Scots on the Gaza flotilla - who knew what and when?

There's been an interesting couple of statements made by UK Ministers today in response to the indefensible attack and killing of people trying get aid to Gaza.

Firstly, William Hague made a statement deploring the attacks and urging Israel to allow aid into Gaza. Later, Nicola Sturgeon communicated her concern for the several Scots that were onboard the aid ships.

Here's the thing though, when he spoke of "any UK nationals", did the Foreign Secretary really not know whether there were any British citizens on those boats? If Hague did know, why didn't he mention them specifically in his statement? If he didn't, is it possible that the information wasn't passed on from the SNP administration?

Judging by the headlines coming out as a result of this unfortunate incident, it seems the link-up play between the UK and Scottish Governments could have been a bit better...

(Note that Sandra White, MSP for the SNP, was reported by STV to have taken a call from one of the Scots on the flotilla boats at 5am this morning)


Update - I have been told that Sandra White actually got confused and took a call from someone in the UK rather than on one of the flotilla boats. A bit of an embarrassing botch given the highly topical issue at hand. I wonder if it's in the SNP's interests to issue a clarification...

How the high and mighty have fallen

One has to admit to a certain schadenfreude in seeing the self-appointed 'whiter than white' Lib Dems embroiled in back to back expenses scandals. The incessant message from Nick Clegg during the election campaign that a vote for his party was a vote for something different, a cleansing of Westminster, was difficult to take as there was little evidence that the average Lib Dem was less likely to abuse expenses than the average MP from any other party. There was just less of them.

However, to take everything that the the Telegraph says at face value is not a road that I wish to go down so the cases of Laws and Alexander both deserved scrutiny.

For David Laws, it seems to be an open and shut case. He tried to massage his conscious by widening the interpretation of the word 'partner'. He got it wrong but there are strong mitigating circumstances and hopefully after a quick investigation, a repayment of the ~£40k rent, David will be back working in the job that many seem to agree he was put on this planet to do.

For Danny Alexander, it seems he barely has a case to answer so that schadenfreude I spoke of leaves me with egg on my chin. The new Chief Secretary to the Treasury

Comparisons have been made with Hazel Blears' situation where the Labour MP had to pay back a five-figure sum (with a cheque whipped tellingly quickly from her handbag). There seeem to be some similarities and there seem to be some differences. However, a look at the rules shows that Alexander should be able to ride this out fairly easily.

A main home, as this one was, can be labelled a 'second home' for three years while it is waiting to be sold, which seems fair to me.

The Telegraph talk about a "loophole" that Danny Alexander took advantage of which is deeply unfair. The supposed loophole is just a part of the rules, their being small doesn't make them any more nefarious.

However, I don't think the Lib Dems should get too huffy about this weekend of discontent for them.

Firstly, Nick Clegg has invited this scrutiny by his fairly outrageous positioning of the wholesome, saintly, never-do-wrong party. That was never fully believable and was only ever going to result in newspapers digging deeper into their pasts.

And secondly, the Telegraph is coming in for criticism for these stories and their timing. The Telegraph is a private entity and shouldn't be demonised for having selling newspapers and making money as its main prerogative. It may be uncomfortable viewing for the Lib Dems who have been surfing the perfect wave for the past few weeks but is making money with front page splashes any worse than Laws making his millions as an investment banker?

You can't take the top jobs without taking the scrutiny that comes with it. The headlines on Laws were a direct hit and the headlines on Alexander look likely to misfire. We should all be satisfied at least that both men will, over the course of this Government term, serve in the Cabinet and make the difference that they both have the capability to do.

A bit more humility from Clegg going forward wouldn't go amiss though.

BP vs BO

"I want to thank everyone who rolled their sleeves up and helped out" said President Obama yesterday evening as he stood in front of the world's cameras discussing efforts to tackle the oil spill, with his sleeves rolled up.

However, it was the line "this is an attack on our shores" that really made me sit up and take notice. An attack? It is an interesting choice of word. It is a disaster of course, probably even a tragedy as we will learn in time but an attack suggests a certain intent, or at least an individual or entity who must assume malicious culpability.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico was, of course, the fault of BP, one of Britain's biggest companies, and it is now officially the US' worst catast of its kind. Countries have fallen out over far less so I daresay Cameron is watching on with his soon-to-be-trademark chewing of his lip, betraying his nervousness.

After all, natural disasters have the potential to affect a leader's approval ratings drastically. There was arguably not too much that George W Bush could do about Hurricane Katrina but it was this issue more than the econom and Iraq, two botched issues that he did have more control over, that really hurt him.

There's little doubt that the oil spill was BP's fault and there's little doubt that they have the responsibility and best chance of plugging the gap that is still squirting out 500 million barrels of black gold every day, but it is BO who will be feeling a little less slick once this is done and dusted. And if it keeps getting called an "attack" perhaps Dave and Bill's prized 'Special Relationship' will be deeply tarnished too.

A Laws unto himself

I've just read the big news of the evening and, no doubt, the bank holiday weekend.

It seems David Laws, George Osborne's chief axe-man at the Treasury, has claimed more than £40,000 to rent a room owned by his partner. The news (if it is news, I was certainly unaware though) that David is gay is, or at least should be, by the by given it is no concern of anyone's but slicing tens of thousands of public funds into your pocket just because you have the opportunity to do so means that you simply can't go on with the 'we're all in this together' drive of cutting jobs, cutting public sector salaries and cutting spending in general.

I do wonder if there will be an attempt to conflate the news of his sexuality with the news of the expenses scandal, offsetting the sympathy he may garner for the former with the fury he will attract from the latter. I sincerely hope not. David should resign, step well away from the limelight, answer to any investigations that are deemed necessary and only then try to return to front bench politics if he still fancies it and Cameron and/or Clegg will still have him.

For me, the worst part is that there was so much scrutiny over expenses last year, during the nadir of the whole debacle, and David Laws must have reflected on his arrangements and known they were improper and against the 2006 rules which stated that MPs cannot claim money for renting property from "a partner". Not fessing up then has blown apart any claims that this is a genuine error. The excuse that he just wanted to keep his relationship a secret may be understandable but it is also insufficient.

David Laws, I hope you enjoyed your time serving in the coalition Government, you only have hours or days left. An apology is nowhere near enough I'm afraid.

As for the Liberal-Conservative coalition, it will live on, but it's just received its first body blow.


UPDATE - There seems to be a consensus growing amidst Lib Dem activists that this is a hatchet job by the Telegraph, using the expenses story to 'out' David.

A person is of course entitled to keep their private life private, irrespective of what job they do, but that right does not extend to using your private life to break rules that date back to 2006, rules that must surely exist for a reason.

The Liberal Democrat party has past form too, George Lyon employing his partner Flora Boyd in clear breach of the EU parliament's rules, and that was even after the MEP checked.

There has also been a suggestion that David Laws is actually saving us money which is just bizarre given a random person is having his mortgage paid off on our behalf and, again, completely overlooks the fact that there's rules in place.

Lib Dems may be self-proclaimed champions of fairness but that doesn't mean you can just pick and choose the rules that adhere to you and those that don't.

Orange Digital Campaigning Awards (NOT)

I was kindly tagged by Matt Wardman in a meme post related to the Orange Digital Campaigning awards, seemingly for parties and candidates who had the best campaigns during the election.

Now, my reading of blogs has dropped off a cliff both before and after the election, I rarely use Facebook and my conscious decision to let the weeds grow somewhat on this blog won't help reverse that online slide but I thought I would pick up Matt's meme and see what thoughts I could bring to the topic.

From my rather poor vantage point, I didn't get the impression that this was much of an online election despite the heavy billing otherwise and so a set of digital campaign awards will, I fear, have a scant return. Certainly Anthony Wells of UK Polling Report disseminated polls relentlessly, Tory Bear struggled (fruitlessly in the end) with the #KerryOut campaign and Mike Smithson of Political Betting covered many unreported angles, albeit often with unanswered questions as the main thrust of the post, but was there anything out there on the blogosphere that really set the heather alight, captured the imagination and sneaked into the national spotlight? Not from what I could make out. Not, I hasten to add, that blogging the election for its own sake isn't an enjoyable and worthwhile experience.

I enjoyed my SeatWatch series on here and it generated a good bit of debate I like to think. It was noteworthy that suggesting which party was going to win which seat tended to generate significantly more comments than merely talking about whatever the issue of the day was. I guess the range of opinion from the optimistic/deluded who predicted SNP/Lib Dem gains (myself very much included) to the doom-mongering but fully vindicated 'there'll be no change' (myself, fence-sittingly, somewhat included) meant that debate was inevitable.

So are there lessons to be learned for what a blogger or a candidate can do online, keeping in mind it is now less than a year until the Scottish Parliament elections? Probably not, best to knock doors than tap keyboards. If you do venture online, do what you enjoy I guess and don't hope to persuade too many or change too much. Labour did seem to have a good Facebook network on the go and their #labourdoorstep twiter tag seems to go down very well in a (somewhat ironically) 'we're all in this together' kind of way.

In terms of the Orange awards in particular, apparently they are as follows:

- Best use of digital campaigning by a Political Party
- Best use of digital campaigning by a Candidate
- Best non-party digital initiatives
- Funniest use of digital initiatives
- Worst example of digital initiatives

There is no nomination process so, as Matt points out, some local brilliance could easily be missed, not that I have any local brilliance to suggest given that I wasn't even in Scotland for the entirety of the official campaign period and my London constituency was thin on the ground in terms of online initiatives. I do recall Scott of Love and Garbage has a potential nomination for the worst category though, not that it stopped Michael Connarty getting elected with a huge majority though.

There has been a lot more MSPs, MPs and PPCs embracing Twitter but I can't remember any specific 'initiatives' as such that took off. Indeed, it was a non-candidate and even, as far as I am aware, a non party member who had the best Scottish initiative with Bella Caledonia and his undoubtedly successful (but still ultimately inconsequential) #ScotlandSpeaks campaign that politicians, journalists and bloggers got fairly heavily involved in. I seem to remember a little bit of favourable mainstream media exposure too but I can't remember specifically what was said or where.

Had I still been a voter in Edinburgh North & Letih I would have had 4 Tweeters and 3 bloggers to choose from but I daresay that my fellow constituents and I would have had little to change our minds with from any of their online outlets available. Unless you really hated trams and weren't aware how closely Calum Cashley shared your views.

Crucially, the mere fact that there were no unexpected gains in Scotland and no constituencies where the share of the vote was significantly adjusted as a result of any campaign, be it offline or online, makes it difficult to point to Scottish examples that should be nominated for these awards.

The battle in Scottish voters' minds generally revolved around which candidate was best placed to keep the Tories out and you don't need a blog, tweet or facebook account to tell you much about that I'm afraid. As much as I may have tried.

For this meme I have been asked to nominate the best use of digital campaigning and although I could probably think of even better candidates if I did some research and/or racked my brains, I will have to give second place to the #KerryIn campaign to counterbalance the #KerryOut one. The Bristol East MP saw a swing against her to the Tories of 4.5% but this is favourable to the national swing of 5-6% so she must have been doing something right. Given that the Tories went backwards in London and Scotland, this is arguably all the more impressive from Kerry McCarthy.

However, the best example of online campaigning at the 2010 election is, for me, the #ScotlandSpeaks campaign in protest at the inclusion of only the three main parties at the leader debates which shaped the election campaign so significantly. There really was a lot of input with not much backlift Mike Small managed to build a sizeable groundswell of protest and lodge the objections of the SNP's exclusion respectfully but forcibly. I am therefore linking back to Matt Wardman in the hope that he will pick this up and add it to his list (so, if you agree with the nomination, please click through the link).


I shall tag: Malc in the Burgh, Two Doctors, Tom Harris, Yousuf Hamid, Stephen Glenn and Caron Lindsay to keep the meme going but I daresay it's open season on discussing and nominating on this...

SNP told to try harder on carbon emissions

One of the disappointing aspects of the current Government’s performance is the lamentable results in the carbon emissions that it has responsibility for.
 
It is all very well promising, and delivering, a Renewables sector for Scotland but the most immediate and pressing priority in terms of combating climate change is not creating the industries of the future but using less energy right now in our day to day lives. Scotland can boast about its most ambitious targets to cut emissions in the entire world as much as it likes, but if it isn’t followed up with deeds, actions and falling emission rates then it’s not only just a hollow boast but a recipe for Scotland to be embarrassed on the world stage when it falls way short of its own targets.
 
The defeat of the Government’s proposal to reduce year on year emissions by 0.5% as opposed to the 3% that was promised in 2007 is therefore to be welcomed, even if the 64 to 62 victory in the Parliament only came about because two dozy Tory MSPs pressed the wrong button (simultaneously perhaps boosting the argument that the Scottish Tories need to cut back on some of the deadwood in its cohort).
 
The road-building, coal power station creating, concrete-heavy and airport-expanding policies of the SNP do sit in stark contrast to the green-tinted rhetoric and this is disappointing for those of us who want, and expect, so much more from a party we believe has the ability and inclination to follow through on its promises. Individual examples can be detrimental to debates but one can’t help comparing Patrick Harvie’s train journey to Copenhagen with Alex Salmond’s flight out to the Maldives to, ironically, sign an agreement against rising sea levels. Surely, under the circumstances, a virtual handshake over a video linkup would have sufficed?
 
It’s not rocket science after all. Cut the number of flights, cut the number of lights left on, cut the barriers to increased insulation and you’ll cut the need, here and now, to burn more fossil fuels. That’s what the Scottish Government signed up to and there should be no reneging on that promise.
 
Sadly, in this instance at least, more Nats, less cuts is ringing true for all the wrong reasons.

Keeping up with the bridged Jones'

The debate over the Forth Road Bridge finished today with the Greens, once again, fruitlessly pleading for common sense to prevail over the proposal to build an unnecessary (but pleasingly shiny) new bridge when the existing one can be fixed for a fraction of the £2bn+ price using methods that have been tested and proven the world over.

In a bittersweet twist, a think tank announced this afternoon that the cuts to Scotland’s budget in the coming years could be £2bn. I shall oblige anyway but it doesn’t take an accountant to point out that a £2bn saving here and a £2bn expense there can be netted off for a crowd-pleasing nil gain and nil loss settlement at precisely the time when every pound counts.

I say crowd-pleasing, of course, in reference to the poll that showed 57% of Scots back repairing the bridge to the 34% of Scots who want a new one. This is in stark contrast to the 113 MSPs who voted today for a new bridge to the 3 MSPs who want to repair (2 Greens + Kenny MacAskill).

Well, parliamentary democracy has spoken, the stupid £2bn proposal lives on and such is life, so I won’t go rehashing the arguments here but I will mention one interesting aspect to today’s Holyrood debate.

I reckon it is fair to say that Fife and Edinburgh MSPs will be more interested in this debate than, say, a Dumfries or Argyll MSP. Granted, £2bn out of a nation’s budget is a big deal and will (or should) concentrate minds but for those MSPs living on the Forth’s riverbank with commuters who traverse the watery mile each day, this issue is surely a big one for them and opinions will be long considered but deeply held.

Well, this all makes me wonder why Edinburgh West MSP, the Liberal Democrats’ Margaret Smith, decided to abstain in today’s vote. Could someone who represents an area that either includes or just falls short of the bridge itself really have no opinion on the matter that she wants to put on the record? Is it possible that the member representing the bridge, or at least its shadow, understands the flaws in her party’s position and couldn’t bring herself to vote alongside?


Put simply, it beggars belief that Margaret Smith has a view of the Forth Road Bridge from her constituency but no views on its potential replacement.

From the Scotland Bill to Scottish independence

The inclusion of the Scotland Act amongst the UK Government’s 22 Bills has pushed Scotland’s place in Britain back up the discussion list in many quarters. Personally I am surprised that the Conservatives have moved so quickly on the issue when it potentially poses such a risk for the continuation of the union, particularly given that David Cameron claims to have the Union Jack stamped onto his insides like a stick of rock.
 
For me, the implementation of the Calman proposals is something of a red herring and will not come to pass once it is debated in the House of Commons. The proposal to cut income tax rates by 10p in the pound and then let the Scottish Government decide whether it wants to add on a remaining, 9p, 10p, 11p or so to the basic rate while adding the needlessly constricting condition that any increase must also apply to the top rate of tax is too complicated and ineffectual to be taken seriously. Any future Scottish Government, be it Labour, SNP and/or Lib Dem will not amend the tax rates above or below what we currently have and so we will effectively have ‘Barnett Formula light’, as if that formula wasn’t light enough already.
 
Let’s consider this – a Scottish Government that reduces the income tax rates will be letting the richest off while reducing spending and a Scottish Government that increases income tax rates will face a Pavlovian reaction from the Opposition of the day that it is hurting the working majority. At the very least, the access to the basic and top rate of tax has to be decoupled to allow a Scottish Government to increase tax for the richer and/or reduce tax for the poorer, if it sees fit to do so.
 
I suspect, however, that once the devolution of fiscal powers to Scotland is discussed in detail, with English resentment about public spending still growing, with the federal Liberal Democrats in coalition and with the Nationalists pushing hard for as much as it can get, full fiscal autonomy will emerge as the preferred solution to the current imbalance where Scotland can spend money that it doesn’t raise.
 
The past decade has shown how flawed the current system is, where a country’s budget can double in size and, despite a looming recession, no scope for saving money in the boom years to prepare for the bust is available. Full fiscal autonomy, full national responsibility, is the clear answer and the Con-Lib administration won’t opt for the falling between two stools that the Calman suggestion represents.
 
Were one to consider the Scottish budget just another treasury block of spending to be allocated out from UK coffers then it would be easier to continue with the Barnett formula, much like the NHS budget or the schools budget can go up and down. However, the crucial difference is that we can’t order the NHS or schools to spend only what it earns. Scotland can and, objectively speaking, Scotland should.
 
However, despite the apparent inevitability of fiscal autonomy for Scotland, a picture emerges of how it in turn would lead inevitably to Scotland becoming an independent nation.
 
With Holyrood raising its own funds and spending what it raises on health, schools, policing and so on, there are only a few remaining Westminster considerations for north of the border MPs. The new fiscal arrangement would presumably involve Scotland paying a recharge to Westminster to fund Defence (Trident), UK affairs (the Royal Family) and Europe (still under Europhobic Tory control). I just don’t see Scotland remaining comfortable with an arrangement that is so clearly at odds with the country’s generally differing stance on the above issues. This awkwardness could only be exacerbated if North Sea Oil revenues are excluded from any future arrangement. This would, either quickly or in time, lead to a stirring resentment and a real questioning of Scotland’s place in Britain from outside the McChattering classes aswell as within.
 
With fiscal autonomy bedded in and one tartan leg already outside the union as a result, the polls showing those in favour of independence would finally creep higher and higher until the last remaining protests against holding a referendum are vanquished. Note that this would be irrespective of who forms the next Scottish Government, there is even an argument that a Labour Government having to cut budgets with the Conservatives in power at a UK level would hasten the support for going our own way.
 
The referendum itself, when it does come, could prove to be a false choice if the majority of Scots perceive the status quo at the time of asking as Scotland being effectively independent of London and the rest of the UK anyway. How can one differentiate between choosing (a) independence or (b) the status quo when they both feel the same already?
 
With the SNP (and resurgent Greens) pushing the message that Scotland taking the last few powers north of the border would result in stronger representation in Europe, more control of our Renewables destiny and more flexibility in how the country engages with the wider world, it’s not difficult to imagine a ‘Yes’ vote in the referendum of some 60-70%, primarily due to the mindset-changing work having already taken place with the successful switch to fiscal responsibility, not to mention the overwhelming sense that the Scottish Parliament is the real seat of power rather than an ever foreign feeling UK Parliament.
 
An innocuous Bill it may seem, but in the length of time it took the Queen to read out the detail, the Scotland Bill may have already set in motion seismic changes for Scotland’s future and the nation’s eventual constitutional settlement.

Should we offer solidarity or only sympathy to Greek workers?

I am planning on attending the ‘Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay’ rally tomorrow at which the Green Party’s MP Caroline Lucas and the venerable Tony Benn will be amongst the speakers voicing their solidarity with Greek workers. These workers are facing cuts to their wages and pensions as a result of financial mismanagement from their Government which has contributed to remarkable falls in global markets today. Although I am looking forward to the event given the esteem that I have for both Lucas and Benn, I have to admit that my first impression was that I don’t necessarily agree with what they, and the rally in general, are aiming to achieve.
 
Sure, I have sympathy for the plight of the Greek people and I have solidarity with them insofar that I hope they get through this tough period relatively unscathed but to oppose the proposed remedy for a financial crisis that threatened to wreak havoc across Europe is a big ask and requires an equally big alternative answer.
 
On the face of it, my approach to the Greek strikers is the same as that to Unite in the BA standoff, ‘roll with the punches and just get on with it’. However, I respect Caroline and Tony as politicians and would generally trust their judgement. With their views not so easily dismissed, I decided that I needed to be better briefed before tomorrow evening took place and the below is the twists and turns of my thought process on the matter:
 
 
Greece’s woes stem from the Government effectively running out of money and attracting huge rates of interest if it turns to the money markets to plug the gap. Consequently, Greece has turned to the IMF and the EU for financial help to ensure that it can rebalance its books and function independently. In return, conditions have been attached to some £20bn of bail out money including public sector wage freezes, increasing VAT, cutting or scrapping of bonuses, pension cuts and tax rises. There will be a nationwide strike in Greece tomorrow in protest at these austerity measures and, presumably, it is primarily this strike that tomorrow’s rally is in solidarity with.
 
My first reaction remains my current one, at the time of writing at least. There’s no easy way out of a financial hole that starts plumbing its own new depths and there is little choice for a weakened Government but to target its public sector. Tax companies too harshly and they fold or leave the country. Tax the super-rich too harshly and they head for Monaco. What is left to be done but squeeze the masses as much as is required to balance the books? It’s painful and unpleasant, but it is necessary, ne c’est pas?
 
Well, perhaps not.
 
Considering my initial take on the answer to Greece’s woes and trying (and failing) to reconcile it with the views of the Caroline Lucas’ and Tony Benns of this world, I can feel myself losing touch, feel the nascent ‘just get on with it and don’t ask questions’ opinion beginning to take hold, an opinion so commonly woven into the fabric of the cantankerous, the spiritless and, in many instances, the done for. I’d already had my first warning too, the beginnings of the luddite ‘just get a job’ internal retort when a homeless person had the gall to ask for change.
 
Right-wingers are generally older than left-wingers and I have to face up to being less of a spring chicken than I once was. Have I found myself straddling that left-right fence already? Why is there no warning for such a frightfully awful proposition?
 
Thankfully, real life and keeping one’s eyes and ears open can always help save one from oneself. The cuts in the UK, however necessary they may be, are not as stark as those in Greece but even so their observable human impact helps to crystallise the mind. The examples of pain are many from the numeracy and literacy adult learning group that is having to close down in Edinburgh for the sake of £11k a year to the story in the London Evening Standard this week of the Eastern European father who jumped off a London bridge to an expected watery demise so desperate was his plight in terms of housing and employment prospects.
 
Setting up structures to tactically and strategically address life’s difficult problems alongside the (relatively easier to sell) new schools and ring-fenced health budgets takes political stomach and cold hard cash. I fear we may be unnecessarily entering an era where we have neither at our disposal.
 
For the Lib-Con administration, reducing the deficit is the be all and end all, the chief consideration that sits atop everything else. However, the risk of creating a new underclass surely has to be a red line that we refuse to cross come what may. “We’re all in this together” shouldn’t be an excuse for soaking the poor when lightly dousing the rich is a fairer route out of the mess we (and Greece and Spain and Italy) find ourselves in. When belt tightening becomes a garrotting of the working classes then we have to step back and consider the entire situation. Yes, we are spending more money than we raise but does that mean spending less or taxing more? Are there areas facing the axe in the UK and Greece that need to be protected if we wish to see a Europe working and prospering together? If so, which other area can make up the shortfall?
 
To answer that question I personally can look inwards. I’ll be perfectly honest, I’ve had a good recession. Mortgage payments have collapsed, I’m getting paid a lot more thanks to the London dividend and the price of food and living in general seems to be lower than before due to brutally competitive markets. There’s something not right when I can start thinking about taking advantage of others’ woes by buying an investment property in a year or two while the nation prepares to strike and Greece turns in on itself. The UK Government’s plans in today’s Queen’s Speech to implement a (bizarre) tax cut for middle-earners when it is that demographic that needs to pay more has me lost, only when I’m able to see past my own selfish interests that is.
 
A ‘tax on jobs’ the Tories warned during the election campaign but if those in well-paid jobs are the lucky ones then they, we, are the ones who need to feel the most pain as far as I can see. I pay tax at about ~20% but in Sweden I’d be paying ~32% which is fairness’ gain and my looming property portfolio’s loss. In short, I should be taxed more, along with millions more in a similarly or more comfortable position in life. That much is plain to see when I allow my mind to open wide enough to admit it but the majority don’t see it that way, the majority don’t vote that way and so the majority ensures that the Government won’t rule that way.
 
Greece is struggling and it is the Greeks who struggle the most who are bearing the brunt of the country’s pain. That deserves more than sympathy, even if it is not always so clearly the case. Put another way, being lucky enough to absorb life punching you in the gut unexpectedly does not mean that you should demand the same fortitude from those less fortunate and more vulnerable, whether they are inside this country or living further afield. Furthermore, a vindictive kicking of Greece out of the Eurozone and/or Europe should not be a future condition of any deal.
 
Now is not the time for the hardening of hearts. It is the time for clear minds, steely resolve and, above all, fairness. Bigger taxes and bigger pensions is the rebalancing that is required, not a slicing of working class wages into a financial black hole that wasn’t of their making.
 
 
Thank goodness for Caroline and Tony then, lefties to the end who will, I am sure, speak passionately and eloquently tomorrow, helping to resolve the internal struggle that will no doubt be raging within many of us watching and listening on.
 
 
(The Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay event takes place at 7pm at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square). (h/t Jim Jay)

The Scottish Parliament's last year

As Holyrood shapes up for the unofficial start of the 2011 election campaign, it is worth taking a look back at the past three years.
 
Frozen council tax and free tuition fees are the two standout positive policies for me while free prescription charges, the compassionate release of Al-Megrahi, the winning of the Commonwealth Games, further improvements in the NHS, the renewables revolution and a tackling head-on of the slide in educational standards are further reasons to be proud of the Government’s performance.
 
There is, like so much in life, a downside to consider.
 
The Scottish Futures Trust has been frustratingly disappointing in terms of delivery while dumping of student debt and assistance for first time buyers simply hasn’t happened. Pledges on class sizes, PE in high schools and tax breaks for artists never really materialised either. There is plenty that just didn’t get around to being implemented and although the ripping up of another party’s manifesto is a cheap stunt in anyone’s book there is, to be fair, a lot of ammunition available against the SNP in the campaign to come.
 
Not only that but it looks like severe budget cuts will see a reversal of some of the free school meals, free personal care for the elderly and free prescription policies that were brought in early on and in past administrations. They say that if you’re not playing offence then you’re playing defence so is it time for Salmond to batten down the hatches?
 
Come April 2011, will posters emblazoned ‘the SNP hasn’t delivered’ hit home?
 
I would, of course, hope not and it may sound weak but there is a lot to be said for a Government’s heart and intentions being in the right place, even if events and unforeseen budgetary constraints ultimately confound those wishes. Reducing class sizes, moving away from PFI and introducing free school meals for all primary school children are excellent objectives and at least the SNP is nailing its colours to those particular masts, even if progress has been mercilessly slow. Further, the SNP can’t very well be blamed for not delivering on policies that opposition parties have voted down, a referendum on independence being the obvious example there.
 
However, the coming year looks set to be desperately depressing; lame duck, fag-end, out of ideas, these are all adjectives that can be expected to be bandied about as the Parliament sighs and shuffles its way towards the next election. If only there was a big policy and big debate that could fill the gaping hole in Holyrood’s diary.
 
Minimum pricing may help to a certain extent as Labour and the SNP look set to slug it out on that topic for some months but I wonder if dropping plans for the Local Income Tax will prove to be short-sighted.
 
The Liberal Conservative coalition has plans to bring in changes to income tax such that liability would only start after £10,000 of earnings. The knock on effect of this is that a Local Income Tax in Scotland would only be levied against individuals who earn above this amount which would lance those arguments that students and senior citizens would suffer from this policy.
 
The question of how much a Local Income Tax would take in and whether it would be less, more or miraculously the same as Council Tax would remain but if, as I strongly expect, George Osborne increases income tax rates on June 22nd, the funding gap may well have been closed by the Conservatives down south.
 
The erroneous slamming of LIT as a tax on jobs and the difficulties between the SNP and Lib Dems over just how local a Local Income Tax should be would also remain but I just can’t help but think that if this issue was still on the political table for this parliamentary term, the ground would be shifting in the SNP’s favour for the year ahead and a glaring gap in the Scottish Parliament’s ‘to do list’ would be filled in.
 
Change is blowing through the UK and the SNP could catch that prevailing wind to their medium-term benefit with the right policy which would help to pitch the Scottish Government as a fresh and forward-looking administration at just the right time.
 
It’s just a shame they brought the kite down prematurely on something as progressive and potentially popular as Local Income Tax, particularly as that same Government looks like staggering up to the May 2011 ballot rather than striding.

Freeing Gary could open Scottish eyes to the Tories

With Annabel Goldie reshuffling her front bench this week and still scrabbling around for an issue that resonates with the Scottish people, it is, perhaps counter-intuitively, David Cameron in his role as Prime Minister who stands the best chance of providing a breakthrough for his right-of-centre party in left-of-centre Scotland.
 
I daresay that a lot of the good stuff that Cameron has already put into place or at least paved the way for will have been missed by much of the Scottish public.
 
That good stuff includes allowing anonymity for those accused of rpe, freeing up the Fossil Fuel Levy for Scotland, visiting the Scottish Parliament within 3 days when Brown didn’t do so in 3 years, no third runway at Heathrow and slapping down his troublesome backbenchers in advance of future trouble by ensuring that the 1922 Committee is open to all Tory MPs. Those who lived in Scotland after the May 2007 election know that it can be easy to get the populist, easy policies out of the way first and bank the positive headlines but credit should be given where it is due. Cameron knows he needs to ca canny but look at him ca awa.
 
The real challenge for the Tory administration is on the horizon though, the real litmus test over whether previous ‘Caring Conservatives’ overtures will be consistent with the harsh realities of office. This test comes in what fate the Government chooses for the badly treated computer hacker Gary McKinnon.
 
Theresa May has made a good start by adjourning the judicial review and increasing the albeit remote chance that Gary McKinnon won’t be extradited and will be tried in a UK court receiving, one can only hope, a slap on the wrist. Six previous Home Secretaries have had this case on their desks and all six have bottled doing the right thing, the decent thing, the thing that would chime most accurately with Labour values.
 
So now it is Tory values that shall be put to the test and we shall see if May or, as is more likely, Cameron will stay true to the words of the Tory leader when he said: "it should still mean something to be a British citizen with the full protection of the British parliament, rather than the British government trying to send you off to a foreign court.". Britain does look well-placed to having its moral compass pointing in the correct direction with the Gurkhas decision and the expenses scandal now behind us and more proportional representation and overhaul of the House of Lords to come. The simple act of defending our citizens in the face of needlessly hostile aggression from foreign powers is, for me, the next step on the road to asserting what Britain is and what we want it to stand for.
 
In protecting Glasgow-born Gary McKinnon and freeing him with full fanfare, regardless of US’ watching eyes, Cameron would soften the sceptical Scottish distrust of his administration and, for me at least, win an enormous and probably lasting dose of goodwill.
 
And who knows, such a decision may even be the floodgate-opening, impression-confounding move that finally thrusts the Conservatives past the 20% mark north of the border for good.
 
I won’t go as far as to say ‘one can only hope’ but seeing a Free Gary would be worth such a price.

The chip on Britain's shoulder

I very much enjoyed this particular tweet today from Cowrin today which I thought summed up today's First Minister's Questions rather well.

Iain Gray: We're no in power in England any more so ye cannae blame us for anything, ever. No comebacks.

Infact, I daresay the above tweet could help to sum up the coming year at Holyrood. Even The Economist is on board with the assumption that the Scottish public won't be able to handle the coming cuts and will lash out willy nilly unless our politicians can position themselves to direct the anger a certain way.

Is this really Scotland being seen at its best? The perception is clearly out there that we're struggling to rise above political bickering and, regardless of whether it is accurate or not, it would be nice to see the country shake that tag off.

And yet, there is not much to gripe about north of the border, there is little reason to dread the dreaded Tories so far. The SNP and Labour have both pushed for cuts to be delayed so as to ensure the stimulus is maintained but the Scottish budget has been maintained for 2010/11 so that delay is in place. We even have a potential £200m boost as David Cameron has paved the way for the Fossil Fuel levy sitting in an Ofgem bank account to be released into Holyrood coffers. Tory cuts? Not yet as far as I can see, even Corporation Tax is coming down. The British Bulldog is replacing the Celtic Tiger in terms of business competitiveness.

And what of Scottish cuts?

Well, who can blame Labour for trying to make the most out of the silver lining of being out of power at Holyrood and Westminster. Last week it was "cuts" with a point to the Conservatives, "cuts" with a point to the SNP and "cuts" with a point to the Liberal Democrats. No comebacks right enough.

Labour has gone in both barrels on the cuts to the NHS announced recently. The first barrel was last week's FMQ and the second barrel was today's as Iain Gray used both opportunities to question the Scottish Government on the matter. While we're talking about Tweets, it is worth noting that Wendy Alexander MSP followed the session up with this message:

"Alex Salmond under pressure at FMQs to defend thousands of jobs losses in NHS this year when he has £1bn bigger budget than any FM ever"

It is, to be fair, a fine question but as is so often the case with Scottish funding decisions and a fixed block of costs, any promises from the opposition to increase spending in one area means there will be less spending in another area. Needless to say, all sides are guilty of not letting on what that would be and satisfy themselves with badgering the Government for their 'cuts'.

The SNP's response is to point out that spending has increased throughout their term, as if that is the only benchmark, and also to point out money that is set aside in England & Wales for NHS redundancies but none north of the border. In other words, our slice of the pie has grown year after year for a decade but still we complain that it isn't big enough.

More than ever before, solid management of the nation's finances is what will be under the spotlight and no amount of fingerpointing will obscure that fact. Furthermore, it won't be long before parties boasting about who can outspend the other will hurt rather than help their particular cause.

If the year ahead for Scottish Politics is who can win the blame game then Holyrood will be the loser.



(PS For the record, that has to be one of the worst FMQ sessions I think I have ever seen)

Will 'Freedom' come with a catch?

I have this theory when it comes to wine, never trust a wacky name or funky bottle to give you a quality tipple. When you need humour or bright colours to sell your wares then you are drawing suspicion as to why quality alone is not the desired selling point.
 
I have belatedly started applying this same theory to laws that get passed by Governments, particularly those that use positive or pleasant sounding names seemingly as justification alone that one should support whatever lies within the small print.
 
Take George W Bush’s ‘Patriot Act’. Most Americans are patriots, or at least see themselves as one, so how could they bring themselves to oppose a bill that quite literally has their name on it? The Patriot Act of course contained the not-so-pride-inducing surveillance and intelligence gathering techniques.
 
And what about the ‘Digital Economy Act’? Oh yes, we need a bit of digital economy in this country. It sounds modern, 21st century and hi-tech. Let’s get those Cool Britannia vibes rolling again sponsored by Apple and I-pad. What could possibly be wrong with that? Well, the devil once again was in the detail rather than in the attractive name.
 
The ‘anti-terrorism’ bill proposed 42 days detention which is not an inseparable proposal.
 
The next piece of legislation that seems to have adopted this populist naming tactic is the Freedom Bill. It looks set to include the scrapping of ID cards, databases, biometric passports and fingerprinting of children and also a particularly welcome review of libel laws. The Tories and the Lib Dems are admittedly a much safer pair of hands when it comes to civil liberties than Labour were under the last Government but, still, there’s a lot of nasty stuff that can be proposed under the banner of ‘Freedom’.
 
So let’s just watch out for this Freedom Bill, as good as it may sound right now. Much like The Giggling Pig Chardonnay or the Cackling Chianti, it may end up being served with a horrid hangover.

Run DPM NC - Power to the people (and that's the way it is)

The ‘power revolution’ will be the biggest shakeup of our democracy for 178 years promised Nick Clegg today.
 
Bigger than women winning the vote, bigger than devolution of powers to the regions and bigger than the abolition of slavery (in 1833)? I fear the man is milking this latest moment in the spotlight for all it’s worth somewhat but, to be fair, most of what Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is saying is much needed.
 
Have you ever tried explaining the House of Lords to someone who didn’t grow up in Britain and is unaware of how our arcane system works? The look of bafflement that quickly descends soon turns to mirth as they realise that Britain really is a relic of a bygone age and it’s not just Beefeaters and double decker buses that suggest so. I sometimes wonder what it is that we have nowadays that in a hundred years time will seem obscenely old-fashioned but are not fully realising it now. I consider house keys, paper and denim dungarees in that number but top of the pile is surely hereditary peers. What were we thinking?
 
So an elected House of Lords it will soon surely be as well as, subject to a referendum, the alternative vote. The scrapping of ID cards, biometric passports and the National Identity Register have also been pulled into Clegg’s rhetoric which is good to hear. So too has CCTV but as a fan of ‘Red Road’, I can’t say I’m convinced that less surveillance is necessarily a good thing.
 
I also don’t think that Clegg should be patting himself on the back too hard with this devolving of power to the people mantra. The 55% rule surrounding the dissolution of Parliament, which I continue to be deeply disappointed with, and the bizarre, interminable five year fixed terms (as opposed to the standard four) were never discussed in the election campaign but were amongst the first outcomes from a coalition agreement that has clearly focussed on keeping the Tories (with or without the Lib Dems) in power for as long as possible.
 
Let’s be clear about this, there should never be two World Cups held inside the same Parliamentary term but that’s what we have in store for 2010-2015.
 
Think of the last year of the Brown Government and how little was achieved. A Prime Minister on borrowed time and a country stuck in a rut begging to be political re-energised. Wouldn’t it have made much more sense to have held an election in Spring 2009 to get the country on the front foot? That would have been a four year term and would have been a proper period of time since we last went to the polls. How many more wasted years will there be in the parliamentary terms to come if we have half-decade administrations that, by law, are not accountable to the people even when the situation has drastically changed since the last election?
 
Nick Clegg talks of giving the people the power to recall MPs but if our MPs don’t have the power to recall Parliament then the message sounds a little bit empty.
 
 
At the end of the day though, a long overdue common sense approach to how we exercise our democracy is to be welcomed, despite being amongst the last to shake off our old-fashioned ways and despite some deeply ugly sores being sewn into the statute books that will need treated in time to come.

Sorry, there's no money left

Ok, so it was a joke, and not a bad one at that (for a politician) but Liam Byrne's casual glibness over the £170bn deficit does sum up the lack of direction that Labour is suffering right now.

A 'haha, we spent the country's money' legacy, as New Labour's will undoubtedly be, shows how complacent Labour has been with its golden opportunity of 13 years of power.

The gap between the richest and poorest has widened, the House of Lords remains in its unelected state and Labour's power base of unions and working class has grown politically homeless. Socialism has gone awol in the UK and that should be a worrying situation. It's bad enough that the Lib Dem's income tax fillip for middle earners is held up as everyone's favourite buzzword 'progressive'.

I would go as far as to suggest that Britain's main left of centre party is still to the right of Sweden's 'conservative' party, that's how far off the charts we're falling.

After all, Labour loses power, by not very much, and its chief concern is that it didn't connect with its base on immigration. Immigration!? Talk about reconnecting with your base.

A recent Swedish political furore indirectly highlights Labour's misplaced reason to be. The Social Democrat leader Mona Sahlin, who is the clear favourite to be the next Prime Minister, faced negative headlines and even calls for her resignation for being in possession of a $850 handbag. Her Socialist credentials were tested to the limit over the affair.

For me, it puts Mandelson's £21,500 watch, Blair's property portfolio and the Labour-led expenses scandal into perspective.

You can't stand if you've lost your stance and you can't lead if you've lost your direction. Labour can't out-Tory the Tories and should lurch to the left if they want to leave New Labour behind and enjoy a brighter future.

Labour may have spent all of our money (and are laughing about it) but has it spent its future political capital too?

Who speaks for Scotland?

Picture the scene: Barack Obama is making a surprise visit to Scotland, the US President is stepping out of the plane and down the steps, waving to the throng of journalists and fans below but which Scottish political representative is waiting at the bottom of the steps to shake Obama's hand?

David Cameron of the Conservative party has just won a UK election and is consequently able to stake a claim to represent Scotland on such occasions.

Danny Alexander of the Lib Dems is the Scottish Secretary of State and has arguably been awarded the position to enhance the tartan in the UK Government. Consequently he may have a greater claim than his boss does to be meeting Obama in the imagined scene above.

Alex Salmond for the SNP is the First Minister of Scotland and would no doubt expect to be front of the queue when it comes to welcoming foreign dignitaries.

And this is all to overlook the fact that Labour took twice as many votes as any other party at last week's election. I daresay most Scottish airports are in constituencies with a Labour MP so should they be dispatched to be the welcoming host?

For me, who is the most appropriate person to meet and greet foreign guests visiting Scotland is a tricky one with each of the four parties having a fairly equal claim. I don't know if the Pope is still due to arrive later this year but I do hope there's a protocol in place.

Four men jostling for position at the bottom of a staircase is not becoming of any nation.

Perhaps we should just send the Queen for such occasions. She represents Scotland, right?

Cod Almighty!

As is tending to happen more and more, I succumbed to The Independent's non-political front story this morning, favouring it over the similar 'Cleggeron' stories in Guardian, Times and Telegraph etc. I was glad that I did as the story that the Atlantic Cod could be making a comeback was well worth the read.

As most people know, the fishing industry in the North East of Scotland/Britain has taken a hammering recently. Stocks of cod sank from 250,000 tonnes in the 1970s to 35,700 tonnes in 2006. How can you reverse a slide like that? You can't I thought at the time and prepared myself for a life largely consisting of sea bass, halibut and salmon if I wanted to eat local fish.

However, stocks are now up to 54,250 thanks to restrained fishing, bigger netting (to allow baby fish to escape) and camera monitoring of catches kept and returned to the seas. The fishermen of the North East heeded the warnings, made the necessary, drastic adjustments (savage cuts some would say?) and are now looking forward to a rosier future as a result. Any future is to be welcomed for such fishing as the cod looked for a while to be going the same way as the dodo.

(The message that cod is overfished and overeaten may have been a little lost on The Independent however as the recipe ideas for poached cod with pea shoots, cucumber and wild garlic sitting immediately below the 'cod returning to sustainability' story testifies!)

If we have to eat asparagus, curly kale and potatoes for a decade to allow fish stocks to recover then so be it. The philosophy of 'I want Brazilian bananas/Guadeloupe melons/New Zealand lamb so I'll damn well have it' has to come to an end sooner or later. We can do it voluntarily or we can let the planet force our hands but I jknow which I would prefer.

North Sea fishermen have taken a giant stride forward for sensible food policy in the UK and I just hope the messages filters down to the rest of Scotland, out to the EU's common fisheries policy and beyond to the wider world.

Cameron heads to Scotland

David Cameron, or the Prime Minister as I should start getting used to calling the Conservative leader, is travelling North to meet First Minister Alex Salmond today, a meeting that will surely set the tone for their relationship going forward.

Cameron has insisted that he wants a "new spirit of co-operation between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster" while Salmond has outlined four key demands. Not seeing eye to eye so far then.

In order of likelihood of being agreed to, Salmond's demands are the release of the £180m fossil fuel levy, the granting of more borrowing powers for Scotland, Barnett consequentials as a result of the London Olympics and £350m of accelerated capital spending.

It will be something of a fine balancing act for both men.

Cameron will struggle to claim he is updating Scotland with respect while saying no to all of the Scottish Government's requests but he must be mindful of English resentment against those who are already perceived to be receiving more than their fair share.

Salmond on the other hand will want to be seen to be fighting Scotland's corner but suggesting Scotland should be insulated from cuts AND should receive more money will be a tough sell to the Scottish public, let alone Cameron.

Stepping away from the detail, it will be intriguing to see this relationship develop and I just hope Cameron doesn't see this as a box-ticking formality and a sense of enthusiasm for Scotland is on show.

Have the Lib Dems stymied Scottish independence?

Despite my initial preference for a Lab/Lib administration in the immediate aftermath of the General Election result, I must say that I have a growing enthusiasm for the coming parliamentary term under Cameron and Clegg.
 
There is something unmistakably fresh about two young, energetic leaders heading up the next administration and blowing out the cobwebs that have gathered at Number 10 in the past 13 years. The renewal of Trident is disappointing of course and it looks like we’ll be sallied with First Past the Post for the foreseeable future but we have a Government that attracted 59% of the British vote and hold 56% of the seats so the democratic deficit has been significantly reduced and, for better or worse, our fiscal deficit won’t be far behind.
 
The most striking aspect of the new administration is how easy it is to overlook the lack of Scottish input. There are no Scottish MPs in the Cabinet as far as I’m aware, assuming firstly that one is permitted to discount Michael Gove as he represents an English seat and secondly that Danny Alexander’s Secretary of State for Scotland position will remain outside the Cabinet proper. (In saying that, Gove has not even been granted the Home Secretary brief which has gone to Theresa May). I suspect the response to such an imbalance will be no response as Scots accept that British people take British Cabinet posts and there’s no such thing as a Scottish quota for such a makeup. We haven’t done too badly after all with a Scottish PM, a Scottish Chancellor, a Scottish Foreign Secretary and a Scottish Home Secretary in the past 13 years.
 
Perhaps in time there will be a growing disconnect between the Westminster Government and Scottish civic life which will foment Nationalist stirrings but, for now, I sense that Scottish independence will remain only a remote possibility in the short to medium future and continue to be distinctly unpopular for Scots at large. That may cause dismay for some who read this blog who would rather sentiment went the other way but there has been barely a dent in independence polls since 2007 and there’s little reason why that implacable opposition should change now.
 
For a start, look at the upheaval and uncertainty caused by what was in essence a fairly straightforward General Election result. The changing of the guard took a week of fairly frantic negotiations, incessant media coverage and the fleeting prospect of a power vacuum for a manic few hours. One can only imagine how discussions centred on Scotland pulling out of the UK would go and the disruption any botched handover would cause. This is what dominates the mindset of the average voter when considering the issue. Why vote for independence when it involves so much upheaval? So much uncertainty? It’s something the SNP needs to address head-on if it wants to realise its dream but it is a daunting task.
 
Some may argue that it is scaremongering or laziness to focus on the short handover period, a poverty of ambition, an inability to think big. I’m not convinced. That argument relies on the positive case for independence significantly outweighing acceptance of the status quo. There has been little of the former recently save for a reminder that an independent Scotland would not have Trident (which would only save Scotland £200m a year) and would not have invaded Iraq (a War that is effectively over so as an incentive is largely irrelevant). Even then they are promises of what an independent Scotland would not do rather than would do. A more positive case would be more persuasive but even if one has a slight preference for independence, the enormous hassle of going about arranging it is a justified reason for deciding one would vote against in any referendum.
 
The SNP needs to pierce through the seducing charms of an energetic new Government and the honeymoon period it will enjoy, all across the UK I hasten to add. Salmond must clearly explain what independence would mean for our everyday lives if a breakthrough is to be made, what it means for tax credits, for buying a loaf of bread, for sport, for our education, for getting a job; the real mundane, small ticket items that are the route to changing minds but that noone has much knowledge of, myself included. A vague grievance against the Tories for events from decades ago isn’t going to cut it in terms of spelling out a new country’s future, particularly when the Lib Dems are sitting alongside the next, blameless generation of Tories giving the current administration a fuzzy edge and a stronger mandate north of the border. The Doomsday Scenario, perhaps depressingly for devout Nationalists, is much brighter than it could have been.
 
The philosophy that Scottish people will back independence once they realise that with the union we have a socialist Government 50% of the time and without the union we can have one 100% of the time is misguided. It ignores the history of Britain that Scots are attached to, it ignores the perceived advantages of a Socialist Britain over a Socialist Scotland on the world stage and, crucially, it ignores that unwanted upheaval that will be necessary to move from one constitutional arrangement to another. Fickle Scotland may yet prove that despite voting overwhelmingly against a Tory Government, we actually may not mind one once it comes along.
 
It is not only independence that may suffer from this new blue and orange British political dawn. With the reassuring and popular Vince Cable in the Treasury and the Calman recommendations reported as due to be implemented in full, the appetite for fiscal autonomy will surely disappear from the mere tummy grumble it has only ever been. In many ways Vince will hold the fate of the Barnett Formula with any strong recommendations from the man being generally accepted by Scots (myself included) as they, we, bow to Vince’s logic and wisdom. Furthermore, when the deficit is ~£170bn and Scotland’s share put crudely at £17bn, most Scots will balk at taking that slice north of the border and tackling it head on, on our own.
 
So the cards are increasingly stacked against the Nationalists in Scotland and I suspect that the Lib Dem veneer to the new Government has made Salmond’s gambit that little bit more difficult to pull off.
 
Positivity is the key battleground going forward and on that score the independence cause and SNP charge in general is falling back. Indeed, with so much to discuss: combating climate change, growing the economy, modernising domestic transport policy, advancing the renewable energy industry, reversing the slide in education standards, decreasing anti-social behaviour, breaking our country’s addiction to drink and drugs, the next steps for the European project, electoral reform and cutting our budget, one has to really question whether independence even deserves being included on the current agenda, let alone adopted.
 
Through preoccupation and with a nudge from the Lib Dems, has the question of Scottish independence simply dropped into irrelevance?

Danny the champion of Scotland

Yesterday evening was all about jobs for the boys (in a positive sense) I gather, despite yesterday's work-till-dusk social engagements and my now being encased in a wireless-less London Underground carriage meaning that I'm still little the wiser over who sits below Nick Clegg as Deputy PM. I did hear that amongst the new Cabinet broom is Danny Alexander as the next Secretary of State for Scotland.

Aside from election campaign interviews where Danny seemed good-natured, pleasant and reasonably sharp, I have to admit I know little of the man who will soon be thrown into the tumult of Westminster and Holyrood dividing lines over what is best for Scotland. I say that with little relish.

And anyway, despite the clear opportunity for the SNP to exacerbate a constitutional anomaly where a nation can largely reject a party that still produces the Prime Minister, I daresay Danny Alexander will avoid the worst of any fallout, both shrewdly by his own positioning and due to his not being a target.

For the SNP, it would probably be an error to be seen to be complaining about the Conservatives at Number 10, the Lib Dems at the Scotland Office and Labour in Holyrood Opposition, particularly when Salmond is already appearing to lose his appeal and the famously positive agenda of 2007 has dissipated. Put bluntly, if the SNP are seen as a bunch of whingers (keeping in mind that the continued complaining about the leader debates won't help) then the public will tire of it and reelection at 2011 will be a remote possibility.

One interesting aspect of Danny Alexander's appointment is that his party had the scrapping of the Scotland Office in their manifesto. Naturally, they're not in a position to follow through on that commitment but there is a certain irony that one of their number ends up there.

I said a while back that Scotland should support a Cameron administration if one was to materialise. I, of course, stick by that now that the Tory leader is safely encased in Number 10 but Danny Alexander, the national champion of Scotland, deserves a good dose of goodwill too and I wish him the best in his new job.

Power in the hands of the few

With Nick Clegg’s vaulted, vaunted and not a little bit flaunted position as Westminster Kingmaker, a position he wishes to maintain indefinitely for the Liberal Democrats with Proportional Representation, it is easy to forget just how weak his standing should really be given how disappointing the election result was for his party.
 
The Liberal Democrats have 57 seats in Westminster, 5 less than 2005. 11 of these seats are in Scotland which leaves a rather paltry 46 from the rest of the UK.
 
These 57 out of the 631 seats that they contested equates to a 9.0% return. In England & Wales this drops to 46 seats out of 572 or 8.0% of the total.
 
Put another way, the Lib Dems have a weaker sway in Westminster than Nick Griffin has in Barking (with this 14.6% share of the vote). It’s not what one would call a commanding position, whichever way you wish to look at it.
 
Granted, the Lib Dems won a higher share of the vote than their number of seats would suggest but we don’t yet have PR in this country and have to work with the results that we have, not the results that some would like (a ‘some’ which includes the Tories and, until very recently, Labour with their mighty 564 seats combined). The people had their chance to ‘take Parliament back’ and, in more ways than one, didn’t take it. Electoral reform, perhaps, shouldn’t be the be all and end all that it is currently being held up to be.
 
Incidentally, the SNP won 6 out of the 59 seats that they contested. A low 10.2% of the total and without a doubt a disappointing result, but the SNP group still earned more clout over the party’s preferred population of Scotland than the Liberal Democrats have with 9.0% over the area of the UK that they seek to represent.
 
I’m not for one second suggesting that the SNP should be leading (or even involved) in negotiations. After all, there is a strong political argument for excluding the SNP from any ‘rainbow alliance’. The Nats have already pledged not to vote alongside the Tories so that leaves them with only the option of abstaining or voting in favour of a Lib/Lab coalition. Crucially, neither approach would stand in the way of Clegg and Brown and/or a future Labour leader winning key votes.
 
Why the SNP want to be so heavily involved is, in a way, rather odd anyway. The nuclear option as adopted by Sinn Fein of not even turning up at Westminster should perhaps be considered if the doors remain firmly closed on the SNP’s contribution to UK affairs and independence remains the party’s overriding aim. They wouldn’t want to be seen to be ‘settling down’ in London after all so a more radical edge could be to their benefit.
 
However, it has been interesting to note the dropping of the SNP’s ‘irrelevant’ tag that the Lib Dems were keen to use during the election campaign. It is a telling admission of their own poor performance and the Scottish element to the current impasse, particularly with one of their number now being favourite to be the next Secretary of State for Scotland. One can’t go slagging off the First Minister’s party when one has to be dealing with him constructively in a few weeks time.
 
With less clout per head of preferred population, Clegg should arguably be in a weaker position than Angus Robertson and, in time, will no doubt be reminded of it as Tory and Labour frustrations grow, particularly if the Lib Dem leader’s hitherto erratic behaviour continues.
 
When so much power is held by so few, something has to give and Clegg simply doesn’t have the numbers and political options to see this high-stakes game through to the end.

Somewhere over the rainbow coalition

Has British Politics ever been this absorbing?

Clegg's orange brick road is proving to be quite the winding road and we still don't know if we'll end up with the Wicked Witch of Witney or someone from Labour's lollipop guild. Gordon, the fearty fae Fife who lacked courage, has clicked his heels three times and decided there's no place like home. Tin Mandelson has decided not to back any of the preening candidates. Alas, if he only had a heart...

Ok, enough of my revisiting the youth drama days and back to business.

The rainbow coalition, the progressive alliance or any other faintly Star Wars-esque 'good guy' tag you want to come up with is gaining traction. Newspaper articles today are talking not altogether jokingly and/or mockingly about a deal between Labour and the Lib Dems and however many 'others' are required to make up the numbers. Despite boxing himself in by saying his party wouldn't vote with the Tories, Salmond may well be flexing that mighty hand of his in the hope that at the end of the rainbow coalition lies a pot of gold in the shape of fiscal autonomy for Scotland or even, with a good typhoon behind him, an independence referendum. We'll just have to see which way the house falls.

Despite the above however, I suspect that Clegg's rather public overtures to Labour may ultimately prove to merely be a bargaining position with Cameron.


Put anoher way, somewhere over the rainbow, skies are blue.

Brown Day - Waking Labour up, when September ends

It's typical for the 'loser' of a General Election to resign the leadership of the party. It has, after all, happened at the last four elections and if Brown's autumnal leaving of Labour as its leader is for the same reasons then this is five in a row. However, a fairly bizarre result of this fall from grace is that Brown's successor could be the Prime Minister. How can one resign as a result of losing the election when your party is the leading partner in the next Parliament? For Gordon's sake, we won't go into that.

Talks between the Lib Dems and Tories have clearly stalled and the doors between Clegg and Labour have been opened wide, doors that have a considerably smaller hallway between them than the Tory/Lib Dem welcome mats. The 'Progressive Alliance' looks on and I daresay Salmond is flexing that mighty hand of his. After all, can you get such thing as a minority coalition?

Personally speaking, although I believe in parliamentary democracy and that it is for MPs to decide a Prime Minister rather than the people, it would be ridiculous and probably even infeasible for there to be a Prime Minister in place at Number 10 before the year is out without their having taken a podium at the Leader Debates during the recent campaign. There are only three men with the mandate to be PM and one of them is leaving the stage. Personality was a big issue in last week's poll, perhaps even the main issue, so for Miliband, Miliband, Harman, Johnson or Balls to sidestep that scrutiny and take the top job is absurd. Appropriate but absurd.

Clegg, of course, could be the next Prime Minister as he stood up to that scrutiny but given his party returned a relatively paltry 57 seats, 5 less than in 2005 under Charlie Kennedy MP, this would be an unsatisfactory conclusion for the general public to the current impasse.

Another General Election with a different Labour leader at the helm seems the most likely result of this difficult result, unless the Lib Dems or Labour can bring themselves to abstain on the key votes that would allow a Tory Minority Government to form.

That is almost beyond speculation. What happens behind closed doors between Mandelson, Letwin, Laws et al is very difficult to forecast but the shape and sheen of the next Labour leader is a more inviting challenge.

Miliband, for me, is the clear favourite. I'm just not sure which one! David probably shades it with his star quality, outscoring Ed's environmental credentials.

Alan Johnson is perhaps the most 'real' amongst the other contenders but he is in danger of becoming a caricature of himself, a byproduct of missing his opportunity to challenge Brown last term one too many times.

Harrier Harman and Ed Balls are too disliked by too large a section of the Labour group to stand a realistic chance and outside bets of Jowell, Mandelson and Burnham probably don't stand up
to closer scrutiny.

Darling has ruled himself out, not that Labour would
accept another Scottish leader anyway which, in turn, scuppers any remote dreams that Dougie Alexander may have held.

And that's that unless I'm missing anyone.

Labour leader Miliband would be a rewarding sight indeed but Prime Minister Miliband would leave me shortchanged.

Whatever happens, with this noble and welcome decision, Brown has ensured the next few days, weeks and months won't be dull. While he is on holiday, the rest of us may be faced with a basket case.

Are Ming and Charlie working against Scotland's claim of right?

The Liberal Democrats will continue negotiations with the Conservatives over the weekend as a direct result of Nick Clegg's decision that he should first negotiate with the party leader whose party had won the most votes and seats rather than follow the convention that dictates that the existing Prime Minister should have the first opportunity to form a stable administration.

Amongst the Lib Dems' less-than-expected 57 MPs are Charlie Kennedy and Menzies Campbell. Leading their party is not the only thing the 2 MPs have in common as both men have also signed the Scottish Claim of Right which, among other affirmations, includes the following:

"We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount."

A Tory administation, it is safe to assume, is not one of Scotland's needs and, were Menzies Campbell MP and Charles Kennedy MP to assist in creating a Conservative Government, one would have to assume that neither man was considering the interests of the Scottish people as being "paramount".

There is an opportunity at the moment to form a Progressive Alliance coalition that will benefit all of the UK, both geographically and hierarchally. A continuation of the fiscal stimulus, a necessary delay to cuts and a commitment to Europe and social mobility that the Tories can't match. Britain's future hangs in the balance.

The Progressive Alliance would involve 47 democratically elected Scottish Labour and SNP MPs and a Tory administration would involve just 1 Scottish Tory MP.

The Scottish people have spoken and it's clear what they have said. Consequently, it is clear that Ming and Charlie need to consider why they signed the Scottish Claim of Right and consider very carefully consider whether they can support Nick Clegg if he in turn ends up supporting David Cameron.
involve 1 Scottish Tory MP

GE2010 - A mighty hand or a mighty blow for the SNP?

With Nick Clegg continuing to consult, mull and barter over David Cameron's "big, open and comprehensive" offer, a process that Nick Robinson believes must be torture, the chances of another election happening in the near future remain high.

Sure, there might be agreement on green issues, civil liberties, education and even the £10k income tax policy, but I just can't see the Lib Dems wanting to sign up to the savage Tory cuts (which will be all the more savage if this £17bn/year tax cut for middle-income earners is delivered).

A second General Election, in the British tradition of hung Parliaments, is the most likely result but what if, as is perfectly possible, this second election were to take place in early May 2011, the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections?

For me it would serve a body blow to the SNP's chances of a second term as voters would struggle to decouple their Weatminster and Holyrood voting intentions.

When the English and Welsh public took to the polls on Thursday, it is surely undoubtedly true that there was a strong correlation between the national vote and the council vote. With Holyrood's precarious breakdown of seats, even a small impact from the pro-Labour/anti-Tory vote would be enough to deny the SNP forming the next Scottish Government. Or Scottish Executive as it may going back to being called.

Can the SNP really retake Glenrothes at Holyrood when Labour takes 62% of the vote in the General Election? Same for Kilmarnock & Loudon and Labour's 53%? Same for Livingston and Labour's 48%? Same for Ayrshire North & Arran and Labour's 47%? Same for Edinburgh East and Labour's 43%?

Alex Salmond may have claimed that the General Election 2010 has delivered him a mighty hand but if we're going to do it all again in May 2011, heat find that Cameron's inability to form a majority Government is really an almighty blow.

Losing seats doesn't necessarily make you the loser

I read with interest Ben Brogan’s clearly exasperated take on the election result:

What we should all focus on is the message emerging from Brown Central, that a deal between the two big losers – Labour and Lib Dems – is possible, and could even include a new Labour leader to make it "acceptable". The idea that we would be governed by a coalition of losers led by someone who was not among the three leaders who paraded themselves on telly should have us reaching for our pitchforks.

Speaking in terms of ‘winners and losers’ is a rather American, bone-headed way of putting it.
 
Had Blair lost 90 seats in 2001 and Hague gained 90, by Brogan’s logic, Blair would have been the loser despite still having an outright majority. It’s not the direction of travel that matters but the final result and, to me, it looks like the progressive lefties have it over the gnarly righties.
 
Clearly, having lost so many seats, the Labour and Lib Dem camps are less winning than they were in times gone by but that doesn’t rule them out as the eventual winners. If you don’t have the magic 326, then you don’t get to crown yourself the winner in this particular business.
 
The media/Tory putsch has to end. If you don’t have the seats and you can’t form an agreement with the other parties, then you don’t get to crown yourself the winner, you don’t get to govern.

Three General Elections in one year?

When the 2007 result for the Holyrood election came in, I didn’t think I would see a tighter parliamentary breakdown for a very long time but I may have to revise that expectation.
 
The 2010 General Election is proving to be a true humdinger as the last few seats trickle in and the parties jostle for position.
 
The Conservatives form the largest bloc of seats but are just short of forming a majority even taking into account the Speaker (if he gets back in), his deputies and Sinn Fein effectively being excused from service, not to mention the DUP who may team up with Cameron. This leaves the unlikely prospect of the Lib Dems or the Celtic SNP/PC bloc making up the rest of the MPs needed to form an effective majority.
 
Nick Clegg has just now announced that he will talk to the Conservatives first with a view to a stable administration being formed. That is absolutely the right thing to do given the Conservatives won the most votes and the most seats. However, nothing will come of it. Clegg can’t realistically abandon his pledge to change the voting system and the Tories won’t accept a referendum on First Past the Post. That alone will be enough to scupper a deal without Trident, tax and cuts being taken into consideration.
 
Gordon Brown, true to form, is already manoeuvring to hold onto power regardless. He instructed Jack McConnell to form an alliance with the Lib Dems to keep Alex Salmond out in 2007 and he is clearly trying to do the same now to keep Cameron out.
 
It won’t work.
 
For a start, Labour and the Lib Dems do not have enough seats between them. 299 at the time of writing which is way short of the requisite 326. Brown has been humbled and Cleggmania is well and truly over. We can forget about a progressive coalition this time around.
 
With neither the Tories nor Lab/Libs having enough seats to form a majority and little chance of the fishing into Nationalist/Green/Northern Irish camps producing the catch of stable government, we will have another election before 2010 is out.
 
However, there is a clear appetite for an end to First Past the Post. ‘We cannot go on like this’ rings ironically true in light of the result where Lib Dems can fall 7% shy of Labour but still be 200 seats behind them.
 
So we should have a referendum on proportional representation but, as seems likely, if no stable administration can be formed this referendum will run simultaneous with another General Election. In the event of the referendum carrying in favour of a new voting system, surely that means we’ll have to have a third Westminster contest in less than a year based on that new system?
 
As someone who thoroughly enjoys the high drama of election night, who wants to see a Miliband give Cameron a real challenge and longs to see a bit more excitement north of the border with seats changing hands, I’d have to say that three General Elections wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

I love the smell of democracy in the morning

I don't know about you, but it doesn't yet feel like we've woken up to a Tory United Kingdom. We may yet but when one of the highlights of the night is Lembit Opik being 'decapitated'/put out of his misery/put out of OUR misery, you've got to think that there hasn't been as seismic a shift in the balance of power as some may have hoped.

Certainly, Downing Street made its intentions known by leaking very early on that it would seek to form a deal to stay on in some shape or form but if the Tories fall 10 or 20 seats then one can't see a PM Cameron, at least in the short term till another election takes place. Great to see the Greens revieip first MP. And second if one was to include Zac Goldsmith who I'm as delighted to see win through in Richmond Park (while not ruling out a disillusioned defection later in the term).

In Scotland, it seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. Barely a challenge to the 2005 results was made with the incumbency factor showing that Scotland doesn't fancy change just yet.

Quite simply, the intention to shut the Tories out blew away any other considerations such as Cleggmania, local champions or expenses debacles. Labours rule of Scotland continues completely untroubled.

In terms of each of the parties north of the border, there's no doubting who had the best night. Jim Murphy saw off the now laughable suggestions that he'd be defeated with some 20% to spare and much more marginal seats were carried with similar ease. East Lothian, Livingston, Dundee West, Linlithgow and Edinburgh South, East and North & Leith are as solid Labour strongholds as they ever were.

For the SNP, its fortunes are in many ways inversely proportional to that of Labour's. No gains to speak of, Glasgow East wrenched frustratingly from their grasp with ease and barely came close to landing a glove on anyone anywhere in the country, even going backwards in some instances. That left Mike Russell, Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond left with little else but to continue complaining about their unfair exclusion from the tv debates. It was a hollow explanation for their loss and perhaps they would have been better served suggesting that together with Labour they helped keep the Tory threat out. It was lefties vs righties and the lefties won. And anyway, the real battle between Labour and the SNP is next year at Holyrood and if the swing from the Lib Dems in Gordon is anything to by, the Nats are in good shape.

The Lib Dems didn't fulfil their fleeting potential. From the unlikely Glasgow North to the odds-on Edinburgh South, they missed every target and wasted a good bit of money in the process.

The Tories had perhaps the worst night and will steal most of of the Scottish headlines if they form the UK Goverment but have only 1 out of 59 MPs up in Scotland. 'Goldie must go' may be the conclusion but I'm not convinced the blame lies at her door. The Scottish Conservatives have some long overdue blue sky thinking to do and to pin that down on one person would to misunderstand the pickle they are in.

It was suggested by a certain Labour Minister that the British people have spoken but they don't know what they've said. I strongly suspect that it may end up being this chap in particular who will tell us for us.
And as the pound continues to slide, they'd all better start clearing their throats.

Anyway, time for a coffee. That 'respectable hour' didn't quite work out in the end.

If you don't want to know the score, go to bed now

Elections, as my chosen tagline goes, are the greatest spectator sport in the world. Even with a World Cup looming large this summer I stand by that assertion.
 
However, despite waiting five long years for this one to come around, I’ll be going to bed at a reasonable hour tonight and missing out on swingometers, exit polls and Dimblebys (unless the plural of Dimbleby is actually Dimblebi, or Dimblebice even. Where’s Stephen Fry when you need him…?)
 
I’ll catch a few results, of course, but tomorrow is a frightfully busy day for me work-wise, which is merely second priority as it is also a very special someone’s birthday. Being a zombie for all of Friday for the sake of seeing Harrow East and Norwich North results come in live are clearly neither in my domestic nor business interests. A badly timed, sleep-wrecking meringue on Tuesday night has already set my body clock back a few hours anyway. Basically I’m in desperately poor shape going into this twilight’s proceedings.
 
So no liveblogging here I’m afraid but I have every confidence that Malc in the Burgh and J Arthur MacNumpty (to name but two of my favourite writers out there) will fill that gap in the Scottish blogging scene more than admirably.
 
For the record, my predictions are:
 
Lab - 32 seats (41%)
SNP – 13 seats (22%)
Lib Dems – 14 seats (19%)
Tory - 0 seats (14%)
Others - 0 seats (4%)
 
However the night pans out, I hope you feel staying up late was worth the risks and for anyone who staunchly disagreed with my somewhat aborted SeatWatch series, I prefer my humble pie in cherry flavour, thanks.
 
 
(Note – if any comrade-driven, Greek-style riots in the event of a Tory landslide could be held back until 7am, particularly in Hornsey and Wood Green, that would be much appreciated. Also, if you could leave the Northern Line (Bank branch) relatively untouched that’d be great too. Go daft on the Charing Cross branch...)
 
Also, best wishes to Nigel Farage and his pilot. A sad sight and story for one of the UK’s most colourful and combative politicians. Hopefully there’ll be a fairytale ending for the man and he can walk into the Buckingham count tomorrow to experience in the flesh a stunning victory over Speaker Bercow.

Waiting for the green man

I was happy with my choice, I really was. I know the Greens will finish 4th in my constituency but it wasn't going to stop me. 'Vote Lib Dem for change', 'Vote Labour to stop the Tories', ''Vote Tory to get Gordon out', it was all water off a duck's back, I was impenetrable and fast becoming impervious. And then Franny Armstrong came along, Franny being the Director of The Age of Stupid.

Her argument in The Guardian goes that the Tories have such lamentable prospects on facing up to climate change and we only have one parliamentary term left to stabilise carbon emissions that we don't all get to ignore tactical voting this time around. Specifically, in my Labour/Lib Dem marginal seat it has been suggested that I vote for Labour, despite being (by most accounts) the third most attractive option on the ballot slip from an environmental point of view.

If only Gordon Brown had arranged some sort of quid pro quo deal whereby Caroline Lucas got to be on the Cabinet in exchange for some Green tactical voting.

So Labour or Green? I never thought it would come down to this. Looks like I have some thinking to do...


UPDATE: I made my mind up and I won't be difficult to work out which way I'll be voting. I do sit near a Brighton Pavilion constituent who'll be voting Tory so I may end up offering a vote swap which will return the blog to blue for today...

To what extent will the future reflect the current campaign?

Do you remember, despite the years of plotting and backstabbing, the bizarre suddenness of Gordon Brown being Prime Minister after Tony Blair left the stage? Do you recall the uneasy newness of Gordon and Sarah standing at Number 10, not sure who should step over the threshold first?
 
Well, we’re due that moment again very soon with PM Cameron taking up the reins in the next few days or weeks and, despite polls that have shown convincing double digit leads for the man (which should really have prepared us for this looming moment), I daresay many will nonetheless be jolted by the unfamiliarity of it all and taking the sight of the new administration in with unshakeable, unpalatable unease.
 
For this lack of readiness we only have ourselves and our limited imaginations to blame but what about the detail of what will follow? Surely we can comfort ourselves with the fact that we know in advance what is in store? No?
 
The ‘emergency budget’ is the biggest issue that faces us immediately following the election result. What will be in it? ‘Efficiency savings’, sure, but we don’t really know, even now, what that will actually entail. Despite Cameron’s boast that his party has revealed more detail than any Opposition in modern times we’re still going to be hit with a VAT rise or a dramatic cut to a well-known public service that we simply didn’t see coming. Cuts not seen since World War 2 is how the IFS rather terrifyingly put it and the Tory party has still to indulge us with the news of where ~80% of those cuts will fall. It’s beginning to all sound a bit real, and not a little bit clammy.
 
How quickly will our future be out of our hands and in the control of the select few Conservative party’s elite who, in the grand scheme of things, were never really properly scrutinised despite an interminably long unofficial election campaign of some, what, two years?
 
How silly will bigot-gate seem then? Or that Labour PPC who slagged off Gordon Brown? Or celebrities backing candidates or ‘Fire up the Quattro’ or Cleggmania or all the other ‘highlights’ in these last four weeks that will wither away into nothingness? We should flog ourselves for being distracted, so easily entertained, once a Tory administration is formed and we have to lie back and take the unknown medicine for our financial profligacy.
 
Let’s face it, it was more of a fight than some of us may have dared hope for, but anti-politics and Rupert Murdoch won this election campaign in the end.
 
We were never really given a proper clue as to what the future Government of the UK would do next to wrestle down the enormous deficit. That was never part of any of any of the main parties’ strategy. The blame for that can be shared equally between the politicians, the media and us for our capricious lack of capacity in ultimately failing to demand extensive answers to the relevant questions.
 
We step into the unknown from tomorrow and that may be thrilling for some but on the day that the UK officially became the country with the worst deficit in Europe and three Greeks died horribly in a burning bank, I have a horrid feeling that we’re all going to look back at #GE2010 and feel that we all came up a little bit short with what was required of us.
 
Britain’s collective decision-making was only ever skin deep and the resulting punishment will cut to the bone. We’re not ready. Despite it all, we’re still not ready.
 
Cuts as bad as Thatcher’s Darling warned. Did we ever truly fully digest that warning? Is there any way to avoid the backlash, the strikes and riots that many are predicting?
 
We’ll find out soon I suppose but there’s no escaping that we’ve been treated as fools and quite rightly too as, well, we foolishly let them do it.