the intervention from Westminster of Yvette Cooper, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury."

It's not the fact that The Times has gone over the top on this story that has surprised me but the fact that it has done so in favour of the SNP.

It's a big, complicated world out there. There's a lot happening. But a world where Yvette Cooper calmly writes down her differences with the SNP over this £1bn rebate on the same day that Jim Murphy sits down with Alex Salmond for positive discussions on the budget is not a situation that throws said world into "disarray".

Tom, Dick or Harry?

It seems one of Tom Harris' latest posts has plumbed new depths. The ex-Minister has tried to take some of the European unpopularity of Sarah Palin and smear some of it on the SNP and Alex Salmond. Naturally, I took exception.

My initial umbrage stemmed from Tom's blatant attempt to suggest the SNP are full of "hordes of hangers, gun nuts, homophobes, secessionists (give you that one) and government-haters".

From what I saw of the SNP at the weekend, this couldn't have been further from the truth. The SNP are a dynamic party bursting with ideas. Not all of these ideas may be correct and/or popular but the creativity and energy that they bring to the table is impressive. Devolution and the SNP have combined to provide an option that Scotland has lacked for 50-odd years.

Tom further dropped in my estimation with the following lines:

"if anyone dares criticise the SNP, why, that’s because they hate Scotland, they think the Scottish people are too stupid to run their own country."

This would still be a childish remark even if it came from a teenager. The SNP think Scotland is best served if its governmental borders ended at Gretna (save for EU representation). Labour think Scotland benefits from being part of the United Kingdom.

From that beginning, an intellectual and stimulating debate should be able to grow. I don't believe Tom helped cultivate such growth with this recent post.

Another line:

"Yes, they love Scotland, but they hate their opponents much, much more."

Hate is a strong word, one which Tom seems to enjoy chucking around. It's clear the SNP have confidence in their arguments, enjoy the challenge of going up against unionists and there's no love lost between the parties but I don't associate the party with the word "hate". Maybe I'm biased but I think that of the two parties it is Labour more than the SNP that find their poise and logic distorted by a supposed "hate" for the opposition.

I decided I had to comment on this article but also tried to sidestep the potential brainless bunfight. I pointed out that the SNP constantly fight on issues and on logic rather than some misty-eyed stirrings of patriotism, using the fossil fuel levy rebate and free school meals as examples. I went out of my way to say the real debate between the SNP and Labour is not about patriotism but about simple reasoning.

I also offered Tom a chance to put a positive case for the union:

Tom, sorry, but this is base nonsense in my eyes…

The SNP constantly fight on issues, on logic and on hard data. Not on some whimsical patriotism that you seem to have plucked out the blue air.

The £1bn the SNP are calling for is with good reason. The UK Government aren’t necessarily being ‘unpatriotic’ in withholding it but they do lack good reasons.

For free school meals, the policy is being backed by parents, teachers, poverty campaigners and the benefits are multiple and long-term. Labour are blocking it for political reasons because they want to break the historical concordat. So again, not "unpatriotic" but certainly not worthy.

I could go on and on but Labour, sometimes, need to just sit back and say "good job" to a Government doing just that.

PS As a fan of the SNP, I can assure you I am not a gun nut, homophobe, cecessionist and/or government-hater.

PPS In so many words, yes, Labour have been saying what Iain MacWhirter suggested for decades. What alternative reason do you have for Scotland being the only sizeable nation in Europe that isn’t independent?

The Labour MP's response was illogical, irrational and bizarre in the extreme. It also, tellingly, did not include a very detailed positive case for keeping the union. "Benefits both parties" doesn't really give us undecideds much to work with:

And there you go again - Labour don’t want independence, so therefore we must hate Scotland.

I want Scotland to stay within the UK for exactly the same reason that (most) Americans want Texas and California to remain in the Union: it benefits both parties. You may not agree with that analysis, Jeff, but please don’t tell me I’m anti-Scottish just because I believe Scotland is better off as part of the UK.

By the way - you certainly are a secessionist if you want Scotland to secede from the UK.

Pointing out that at no point did I call Tom Harris anti-Scottish, no point say that Labour hated Scotland and that I was undecided on independence, I was sure Tom's gas must have been put at a peep. He did try to concoct a fairly odd and circuitous argument to back up his assertion that I'd called him anti-Scottish but I am pretty sure it was seen by others the way I saw it, a rather desperate stretch to stay on top of the argument.

So I don't know, even though I've been backed up, maybe Tom did make some good points and I'm not giving the man enough credit but I always liked to believe that to be an MP you had to have something special, maybe a cast-iron logic, a soaring eloquence or a skill for debating that would leave mere two-bit bloggers like myself sitting back in admiration.

Sadly this seems far from the case.

Indeed, I'm forming a stronger and stronger opinion that the role of certain MPs could be taken by any Tom, Dick or Harry and noone would know the difference.

Edinburgh in Pictures

On Saturday, driving through the howling rain to Glenrothes, I was lucky enough to catch a Talk 107 radio interview with Rachel Windsor, photographer and owner of the Edinburgh in Pictures website.

The refreshingly long interview focussed mainly on what the website was and, as the name suggests, it's a collection of photos around Edinburgh but it's also chock full of information on the history of areas and local events happening every day, week and month. It was great to listen to and I must admit that Rachel's fabulous accent didn't hurt either.

The site is updated every day and I plan on checking in on it more often than not. On of the off chance that others may be equally interested, I just thought I'd pass it on.

That's What We Would Have Done

I've always thought that the very last ditch approach to rebutting your opponent is saying they stole your policies. Unable to find a chink in their armour you are left with the only attack of "that's what we would have done".

Step forward Alan Johnson.

Well, given Labour have been in power for 11 years down South and for 8 years recently North of the Border, I don't see it cutting much mustard.

Furthermore, as I suspected would have been the case when the SNP were talking up the NHS' 60 year anniversary, it really sticks in the throat for Labour to see 'their' NHS being run by opposition hands, as we see with this quote from the UK Health Secretary.

“Nobody who remembers the NHS being created by a Labour government 60 years ago will ever take it for granted. Today it is Labour in Scotland that has the vision and ideas for the NHS for its next 60 years. What you see here in Scotland is political parties trying to steal our clothes.”

It's part and parcel of accepting being in Opposition that you have to let other people pick up where you left off. And I know if the entirety of the NHS is really something to be proud of over the past 10 years. After all, which MRSA ridden walls were the money from the boom period pissed up against?

Still, the piece isn't all bad, the comment at the bottom is good for a laugh:

Cathy Jamieson has no rspect in scotland. she lost a massive Labour majority and lied to the people of glasgow east end about where she lived - pathetic! david, glasgow

You might be thinking of Margaret Curran there David...

Tory Tactical Voting

With this weekend's YouGov poll showing that Labour have closed the gap still further on the Tories to 8%, is there a chance that this could actually hurt Labour somewhart north of the border? I believe it will, particularly if the SNP remain flying high.

The thummping 2010 Cameron majority which seemed a near certainty only a matter of weeks ago is now looking increasingly questionable.

The Conservatives are often derided for having little representation north of the border but of course this disguises the fact that a fairly hefty 16% of voting Scots backed the Tories in 2005 and with recent polling putting that level of support in the 20%s, the real Tartan Tories represent a hefty voting block. But with this significant level of support, and with the highest permissible level of optimism, they can only hope to win up to 12 seats at most.

Is there a chance that the closing of the gap between UK Labour and UK Tories will concentrate minds up here, resulting in the Tories voting tactically for the SNP in order to keep the Labour numbers down? Will the regular claims of "Vote SNP, get Tory" come back to haunt Labour, acting as it could an instruction rather than a threat? They say the only difference between Alex Salmond and Annabel Goldie is lipstick after all.

Time will tell if such anti-Labour voting will transpire but some of the more marginal seats that the Tories could vote SNP in and almost certainly provide Nationalist victories are the following:

Aberdeen North, Aberdeen South, Airdrie and Shotts, Lanark and Hamilton East, Cumbernauld Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch East, West Dunbartonshire, Dunfermline and West Fife, East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow, East Lothian, Linlithgow and East Falkirk, Falkirk, Glasgow North West, Glasgow South, Glasgow North, Inverclyde, Inverness Nairn Badenoch & Strathspey, Midlothian, Paisley & Renfrewshire North, North Ayrshire & Arran.

Alternatively, the SNP may see fit to vote Tory in seats where the SNP candidate has little chance of winning. These seats would include:

Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, Central Ayrshire, East Renfrewshire (Jim Murphy's seat), Edinburgh South West (Alastair Darling's seat), Edinburgh South, Berwick Roxburgh & Selkirk

RBS will not be owned by the Government

I have been keeping an eye on the RBS shareprice throughout the day and it has now crept up to a 10.8% increase at 76p.

Although I was initially kicking myself that a price of 65p was an absolute bargain and I didn't buy any shares, I have realised it wasn't such a missed opportunity.

If I had stumped up £500 then I would have made just over £50 today. At 40% tax this would amount to £30. With transaction charges of £10 to buy the shares and £10 to sell the shares then I would only have made a tenner in total off the back of a £500 risk.

Not really such a bargain after all really.


The only real repercussions of this increased share price is that, with an open offer of 65p a share on the table, the current shareholders of RBS will largely take this deal and the Government share will not be the much-discussed 61% but somewhere in the region of 30-35%, if that.

For all the talk that RBS is about to be nationalised, it's increasingly clear that that's not going to happen after all.

SNP Conference - What Not to Say

I guess I should check my rather perverse sense of humour sometimes.

Upon wandering into a discussion after the Scottish Refugee Council debate at the SNP Conference where each person was following over the next to decry how terrible refugees are being treated and how dawn raids have to stop I couldn't help but think the conversation wasn't going anywhere fast.

My only input (playing Devil's advocate I hasten to add) of "Well, you know, rules are rules and I think it's high time that these people understood that" really didn't go down very well at all.

Free School Meals

Well, while many, many bloggers threw themselves into the maelstrom of the SNP Conference, I merely dipped my toes in its waters on the Saturday evening.

Despite a brief 5 hour attendance (due in no small part to getting trapped in a leafletting black hole in Glenrothes in the morning) I did have the good fortune to have the mighty Alex Salmond wander past me in the lobby. And I can assure anyone interested that I was not pushed out of the way by a bodyguard, neither ceremoniously nor unceremoniously.

I did make it to one debate and I was very glad to attend, it being the topical and worthy Free School Meals policy that was under discussion.

It was somewhat unfortunate that the early canapes on offer amounted to greasy chips, processed satay sticks and dodgy sausage rolls, the very foods that all reasonable people are trying to ween children away from in schools but I have to confess the irony didn't stop me filling my plate and, soon after, filling my gob.

On to the discussion then.

In attendance and first to speak were the Free School Meals campaigners who have been active for almost a decade and were fulsome in their praise of the SNP. Of the two representatives, one did note that he had been a Labour member for quite some time so I felt the praise earned by the Scottish Government was hard won.

They commented that the same proposals that are now being pushed by the SNP were also brought to the Chamber in 2002, backed (I believe) by Tommy Sheridan and Alex Neal amongst others.

The proposal then was defeated and the reason for the change of heart now in 2008 was noted as being:

(1) a Government willing to listen

(2) a Government who had the vision to see the short, medium and long term benefits that implementing this policy would bring

These benefits were noted as:

- Increased concentration from pupils in the afternoons

- Better health for our children and our next generation of adults, resulting in savings for the NHS amongst other knock-on benefits.

- Better awareness of what different foods are and the need for a balanced diet

- Higher likelihood that kids would pass on ideas to parents who, in turn, would cook better meals in the evenings.

- Increased involvement of kids in sports and physical activities

I'm sure there are many more. I did note Jamie Oliver is a huge fan of the policy in yesterday's Sunday Herald.

Adam Ingram then took the floor. I have to confess I knew little of the Childrens and Schools (?) Minister before this weekend but he really impressed me not just with his knowledge but his courtesy and respect for questioners from the floor and his sense of humour. I am in no doubt that Adam understands both the great success that implementing this policy will bring and the perils at hand from the political motivations of opposition parties.

Which brings me on to the next stage of the discussion, the issue regarding some Council's reluctance to implement the policy in their area. There was seemingly unanimous agreement between SNP members and non-SNP attendees that Labour, and to some degree the Lib Dems, were playing politics with the issue and seeking to bring down the historic concordat via the free school meals issue as the success of this agreement has an inverse relationship with Labour's electoral prospects in 2011. Also, how could Labour and the Lib Dems explain not bringing the policy in during its eight years of coalition power but backing it now in 2008?

One apolitical member of the Free School Meals campaign accused Labour of "churlish negativity". Another went on to say that he had not heard any encouraging discussion from Labour or the Lib Dems on the issue during their 8 years of power and he would (and I quote) "put Rhona Brankin against a wall" in order to get this done.

Strong words but, well, it's a strong policy and it's too important to be brought down by party Politics.

Indeed I thought First Minister Alex Salmond's speech inadvertently captured the issue well when he spoke of new policies with numerous benefits but the SNP's "yes, yes, yes" is consistently met by Labour's "no, no, no".

The only valid cause for disagreement as far as I can see is the argument that parents who can afford to pay for school meals should pay for them. For me, I think the Scottish diet is so poor at the moment that we shouldn't cut corners on the issue. Furthermore, most wealthy parents send their children to private schools and are not actually a part of the issue. There does seem to be a misplaced 'bee in the bonnet' about middle-class kids getting a free lunch but, as I say, it clouds what the overall benefits would be. Furthermore, making the policy 'universal' would ensure that those who need this policy the most can take advantage without the fear of being seen as a 'charity case'.

I also want to point out that the letter from Labour member and Cosla leader Pat Waters was read out and is a very powerful argument in favour of the policy, concentrating minds and making sure an agreed position is followed through on.

I honestly think the Free School Meals contest could shape this entire term. Labour must surely have backed the wrong horse though, opposing free, healthy school meals for all p1-p3s? And if they bring down the historic concordat with their stubborn resistance then the freeze on council taxes is in jeopardy?

Once again, I don't see what the tactic is here from Labour but with parents, teachers, poverty action groups and most reasonable councillors on the SNP's side, I am confident the policy will be a success.


EDIT: I believe Gordon Brown is looking to bring in a similar policy in the short term which will leave Scottish Labour in a very interesting position indeed!

The Unwelcome Return of the Soapbox

Just as we were beginning to come to terms with Kezia Dugdale's retirement from blogging, I was pointed in the direction of this website.

It seems someone has gone out of their way to re-create Kez's blog, against her distinct wishes. Spite and vindictiveness is an ugly thing and it's clear that these are the motivations driving whoever is behind this latest blog. I should note that at Rare Exports a boast was made that he had pulled all of the blog posts from the Soapbox before it was taken down. Could this be the author?

Whoever it is, I would strongly urge they take it down. I daresay it'll be coming down soon either way though....

Political Drive

A Glenrothes motorist bumped into my hired car while I was leafletting for the SNP on Saturday morning. The damage will cost me £130.

Do you think there is any way I can mark that as a political donation and make it tax deductible? ;-)

Made in China

I read with alarm this morning the incredibly harsh sentence imposed on a vice mayor for corruptly awarding contracts related to the Chinese Olympics.

Liu Zhihua, 59, is to be sentenced to death for his crime although there is an expectation that it will be commuted to a life sentence in jail.

It seems Zhihua was embroiled in bribe-taking, illegal loans and a severe abuse of power.

I suppose he was just unlucky really, if Zhihua was British, he would probably be safely in the UK Cabinet by now.

The State of Independence

Someone was kind enough to email me a link to this Sunday Times story: "Split would leave Scots £1bn in red".

As the story combines economics, journalistic bias, political posturing and independence considerations then I was grateful and thankful to receive the heads up, it makes for an interesting article.

The main problem I have with the article is the suggestion that Scotland being £1bn in the red is necessarily a bad thing.

For a start, the UK National Debt is £640bn. So for Scotland to have National Debt of a mere £1bn after independence doesn't sound too bad to me. They've presumably taken an accurate figure but drawn the wrong conclusions.

Furthermore, the article talks of a looming slump in oil prices. Who says? Oil is becoming more scarce and demand will increase in due course. The idea that a dwindling valuable resource will somehow decrease in cost is illogical. Of course the cost of fuel has been cut to stimulate the struggling economy but once it's up and running again what do you think's going to happen? Yes, prices will rise. The recession is expected to last 2 years. Scotland would just be having the first referendum around then. We're not going to get as much out of the debate now as we would in 2010.

So is it cynical of me to think that some people are making as much political capital as they can out of the short term drop in oil prices while they can?

There are a million and one ways of slicing and dicing data and looking at independence from different angles. This articles naked political motivation is there for all to see in the following sections:

“If Scotland declared itself an independent country tomorrow its finances would look pretty dire.”

Of course it would. Who is campaigning for Scotland to be independent tomorrow? There would need to be settlements with the UK Government, the timing would have to be appropriate and consideration of how/whether we would join the Euro/Sterling would have to be worked out. Independent tomorrow? I think we all have our diaries full for October 20th. (I'm going to the cinema for one thing and I'm sure the SNP will be tired after their Conference.)

“Scotland as an independent monetary entity probably wouldn’t have been big enough to bail out either HBOS, RBS or both,”

And, once again, the option of Scotland being part of the EU and being supported by the Union's €2 trillion rescue package is completely omitted.

As a final point on the article, it also mentions that Scotland may need to increase taxes to balance its books, as much as 2p in the pound.

Another supposed scare-bomb of a comment that, on reflection, isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm unconvinced that the balance of taxation is as it should be, specifically in Scotland which I have always deemed (rightly or wrongly) a more socialist country than its unionist partners anyway.

Sweden, Denmark and Norway all have higher levels of taxation than we do here and they genuinely seem to be better off for it. They've found the balance.

So, as a tax-payer not far off knocking on the 40% rate, I am not scared off by the prospect of higher taxation. I honestly think my money would go further in an independent Scotland than it would in Westminster as there seems to have been a well-intentioned but ultimately unfocussed sloshing of money over the past decade down south.

So all this article tells me is that when it comes to the independence debate, it is abundantly clear that the real answers, the real data and the real analysis is being heavily clouded by political leanings be it from Times journalists, politicians or self-interest groups.

I don't know the way around this problem other than to have the debate and have a referendum and hope that bringing the whole issue to a head will force the truth out in order for us to make an educated decision rather than be lost in the current bun fight based largely on deception and bias.

I still think it's rather telling, with Unionism supposedly being so preferable for so many and with the media heavily on their side, that the Unionist parties remain staunchly against having a free vote on the issue.

Could it be the case that the opponents of the SNP will hand Salmond a majority Government in 2011 by voting down a referendum that the Nationalists actually would have lost? Is a 2010 referendum really the only chance the Unionists have to prevent independence?