The white paper was announced by Alex Salmond today and although I have been unable to see footage of the event or read the 'Your Scotland, Your Voice' publication, I do understand that there are four options for constitutional reform being examined:
- Status Quo
- Limited further powers for Holyrood
- Significant further powers for Holyrood
- Full independence
I don't know anyone in their right mind who could argue with that synopsis of the current crossroads that we as a nation find ourselves in and I must admit to momentarily reconsidering my words of warning over going all out for a referendum when I heard Tavish Scott and Annabel Goldie getting tied in knots on Good Morning Scotland, not to mention Iain Gray getting turned inside out and knocked about by Mike Russell on The Politics Show.
The SNP speak this language fluently and the unionist parties clearly don't.
Brian Taylor believes today "felt more tactical than evangelical" and no doubt for good reason. (Incidentally, I tried the evangelical on The Steamie this morning, I don't think I pulled it off!)
The most important aspect of today seems to be the splitting up of the 'more powers' option. Previously it was rather vague as what this option actually entailed and, no doubt as a consequence, was reasonably popular with the public.
Splitting the option up to 'a few extra powers on airguns and broadcasting' or 'full fiscal autonomy' is a very wise move indeed.
I reckon the media and political opposition are wasting time if they believe the immediate all-or-nothing goal is to win independence. Brian Taylor seems to focus unnecessarily heavily on that mere one of the four options available to us.
Thankfully Ben Thomson of Reform Scotland is not so blinkered:
‘Under the Calman recommendations and now this White Paper, the Scottish Parliament will still be dependent on a block grant from Westminster for more than two-thirds of its budget.
‘The biggest weakness of these proposals is that they do not deliver financial accountability. Real financial accountability requires that a government is responsible for raising all, or at least the vast majority, of the revenue that it requires to meet its spending commitments.
‘If additional fiscal powers are to have a real impact on the governance of Scotland and on the performance of the Scottish economy, they must be of a scale that is great enough to address the fundamental defect of the current devolution settlement – its lack of financial accountability.’
Getting full fiscal autonomy in the short term, which increasingly seems achievable with Cameron in Number 10, would be a wonderful victory for the Nationalist camp and an enormous step towards independence.
Yes, the current UK Government has its white paper involving a messy fudge on more financial powers for Holyrood and that may prove tricky in getting the SNP's message out in May but the General Election will blow this cynical paper away for good and with a Tory administration already seeming to appreciate that fiscal autonomy is at least a valid option, there are reasons to be hopeful for a more appropriate constitutional arrangement in the near future.
Cameron may have already ruled out constitutional reform in his first parliamentary term as Prime Minister but he would be handing a gift to Alex Salmond if he did so. Goldie signing up to Calman and standing still clearly not being an option in poll after poll results in only one option for PM Cameron. A bold course of action on Scotland's devolved arrangement.
The Scottish people won't want the status quo but they're not yet convinced of independence. So if the real choice comes down to a few extra small powers and a few extra beefy, big-boy powers, I have a strong suspicion that I know which side public opinion will fall down on.
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Return of the Doomsday Scenario
A marvellous very special guest post from Peter Lynch, Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Stirling:
For those of us of a certain vintage, the Doomsday scenario was an important part of Scottish politics which emerged from the Radical Scotland collective in the mid-1980s. It pointed at the negative political consequences of a Conservative electoral victory at the 1987 general election based on English votes and seats whilst Scots voted in favour of parties favouring constitutional change. The scenario pointed to the fact that the Tories would have no mandate to govern Scotland and also offered encouragement to Scots voters to cast their ballots tactically to make doomsday happen. And, given that the Tories lost 11 of their 21 seats in 1987, this tactic was reasonably successful.
Of course, the Doomsday idea was not merely intended to operate in this way. It was also an attempt to stimulate the Home Rule debate in the mid-1980s and to move Labour, in particular, to a more radical position. The Doomsday scenario was not an isolated issue during these years. It existed alongside the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly, the Claim of Right and the various efforts to involve Labour and the other parties in a constitutional convention.
Now, on the face of it, the Doomsday idea was a 1980s construct that has been superseded by time and change in the political environment. After all, what use was a Doomsday scenario in a post-1997 context of popular Labour governments at Westminster and the establishment of a Scottish parliament in 1999?
However, given the likelihood of a future - indeed perhaps imminent - Conservative UK election victory, Doomsday is back, albeit it in a different way. Sure enough, it isn’t like the mid-1980s as devolution has happened and questions of governance and mandates are not the same.
Nonetheless, there are several potential Doomsday scenarios in the current period – where a popular SNP government in Edinburgh faces a Conservative government in London that is politically unpopular in Scotland (meaning winning very few votes and seats). We can refer to this as the Doomsday Plus scenario: where two different governments rub up against each other over conflicting mandates and goals. It can be seen to create the seeds of a constitutional crisis though also opportunities for change – meaning a renegotiated devolution settlement. Arguably, this type of thing already began in a very modest way with the establishment of the Calman Commission to review devolution.
However, there is also a Doomsday Max scenario possible, in which the SNP becomes the leading party in Scotland at the UK general election in addition to running the Scottish government, whilst the Conservatives triumph on the back of English votes and face the constitutional consequences of their unpopularity in Scotland. This scenario might seem unlikely (witness Glenrothes and Glasgow North East), but is a potential one. And it would change the nature of the constitutional debate and the parameters for an independence referendum (as does Doomsday Plus).
Of course, the two Doomsday scenarios painted here focus on two parties only – the SNP in Scotland and the Conservatives in the UK government. Given the multi-party, multi-level nature of politics post-devolution, a simple two-party game is unlikely. Labour and Liberal Democrat responses in Scotland and Westminster will be important too though Labour may be incapacitated by losing power at Westminster whilst the Lib Dems seem dissatisfied with Calman yet also confused about their position on a referendum. Both may find themselves sidelined in a dispute between governments in the post-2010 period.
For those of us of a certain vintage, the Doomsday scenario was an important part of Scottish politics which emerged from the Radical Scotland collective in the mid-1980s. It pointed at the negative political consequences of a Conservative electoral victory at the 1987 general election based on English votes and seats whilst Scots voted in favour of parties favouring constitutional change. The scenario pointed to the fact that the Tories would have no mandate to govern Scotland and also offered encouragement to Scots voters to cast their ballots tactically to make doomsday happen. And, given that the Tories lost 11 of their 21 seats in 1987, this tactic was reasonably successful.
Of course, the Doomsday idea was not merely intended to operate in this way. It was also an attempt to stimulate the Home Rule debate in the mid-1980s and to move Labour, in particular, to a more radical position. The Doomsday scenario was not an isolated issue during these years. It existed alongside the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly, the Claim of Right and the various efforts to involve Labour and the other parties in a constitutional convention.
Now, on the face of it, the Doomsday idea was a 1980s construct that has been superseded by time and change in the political environment. After all, what use was a Doomsday scenario in a post-1997 context of popular Labour governments at Westminster and the establishment of a Scottish parliament in 1999?
However, given the likelihood of a future - indeed perhaps imminent - Conservative UK election victory, Doomsday is back, albeit it in a different way. Sure enough, it isn’t like the mid-1980s as devolution has happened and questions of governance and mandates are not the same.
Nonetheless, there are several potential Doomsday scenarios in the current period – where a popular SNP government in Edinburgh faces a Conservative government in London that is politically unpopular in Scotland (meaning winning very few votes and seats). We can refer to this as the Doomsday Plus scenario: where two different governments rub up against each other over conflicting mandates and goals. It can be seen to create the seeds of a constitutional crisis though also opportunities for change – meaning a renegotiated devolution settlement. Arguably, this type of thing already began in a very modest way with the establishment of the Calman Commission to review devolution.
However, there is also a Doomsday Max scenario possible, in which the SNP becomes the leading party in Scotland at the UK general election in addition to running the Scottish government, whilst the Conservatives triumph on the back of English votes and face the constitutional consequences of their unpopularity in Scotland. This scenario might seem unlikely (witness Glenrothes and Glasgow North East), but is a potential one. And it would change the nature of the constitutional debate and the parameters for an independence referendum (as does Doomsday Plus).
Of course, the two Doomsday scenarios painted here focus on two parties only – the SNP in Scotland and the Conservatives in the UK government. Given the multi-party, multi-level nature of politics post-devolution, a simple two-party game is unlikely. Labour and Liberal Democrat responses in Scotland and Westminster will be important too though Labour may be incapacitated by losing power at Westminster whilst the Lib Dems seem dissatisfied with Calman yet also confused about their position on a referendum. Both may find themselves sidelined in a dispute between governments in the post-2010 period.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
It seems I've hit the big time
The Times is now up to speed with the Montague Burton story with not one, not two but three articles focussed on it.
Lorraine Davidson's second piece includes the following paragraphs:
The best known nationalist supporting website, SNP Tactical Voting, is regarded as expressing mainstream views. Its author Jeff Breslin warned renegade cybernats to abandon the web over the damage they are inflicting on the party. He said: “My personal belief is, as mentioned in my previous post, blogs and new media are overall a good thing, potentially a great thing, and if you believe what you’re writing is true, fair and can be backed up then go for it but if you’re indulging in rants and venting untapped rage behind a pseudonym, then maybe you should think about another hobby.”
There was some sympathy for Mr MacLachlan, however. One contributor to SNP Tactical Voting said: “Definitely feel for Mark. I met him at a Blogger’s Breakfast at Spring Conference and briefly again at the Autumn Conference a few months ago. He came across as a thoroughly engaging and good-natured guy. In amongst hundreds of blog posts I guess it just takes one to fall wide of the mark before you can fall foul of journalists and/or opposing parties and lose your job. That’s a very tough standard to set for oneself.”
I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable being 'the best known nationalist supporting website' or having my name in the paper for that matter, particularly when the official SNP response in the article, coming right at the end, is reduced to An SNP spokesman said Mr Mac- Lachlan was no longer a member of the party. I daresay the SNP press team's press cuttings will have a red question mark against this article tomorrow morning too.
This isn't (just) a blowing of my own trumpet but it is an interesting babystep in the dynamic between blogs, newspapers and political parties in Scotland. Not that these measly two paragraphs is remotely close to the same thing, but it is perhaps fitting that this personal 'first' of mine comes on the same day that Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home was the cause of the main story in today's Sunday Herald. It's probably also worth noting that I've had more patronage from supposed 'unionist' journalists than I have from the party I've tried to champion for almost three years. (I was somewhat bizarrely instantly rejected from being included on the party's press release mailing list a while back)
That's not necessarily a complaint. In light of this weekend I can perfectly understand the SNP not wanting anything to do with bloggers but it's an interesting nugget of information nonetheless, perhaps.
Oh well, given this newly established precarious position, I guess I'd better fall well and truly in line behind tomorrow's Referendum Bill white paper now (which I was going to do anyway, of course).
(I should note that my first mention in a newspaper story was, rather embarrassingly, in the Chester Chronicle off the back of a Twitter message I wrote when Fiona Bruce accidentally said 'orgy' on live news instead of 'mortgage'. Not exactly a baptism of fire...)
Lorraine Davidson's second piece includes the following paragraphs:
The best known nationalist supporting website, SNP Tactical Voting, is regarded as expressing mainstream views. Its author Jeff Breslin warned renegade cybernats to abandon the web over the damage they are inflicting on the party. He said: “My personal belief is, as mentioned in my previous post, blogs and new media are overall a good thing, potentially a great thing, and if you believe what you’re writing is true, fair and can be backed up then go for it but if you’re indulging in rants and venting untapped rage behind a pseudonym, then maybe you should think about another hobby.”
There was some sympathy for Mr MacLachlan, however. One contributor to SNP Tactical Voting said: “Definitely feel for Mark. I met him at a Blogger’s Breakfast at Spring Conference and briefly again at the Autumn Conference a few months ago. He came across as a thoroughly engaging and good-natured guy. In amongst hundreds of blog posts I guess it just takes one to fall wide of the mark before you can fall foul of journalists and/or opposing parties and lose your job. That’s a very tough standard to set for oneself.”
I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable being 'the best known nationalist supporting website' or having my name in the paper for that matter, particularly when the official SNP response in the article, coming right at the end, is reduced to An SNP spokesman said Mr Mac- Lachlan was no longer a member of the party. I daresay the SNP press team's press cuttings will have a red question mark against this article tomorrow morning too.
This isn't (just) a blowing of my own trumpet but it is an interesting babystep in the dynamic between blogs, newspapers and political parties in Scotland. Not that these measly two paragraphs is remotely close to the same thing, but it is perhaps fitting that this personal 'first' of mine comes on the same day that Tim Montgomerie of Conservative Home was the cause of the main story in today's Sunday Herald. It's probably also worth noting that I've had more patronage from supposed 'unionist' journalists than I have from the party I've tried to champion for almost three years. (I was somewhat bizarrely instantly rejected from being included on the party's press release mailing list a while back)
That's not necessarily a complaint. In light of this weekend I can perfectly understand the SNP not wanting anything to do with bloggers but it's an interesting nugget of information nonetheless, perhaps.
Oh well, given this newly established precarious position, I guess I'd better fall well and truly in line behind tomorrow's Referendum Bill white paper now (which I was going to do anyway, of course).
(I should note that my first mention in a newspaper story was, rather embarrassingly, in the Chester Chronicle off the back of a Twitter message I wrote when Fiona Bruce accidentally said 'orgy' on live news instead of 'mortgage'. Not exactly a baptism of fire...)
Going for Goldsmith
The Sunday Times story regarding Tory candidate Zac Goldsmith and his non-dom status is absorbing on many counts.(1) It cuts deep into the toff Tories vs working class Labour narrative that many in the Labour party have been happy to push.
(2) It focusses on inheritance tax which is a clear dividing line going into the General Election with the Tories keen to scrap or at least curtail the tax and most other parties against such moves and currently on the popular side of the debate. Who can forget Gordon Brown's rare comedy gem that Cameron "will know by name almost all of the potential beneficiaries."
(3) Zac Goldsmith is part of the A-list candidates parachuted into safe seats. If he was to embarrassingly stand down as a candidate it could indirectly damage all other A-list candidates across the country.
Personally, I don't think he's done much wrong. He's not broken any laws and tax avoidance is a legitimate pursuit that accountants and financial services firms openly promote.
There is even a similarity to the story with the SNP PPC Charles Brodie who has been urged to step down as the candidate due to being caught drink-driving. Once Charles has paid the fine and learned the lesson, I simply do not see why an extra punishment in not standing for Parliament should be applied, noting of course that Zac hasn't even broken a law!
We need to stop adhering to the knee-jerk notion that the media should always 'get its man' when murmurs for resignations begin.
I am personally impressed with what Zac Goldsmith has to offer and was particularly taken with a recent Newsnight show where he stood shoulder to shoulder with Caroline Lucas of the Green party and John Sauven of Greenpeace and intelligently, knowledgably pushed his argument with the apparent agreement of his two fellow guests. As much as I like Ed Miliband, I suspect there would be a step up if Zac was to made the Environment Secretary in the next term. It would be a shame to lose someone so talented over something so trivial.
Furthermore, Governments shouldn't focus on individuals when setting policies, even individuals inside their own cabinet. If there is something wrong with non-dom status then let's change the law accordingly, if there isn't anything wrong then let's leave them and their millions alone.
I still think the key factor in this story is that Zac Goldsmith would contribute more to the UK as Environment Secretary than he would by stumping up a tax liability that doesn't exist.
A curious twist however is that if Zac Goldsmith changes (or is made to change) his non-dom status it will be too cynical a move for me to accept, a conclusion that is in stark contrast to that of Iain Dale I have noted.
Individuals should either back their conduct to the hilt or admit they were wrong and step down, there is no middle terrain where one has done no wrong but will still change one's situation anyway.
And if David Cameron makes Zac change his non-dom status then the Tory leader will be confirming he is shallow and obsessed with PR.
Poll on independence in The Times
In what could prove to be the SNP's worst weekend for a while, a new Ipsos MORI poll has come out from The Times showing support for independence at 20%.
46% are in favour of a devolved Parliament with enhanced powers.
32% are in favour of devolution with the existing powers.
Those in favour of a referendum in the short term is 25%, significantly lower than the ~60% it was earlier in the year.
For me, it's pretty clear that the SNP needs to get back to focussing on winning key, core battlegrounds before pushing as hard as it currently is with its independence plans. Don't get wrong, the party has the arguments to win a yes/no referendum, but the timing right now is all wrong.
Stories of the Scottish Government threatening to take control of schools, the lack of a Scottish Futures Trust up and running, the Greens and Labour refusing to support the budget, a ferocious battle brewing over minimum pricing and a Scottish economy that is still lagging behind the UK's all adds up to putting the referendum in a drawer until 2012.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not ready to see Richard Baker as Justice Secretary...
46% are in favour of a devolved Parliament with enhanced powers.
32% are in favour of devolution with the existing powers.
Those in favour of a referendum in the short term is 25%, significantly lower than the ~60% it was earlier in the year.
For me, it's pretty clear that the SNP needs to get back to focussing on winning key, core battlegrounds before pushing as hard as it currently is with its independence plans. Don't get wrong, the party has the arguments to win a yes/no referendum, but the timing right now is all wrong.
Stories of the Scottish Government threatening to take control of schools, the lack of a Scottish Futures Trust up and running, the Greens and Labour refusing to support the budget, a ferocious battle brewing over minimum pricing and a Scottish economy that is still lagging behind the UK's all adds up to putting the referendum in a drawer until 2012.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not ready to see Richard Baker as Justice Secretary...
Saturday, November 28, 2009
SNP suffer blog damage
The story regarding Montague Burton and Universality of Cheese blog is now up on The Scotsman. The editor, Mark MacLachlan was Mike Russell's Office Manager.
I say was because Mark has resigned his post with the following apology:
"I deeply regret my actions and unreservedly apologise to all the people concerned, and to Mike Russell. In getting carried away with my comments, which were very wrong, I have let myself and my colleagues down, and of course I have resigned from my position in Dumfries."
I definitely feel for Mark. I met him at a Blogger's Breakfast at Spring Conference and briefly again at the Autumn Conference a few months ago. He came across as a thoroughly engaging and good-natured guy. In amongst hundreds of blog posts I guess it just takes one to fall wide of the mark before you can fall foul of journalists and/or opposing parties and lose your job. That's a very tough standard to set for oneself.
Tavish Scott has said the incident is Salmond's 'Damien McBride' moment which is surely far-fetched. The reverberations around someone in Gordon Brown's inner circle actively planning (albeit unknown to the PM) to smear the opposition is markedly different to an unsupervised, relatively junior employee running an anonymous blog.
However, it is desperatley regrettable timing with the white paper on an independence referendum due to be announced the day after this story hits the papers. Of course, with 24hour media this story could be all but forgotten by Monday afternoon.
No doubt there will be more blogger soul-searching and finger pointing which I hope is unnecessary and avoidable. My other fear is a purge of blogs from the SNP borne out of a belief that websites that could harm the party name and aren't achieving much for the cause are not worth the hassle.
My personal belief is, as mentioned in my previous post, blogs and new media are overall a good thing, potentially a great thing, and if you believe what you're writing is true, fair and can be backed up then go for it but if you're indulging in rants and venting untapped rage behind a pseudonym, then maybe you should think about another hobby.
I say was because Mark has resigned his post with the following apology:
"I deeply regret my actions and unreservedly apologise to all the people concerned, and to Mike Russell. In getting carried away with my comments, which were very wrong, I have let myself and my colleagues down, and of course I have resigned from my position in Dumfries."
I definitely feel for Mark. I met him at a Blogger's Breakfast at Spring Conference and briefly again at the Autumn Conference a few months ago. He came across as a thoroughly engaging and good-natured guy. In amongst hundreds of blog posts I guess it just takes one to fall wide of the mark before you can fall foul of journalists and/or opposing parties and lose your job. That's a very tough standard to set for oneself.
Tavish Scott has said the incident is Salmond's 'Damien McBride' moment which is surely far-fetched. The reverberations around someone in Gordon Brown's inner circle actively planning (albeit unknown to the PM) to smear the opposition is markedly different to an unsupervised, relatively junior employee running an anonymous blog.
However, it is desperatley regrettable timing with the white paper on an independence referendum due to be announced the day after this story hits the papers. Of course, with 24hour media this story could be all but forgotten by Monday afternoon.
No doubt there will be more blogger soul-searching and finger pointing which I hope is unnecessary and avoidable. My other fear is a purge of blogs from the SNP borne out of a belief that websites that could harm the party name and aren't achieving much for the cause are not worth the hassle.
My personal belief is, as mentioned in my previous post, blogs and new media are overall a good thing, potentially a great thing, and if you believe what you're writing is true, fair and can be backed up then go for it but if you're indulging in rants and venting untapped rage behind a pseudonym, then maybe you should think about another hobby.
Campaign for Yes, Yes, Yes
In the freezing but thoroughly lovely confines of the new Out of the Blue space on Dalmeny Street in Leith, a gathering took place during today to discuss why Scotland needs a 'Yes' vote in any forthcoming referendum and what the positive visions for an independent Scotland are.The event was hosted by Mike Small (I think), editor of the Bella Caledonia website and first speaker was Pat Kane who was simply immense. The official intro was as follows:
Pat Kane on The Democratic Interact: the challenges of social media to Scottish Self -Determination. Pat is a musician, blogger, author, columnist and has been involved in the politics of independence from Scotland United days. More at The Play Ethic.
There was so much crammed into Pat's half an hour talk that I couldn't possibly do it justice here, but I will try. Relaxing casually against the table and reading notes from his phone, he seemed well chosen to tackle the brief of new media and its relationship with the more formal, old-fashioned constraints of politics as we know it (or perhaps as we knew it as we shall soon be saying)
I was struck by Pat's quoting of Alex Salmond (who in turn was quoting Silicon Valley software designers) when he said we need 'an architecture of participation' in terms of the political debate that takes place. It's a great phrase. Salmond used it during the debate on broadcasting but it was applied today to help reconcile the difference between a macro-level, top-down, instructive discourse from Government and the micro-level, bubble of energy bursting up from Facebook, Twitter, blogs etc.
The crucial question was, at the 'mezzo level' (as it was put), how can the energy from the internet be harnessed into a political focus that is meaningful at a national level?
The Obama campaign was noted as being the 'least unsuccessful' of the attempts so far. The quote of 'Rosie Parks sat so that Martin Luther King could stand so that Barack Obama could run' was mentioned, pointing out the speed with which it passed through emails and texts and Facebook messages to aid the campaign. (Note that Manuel Castells' Communication Power book was suggested as further reading on this)
The situation regarding Wardog was discussed later on in Pat's speech and although Bruce Newlands' particular blog was not the reason for this, it was (quite fairly) concluded that biliousness is not progressive. Simply having a rant on one's own blog is patently not seen as key to Scotland winning independence. Regrettably, we were given a teaser that there will be a follow up to Wardog's story in the News of the World tomorrow. I believe that Universality of Cheese might have an uncomfortable Sunday. Indeed, I've already noticed that the blog has been taken down for, I'm guessing, angry comments made against Euan McColm of NOTW.
Another blogger down, where will it end. And maybe my prophesised Death of Blogging is closer than I had initially thought!
Anyway, back to this morning's events:
Joe Middleton (of Independence First and no doubt much more) followed on from Pat on Why Scottish Independence Matters.
There was some excellent points made on policies where the SNP stands distinct from Westminster and how these can be used to the Nationalists advantage. The key period is clearly agreed as being after the Tories have come to power in the hope that Scots will understand that to truly get what they want from their politicians be it on Trident or which wars we engage in then we need to be independent. It's certainly simplistic but I think there's plenty of merit to the 'plan'. In the meantime, focussing on reserved powers that are popular in Scotland was suggested as possible campaign strategy in the short term.
I did think the assertion that there are 1/3 of people in favour of independence, 1/3 of people against independence and 1/3 of people who don't know is now out of date. It has to be accepted that some of the don't knows are now no's and even some of the yesses are now don't knows.
Christopher Harvie MSP joined the debate with some comments and made the interesting point that a Tory free zone in Scotland is key, even going as far as suggesting that an 'anti-Tory tactical vote' may be worthwhile.
Shona McAlpine discussed enthusing the Under 30s 'We Can't Win it Without Them'. The lack of political interaction from the younger generation was laid bare when quotes such as "Who is Patrick Harvie?" and "Who was Margaret Thatcher exactly?" were noted as not coming from children but from a Modern Studies teacher and a Conservative Party worker respectively.
Suggestions for engaging the kidz included using single issue camapigns, using celebrities and using Facebook to connect more.
I think it had a lot of resonance although there was perhaps some irony in the fact that discussion that centred on Gary McKinnon and how he wouldn't have been extradited from an independent Scotland was strongly dissented by perhaps the youngest person in the room.
On that I thought of a point (that I rather pathetically didn't proffer). Should perhaps the SNP have tied themselves to Gary's plight more visibly? I have little doubt that the majority of Scots will at least feel sympathy with the hacker, if not outright outrage. A direct appeal to keep Gary in the UK would with it carry an indirect message that Scotland would be better served with its own extradition process.
I am sure it's much more difficult to organise protests or marches or petitions in practise than it is in theory, and it may be crude to always have John Mason or Pete Wishart's arm around Mrs MacKinnon's shoulder when the tv cameras are flashing, but in terms of a single issue campaign that could engage the under-30s, perhaps Free Gary could have been pushed harder.
I hope that's not to crass to use a man's plight for political advantage; as long as it's genuine much like the Gurkhas and the Lib Dems fight I think it is appropriate conduct.
Anyway, it was pretty clear from Shona's thoughts that engaging the next generation will be very difficult indeed.
And with that, I shot off to buy curtain hooks (I know, you don't have to say it), but it really was an excellent morning and I hope it is built on over the next few years as the independence referendum discussions come to a head at a micro-level and macro-level and, hey, even the difficult to find mezzo-level.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Des Browne to step down at General Election
Kilmarnock and Loudoun MP and former Defence Secretary Des Browne is to stand down as an MP at the next election.In many ways the mark of a fine Minister is managing to stay out of the headlines rather than create them and I have always had the impression that Des was the former and for all the right reasons. He also seemed to do a first class job of representing his constituents during the whole Diageo fiasco, working constructively with politicians of other parties to fight the workers' corner as best he could.
So, given the above, and putting my SNP hat back on there is no doubt that this is good news for the Nationalists as we move ever closer to the General Election. Labour will have to select a new candidate (a female presumably given the All Women Shortlists) and I reckon it's fair to argue they'll have a harder fight to win votes than the established Des Browne would have faced.
The margin is still fairly large, an 8,703 (19.6%) majority to make up, but this is the SNP's 3rd target seat and the party won it by 4% in the Scottish Parliament elections. Hopefully Salmond's full-throated 'megaphone diplomacy' will help win support. The SNP candidate is George Leslie who actually stood in the constituency back in 1987 finishing 3rd.
Apparently the most notable contest was when George Leslie stood for Glasgow Pollock back in the 1960s; the Labour vote dropped considerably and allowed the Tories to win the seat. A fairly neat analogy to what is happening across the UK at the moment one could say.
And it would be remiss of me not to speculate on the reasons for Des choosing to stand down now and not fight the seat. Lord Browne doesn't sound too bad to me if we are going to keep having Lords in some way shape or form. However, there was a suggestion a while back that Des is looking to have his name at the top of the Lothians list in the 2011 election with a view to becoming an MSP. The man after all lives in Edinburgh South and is only a sprightly 57. A future leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament even?
I guess one could reasonably suggest that the objective of getting into Holyrood would be hindered if Des was to contest Kilmarnock and Loudoun and lose. Noone wants to see the Scottish Parliament as a sloppy-second retirement home for defeated Westminster candidates after all...
Labour's rip-off tour rumbles on
We've had 'ripped-off Glasgow' from Scottish Labour, the claim that Glasgow does not get its fair share even though it receives more money per head than anywhere else in mainland Scotland.
Well, incredibly, it seems a 'ripped-off Aberdeen' campaign could be getting off the ground.
Aberdeenshire Council has been campaigning for more money from the Scottish Government. It is their right and in their interests to do so, so who can blame them. Brian Adam, a North East MSP, has also called for extra money for his region. Of course, given that the SNP form part of the SNP/Lib Dem administration, this has been seized on as the apocalypse for the Nationalists, the party riven in two which, needless to say, is nonsense.
Labour's local government spokesman, Michael McMahon, said: "The SNP's internal discipline is crumbling before our eyes. Their chief whip, Brian Adam, is absolutely right to be bitterly disappointed by his government's treatment of Scottish local authorities."
So Labour appear to think both Aberdeen and Glasgow are under-funded; no doubt other towns and cities will be added to the list and we'll end up with the crazy solution that Scotland is being under-funded by, em, Scotland. I wonder where the finger of blame will point then?
All councils are struggling and Swinney has achieved some very impressive efficiency savings already. I think any calls for extra cash from here on in must be matched with a detailed explanation of what would be cut to pay for it, otherwise it's just empty rhetoric.
Incidentally, did anyone note any Scottish bloggers from Labour, Lib Dems and/or Tories staunchly defending their party's positions on minimum alcohol pricing yesterday? Tellingly quiet as far as I can see...
Well, incredibly, it seems a 'ripped-off Aberdeen' campaign could be getting off the ground.
Aberdeenshire Council has been campaigning for more money from the Scottish Government. It is their right and in their interests to do so, so who can blame them. Brian Adam, a North East MSP, has also called for extra money for his region. Of course, given that the SNP form part of the SNP/Lib Dem administration, this has been seized on as the apocalypse for the Nationalists, the party riven in two which, needless to say, is nonsense.
Labour's local government spokesman, Michael McMahon, said: "The SNP's internal discipline is crumbling before our eyes. Their chief whip, Brian Adam, is absolutely right to be bitterly disappointed by his government's treatment of Scottish local authorities."
So Labour appear to think both Aberdeen and Glasgow are under-funded; no doubt other towns and cities will be added to the list and we'll end up with the crazy solution that Scotland is being under-funded by, em, Scotland. I wonder where the finger of blame will point then?
All councils are struggling and Swinney has achieved some very impressive efficiency savings already. I think any calls for extra cash from here on in must be matched with a detailed explanation of what would be cut to pay for it, otherwise it's just empty rhetoric.
Incidentally, did anyone note any Scottish bloggers from Labour, Lib Dems and/or Tories staunchly defending their party's positions on minimum alcohol pricing yesterday? Tellingly quiet as far as I can see...
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Edinburgh Event on Scottish Independence
I'm looking forward to this event (advertised at Bella Caledonia) at the weekend, think I'll pop along for the 11:00am-12:30pm slot so I thought I'd flag it up here too.
Media, Communication and the Union 11.00 – 12.30
Pat Kane on The Democratic Interact: the challenges of social media to Scottish Self -Determination. Pat is a musician, blogger, author, columnist and has been involved in the politics of independence from Scotland United days. More at The Play Ethic.
Joe Middleton on Why Scottish Independence Matters. Joe is a member of the Scottish National Party, the creator of the Scottish Independence Guide website and Press Officer of Independence First, the referendum campaign.
Shona McAlpine on We Can’t Win It Without Them – Enthusing the Under 30s. Shona McAlpine is an SNP activist and manages the Scottish Independence Convention’s website. Professionally she is a Secondary Computing teacher and has also been a nightclub and bar manager.
It's on at Out of the Blue, Dalmeny St, Leith, Edinburgh.
Media, Communication and the Union 11.00 – 12.30
Pat Kane on The Democratic Interact: the challenges of social media to Scottish Self -Determination. Pat is a musician, blogger, author, columnist and has been involved in the politics of independence from Scotland United days. More at The Play Ethic.
Joe Middleton on Why Scottish Independence Matters. Joe is a member of the Scottish National Party, the creator of the Scottish Independence Guide website and Press Officer of Independence First, the referendum campaign.
Shona McAlpine on We Can’t Win It Without Them – Enthusing the Under 30s. Shona McAlpine is an SNP activist and manages the Scottish Independence Convention’s website. Professionally she is a Secondary Computing teacher and has also been a nightclub and bar manager.
It's on at Out of the Blue, Dalmeny St, Leith, Edinburgh.
Time for Malcolm Chisholm to step up, again
In August the entire Labour team voted to condemn Kenny MacAskill for his compassionate release of Abdelbasat Al-Megrahi, the entire team that is except for Malcolm Chisholm.
In August, Malcolm also came out in strong support of minimum pricing:
Edinburgh MSP Malcolm Chisholm, the former Labour health minister, said the whole parliament should back minimum pricing.
" Most people recognise that some of the offers that are being made in supermarkets are a bit ridiculous, for strong ciders and suchlike. You just have to look at the evidence. In other countries like Finland that have had some experience of this, it can make a difference."
"I think everyone wants to look at the detail, but the principle is something that we, the parliament, should accept. I think in general the principle is a sound one."
Will lightning strike twice with the Edinburgh North & Leith politician voting against his party line in 3 short months? Will that mean he has to leave the Labour group and cross the chamber to the Nationalists? Will he even resign as an MSP?
I guess we will find out in due course....
In August, Malcolm also came out in strong support of minimum pricing:
Edinburgh MSP Malcolm Chisholm, the former Labour health minister, said the whole parliament should back minimum pricing.
" Most people recognise that some of the offers that are being made in supermarkets are a bit ridiculous, for strong ciders and suchlike. You just have to look at the evidence. In other countries like Finland that have had some experience of this, it can make a difference."
"I think everyone wants to look at the detail, but the principle is something that we, the parliament, should accept. I think in general the principle is a sound one."
Will lightning strike twice with the Edinburgh North & Leith politician voting against his party line in 3 short months? Will that mean he has to leave the Labour group and cross the chamber to the Nationalists? Will he even resign as an MSP?
I guess we will find out in due course....
Labour oppose minimum pricing plans
My regard for Scottish Labour has sunk even lower this morning with the news that they won't be backing the SNP's plans for minimum pricing on alcohol to help solve our £2bn addiction to booze.
The Lib Dems and the Tories should not be absolved from blame here but Iain Gray's explanations on Good Morning Scotland this morning as to why his party won't come onboard are lamentable.
Iain worries that supermarkets will get rich which is a clear contradiction to their claim that jobs will be lost. Speaking of jobs, there is surely no coincidence that Jackie Baillie was recently installed as Shadow Health Secretary and contains the Chivas Regal bottling plant in her constituency.
Labour completely miss the point in focussing on any extra revenue that Tesco and Sainsbury's make, crassly trying to use the massive profits that the supermarkets make as some sort of justification for suggesting they should not get more. In The Scotsman today, Richard Simpson says: "Tesco and Asda already make enough money from the sale of alcohol. The SNP's scheme would increase those profits still further, and there is no opportunity to target the extra revenue raised at alcohol education or treatment, or additional police for enforcement activity."
However, the increase in price is to deter binge drinkers from having that extra bottle or those extra cans so whether supermarkets make a profit or loss is not guaranteed. The key factor is that you can no longer get alcohol at deeply-discounted prices. In Dublin it costs a small fortune for a pint, as it does in Sweden. Does it matter whether the money goes to the Government or the retailer? Not at all I would argue, having responsible drinkers is the key aim.
I think the most regrettable element to this story is the news that Labour will set up their own commission to look at price mechanism on alcohol. The party is embarking down the same road as the SNP and given that the police, the BMA and the Chief Medical Officer all already agree with minimum pricing, one has to assume that Labour's own commission will come to the same conclusion.
Party politics is getting in the way of addressing Scotland's public health concerns and that is beyond depressing.
Labour are happy to go on about broken promises and ripping up manifestoes but it's blatantly not enough to say the SNP Government hasn't done enough simply because you've voted down every half-decent policy that gets put in front of you.
There is a danger that this four year parliamentary term will go down as something of a missed opportunity; a missed opportunity on tackling alcohol, on fixing Council Tax and on addressing PFI. The spirit of consensus is long gone but if Oppositions start to take turns of 'I'm not backing your bill because you didn't back mine' then Scotland could be in desperate trouble.
The cost of alcohol to our country and citizens needs addressed, urgently, but you simply can't fix the problem from the long grass.
The Lib Dems and the Tories should not be absolved from blame here but Iain Gray's explanations on Good Morning Scotland this morning as to why his party won't come onboard are lamentable.
Iain worries that supermarkets will get rich which is a clear contradiction to their claim that jobs will be lost. Speaking of jobs, there is surely no coincidence that Jackie Baillie was recently installed as Shadow Health Secretary and contains the Chivas Regal bottling plant in her constituency.
Labour completely miss the point in focussing on any extra revenue that Tesco and Sainsbury's make, crassly trying to use the massive profits that the supermarkets make as some sort of justification for suggesting they should not get more. In The Scotsman today, Richard Simpson says: "Tesco and Asda already make enough money from the sale of alcohol. The SNP's scheme would increase those profits still further, and there is no opportunity to target the extra revenue raised at alcohol education or treatment, or additional police for enforcement activity."
However, the increase in price is to deter binge drinkers from having that extra bottle or those extra cans so whether supermarkets make a profit or loss is not guaranteed. The key factor is that you can no longer get alcohol at deeply-discounted prices. In Dublin it costs a small fortune for a pint, as it does in Sweden. Does it matter whether the money goes to the Government or the retailer? Not at all I would argue, having responsible drinkers is the key aim.
I think the most regrettable element to this story is the news that Labour will set up their own commission to look at price mechanism on alcohol. The party is embarking down the same road as the SNP and given that the police, the BMA and the Chief Medical Officer all already agree with minimum pricing, one has to assume that Labour's own commission will come to the same conclusion.
Party politics is getting in the way of addressing Scotland's public health concerns and that is beyond depressing.
Labour are happy to go on about broken promises and ripping up manifestoes but it's blatantly not enough to say the SNP Government hasn't done enough simply because you've voted down every half-decent policy that gets put in front of you.
There is a danger that this four year parliamentary term will go down as something of a missed opportunity; a missed opportunity on tackling alcohol, on fixing Council Tax and on addressing PFI. The spirit of consensus is long gone but if Oppositions start to take turns of 'I'm not backing your bill because you didn't back mine' then Scotland could be in desperate trouble.
The cost of alcohol to our country and citizens needs addressed, urgently, but you simply can't fix the problem from the long grass.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Constistooshie
The Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy will soon address Parliament to discuss further powers that are planned to be devolved to Scotland after the next election, if Labour win. Needless to say, given that Labour are distinct second favourites to form the next Government and Cameron has already ruled out further changes to devolution in the next term, we in Scotland should not be holding our breath that we will have control over these extra powers any time soon.
To be fair to the current Government, when Labour came to power back in 1997 there wasn't even a Scottish Parliament and without its installation the SNP wouldn't have had the chance to prove its considerable worth to Scotland. Labour has delivered on devolution and, if anything, reviewing the Parliament's powers after ten years is probably too soon rather than too late so the UK Government running out of time to implement these changes is, on one level at least, understandable and acceptable.
However, the Scottish Government has helped the UK Government out by preparing draft orders which could be used by Jim Murphy to immediately transfer these powers if he so chooses. It is clear that if the Scottish Secretary is serious about boosting Holyrood's remit then he would sign these order papers before the next election, if he is merely posturing for electioneering purposes then he won't sign them. It is, surely, as simple as that.
Although there is an ironic air of 'Bring it on' to the SNP's offer, if there is any justice in the media a journalist or two will properly grill Jim Murphy on why he won't be signing the order papers that would immediately transfer these powers now that Labour has made its decision.
Meanwhile, the Tories have been sidelined during this whole issue. With only 1 Scottish MP, it is perhaps unfair to blame them for not getting involved but Cameron isn't going to win support north of the border by ducking debates on Scotland's future. It remains an alarmingly stark contrast to have the Tories over 40% in the polls in England & Wales and rooted to sub-20% levels in Scotland.
Are the Tories suffering in Scotland because of Goldie or Cameron? In truth, it's probably a mix of both. David Cameron visiting Scotland will no doubt continue to feel like a foreign head of state on tour once he is Prime Minister. The platitudes will sound nice and fuzzy and Scots will smile and shake his hand but it's obvious there is little connection to the man up here.
Annabel Goldie on the other hand is popular, very popular infact, but she does not embody aggressive, ambitious progress for the Scottish Tories and with her as leader, the party can expect to continue their sub-20% position in the polls. Tory Bear is right, it's only so long before the frustration amongst the 50+ Scottish PPCs who once again have no chance of winning the seats they are contesting boils over into action.
So the Tories are uselessly sitting on the subs bench and Labour are kicking Scotland around like the political football we have become while our economy continues to lag behind the UK, our health statistics go through the roof and our constitutional arrangement from Barnett formulas to borrowing powers stay stuck in a quagmire.
Meanwhile, in Wales, there is a right old brouhaha kicking off with Labour and Plaid Cymru falling out and falling in again as the delicate manoeuving over a possible (even probable) referendum on powers for the Welsh assembly takes shape.
Richard Thomson, SNP PPC for Gordon, has an excellent post on the implications for Wales and Scotland.
How could there be a referendum in Wales and not one in Scotland? It's a good question. We can add that to the growing list of questions for Mr Murphy I suppose...
To be fair to the current Government, when Labour came to power back in 1997 there wasn't even a Scottish Parliament and without its installation the SNP wouldn't have had the chance to prove its considerable worth to Scotland. Labour has delivered on devolution and, if anything, reviewing the Parliament's powers after ten years is probably too soon rather than too late so the UK Government running out of time to implement these changes is, on one level at least, understandable and acceptable.
However, the Scottish Government has helped the UK Government out by preparing draft orders which could be used by Jim Murphy to immediately transfer these powers if he so chooses. It is clear that if the Scottish Secretary is serious about boosting Holyrood's remit then he would sign these order papers before the next election, if he is merely posturing for electioneering purposes then he won't sign them. It is, surely, as simple as that.
Although there is an ironic air of 'Bring it on' to the SNP's offer, if there is any justice in the media a journalist or two will properly grill Jim Murphy on why he won't be signing the order papers that would immediately transfer these powers now that Labour has made its decision.
Meanwhile, the Tories have been sidelined during this whole issue. With only 1 Scottish MP, it is perhaps unfair to blame them for not getting involved but Cameron isn't going to win support north of the border by ducking debates on Scotland's future. It remains an alarmingly stark contrast to have the Tories over 40% in the polls in England & Wales and rooted to sub-20% levels in Scotland.
Are the Tories suffering in Scotland because of Goldie or Cameron? In truth, it's probably a mix of both. David Cameron visiting Scotland will no doubt continue to feel like a foreign head of state on tour once he is Prime Minister. The platitudes will sound nice and fuzzy and Scots will smile and shake his hand but it's obvious there is little connection to the man up here.
Annabel Goldie on the other hand is popular, very popular infact, but she does not embody aggressive, ambitious progress for the Scottish Tories and with her as leader, the party can expect to continue their sub-20% position in the polls. Tory Bear is right, it's only so long before the frustration amongst the 50+ Scottish PPCs who once again have no chance of winning the seats they are contesting boils over into action.
So the Tories are uselessly sitting on the subs bench and Labour are kicking Scotland around like the political football we have become while our economy continues to lag behind the UK, our health statistics go through the roof and our constitutional arrangement from Barnett formulas to borrowing powers stay stuck in a quagmire.
Meanwhile, in Wales, there is a right old brouhaha kicking off with Labour and Plaid Cymru falling out and falling in again as the delicate manoeuving over a possible (even probable) referendum on powers for the Welsh assembly takes shape.
Richard Thomson, SNP PPC for Gordon, has an excellent post on the implications for Wales and Scotland.
How could there be a referendum in Wales and not one in Scotland? It's a good question. We can add that to the growing list of questions for Mr Murphy I suppose...
GARL would rip-off Scotland
It was surprising to hear of the strong opposition from the business community to Politician of the Year John Swinney's plan to drop the Glasgow Airport Rail Link (GARL). The Edinburgh rail link disappeared with little fuss a few years ago due to cash constraints so why is Glasgow's equivalent project more special?
The proposed plan from the business community to pay for the £175m Glasgow Airport Rail Link is to end the free school meals for all p1 to p3 kids policy. Matthew 21:16 says 'From the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have created praise'?", Iain MacMillan wants to amend this to 'From the mouths of infants you have created a rail link'. It may not be a mistake of biblical proportions but it would certainly be foolish.
Labour has been canny enough not to suggest dropping such a progressive, important policy as free school meals but the business pressure group has been happy to. PFI has also been suggested as a possible funding model, as if the mountain of debt that the Scottish Government is lumbered with for the next few decades isn't high enough already.
On this proposal, Labour has alarmingly been all too happy to jump onboard. Per Charlie Gordon MSP:
“A simpler method of funding would be to borrow against the value of Network Rail’s assets. It’s like using a credit card rather than a debit card.”
While 'Bankrupt Britain' wallows in a deficit caused by Governments and citizens alike borrowing more than they should have, Mr Gordon still wants to keep using his flexible friend to have shiny new toys today and leave the hassle of paying for stuff until tomorrow.
I am strongly behind the SNP chiefly due to two of their policies, the end of PFI and the provision of free, healthy school meals for as many children as is possible. For the sake of one mile of railtrack, both are coming under attack so to that end I do hope Labour's budget amendments are put under great scrutiny. Maybe they can magic up the £175m needed to pay for this in a sensible, responsible manner but on current evidence, I see little alternative to the austere draft budget that has already been laid down.
Sadly, I fear that when Andy Kerr hands John Swinney his budget proposal, the document will merely have 4 letters scrawled across it.
The proposed plan from the business community to pay for the £175m Glasgow Airport Rail Link is to end the free school meals for all p1 to p3 kids policy. Matthew 21:16 says 'From the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have created praise'?", Iain MacMillan wants to amend this to 'From the mouths of infants you have created a rail link'. It may not be a mistake of biblical proportions but it would certainly be foolish.
Labour has been canny enough not to suggest dropping such a progressive, important policy as free school meals but the business pressure group has been happy to. PFI has also been suggested as a possible funding model, as if the mountain of debt that the Scottish Government is lumbered with for the next few decades isn't high enough already.
On this proposal, Labour has alarmingly been all too happy to jump onboard. Per Charlie Gordon MSP:
“A simpler method of funding would be to borrow against the value of Network Rail’s assets. It’s like using a credit card rather than a debit card.”
While 'Bankrupt Britain' wallows in a deficit caused by Governments and citizens alike borrowing more than they should have, Mr Gordon still wants to keep using his flexible friend to have shiny new toys today and leave the hassle of paying for stuff until tomorrow.
I am strongly behind the SNP chiefly due to two of their policies, the end of PFI and the provision of free, healthy school meals for as many children as is possible. For the sake of one mile of railtrack, both are coming under attack so to that end I do hope Labour's budget amendments are put under great scrutiny. Maybe they can magic up the £175m needed to pay for this in a sensible, responsible manner but on current evidence, I see little alternative to the austere draft budget that has already been laid down.
Sadly, I fear that when Andy Kerr hands John Swinney his budget proposal, the document will merely have 4 letters scrawled across it.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
A Scottish Green MP?
I nearly lost my longstanding overflowing respect and admiration for Robin Harper, the Green Lothians MSP, and it was all to do with some red mullet.At the Farmers Market in Edinburgh a few months ago, Robin cut across me in the queue and given there were only two plump fish left in the red mullet box, I was feeling rather perplexed. As the fishmonger asked Robin what he would like, the scarf-loving MSP somehow sensed my presence and turned to allow me my rightful spot as next to buy some fishy flesh, his courtesy ensuring that the rest of my day would not be unfairly pushed back by 2 minutes and also, more crucially, that my esteem for the man could continue unblemished.
Robin Harper is seen as a very good egg indeed not just by myself, he was no doubt the main reason the Green party returned a highly impressive 2 MSPs in the Lothians alone in 2003 and he is now the Green candidate for the Edinburgh East constituency at next year's General Election.
The battle in Edinburgh East had hitherto been seen as a straight fight between the SNP's Geroge Kerevan and Labour's Sheila Gilmore. The former no doubt buoyed by his party's showing in the European election results and the latter's campaign spearheaded (unless I'm mistaken) by the ever-impressive Kezia Dugdale.
The Greens however will seek to build on their own impressive European election showing when they finished 3rd in Edinburgh East, closer to Labour's 2nd than they were to the Tory's 4th (or the Lib Dem's 5th).
I was going to attempt an analysis on who Robin Harper's candidacy would hurt more, the SNP or Labour but sadly I won't have the time due to a recession to fight and a truncated lunch break. My suspicion however is that it would be the SNP.
Mind you, given the Edinburgh-wide popularity of the 'colourful' Robin Harper and the clear strong support for the Greens in Edinburgh East, there is perhaps nothing fishy in suggesting that Robin Harper is not standing just to take the bronze medal, or even silver for that matter.
Scotland's first Green MP? I can imagine a lot of people being proud of having voted to ensure that record takes place...
Note: Kate Joester will contest Edinburgh North & Leith, Steve Burgess Edinburgh South and Clare Cooney Edinburgh South West.
Poll gloom for the SNP
A YouGov poll on Scottish voting intentions and independence was released by the Telegraph last night, commissioned (somewhat curiously) by Anthony King of Essex University. The sample size was 1,141.
On the question of independence (and what the question was we do not yet know), the results were as follows.
Yes - 29%
No - 57%
Don't know - 15%
Those are not 'all to play for' figures in my book and Anthony King's analysis that “Alex Salmond increasingly resembles a man trying to drag a heavy vehicle out of a ditch." has some traction. The vigorous advancement of a referendum remains a huge, needless political risk. I still think the SNP should look to 2012 for a plebiscite.
Whether the risk is having the referendum offer opportunisically accepted with the Nationalists subsequently defeated or being perceived to not be governing responsibly during a recession by pushing for a poll in the first place, a second SNP term is not as certain as it once was which one would have thought is the top priority 18 months shy of May 2011.
It should be noted that 45% of people wish to see a referendum in the next few years while an alarmingly high 47% do not “as this would be a distraction from more urgent issues that need tackling”.
I fear that this is a loaded question as surely the "urgent issues" will be taken care of in less than the few years that were mentioned in the first option? Once a poll starts using alarmist language to apparently direct respondents one particular way, a certain integrity is lost.
I wonder what was wrong with the question: "Do you wish to see a referendum on Scottish independence within the next few years?" and leave it as a yes or a no?
Moving on to Westminster voting intentions, the SNP are seemingly on course for a hammering:
Labour - 39%
SNP - 24%
Tory - 18%
Lib Dem - 12%
Are those numbers credible? I fear they are. There was always a sense that the soaring poll figures would be fleeting somehow, the perfect storm of Brown's incompetence, MPs expenses and a startlingly successful lefty SNP Government had blown in for a short while but has now abated.
The lesson is, support is out there and people who have said they would vote SNP will find it easier to do so if they have before.
I still think the SNP's greatest strength is in playing it long. Build a little, consolidate, build a little more and then consolidate a little more. Slow steady progress rather than pushing too soon and going down in a blaze of glory. Or perhaps even just a blaze of gore. The party is leaving itself dangerously vulnerable to wounds that would still be getting licked a decade from now.
Gordon Brown at Number 10 and Alastair Darling at Number 11 means a time for consolidation for the SNP. Of course the Nationalists will get squeezed at the next election but going up against a Scottish PM and a Scottish Chancellor is no easy beat for a party trying to show the benefits of going it alone and the lack of a union dividend.
David Cameron standing in the doorway of Number 10 with Ed Balls or Harriet Harman or John Cruddas or one of the Milibands as Labour leader de-tartanises the Westminster brand.
Against such a backdrop, independence poll ratings can and will creep up, Westminster voting intentions will see a fairer fight and many of the Nationalist arguments will hit home.
May 2010 could go all manner of ways from an historic twenty MPs to a rather lousy seven but the SNP knows that it has the arguments on its side on a whole plethora of issues and can place its confidence in that, whatever the polls or election results bring.
On the question of independence (and what the question was we do not yet know), the results were as follows.
Yes - 29%
No - 57%
Don't know - 15%
Those are not 'all to play for' figures in my book and Anthony King's analysis that “Alex Salmond increasingly resembles a man trying to drag a heavy vehicle out of a ditch." has some traction. The vigorous advancement of a referendum remains a huge, needless political risk. I still think the SNP should look to 2012 for a plebiscite.
Whether the risk is having the referendum offer opportunisically accepted with the Nationalists subsequently defeated or being perceived to not be governing responsibly during a recession by pushing for a poll in the first place, a second SNP term is not as certain as it once was which one would have thought is the top priority 18 months shy of May 2011.
It should be noted that 45% of people wish to see a referendum in the next few years while an alarmingly high 47% do not “as this would be a distraction from more urgent issues that need tackling”.
I fear that this is a loaded question as surely the "urgent issues" will be taken care of in less than the few years that were mentioned in the first option? Once a poll starts using alarmist language to apparently direct respondents one particular way, a certain integrity is lost.
I wonder what was wrong with the question: "Do you wish to see a referendum on Scottish independence within the next few years?" and leave it as a yes or a no?
Moving on to Westminster voting intentions, the SNP are seemingly on course for a hammering:
Labour - 39%
SNP - 24%
Tory - 18%
Lib Dem - 12%
Are those numbers credible? I fear they are. There was always a sense that the soaring poll figures would be fleeting somehow, the perfect storm of Brown's incompetence, MPs expenses and a startlingly successful lefty SNP Government had blown in for a short while but has now abated.
The lesson is, support is out there and people who have said they would vote SNP will find it easier to do so if they have before.
I still think the SNP's greatest strength is in playing it long. Build a little, consolidate, build a little more and then consolidate a little more. Slow steady progress rather than pushing too soon and going down in a blaze of glory. Or perhaps even just a blaze of gore. The party is leaving itself dangerously vulnerable to wounds that would still be getting licked a decade from now.
Gordon Brown at Number 10 and Alastair Darling at Number 11 means a time for consolidation for the SNP. Of course the Nationalists will get squeezed at the next election but going up against a Scottish PM and a Scottish Chancellor is no easy beat for a party trying to show the benefits of going it alone and the lack of a union dividend.
David Cameron standing in the doorway of Number 10 with Ed Balls or Harriet Harman or John Cruddas or one of the Milibands as Labour leader de-tartanises the Westminster brand.
Against such a backdrop, independence poll ratings can and will creep up, Westminster voting intentions will see a fairer fight and many of the Nationalist arguments will hit home.
May 2010 could go all manner of ways from an historic twenty MPs to a rather lousy seven but the SNP knows that it has the arguments on its side on a whole plethora of issues and can place its confidence in that, whatever the polls or election results bring.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Should the Lib Dems call time on Afghanistan?
Despite my reading about news and politics every day I have to admit that my knowledge of all things related to Afghanistan is at best patchy. For one thing, I vaguely recall the promise of a second round of elections a week or two ago after the clearly corrupt poll that took place in the country. However, over the weekend I read about Hamid Karzai's installation as President which presumably means that a second vote is no longer in the offing.I would warily suggest that the great British public have a similarly hazy knowledge of what's going on in that part of the Middle East and for that reason I would suggest that any nuanced, complicated policy on the Afghan War from any of the main parties would fall largely on deaf ears.
Putting it crudely, I suspect the Tories are seen as being strongly for the War, Labour in favour but less so, the SNP even more reticent and, for the the Lib Dems, no-one really knows for sure what they think. I don't like to see Politics dumbed down so I'll instead suggest that amending policies for our collective ignorance is merely 'meeting the people halfway'.
Nick Clegg recently drew praise from The Economist's Bagehot so maybe the Lib Dem leader is on the right path but I just wonder if his party, relentlessly punished in poll after poll on both sides of the border and finishing an abysmal sixth in Glasgow North East, would benefit from a clearer policy on the matter. Nick has the benefit of being able to adopt a policy that the Tories, Labour and, dare I say, even the SNP couldn't pull off successfully.
It may perhaps be cynical but with polls showing more and more support for an immediate withdrawal of UK soldiers from the region, more and more bodies being paraded through Wooten-Bassett and more and more money being haemhorrhaged into an unwinnable war, should Nick Clegg start the political clarion call to bring our boys home as soon as is humanly possible?
The Liberal Democrats won an impressive share of the vote in 2005 off the back of its oppposition to the Iraq War. A mansion tax policy will not reap the same dividends.
As the death toll rises in Afghanistan and the election date looms, an early stance on this issue on the side of public opinion could heave the 3rd party of British politics above that 20% mark.
Sending a group of Margos to Westminster
Although I believe that one swallow does not make a summer, I do think the much-trumpeted Ipsos-Mori poll showing Labour just 6% behind the Tories is significant.
I would happily wager that in the vast majority of elections that have been and gone the challenger closes the gap as election date looms and let's hand it to Labour, despite having been in Government for the past 12 years, they have somehow contrived to paint themselves as the challengers.
This has opened the door for the SNP to once again push the people of Scotland to consider who they may wish the deal-breakers to be in any hung Parliament that may arise. Some may scoff at Salmond's overtones that it would be the Lib Dems that would be at the front of the queue and that may well be the case but I tend to have Margo MacDonald in mind when I think of these things.
If, before the 2007 election, the Lothians MSP had campaigned on the suggestion that she would be holding the balance of power in Holyrood she would have been derided in many quarters, perhaps even all four. The promise that Margo could pull money from whichever Government took office and direct it Edinburgh's way would have been seen as unlikely and yet as 1 sole MSP out of 129, that is precisely what she has managed to do, and more besides.
The equivalent of 1 MSP out of 129 in Westminster is 5 MPs out of the 646, a sum that the SNP has already exceeded and can expect to exceed further come May 2010.
Although I agree with Iain Dale that a parliamentary majority is preferable to a minority Government (admittedly once I've shaken off my latent socialist philosophy that it's nice that everyone should agree), that is not a result that can be gerrymandered as hard as one may try.
Labour are closing the gap nationally which suggests that in Scotland their vote may harden but the SNP has a compelling story to tell. And speaking of swallows and summers, the suggestion of a hardening of Labour's vote on the back of one by-election, as several Sunday papers did, is dubious at least.
Furthermore, Cameron may have one last political grenade to throw into the mix north of the border. Of course he won't be visiting us very much between now and the general election, there are precious few seats to win for his party though I think it's fair to say that if he doesn't at least make an effort to gain ground in Scotland then his claim of respect for those north of the border will be somewhat diluted. A mandate for all of the UK? That remains to be seen.
Anyway, Cameron's Scottish throw of the dice could be to make some sort of move that will assist the SNP. Labour have a good 30-40 seats that it can win up here, more than enough to be the balance of power in Westminster. An SNP gain is better than a Labour hold for the Tories, and the more of them the better.
Is it feasible, as the SNP strain every sinew to bleed as much votes out of the hung parliament narrative as possible, that Cameron will seek to abolish Barnett and/or bluntly address the West Lothian question to not only gain ground in 'Middle England' but also provide the SNP a the perfect megaphone to show why a strong Scottish voice is required in Westminster after all?
May 2010: A convincing Tory lead but no majority, a decimated Lib Dem group and a strong, deal-breaking bloc of SNP MPs. That seem to be plan A for now and I, for one, see no reason why it shouldn't be...
I would happily wager that in the vast majority of elections that have been and gone the challenger closes the gap as election date looms and let's hand it to Labour, despite having been in Government for the past 12 years, they have somehow contrived to paint themselves as the challengers.
This has opened the door for the SNP to once again push the people of Scotland to consider who they may wish the deal-breakers to be in any hung Parliament that may arise. Some may scoff at Salmond's overtones that it would be the Lib Dems that would be at the front of the queue and that may well be the case but I tend to have Margo MacDonald in mind when I think of these things.
If, before the 2007 election, the Lothians MSP had campaigned on the suggestion that she would be holding the balance of power in Holyrood she would have been derided in many quarters, perhaps even all four. The promise that Margo could pull money from whichever Government took office and direct it Edinburgh's way would have been seen as unlikely and yet as 1 sole MSP out of 129, that is precisely what she has managed to do, and more besides.
The equivalent of 1 MSP out of 129 in Westminster is 5 MPs out of the 646, a sum that the SNP has already exceeded and can expect to exceed further come May 2010.
Although I agree with Iain Dale that a parliamentary majority is preferable to a minority Government (admittedly once I've shaken off my latent socialist philosophy that it's nice that everyone should agree), that is not a result that can be gerrymandered as hard as one may try.
Labour are closing the gap nationally which suggests that in Scotland their vote may harden but the SNP has a compelling story to tell. And speaking of swallows and summers, the suggestion of a hardening of Labour's vote on the back of one by-election, as several Sunday papers did, is dubious at least.
Furthermore, Cameron may have one last political grenade to throw into the mix north of the border. Of course he won't be visiting us very much between now and the general election, there are precious few seats to win for his party though I think it's fair to say that if he doesn't at least make an effort to gain ground in Scotland then his claim of respect for those north of the border will be somewhat diluted. A mandate for all of the UK? That remains to be seen.
Anyway, Cameron's Scottish throw of the dice could be to make some sort of move that will assist the SNP. Labour have a good 30-40 seats that it can win up here, more than enough to be the balance of power in Westminster. An SNP gain is better than a Labour hold for the Tories, and the more of them the better.
Is it feasible, as the SNP strain every sinew to bleed as much votes out of the hung parliament narrative as possible, that Cameron will seek to abolish Barnett and/or bluntly address the West Lothian question to not only gain ground in 'Middle England' but also provide the SNP a the perfect megaphone to show why a strong Scottish voice is required in Westminster after all?
May 2010: A convincing Tory lead but no majority, a decimated Lib Dem group and a strong, deal-breaking bloc of SNP MPs. That seem to be plan A for now and I, for one, see no reason why it shouldn't be...
Guest Post: Free Florence and Precious Mhango
Hi everybody, this isn't Jeff, it's Esther Sassaman (@estherann on Twitter and lapsed blogger at Thingummy). Jeff is in Ireland sans laptop and has graciously allowed me to do a guest post on here, in a personal capacity. So, apologies in advance for my strident prose instead of Jeff's erudite, considered comment.
I'm writing to let you all know about two asylum seekers named Florence and Precious Mhango, who are currently at Yarl's Wood detention centre awaiting deportation at 7pm today (Monday) to Malawi. If they are deported, it is extremely likely that ten year old Precious will be removed from her mother - the only parent she has ever really known - and taken away to live with her father's family.
On an additional, sickly ironic note, the father, who has been quite credibly accused of domestic violence, is now living and working in the United Kingdom!
Even though Anne McLaughlin MSP consulted experts from the Scotland Malawi Partnership and confirmed that Malawian law would support Precious being taken away from her mother, the UK Border Agency detained Florence and Precious on Wednesday. They're to be deported today at 7pm.
Florence and Precious live in Cranhill, Glasgow and have made a wide variety of friends in the community there, particularly at the Cranhill Community Project and St Maria Goretti RC Church. Their supporters have launched a campaign for their release.
We're asking people to email Phil Woolas MP, Minister of State responsible for UKBA detentions, to politely request the humanitarian release of Florence and Precious. His email is public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
I met Florence and Precious at the UNITY office, an asylum seeker run organisation that helps people who are signing in for their weekly checks at Glasgow's Border Agency office in Govan. I would go there every week with another asylum seeker and her daughter, and this pair were always there helping their fellows, lending emotional support, and sharing food and a bit of joy and fellowship. Florence and Precious are a bit quiet but are both stunningly elegant and fashionable on the very limited budget they receive as asylum seekers. Precious is a remarkable little girl, with a gift for storytelling and art, and has charmed her teachers and school mates. I've been to their home in Cranhill and my favourite picture of hers is one of Jade Goody (with angel wings) kissing Jack Tweed. Doesn't this show you how, er, integrated she is?
Florence and Precious have undergone quite an ordeal in their time here, and have significant trauma. You can read more at Anne McLaughlin's blog, at this BBC article, and at the Facebook group for Florence and Precious.
Now this is an SNP Tactical Voting post, so here's a little politics. As a researcher for Anne McLaughlin MSP, I work in the constituency office of the SNP Glasgow list MSPs. We get asylum seekers coming in off the street every week asking for help, and we and our MSPs listen to their stories, liaise with their lawyers and supporters, and write polite letters to the Home Office asking for consideration of their cases.
Over the last few months, the MSPs have gotten back increasingly curt replies saying that as immigration is a reserved matter, MSPs are not allowed to represent constituents to the Border Agency. In the last week, Anne and other MSPs, including Nicola Sturgeon, have gotten back definitive statements that the UK Border Agency will not be responding to enquiries from MSPs any longer.
All of the MSPs I have spoken to are quite offended by this decision. As one said to me, if an immigrant wishes a friend, colleague, religious leader or even a lorry driver to represent them they should be allowed to do so!
So, in writing to Phil Woolas on Florence and Precious' behalf, hundreds of people from across Scotland, UK and the world are highlighting the importance of this kind of advocacy. We're all a community together, folks.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Three Months since Al-Megrahi's Release
Tomorrow marks the three month anniversary of Kenny MacAskill's speech to the world in which he announced that Abdelbaset Ali Al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, would be released on compassionate leave.Needless to say, there is little doubt that a Scottish, perhaps even international, political storm is ready to kick off once more as this decision was based on medical reports that suggested the man had less than three months to live. There have been a few suggestions that the Libyans health was deteriorating, even a strong rumour that Al-Megrahi had died, but he lives on into his fourth month of being a free man.
The Lib Dems have now joined the Conservative's calls for the release of documents which cast doubt on the Lockerbie bomber's conviction to be made public. It seems the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission conducted an investigation which concluded that a second appeal should be launched.
As far as I can make out, this is the same appeal that Al-Megrahi started but then dropped so why we need to learn of the detail of these documents is beyond me. Dropping that appeal was Al-Megrahi's decision to make alone so the deail is now surely irrelevant. That said, there is surely no harm in releasing documents if politicians are adamant that they are important.
One question is, do those who do not want to revisit the decision do so out of the lack of results it would bring or merely out of political expediency?
I can understand the concerns that people may have surrounding the whole issue but if a decision is taken to free a dying man on the strength of medical reports then it shouldn't matter if he dies within three days, three months or three years.
The human body is an incredible thing, many of us will know of relatives or friends who have confounded doctors to see one last Christmas or one last anniversary before moving on, so to focus on how long someone can cling onto a life that lost a certain quality a long time ago is frankly ghoulish and certainly unbecoming of a parliamentary representative. It is important to remember that three months is the average length of time a prostate cancer victim in Al-Megrahi's August 20th state would expect to live.
Don't get me wrong, there are no doubt questions that need to be asked and answers that need to be given, but hopefully the point will not be laboured and the significance of going beyond the three month anniversary exaggerated.
The mystery of the Lockerbie bombing needs fixed but we don't need a fixation on one man's slow demise.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Death of Blogging
Like any blogger, I am addicted to hits. Why are the numbers up, why are they down? Where have people come from and can I snare an IP address to work out who people are? I check statcounter more regularly than I do Facebook which probably makes me less of a person but as a Statistics Masters graduate and a numbers nerd, it was ever going to be thus.
One thing I have noticed through this addictive pastime is that for as long as the past year or so I have had very few hits from new sources. Don't get me wrong, there have been some excellent new blogs which have kindly linked to me (and linkage has generally been reciprocated) but in my first year of blogging getting hits from new sources was a regular occurrence such was the rate of new blogs taking off and interest in blogs from numerous media sources.
Maybe I am not proactive enough in seeking out blogs I can just directly ask for links from but the crux of the matter is that there are less new blogs breaking through out there, the retirals are outnumbering the startups. The Scottish scene has already been hit by the hanging up of the Scottish Unionist and Malc in the Burgh keyboards with fellow Total Politics 'top-tenner' Caron significantly (and regrettably) scaling back her post rate (albeit due to ill health). Many other blogs are starting and stopping with activation energy seemingly in short supply.
The difficulties in getting a blog up and running are probably greater now than they were even a year or two ago. I get the impression the rate of new readers of blogs in general has slowed dramatically with those that do read blogs having their personal favourites and sticking to them. One of the reasons I created a links page of some 200 websites (and growing) was to ensure that I read different voices and get different viewpoints on a regular basis. More often than not it's the established (perhaps even dangerously cosy) club of UK bloggers that have new posts available to read on the real-time feed. If someone was to start a blog today and looked to break into the Total Politics top 100 they would surely balk at the prospect.
Perhaps, just perhaps, blogging has already had its heyday? If it can happen to MySpace it can happen to Blogger.
Where is the latest wave of angry upstarts energetically tearing strips off the establishment with their fists of blogging fury? Pretenders to the throne are generally too deeply wedded to the party line to be serious contenders as the radical new political voice.
There are, of course, long-established beacons of light. The Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes duopoly has a healthy incongruence. Iain has a straighter approach, directly tackling policy issues and, more often than not, his calm dissemblance points out the frustrating inadequacies in Labour, Lib Dem and often Tory positions on any number of issues. Guido is less interested in policy and more interested in bringing down the troughers and ending the corruption in Westminster.
Both are independent, both have plenty of material to work with and, despite their differing approcahes to blogging, both are now pretty much indispensable.
Beyond that however, the highest profile bloggers are the Ben Brogans, the Paul Waughs, the Tom Harris', the Fraser Nelsons, the Nick Robinsons, the Dan Hannans, the John Prescotts. Bloggers who have recently muscled into the scene with relative ease, perhaps not appreciating the struggle for 'hits' that faces any new blogger. Journalists or MPs who arguably have business interests at heart rather than being unbiased seekers of truth.
Their online sites, although tremendous reads each in their own right, are merely an extension of the old world, the journalists vs the politicians with the public shut out of the debate and left to banter amongst themselves in the comment wilderness. With the luxury of regular work hours at their disposal to update their blogs, the true independent bloggers are always at a disadvantage snatching time in the early morning, lunchbreak or in the evening to contribute to the debate.
It is perhaps too self-indulgent to suggest that blogs ever bore a direct and imminent threat to the viability of newspapers but it's clear that newspaper companies are splattering the blogosphere with websites of their own in order to swamp the market and mitigate any risk that did exist.
Blogging only really took off after the 2005 general election. Is the online adventure effectively over before the next one in 2010?
One thing I have noticed through this addictive pastime is that for as long as the past year or so I have had very few hits from new sources. Don't get me wrong, there have been some excellent new blogs which have kindly linked to me (and linkage has generally been reciprocated) but in my first year of blogging getting hits from new sources was a regular occurrence such was the rate of new blogs taking off and interest in blogs from numerous media sources.
Maybe I am not proactive enough in seeking out blogs I can just directly ask for links from but the crux of the matter is that there are less new blogs breaking through out there, the retirals are outnumbering the startups. The Scottish scene has already been hit by the hanging up of the Scottish Unionist and Malc in the Burgh keyboards with fellow Total Politics 'top-tenner' Caron significantly (and regrettably) scaling back her post rate (albeit due to ill health). Many other blogs are starting and stopping with activation energy seemingly in short supply.
The difficulties in getting a blog up and running are probably greater now than they were even a year or two ago. I get the impression the rate of new readers of blogs in general has slowed dramatically with those that do read blogs having their personal favourites and sticking to them. One of the reasons I created a links page of some 200 websites (and growing) was to ensure that I read different voices and get different viewpoints on a regular basis. More often than not it's the established (perhaps even dangerously cosy) club of UK bloggers that have new posts available to read on the real-time feed. If someone was to start a blog today and looked to break into the Total Politics top 100 they would surely balk at the prospect.
Perhaps, just perhaps, blogging has already had its heyday? If it can happen to MySpace it can happen to Blogger.
Where is the latest wave of angry upstarts energetically tearing strips off the establishment with their fists of blogging fury? Pretenders to the throne are generally too deeply wedded to the party line to be serious contenders as the radical new political voice.
There are, of course, long-established beacons of light. The Iain Dale and Guido Fawkes duopoly has a healthy incongruence. Iain has a straighter approach, directly tackling policy issues and, more often than not, his calm dissemblance points out the frustrating inadequacies in Labour, Lib Dem and often Tory positions on any number of issues. Guido is less interested in policy and more interested in bringing down the troughers and ending the corruption in Westminster.
Both are independent, both have plenty of material to work with and, despite their differing approcahes to blogging, both are now pretty much indispensable.
Beyond that however, the highest profile bloggers are the Ben Brogans, the Paul Waughs, the Tom Harris', the Fraser Nelsons, the Nick Robinsons, the Dan Hannans, the John Prescotts. Bloggers who have recently muscled into the scene with relative ease, perhaps not appreciating the struggle for 'hits' that faces any new blogger. Journalists or MPs who arguably have business interests at heart rather than being unbiased seekers of truth.
Their online sites, although tremendous reads each in their own right, are merely an extension of the old world, the journalists vs the politicians with the public shut out of the debate and left to banter amongst themselves in the comment wilderness. With the luxury of regular work hours at their disposal to update their blogs, the true independent bloggers are always at a disadvantage snatching time in the early morning, lunchbreak or in the evening to contribute to the debate.
It is perhaps too self-indulgent to suggest that blogs ever bore a direct and imminent threat to the viability of newspapers but it's clear that newspaper companies are splattering the blogosphere with websites of their own in order to swamp the market and mitigate any risk that did exist.
Blogging only really took off after the 2005 general election. Is the online adventure effectively over before the next one in 2010?
Jim Sillars, Trident & NATO
The Scotsman delights today in bringing us the news of Jim Sillars' 'bombshell' that the former deputy leader of the party believes the SNP should have policies to keep Trident and join NATO.
I don't know where certain individuals stand in the supposed fundamentalist vs gradualist struggle (particularly as I barely register on either score), but it sounds a bit like Jim is letting his impatient fundamentalist nature cloud his better thinking.
On Trident he says:
"The retention for the UK of the Trident base, for a limited time, under lease, should not be an earth-shattering compromise to make for the sake of gaining a clear way to independence."
To be fair, it is merely a compromise and hardly an about turn on the current policy. It also bears hallmarks of the policy suggested by Angus Robertson where Scottish army bases could be leased out to rUK.
However, opposition to Trident is one of the SNP's strongest cards and muddying the water over the issue would surely dilute the Nationalist's core appeal. The public are in favour of scrapping Trident and even a majority of Scottish MPs and MSPs are in favour of scrapping Trident. It also keeps the SNP separate from Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems in one eminently sensible step.
I don't envisage Canada being happy to hold nuclear weapons for the USA or Sweden being happy to hold them for France, Scotland shouldn't be happy to hold Trident for rUK.
As for NATO Jim says,
"The SNP membership has to ask itself whether adherence to a policy forged in the depths of the Cold War is worth holding on to in a world that is now fundamentally different, if it arouses too much international opposition and thereby undermines the main objective of gaining votes for independence."
Sillars has a stronger argument here and although the SNP still needs to communicate its policy to a public that perhaps doesn't yet appreciate the reasons for it, it is not necessarily the correct move to sign up to NATO just because it's easier to do so and makes other countries happy.
It is easy to forget that Ireland, Sweden and Finland are not members of NATO and there is no public clamour for these peaceful nations to go joining the club soon.
Indeed, according to Noam Chomsky, the globally respected political campaigner, the aims and political use of NATO are questionable at least.
From a recent Guardian interview:
The veteran activist has described the US invasion of Afghanistan as "one of the most immoral acts in modern history", which united the jihadist movement around al-Qaida, sharply increased the level of terrorism and was "perfectly irrational – unless the security of the population is not the main priority". Which, of course, Chomsky believes, it is not. "States are not moral agents," he says, and believes that now that Obama is escalating the war, it has become even clearer that the occupation is about the credibility of Nato and US global power.
It is easier to just sign up to NATO and go along with Trident so as not to step on anyone's toes but both are the wrong moves.
Aiming for an independent Scotland that is merely an extension of what the UK is and stands for is surely a massive tactical error. It's only if the public feel there is a genuine choice on offer, a radical, preferable alternative that they will feel motivated to get out and vote for a better constitutional setup.
There's a touch of defeatism in Sillars' argument but I suspect Salmond and Sturgeon are made of stronger stuff and will keep the policies of NATO and Trident in place for now and beyond.
I don't know where certain individuals stand in the supposed fundamentalist vs gradualist struggle (particularly as I barely register on either score), but it sounds a bit like Jim is letting his impatient fundamentalist nature cloud his better thinking.
On Trident he says:
"The retention for the UK of the Trident base, for a limited time, under lease, should not be an earth-shattering compromise to make for the sake of gaining a clear way to independence."
To be fair, it is merely a compromise and hardly an about turn on the current policy. It also bears hallmarks of the policy suggested by Angus Robertson where Scottish army bases could be leased out to rUK.
However, opposition to Trident is one of the SNP's strongest cards and muddying the water over the issue would surely dilute the Nationalist's core appeal. The public are in favour of scrapping Trident and even a majority of Scottish MPs and MSPs are in favour of scrapping Trident. It also keeps the SNP separate from Labour, Tories and the Lib Dems in one eminently sensible step.
I don't envisage Canada being happy to hold nuclear weapons for the USA or Sweden being happy to hold them for France, Scotland shouldn't be happy to hold Trident for rUK.
As for NATO Jim says,
"The SNP membership has to ask itself whether adherence to a policy forged in the depths of the Cold War is worth holding on to in a world that is now fundamentally different, if it arouses too much international opposition and thereby undermines the main objective of gaining votes for independence."
Sillars has a stronger argument here and although the SNP still needs to communicate its policy to a public that perhaps doesn't yet appreciate the reasons for it, it is not necessarily the correct move to sign up to NATO just because it's easier to do so and makes other countries happy.
It is easy to forget that Ireland, Sweden and Finland are not members of NATO and there is no public clamour for these peaceful nations to go joining the club soon.
Indeed, according to Noam Chomsky, the globally respected political campaigner, the aims and political use of NATO are questionable at least.
From a recent Guardian interview:
The veteran activist has described the US invasion of Afghanistan as "one of the most immoral acts in modern history", which united the jihadist movement around al-Qaida, sharply increased the level of terrorism and was "perfectly irrational – unless the security of the population is not the main priority". Which, of course, Chomsky believes, it is not. "States are not moral agents," he says, and believes that now that Obama is escalating the war, it has become even clearer that the occupation is about the credibility of Nato and US global power.
It is easier to just sign up to NATO and go along with Trident so as not to step on anyone's toes but both are the wrong moves.
Aiming for an independent Scotland that is merely an extension of what the UK is and stands for is surely a massive tactical error. It's only if the public feel there is a genuine choice on offer, a radical, preferable alternative that they will feel motivated to get out and vote for a better constitutional setup.
There's a touch of defeatism in Sillars' argument but I suspect Salmond and Sturgeon are made of stronger stuff and will keep the policies of NATO and Trident in place for now and beyond.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
A tale of two Milibands
A friend of a friend was invited to a function celebrating the start of devolution back in ~1999 and learned in advance that she would be sitting next to Ed Miliband. Fret with worry about what she would talk about she was told by a sage friend not to worry, she wouldn't have to think about making conversation as Ed would see to that.True enough, the man charmed, enthused, enquired and delighted throughout the evening.
Now, ten years hence, one has to wonder what became of that New Labour spirit as I quote from The Spectator's diary section:
"Seen at the state banquet for the President of India at Buckingham Palace last week; the Foreign Secretary David Miliband facing one way all evening to hang upon every word of the Prince of Wales, never once turning to the unfortunate woman on his other side."
And we're supposed to believe that this same Miliband is “vibrant, vital, attractive, smart. He’s really a good guy. And he’s so young!” as per Hillary Clinton?
To be fair, he is young...
Go Forth and multiply
Today sees the legislation for the next Forth Bridge unveiled in the Scottish Parliament. I've already had a few posts on this subject, Two Doctors has pushed it hard on the Steamie and needless to say I'm not a fan of the plan. Spending over £2bn on a bridge where two already exist seems pretty crazy on the face of it, particularly if it potentially comes at the expense of education investment, a nail in the coffin of PFI or free school meals for all primary school children.With overruns for the Olympics, trams and now the Commonwealth Games well documented, who knows what multiple of that £2bn we will end up with.
Furthermore, a recent YouGov poll commissioned by the Greens showed that there was a majority in favour of repairing the bridge rather than replacing it. The question that was asked (released by YouGov today) is:
As you may know, the Forth Road Bridge is deteriorating, and action will need to be taken to ensure a continued road link across the eastern Firth of Forth. The Scottish Government has proposed building a new bridge at an estimated cost of up to £2,300m which it will pay for using public Scottish funds, but borrow initially from the UK government in order to help spread the cost.
According to a report by the Forth Estuary Transport Authority, the existing Forth Road
Bridge could be repaired, rather than replaced, for an estimated cost of up to £122m.
Bridge could be repaired, rather than replaced, for an estimated cost of up to £122m.
Those in favour of REPLACING the bridge argue that it needs to be widened, to reduce
congestion, and that a new windshield should be built to protect travellers. Those in favour of
REPAIRING the bridge argue that replacing the bridge altogether would put an unnecessary
burden on public funds.
congestion, and that a new windshield should be built to protect travellers. Those in favour of
REPAIRING the bridge argue that replacing the bridge altogether would put an unnecessary
burden on public funds.
Which ONE of the following statements comes closer to your view?
Results:
Repair (57%), Replace (34%), Don't Know (10%)
The SNP will, as one, vote in favour in any future vote while the Greens will vote against. So that's 47 to 2 before a ball is kicked. But what about the other parties?
If Labour believes in its 'ripped off Glasgow' campaign then surely it will vote against such a huge investment in the Lothians and Fife.
The Tories are generally known for their prudence and may yet come round to the idea that there is significant money to be saved here which would mean Scottish Water could be left untouched. (If they can swallow their desire to privatise anything available)
The Lib Dems, well, it's hard to say which way they'll turn on any issue on any given day so time will tell which way they will ultimately vote.
But it's not a popular policy as far as I can see, not helped with the consultation apparently more of a notification.
I don't often cheer on the opposing parties to vote down the SNP but, on this issue, I have to admit that's what I am doing.
Scotland and the Queen's Speech
I didn't watch the BBC's 'The Queen in 3D' last night. Apart from the apparatus problem of handing back my 3D glasses when I went to see the excellent Up a few weeks ago, I have to confess I hold very little interest in the Royal Family. If anything I'm broadly supportive I guess, and Prince Charles' shot in the throne is long, long overdue so I wouldn't go as far as the disgraceful remarks from Labour PPC Peter White that Her Majesty is "vermin" but I think a loyal subject is entitled to a little ambivalence here and there.
However, The Queen will be catching my interest this week when she delivers her Speech. According to The Times, included in her oratory will be a commitment from the UK Government to “taking forward legislation on the Calman Commission’s proposals to give the Scottish Parliament more tax-raising and other powers."
There is a tremendous quote from 'a senior Whitehall source' which deserves repeating:
"“While it might not be every dot and comma of Calman, it will be as near as dammit.”
You can tell they just love talking about Scottish devolution down south, dammit.
Anyway, although I am interested I can't say I will be overly excited. The next step from the status quo for Holyrood's financial powers can only be full fiscal autonomy, as suggested by the think tank Reform Scotland. There is no workable middle ground.
The Calman proposals, as far as I remember, included the Scottish Government having some borrowing powers and taking control of some taxes. It all just seems such a messy fudge. A Scottish Government that spends £33bn or so a year should have control over a corresponding level of taxes. Otherwise there are no checks and balances, there is spending without reproach. Pocket money from Mum and Dad down south without so much as a washing the car chore to go with it.
There seems to be agreement that the Barnett Formula has to go but going by the proposed Queen's Speech, we are being offered a 2-dimensional solution to a 3-dimensional problem.
However, The Queen will be catching my interest this week when she delivers her Speech. According to The Times, included in her oratory will be a commitment from the UK Government to “taking forward legislation on the Calman Commission’s proposals to give the Scottish Parliament more tax-raising and other powers."
There is a tremendous quote from 'a senior Whitehall source' which deserves repeating:
"“While it might not be every dot and comma of Calman, it will be as near as dammit.”
You can tell they just love talking about Scottish devolution down south, dammit.
Anyway, although I am interested I can't say I will be overly excited. The next step from the status quo for Holyrood's financial powers can only be full fiscal autonomy, as suggested by the think tank Reform Scotland. There is no workable middle ground.
The Calman proposals, as far as I remember, included the Scottish Government having some borrowing powers and taking control of some taxes. It all just seems such a messy fudge. A Scottish Government that spends £33bn or so a year should have control over a corresponding level of taxes. Otherwise there are no checks and balances, there is spending without reproach. Pocket money from Mum and Dad down south without so much as a washing the car chore to go with it.
There seems to be agreement that the Barnett Formula has to go but going by the proposed Queen's Speech, we are being offered a 2-dimensional solution to a 3-dimensional problem.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Glasgow NE - Where did it all go wrong?
A wonderful tribute to the Glasgow North East by-election from John Steele (djsteeley on Twitter) is available on YouTube.
I think fans of all parties will agree it's a fair and groovy summation of the campaign that was. Except for the last 5 seconds which, perhaps too favourably, gives the SNP a little bit of hope for next time.
Absolutely love that tune.
I think fans of all parties will agree it's a fair and groovy summation of the campaign that was. Except for the last 5 seconds which, perhaps too favourably, gives the SNP a little bit of hope for next time.
Absolutely love that tune.
Opposition to the SNP spreads to Jerusalem
There is an intriguing article in the Jerusalem Post focussing on the Glasgow North East by-election and the supposed threat the SNP poses to Israel's fortunes. It is a timely reminder that the question of independence is not just being considered and bickered over in the confines of the Scottish Parliament but states the world over are looking on with avid interest.The article had the potential to be a fascinating, considered piece on British-Israeli relations but sadly it let itself down with the following passages which bear the echos of Daily Record hacks rather than considered Middle East commentators:
Alex Salmond is a calculating clan chieftain who would slyly channel Scottish fear and loathing of a Tory government in London into support for separation.
Israelis certainly have nothing to gain from the creation of an independent Scotland led by Salmond. As proven by its careless handling of the Lockerbie bomber case, Edinburgh's nationalist administration is, at best, extremely naïve about the mendacity of certain Middle East regimes or, at worst, prepared to curry favor across the Arab world for its own narrow objective.
An independent Scotland led by this man (Salmond) wouldn't care if Israel were wiped off the map, which is why Israelis should care about Britain being wiped off the map by his band of anything but bravehearts.
Wide of the mark on all scores.
I daresay the central thrust of Rob Brown's argument is correct however, that if Scotland gains its independence then rUK will lose its permanent seat on the Security Council and Israel will receive less international support but is that something we should concern ourselves with? The unquestioning, unconditional and seemingly unthinking support of Israel from the US and Gordon Brown ("probably the most pro-Israeli British premier ever" per Rob) is surely unsustainable if a Middle East solution is ever to be reached. Showing solidarity with Israelis is significantly less important to most SNP members as solidarity with oppressed Palestinians.
Showing Palestinians that it is possible for a people to take control of its destiny peacefully and maturely is no bad thing and is perhaps the real reason for this jittery piece in the Jerusalem Post, assuming the writer is in favour of keeping Gaza crushed under the heel of Israel's boot of course.
I know for a fact that the people of Aceh in Indonesia are studying the Scottish independence drive to aid them in their own quest for freedom. Perhaps the Palestinian freedom movement is doing the same?
Either way, given that many SNP MSPs are 'Friends of Palestine', I daresay the pro-Israel bloc getting upset at the prospect of an independent Scotland won't bother the SNP too much at all.
Quite the contrary infact.
Games get £80m cash boost
Be absolutely honest, are you that excited about the Commonwealth Games?
Whether it's next year's affair in India or the 2014 event in Glasgow, is it really a sporting spectacle given the relatively small slice of countries that take part? I remember attending the Manchester games back in 2002 and although I enjoyed experiencing something like that for the first time, I have to admit to being somewhat underwhelmed.
Today Salmond and Purcell will announce that they are plugging an £80m gap in the financing of the 2014 Games and one can't help but worry that there will be more similar press conferences over the next four years to come. Has cash-strapped Scotland bitten off more than it can chew? I hope not and I doubt it but I look to the quadrupling of the 2012 Olympics budget and one can't help but be concerned. (Also, if £80m can be drummed up so quickly for the Games, it does beg the question why it was not available for the Glasgow Airport Rail Link? Is the money going in now? Are frontline services being cut? etc etc)
This £80m gap has been caused by the lack of lucrative tv deals as a consequence of the recession so needless to say there is a further cost in that the event won't be as prestigious as it once was if not as many people are watching it.
However, Glasgow is seemingly far ahead of schedule with 70% of venues for the Games already in place, scope for more cost overruns is therefore narrow. In terms of expected revenue, most ticket sales for the Edinburgh Festival are sold to tourists and if the same is pulled off for Glasgow then sceptical onlookers such as myself will be insignificant to the whole process.
Furthermore, despite my experiences of the Manchester Games, the local Evening News paper had this to say:
The legacy of Manchester's Commonwealth Games included 20,000 jobs, the acceleration of £800m of transport spending, £225m of public-sector regeneration, and world-class sporting facilities. As reflected in this briefing note for Scottish politicians.
If Glasgow produces similar figures it should be very happy indeed.
So it looks like plugging those spending gaps will more than pay off in the end.
Whether it's next year's affair in India or the 2014 event in Glasgow, is it really a sporting spectacle given the relatively small slice of countries that take part? I remember attending the Manchester games back in 2002 and although I enjoyed experiencing something like that for the first time, I have to admit to being somewhat underwhelmed.
Today Salmond and Purcell will announce that they are plugging an £80m gap in the financing of the 2014 Games and one can't help but worry that there will be more similar press conferences over the next four years to come. Has cash-strapped Scotland bitten off more than it can chew? I hope not and I doubt it but I look to the quadrupling of the 2012 Olympics budget and one can't help but be concerned. (Also, if £80m can be drummed up so quickly for the Games, it does beg the question why it was not available for the Glasgow Airport Rail Link? Is the money going in now? Are frontline services being cut? etc etc)
This £80m gap has been caused by the lack of lucrative tv deals as a consequence of the recession so needless to say there is a further cost in that the event won't be as prestigious as it once was if not as many people are watching it.
However, Glasgow is seemingly far ahead of schedule with 70% of venues for the Games already in place, scope for more cost overruns is therefore narrow. In terms of expected revenue, most ticket sales for the Edinburgh Festival are sold to tourists and if the same is pulled off for Glasgow then sceptical onlookers such as myself will be insignificant to the whole process.
Furthermore, despite my experiences of the Manchester Games, the local Evening News paper had this to say:
The legacy of Manchester's Commonwealth Games included 20,000 jobs, the acceleration of £800m of transport spending, £225m of public-sector regeneration, and world-class sporting facilities. As reflected in this briefing note for Scottish politicians.
If Glasgow produces similar figures it should be very happy indeed.
So it looks like plugging those spending gaps will more than pay off in the end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
