Compromising on crime

The Scottish Parliament votes this week on measures to tackle reoffending in its Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill. The SNP are promoting a presumption against sentences of six months or less though has had to compromise down to three months in the face of opposition objections.
 
The Scottish Tories in turn may have to compromise on their ‘old-skool’ approach as a result of the UK Tories (in the shape of Ken Clarke) voicing support for an overhaul of prisons to end the mere ‘warehousing of people’, a stance similar to that of the SNP’s.
 
Labour’s rather uncompromising contribution is to insist on mandatory six month sentences for knife carriers, continuing the recent party trend of not wishing to appear soft on crime, whatever the cost.
 
Were Labour and the Tories to vote against the Bill, the message would be that opposition is easy. You can object to the Government’s plans without the responsibility of having your own half-baked ideas put to the test. New prisons to back up Labour’s tougher stance would cost tens of millions, money that just isn’t there to be spent. You can’t compromise on crime some may say but with 25% cuts on the way, I would suggest that you’re going to have to.
 
And anyway, if rehabilitation and community payback is more effective, cheaper and increases the probability of offenders turning a corner and not reoffending then I’m all for it and struggle to see a downside. Locking up a reoffender for six months would just delay the reoffending. An attempt at tackling the root of the problem will always be a more laudable aim.
 
And at the end of the day, if bitter old foes the SNP and Tories are coming to the same conclusion, then there’s more than a decent shout that it’s the right way to go.
 
 
However, that comes with one personally feeling compromised, thanks in no small part to the blurring of the old left-right spectrum. My lenient, liberal views on crime now has me aligned with the Conservatives!?
 
Well, Ken Clarke at least. Let’s not get carried away…

Edinburgh Trams

Making it as far as York with his ragtag army was a triumph for William Wallace. Making it only as far as York Place with their ragtag trams would be a humiliating failure for Edinburgh Council.
 
Thankfully, despite headlines suggesting otherwise, the Edinburgh Trams team insists that the full line to Newhaven will be built. There is no doubt that the project is struggling to avoid hitting the buffers though.
 
Of the financial and aesthetic mess that Edinburgh’s streets find themselves in, it is the lack of surprise that grates the most given that one aspires to be as optimistic as possible about what Edinburgh can achieve. I do believe that the genuine outrage that owners of small businesses (in Leith particularly) must feel is fully justified and should be acted on. Some streets in that part Auld Reekie were positively ghostly while the lines for these phantom trams were being built. I don’t know how a business can survive when footfall drops some 70%-80% for a significant period of time and, of course, many didn’t and have since gone to the wall. They are the victims in a battle that as yet has produced few heroes.
 
That said, I was a late convert to the tram project once it was fully explained to me and I remain so. There are three streets in Leith that are very close to breaching EU limits on traffic pollution and if plans go ahead for an extra 15,000 homes down at The Shore then petrol-driven cars and buses won’t be able to cut the transport needs alone. Edinburgh is a world-class city, a cultural melting pot and a true business hub so it should be striding into the 21st century and trams would help it to do so. So too would a dedicated system of cycle lanes but, well, one step at a time I suppose.
 
I do think that the popular counter-argument of ‘Why have trams when we have perfectly good buses?’ misses the point entirely given the environmental aspect of this project. Trams are cheaper, quicker and greener and, crucially, people will give up commuting in their cars for trams while they would, snobbishly but no less pollutingly, turn their noses up at the bus. You see it down here in London all the time, people who refuse to take the bus but have no quarrel with the sleek, urban, quick Underground. We’re basically compromising for posers but what can you do?
 
Indeed, to highlight the gaps in the pro-bus/anti-tram argument, were one to propose scrapping the expensive London Underground because there’s “a perfectly good bus network” you’d be laughed out of the Mayoral contest. We know trams work because cities that have them use them, enjoy them and would never scrap them. It’s just building the blinking things that’s the problem. Edinburgh may have to take a little bit longer and wear its belt a little bit tighter in order to get there, but get there we must.
 
Of course, being in favour of the trams doesn’t necessarily mean that one doesn’t think they should be scrapped on economic grounds. And, conversely, one can think bringing them in was a bad idea in theory but now that £300+m has been spent we should push on regardless.
 
For me, one fundamental error in this project was that the SNP were never in favour of it so should have stepped away from being part of its delivery. It was always going to arouse too much suspicion when the most vocal opponents of the project were ultimately tasked with its realisation. As some have said – ‘Get onboard or get out of the way’.
 
A referendum on whether the project should go ahead is surely a non-starter and a bit of a cop-out. Those elected to lead should do so and use the information that they are privy to in order to come to a majority view and then press on.
 
The news that the next decision on this project will come in two long months’ time is worrying though. It seems that what the trams themselves possess in dynamism, modernity and speed, those who are tasked with delivering them lack.
 
 
To sum up the way ahead one must turn again to the trailblazing William Wallace:
 
Aye, build them and you may be skint. Scrap them, and you'll save... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the bus-driven days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our councillors that they may make excuses, but they must also make... OUR TRAMS!

(What do you mean cringeworthy…?)

Lies, damned lies and GERS reports

I am going to caveat this post with the frank admission that I’ve never really known what the GERS report is, let alone how the detail stacks up.
 
Some SNP members tend to get very excited by what these reports shows and ‘unionists’ do appear hesitantly fearful of them but, that said, it has always looked like the kind of report that you could shake around to give whatever answer you wanted and that certainly seems to ring true every time its publication makes the news with both Nationalists and Unionists crying in rare unison ‘You see, these numbers back up what we’ve been saying’. It doesn’t really leave relative ignoramus’ like me any the wiser.
 
However, despite my interest in politics not extending to wading through appendices of government reports to see which side of the war of words is correct, the clear conclusion (that seems to have been accepted by both sides) is that Scotland has been running a surplus for four years in a row now, which was a very pleasant surprise for me personally I have to say. This is particularly heartening given that we’ve come through a recession in that period and (bank-saving to one side, though I have little doubt RBS and HBOS would have been safe had we been an independent EU-state), Scotland would have been just fine if standing alone or as standing as part of the UK. We have a robust economy whichever way the recessionary wind blows. Many will point to the £3.8bn deficit in this report as evidence that Scotland couldn’t make a fist of independence but that number looks positively tiny against the £96.1bn deficit quoted for the UK.
 
Although this kind of detail should form the backbone of any persuasive case a proponent of independence would make, a comment after an earlier post from Indy probably rings true (despite my protestations), that a groundswell of popular support for going it alone won’t come off the back of an NPV calculation for North Sea Oil or an £xbn surplus/deficit argument, but rather from Scots moving from “accepting that decisions will generally be taken for us to believing that decisions should be taken by us”. Such a belief will not generally be shaken by GERS reports, whatever they may say, or be claimed to say.
 
So Homecoming festivals and national sporting achievements will continue to trump GERS reports in the constitutional battle for hearts and minds but, still, if any decision on independence will ultimately be economically flimsy, it is nice to know that the numbers seem to stack up in Scotland’s favour anyway and, crucially, that fiscal autonomy for Holyrood is an even more convincing proposal than it has been before.
 
The Scotland Act is due to be debated at Westminster this Autumn I believe and the reasons against fiscal autonomy which one can only predict will be put forward by the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems need to be analysed in fine detail by our popular press.
 
A Government report showing Scotland had a significant surplus won’t be enough to swing the country in favour of independence but it could just shore up opinion enough to take a significant step in that direction.

Scotland's Budget Headache

So the numbers are in and we now know what the impact of yesterday’s budget will be in Scotland. Those who are adverse to ~£5bn cuts should look away now.
 
Yes, the block grant to Scotland will fall by £4.8bn by 2014/15, once the delayed ~£300m cut from last year is taken into account. This is estimated to be around 16% of the Scottish budget and will ensure many a late night for John Swinney as he tries to balance the books while minimising job losses not just for next year but the years beyond, though of course that task may fall to a Finance Secretary from another party after May 2011.
 
The worrying aspect of this situation that we find ourselves in is that, depending on your geography and partisan outlook, you could paint these cuts as Tory/Lib Dem cuts, SNP cuts or Labour cuts and winning the public round to your particular point of view on that score may be the extent of some politicians’ efforts.
 
Tory/Lib Dem cuts because, of course, they came from a George Osborne budget backed by Chief Treasurer Danny Alexander and the Lib/Con coalition at large.
 
SNP cuts because the decision over where this £4.8bn axe will fall is up to the Scottish Government.
 
Labour cuts because it was over the past 13 years that the monstrous ~£155bn deficit was built up.
 
It’s pretty clear what is coming then, a heck of a lot of finger-pointing and not very much progress in a Battle Royale blame game.
 
As Scottish Secretary Michael Moore puts it: “Doing nothing in the face of a £155bn deficit is simply not an option. We have to stop spending money that we don’t have.” A welcome and clear communication from Scotland’s man at Westminster if you ask me.
 
So all parties at Holyrood need to get real and start coming up with specific ideas on where savings can be made. Maybe Scottish Water does need to be sold off? Maybe the £2bn Forth Road Crossing doesn’t need to be built? Maybe an asset sell-off is required? Maybe we should sell-and-leaseback the Holyrood building? A culture of no idea being too ridiculous needs to be fostered and parties should resist the temptation of tearing strips off a rival for no constructive gain. The public and media at large can play a part too by responding, at the ballot box or otherwise, to positivity rather than negativity.
 
It won’t be easy and it’s difficult to admit but Scotland is sinking, sinking from a general lack of entrepreneurship and from existing companies having to scrap tooth and nail with the dwindling number of Scottish bank managers to secure existing and/or extra funding to keep their going concerns going.
 
Personally, I think pensions and salaries hold the key to Scotland getting through this. There are fair pensions and then there are ludicrously over-the-top pensions. There must be a line that can be redrawn whereby the former are left untouched and the latter have their agreements ripped up in the interests of fairness. Private personal pensions are one thing but civil servants near-bankrupting a nation just to live a life of luxury has to end. No more golden hellos, no more golden goodbyes and no more pension pots that would make a Sultan blush. I maintain that an equal pension for public servants whether they clean the streets or run a Government department is an excellent solution, a solution that is already in practise in many Scandinavian businesses.
 
Further to this, (while I’m on this pedestal I might aswell use it!), I reckon Scots need to strongly consider buying Scottish. The pride in local produce down here in the South is palpably stronger than up North. It goes beyond Kent strawberries, Cornish cream, South Downs lamb and has extended to Londoners eschewing the Marlboroughs and the Chablis to buy English wine. English wine! Who’d have thought it, but that’s the spirit that can turn a local economy around. It’s not necessarily protectionism, we’ll still lap up as much Made in China clothing and Made in America fast-food as before but local areas have to box a little bit smarter by linking up the state of their local economies with local decisions made by local people.
 
I was going to say that, with the right approach and a fair deal for all, Scotland could be a well-oiled machine but when working together rather than against each other is the necessary call, it is probably best to leave ‘oil’ out of it, for now.
 
So all in all, a tough job for John Swinney and although the Finance Secretary is more than up to the task, I just hope that all parties step up to the plate in this coming election year and don’t lose sight of the big picture amongst the tribalism and lowest-common-denominator politics that can so often be on show in our youthful Parliament.

Lib Dem evasion and honesty avoidance

The news and blogs are, quite rightly, all over the VAT bombshell poster that the Lib Dems deployed during the election campaign but have now come full circle on by backing Osborne's 'emergency' budget. It's behaviour that someone with even a passing interest in politics would know is typical from the Lib Dems.

That said, one can't be too harsh. Labour would have pushed up VAT too despite their howls of anguish and Nick Clegg isn't running a majority Government here, he's not going to like every output from the coalition and he did score a massive win with the changes to income tax that will remove many from paying it altogether.

However, the delivery of this manifesto commitment obscures another bit of, let's say, jiggery pokery.

In the Lib Dem manifesto it was claimed that this policy would be mostly paid for by a mansion tax and a crackdown on tax evasion.

I thought at the time that the Lib Dem sums didn't add up and it seems George Osborne agreed. If closing gaps in the tax system could reap billions of pounds a year then the Chancellor would have announced so yesterday.

So from VAT to cracking down on tax dodgers, the Lib Dem evasiveness lives on.

Osborne kills off the Tartan Tiger

A quick point on today’s budget and the news that Corporation Tax will be reducing to 24% over the next four years.
 
One of the main advantages of an independent Scotland we have been told is that we could reduce the tax bill for local or incoming businesses in order to give us a competitive edge in Europe, similar to how Ireland did with much success in the past decade. However, with corporation tax now being reduced, an independent Scotland would have to get down to the sub-20% levels before it could entice company HQs to set up north of the border which just seems too low a base to build a new country from.
 
With HBOS effectively no longer with us, the crippled RBS owned by the Government, oil running out, a heavy public sector, Scotland’s economy trailing the rest of the UK and now little scope for that tax-light Celtic Tiger that First Minister Salmond likes to talk about, it looks like the economy is killing off the dwindling selling points for independence one by one.

Will the Tories throw the babies out with the bathwater?

Big day today. Huge day. Personally I think Mexico have it in them to turn Uruguay over but we'll find out from 3pm I suppose.

Other big news will come in the form of George Osborne's emergency budget around noon. No doubt the headlines will revolve around VAT rises, income tax changes and a raiding of public sector pensions.

However, one very specific area that I will be looking out for is parental leave. Will Osborne's cuts extend to stripping back the current level of paternal and maternal leave that we enjoy in this country? We shall see.

Labour had made good progress in advancing the relatively cheap policy of extending such leave (which has considerable societal benefits) and they had promised to go even further if re-elected.

This bellweather issue can help to show where the new coalition's values really lie. I just hope all those babies aren't thrown out in the budget bathwater.

Is that a scalpel you have in your pocket George or are you just pleased to see us?

Imagine visiting the doctor due to feeling deeply unwell and the doctor's initial prognosis was that he would have to chop your arm off only for the final decision to be a series of painful, but not limb reducing, injections. Relatively speaking you'd be rather relieved, perhaps even delighted, and you'd heartily bring on those injections conscious that it could have been a lot worse.

I fear a similar sleight of scalpel is currently on show as George Osborne, David Cameron and even Nick Clegg sombrely peer up at us from behind Treasury papers, shake their heads and lament that the pain will be brutal.

The Observer may be unknowingly and certainly unwillingly aiding and abetting in this charade, leaking as it does the news that Tuesday's emergency budget may see "an £85bn package of savings and tax rises". That is a seismic block of cash and seems unlikely. No wonder the Chancellor has felt the need to call Tuesday an "emergency" when really all that is required is calm management of a perfectly manageable situation. This is not a 999 budget and nor should it be presented as one.

However, even if, as I suspect, George Osborne doesn't cut our arms off on Tuesday, there may be some questionable decisions made nonetheless.

The sudden, reckless dumping of the Keynsian stimulus package on the lazy assumption that the private sector can hold up the slack is one thing but significant VAT rises when the economy, and the banking sector in particular, is allowed to continue the same risk-based casino capitalism approach to business would be bizarre. We surely can't continue having billions sloshing around amongst hedge funds, investment banker bonuses, Corporate pension pots and trader derivatives while the lowest slice of the working population loses out on thousands of jobs as they take one for the team. That's not 'we're all in this together', that's not 'fairness'.

Speaking of which, where is Nick Clegg in all of this, where is Vince Cable, where is Chris Huhne. Well, better not answer that last one.

The Liberal Democrats hold the balance of power when it comes to voting for this package and silent, meek acquiescence is insufficient on a nation-defining decision such as this. A simple fix for the defcit which is straining under public sector retirement plans is a flat pension. Everyone pays in the same percentage of gross salary and everyone takes out the same living pension upon retirement, irrespective of whether you run the civil service or sweep the streets. Of course you can top that flat pension with a private one if you wish. That's fairness, that's the kind of new Politics I had hoped Nick Clegg would be all about.

An absurdity beyond Lib Dem complicity in fast, deep Tory cuts is that Tuesday's announcement, billed as saving the UK from ruin, is that Scotland is somewhere between insulated and exempt from the pain, depending on whether fiscal autonomy is realised. A full year Holyrood will have to wait before cuts will be realised and I bet many a Government department would love to have that same luxury of delay. And if a one year delay is considered small beer then it's worth remembering that that is the extent of the powers of your average Lord, a House that does need its arms metaphorically chopped off if you ask me.
Anyway, the time is now and the decision is seemingly Osborne's to make so hopefully the scare stories will remain just that and George secretly knows that the nation's finances are not in as parlous a state as the Tories are making out and he will keep his scalpel in his deep pocket and leave our arms alone.

You ain't nothin' but a Huhne dog

There's a fairly simple choice that all people in committed, closed relationships must make: either love and be true to the one you're with or explain why that's no longer possible and move on to the single life or pastures new.

That's the deal, that's the compromise and we all know it. There should be no overlap, trying partners is not like trying cars.

Chris Huhne, as the News of the World will splash tomorrow (no doubt in inglorious detail), has had his 'secret lover' revealed to the nation. Even though the story is patently not in the public interest, the real issue for me is why anyone would leave themselves vulnerable to their private life being dragged into the public eye. Let's be honest, it's pretty poor form to only decide to separate from your wife once you've been caught out by News of the World.

At the end of the day, it is none of our business and if a magic wand could be waved I would be in favour of it erasing tomorrow's headlines and all of us being none the wiser but News of the World made the call and went with it.

Considering this issue, and the David Laws issue, there is perhaps a question to be asked that if a politician is so dishonest in their private life then can he/she be trusted in their public life? One would think that a person would have a greater duty of care to their friends and family after all so a person would in theory think less of massaging the truth in a news interview if they'd happily live a double life away from their spouse or immediate family.

Added to that, Chris Huhne knows how the press works and if he didn't do the right thing for personal reasons, he should have done the right thing for political reasons.

It's none of my business, but it could have and should have been avoided.

Lib Dems announce Edinburgh Central shortlist

The shortlist for the Lib Dem target seat of Edinburgh Central has been announced and it’s an intriguingly slim four names that are on it.
 
Stephen Glenn, Scottish blogger extraordinaire, is on there, fresh from his Linlithgow and East Falkirk canvassing exploits from the Westminster campaign but it is former Big Brother contestant John Loughton who, somewhat depressingly I have to say, is stealing the headlines. I agree that if you’re good enough then you’re old enough but this stunning self-belief that John thinks that he deserves a fast-track into the top tier (*cough*) of politics is startling. Call me old-fashioned but I like to think that before you decide the rules for a country, you have to have lived a little yourself. Even the well-trodden, reasearcher, councillor, politican route is preferable to going straight in at the deep end off the back of a television show.
 
Anyway, I’m sure John is talented enough and in it for the right reasons so I shouldn’t be too down on his ambitions.
 
Alex-Cole Hamilton and Beverley Hope (former Edinburgh North & Leith and Edinburgh East candidates respectively) make up the foursome and although there does seem to be an element of shuffling the same names around the different constituencies for the Lib Dems, one can hardly pin the blame for that on those who do choose to be put forward if there is a general lack of interest from Scots to get involved with all parties. It’s hardly a symptom that is specific to the Lib Dems after all.
 
According to those who understand boundary changes better than I, this should be a bit of a shoo-in for whoever wins the candidacy for the Liberal Democrats and I have heard that the SNP candidate from last time has effectively thrown in the towel. However, if it does become a two-horse race, I reckon Sarah Boyack can use her incumbency and experience to great effect, particularly if taking on the 22-year old John Loughton.
 
I’d love to see Stephen Glenn get the nod though so good luck to him for the coming contest but Edinburgh Central is Labour’s to lose as far as I can see.
 
 
 
My prediction is, and it’s not based on much I have to confess, is that Bev Hope will win through to take the PPC spot.

What would an England World Cup triumph mean for Scotland?

Despite a Green spillage that resulted in the most remarkable outpouring of media hyperbole since, well, BP's spillage, England still remain serious contenders to lift the 2010 World Cup.

Brazil looked a bit shaky, Italy look past it, Spain are suffering a 2nd El Crisis, Argentina will surely suffer a Maradona-induced implosion and Germany flattered to deceive against a weak Aussie side. This is all to overlook the delightful news that it's almost au revoir to France already.

So England are very much in the mix, particularly given their relatively easier route to the semis if they beat Algeria tonight and Slovenia next week.

So what would a long-awaited and loudly-trumpeted win for England mean for Scotland?

Well, the first instinct is to say nothing, that an England win would be met with the same indifference as a Brazil or France win but this is surely infeasible given that we share islands and a country.

One possible scenario is that it instils a healthier rivalry that kickstarts a sporting renaissance in Scotland built around aiming to outperform our competitors rather than hoping they may sink to our level. A belief that it's 'our turn' and not just footballers but rugby players and aspiring Olympians may see an extra spring in their step. Andy Murray, needless to say, would have the bit between his teeth for Wimbledon. Further to that, we may finally strongly consider where we have genuine world class contributions to make from our mountain biking tracks to our surfing spots, from out wind-powered water sports to, um, elephant polo.

Another prospect would be that Scotland would get down on itself, even more so than usual. A slight bitterness borne out of a personal, misplaced awkwardness with a national squad that hasn't qualified for a major tournament since 1998.

I say misplaced because I don't know of many countries with a population of 5million or so who qualified this time around, certainly not from Europe. But then, is that my negativity kicking in before England are even out of the group stages?

Of the three potential outcomes: nothing, positivity and negativity, it is surely the middle one that would serve Scotland best if it involved kids (and adults) picking up a ball, bat or racquet and trying to conquer the world.

2011 - The challenge for the SNP

Being 80% of the way through the current term of the Scottish Parliament, many minds will soon be focussing on next year’s Holyrood elections and the Scottish press and blogs will ratchet up to fever pitch with comment and speculation, the big question inevitably being whether the SNP can win a second term by remaining the largest party.
 
Strictly on current polling evidence, that won’t happen and we can look forward to First Minister Iain Gray running a minority administration or a coalition with the Lib Dems and/or Greens.
 
The latest poll showed voting intentions of:
 
Constituency Vote
Labour – 45%
SNP – 29%
Conservatives – 13%
Lib Dems – 12%
 
Regional Vote
Labour – 41%
SNP – 28%
Conservatives – 13%
Lib Dems – 12%
Greens – ?%
 
Many of a Nationalist bent will lament the supposed unthinking behaviour of fellow Scots in falling behind Labour in considerable numbers again. I would personally warn against such complacency.
 
The simple fact that Scots have voted in an SNP Government means that the old adage that 'parts of Scotland would vote for a donkey in a red rosette' no longer rings true. The SNP is being weighed, it is being tested and, for now at least, it is being found wanting. The silver lining is that, as yet, the Labour Shadow Cabinet has not even been weighed in the public’s mind, let alone tested or wanted.
 
So why are, if this latest poll is to be believed, Scots coming 'home' to Labour? Particularly when the SNP enjoyed such enormous poll leads only a year ago?
 
The main reason stems from the unavoidable notion that, in Scotland at least, an anti-Tory vote is a Labour vote. We’ve seen it over the decades and we saw it decisively in the last election when Labour increased their vote without any particular message to sell to the population.
 
Now, the Conservatives are not competing to be the largest party at Holyrood and nor are they even competing to be a coalition partner, reluctantly accepting their position as Parliament pariahs, so what difference should an anti-Tory vote make in devolved Scotland?
 
Well, for the first time since the Scottish Parliament took its first tentative steps into the world of national democracy, we are holding elections against the backdrop of a Conservative administration at Westminster. Puritans can wish all they like that Scots will vote with only devolved matters in mind but the reality will be far from the case and for many voters wishing to protest at Prime Minister Cameron being in Number 10, a Labour vote will be the automatic choice.
 
This was meant to be the perfect storm: the Tories at Westminster, the SNP in Holyrood, constitutional change on the table as an issue. Far from the population falling behind the Nats, it is Labour who seem to be reaping the rewards.
 
Another factor in the charge of Labour in the Holyrood polling stakes is the demise of the Liberal Democrats as a credible force in Scottish Politics. They may have the Deputy Prime Minister and the Scottish Secretary but there’s no discernible message coming out of the Scottish Lib Dem camp and their poll ratings are derisory at a lowly 12%. While all of that remains, Labour will be the primary benefactors.
 
Indeed, if the Liberal Democrats are the first to move on ‘Calman plus’ and push for a more aggressive transfer of powers from Westminster to Holyrood, it may be would-be SNP votes rather than would-be Labour votes that Tavish Scott ends up taking in 2011, thus widening the gap between Labour and the SNP even further, making Salmond’s challenge to stay on as FM al the more difficult.
 
The final reason that I shall proffer for the SNP’s recent fall from grace (sadly I could go on) is the man at the top himself. Alex Salmond is one of the longest serving leaders in the UK’s recent history and far and away the longest serving Scottish leader. The First Minister may boast of the experience that such tenure brings but the other side of the coin is that people are more than a little bit fed up of him. Yes, there is a grudging acceptance from most that Alex is a tremendous communicator and a formidable political operator but a tipping point will inevitably be reached where such strengths are actually seen as weaknesses and the very sound of his voice may be beginning to grate for some, if it isn’t already.
 
Some performances at FMQs have been too loud, too abrasive and ultimately too cringeworthy, though one could argue that the quality of the answers can only be as good as the quality of the questions. However, with Salmond already having a particular problem in attracting female support amongst the electorate, a hectoring tone that sees no let up and a long period at the forefront of Scottish Politics that can’t be reversed, the FM’s personal attributes and longevity may all end up counting against the SNP this time around.
 
I believe the SNP would stand a better chance of winning a second term with Nicola Sturgeon as leader and I just wonder if Alex resigned from the correct chamber. Would the SNP’s aims be better served with Sturgeon at Holyrood and Salmond at Westminster? I guess we’ll never know.
 
Indeed, with Salmond, Goldie and Scott fairly well kent faces in the Parliament, perhaps 'Gray-mania' could be the unlikely story of 2011, following in the footsteps of Nick Clegg as an appetite for new voices whets itself.
 
The silver lining, for those wishing to see the SNP returned for another four years, is that Iain Gray has not yet been considered by most of the Scottish population as the next First Minister. A general dislike for Salmond does not necessarily equate to a preference for Gray.
 
Going into the 2007 Holyrood election, the SNP enjoyed a significant poll lead over Labour which was caused by a country not convinced with Jack McConnell as First Minister. That lead narrowed to a single percentage point as many realised that they were even less convinced by an SNP Government.
 
The same dashing of an early lead happened for Cameron leading up to the General Election, it happened for the Democrats leading up to the 2004 Presidential election and it probably happens in the vast majority of elections where a challenger is up against an incumbent.
 
There is more than just poll results counting against the SNP going into the 2011 election and the party has less to sell than in 2007. Consequently, I suspect that the party’s slogan will have to be even better than the perfectly encapsulated “It’s time” of 2007 if the Nats want to swing the current depressing poll figures back in their favour in time for a second Holyrood win.
 

Can the World Cup bring North Korea in from the cold?

I daresay I wasn't alone in supporting Brazil for 80 minutes of last night's World Cup group match and then supporting North Korea for the last 10, feverishly so after they scored their unlikely consolation goal. Infact I know I wasn't alone as my flatmates were imploring the passionate, highly-focussed men in red on even more than I was.

There's a lot that can be said about Kim Jong Il and his famously insular People's Republic, most of it is steeped in regret and scepticism and it is all too easy for the ignorant like myself to think the worst. For example, one couldn't help but wryly translate the public show of emotion from the crying striker at the anthems before kickoff as a misplaced sense of nationalism borne out of fear for his oppressive ruler but, well, the man was sobbing no more than England's fearless Lawrence Dallaglio used to at Rugby World Cups. We shouldn't really assume what we don't know.

So, the suggestion that a popular North Korean team, genuinely well received by most of the watching world, could help to soothe tensions involving the country should perhaps not be laughed off so easily. Most perceptions of the country stem from Team America or similar caricatures of reality and while I don't believe that a cult following for a few weeks backed by James Corden's considerable belly laughs will alter any nuclear ambitions that the country may (or may not) have, if soft diplomacy hasn't previously worked and hard diplomacy is unpalatable, maybe a goal against Brazil, a nutmegging of Ronaldo and an outmuscling of Drogba will make some difference in the probably addled mind of Eternal Leader Kim Jong Il as he contemplates his legacy.

MSP makes inappropriate comments in 'DuskyGate'

Frank McAveety, Labour's MSP for Glasgow Shettleston, was caught on microphone saying:

"There's a very attractive girl in the second row, dark . . . and dusky. We'll maybe put a wee word out for her."
"She's very attractive looking, nice, very nice, very slim,"
"The heat's getting to me."
"She looks kinda . . . she's got that Filipino look."
"You know . . . the kind you'd see in a Gaugin painting. There's a wee bit of culture."

Pretty crap Holyrood chat if you ask me. It's not so much the making of a remark, it's how long the married man rambles and leers on that's just, well, a bit creepy.

I daresay this is one of the amusing Holyrood anecdotes that will get lost in the annals of time but should it be a resigning issue? The SNP has, unsurprisingly, already called for McAveety's resignation. Personally, although it's distinctly unimpressive form, such instances don't get in the way of the role of an MSP so the story should quite rightly be over with by tomorrow.

Still, it at least justifies my occasionally getting Frank McAveety mixed up with Frank McAvennie. Although that had just been due to similar surnames before...

Sour drapes over flying flags

I read with interest that Downing Street will fly an England flag during Britain’s only representative’s tenure at the football World Cup and I read with bafflement the resulting criticism that this has attracted from non-English quarters (or thirds, I suppose).
 
Personally I don’t have any problem with this St George’s-cross-waving move which I presume was rubber-stamped by David Cameron himself given that the PM, you know, lives in Downing Street. I want England to do well in this competition and will want them to win the whole thing if my sweepstake team (Netherlands) get knocked out before Capello’s men are.
 
I find it bizarre that those who do not wish to see England winning the competition cite the supposedly non-stop references to 1966 as the main reason for wanting the team knocked out, particularly given that a 2010 victory would significantly reduce any reference to that competition over four decades ago. (I maintain that I hear significantly more Scots gripe about 1966 than English people fondly recalling it)
 
One would also hope that a reclaiming of the England flag from the BNP and EDL would be welcomed. The other national flags in the UK have not suffered the same fate as St George’s Cross so seeing bin lorries, shops and family cars having it fluttering above them is surely vastly preferable to the status quo. Put simply, England has to use it or lose it and David Cameron using the English flag so publicly means it is less likely to be ‘lost’ to Nick Griffin & co.
 
Critics would argue that David Cameron is Prime Minister of the whole United Kingdom and therefore should not show favouritism between the four nations and/or should respect the sentiments of all the country’s citizens. That, for me, is hogwash in this particular instance I’m afraid.
 
Were Wales to have a contender in a Nobel Prize shortlist should our Prime Minister not support them because there are no English, Scots or Northern Irish in there? Of course not. England was the only UK team good enough to qualify for South Africa so they’ve earned the support of any British representative or public body that wishes to give it. The suggestion that a Prime Minister wouldn’t support any other qualifying teams in their official capacity doesn’t hold for me and smacks more of a frustrated petulance at the lack of quality in the non-qualifying teams than any justifiable grievance with the British support for England.
 
Scots (or Welsh or Northern Irish) are entitled to be ambivalent or even malevolently critical of England’s fortunes in the World Cup but to extend that to insisting that the Prime Minister should not show his support for a British team is just killjoy nonsense.

Holyrood 2011 - An early look at Lothian

The news that SNP regional MSP Ian McKee will be standing down at the next election turned my thoughts to what new faces we may be seeing at Holyrood after the 2011 election. Given that Margo MacDonald, Robin Harper and George Foulkes will be retiring this year, there will be at least four new list MSPs from Lothians so that seems as good a place as any to start looking.

In 2007, the seven list MSPs from Lothians, in order of selection, were:

Fiona Hyslop (SNP)
Robin Harper (Green)
Margo MacDonald (Ind)
Ian McKee (SNP)
Gavin Brown (Con)
Stefan Tymkewycz (SNP)
George Foulkes (Lab)

Of course, the eventual breakdown of the regional lists is ruled by the First Past the Post seats so it's worth considering how each party stands with 11 months still to go:

The SNP should enjoy an incumbency factor and hold onto Livingston and Edinburgh East, despite setbacks at the recent General Election in both constituencies. I must admit to risking underestimating Labour’s chances given their effective machine in Edinburgh East and a strong candidate in the shape of former council leader Ewan Aitken.
 
The Conservatives can expect to return two MSPs next year, one via Edinburgh Pentlands and another via the regional list. It looks like a safe bet that David McLetchie and Gavin Brown will stay in place in these spots.
 
The Liberal Democrats will aspire to win Edinburgh Central, hold onto Edinburgh South and keep Edinburgh West as safe as it has been in recent elections. With boundary changes favouring them, all three of the above aims are realistic and whoever is selected as the next candidate for Edinburgh Central should find themselves fast-tracked into Parliament.
 
Edinburgh North & Leith will be a fascinating contest if, as some seem to expect, Malcolm Chisholm chooses to retire in advance of next year. This is another potential Lib Dem gain given that they targeted the seat so heavily at the General Election and the SNP has inexplicably gone backwards in the past two elections. Assuming Chisholm stays on or Labour pick the right candidate (in other words, anyone but the tipped Rami Okasha), then I don’t see them losing North & Leith any time soon. Shirley-Anne Somerville is my top tip to challenge for the Nats in the event of Malcolm Chisholm standing down.
 
Labour will be hoping for business as usual in many constituencies with Midlothian and Linlithgow looking likely to maintain reasonably healthy majorities for the incumbent MSPs. I daresay Edinburgh East and Edinburgh South will be the key battlegrounds for Labour as they seek to paint the city red once more.
 
Perhaps I am still too stung by the lack of change in last month’s General Election but the only seat that I can see changing hands next May is Edinburgh Central from Labour’s Sarah Boyack to the Liberal Democrats, who are yet to pick a PPC.
 
Recalculating the 2007 regional result after taking this seat change into account and separating out the retiring Margo MacDonald’s votes (and it would be interesting to consider where Margo’s votes would go next time around), the seven Lothian MSPs would be:
 
1 – SNP
2 – Green
3 – SNP
4 – Labour
5 – Conservative
6 – SNP
7 – Labour
 
(8 – SNP)
 
So the SNP are notionally on track to lose 1 MSP and the Lib Dems on track to gain 1 MSP. With the numbers at Holyrood already tighter than George Osborne’s petty cash purse strings, one doesn’t have to explain how critical that could ultimately be.
 
The Greens have a difficult task on their hands if they want to return 2 Lothian MSPs again unless they can lift their 20,147 votes in 2007 up to the level of the 31,908 in 2003. With the former and everything else being equal, the Greens would need the SNP to return 7 MSPs before they could return a second which seems remarkable. Then again, in 2003 both the SNP and Greens had 2 MSPs each in the entire area. What a difference 10,000 votes can make!
 
I would suggest that the Greens will be the main beneficiaries of Margo not standing next year and will also benefit from increased Lib Dem Tactical Voting as those who vote Lib Dem begin to realise that their preferred party do not tend to return regional MSPs in the area. It may be heart ruling head but I can only see the Greens returning 2 MSPs in Lothian next year.
 
Labour returning 2 regional MSPs rather than 1 would be interesting and throws open the door to arguably much-needed new talent coming through. Des Browne was rumoured to be interested in reaching Holyrood by this route and the female spot (given that Labour’s lists are zipped) would be between Lesley Hinds and Kezia Dugdale.
 
Overall, the Lothian region could stay the same or there could be massive changes, it is probably far too early to speculate but, for the record, here is my premature prediction:
 
Edinburgh East – Kenny MacAskill (SNP)
Edinburgh North & Leith – Malcolm Chisholm (or Labour successor)
Edinburgh West – Margaret Smith (LD)
Edinburgh Central – Lib Dem MSP
Edinburgh South – Mike Pringle (LD)
Edinburgh Pentlands – David McLetchie (Con)
Livingston – Angela Constance (SNP)
Linlithgow – Mary Mulligan (Labour)
Midlothian – Rhona Brankin (Labour)
 
List:
1 – SNP (Fiona Hyslop)
2 – Green (?)
3 – SNP (Shirley-Anne Somerville)
4 – Conservative (Gavin Brown)
5 – Labour (Des Browne)
6 – Green (James @ Two Doctors?)
7 – Labour (Kezia Dugdale)

More Nats, fewer nurses

The title to this blog post is the front to Labour’s new campaign against the SNP Government in light of the news that the NHS is forecasting the loss of 3,790 full time staff over the next year.
 
It is a lamentably puerile slogan but no more childish than the SNP’s ‘More Nats, less cuts’ from the last election so one can’t complain too loudly and, well, at least it is grammatically correct. However, it is a continuation of the Pavlovian reactions of ‘more spending – good, less spending – bad’. If this is to be the parameters of Scottish political debate for the foreseeable future then we’ll be morally and financially bankrupt before the next decade is out.
 
It is never desirable for anyone to lose their job against their wish but this does not seem to be the case here, despite the large job numbers involved. The key point that the Government is pushing is that there are expected to be no compulsory redundancies. Particularly at this time with cuts on the horizon, we shouldn’t necessarily equate job losses with people being forced out of their job.
 
Furthermore, 3,790 staff at a nominal salary of £25k per annum equates to almost £100m a year. Labour are well within their right to campaign for a further 3,790 jobs in the NHS if they choose to do so but they have to explain where they would find a whopping £100m to fund such a wish. Add that to the numerous extra prisons required for their ‘carry a knife, go to jail’ campaign and the currently unaffordable reinstating of the Glasgow Rail Link and Labour are running up quite a bill for themselves if they do get back into power next year.
 
Another key point to remember in this story that will surely dominate the summer (and beyond) is that health boards set their own budgets and level of employees and, consequently, this is not actually a Government decision, as far as I am aware at least. The Government has provided £264m more funding to the NHS this year and, as they are entitled to, the health boards have decided to locate savings via head count to make the extra money go even further. I would be more concerned if the Scottish Government was insisting, against its remit, on an ever growing number of nurses and health workers, whatever the cost, so as to insulate itself from political attacks but, thankfully, that is not happening. We have to trust health boards to make the decisions that are best for them; Labour seemingly doesn’t want to adopt that trust but has chosen to turn its fire on the Government rather than on those who have taken the actual decision.
 
I think therefore, all in all, this is a bit of a hollow discussion as it is not clear what Labour is asking to be done. That is not to say that Labour’s campaign won’t be effective. The NHS is so often at the heart of any election battle, as we saw earlier this year as Cameron cannily positioned himself as a champion of the health services, and there is no reason why the 2011 election contest won’t be any different. With 75% of teaching graduates struggling to find work, I’m not sure that the SNP can afford to be perceived as not being on the side of nurses too.
 
The Holyrood parties are setting the tone for the 2011 campaign with Labour clearly seeing the NHS and ‘SNP cuts’ (sic) as two key areas. The SNP will hopefully have learned from the Glenrothes by-election where the issue of local council charges was pressed mercilessly against them by Labour and was one of the main reasons the Nats surprisingly lost out in that contest. Nicola Sturgeon needs to nip this issue in the bud before it becomes the ‘loosening of the jar’ in the run up to a Labour victory that already looks worryingly achievable, even likely I would say.
 
The battle for the perception of competence has begun in earnest. It’s just a shame that, once again, it’s over such a silly debate so lacking in substance.

Is Angus Robertson the new Nick Clegg?

Today marks the first PMQ session under the new coalition Government and, with David Cameron finally on his preferred side of the chamber after many years in Opposition, it will, one would hope, be a sweet day for the new Prime Minister.
 
Harriet Harman will be leading the charge for Labour in bringing the new Government to account and will have plenty of topics to choose from, from the arguably inexperienced Danny Alexander presiding over controversial cuts to the economy to Britain’s response to the attacks on the Gaza flotilla.
 
With the Lib Dems now inside the coalition, Nick Clegg will not take a slice of the limelight at these sessions as he had done in the past parliamentary term, so where will that spotlight fall as journalists and bloggers search for signs of division and bones of contention?
 
The party that has the next largest number of MPs is the DUP but it is like-minded to the Conservatives and, consequently, cannot be expected to be too critical of its performance. The next largest party is the SNP and, contrary to the DUP, can be expected to be highly vociferous in its opposition to certain coalition policies, not least cuts to the economy and spending on Trident.
 
Opportunity can knock in the most unlikely of ways but PM Cameron and DPM Clegg may allow Westminster leader of the SNP Angus Robertson to raise his party’s profile across the UK which, with English desire for English devolution at an all time high, may not be the worst thing for the Nationalists’ aim of independence.
 
From BBC/newspaper liveblogs to evening news bulletins, if the SNP can deliver its message more widely than it has done previously, the rainbow nature of Westminster may shine through in the end after all.