I daresay the SNP leader's speech will lack a certain something when merely read in black and white as opposed to received with the usual bombast and rhetorical style from Alex Salmond that we all know so well. I will certainly laugh for effect less while reading it than Salmond will have when delivering it.
The opening tribute to former party leader Billy Wolfe was appropriately placed at the top of the speech, though I'm not sure if "Billy Wolfe was a good man - too good to be a politician" will have gone down too well amongst the 59 PPCs in the audience aspiring to get into Westminster in May.
The section embodied by the line "The wrong cuts at the wrong time - that is their foolish agenda" doesn't sit too easily with me. We need to reduce spending, we need to cut the considerable flab from the public sector and it is in Scotland that that sector is at its most wobbly. Any leader who doesn't face up to these realities is surely at least partly guilty of a dereliction of duty.
As posturing for fiscal autonomy I have no doubt that fierce opposition to a reduction in Holyrood's block grant will be effective but it may not be enough to force Cameron's hand to act and that's when problems can begin.
If the Barnett formula is merely tinkered with rather than abolished then the SNP will have to change tack very quickly. Cuts, as the EU has pointed out clearly this past week, are already overdue. It would be foolish for Salmond to be seen to be last to face up to that reality.
But, despite all of that, there is little doubt it's a vote-winner in the short term. The SNP must surely be an attractive option if voting for them is believed equivalent to maximising our budget.
The speech moved on to Trident and I really can't tire of hearing Salmond saying the extent of the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem disagreement "is whether to have three new submarines or four". I'm very surprised that no other party has joined the SNP in its policy of no nuclear weapons. But their loss is our gain.
The theme of local champions was pushed next, hammered home even. The SNP not trying to win Labour or Tory seats but the people's seats. It's an appealing message and hopefully was well received by watching floating voters but at the end of the day the SNP are contesting constituencies in the same manner as other parties. Calling them the people's seats doesn't change much.
The policy meat of the speech is excellent news. The delivery of wind and wave power projects, quangos cut by 25%, Goverment marketing cut by half, the Council Tax freeze, saving £300m more than the estimated £500m and a hold on minister salaries. Common sense but still contrasts favourably to the UK Government.
The extra £15m for an extra 4,000 college places was the standout announcement. Good news of course but I daresay the problem of teenagers not getting to go with their first choice courses will continue largely unabated.
All in all, standard but welcome fare. Green, anti-nuclear and sensible.
More Nats Means Less Cuts though. I just wonder if I personally would have sat on my hands during the applause for that one.
25 comments:
Having just watched the SNP conference on BBC2 from Aviemore I was shocked by the quality of the coverage of it by the BBC, or what ever cowboy wedding video outfit they hired to cover it.
As I have worked in the outside broadcast industry and covered many Party conferences, I can see what was done or not done and it could only have been a conscious decision to make it look shabby and downbeat.
First of all the lighting was at best amateur, the audience was made to look as if there was only a handful of people there as two thirds of them was in total darkness. And the light that was used was not balanced with that on the stage area, it just looked dreadful.
The sound was pathetic, and sounded as if the only microphones that were used were on the camera. And had been bought in Toys r Us. No audience effect was used at all, so it sounded like polite clapping in a wee room.
And last of all but most important the visual images. I can only assume that the director is used to producing videos for You Tube. At one point the camera was flicking back and forward and zooming in and out as if they had no clue that they were on live. The same camera was also not level, as the podium was at an angle. It appeared that there were only two cameras used in the hall, the range of shots were just simply dreadful. Altogether a very poor and shoddy programme.
The same effect is used on BBC Newsnicht where the lighting is out of balance and the camera work is no better than amateur. The transfer from London is at best a crash in, with no attempt made to make a smooth transition. The difference in quality is glaring.
__________________________
And then Scotland beat Ireland, Dan Parks pulled of the kick of the tournament to seal it.
KBW can't be bothered signing in.
Here is the text of the speech in Aviemore -
Alex Salmond addresses campaign conference
SNP News
20 Mar 2010
I agree with you Anonymous,
on the general point of the unionist and foreign-controlled media manipulation and anti-SNP propaganda.
As SNP TV indicates,
the glorious leader's speech today to his brainwashed minions, lacks a certain something when read in plain text, but especially when deliberately devoid of live tv coverage of the later torch-lit processions of regiments of uniformed cybernat totalitarians marching past, and overhead fly-by squadrons of English-hating Edinburgh University administrators in formation.
I can't wait to read tomorrow's glorious headlines in all the so-called Scottish newspapers who, with one voice, will be describing the SNP nurnberg-style Aviemore rally, and more probably.
Or maybe they'll just go to the other polar opposite, and describe the SNP conference and speech by its leader, ahead of a British general election, as boring and dull.
I can't wait to find out tomorrow what it is I'm supposed to think.
The speech was fine, not great but fine.
I thought the speech was well balanced with the right mixture of confidence and hope\potential for the future. It highlighted a good mix of what’s been achieved by the SNP Government and raised the madness of the cost of having Trident on the Clyde.
He was right on the button with suggesting that we should abolish the Scotland Office and use the money to employ more teachers, nurses and police officers. Jim Murphy has been nothing but an embarrassment to Scotland and to that post and it is high time that we used the more productively rather than it being spent on Labour Party propaganda.
I would have liked a bit emphasis on the need for independence but he articulated well the need for SNP MPs to be elected to protect and stand up for Scotland.
Glad that he mentioned the Feeble Fifty and Labour being more concerned with perks and sitting on their hands rather than defending Scotland.
The speech was fine and it showed a maturity and confidence within the Party, I watched it live on BBC news and the positive message of protecting and standing up for Scotland came across.
I enjoyed the conference today and I felt that he struck the right tone.
It was delivered excellently and the biggest claps were for Scrapping Trident and the Scottish Office.
I'm disappointed that the comments on Billy Wolfe were moderated away. I would not have thought that they were offensive. Indeed, I would have thought that they would have been topical.
I enjoy reading your blog, especially the comments in order to see where people are coming from on the issues you discuss. I undertand the recent probems re moderation, but hoped that you would only moderate obviously offensive comments.I hope that the new censorship regime is not going to cut comments that you disagree with, therefore leaving the blog less interesting. Anyway....
Jeff, Jeff, Jeff.
".. no other party has joined the SNP in its policy of no nuclear weapons."
Surely "none of those parties" would have been more, y'know, true?
Theo, I appreciate your concerns but I didn't let the comment through as I thought it was disrespectful to speak of someone in such a way in the week of their passing. To you it might have been fair game, to me it was a bit off (not offensive as such, just unnecessary. The blog post was barely about Mr Wolfe so it was also kind of offtopic)
I don't know the accuracy of the comments and, given we don't know who 'Theo' is, if there is any fallout from such a comment going live, it would be me that gets it in the neck. So that's where I'm coming from.
James, James, James....
You would have been more annoyed if I'd said the Greens had joined the SNP in opposing nuclear, as if you hadn't thought of it for yourselves.
I think my words are accurate enough.
I missed all the fun with the comments about Wolfe.
"Billy Wolfe was a good man - too good to be a politician"
My teeth are on edge already. Did Salmond make the "Scots have a fondness for the Queen" line again? He's hedging his bets, and transparently so.
.. no other party has joined the SNP in its policy of no nuclear weapons.
Once again, when last I checked, Angus Robertson was under the impression that an independent Scotland still could house installations for a nuclear-armed military, but just not accept nukes.
This is not principled.
No surprises whatsoever that the biggest cheer was for scrapping Trident - and rightly so. It will cost £97 billion to replace Trident at a time when deep cuts in public spending are forecast - cuts that will hurt Scotland badly.
Labour and the Tories say we need to keep Trident to preserve jobs at Faslane, but what about all the jobs that will be lost indirectly because Westminster wants to spend money on nuclear weapons rather than the real priorities?
Alex we should keep to our principles. The moral, economic and military case is against nuclear weapons.
Sturgeon delivered a belting speech, good new policies on universal checkups and a clear and concise plea to Glasgow City Council to be transparent about the highly dubious quango donations row.
~*sigh*~
Trevor, opposing Trident and a nuclear-armed military is a principle worthy of respect. Shuffling nukes down into Englandshire (and, potentially, not even being prepared to commit to NATO) whilst thinking that Scotland could continue to avail herself of the economic benefits and protection of a nuclear-armed military is worthy of utter scorn.
Mr A, meet Mr B - you're both different.
No surprises whatsoever that the biggest cheer was for scrapping Trident
No, I ain't surprised. Because it lends itself to vapid, risk-free posturing and not complex thought.
- and rightly so. It will cost £97 billion to replace Trident at a time when deep cuts in public spending are forecast - cuts that will hurt Scotland badly.
Speaking of which... the projected running cost for the NHS in 2010 is £110 billions. Those £97 for Trident are over a three decade life-time.
How much of an MRI centre are you planning to rent with the money saved?
I agree completely with Salmond re: the cuts. He's looking at the Scottish picture, not the UK one. We have quite a high proportion of public sector workers, probably too high in relation to the private sector, but that's a problem that has to be managed down, you can't use a blunt tool or we *will* double dip into a much worse recession.
The recession itself, and the realisation that the days of free money and lavish spending are gone, is driving the public sector itself to downsize. Here in Glasgow you can't move for nights out as it seems that nearly anyone over 50 who wants to go is being given a package to leave. I assume it's the same elsewhere.
The public sector will be a lot smaller in a few years time. We don't need to add to these self imposed and recessionary cuts now, that will take away a lot of the benefits of the fiscal stimulus injected into the economy.
I think the SNP have got it right. Yes cuts are necessary but they should be the right cuts and at the right time. That will also place them on the same side as many public sector workers and the trade unions. That won't hurt them going for the Labour vote which is one they have to win to take the seats in places like Glasgow and the west central belt.
And of course the emphasis on Trident puts clear blue water between the SNP, and to be fair the Greens and the Socialists, and everyone else.
And suggesting abolishing the Scottish Office was a wee stroke of genius, and very funny into the bargain. Especially pointing out the overspend.
I actually missed Alec's speech, not getting in till about an hour later, and with all the excitement of the karaoke and the programme today, I've not had chance to read it (i'm just in the door now)...
I did however massively enjoy my first conference, and I will definitely be going to Perth if I can make it in the Autumn...
Nicola's speech though was a tour-de-force; very well received, well delivered and just the right note...
Shame you couldnae make it this time around Jeff. Mention was made of your absence; I'll shout you a pint in Perth if we're both there...
Alex is wearing the biggest lapel badge I have ever seen. Is this an indication that he is not quite so big in other areas? (and I am not referring to his waistline here)
to be transparent about the highly dubious quango donations row.
Ooo, ooo!
http://efrafandays.wordpress.com/2010/03/21/osama-saeed-resigns-as-director-of-failed-quango/
My work here is done.
Observer,
I accept that it is common currency that public sector equals bad and private sector equals good. It has been something you have banged on about a lot.
Could you explain how or in what way my job changed? I once worked for HMG as part of PO Phones. And then we were made more arms length as British Telecom. And then - I'd left by then - they became BT, a FTSE member and a, what, pride for capitalists everywhere?
I cannot see anything dynamic and good that came out of that transition from the Civil Service to capitalism red in tooth and claw.
But economists can place that business clearly in different sectors of the economy over time. Part of the bureaucracy, state owned, private.
It is still the same, dominant business it has always been.
It was crap back then. Thirty days plus to get connected. But it ill-behoves me to assume that the improvement in that is down to capitalism. It is down to technology.
I don't think I disagree with you too much. I just don't see this private / public sector animosity as, well, meaningful?
Alec,
I think Jeff is an honest person. You ought to be betraying his patience.
I feel like I'm becoming a bit repetitive with my refrain, but Keynes was right and Salmond is right to try and avoid cuts. The economies are just too fragile just now and the EU rules weren't built with enough flexibility.
Cut too hard and too fast and we're looking at bad times.
I think Jeff is an honest person. You ought to be betraying his patience.
Wanna say that to the next poster who suggests I am a Labourite, or anyone who uses the childish "Unionist" epithet? Maybe when Joe90 starts babbling on about the "feign-controlled media" (even by his standards, this was the pits).
This thread is pre-moderated, so it is to be concluded that Jeff approved of that remark being left. Personally I have no sympathy for the SNP, which has brought the SIF-debacle on itself.
Unless, that is, you're referred to my original entirely on-topic remarks. Bummer, is it not, free exchange of ideas? You get ones who disagree with you.
Cut too hard and too fast and we're looking at bad times.
The times we're in ain't exactly tip-top.
With necessarily deference towards Keynes, I doubt very much that Salmond is being that economically savvy. It's a crowd-pleaser, just as ditching Trident goes well with the porage.
This pickle we're in was kicked off by the unacceptable face of capitalism which Salmond was quite happy to cheer on when it looked good. A lack of prudence or planning with the public sector, although with the self-serving pride such helping "asylum seekers", hasn't helped.
As I said above, the budget for the budget for just one arm of the public sector, the NHS in 2010 [1] is 10% more than that for Trident over a three decade period. This represents a three-fold increase since 1997, and ain't all down to highly paid managers and quango chiefs (which the SNP hasn't been quick to put on the bonfire).
Of course public spending has to be brought in... nah, sod this for a game of soldiers... Bin Trident! Trains not Trident!
[1] In England & Wales, that is. I honestly don't know what it's for Scotland, but such spending by Holyrood was greater right from the beginning.
Enough of this optimistic and altruistic Scotland... as loathe as I am to allude to Margaret Thatcher, we've been very good at spending other people's money.
douglas clark, I think you must be getting me mixed up with somebody else as I am very pro-public sector and against privatisation.
However the reality is that Labour have thrown money at the public sector and have introduced a regulatory regime where thousands of people are employed ticking boxes.
Most public sector employers realise that and see the SNP as a breath of fresh air because they don't have the same mania for centralism and box ticking that Labour did.
A change in how the public sector is managed - by putting more people on the front line and less in back room box ticking is exactly what's needed. And it's happening. So are efficiency savings.
I think the point I am making is that we don't need any more cuts on top of that.
The sector is already changing, jobs are being shed - avoiding compulsory redundancies - and the number of quangos etc are reducing.
I think that's the way to gradually bring the deficit down without causing too much harm to the very fragile economy at the same time.
Box ticking, box ticking, box ticking... sorry where was I?
Most public sector employers realise that and see the SNP as a breath of fresh air because they don't have the same mania for centralism and box ticking that Labour did.
I'm reminded increasingly of a Famous Five story when reading these flights of fancy. The SNP has minimal track record of delivery, and no amount of wishful thinking is going to refute that.
What Observer dismissively refers to as "box-ticking", others might call "administration". Even though there is often a staggering amount of overspend there, delivery (both in front- and second-line services) has increased.
This requires administration. I learnt similar by the time I'd finished puberty and realized that the comfort at home was due to my parents' hidden work/investment.
Today it's been reported that over 50% of the national economy is public sector, and I'd hazard a guess that Scotland - without the responsibility of tax raising powers - is more profligate in spending her pocket money.
Now, back to the economics of Trident (which, pardon my blowing my own trumpet, doesn't seem to be being discussed too deeply). Let's round up the projected cost to £99 billions so it divides easily into three decades... that's £3.3 billions per year, or barely over 10% of the £30 billions Scottish budget.
Wait! Trident's for the full UK, so assuming 10% of the population in Scotland account for 10% of its income (probably not; no, North Sea oil is not "our oil"), it's down to £330 millions per year.
One per cent of the Scottish budget. Even if Trident doubled in cost, this is a pittance.
Does no-one understand the value of money these days?
Post a Comment