Cameron goes UKIP

I've never seriously entertained the notion of David Cameron throwing away this election at the eleventh hour but it really looks like it might happen, and I'm not even talking about the Times poll that shows Labour a mere 2% behind the Conservatives and on course to winning the most seats.

I initially shrugged off Cameron's suggestion today that he had a "duty" to beat Gordon Brown but his Union Jack stained vision of how the future could be coupled with the "let's win it for Britain" ending was just too jingoistic to take and I suspect I won't be alone in thinking so. The only thing missing was Dave chomping on a cigar and giving a big Churchillian peace sign as he shuffled off the stage. Nigel Farage would've been proud.

Indeed the ending of Cameron's big speech today was so poor I, and all others in the room, joined in a chorus of 'was that it?'. If Tory tactics are going to be borne out of desperation given the recent slide rather than a truly modern, truly EU-friendly, truly global outlook then I'll take my chances of five more years with Gordon Brown as PM right now.
We don't need an Old Blighty national saviour Dave, we need someone who will give us a tangible alternative when he claims to offer 'change'.

Scotland on Sunday - Scottish poll

After taking a fairly steady stream of flak for posting up polls that showed the SNP on a par with the Tories in Scotland, I decided to wait until a strictly Scottish poll with a sample size of greater than 1,000 came out before talking about polls on here.

I didn't have to wait long.

In the Scotland on Sunday today there is a poll of 1,002 adults conducted by YouGov with Westminster voting intentions as follows:

Labour - 38% (40 seats)
SNP - 21% (7 seats)
Tory - 20% (3 seats)
Lib Dems - 15% (9 seats)

The results are markedly similar to that of the Sun poll that attracted so much derision so I'll say it again, some people need to pull their heads out of the clouds and realise that the SNP charge is hitting the buffers. That doesn't necessarily equate to a slitting of the wrists or a throwing in of the towel as some uncharitably suggest, it's simple realism. I've personally always expected a Tory-Labour squeeze to take place because most people will either decide they don't want Brown so vote in Cameron or, more likely, don't want the Tories in so will rally behind Brown regardless of what the other parties are selling.

That's not to say that Team SNP should sit back and take it. Hopefully there'll be some big campaigns and policy announcements in the weeks and months to come not to mention an 'assault' on the voters by foot and by phone.

Aside from the poll, there was an interesting statistic that only 48% of respondents think that SNP supporters should vote SNP (and in light of my recent Anti-Tory Tactical Voting post, perhaps I'd better not comment!) but that's key to the party's success, changing the mindset that to vote SNP is a wasted vote. However, with Brown and Cameron stealing most of the limelight and constantly hammering all other parties for being too small to deserve a vote (with willing cheerleaders in the Scottish press as we see all too clearly yet again today) it's going to be a very tough battle and there'd be no shame in returning less than 10 MPs and regrouping for May 2011 and the battle for Holyrood.


Now, who would like a helping of humble pie?

Slogans and Headlines

BBC News were reporting last night that the Conservatives' new slogan will be 'Vote for Change'.

For a party that 36% of people doesn't know what it stands for and a same proportion knows but doesn't like it, it is an abysmal choice. It certainly does little to suggest there is meat on Cameron's rather brittle bones. Change for what? for the sake of it? So you can live out a boyhood dream? What are you selling us here Dave?

Even 'Vote for a change' would be better, try to win over that substantial apathetic bloc. But Vote for Change, that's Diet Tory; low in cholesterol and 100% risk free. It is also another worrying chapter in who can out-Obama the other side.

And now, from the ridiculous to the malign.

The Herald is continuing its dastardly conduct with a story bearing the headline "Recession 'good for SNP's cause'", clearly trying to suggest that the SNP is enjoying the recession. Having read the article, as many who saw the article will not have, it is clear that Nicola Sturgeon is pointing out that Scotland being in financial difficulty may be a good time for Scots to consider their options regarding how they are governed.

General Election 2010 - bland down South and biased up North.

SNP Spring Conference

Three weeks tomorrow will see the two-day SNP Conference kick off in Aviemore.

 There will be a strong focus on the PPCs who will carry the fight in the upcoming General Election (which would be only one week away if the rumours of an imminent announcement are true) but beyond that I’m not entirely sure what the ‘flavour’ or theme of this one will be, probably referendum tactics in light of yesterday’s announcement. Well, that and a YSI karaoke of course!

 Of the very few SNP members that I have spoken to recently it sounds like attendance will be low which is perhaps not too surprising given the time of the year, there’s a recession (just) behind us, the fact it’s ‘only’ Spring Conference and our current position in the election cycle. I’m undecided as to whether I’ll make it up myself but still hopeful flights will be cheap and rooms are still available at the MacDonald Hotel.

 Maybe pre-election Conferences are always a bit low-key. After all, I only just learned a moment ago that the Conservatives are having one this weekend.

 Would be interesting to hear the thoughts of those heading North (or South) to Aviemore for the 20th/21st though and how structured the weekend is due to be…

We need to talk about England

A poll of MPs across all parties on the question of England’s place in the UK by the Institute for Public Policy Research has revealed some startling results which highlight the seismic changes that could await Scotland if the Tories win power at Westminster.

The key statistics are as follows:

72% of Tory MPs believe England has lost out as a result of devolution. (23% for Labour MPs)

75% of Tory MPs believe in English votes for English laws (4% for Labour MPs)

0% of Tory MPs believe in devolved regional Government in England (64% for Labour MPs)

34% of Tory MPs believe in more powers for Local Government (41% for Labour MPs)

91% of Tory MPs believe that Scottish MPs should not vote on English matters (less than 23% for Labour MPs)

74% of Tory MPs believe that current funding levels across the regions is unfair (50% for Labour MPs)

55% of Tory MPs believe Scotland & Wales should be given tax-raising powers (30% for Labour MPs)

19% of Tory MPs believe God Save the Queen should be replaced with an English anthem when English teams are competing (25% for Labour MPs)

There was no party breakdown available but 58% of MPs believe that Scotland will never be independent.

Keeping in mind the statistics below, it is clear how precarious the current union arrangement is and how sceptical one should be of the last statistic (above) on independence:

Less than 1% of Tories come from Scotland (set to remain in line after the next election)

~14% of Labour MPs come from Scotland (set to increase significantly after the next election)

David Cameron may thrash around, not sure whether to shrug off Scotland, treat the SNP Government with 'respect' and/or rule out any constitutional change in his first term but it won’t be long before he is trying to stand smilingly on a large marble with the swell of resentment inside his own party the reason for his discomfiture. This will inevitably lead to him having to do something and full fiscal autonomy, as a minimum, is surely that something.

It's the striking difference between the views of Labour MPs and Tory MPs that really surprises me. This election isn't a few politicians shuffling off the green benches but a wholesale clear out. Those heading in are generally on the side of the 91% of Tories not wanting Scots to vote on English matters and 75% believing in English votes for English laws. That's huge and, if implemented, perhaps signifies the tipping point where the Nationalist momentum is irreversible.

As many have no doubt suspected all along and despite well delivered (if not well received) talk of referendums, perhaps Scotland's constitutional fate lies in England's hands.

Scottish Sun/YouGov Poll

Reports are coming through Twitter of a bad poll for the SNP:

Labour - 42%
SNP - 20%
Tories - 19%
Lib Dems - 14%

I'm not even going to bother calculating the seat breakdown if that was the final result. (Oh, ok then, Labour - 43 (+2), Lib Dems - 7 (-4), SNP - 6 (-1), Tory - 3(+2))

I say this with no joy and no detail regarding the above, but what was I saying about a battle for second?

The SNP needs to get on the front foot and an independence referendum, well played as it was today, isn't going to cut it for the campaign to come.


(Story here, no mention of a sample size. And not sure why Iain Gray gets the 42% against him given it's a Westminster poll...)

Two Doctors for East Lothian

Excellent news from East Lothian where Head of Media and blogger extraordinaire James MacKenzie (aka Two Doctors) is due to stand as the Scottish Green Party candidate in the upcoming General Election. I have no doubt James will make a tremendous contribution to the contest.

Indeed, it's shaping up to be quite a showing in that particular constituency.

Incumbent MP Anne Moffat is expected to be deselected in due course after losing the confidence of the local party with a new Labour candidate in place a mere couple of months before the polls open. This is Iain Gray's seat at Holyrood of course so a loss here would be particularly painful for the party.

The SNP 'won' the equivalent area in the European elections and run the local council (not always a good thing in elections to be fair, Glenrothes anyone?). For James there is the added intrigue of a nuclear power station being in the area at Torness, potentially a local hot potato that can be leveraged for extra votes. The Greens weren't too far off beating the Lib Dems here in the European elections in 2009 and the Lib Dems surprisingly lost their candidate Amy Rodger last year which can't help their chances.

SNP candidate Andrew Sharp, an ex-blogger himself, is surely the main challenger here and I've always fancied his chances of pulling off a surprise win to be honest.

Either way, and in many ways more importantly, with more bloggers filling the candidate spaces, I am increasingly hopeful that a few more PPCs will take me up on the Guest Post offer for this blog!


Good luck to James for the campaign!

Scottish Independence - Less Oil, More Rig

Alex Salmond has published the draft Independence Referendum Bill this morning and I have to say it is a stunning piece of political manoeuvring that I fully expect will leave the opposition on the backfoot. Certainly the hands over ears cries of ‘No to any independence referendums’ will be harder to sustain over the next year or so given the perfectly reasonable allowances that the SNP has made on giving the people the opportunity to vote on the currently popular option of more powers alongside full independence.

At pains to point out that the cost of the referendum is in line with the costs for the Welsh and UK referendas that have already been proposed, the SNP seems to have covered all bases and ticked all boxes with what it is proposing. So much so that I am beginning to wonder if the wobbly Lib Dems will realise they have more to gain than lose from preventing this vote and end up voting in favour of it with key concessions won from the Nationalists along the way. Labour and the Tories, perfectly validly but perhaps to their electoral detriment, will continue their resistance.

There are to be two questions in what Salmond has proposed:

The first question asks about making the Scottish Parliament responsible for more issues currently dealt with by the UK Parliament. The two alternatives are:

(1) The transfer of responsibilities including the economy and employment but not defence, currency, foreign relations and the crown.
(2) The Calman Commission’s proposals

The second question will be a straight yes or no on independence, timed for “as soon as possible”.

It is, somehow, a win/win/win for the SNP as even the Calman proposals represent a good stint of the journey towards independence and it’s difficult to see how the public can be against a referendum when most are in favour of increased powers for the Parliament and there are other referenda already being held across the UK. There is always the very real risk that the public just doesn’t give a stuff either way of course but there’s only so much, post National Conversation, that the SNP can do about that.

My only personal concern regarding the tactics involved is over the ‘Scottish Referendum Commission’. I don’t know what it is, I don’t yet know who is running it and consequently I just don’t trust it, particularly when there is a perfectly valid Electoral Commission sitting there waiting to be used with a sufficient pedigree. Yes it’s a Westminster body but sometimes using ‘the other side’s’ referee is the best way to guarantee that the result, if it goes your way, can be trusted.

In terms of Scotland actually voting in favour of independence, it’s probably far too early to say where the support lies as the substantive debate remains in its infancy. Scotland may be running out of oil but we can sustain ourselves on more than that, chiefly wind. Indeed, some may uncharitably suggest that Salmond has been sustaining Scotland on this resource alone for the past three years!

We truly are blessed with tremendous natural resources thanks to our coastline and geographical location. The benefits surrounding the potential to generate 25% of Europe’s wind power should not be understated. That’s black gold without the need for carbon offsetting, the future of the world’s energy economy and well worth a national debate for fear that Scots cite the economy alone as a reason to cling onto the United Kingdom.

The SNP’s opponents are right to say that it has rigged the process insomuch that the process is now wildly different to what was originally envisaged. The party has diluted its own stance and amended the referendum process in order to reflect public opinion.

What scoundrels.

Referendum? Bring it on.

The SNP baton

Here's an interesting question - Who is the longest serving leader of a British political party in recent times?

Well, in true Winter Olympics downhill skeleton bob tradition lets get to it faster than a Norwegian on a canteen tray going down an icy mountain. Paddy Ashdown at 11 years takes the bronze, Tony Blair takes silver with 13 years and at 15 years and 9 months we have the mighty Margaret Thatcher.

But wait, a Steward's Enquiry.

Ashdown drops out of the medals (always the bridesmaid hey?) and taking silver is Alex Salmond having served the SNP for a cool 15 years and 5 months. Indeed, by Autumn this year the First Minister will have scooped gold.

Salmond was leader of the party when I was ten but so what? If you're good enough, you're young enough. Dean Windass and Michael Schumacher have proved that, surely.

Well, despite Alex Salmond clearly being the best man for any job that is going in Scottish Politics, a smooth handover must surely be in mind in the short term.

There's no point denying that Salmond's style puts off many a voter, irreversibly so I daresay as his tenure as leader has wore on though it must be said that 'ultra-lefty' will raise separate reservations in some voters' minds.

There is of course swathes of talent on the SNP's benches with potential leaders MacAskill, Mather and Swinney amongst them to name but three and not to mention potential successors down in London. With the Deputy First Minister's calm competence, effective assuredness and excellent tv skills, she is the one to beat. Nicola's being a she alone perhaps helps to give her an edge in a party that does appear to be male-dominated.

I sense Salmond, who seems the anointing type, has fought Sturgeon's corner more vigorously than he needed to, even spending some of his own political capital by raising codes of conduct and duty which Sturgeon herself effectively dismissed as relevant factors during yesterday's apology. Nicola's continued, if increasingly strained, introduction of the party leader at Conferences is surely another indication that a line of succession is at least pencilled in.

There are elections to win and referendums to hold, and Alex Salmond is simply to good to be going anywhere so the SNP may simply neither have the time nor the inclination for a change at the top but I remain confident that, before too long and certainly before 2015, Nicola Sturgeon will find herself at the top of a mountain wearing the number 1 jersey and ready to chase Scottish gold.

Nicola Sturgeon's Ministerial Statement

Nicola Sturgeon has delivered a very considered and articulate statement defending her actions in writing a letter to the court on behalf of Abdul Rauf but has also apologised for, at times, taking it too far and going beyond what would have been appropriate. Nicola also confirmed that there was an element of judgement to her writing the letter (which Patrick Harvie echoed by saying she has shown "impeccable judgement" with her conduct this afternoon).

Alex Salmond therefore is looking somewhat exposed given his staunch defence of Nicola a fortnight ago and stating that Nicola had "a duty" to act. This was picked up on by many MSPs in the Q&A session but nothing more can be expected to come of it.

Nicola's humility and grace has surely avoided any risk that she will have to resign her position as Deputy First Minister and/or Cabinet Minister. I daresay she has also well and truly confirmed her position as the next leader of the Scottish National Party.

Key to the debate was Sturgeon's insistence that her apology was not "politically and tactically convenient" but genuine, this seemed to be accepted by most MSPs around the Chamber.

Tavish Scott asked a worthy, if wordy, question that I thought was the best of the bunch. It boiled down quite simply to "Why did you write it? What difference did you think the letter would make?"

Nicola mentioned that she was not unique in having written such representation, including reference to Gordon Brown's letter, but she never really answered the question. And this for me sums up the whole affair.

Anyone: 'Why did you do it Nicola?'

NS: (effectively) 'I don't know'



(the LiveBlog, aborted due to Starbucks' dodgy internet connection)

2:39pm (Slight connection issues. Onto questions now)

2:36pm Nicola explaining history of her representations on behalf of Abdul Rauf. First met at MSP's surgery where he said he wanted to pay back money that he had wrongly received. All subsequent meetings were at surgeries or constituency offices.

All pretty standard fare so far. I reckon the fireworks will begin at Q&As.

2:34pm Mike Rumbles raises a point of order. The convention that detail of the Ministerial Statement was not available one hour before the statement was made. Didn't really follow it but we're off now....

2:31pm Time for reflection at Scottish Parliament from Rev Alex Noble of Saltcoats:

'It's important to lift your head when you speak to people'. Hopefully Sturgeon will take that into account when delivering her statement.

'Look upwards from ourselves and look outwards to others'. I hope the opposition consider that too!

2:23pm STV's Jamie Livingstone is reporting that Nicola Sturgeon will say 'sorry' which may make matters worse for the SNP. You can't say an MSP has a duty one week and then apologise for acting on that duty the next.

I'm beginning to think those resignation call may crop up in the Q&A after all...

2:14pm: I don't for one second think that Nicola will resign today or even face further calls to but the Caledonian Mercury has dug out a vaguely similar, if significantly different, situation in Ireland that resulted in the resignation of the Green Party's Food Minister Trevor Sargent.

Praised for his honour in doing so, I don't think anyone in the SNP would thank a Minister for seeking the same praise unnecessarily.

Fancy that, I didn't know the Greens had Ministers in Ireland. Patrick Harvie, Scottish Food Minister? That doesn't sound too bad at all actually. Hmm....

2:00pm: Due to an unexpected day off I have been afforded the pleasure of getting to watch Nicola Sturgeon's Statement to Parliament titled 'Representing Constituents' and, any excuse for a liveblog, I'll update this particular post with news, views and reviews as and when I happen across them. Needless to say, feel free to comment and I can build those in too.




I'm not too sure what to expect from the 2.35pm statement to be honest, probably a forensic explanation of the whys and wherefores of her actions regarding the support she gave to Abdul Rauf who faces fraud charges and a defence of why those actions do not merit objections, let alone calls for resignation.



The format will be 10 minutes of statement and 20 minutes of questions and answers.

Jim Murphy's Altar Boy Error

Did he really think he was going to get away with it? Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy's attempts to round up 5million votes from religious people and bank them for the Labour party was audacious but ultimately foolish.

The Catholic Church in Scotland, undoubtedly in response to Jim's attempted lassoing of its flock, has tore into the Labour party for its "unrelenting attack on family values".

Cardinal O'Brien went on to say that he could not think of a "tangible example" of when the Government has embraced the Church in the past decade citing examples including embryos, civil partnerships and same-sex adoption.

Trying to tap into a person's faith to win votes from them is a very dangerous move. It's not simply a case of knocking on their door but extends to letting yourself in, making yourself a cup of tea and running a bath for yourself. Few politicians can comfortably wear that level of familiarity and get away with it.

For me, Jim Murphy's move was always foolish given the Iraq War alone. Countless civilian deaths, their lives rendered almost meaningless, sacrificed for so little gain in the face of international condemnation for not following through with the weapons inspections and consensual UN approach. And this was under the leadership of a man claiming to be a devout Catholic.

So no, Jim's amateurish and even sanctimonious claim that churchgoers should lend their vote to Labour should always have, and now thankfully has, backfired.

Amen to that.

Scotland - The Battle for Second

The Financial Times has raised the fascinating (if somewhat terrifying) prospect of the Tories beating the SNP into second place in the upcoming election. I know regular commenter Dubbieside is fiercely disbelieving of such a scenario, and he may well be right to dismiss it out of hand, but I shall persevere nonetheless in my entertaining of the prospect.

In the 2001 and 2005 General Elections the SNP beat the Tories by 3.8% and 1.9% of the vote respectively, slender margins in anyone’s book. It would be a reasonable opening expectation to assume that a similar margin would hold for 2010. Indeed, if we were to use the trend for these figures, the expectation would be that the SNP and the Tories would be in a dead heat for second place on 15.3%. That suggestion may raise red hot fury with SNP activists but you can’t argue with cold, hard statistics I’m afraid.

So what has come to pass since those days? Well, the SNP, with Alex Salmond back at the helm, has swept to power at Holyrood and is making a more than satisfactory job of running the country as most, many of them grudgingly, would surely agree. The party dominates the headlines, not always for the better, but everyone is talking about them and most Scottish voters would have to at least consider giving them their vote which may not necessarily have been the case back in ’05. On policy issues, the SNP has saved local hospitals, abolished bridge tolls, scrapped prescription fees, moved away from the detested PFI and ended tuition costs at universities. Solid delivery of popular policies which saw the opposition on the ropes for years.

On the back of these successes and because the SNP has streaked out ahead of the Tories in the Scottish Parliament elections (beating them in 2007 by a margin of 17.2% in the regional vote), there seems to be an assumption that they will do precisely the same thing in May 2010.

However, one cannot simply focus on the strides made by one side of the divide without considering the other.

David Cameron’s Conservatives are, on the face of it, a different breed entirely to Michael Howard’s. The main themes of the 2005 election were immigration and the Iraq War, not policies that would endear the Scottish public to the Tories. The issues today are reducing spending, localising schools (albeit a devolved policy) and funding soldiers in Afghanistan more adequately. Add to this that 5 more years have passed since the electorally-toxic Poll Tax and the Tories are, in Scots’ minds, more worthy of a vote this time around. The 20% barrier may well be broken for the first time since, well, a very long time.

It is difficult to accept, but the SNP is dismissed in many Scottish minds as a bit-part player in Westminster elections in the same way as the Tories are dismissed in Holyrood elections, given the unlikelihood of either party forming any part of the Government in the respective Parliaments.

Given how possible (and still just about probable) it is that Cameron will be the next Prime Minister, Tory voters have much more of a motivating factor to get out there and vote. The SNP, arguably, will be just as motivated as 2005 given the ceiling limit on how successful they can be in such elections.

So what do the polls say? Well, precious little I’m afraid. Last weekend’s Sunday Times poll had the Tories ahead of the SNP by 4% but with a paltry sample size of 139. The Scottish slice of the Sun poll a few weeks ago had the SNP and the Tories neck-and-neck but the supposed sample size of 500+ has been thoroughly rubbished by those of an SNP bent. I certainly haven’t found any detail to support this supposed data.

Will the Tories overhaul the SNP at the next election? It’s very unlikely but with the SNP’s charge that Prime Minister Cameron would have no mandate north of the border ruined if they do, it is imperative for the Nationalists that they don’t.

Labour taken to task over by-election

Labour has received a strict rebuke for its conduct regarding ballot votes and the timing of the Glasgow North East election. The damning indictment came from the Scottish Referendum Commission. Sorry, I mean the Electoral Commission.

In case this sounds like residual sour grapes after a stomping SNP defeat, the Guardian reported the news as follows:

'The commission said Labour "did not comply" with a code of conduct that requires political parties to hand in every postal vote application within two days of receiving them, and had been asked to honour those rules in future.'

It's difficult to say if opponents should today be basking in the moral high ground or muttering to themselves that they haven't played the game properly.

Labour certainly has a distinctive style when it comes to ballot votes, quick to push them in front of voters after they have been doorstopped and, at that particular time at least, a Labour voter. Nothing technically wrong with that as far as I'm aware but it still leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Unless one is out of the constituency, I don't see why election day itself can't be used as polling day.

However, when the conduct is found to be broken (and this is hardly Labour's first offence) if the Commission isn't going to punish beyond a slap on the wrist then there is more of an incentive for other parties to follow suit than there is a disincentive for Labour to stop its dubious practices.

Bully for you Gordon

After Gordon Brown left the Treasury, workers taking days off for stress dropped by a third. After Gordon Brown moved to Number 10, stress levels went through the roof.

Clearly the Prime Minister is a 'passionate' man as John Prescott, a little too vigorously perhaps given the subject at hand, made clear on Channel 4 News this evening.

General Elections can be won and lost on a number of factors but the potentially loose facts of Andrew Rawnsley should not be one of them.

That said, the suggestion that Gordon Brown is a bully is now out in the open and the public will make their own mind up. Who is the real Gordon, the man weeping tears in front of Piers Morgan or the man who roughly shoves people when he doesn't get his own way. Perhaps it's both, perhaps it's neither, but we shouldn't automatically assume that the latter will result in a drop in the poll results for Labour.

Kevin Rudd admitted he went to a strip joint and his poll rating shot up, South American politicians have public affairs and it guarantees another term, Australians voted for John Howard term after term on the back of him banging the table loudly and getting things done and the UK voted in Margaret Thatcher for over a decade. Sometimes the meek don't inherit the political earth despite what our better angels may occasionally wish.

Gordon's passionate demons, in contrast to Cameron's needy 'like me' approach to Politics, may end up being the very thing that pushes Labour ahead of the Tories. There's not that many cuddly Lib Dem votes to win after all and the Conservative voters might like a bit of abrupt decisiveness in contrast to Dave's smooth, wafer-thin sincerity.

I'm not defending the way Brown is alleged to have treated people; but with a recession on, wars to fight and a planet to save, maybe a leader who doesn't take no for an answer isn't a bad thing in the grand scheme of things.

Labour Patronage and SNP Unity

I was forwarded a comment that was meant in response to Yousuf's recent (over the top) 'SNP Crash and Burn' post. As the comment is so good and looks unlikely to be published by the Labour blogger, I thought I'd put it up here for readers to chew over:

Yousuf,
 
You (Scottish Labour) would rather Scotland is run by a Tory government elected in England rather than by a Labour government elected in an Independent country.  I have never understood why any Scot who believes in Social Democracy would accept that position.
 
The fact is that this is a price that the leaders of the 'Scottish Labour movement' are perfectly willing to pay for the prospect of personal advancement at a UK level.  You see, it means the ceiling for those who just can't cut it outside of the 'political/union' scene is that bit higher, so more money can be made at the top and more snouts can feed underneath.
 
There are literally hundreds of people in the 'Scottish Labour movement' who are earning way above what their skills would otherwise allow thanks to the patronage of the Labour movement, whether they are union officials, councillors, MSPs, MPs, Lords or the countless number of appointees made by political allies over the years.  If the UK falls apart, then all these people stand to lose substantially.
 
This is why Labour attacks on the SNP are consistently more visceral than anything that has ever been launched at the Tories.  The worst the Tories can do is keep Labour out of government for a while but the SNP threatens the individual lifestyle of people in the Labour movement because it threatens the very system of patronage that it is built upon.
 
This is why the SNP leadership takes great delight in seeing the hysteria of Labour attacks rise because it confirms that the Labour leadership are feeling increasingly threatened.
 
Indeed the mood within the SNP at the moment is extremely upbeat because the belief is that Labour is very close to the tipping point at which they become nothing more than a parody of their worst political practices.
 
In the absence of any meaningful, progressive policies, this system of patronage has become the only thing that the Scottish Labour Party stands for.  The only thing in common amongst those that matter is their sharing of this patronage, which all too often becomes competition for patronage.
 
This is why internal Labour politics are so divisive.  The SNP are far more disciplined as a party because they all have a shared objective that doesn't instantly put them in conflict with each other.
 
It is also why the Labour Party is so out of step with their supporters on the constitutional question.  A huge number of Labour voters actually favour Independence and the SNP know this from years of actually bothering to ask them.
 
Real people will not feel moved to defend a given constitutional settlement because they themselves do not gain from it.  However, the prospect of changing the constitution will attract support from all sorts of people who feel that a new settlement might benefit them.
 
It always comes down to vested interests for the status quo versus real people for change.  This is the real reason why unionists will not support a referendum until their short term political survival requires they do so.


(With apologies to Yousuf if he has gotten around to publishing the above. I don't have time to check as this is a timed post)

SNP Strategic Hoping

The SNP seems to be one of the few parties that hasn't unofficially launched its General Election campaign yet. Indeed, Labour and the Tories seem to have done it a few times each now and the SNP's chums (or not as the case may be) down in Wales kicked things off over the weekend.

When that time comes there seems to be three paths that can be taken by Salmond, or whoever is in charge of the campaign going forward:

(1) Focus on one or two big issues and push them to the fore

(2) Focus on the chances of a hung Parliament and the role the SNP can play within it

(3) Make the campaign about independence and soften up the ground for any future referendum

It's not yet clear which one of the three will be chosen and I would argue that it should indeed be only one as mixed messages would probably not optimise the vote.

Taking each in turn:

(1) Trident is a vote winner, there's surely little doubt about that. Having this as the SNP's ace in the pack would be a smart move as a majority of Scots agree that the nuclear weapons should go. However, I do worry that the counter-attack, however spurious, that x thousand jobs would go on the Clyde and a close scrutiny of the SNP's somewhat 'on the hoof' defence policy would leave little room for net benefit.

Discussing most other distinctly Westminster policies would see the SNP have the upper hand but the issues are arguably too minor to really make for splashes with the media and with the electorate at large: payment of the fossil fuel levy, an amendment to or scrapping of the Barnet formula and more money as a result of Olympic consequentials to name but three.

(2) This approach was pushed hard late last year and I see Wales are trying it too. I wonder if it's just a tactic to get some early attention rather than a long-term strategy. I certainly have one reservation with the suggestion that one should vote for the SNP as they may hold the balance of power at Westminster. Actually, make that three.

One, the chances of it happening are remote.

Two, it doesn't involve any policies so it suggests you've run out of things to say.

Most importantly is three, the voter has to consider three other parties before settling on the fourth one, the SNP.

Majorities involving the Tories and Labour/Lib Dems are significantly more likely than a Labour/Lib Dem/SNP/Plaid Cymru coalition so discussion of hung Parliaments will inevitably direct minds towards the other three main parties in Scotland. The SNP would have to hope that each party is discarded in the voter's mind before it is chosen.

The problem with 'hanging Westminser from a Scottish rope' (for want of a better phrase) is that a process of elimination is probably not the best strategy for winning elections. You have to lead from the front with principle to capture the imagination, not from the back with horsetrading.

(3) Independence, independence, independence

Let's be honest, it doesn't make that much of a difference to the party's ultimate ambition whether the SNP wins seven or twenty MPs, despite what derision Alex Salmond may come in for given promises that have been made if it is the former.

The vast majority of SNP members joined the party to see Scotland one day be an independent country. Yes, General Elections aren't independence referendums but why not make it one and soften up the ground for the actual referendum that is probably on its way.

Indeed, if the result of this election is returning a miserly 7 MPs and pushing support for independence up to 40-45% (say), would your average SNP member be disappointed with that? I would suspect not.

In many ways it's the perfect dress rehearsal for the real thing with nothing to lose and that 7 MPs return is perhaps far too pessimistic, the last YouGov independence poll that I can find showed support at 34% which would return approximately 12 seats per Electoral Calculus.

So a few options on the table and I have to say my initial preference for option 1 is making way for an appreciation of option 3. However, with two elections and perhaps even a referendum in the next couple of years, one can understand why it's taking a little bit longer than expected for the SNP to plot the correct course going forward.

Scottish Welsh Relations

The SNP and Plaid Cymru are generally best buddies in the UK Parliament. The two parties clubbed together to gain legal advice on impeaching Blair over the Iraq War, they joined forces to try to bring forward the date of the General Election and are promising to form a Celtic voting bloc in the event of a hung parliament in May.

However, it seems there could be a chill in the air over the question of how to replace the Barnett formula and the allocation of spending across the UK.

Per WalesOnline:

SCOTLAND gets £4.2 billion more from the Treasury than it would if it was a region of England, an economist advising the Welsh Assembly Government said today.

Gerald Holtham, the head of an inquiry into how the Assembly is financed, suggested the electoral threat to Labour from the Scottish nationalists was a “road block” to reforming the funding of devolved administrations.

It is an old debate that seems to pop up a few times every year. The theory goes in this instance that because Scotland gets more per head from UK coffers, Wales has a limited ability to boost its share without Scotland's allocation coming down. Scotland vs Wales for London's money is not a contest that will serve either the SNP or Plaid Cymru. Such suspicion and animosity can only fracture the ties that hitherto bind the two Nationalist parties together.

I don't know much about the detail but I strongly suspect that if you take into account the contribution that Scotland makes to the Treasury year on year, without even going back to the oil booms of decades ago, that £4.2bn would not only be a lot smaller, but perhaps even a negative number with Scotland actually net contributors to the purse overall.

Either way, Plaid Cymru is using the issue, perfectly understandably, for some raw politics going into the election campaign.

Per Helen Mary Jones:

“They (the UK Government) won’t shift at the moment because they are afraid of the SNP,” she said.
A Conservative government “may not mind very much about annoying the Scots electorate”, she said.

So there you go. According to Plaid Cymru, voting Conservative means Scotland will get screwed over because Tories don't win many seats north of the border so what do they care how we think of them. I just hope the good people of Stirling, Perthshire, Argyll & Bute and beyond are heeding that warning too.

The clear solution to all this Barnett-formula-driven problematic finger-pointing and begging-bowl jostling is fiscal autonomy for each of the devolved territories.

And if that is too much too fast for a country that doesn't like change then I for one am more than happy for Scotland to be a pilot project. The Tories tried the poll tax up here and had their fingers burned for a generation. I suspect they would get a more welcome response, while simultaneously appeasing Welsh concerns, if they did the same again with fiscal autonomy.

Not only that, but with the SNP slow out of the blocks in this election campaign, Cameron might even nab a few thousand precious Scottish votes off the back of it. And, dare I say it, a couple of otherwise Nationalist seats too.

Honestly, I don't know what he's waiting for. Being only 3% ahead in the polls perhaps?

Another Scottish Labour MP decides to call it a day

Tommy McAvoy, Labour MP for Rutherglen and Hamilton West is stepping down after 23 years, 13 of which serving as a government whip which is a record. At the age of 66 and clearly due a break with retirement, you'd think you wouldn't use this news to have a go. Well, think again. Per Christina McKelvie: “Tommy McAvoy was one of Brown’s most loyal lieutenants – but even he is abandoning his leader as Labour limp towards the Election. He adds his name to the list of embattled Labour MPs who would rather take their resettlement packages rather than face an angry electorate.”

There may be an election coming up but I think some have to 'keep the heid' and pick their soundbites more wisely.

General Election called tomorrow?

I've thought for a while that March 25th was the likeliest date for an election. Reasons include a strong suggestion from a great source that civil service departments were actively preparing for March, Brown's last chance to spring a surprise, no need for another tricky budget review and a tightening of the polls that may not last forever. If the General Election was to be this date, it would be getting called relatively soon.

Indeed a buzz is already up and running that tomorrow will be the day with this tweet from GE organiser for Labour, Dougie Alexander:

Big day for Labour 2moro, will keep u updated

Added to this is the news from Henry MacRory that Mandelson and Ben Bradshaw have pulled out of the BAFTA awards at the last minute.

Bit of a stretch perhaps but... Game on for March 25th?

The obligatory James Purnell post

If a week is a long time in Politics then one has to wonder why James Purnell's tenure, starting with a stint in Tony Blair's office back in 1992, is considered short.

For me, the thought of the same type of job for 17 years fills me with dread. For James, he is unkindly labelled a rat leaving a sinking ship.

The MP has been a breath of fresh air for a tired and jaded Labour party and there is tangible disappointment from Labour activists on Twitter.

They say all political careers end if failure but Mr Purnell is surely disproving that rule today.

That said, an invigorated Brown, still PM despite James' futile attempts to dislodge him, will surely allow himself a wry smile this evening.

The Fossilised Fuel Levy

Alex Salmond has renewed calls for Scotland's share of the Fossil Fuel Levy, some £200m, to be sent north to create jobs in the renewables sector.

The fund is raised from electricity consumers across the UK with Scotland's share in 2007 only £68m which, on a side note, is a clear suggestion that we're paying too much for our power.

The calls from Salmond to draw down the money are common sense and I personally won't tire of seeing them being made in the press, particularly with an election in mind.

The current arrangement is such that Holyrood could receive its share of the money now but this would involve an equivalent cut in the Holyrood budget. That, to me, is non-sensical and defeats the purpose of what a Climate Change Levy is, in theory at least, there to do. If the money is sitting "languishing" in a bank account and is truly Scotland's share then let's continue the fiscal stimulus and spend it.

We're staggering out of a recession, totally strapped for cash and our window to get a renewables sector up and running before global warming does too much damage is closing.

If this money isn't to be used at times like these, then when?

Scottish Labour - European champions of unemployment

The Scotsman reported today the deeply disappointing news that 'Scots job loss rate fastest in Western Europe'. The country that Fraser Nelson famously revealed had a public sector like a Soviet bloc nation is losing jobs on the private side which surely can't be good.

The map accompanying the Scotsman's article shows a colour-coded breakdown of unemployment by claimant count and it is clear that the deepest red marks of economic decline covers precisely the areas with the deepest red stain of Labour rule. Glasgow, Ayrshire, W Dunbartonshire and Lanarkshire, decades of the same party in power with still diminishing returns and even this week timely reminders that some Labour councillors have lost sight of their political role, commanding six figure salaries while still milking the expenses system.

I don't agree with the way the SNP is going about its less-than-consensual 'Westminster cuts' complaints but now is not the time to end the fiscal stimulus which, as the IMF reported this week, Labour already has while other countries continue to invest in its future and its people

It is disheartening to see that recent polls suggest Labour will lose over 100 seats down south and gain 3 (or more going by this poll) in Scotland, particularly when these same constituencies are doing so poorly on not just a British but a European scale. Yes, Labour is now in the Champions League of poor political representation.

There could be any number of reasons why these specific Labour-represented areas are blighted with unemployment not to mention numerous valid solutions, but one has to admit that voting for a different party to the one that's represented you for decades upon decades should be in the mix.

YouGov poll dashing SNP's election hopes

The Caledonian Mercury is reporting a YouGov poll with the following breakdown:

Labour - 37%
Tory - 21%
SNP - 21%
Lib Dems - 15%

It is, needless to say, not the best news.

A poll can only provided limited information but I'm afraid, far from being rogue, I find the results perfectly believable.

Incumbency and the threat of a Tory victory at Westminster is seeing the Labour vote streak out ahead, regardless of the misgivings voters may have about the party at the moment.

Counter-intuitively perhaps, the chance of Tories winning power is drawing out more support than prior elections when defeat was pretty much inevitable.

My colours are nailed to the mast as I'm sure they are for most of the readers here but for your average non-politico who sees Brown, Cameron and, well, Sturgeon in the papers day in, day out, is there really sufficient reason at the moment for them to go out to vote SNP? I'd suspect not and this poll, not to mention recent polls, back that up.

Yes polls are limited but if they consistently point to a picture that is regrettably realistic, one has to start taking them seriously.

Aggressive door to door campaigning must be the order of the day and, to compound the negativity, I reckon Labour is winning on that score too.

A tax on both your houses

Most people I know (who I have discussed it with) think that David Cameron's plans to provide tax breaks for married couples are ill-considered and hark back to a bygone era that is better best forgotten. It is surely not equitable for a married couple to pay less tax than a couple who are merely cohabiting.

I would have assumed that the Tories had calculated some numbers on this and judged that it was a vote-winner but I'm afraid I can't give such credit to a party that mistakes 5% of teenage girls getting pregnant with 50%. Modern compassionate conservatism, but still as out of touch as ever.

The other parties, quite rightly, haven't touched this policy with a bargepole but, rather than wash their hands of it, I wonder if there's votes to be gained in taking the policy the other way.

Taxing marriage? Well, not far from it to be honest.

A couple (married or not) earning £40k each and assuming an effective tax rate of 20% will have a combined take home wage of around £5,000 a month.

A single person will take home around £2,500 a month.

Now if you consider the significant expenses a household has on a monthly basis, it generally doesn't make a difference how many people live in the house.

Mortgage costs, rent, electricity, gas, car payments, new bathroom suite, new kitchen appliances etc. Even council tax only has a 25% discount for singles meaning couples effectively save money.

So what am I tentatively proposing? Well, rather than an income tax on individuals, there should perhaps be a tax on households. Perhaps the normal rate of tax could be reduced slightly and the higher rate of tax could move up to start at £60k meaning more tax would be taken from the £5k couple and less from the £2,5k person.

I accept it is potentially an administrative nightmare but the benefits for single parents, divorcees and youngsters trying to get on the property ladder are obvious. More benefits arise from the flexibility couples would have. Only one person working, without having their income clobbered, would mean no need for exorbitant childcare costs, less pressure for state care for the elderly and generally a less stressful family life albeit with 1 car instead of 2 or 1 fewer overseas trip a year (potentially making it a green policy too). There would be a jump in job vacancies too which would save on unemployment benefit.

The Tories want to give married couples an even sweeter deal than they currently enjoy to secure the 'middle England' vote. I reckon, with some imagination and drive, we could shake up the entire system and create a fairer deal for all.

When is a Labour Councillor not a Labour Councillor?

I had noticed this myself in passing but kudos to Joe Kane for putting in the hard yards in analysing how often (or not) the "SPT Councillor" who has been found to be milking taxpayers money was marked out by the media as specifically a Labour councillor.


I just thought I'd mention that after all the synthetic anti-SNP furore the Herald newspaper et al have attempted to generate in recent months (cybernats; saltire on xmas cards; piegate II; Sturgeon's letter) it seems the the Herald is desperately trying to keep from mentioning the actual name of the Labour Party in its headlines, and even in articles, related to the current SPT expenses goings-ons.

No mention of the Labour Party or that the SPT Chairman is a local councillor in this article -SPT chairman quitsHerald15 Feb 2010

Inquiry demanded into travel expenses of senior SPT chiefs16 Feb 2010

No mention of the Labour Party in any of the Herald articles to date -SPT chiefs in new row over travel expenses17 Feb 2010

Serious questions remain for SPT councillors to answer17 Feb 2010

Mileage claims are not the first scandal at SPT17 Feb 2010

Another bad week for Tom Gordon at the Herald it seems. The week isn't half-way through and already his article from Sunday looks pretty washed-up -The week it all went wrong for the SNP14 Feb 2010


Couldn't agree more. The suggestion seems to be that the councillor is a special case and not typical of Labour so the media has seen fit to protect the party. Personally I think it is for the public to judge which in itself would be an increase in leniency for The Herald who has declared itself judge and jury when the SNP finds itself pushed into the dock, fairly or unfairly.


(Taken, hopefully without objection, from a comment at an earlier post)

Guest Post - Lis Bardell (SNP PPC for Livingston)

In what I hope will be the first of many guest posts from Scottish PPCs I am delighted to host Lis Bardell's article - Jim Devine, M.P. and the rights of the people of the Livingston Constituency

In all the extensive coverage and discussion of Jim Devine’s doings about shelving, electrics and staffing problems through now to criminal charges about cleaning and stationery, little has been said about the democratic fate and rights of the people of the Livingston Constituency over what is now an extended period of time. Neither has much been said about the Labour Party’s failure to ensure representation of an appropriate standard for local constituents during this period.

Prior to being deselected at national level by Labour’s Star Chamber, Mr Devine was given the unreserved backing of his local Constituency Labour Party and of the Labour Group in the local Council whose Leader is Labour’s new Westminster Candidate, Graeme Morrice.

Since deselection Mr Devine has remained an MP. Until 8th February, he remained a member of the Labour Party and, so far as we know, also retained the Labour Whip.

Meantime, the people of the Livingston Constituency continue to be represented by someone that the Labour Party, itself – at national level (they are silent at local level)- deems unfit to hold office. They will have been so represented for nearly a year by the time Gordon Brown sees fit to call a General Election. It is clear that proper representation for the people of the Livingston Constituency does not feature in Gordon Brown’s calculations.

Meantime, while due caution has to be exercised by others, including political opponents, when matters are subject of legal process, Mr Devine, on the other hand, has been free to grab the airwaves, bemoan his fate and offer varying, sometimes vying explanations for his conduct.

For those who saw his interview with Channel 4 News on Friday 5th February this has hardly been an edifying spectacle. This is now widely circulating in Cyberspace with understandable, common sense commentary questioning reason and competence. It is not easy to hear or see one’s home community associated with this.

Lest anyone think that it somehow reflects on the good people of the Livingston Constituency that a (small) majority of them voted for Mr Devine in 2005, I can confirm, from months of knocking on doors, that voters - of whatever political persuasion – feel betrayed, let down and angry both on their own and on their community’s behalf.

This is a serious democratic issue which, if Gordon Brown and the Labour Party had any conscience, should have been resolved by calling a General Election 9 months ago. Labour has let Livingston down.

Lis Bardell

SNP Westminster Candidate for the Livingston Constituency

Salmond to be included in Sky's Leaders' Debate

According to Techwatch, leader of the SNP and Scotland's First Minister is on course to be included in Sky's broadcast of one of the three leaders' debates:

Up until now the leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, has been kept away from the debates, leaving only the big three party leaders up there to take centre stage.

But the satellite TV provider BSkyB, has been sympathetic to the SNP leader’s case that he should be up there too, considering his position as Scotland’s First Minister.

Now it looks as if BSkyB is willing to allow the SNP Leader to ask one question on each subject as well as giving his views.

Tremendous news and good job on Sky for seeing sense in respecting the rules governing General Election campaigns.

However, there is a good chance that such an arrangement could scupper the whole deal with Brown and Cameron refusing to share a platform with Salmond with a political fall-out and much finger-pointing ensuing.

Is that a better result than being forzen out of the debates entirely? Hard to say really but for now it is looking like a small victory for Team SNP.

Margo & Mario

Archbishop for Glasgow Mario Conti has spoken out against Margo MacDonald's Assisted Suicide Bill saying that granting anyone the right to die is "wrong in principle". Clearly it would have been a massive surprise if anyone within the Catholic church had concluded otherwise.

Mario is of course operating within the strict parameters of the religion that he helps to lead which is entirely understandable. 'Thou shalt not kill' and 'The Lord giveth and he taketh away' are difficult to argue against if you find yourself standing at the Pearly Gates, St Peter ushering you on to your final judgement. Poor Mario, what else could he have said?

However, with an election so close, it is quite easy to be sceptical as to the motives behind this call. After all, one has to wonder if the Catholic church is getting good at timing, a new rhythm method if you will. Prior to elections the Church seems to make strong political statements, urging its flock to vote with a certain issue in mind and then wait for politicians to bend over backwards (for want of a more appropriate phrase) to accommodate them.

At the European elections the debate prior to polling day surrounded stem cell research, the objection raised by the church deemed by many to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I seem to remember foster care for Catholic churches being an issue in and around the time of the Scottish Parliament elections. Not that there's anything wrong with the church doing its best to use its clout to shape debate.

Another aspect of this issue is the fact that, if the Assisted Suicide Bill is agreed in principle by MSPs, it will be passed to a special ad-hoc committee which will be chaired by an SNP MSP which means that the Referendum Bill committee will be chaired by a Labour MSP. It is a considerable disincentive for SNP MSPs to vote in favour. Labour stewardships of its referendum is surely the political equivalent of DEFCON 1 for the Nationalists, an unthinkable state of affairs that must be avoided at all costs.


I guess I would say I am a lapsed Catholic which is perhaps why I have enough leeway with whatever faith remains to be a strong supporter of Margo's Bill.

The 850,000 Catholics in Scotland and SNP MSPs resolute in their independence faith may not be affording themselves the same flexibility.

The Herald's Decree

Continuing a rather bizarre run of Comment and Editorial pieces, The Herald's Brian Currie has taken the unilateral decision this evening that it is now "time to move on" from the Nicola Sturgeon story and adds a distinctly defensive tone to his article to boot. There has been no new interpretation of the rules nor defining conclusions after an investigation so why Brian has deemed precisely now that the media should remove its boot from the neck of Sturgeon's political career is unclear.

Indeed, Nicola is due to make an emergency statement to Parliament next week. Does that mean that The Herald's columnists won't be discussing the Deputy First Minister's plight seven days hence because the matter is now closed? And if this mistake was in any way serious, why is Brian Currie not wanting to follow the crime through to a final reckoning?

The Herald is not part of the first, second or third but the fourth estate. High ranking enough that it has an important role in Scottish civic life but not so important that it gets to decide when we should or shouldn't collectively move on from an issue of the day. Nor should it have the power to decide, along with fellow publications, which issues dominate entire weeks of the year.

There is even something of the school bully to the man's merciful call to bring an end to the attacks, a 'right lads, I think she's had enough. We've had our fun' philosophy that is deeply disturbing.

When solicitors are scratching their heads at why there has been any fuss at all given Nicola Sturgeon was just doing her job and the national press are declaring unequivocally that it was a mistake, even belittling those who disagree as not sane, something is quite wrong.

A "press conspiracy", as Brian suggests the objectors like myself have it, is too strong and regrettably, even childishly, simplistic. However, the only error of judgement of late has been journalistic. The concern is that the media in Scotland lacks depth, lacks intelligence and takes any gift-wrapped story that is dropped onto its plate without fully questioning its adequacy. Most worryingly it seems to treat its readership as having a lack of intelligence while gorging on bad news which is the worst crime of all as it feeds into a Scotland that seems forever trapped in a downward spiral of negativity and inverted snobbery.

Put simply, a lack of rigour has become de rigeur and when challenged for being sloppy our newspapers decide to just get stroppy.

'Fraudgate' was never much of a story and nor was 'lunchgate' but almost since the ink was dry on the Budget Bill, a successful budget that itself could have delivered substantial, interesting talking points for months to come, we have had silly puff in the media and two big sticks to bash the SNP with much, much more than the party deserves.

The media is not slow to talk down the Scottish Parliament and talk up the lack of progress we are making as a country but if the media itself is the main barrier between the people hearing about what work is being done from all parties on job creation, on renewables, on creating apprenticeships, on higher education places, on fixing PFI, on bettering our education system, on boosting small businesses and on adequately tackling crime then hell mend them.

"It is time to move on"? I'm finding that I couldn't agree more which is why my eyes are increasingly on publications like the Scottish Left Review, Caledonian Mercury and Scots Independent.

Lib Dems winning here, there and everywhere?

I see Kezia Dugdale (one-time blogger and now presumably full time Election Agent for Edinburgh East) has managed to get a press release into the Scotsman over some Lib Dem leaflets that have ended up in the wrong constituency. Ok there may have been a thousand or so that went astray but this is nothing if not a cautionary tale.

There were so many leaflets to deliver that the Lib Dems decided to pay Royal Mail to deliver them. One could weakly argue that this was due to a lack of activists but Kevin Lang's campaign must be going great guns if he can stump up enough money for such a delivery, mispostings to one side. I daresay Kezia and the Labour camp at large may not enjoy the last laugh on this one. Or the SNP for that matter.

With Mark Lazarowicz something of an anonymous candidate in Edinburgh North & Leith and regrettably precious little impact from the other parties contesting the seat, one has to wonder if a cash-rich Lib Dem campaign is going to win the day in Edinburgh, particularly if die-hard Nationalists are even pondering over who to vote for.

With Edinburgh West presumably already in the bag, Edinburgh South looking like a potential gain given Nigel Griffiths' well-documented problems not to mention no Labour candidate in sight and North & Leith so over-resourced that leaflets are getting scattered around the city willy-nilly, could Edinburgh be painted a vibrant Lib Dem yellow after the next election?

It doesn't bear thinking about. Maybe my moving south was a wise move, proving in time to be escaping a Lib Dem stronghold.

Scottish Politics Social Media Dinner

I daresay a good few people who are reading this post will already be going but an interesting inclusion to the Scottish Politics calendar is the Scottish Social Media Dinner with a theme of Politics and Social Media. It is happening this Wednesday at Glasgow's Mother India, organised by Contently Managed. Sadly I am about 400 miles away otherwise I would have tried to go along.

Tom Harris will speak for Labour, Patrick Harvie for the Greens and Andrew Reeves for the Lib Dems. With two days to go, the Tories and the SNP are yet to contribute speakers which is not altogether surprising as the Tories have a poor online presence north of the border and, as one of the organisers of the event said himself, "I can't see any (SNP) ministers or otherwise actually using social media in a decent way". Ouch!

Hopefully a full quotient can be agreed and there'll be a few online reviews of what I'm sure will be an excellent and interesting event. With that in mind, tickets (£25!?) are available here.

Me and My Umbrella

As someone who has worked for banks for the past couple of years I am comfortable with being part of 'public enemy number one' (even though as a contractor I have not received a bonus). Indeed I have worked for so many banks that are in the public eye recently that if my next role is with Northern Rock I may well be deserving of some sort of commemorative t-shirt so I thought it was time to give a little back.

Indeed, I can kill a few birds with the upcoming stone as I have also been lamenting the lack of policy from the SNP as the party struggles to get onto the frontfoot in light of 'Lunchgate' and 'Fraudgate'. I would humbly suggest that the SNP picks up the ball I am about to pass and runs with it.

I will start with a little scene-setting...

In Labour's 2005 manifesto there was a clear commitment not to increase the top rate of tax. However, albeit for perfectly valid reasons, the top rate of tax is now 50% for those earning above £150,000.

There were strong concerns at the time that, through tax avoidance, there would actually be less money raised by the Treasury as a consequence of this move. I had always assumed it would be through some complex, byzantine tax rule that such avoidance could be realised but it turns out it's not so.

When contracting, as many finance and banking staff are doing these days due to the lack of permanent roles available, one has an option to be remunerated through the standard Pay As You Earn system (PAYE) or set yourself up as a Limited Company, often through an Umbrella Company.

The former would involve your employer paying employer's National Insurance while the latter would not. Already the contractor has extra cash in his or her pocket, amounting to about 10% of their gross pay.

Further to this though, the contractor would not necessarily pay income tax (either at 40% or 50%) but could instead receive dividends (taxed at 10% up to £37,400 and 32.5% thereafter) or pay a Corporation Tax (taxed at 21%).

It's a wide-open tax loophole that will no doubt be closed in due course. It is surely not right that someone earning tens of thousands more than the average wage, perhaps even hundreds of thousands more, pays no employer's National Insurance and/or pays a lower effective tax rate.

With the big issues going into this election the recession, bankers remuneration, unemployment, cuts to public services and a massive deficit; whoever is first to champion closing this loophole and focussing on what Umbrella Companies and Limited Company contractors actually contribute to society could make a lot of electoral hay out of it.

And no, I've never chosen this option myself, preferring the more costly, fairer (and simpler) PAYE process.

Jim Murphy sets up Plan B

It is well known that Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy is facing intense competition for his East Renfrewshire seat from the Tories and may well be the biggest scalp of election night, north of the border at least.

Consequently, the speculation surrounding what Jim might do next has been significant so I thought I would add to that with some news that has come my way.

It had been generally accepted that Ken MacIntosh, the local MSP for much of the area that Jim represents, would manfully stand and fight for his Eastwood seat in the Scottish Parliament elections, despite boundary changes making this a very difficult seat for Labour to hold onto. However, I have been informed that Ken will instead challenge Hugh Henry for the much safer Renfrewshire South seat despite only a small fraction of Ken's Eastwood seat dropping into the neighbouring constituency.

Ken's moving sideways, creating a needless selection battle in Renf South, would clear the way for Jim Murphy to stand in Eastwood as a First Past the Post candidate in the Scottish Parliament elections meaning the former Scottish Secretary would only be out of Politics for one year. Presumably, with his bigger public profile, Jim would have a greater chance of beating Jackson Carlaw than Ken perhaps would. (That's nothing against Mr MacIntosh who I rate very highly indeed, for the record)

So, has Ken MacIntosh, Jim's local colleague and office-sharer, taken one for Team Murphy and gone constituency hunting?

The PM-maker

Here's a question: What actually happens in the event of a hung parliament? Does anyone actually know?

I don't mean will the Lib Dems side with Labour or the Tories (the answer is neither by the way, according to Nick Clegg this evening. A smart move and a clever strategy. The Lib Dems should be under no duress to let on what coalition they may or may not form after the election)

The funny thing is though, the person who will ultimately determine who is the next Prime Minister is either the Queen or Nick Clegg.

In the Scottish Parliament there is a series of votes for First Minister and the eventual winner forms a Government. Easy.

In the UK Parliament it doesn't quite work that way. The Queen asks the leader of a party to form a Government so would she always automatically instruct the leader of the largest party to take tea? Would that be before or after the horse trading? Would Nick Clegg find himself having to call Buckingham Palace to instruct the Queen who her Majesty should in turn call? With a fairly fanciful set of election results, maybe it would be Alex Salmond making that royal call!?

Maybe the Queen wouldn't like all this hung Parliament nonsense (the hanging metaphor being a bit too revlutionary perhaps?) so she may well just call another election until a clear winner is voted in. A bit crazy? Why not, the Queen will be 84 come the next election. Assuming May 6th is the date of the next election and assuming April 21st is the Queen's real birthday and not her fake one.

And what if we get this wrong? The markets are already jittery about the UK's prospects, its AAA rating rapidly losing its shine. Would a constitutional crisis throw us down the tubes along with Greece and Iceland? Should we all just vote Tory to make sure they have a clear majority in order to make sure there is no constitutional uheaval in order to make sure that we don't all lose our pensions?

We need to sort this out! Someone make sure Nick Clegg's people talk to the Queen's people and they sit down for lunch some time before May 6th.

Actually, make that March 25th, just to be safe.

Afghanistan's National Conversation

Although it is wonderful to see the coalition forces pushing further into Afghanistan and democracy's reach coming with it, I fear the armed forces are claiming "success" far too early. Day 2 of Operation Moshtarak ending with verbal slaps on the back is worryingly reminiscent of Bush's famously non-prophetic "Mission Accomplished" banner back in the infancy of this conflict.

For years the Taleban has stepped away from a final conflict, opting instead to integrate with the wider public and bide their time before striking back. Indeed, 'Taleban' is probably the wrong word to use now as there is such a disparate range of Afghanis taking up arms against the foreign forces. Should we really be classing them all equally as 'the enemy'? It is at least heartening to see that success is being measured against how many Afghanis embrace the new Government rather than some sort of body count.

Tony Benn, in a wonderful Five Live interview this morning made a fine point. When Tony was 16 (in 1941) he joined 'Dad's Army' and was trained to shoot rifles etc. Were the Germans ever to capture the UK and Tony see a German soldier take tea with an English girl, he may well have thrown a grenade into the scene. Now, would he have been a freedom fighter or a terrorist?

All in all though, the securitisation and democratisation of Afghanistan is a process that needs to happen in order for the country to find its future. It is of course deeply regrettable that it is a process involving guns and bombs rather than strictly discussion and diplomacy but a satisfactory conclusion still needs to be reached and, with that in mind, our soldiers do not fight, and die, in vain, regardless of how early the successes may be called.

"Serious questions" for Cameron and McConnell?

I've not had a chance to see David Cameron's speech at the Scottish Tory Conference but I did learn that he mentioned Annabel Goldie nor David Mundell in his speech which is either tactless, revealing or both. It is also clear that he has waded into the row over Nicola Sturgeon's character reference letter for Abdul Rauf.

David Cameron says that the Deputy First Minister faces "serious questions" over the affair.

It makes me wonder therefore why Tory MP and former Cabinet Minister David Gummer didn't face those same "serious questions" when he wrote a character reference for an Austrian count accused of paying bribes for the arms giant BAE.

Labour, of course, have been all over this story like an angry rash, seemingly undaunted by the fact that the party's leader Gordon Brown once wrote a similar character reference letter to a chap growing £10,000 of cannabis at his home.

However, maybe the revelation that former First Minister Jack McConnell wrote a letter in relation to two "thugs" who terrorised a nurse may make them think twice, particularly as the case was quickly dropped soon after the letter was received.

Furthermore, Nicola Sturgeon's letter was published for all to see and deemed by those in the know as perfectly fair, certainly part and parcel of Nicola's job as a constituency MP.

As for Jack McConnell's letter, according to the Daily Mail article the details never materialised despite being promised:

Mr McConnell's aides insisted that, in doing this, they had simply ' passed on' the concerns of Mr McKee to the police. But with the refusal to release the letter, there was growing suspicion last night that Mr McConnell may have something to hide.


So two former Labour leaders and a former Tory Cabinet Minister write character reference letters and/or involve themselves in court cases at the request of a constituent and it's ok. An SNP MSP does it and she faces "serious questions", calls to resign and a media grilling to within an inch of her political life.


Scotland - pure dead brilliant.

Many Happy Returns for Tactical Voting

Birthdays tend to be enjoyable affairs and I have to say my 30th yesterday was that and more. Caron was kind enough to put up a short post dedicated to it and Stephen Glenn and Malc took the time to send me a message, much to my appreciation.

The Scottish Labour party however marked my 30th by sending out a press release trying to paint me as "sickening" (shown below).

In trying to add weight to the story, the Labour party laughably suggested that I advised the SNP on its internet strategy, a joke that is wearing a bit thin now. I don't know if there's scope for an email to the Press Complaints Commission over a press release that contains a glaring factual error but I'll probably leave it for now.

The Daily Express seems to be the only publication that picked the story up today. I'm not sure if that goes down as a success for Labour but so be it, one for the scrapbook nonetheless and we'll see what tomorrow brings as I'm sure it'll be open season on the Deputy First Minister in the Scotland on Sunday and the Sunday Herald. Maybe this non-story will be deemed to make the grade there too, I really don't know how low the quality control has sunk with the Scottish Press these days.

I can't say it made a dent in my day though. I still stand by the comment that Margaret Curran finds so reprehensible and I am pretty sure that 'random person, who happens to be an SNP member, thinks x' really isn't much of a story. I may be in the minority with such liberal views and I may be just plain wrong, but I can't say either will make any difference to the vast majority of peoples' days.

So there we go. I just didn't want the minor episode to pass by unmentioned.


(With thanks to Indy who cautioned me on it last night and particularly to the Labour party member who first gave me the heads up on and thinks that the sending out of the press release was "f*cking stupid")



NEWS FROM SCOTTISH LABOUR
Immediate Release – 12 February 2010
Salmond challenged as cybernats make extraordinary claim in fraudgate

- Blog post spells out meaning of Salmond's position- Salmond asked to apologise for bizarre interpretation of rules

A generally respected SNP blogger has today claimed that a politician has a duty to represent a "mass-murdering, child molesting, drug pusher" if that person is a constituent.

The comments were made by the author if the SNP Tactical Voting blog, who has previously been asked by the SNP to advise them on their internet strategy.

His explaination stems from bizarre claims by the First Minister that MSPs have a duty to take up the case of all constituents, no matter how wrong they may be.

Margaret Curran has challenged the First Minister to distance himself from these sickening claims.

Labour MSP for Glasgow Baillieston Margaret Curran said:
"These comments are sickening and will enrage parents across Scotland.
"This horror is the logical consequence of the First Minister’s desperate defence of his deputy.
"Yesterday he claimed that every politician should take up every case from every constituent.
"This is where that error leads and shows just how wrong he is.
"In defending a gross error of judgement from his deputy, he has given the green light to stomach-churning madness.
"Politicians exercise judgement every day in deciding what they do. It is clear that the judgement of Salmond and Sturgeon is flawed.
"The First Minister should stop digging, admit he was wrong and distance himself from these offensive comments."
ENDS

1. Author of SNP Tactical voting:“There is a world of difference and I would agree with the SNP spokesperson that there is a duty to act regardless of the crime. I think there is more of a danger if politicians start to decide which constituents need their help and which don't. You're there to serve the entire area. Taking it to the extreme, I would genuinely like to think that even a mass-murdering, child molesting, drug pusher would have their MP on their side to a certain extent. I don't mean holding placards up outside the court begging them to be freed but serving them in whatever capacity they realistically can is surely an appropriate role for the country we wish to live in. As I say, in my view MPs (or MSPs) are more priests than policemen but, with so much in life, we may well see that differently.

Source – this is a comment from the blog author on his own post (fourth comment):https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=5457608463947849320&postID=3855159620803517159

2. Jeff Breslin’s links with the SNP are described here:
THE SNP has invited one of Scotland's leading bloggers to host talks on how to get a grip on its increasingly negative profile on the web, The Scotsman has learned. Jeff Breslin, author of the SNP Tactical Voting website and a contributor to The Scotsman's Steamie, has revealed that he is to meet members of the party's media team this week to discuss blogging.
http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Blogged-down-in-scandal-SNP.5871028.jp
He subsequently denied the story saying it was “100% not true”:
http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/2009/12/maddox-gets-his-facts-wrong.html
But then reconfirmed it had been true…
“First of all, a (perhaps unexpected) apology. In relation to today's article I think I owe David Maddox an apology given my bleary-eyed, early morning, knee-jerk post so rather than bury it somewhere deep in this post I'll put it front and centre. The man is a journalist, I rolled a pass to him along the 6-yard line. What else should I have expected him to do but ram it into the back of the net?”
http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/2009/12/night-of-hard-drives.html

SNP puts referendum in a drawer

On November 14th I wrote a post suggesting that the proposed independence referendum should be postponed in the interests of winning more votes in the coming elections:

Are we really facing the immediate prospect of constitutional change? Of course not. We could have been, maybe, a year or two ago when there was something in the air but the winds have changed and not only is the suggestion that Scotland could vote yes to independence fanciful, we've probably also gone beyond the point whereby the Nationalists would receive sympathy votes from the electorate who were denied a say.

I was pilloried and roasted from pillar to post so I'm allowing myself a gentle pat on the back in light of today's news that the independence referendum is being postponed until the Summer, "at the earliest" according to the increasingly impressive Caledonian Mercury (or perhaps the competition is just plumbing new depths of unimpressiveness!)

The Bill will now be published as a Draft Bill which means the opposition will be unable to kill it off and the debate will be kept alive both in Parliament and in the public. The Unionist parties desire to see off the independence referendum early was laid bare when they allocated Margo's Assisted Suicide Bill to an 'ad hoc' committee as opposed to a health committee which would mean that a Labour MSP (as opposed to an SNP MSP) would chair the committee on the referendum. It is political skullduggery of the lowest kind and, consequently, I can't help but have a certain respect for the tactics employed if not for the moralistic morass on show.

However, the SNP's own tactics will mean that the question of independence will drop out of the general political debate over the next few months allowing the General Election to be fought on reserved policy rather than on a topic that the opposition and media delight in attacking the SNP over.

And then, no doubt once Cameron is the next Prime Minister and the unpopular Conservatives are ruling Scotland with barely a mandate, the question of independence can arise again with more fertile terrain for those of a Nationalist persuasion.

It is a shrewd move from the SNP HQ but, as has been pointed out in comment after comment here from various people, the vacant space has to be filled with something and aggressively so. The old adage that if you're not on offence then you're on defence is ringing true right now for the Nationalists so if the fight is not to be taken to the other parties on independence right now then the SNP's position on renewables, on the economy, on Trident, on job creation and on crime has to be crystal clear and pushed to the fore.

Failing that there is the option of fighting dirty and digging into oppositions' records to fight Lunchgate and 'Fraudgate' (per The Scotsman) with something-else-gate. I personally would not like to see the SNP go down this road as taking the high road is always a preferable option.

So a big idea is required, a big policy area that will capture Scotland's imagination. I maintain Trident is perfect given that Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems are in favour of keeping a nuclear deterrent while the SNP and a majority of the Scottish people are not.

I'm not sure that will be sufficient to raise the polling numbers though and the last thing the party needs is to be perceived as is a policy-free zone. If it doesn't work for the Lib Dems, it won't work for the SNP.

Iain Gray calls on Gordon Brown to resign

Alex Salmond, as ever, brought his A-Game to the Parliament today at First Minister Questions and I strongly suspect that the media interest in the Nicola Sturgeon story will now quickly die off so substantial and convincing was the First Minister's contribution.

Quoting section 8.1.1 of the Parliament's code of conduct, Salmond said MSPs had a duty of care to represent their constituents.

Citing Gordon Brown's similar writing of a character reference when he was Chancellor, Salmond angrily pointed out that Nicola Sturgeon was merely doing her job and stated that if Iain Gray is calling for Sturgeon to resign then he is also calling on Gordon Brown to resign.

Iain Gray huffed and puffed and must have hoped that his final question would have carried some suspense. In the end, "Will the First Minister back Nicola Sturgeon, or will he sack her" could only have had one answer.

Salmond's answer included "without fear or favour, do we realise our obligation to do our best for our constituents or not?". "I hope we never get to the day when Iain Gray decides what cases are seen in the courts and which are not" (Parliament erupts)

Annabel Goldie was significantly more effective in pointing out that the Government's chief spin-doctor has been involved in this story and consequently the Government now has questions to answer over the use of taxpayer funded resources in what the SNP has been at pains to point out is a constituency party issue.

As the Caledonian Mercury suggests, the key issue here could be moving from Sturgeon's judgement to the Government's and Government Spin Advisers' reaction to it.

Salmond, again, was able to shut Goldie's arguments down relatively easily. His point that, as First Minister, when a party leader (Iain Gray) calls for one of his Ministers to resign he absolutely has the right to use Government resources to defend her.

So a very solid performance from Alex Salmond once again and a potentially damaging day turns out to be relatively straightforward. It's making it look easy that must be the difficult part but, much like defending unpopular people, it's the difficult part that often makes a job worth doing.

Sturgeon assists constituent then faces calls to resign

What is the role of a politician?

Per Aristotle: "the State exists for the sake of the good life. For while it is satisfactory to acquire and preserve the good even for an individual, it is finer and more divine to acquire and preserve it for a people and for cities."

Interpretrations of the above include: To allow you to understand this in simplified terms, he is expressing that the politician therefore is not only responsible for the well being of his own soul and his own needs, but also responsible for the souls and the needs of all the people. Politicians are not in their elected offices to better life for a select group, but instead the politicians are there to represent the people as a whole and make the best decisions for the greatest number of people that he or she possibly can.

With this philosophy, a politician is more a priest than a policeman, more a friend to his/her constituents than judge and jury.

And so we turn to the news that Nicola Sturgeon has assisted one of her constituents who is a benefit cheat by providing him with a character reference. The calls to resign were immediate but childish. Nicola herself viewed the calls as "absurd" and "beneath contempt".

The Deputy First Minister has clearly come to a conclusion that society would be no better served with Abdul Rauf behind bars and, given her knowledge of the man, decided to make representations to the Judge to aid his decision. Was it an error of judgement? I really don't see it that way. Merely a politician doing what her constituency voted her in place to do.

Richard Baker, Labour's Shadow Justice Secretary, should be more hesitant to say it's "an astonishing lack of judgment". Gordon Brown made a similar defence of a constituent who was growing cannabis when he was Chancellor.

I was told on moving to England that Scottish Politics would seem petty and parochial from London's vantage point. I have to admit, regrettably, that it has consistently been that way for over the past week now and Scotland is in dire straits if it is now losing sight of what role in public life a politician should actually hold.

The poisonous Daily Mail mentality that is slowly corroding Scotland's otherwise fraternal, compassionate understanding is deeply regrettable and one can only hope that it is the looming election that is making some individuals take leave of their sense and adopt it.