SNP politician to defect?

Yapping Yousuf has an interesting potential scoop over at his site with a suggestion that an SNP "elected representative" might defect to Labour, of all parties.

I doubt that a man of Yousuf's integrity would get the wrong end of the stick without good reason so I'm hoping it's a councillor or student union leader that the SNP happens to be better off without or someone has simply fed the blogger misinformation.

I certainly can't think of a single MP, MSP or MEP who would leave the SNP when the party's tail is so high and is well placed to achieve its ultimate goal of independence.

It's probably unwise to make predictions of who it may be when the story could amount to nothing but feel free to speculate.

My prediction is a councillor who is relatively unknown with the media dressing it up as the Nationalists' world coming crashing down around their ears.

Scottish newspapers in London

Just how global a city London is is laid bare at almost every newsstand one walks past. Available to buy are typically Le Monde, The Irish Times, La Gazetta Della Sport and El Pais but can I get my hands on a Scotsman or a Herald? No way, José.

The tipping point for my mild frustration arrived yesterday when I saw Irish regionals available at a distinctly un-Irish tube stop with the Leinster Leader and Tipperary Star sticking in the memory. I don't know what the Scottish diaspora residing in London amounts to but surely it beats Tipperary's?

We wonder why some UK party leaders can sound so out of touch when talking about Scotland, we marvel at how Cabinet Ministers can call our First Minister 'John McDonnell' and we trust (or some of us do) that our nation is truly an equal partner in a United Kingdom.
But we're not even on the radar down south and if the union dividend doesn't even extend to the newsstands, what real hope can we have that it truly extends to the economy and effective political representation within intra-national bodies?

Charles n Dave

The year 2009 saw many momentous moments but top amongst them was surely, for those who could bear to look, the gut-wrenching sight of the much-loved and much-sung Chas n Dave splitting up. Like your granny and grandad having a trial separation, the event rocked many people's worlds, shook realities and broke hearts. I was certainly in that number and haven't been able to sing 'Gertcha' without a tear in my eye ever since.

Mercifully, the very near future may see a new Chas and Dave forming a highly significant and lasting union.

The last ten Prime Ministers have all served under Queen Elizabeth II. We have to go all the way back to Sir Winston Churchill before we happen across a PM that served under the previous monarch but with Her Majesty turning 84 this year, there is a very real chance that she will step aside (either voluntarily or, dare I say it, biologically) with David Cameron being the next leader of the country to serve under a new monarch, King Charles.

What sort of dynamic a Charles n Dave duo would bring to the UK would be fascinating to behold and I would predict it would be a troubling relationship from Mr Cameron's point of view. According to Johnathon Dimbleby "The Prince has accumulated a number of certainties about the state of the world and does not relish contradiction". Crikey.

I would wager that Charles would be a more active Head of State than his mother was (which is arguably the reason why she is holding on to the crown for so long!) and I would also wager that Charles is a Lib Dem or Green going by his personal interests.

Much like Zac Goldsmith has the potential to be but even more so, King Charles would be a constant thorn in the side of a Tory Government on environmental issues. Charles is a keen advocate of organic farming, releases his carbon footprint in his annual accounts, has called for the EU to be leaders in the fight against climate change and was labelled "a champion of the natural world" by Harvard University. Dave Cameron may claim 'vote blue, get green' but most people don't expect a Tory Government to push as hard as they should on environment issues.

Further instability could arise from Charles' regular letters to Cabinet Ministers and the Mayor of London to express his views, often with handwritten notes. Such 'meddling' would br frowned upon by a Tory Government that would have to be seen to be responding and taking the King's views into account. Can we expect the heir apparent to hold back such impulses when he assumes the throne, despite an obligation to be politically neutral? I don't see it myself.

What of these referendums on European issues that David Cameron has promised? Can King Charles, seemingly pro-EU, really sit on his hands and bite his tongue if a Tory Government is campaigning against something that His Majesty agrees with?

The splitting up of the original Chas n Dave was a sad moment but we may wish that the next duo sharing the same names never got together in the first place, particularly Dave who may well find that Charles has 'more rabbit than Sainsburys'.

The taller they stand, the harder they McFall

John McFall, MP for West Dunbartonshire, is to stand down at the next election meaning there are now a whopping six constituencies (10%) that Scottish Labour do not have a candidate in place for.

John's retirement is a massive boost for the SNP as the Commons Treasury chairman was the kind of politician that you just don't beat. Decent, trustworthy, honest, calls a spade a spade and, as far as I know, didn' come close to getting mixed up in the expenses scandal. Looking at the national swing, the SNP were on paper in with a shout of winning this seat but realistically never with Mr McFall on the ballot slip.

So the door is blown wide open now and Labour have another potentially troubling selection contest on their hands.

The SNP won this area in the European election and there's no reason now why Graeme McCormick can't do the same in a few months time and find himself at Westminster.

Blair - The one that always gets away

Let's be honest, if at the end of today Blair's worst sins are found to be overegging the 45 minute claim and lying to Fern Britton then the former PM will have hit the Chilcot inquiry equivalent of a home run.
Many people no longer like Tony, the man who won 3 elections, and it's hard not to find reasons why. Raking in millions after leading the Labour party for so long must stick in the craw for existing members and Iain McWhirter has already stunningly outlined how Blair left his party in ruin when he jumped ship.
On Iraq, as this inquiry continues to fruitlessly jab away, at some point one has to stop trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall and conclude they have a stinging point to make. Lots of them.

The SNP are not only about separation

Some delightful news this Friday comes in the shape of Nicola Strugeon announcing a marriage date with her long term partner Peter Murrell. (Scottish Tory Boy will be crestfallen)

The Deputy First Minister, and no doubt future First Minister, will I'm sure have an excellent day in the summer.

Will it be 'Nicola Murrell' going forward though...? Somehow I doubt it.

Scottish Labour in potential illegal immigrant scandal

A charity headed by Labour MP Mohammad Sarwar has been raided by the Home Office for employing an illegal immigrant.

Salman Siddiqui from Pakistan was taken to Dungavel detention centre from the shop of the Ucare Foundation on Victoria Road in Glasgow,which was set up and is chaired by the Glasgow Central MP. He was subsequently deported to Pakistan.

Sarwar claimed he was "duped" by Siddiqui to The Sun, but what was not reported was that he is the husband of key Sarwar ally Shaukat Butt's stepdaughter, a Glasgow Labour Party councillor. Questions now hang over whether Mr Sarwar was actually tricked, and had the charity carried out the full and proper checks when they clearly knew he was an immigrant. It is also understood that Siddiqui was paid in cash, negating the likelihood to fraudulent NI details being provided, and illegal in itself.

This latest controversy to hit Sarwar has parallels with the case of Baroness Scotland who was discovered employing an illegal immigrant in September 2009. The act can carry a fine of £10,000 or 12 months in prison.

The Ucare Foundation has close links to the Labour Party, with its fundraising events with the Pakistani community in Glasgow raising hundreds of thousands of pounds every year. Its last event at Glasgow Central Mosque was addressed by Secretary of State Jim Murphy and Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray.

Sarwar's charity was recently renamed from the Pakistan Foundation after adverse publicity surrounding its failure to lodge accounts withthe Charity Commission for three consecutive years. After being confronted with the problem last year, the PF produced all three years within two days.

Ucare has also suffered criticism for the perception that by focussing on building hospitals in his home town of Toba Tek Singh and placing people close to him in key positions there, it is a project aimed at bolstering the standing of Mr Sarwar and that of his family in the region.


(courtesy of a press release dropped into my inbox)

If you tolerate this, then your children will be next

The latest British Social Attitudes survey is out with a clear result being the normalisation of homosexuality. We are, so I am told, more 'tolerant' as a society. I think I have seen the word 'tolerant' more today than in any other day of my life, due to the articles off the back of this survey.

But is that really our ultimate aim? Mere 'toleration'?

I would have thought that if we were aiming high (which we should surely always do) that nothing short of acceptance is the aim. If I were in charge the aim would be indifference which may sound uncaring but in many ways that would involve true equality. (When was the last time you gave two hoots about a guy and girl snogging at a street corner?)

However, if it is to be 'toleration', then surely it must work both ways?

If one is small c conservative and big G religious then don't such views also need to be 'tolerated'? Why do we need to demean ourselves by 'putting up' with one side of the argument rather than the other, or neither even? There is a further argument here that if the 'religious right' (to indulge in crude grouping) are only allowed the option of complete and utter submission by the 'liberal left' (more crudeness) then that does not equate to the tolerance that the 'gay community' (yep, another one) seeks.

While we're on the subject, it would be interesting to know what any British-wide survey concluded with regard teaching same sex relationships in schools. Yes, it would improve understanding and hopefully reduce unwarranted discrimination but I still think the majority of Brits would prefer primary school is an LGBT-free zone. Some things are for parents to teach and we should free up teachers to crack on with Science, English, Maths and Languages.

Not that this dangerous and probably erroneous word 'toleration' is just restricted to gay issues of course.

Are we tolerating bankers' excesses or are they tolerating our need for a bigger public service than they themselves require? Does the media tolerate intractable politicians or do politicians tolerate excitable journalists? If we're not careful, tolerance could prove a singularly intolerable word.

I prefer just getting along, with its omission of a better or a lesser side.

First Minister's Questions

It's the first FMQs that I've managed to watch live in a long time so I can't really tell if it was a damp squib or political fireworks. Everything is relative after all.

Anyway, in time-honoured fashion, Iain Gray was first up.

Iain is concerned that despite our moving from recession to recovery (at a rate of 0.1%), the unemployment rate is too high and the Scottish budget has to be about jobs. With the scene set, Iain pressed the First Minister to publish the full details on capital spending projects (recent blog post on the subject is here)

Salmond talked of a looming decline in capital spending due to Westminster budget decreases of 50% and urged Gray to make representations to Darling. Salmond fairly easily batted the capital spend question away by saying that John Swinney would answer the query in due course. I maintain that Swinney needs to provide a breakdown at some point.

Iain Gray moved on to attacking the SNP over the Scottish Futures Trust and specifically the deal with the 'budget buddies' the Tories in discussing selling off Scottish Water. It was an odd choice as the suggestion of selling off the body has already been categorically denied by the Government and Scotland is the only part of (Labour-controlled) UK where the water company is in public hands. Clause 4 no more, of course.

Alex Salmond took delight in reminding Iain Gray that he is also a 'Budget buddy' given he backed the last budget at the third time of asking but it is 'better a sinner repenteth'.

Best line from Gray? Paying £28m for SFT to talk about selling Scottish Water when building companies are laying off workers.

It was all a bit dosjointed from Iain though. Lots of hot air and although he looked good and sounded angry enough, there was no real direction to the questioning. It allowed Salmond to pick and choose a subject to finish each answer with, notably to suggest that we haven't moved far enough away from Labour's "disastrous" PFI which always leave Gray on shaky ground but it was a very decent stab at holding the Government to account from the Labour leader.

There was also some batting numbers back and forth on schools and who built more and who owns which ones. It's difficult to get excited about such talk though as one doesn't know who is more correct (or less wrong) and a school is a school, it doesn't come daubed in party colours regardless of when it was built.

Annabel led on the question of two hours of PE a week for each primary school child and the perceived missed target from the SNP given that only a third of pupils are receiving this amount a week. It was a good choice of subject and decently delivered but Salmond made his rebuttal points well.

The 2 hours of PE initivative is included in the Curriculum of Excellence which is coming in this year and the survey that Annabel took her figures from is from last year. It is surely fair to accept that this administration is for a full four year term and should be judged on that timescale. There also seemed to be agreement that the situation is better, "uncomparably better" per the First Minister, and there is a substantial increase. Progress is being made, basically.

Best line from Goldie - "unfortunately for the First Minister, patting himself on the back is not PE"

In many ways, the Lib Dem leader's contribution was the most constructive but the least interesting from a blogging point of view. Far too much consensus, can't have that can we...

Tavish came to the Chamber armed with a range of statistics (that I have now forgotten) highlighting just how many students who want to go to college are being turned away.

Salmond dropped the rhetoric of the earlier jousts saying that a positive, serious contribution deserves a serious answer which came in the shape of a clear signal that the budget would reflect Tavish's concerns.

Best line from Scott? - We need to address the growing gap between the number of people wanting an education and the number of places available.


All in all, I thought it was a good debate, three substantial topics up for debate and effective performances from all party leaders. There is still perhaps too much pantomime, particularly between the SNP-Labour exchanges and a lot of the fault does have to lie at the FM's pulpit.

That raise in tone from Salmond does grate after a while; there's only so many upward key changes that one person can take when he's trying to bury an opponent on a spurious point far removed from the original question.

But he is the master of all briefs and, whether it counts as P.E. or not, deserves to pat himself on the back for giving such consistently good answers and being so competent across all areas of Government.

Local Newspapers

Back in my press cutting days it was always a blessed relief to get through the 5:30am+ shift of reading the national papers and onto the gentler weekly regional reads that would ease us into the 2pm finish.

Berwick Advertiser, Caithness Courier, East Kilbride News, Forress Gazette and so on and so on. Every sheep shearing, asbo granting, hospital saving, school pupil awarding story was read and each paper really was a joy with the local pride bursting forth.

So the debate that is being held today at the Scottish Parliament on whether the Scottish Government should pull its local advertising from the publications is a vital one.

The Scottish Government does need to save money but it needs to be responsible in how it achieves this crucial goal. Cutting back on advertising, cutting back on consultants and freezing top salaries should be at the top of the priority list. Pulling money from the Oban Times is surely way down the pecking order.

Although there is no onus on the state to provide support for local papers which are private enterprises in their own right, there is a duty to provide information to as wide a range as the electorate as possible.

Putting such information on the internet is not sufficient, nor is putting such information online. A mix of the two mediums will ensure that all ends of the civic spectrum are reached.

Perhaps a reduced rate for the Government going forward is a healthy compromise given they are a key customer for the industry. Goodness knows, as the debate unfolds in the Chamber this morning, the Scottish Government has a strong bargaining position to work with.

Furthermore, the future of Government is surely Hyperlocalism (with thanks to Doctor Vee for that term). Information given and decisions taken at a local level. How does the local area want their schools to be run? Do they want Tesco/Sainsbury dominating the local food market? How strong a passion for recycling will the region have? We are seeing the start of the end of the big state giving and taking away from the powerless civilian, a start that will be accelerated when David Cameron moves into Number 10.

Such devolution of control to local people can only work successfully if central information is similarly devolved.

Perhaps a reduced rate for the Government's advertisements going forward is a healthy compromise given it is a key customer for the industry. Goodness knows, as the debate unfolds in the Chamber this morning, the Scottish Government has a strong bargaining position to work with.

PMQs - the world doesn't always spin forwards

Harriet Harman stepped in for Gordon Brown at PMQs today as the Prime Minister is involved in power sharing talks at the Northern Ireland Assembly. That meant of course that we had the joy of William Hague putting the questions to the Government on behalf of the main opposition.

Wearing either a small eagle or a large moth on her lapel and an outfit that wasn't too far away from a mauve dressing gown, Harman faced the Chamber.

A crumpled George Osborne watched on as Hague assuredly rose to his feet but the questions on a review of our position in Kabul were consensual and uncontroversial. There were massive jeers from the Tories as Hague takes offence at Harman making a party political point out of nothing.

Hague moved on to asking why isn't the UK working more closely with Obama to bring forward similar banking regulations as to those that are coming through in the US. (Something that I agree should be happening and blogged about recently). Harman offered up a weak response that it's important to work on an international level and "of course" we are working with President Obama.

Hague goes on to make the case for a levy on banks in Britain similar to that in the US and drop once and for all the Tobin Tax that was ridiculed by so many. I had assumed that tax had already been dropped by the Government so maybe the Tories are just trying to make as much hay from it as possible.

Again, Harman says we "should all work together" and insists there is agreement that there should be a fiscal stimulus, agreement except for the Tories that is. Harman is looking back and Hague is looking forward, it's clear who has the upper hand.

Harman hits back at the Tories by deriding their pre-recession claim they wanted "less regulation" while Hague recalls Brown saying we can look forward to a "golden age" of banking in the City. Both parties are now looking forwards and not much is being achieved. Hague goes on to raise the rhetoric to list areas where the Government is "wrong" (on Obama's proposals, on Tobin tax, on deficts etc). Harman starts with "Um.." which is not a strong start!

Harman matches the rhetoric well though by reminding the house that when the Tories were in power there were "double the number of repossessions, three times as many bankruptices, four times as many job losses" and "we're building up Britain and they're trying to talk it down!"

A little bit of jousting from Hague and Harman all in all but there was no policy meat up for debate so in the end it was all a bit too much looking back and not enough looking forward for my liking.

A worrying situation with an election so close but one has to wonder why Gordon Brown's job was ever in jeopardy from within his own party if Harman represents the best of the rest.



Note also:

(Pete Wishart for the SNP asked Harman if "in her heart of hearts" she did not regret going to War in Iraq. Harman batted the question away by pushing the Chilcott inquiry to the fore.)

(A question on whether the Government was still relaxed about people getting filthy rich, with Tony Blair clearly in mind, was met with an answer about social mobility, to the general hilarity of half the house)

Scottish Government's Teenage Kicks

Youngsters and teenagers up and down the country will no doubt have used the pleading argument of 'everyone else is doing it' or some sort of variant to get their way. There are many steps that have to be taken to make it from teenage mentality to full adulthood and one of these is a confident set of principles, setting one's own benchmarks and generally just being the change one wishes to see in the world.

The Holyrood budget negotiations have taken a new twist with the news that Labour, the Tories, the Lib Dems and the Greens have 'ganged up' on John Swinney to try to force his hand into revealing what the capital spend, running to billions of pounds, will include in detail.

The joint letter from Andy Kerr, Derek Brownlee, Robert Brown and Patrick Harvie states:

“What we are asking as a matter of urgency is for you to publish, before Stage 3 of the Budget Bill, the provisional capital allocation for all major projects at the time of the publication of the draft Budget 2010-11, and the same figures for now.”

It is, on the face of it, a perfectly reasonable request.

Granted there is a question as to how much extra detail can be collected, reviewed and presented in the space of several working days while there may also be a question over how granular a level of detail is really required in order to pass a £35bn budget but one would think that John Swinney's team would, or at least should, have the detail for the 2010/11 capital spend at their fingertips.

The pressure is being put on the SNP for a myriad of reasons seemingly; Andy Kerr wants a better excuse for his party's recent fixation on GARL, Patrick Harvie will bo doubt want more room for debate on the home insulation scheme he wishes implemented and Brownlee and Brown may have other reasons but I would expect putting the Finance Secretary on the backfoot a week before the Stage 3 vote is sufficient anyway.

My concern with the defence put up by John Swinney seems to centre around the rationale that he is merely providing the same information that the previous administration proferred at budget time. Was such a defence to come coupled with an explanation as to why this information was sufficient then I would be becalmed but if the country is to spend billions of pounds on capital projects then I think the public should be allowed to know what precisely this money consists of and, on the face of it, it does sound like John Swinney is holding back.

Budgeted costs never equal actual costs but a breakdown of the former should be as easy to establish as a breakdown of the latter and when your economy is only growing at 0.1% (or perhaps even less in Scotland) then never before has 'fail to plan, plan to fail' been more relevant.

Similarly, at the Caledonian Mercury, there is a risk of more teenage truculence over the number of hours of PE pupils are getting each week. It seems only a third meet the two hour target which goes against the SNP's manifesto. There have been many silly attacks on the SNP over failed manifesto pledges but this is a bona fide one; the promise was made, they had the power to implement but have come up short.

The mature approach would be to step up, take the results on the chin and aim to do better in the year to come. Given that the target has been in place for six years and missed each time, I really do fear that the 'we're only doing what the last lot' were doing excuse may come out.

If so, the SNP shouldn't be too surprised if Kerr, Brownlee, Brown and Harvie choose to dock the party's pocket money in the final round of the budget negotations.

Compassionate Leave

Margo MacDonald, the Edinburgh & Lothians MSP with Parkinson's Disease, has brought a bill before the Scottish Parliament that, if passed, would allow people whose lives have become intolerable through a progressive degenerative condition, a trauma or terminal illness to seek a doctor's help in dying. The bill can be read here.

According to a poll by Politics Show, the bill will not pass as 53 MSPs are against with only 17 for and 20 unknowns. The voting for the first stage should take place in the autumn and it will be a 'free' vote (which frustrates me as all bills should face a free vote, but that's a subject for another time I guess)

One has to wonder if the judgement in London today where Kay Gilderdale was acquitted of attempted murder after helping her daughter to die will change MSPs' minds.

After all, if a mother has the right to end her child's life when the pain and suffering has become intolerable then surely there must be a way for a person to end their own life if they make the decision in advance and at a time when they are in the correct frame of mind to make such a difficult call.

I grew up as a Catholic and still have the core beliefs fairly well ingrained in my character, even if I no longer consider myself religious. Consequently I would always have a strong hesitation and perhaps even an impossible hurdle to overcome were I asked to assist with a family or friend's assisted suicide, regardless of how much it made sense for other reasons. Similarly, I have a personal belief that abortion will always, in theory, be wrong.

However, I am strongly pro-choice as I, and those with a similar mindset, have no right to foist personal beliefs onto other people who do not share in them. The same pro-choice approach should hold for assisted suicide.

The philosophy of a woman's right to choose to keep or abort a baby could reasonably be novated to a person's right to choose whether to live or die. Yes the legal linguistics may be tricky but surely there is a watertight agreement that can be drawn up that will minimise and maybe even dismiss any chance of a person being assisted in their suicide when there was still a quality of life that could have been maintained and, crucially, at some level was wanted to be maintained by the person involved.

Although I don't personally feel passionate enough about this issue to invest anything of myself beyond being an interested onlooker, I do hope Margo receives a fair hearing in the Parliament and I do hope her Bill ultimately passes.

Is Andy Murray up for grabs?

Andy Murray has taken to the court against Rafael Nadal in the quest for his first Grand Slam.

As unseemly as it is to daub party colours over a National star, the number of Google hits this blog gets linking the tennis ace to a certain political party is nothing short of extraordinary and, as far as I'm aware, entirely without base.

Perhaps it's one individual with a rampant obsession for party membership that is typing these words into the search engine or maybe the wearing of Saltire sweatbands is enough to subtly suggest political affiliation but somehow the link between Andy Murray and politics appears inevitable and I just hope there isn't something of a Shakespearean tragedy about it in the end.

Sir Chris Hoy has felt the sting of political questions in the recent past and Sir Alex Ferguson has embraced the terrain by canvassing in a recent by-election for Labour.

Andy Murray could well be the next Scottish sports star in line for the overtures of political parties whether he likes it or not, particularly if he overcomes Rafael Nadal as is looking probable given he is now one set up.

New Poll - Schlieffen Plan or Entente Cordiale for Labour?

Guardian/ICM have a new poll out tonight with the topline figures as:

Conservatives - 40%
Labour - 29%
Lib Dems - 21%

Sample size - 1,000

The Tories have been on 40% with ICM for four months in a row while this is the highest showing for the Lib Dems in the same timeframe. This all means that Labour has seen a slide to Clegg's party in the recent past which must surely be a worry as Gordon Brown tries to fight a war on two fronts; winning Tory votes on the right while making sure not to lose votes on the left to the Lib Dems.

Maybe the old Schlieffen plan is required. This was the old German plan of attacking France to the West and quickly bagging Paris before heading East again and slogging out the longer battle with the Russians. (I'm not going to suggest who are the quirky French and who are the untrustable Russians, of course)

Per Wikipedia:
In modified form, it (the Schlieffen Plan) was executed to near victory in the first month of World War I; however, the modifications to the original plan, a French counterattack on the outskirts of Paris (the Battle of the Marne), and surprisingly speedy Russian offensives, ended the German offensive and resulted in years of trench warfare.

Modifications from Brown? Trench warfare in the home camp?

Maybe an Entente Cordiale with the Lib Dems is a better plan come to think of it...

Scotland's first online newspaper is now live...

Caledonian Mercury, billing itself as Scotland's first online newspaper, is now available to be viewed and presumably off and running.

The Politics section seems to be manned chiefly by Hamish MacDonnell and contains some excellent articles already.

Stewart Kirkpatrick, editor of the online publication, is clearly enthusiastic and passionate about this business adventure and I can only hope it sees a baptism of fire as people click in and stay tuned for the long term.

I strongly suspect I will be.

(NOTE: It has been suggested by ocicat_bengals in self-confessed pedantry that newspapers can only ever be newspapers in hard copy. I suspect that those who choose to dwell on such possible technicalities, much like the time jump in Austin Powers 3, will merely miss out on the fun. And as I suggested to the Tweeter, what are newspapers but a parhcment of our imagination. Some more than others, of course)

Will it be March 25th cos the Cabinet is saying May 6th?

Last month there was a surge of expectation that the General Election would be held on March 25th. This was based on Britain coming out of recession in Quarter 1 of 2010, a budget in April that will be austere and a vote-loser to say the least, Labour closing in on the Tories in the polls and strong, specific rumours from Government departments that preparations were being made for the month after next.

Now, all of a sudden, the smart money seems to be on May 6th given that three Cabinet Ministers have made apparent 'slips of the tongue' in naming the date of the General Election. First there was Andy Burnham, then Chris Bryant and now Bob Ainsworth have all indiscreetly pencilled in May 6th in their minds.

Is it possible that Labour are positioning themselves for a March election behind the scenes while trying to put the Opposition on as far back a foot as possible by suggesting again and again and again that it will actually be held in May?

Mind you, Bob is seemingly no friend of Gordon's so why would the Defence Minister bother and it's not really in the Prime Minister's interests to have a fresh round of election speculation every other week as it serves to remind us how inherently unfair it is that he and he alone chooses the date of the election.

If one disagrees then why would we have an election every four years when everything is seemingly rosy but when there's a recession, when we're fighting two wars, when banks are going into public ownership, when Global Warming summits come and go with no satisfactory conclusion and when all three main parties change their leader, we have to wait an exhausting five years?

We've waited long enough. Gordon should announce the election date as soon as possible, whether it's to be March or May, and from next term we should have four-year fixed term Parliaments.

Labour MP Finally Falls

I blogged recently of the four constituencies in Scotland that were missing Labour candidates. A fifth can now be added to the list meaning that around 9% of Scottish constituencies don't yet have a name against the red rosette on the ballot slip or, more crucially, on the leaflets that should be getting pushed through letterboxes this close to an election.

Anne Moffat, MP for East Lothian, has effectively been deselected by local party members, a decision which is expected to be rubberstamped by Labour HQ in due course.

To be honest, it is probably the right decision as Anne can't have had many supporter and what, on paper at least, should be an easy hold was looking like a possible gain for SNP candidate and erstwhile blogger Andrew Sharp. Add to the mix the fact that this is Iain Gray's constituency and a loss here would rock the Scottish Labour group and only one course of action should ever have been feasible - Moffat falling from her tuffet.

This of course depends on who replaces the outgoing MP as candidate. I have no names to proffer so by all means feel free to speculate in the comments...

Barack to Banking Basics

I seem to be doing most of my blogging on trains these days, not that I'm complaining. Winding my way through Scandinavia from Denmark to Kristianstad isn't the worst place in the world to kick back with 'en kall öl' and type away.

And it's easy to find a subject here to write about too. The various newspapers I see around me, be they Swedish or Danish, all have Barack Obama's intent, purposeful face staring out in relation to the news that he is set to change the style of US banking to ensure that "Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by banks that are too big to fail."

It's not before time. If Joe Plumbers, for example, are not to be awarded unquestioning protection then neither should Big Banks plc.

Obama's plans appear to centre around a $117bn levy on banks in the short to medium term and a dismantling of the biggest banks in the long term to ensure that the public's money is not put at undue risk without their explicit approval. A bank should not take a person's mortgage or savings and place it on the global market roulette wheel and if Obama gets his way (by no means a certainty after this week's surprise Republican gain), then that approach will end.

In the UK, this solution has been mooted but sadly pussyfooted around, which is all the more surprising as with an election due in months, one would have thought that a struggling or would-be PM would have grasped this policy with both hands before a 'safely in the door' President would have.

George Osborne insists he will follow the US' plans identically but given there has been zero flesh on the Tories' hazy, skeletal plans we have little reason to believe such a promise.

Labour make a valiant attempt to portray themselves as being on the front foot and indeed the instigators of this plan via Lord Myners:

Obama's plan is apparently "very much in accordance with the direction we have been setting".

That's patently not the case. Far from breaking up RBS, Labour opted to not even stop the bank assisting in the ridiculous deal that saw Cadbury's packaged up and shipped off to America.

Obama is on the right track with his plans and has the ambition, imagination, energy and drive to see it through.

Months away from an election and all the UK gets to discuss (in relatively scant detail) is a daft marriage tax, why we went to War almost a decade ago and how TV debates will pan out.

The parameters for debates and solutions are narrowing back in the UK. I don't know if that's due to personalities, party politics or media presentation but I must admit the wide open spaces of Sweden and their successful, safe, socialist banking system is a refreshing environment to be in right now.

London gets its GARL

It was pleasing but not surprising to see the Scottish Government's draft budget pass its first parliamentary stage with Tory support and Green and Lib Dem abstentions. John Swinney must be confident that there will not be the same drama as last year. Certainly the calls for "greater transparency" from the Tories and calls for slashing high salaries in the public sector from the Lib Dems should be easily subsumed into the current figures.

Labour seems to be not-so-subtly shifting away from its 'ripped off Glasgow' campaign with this quote from Andy Kerr as clear evidence.

"The Glasgow Airport Rail Link is not a project for Labour, it`s not a project for Glasgow, it`s a project for the whole of Scotland."

Yes, that sounds like a perfectly consistent position to take. Scottish Labour has no doubt realised a little too late that the coming General Election takes place across the whole country and not just in and around Buchanan Street.

But there may be a glimmer of hope for Andy and Iain Gray as down here in London it looks likely that the controversial £16bn Crossrail project will go ahead with Tory and Lib Dem support.

I'm not too sure how the 'Barnett consequentials' work but I believe that Scotland receives a 10% of any extra spending in Westminster which, presumably, would mean £1.6bn extra north of the border, that could mean more than enough money for the Glasgow Airport Rail Link.

Personally I'd rather see every last penny spent on a high speed rail link that truly would benefit all of Scotland and end the Ryanair/Easyjet dominance of domestic travel but it seems a funny way to do business; to think you have x to spend and then it turns out to be x + y on the whim of a policy turn down south.

And I daresay that Scotland getting to spend more money because Cameron happens to be spending more money is the kind of process that Derek Brownlee won't be in favour of if the Scottish Tory Finance spokesperson wants us to "face up to spending reductions".

One thing one can be sure of, almost even more so than this budget passing seamlessly at its final stage, is that the Barnett formula under a Tory Government has had its day.

BNP to stand against Jim Murphy

In one of the most keenly contested constituencies in Scotland and, on the face of it, a rare battle between Labour and the Tories, it looks like a rather unfortunate curveball has been thrown into the mix in East Renfrewshire.

Gary Raikes, party leader of the BNP, is to stand against Jim Murphy in a bid to be a rather unsavoury kingmaker.

The Scottish Secretary will try to rally support around his campaign to keep the BNP vote as low as possible but even a couple of thousand of votes could swing this seat either way as the Tories and perhaps even the SNP run Jim close. Note that the BNP hasn't stood in this seat before so it's difficult to gauge potential support.

There is an assumption that a vote for Nick Griffin's party will hurt Labour more than the Tories, particularly after the European elections but with Gordon Brown going so vigorously after the Middle Class vote, Jim may find his campaign being pulled in two opposite directions and being inefficient as a result. A potential silver lining for Murphy is that any constituents who will now vote BNP rather than Tory will now be only half as damaging to Murphy's chances of winning. Sure, it's still a vote not going to Labour but it's to the party who'll finish 6th rather than 1st or 2nd (or 3rd).

Another consideration, particularly from an SNP point of view, is to question whether it's best to see Murphy win his seat with Labour out of power or lose his seat altogether only for the man to be voted into Holyrood a year later.

There are many factors that may dictate which result transpires in East Renfrewshire but one can only hope that a considerable BNP vote isn't one of them.

Public Want SNP in TV Debates

Good to see that UK Polling Report has picked up on the poll that shows that most Scots want the SNP to be included in the General Election TV debates.

The swathes of coverage that this issue has received over the past month or so means that most people will be pretty clued up with what the detail is so, consequently, it's a meaningful poll and adds a political justification to the legal justification for the SNP pushing their objections so hard.

The results of the poll are as follows:

YouGov / SNP (12th-13th January), 1013 Scottish adults

1. The televised leaders’ debates due to take place in advance of the election should NOT include the leader of the Scottish National Party:

Strongly Agree: 16
Tend to agree: 15
Total Agree: 31
Tend to disagree: 21
Strongly disagree: 38
Total Disagree: 59
Don’t Know: 10

2. Do you think the SNP should get more, less or the same amount of coverage on TV in Scotland as the main UK political parties in the run up to the next UK general election?

More Coverage: 9%
The Same Coverage: 62%
Less Coverage: 22%
Don’t Know: 7%

3. Scottish Constituency Vote (compared Nov 09 YouGov/Daily Telegraph YouGov poll)

SNP: 35% (+3)
Labour: 32% (-1)
Con: 14% (-4)
LD: 13% (+1)
Oth: 7% (+1)


So the SNP are ahead in the Holyrood polls (was there really no Westminster one included?) and have the public's sympathies for the looming tv debates.

Not a bad result all in all.

Anyway, I'll leave you with the (somewhat) relevant quote from broadcast in the West Wing when Matt Santos was frozen out of tv debates and you can decide if it strikes a chord...

Good evening. I'm running for President and if you don't know know who I am, I wouldn't be surprised. I've been shut out of tomorrow night's debate for suggesting that it actually be a debate and this is the only ad I can afford. I got in this to improve a broken school system, to fix entitlement because they're going bankrupt, to expand health coverage because it will save money if fewer people show up in emergency rooms. What I found is that Presidential campaigns aren't about these things. They're about clawing your opponents' eyes out as long as you don't get tagged for it. So how about this: I will never say anything about my opponents or anything about anything without saying it myself, right into the camera. You might not get to hear much of me but when you do, you'll know I stand by it. I'm Alex Salmond and you better believe I approve this ad.

Might not work for the BBC debate but perhaps a similar advert during the ITV or Sky debate might be money well spent!

Lib Dems and their bar charts

General Elections mean different things to different people but a constant that everyone knows (but not necessarily loves) is the Lib Dem bar chart. The clarion call of "only x or the Lib Dems can win here" and "it's a two horse race", often (buried in the small print) based on data from a different election to the one that is being contested, is the subject of much derision from other parties.

In my constituency for example, Edinburgh North & Leith, I have just received a leaflet from the Lib Dem candidate Kevin Lang which claims this area is a "straight fight" between Labour and the Lib Dems.

The SNP candidate will feel rightly miffed given the SNP won the most votes in this constituency during the European elections and also came top in the regional vote of the Holyrood elections in 2007. Clearly the SNP candidate is in with a shout and, to be fair to the Tory candidate Iain McGill, he will fancy his chances of causing an upset here too.

I remember vividly (though sadly cannot find the detail) finding a leaflet for a constituency where the Lib Dems had promised a straight fight between themselves and the incumbent only to finish third once the votes were counted. Surely there is a breach of some sort of 'Trade Descriptions Act' or at least some sort of Mens Rea ('a guilty mind') at play.

This particular letter goes even further with its guilty mind as it also contains the line "The third placed Conservatives and fourth placed SNP have already admitted they cannot win here". Remember this is a letter being sent out to thousands of constituents. It's an incredible claim to make.

I struggled to believe this so contacted Kevin Lang in order to check what his source was. Kevin didn't enlighten me but did say:

"Even the most loyal of Nationalists would have to admit that there is no campaign of any description coming from the SNP in Edinburgh North & Leith"

"I was speaking with a very senior member of the SNP who lives and votes in Edinburgh North & Leith and who didn't even know the name of the SNP candidate!"

Again, I struggle to believe it and I remain of the opinion that, with their leaflets, the Lib Dems are straddling the line between being mischievous and being downright unlawful with their claims.

Gordon Brown - Middle Class Hero

Watching Gordon Brown's speech this morning, it is clear where the next phase of the General Election campaign will be focussing on, which would-be PM is more middle class than the other.

Brown is trying to position himself in the centre, not to push Cameron along to the right but to push him up to the upper class.

With painting himself as growing up in a middle class family and "never going without" but always "worrying for the future", Brown is trying to budge himself onto the Middle England bench by selling himself as one of them and reminding them that middle classes need 75% of youngsters going to university, need strong schools and hospitals and a regulated market with morals.

It is a sensible move as appealing to the Labour core vote will only get Labour 25% or so of the vote and appealing to the landed gentry will just make Labour look silly. It also explains why Brown has tried to soften up the terrain with his "dreamed up on the playing fields of Eton" jibe.

I personally find it a bit crass to put 60 million people into three separate boxes but with only a few rolls of the dice left, Gordon probably had little choice.

The State of Independence

A poll was released last night showing that support for full independence sits at 28% with support for Devo Max at 58%. This was the same day that the SNP launched a new magazine called 'Independence', billed as 'a completely new concept to help fund the fight to regain Scotland's independence'.

So it seems if the people won't deliver independence to the SNP, the SNP will deliver independence to the people.

But there's two points I want to make there. First of all this new magazine (which I think is a fine idea and I will be signing up) is preaching to the converted.

The magazine needs 1,000 subscribers to break even but if it succeeds, as a money raising scheme and way to fire up the party base, I reckon it'll be great. I don't really have an idea how big an ask 1,000 subscribers is to be honest but in terms of boosting that lowly 28% I don't see the publication making much of a dent.

The other point is the notion that delivering independence is a delivery for the SNP rather than for the people who vote for it. I'm not suggesting that's how the party sees it but through the media and a typical Scottish mindset that is how it can be perceived.

28% support is perfectly believable right now, as I mentioned when I suggested putting the referendum in a drawer for now. People aren't as open to the arguments for separation as they will be in a couple of years time and as they were a couple of years ago.

I don't know what the political ramifications of Salmond campaigning for independence but 'winning' Devo Max is. I'd say it would be a giant step forward and with the party membership feeding into an independence magazine, there's no reason why the party wouldn't expect the giant steps to stop there.

Gary McKinnon and the SNP

The plight of Gary McKinnon could prove to be a particularly sad legacy for the current UK Government as the 43-year old continues to face extradition to the US and a possible life sentence in an American jail for hacking into security systems. Alan Johnson has wimpily distanced himself from the issue, at a stroke removing any leadership credentials he ever may have had in the past. Alan has cannily protested that he is not up to the job of Labour leader in order to deflect often feverish Labour leadership speculation. This must be true as on this evidence he is not even up to the job of Home Secretary.

Further to this, it seems that Alan Johnson may even have acted "unlawfully" by pursuing the extradition of the Glasgow born Asperger's sufferer, according to The Guardian. A rare ray of hope that Gary won't be sent off to the US after all.

Putting the inadequacies of those who have the power to do something about this to one side, a question that has nagged me throughout this whole affair is this. Where is the SNP?

A simple Google search doesn't return too much. The extradition.org.uk website mentions that "every SNP member I have spoken to has said they do not agree with the UK / US extradition treaty" in relation to a separate but equally worthy issue regarding Brian Howes while the excellent Alyn Smith MEP called on the EU to intervene back in November 2009:

"While it is clear that the US military and Nasa have been left red-faced by Gary McKinnon's actions, to put this man's life at risk merely to pander to their embarrassment shows no compassion from the US authorities, and similarly none from the UK government who have been so willing to bow down to these demands from Washington."

But that's about it I'm afraid.

Gary McKinnon is Scots-born, his mother comes from Glasgow and Scotland would generally bristle against the idea of a country being able to extradite one of her sons either without an equal reciprocal agreement or for looking for UFOs. In the year of Homecoming, senior Nationalist politicians talked fondly of the diaspora and yet one of that very number is in deeply dire straits and politically isolated with no rescue party in sight from the north.

So why the SNP hasn't selected one of its seven MPs to have his arm symbolically (or even when possible physically) squarely around either Gary McKinnon or his mother Janis Sharp's shoulders baffles me. Christine Grahame went to visit Lockerbie bomber Al-Megrahi in prison but an SNP politician hasn't made it in to see Gary as far as I'm aware. Of the two men who found themselves behind bars, I know who my sympathies lie with more.

It is Nick Clegg who is being seen to be grasping this nettle and pushing the Government to do more, building on his good work over the Gurkhas and raising the Liberal Democrat profile. This is a Westminster issue, there is a clear Scottish element to it and yet none of the SNP's seven MPs have picked this up and ran with it. Is it simply 'too icky'? I can't think of any other reason why they wouldn't fight the man's corner more vigorously.

By adopting a more public stance and aggressively helping to push an aggressive Free Gary campaign, the SNP could make it clear that it stands up for the oppressed and stands up for civil liberties while conveying the message that an independent Scotland would fight a tougher battle for her citizens in the face of unwarranted extraditions.

Some may think it unseemly to speak of political capital given Gary's plight but as long as one is fighting the right fight for the right reasons then I don't think that particular charge applies.

And anyway, Anne McLaughlin has proved that results can be achieved with her passionate and so far successful battle to save the Mhangos from deportation.

This debate can even be stretched out to consider the impact a strong campaign from the SNP could have on its political base and membership generally. I daresay it could motivate the politically ambivalent with the party being the main beneficiary. Do budget negotations capture the imagination of the public, specifically the young? Discussions over who should be at TV debates? Power lines? Why do people join political parties anyway? What's the catalyst? Surely something like this could be a great hook.

There's an issue here that could be used to put a fire in a lot of empty bellies and allow people to see politics and specifically the SNP in a new, generous light. Stop The War captured the public's imagination boosting Lib Dem fortunes in 2005 and CND seemed to be a profitable campaign for Labour back in the day. Save for Scrap Trident, Free Gary could, and, perhaps should, be the SNP's current campaign of choice.

This is all not to suggest that I'm losing sight of who the true miscreants in this episode are. The SNP has perhaps missed an open goal on this one, a forgivable error.

Labour on the other hand has misplaced its heart and soul.

Labour on the rocks over minimum pricing

There are fascinating developments down south where Health Secretary Andy Burnham has overseen moves to implement minimum pricing for alcohol with a policy that is close to identical to that of the SNP's but is also set to be a central plank of Labour's manifesto for the General Election.

It all begs the question, where does that leave Labour in Scotland?

Of course it's ok for a party to oppose Scottish Government plans and a chief reason for devolution was for Scottish wings of parties to wriggle away from UK decisions that don't work up here. However, the position adopted by Iain Gray increasingly appears to be opposition for opposition's sake.

As an example, Dr Richard Simpson was sent out to rubbish a recent report that suggested that the scourge of alcohol costs each Scot £900 a year. Richard tried to do this by suggesting the financial cost was relatively insignificant despite clearly significant social costs, his argument revolving around not being able to put a price on grief.

I'm not going to doubt the man's medical credentials but his economics could do with a check up.

Another of the main reasons for Labour's objection surrounded what the price per unit would be, suggesting the party agrees with the principle but is impatient for detail.

Well that price of 40p, 50p or 60p will come, first either from Andy Burnham down South or the Scottish Government up here and, when it does, I daresay Labour will find themselves in a very difficult position indeed with the evidence, the experts, the opposition and even their own party colleagues on the other side of the argument.

Labour's Missing Candidates

It's interesting to see that the battle for Labour's candidacy in Edinburgh East is making the headlines. It looks like it will be a healthy contest between Hinds and Aitken with eager candidates seeking the opportunity to represent the area but it's the fact that it's for Holyrood rather than Westminster that interests me.

The Scottish Parliament elections are due to take place in a distant May 2011 while we have a UK election which could be a matter of months away. Intriguingly, as far as I can make out, there are still perfectly winnable constituencies that Labour haven't even got a candidate in place for yet.

Four that spring to mind are Airdrie & Shotts, East Kilbride, Kilmarnock & Loudon and Livingston.

Airdrie & Shotts - Given John Reid's retiral as an MP, under current Labour rules this constituency will require an all female shortlist from which the eventual candidate will be selected.

This has been vigorously opposed by the local party that wants local councillor Jim Logue to stand as the candidate. This row has been ongoing for quite a while now (since 2007) and seems close to irreconcilable given how close we are to the election itself.

There have even been suggestions surrounding Harriet Harman parachuting in a preferred candidate from down south but I can't imagine the local group being in favour of that and/or allowing it to happen. According to The Herald: "Johanna Baxter, who is close to Labour’s deputy leader, Harriet Harman, has also been linked to the seat." so that's a name to look out for.

This is all perfect for the SNP candidate Sophia Coyle of course. Given the news regarding Hoon and Hewitt's failed coup recently there is a conclusion that fractured parties don't win national elections. That surely applies at a local level too.

Kilmarnock & Loudon - This will also be an All Woman Shortlist and already has Cathy Jamieson as the clear frontrunner given her intentions to stand as a dual MP/MSP, a decision that flies in the face of Westminster recommendations on how Parliament should be formed going forward.

Despite this, I have to admit I rate Cathy's chances as winning the constituency at the GE as quite high given she is local, high profile and comes across as genuine and generally capable, Only An Excuse epsiodes notwithstanding.

However, this is one of the SNP's top target seats and on current national trends the Nationalists should also be very confident, particularly with the head start they have been awarded on the streets and strong showing in the Diageo campaign.

East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow - On the face of it this is a very safe seat for Labour and, consequently, a lucrative prize for whoever gets the nod as Labour candidate. It is bizarre then that I can find barely any speculation on it. The main candidate seems to be Michael McCann, Adam Ingram's researcher, appears to be the front-runner given he immediately put himself forward for the position. Michael has a tough job on his hand, and not just because of the SNP candidate, but because he would be up against the 'true leader' of the human race. Stiff competition in anyone's book!

I can't help but indulge in a little idle speculation here and wonder if Andy Kerr will fancy a bit of double jeopardy and have a tilt at being the candidate, safe in the knowledge that even if he loses out then he will get a second bite at the cherry in the Scottish Parliament elections. I can't imagine Kerr will enjoy being Finance Secretary too much longer and continually playing second fiddle to Gray after McConnell and no doubt Murphy or Purcell in the future. Andy Kerr was Adam Ingram's election agent back in 1997 incidentally.

I do find it interesting that there is no All Women Shortlist in East Kilbride. I can only assume it is due to a dearth of potential female candidates given that Adam Ingram retired his position as MP and this is regularly cited as the key factor in whether AWS should be applied.

Livingston - it's probably still too early to conclude that Jim Devine won't stand as an independent after being banned by the Star Chamber from standing for Labour at the next election but I will assume it will be a straight SNP vs Labour fight for now in this constituency.

Ian Murray, Finance spokesperson in Labour's Council group, is seemingly the highest profile candidate bidding for the candidacy and seemingly a decision will be reached by the end of this month.

It's intriguing that Labour did not decide to implement an all women shortlist in this constituency although, to be fair, Devine did not technically retire. One would have thought that the overriding principle would apply though.

Given that four of the five names rumoured to be put forward are male, one can understand the reticence but if Ian wins the candidacy it will be interesting to see if his local credentials may be a factor in what should be a very tight contest with the SNP's Lis Bardell.


So, overall, the above seats are all winnable for the SNP but it does look like Labour are somewhat on the backfoot which can only help the opposition further. Yes you can still knock doors without a candidate but it's not the same as pushing a specific personality for the job or having someone with an oversized rosette shaking your hand and/or kissing your baby.

With Labour staring at each other defeatedly in the face down in London and looking at a decade out of power, is the party sluggishly staggering into this election rather than getting prepared early and proactive?

Also, given the apparent lack of options in some seats, are those that want to get ahead in Scottish Politics now looking to the Scottish Parliament rather than the UK Parliament as their rightful home?

And, partisan cynicism to one side, will this represent a step up in quality that will help see Holyrood reach maturity from its formative years sooner rather than later?

Not that Cathy Jamieson or Margaret Curran are helping in that regard but hey, where they are arbitrarily chosen to apply, those All Woman Shortlists won't fill themselves.

Scottish Budget - Beware Loose Masonry

To confirm my political nerdiness, I have to confess that the final round of budget negotiations are fast becoming my favourite part of the political calendar.

As an outsider looking in, this fortnight-long event appears to be politics at its most raw. Negotiation, compromise and arm-twisting largely on policy and largely with the healthy aim of giving the electorate the optimum deal from the 129 MSPs that it elected there.

The numerical breakdown of the Scottish Parliament is such that winning a majority is delightfully fragile, for a relatively objective onlooker at least. I don't know if my nerves could handle being on the front line of the brinkmanship.

There are no fewer than four permutations that could deliver a successful budget which is really quite remarkable given that there are only four opposition parties plus Margo.

For the record, the various permutations are:

SNP + Labour
SNP + Tories + Lib Dems
SNP + Tories + Greens
SNP + Lib Dems + Greens

Looking at each party in turn may well provide clues as to how the drama shall unfold.....

Labour: There is little doubt that Labour will put the Glasgow Airport Rail Link at the very centre of its budget proposals as the party seeks to bulk up their core support for the looming, but not looming enough, General Election.

Campaigning on GARL has, rightly or wrongly, been viewed by Labour as a successful part of its fruitful Glasgow North East campaign and consequently Iain Gray won't be keen to part ways with it just yet.

I cannot see the SNP working GARL back into its budget now that it has been so publicly dropped although it will be interesting to see the detail on how Labour proposes to include the considerable cost in its version of budget 2010/11.

I won't prejudge what sleight of hand that will involve from Shadow Finance Secretary Andy Kerr but I will confidently predict that Labour will not vote in favour of whatever the final draft of John Swinney's budget looks like.

I would suggest a miserly 20% chance that Labour will back the budget.

Tories: The main consideration that Annabel Goldie made with regard to the initial budget was the privatisation of Scottish Water. If that pledge is to be the central plank of Tory proposals for the final budget then there is little chance that the SNP will find common ground with the party that has arguably been the most refreshingly open-minded and constructive when it has come to budgets in prior years.

Then again, at the time of the draft budget the party's Finance Spokesperson Derek Brownlee was quoted as saying "We can't justify taking £40million from health budgets so people who can afford prescriptions get them for free." I could easily see a compromise being reached where the Tories safeguard health money which would help David Cameron's claim to be leading the party of the NHS.

The Conservatives have reaped a fair amount of goodwill from voting alongside the SNP at budget time. Whether this will change given the Westminster election and not wanting to be seen to be too close to the SNP given the Tories are targetting some SNP seats remains to be seen but I would say there is a healthy 70% chance that the Tories will find an area of compromise for John Swinner and back the final draft of the budget.

Lib Dems: With respect, who knows which way they will fall later this month.

If the key issue at crunch time is adjusting the Council Tax (either increasing or decreasing) then I can't see the SNP breaking the hugely successful (if not quite historic) concordat just to pass a budget.

Conversely, the Lib Dems could find a compromise on safeguarding free personal care for the elderly which they helped to deliver during the coalition years or something similar. I think Tavish Scott has learned the hard way that it is better to be on the inside being constructive than it is to be on the outside appearing to be truculent.

Consequently, I would say there is a 50% chance that the Lib Dems will back the final proposal.

Greens: The Scottish Greens, as far as I can make out, are regrouping and going to seek further progress (they may merely say 'progress') on the the insulation scheme that was so spectacularly rebuffed this time last year. And well they might. Patrick Harvie and Robin Harper will be seen in a very good light if they are able to show characteristics of perseverance and resolve in losing last year's battle but ultimately winning the war.

All in all, the SNP has built up a strong reputation on green issues, particularly in recent months with Copenhagen, the 42% emissions target and the Beauly-Dennis power line to link up to renewables revolution and would not wish to jeopardise with another flare-up with the Greens.

I would say there is an 80% chance the Greens will back the final proposal.

Margo MacDonald: I had initially thought that the Edinburgh MSP's article in the Edinburgh Evening News today calling for more 'masonic funding' was some sort of unholy alliance with the Orange lodge but of course that didn't turn out to be the case.

Margo is pushing for more stonemasons for Edinburgh to enhance the city's appeal as "the city is getting a shabby look to it". I am inclined to agree. Stonemasons won't prevent the Caltongate plans being awkwardly bolted onto the historic Royal Mile and nor will they prevent the uglification of Edinburgh's fading grandeur through fast food joints and tartan tat shops springing up seemingly everywhere. However, a dedicated artisan skill force that can maintain the beautiful architecture in Scotland's capital will ensure that the city keeps, quite literally, a 'cutting edge' against competition from other cities around the world.

So I can only hope that Margo is successful and I suspect an early deal will be sewn up so as to have some support 'in the bag' as it were.

In the end however, it won't be needed.

My prediction is that the Scottish Government's 2010/11 budget will pass with SNP, Tory and Green support.

Admissibility of Evidence

I see the main politics story in today's Scotsman is an article with the headline "Economy, not independence, will be the focus of election, admits Alex Salmond".

It is that word "admits" that gets me. It's an interesting choice from Mr Maddox. To admit is to concede, to give in, to fold, to relinquish, to surrender, to let the cat out of the bag, even to capitulate.

And yet reading Salmond's key quote in the article there is no such concession, just an innocuous acknowledgement that "the economy will be the number one issue" at the General Election. Consequently, I personally believe it would have been more apt to use the word "states" rather than "admits". Am I being picky, over-sensitive? I can't be sure but I don't think so. Words matter and while 'gotcha politics' is ok for politicians, it should in theory be beneath journalists.

And anyway, the inherent assumption that the SNP want, and once believed, the focus of this election to be about independence is highly dubious.

There are many who are impatient for the full debate on independence to take place but many who don't wish to push too hard too soon. I certainly have sympathy with the philosophy that the recession is being used to bash independence when independence itself could have prevented the recession in the first place, or at least diluted its potency, but I would sooner see this election be focussed on Trident and the shocking waste of money it represents. That is not altogether a separate argument from the economy and independence of course.

What many need to "admit" to themselves is that the topic of independence and the topic of Scotland's economy are now so inextricably intertwined that to try to focus on one without the other is, to coin something that Salmond has actually said, unpardonable folly.

The Sun's Scottish poll

Thanks to Stuart Dickson for flagging up a new YouGov/The Sun poll in Scotland. I don't have time for looking into it too much but I'll hastily post it up here nonetheless: Westminster voting intention: Sample size = 978 (+/- change from UK GE 2005) Lab 36% (-3) SNP 25% (+7) Con 17% (+1) LD 15% (-8)

I don't think a +7% will be enough for significant gains but it's a very solid base to go into an election campaign on and clear progress from 2005.

The Lib Dems are looking pretty stagnant making a mockery of Iain Dale's suggestion they'll win 15 seats. Similarly, the Tories must be unimpressed that the Cameron effect and probable power has resulted in a derisory 1% increase north of the border.

Labour's vote looks pretty tight and it'd be fair of them to expect to return the majority of Scottish seats with many holds but if the infighting continues they'll struggle to get their vote out so that 36% may yet dip.

Anyway, good to see a big poll rather than the subsamples we've been stuck with recently.

Any other analysis on the breakdown is, as ever, more than welcome in the comments.

Lack Straw

There are many names circulating as potential successors to Gordon Brown. Such a leadership change will clearly not take place until after the General Election given the lamentable result of Hewitt and Hoon's failed but ongoing attempted coup.

Ed Miliband, David Miliband, Jon Cruddas, Alan Johnson, Harriet Harman and Ed Balls have all been tipped as in the running, there is even a tantalising but surely preposterous suggestion of Darling and Mandelson making a joint bid for PM and Chancellor respectively.

One name that has fallen by the wayside is that of Jack Straw's and yet the gregarious Blackburn MP has been a relatively successful Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary in New Labour and he won a pseudo-popularity contest to be the Labour representative plucked to see off Nick Griffin on BBC's Question Time which he did admirably, at least. One could even suggest that he was picked for that well-watched show precisely because he is tipped to take up the reins next.

I hope I'm not putting Jack up as a straw man given his seemingly genuine lack of interest in the top job, nor am I suggesting that the man doesn't have the brain for the job, quite the contrary I reckon. But does Jack lack the stuffing to volunteer having it knocked out of him in a bruising leadership contest?

Perhaps, but the irony is he could be the new Alan Johnson, perfectly placed to be a caretaker leader while the party heals itself.



UPDATE: Perhaps I spoke too soon....

(From Mail's BlackDog - A prominent Labour rebel laughed out loud while listening to his car radio as Jack Straw loftily denied any contact between Cabinet Ministers and the leaders of last week’s attempted Labour coup.

The rebel was on his way to a secret meeting with Mr Straw. No wonder No10 calls the Justice Secretary, identified here two weeks ago as the chief Cabinet threat to Gordon Brown, ‘Jack the Knife’.)

Beyond Murphy

I am delighted to host Dr Peter Lynch, Senior Politics Lecturer at University of Stirling, for a second guest post. Peter's first post on the Doomsday Scenario was an excellent read, drawing considerable praise, and today's (rather timely) post on the Secretary of State for Scotland Jim Murphy is every bit as good:

Beyond Murphy

I often wonder how Jim Murphy spends his time as Secretary of State of Scotland. His job after all is the one that Helen Liddell complained of as ‘part-time’ before the job actually did become part-time in 2003. Though Prime Minister Tony Blair tried to abolish the post overnight, the Scottish Secretary survived with part-timers in Alastair Darling, Douglas Alexander and finally Des Browne. They had real jobs to do too though, rather than the small range of functions left over for the Scottish Secretary after devolution.

And then came Murphy and the return of the full-time Scottish Secretary. Why you might ask? Well, the answer is simple. Labour’s defeat at the Scottish election of 2007 meant Labour needed a full-time government presence in Scotland, especially given the difficulties of the post-2007 Labour leadership in the Scottish parliament that can be neatly summed up in one word – Wendygate. Scottish Labour were in a period of chaos though have returned to some level of stability under Murphy and also Iain Gray: although it seems obvious that Gray has been eclipsed by Murphy (let alone Salmond). What happens to Murphy in future will have an effect on the SNP, Gray and also Scottish Labour’s performance over the next year leading up to the 2011 election.

Murphy is not the only reason for Labour’s recovery in Scotland – witness Glenrothes and Glasgow North East – but he is one of the reasons, as Labour has a publicly funded and media-savvy high-profile politician to guide strategy and tactics. And, he has time on his hands and few actual government responsibilities to deal with – check the list of functions on the Scotland Office website if you have any doubts about that! And, at the same time, look at the range of press releases and activities and you get the sense of a hyperactive Scottish Secretary who has sought to carve out a space for himself and for UK Labour in order to challenge the SNP. I have to hand it to him – it’s smart stuff and this talented politician has had some success.

Now, I know Jim Murphy is an effective constituency campaigner in East Renfrewshire with a strong local profile. He took this formerly safe Tory seat back in 1997 when it was Eastwood, and has kept it ever since, last time round in 2005 with a majority of 6657. But consider two things. (a) What if Labour loses the election? (b) What if he loses his seat?

If Labour loses the election, Murphy will be out of one job. Labour will lose its government post in Scotland and suffer a loss of status and profile that has aided them politically in the last year: and Scotland will resemble an SNP-world much more than now. But, Murphy will still be around as an MP able to play some kind of role in post-2010 Scottish Labour politics (otherwise known as the 2011 Scottish election), but not on a par with Iain Gray.

However, what if Murphy loses his seat to the Conservatives in 2010? This takes him out of full-time politics for a year at least. This is good news for Gray on one hand – but also opens up the need for Murphy to seek a route back into Scottish politics at the first available opportunity which might be the 2011 Scottish election. Gray won’t like that one little bit. It has been bad enough having to listen to media talk about Jack McConnell returning as Scottish leader, dealing with someone like Jim Murphy intruding onto his territory could be even more unpleasant.

But, rather than think this is about personalities – who’s up, who’s down – it’s also about the strategic direction of Labour after the 2010 general election: meaning in advance of the 2011 Scottish election. Labour lost office in Scotland in 2007 and look set to lose it wholly at the UK-level in 2010: a pretty climactic series of events for a party in electoral decline faced by different electoral challenges from the Nationalists and Conservatives.

The wisdom of Hewitt and Hoon

Why did they do it?

That's the key question. A former Chief Whip and a former Health Secretary calling for a secret ballot on the Prime Minister when party procedure seemingly doesn't allow for such a process? Surely they had a plan.

Given how quickly this snow storm has turned into a slushy coup (thank you Torcuil), there are only two options as far as I can see. One, something has gone wrong with this plan given how few people have backed the duo up and it is, bizarrely, Nick Robinson who is riding to their rescue by calling out six Ministers who might back them after all. Or two, Hewitt & Hoon are going long and there will be another announcement from another Labour MP tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and the next until Gordon simply can't go on.

Or, secret option C, are Geoff and Patricia trying to save their own skins? Hardly, both MPs are stepping down at the next next election so why do they care so much if Brown is leading the party to ruin. Legacy? Surely their stints as Ministers would overshadow what may come to pass in the next few months. It's also delightfully perplexing.

One suggestion that could be put forward for all of this and that is ego. The simple pride that can engulf a person and make them think that I, and only I, can put a stop to this debacle. I have the clout to bring Gordon to his knees and quake before me. (A theory that is slightly compromised by the fact that whichever of the two thought this way, they felt they needed to bring Trish or Hoon along for moral support)

Whatever is going on it's a total farce and Labour activists must be (and clearly are going by Twitter) raging. All that good work knocking doors gets set back by seemingly short sighted buffoons.

The SNP had excellent success at the European elections in the backdrop of Labour infighting. If it all kicks off again, then this General Election could be very interesting indeed.



Note: It's interesting that Jim Murphy is noted as one of the six rogue Ministers. I have a very special guest post on the Secretary of State for Scotland tomorrow morning. Well worth stopping by for...

Edinburgh Councillor Slips Up

The Edinburgh Evening News has won some killer quotes from SNP Councillor Norman Work as the political heat from the current deep freeze grows more intense.

The pick of the bunch are:

"There is only enough salt to go around. This is no time for laziness."

"stop expecting other people to do the work" – unless they are "90 years old".
"If we start gritting one pavement we'd have to do every pavement."

Whether one agrees with the sentiments or not (I am undecided), it is a political error to come out with such chat at such a sensitive time so I can't imagine Norman is flavour of the month in the SNP Group at the Council.

Then again, he does have past form.

In December 2009 Norman wrote the following letter to a family of a care and support service user:

"Indecently ([sic] incidently), I wouldn't mind working for £12.65 an hour. I also would like to get over time, extra pay for nights and weekends not to mention double time on public holidays, maybe I could get you to help me campaign on my behalf".

Mind you, it can be very easy to be on the receiving end of public anger from an unfortunate word choice as even Finance Secretary John Swinney has found this week.

Swinney said that some parts of the country had "perfectly adequate walking conditions" which, as Alan Cochrance points out in his column today, does suggest a certain complacency.

The risk is, as far as I can see, is that journalists are so primed and ready to pounce on any slip of the tongue or argument that falls outwith the party line that we're going to breed a new generation of politicians who are too scared to speak up. Interestingly, the Edinburgh Evening News is running a poll with 60% agreeing with the sentiments of Mr Work.

Despite this, effectively telling anyone 89 and younger to pick up a shovel and get stuck in won't help what has been a rather cruel winter for the party so it's fair to say that the SNP will be looking forward to warmer climes and a spring breeze that will carry these stories away for another year.

European Election Spending Figures

The spending figures for the European election campaign in Scotland have been announced with some surprising results:

Labour - £228,000 (1.01 votes for every £1 spent)
Tory - £156,634 (1.19 votes for every £1 spent)
SNP - £126,000 (2.54 votes for every £1 spent)
Lib Dems - £105,000 (1.21 votes for every £1 spent)
Jury Team - £32,000 (0.20 votes for every £1 spent)
UKIP - £31,000 (1.86 votes for every £1 spent)
Greens - £11,000 (7.31 votes for every £1 spent)

The party who was most efficient with their money was the Greens and the least efficient was the Jury party. The next most efficient was the SNP and the next least efficient was Labour.

So does this tell us anything in advance of the General Election?

It does suggest that Labour need to go on an aggressive money-raising drive and need to be more organised in targetting their resources better. However, given their well-documented financial difficulties, this will be no easy task.

The Tories appear to have considerable spending power at their disposal this Spring if they are willing to shell out so much money on a Euro election where they only ever looked like returning one MEP. Money to burn in the blue camp perhaps? Maybe that bet on 7 Tory MPs in Scotland isn't a bad one after all.

The SNP clearly still have a very slick machine and can rely on free canvassers a bit more than expensive glossies to get their message out. But is the party holding back the funds? Is the war chest being kept for an increasingly unlikely independence referendum? Perhaps, but there's no denying the fact that the above figures are great news for the Nationalists.

Could the Greens be a considerable force in Scottish Politics if they had the same spending power as the other parties? And how long can the Jury Team keep forking out money for election bids when they return such derisory results? (Keep in mind that John Smeaton's tilt at Glasgow NE cost the Jury team £55,000. Given John received just 258 votes, that works out at 0.005 votes for every £1 spent)

So, in a world where money talks, there are very promising signs for the SNP going into the General Election if the party doesn't even need to spend the most (or second most) to get the most votes. Whether the purse strings are vigorously stretched or not, the party can expect a healthy return at the ballot box on this evidence.

#KerryOut - Good Thing or Bad Thing?

The #KerryOut campaign is something that I've been vaguely aware of this past month without really knowing the motives or details of its existence so I decided I'd delve into the murky depths of this campaign to understand it better.

The aim seems simply to remove Kerry McCarthy from her Bristol East constituency where the Labour MP and 'Twitter Tsar' has a majority of some 8,621. The 'KerryOut' website itself seems simply to be a collection of Kerry's tweets that someone (nameless and faceless) has pulled together with a simple live feed. I'm not entirely sure, but it looks possible that a spat between Iain Dale and Kerry based on the Labour MP blocking Iain from her Twitter feed is the main reason for this vendetta. Not a groundswell of opinion from constituents nor a result of the expenses scandal. Merely the output of a strop from the UK's leading blogger.

Tory Bear seems to think the campaign is justified because Kerry has not voted against the party whip since 2007 (he says Kerry has "never" voted against it but that's not true) and because the MP "pissed me off".

At best, it is an example of new media done badly and at worst it is the hounding and bullying of a single MP based on little more than not taking a shine to her.

I can't imagine it will directly affect voting intentions in the constituency. Can we realistically see an election day vox-pop saying "I was going to vote Labour but then I heard about the #KerryOut campaign and I just couldn't do it".

It's simply not going to happen.

Then again, there are other benefits to the highly visible campaign, namely for the admittedly impressive Tory candidate in the area, Adeela Shaafi. Per Wikipedia: "As of December 31, 2009, this attention has allowed Shafi to raise over 80% of her target- well above average on the site (MyConservatives)." Not bad going when the Tories are already due to outspend Labour by 2 to 1.

So is this a celebration of democracy and an endorsement of free speech or a sad chapter in the online revolution and potentially a massive error of judgement from the Tory bloggers involved, particularly in light of the Damien McBride affair? That's not for me to judge but the whole anti-politics drive from the right wing blogosphere is desperately disappointing and potentially could be their ultimate undoing. If you're involved in Politics to lob mud at the other side then there's bound to be a significant number of onlookers who will automatically side with those who actually have something to say.

I mean, when was the last time Guido Fawkes took a detailed look at education policy or Tory Bear looked at food shortages (the Bear's totty watch doesn't count as such posts are a far cry from the monitoring of potatoes). In the Tory camp's defence, as mentioned before, Iain Dale seems to be an instigator of the KerryOut campaign and the man blogs with substance. Most of the time, at least.

And don't get me wrong, there's always space for banter. We have freedom of speech online and offline but if people think they are the new bastions of political discourse by scorching the healthy debate that already exists and feeding off long-disillusioned readers who cynically cheer them on, then hell mend them.

On the left we have Jessica Asato banging the Progress drum every other day with fresh ideas, Kezia Dugdale is driven by the right reasons and I can personally testify works her socks off and Kerry McCarthy, for all her dubious sins, isn't going 'out' without a fight. They may be under the radar at the moment what with the Tory tails well and truly up and the tally-ho cacophony ringing in our ears but post-election the ball game will change. Today's Labour MPs will be tomorrow's snipers and, freed from the shackles of office, the shoe will be on the other foot with an eye on 2015.

(This is all not to mention the swathes of SNP activists pushing a (largely) positive agenda, of course.)

So, without knowing too much about the MP herself, I sincerely hope that someone starts up a #KerryIn campaign and Ms McCarthy goes on to increase that ~8,000 majority rather than finding herself 'out' as the increasingly irrelevant Tory Bears of this world would have it.


UPDATE: It's been confirmed to me by a top Tory blogger that the #KerryOut campaign is "a trial run for bigger fish". Despite the weak protestations of a principle being at stake, it seems Ms McCarthy is merely a guinea pig, a stepping stone to get to other targets out there.

So we can expect to have #BurnByrne, #MoveOverDarling and #JacquiSmithMustGo etc etc before too long.

It's not the direction that I wish to see Politics and blogging heading in and I reiterate that such a plan will probably hinder rather than help the Tory party's cause.