What's so great about Great Britain?

Rule Britannia, Land of Hope and Glory, Dunkirk Spirit, real ale, last night of the proms, the Queen, The Beatles, sarcasm, Tesco, dish cloths with Princess Diana on them, the M6 and tea. It all makes you proud doesn’t it? The love in your Union Jack heart runneth over?
 
No, me neither really.
 
I tend to rail against anything that is held up as quintessentially British, not due to the thing itself, but because of the regard that I have for Britain’s stilted, awkward place within the world, or Great Britain’s I should say to give our country its fuller title. And yet it is my mindset that is probably the problem rather than any of Old Blighty’s characteristics or personalities. We do have the marvellous Stephen Fry to revolve around as a nation, of course.
 
It is a curious twist of these British Isles that we seem to suffer from a twin cringe, and a disparate cringe at that. The Scottish cringe is well known. A country riddled with self-confidence issues, loathe to put its head above the parapet, embarrassed to be seen as too big or too clever and yet so irrepressibly popular on a global scale and repressing so much untapped potential. The cringe is by no means universal within Scotland but you’d struggle to argue that it doesn’t exist. We are certainly some way away from puffing our chest out on a world stage as so many other countries manage to do unthinkingly.
 
That leads me on to the English cringe, in many ways the polar opposite of the Scottish variant. I am of course generalising here but there is a superiority complex at play from our friends south of the border, a coldness to foreigners often complimented with a yobbish arrogance. Be it a mimicking of a foreign accent or a bizarre temptation to refer back to WW2 at the drop of a trilby, it is not what one would call pleasing. Cringeworthy is perhaps a better bet.
 
I just wonder if a new and improved rebranding of ‘Britain’ would simultaneously help take the edge of those in the south and help push forward those in the north. Dropping the Great and allowing a fraternal Britain to integrate more comfortably with Europe and the wider world may free up Scots’ minds to be the best they can be and help little Englanders to remember that they aren’t actually better than everybody else.
 
Of course, the term ‘Great Britain’ has a valid basis, far removed from the imperial and high-minded connotations that are unavoidable with the phrase. There are tens of thousands of British Isles and most of them have names be it Skye, Scilly or Shetlands and the largest of these islands can be classed as Britain Major or, yes, Great Britain.
 
For me, this is an insufficient naming convention, particularly as it is technically discriminatory against those who live on a ‘Britain Minor’ island. Indeed, the name ‘Great Britain’ was not derived by geologists who were concerned with the correct terminology of a collection of islands but seemingly created by King James in 1604 who proclaimed himself ‘King of Great Brittaine, Ireland and France’. This was later officially cemented with the 1707 Treaty of Union that brought Scotland, England and Wales together in the ‘United Kingdom of Great Britain’, the UK part being merely a description with the GB part being the formal title. Both decisions seemingly carried a certain degree of hubris.
 
Granted, many readers will rail against this union for separate (and separation) reasons but over and above that where do we get off calling ourselves ‘Great’? How silly must this grand title have sounded during these past 300 or so years? No wonder we got pulled into so many wars with other countries trying to teach us a lesson or trois.
 
Some are born great, some become great and some have greatness thrust upon them. Well, we absurdly thrust the third one onto ourselves and it’s time to get the monkey off our back.
 
What if the official title of other countries was ‘Super Spain’, or ‘Fabulous France’ or ‘Awesome Australia’? They would never get away with it. We didn’t even have the decency to indulge in the pleasing alliteration of Brilliant Britain. And we wonder why we get ‘nil points’ at the Eurovision Song Contests?
 
Indeed, bringing the debate right up to the present day, the name of our country undermines our best intentions. Only this week Prime Minister of Great Britain, David Cameron, was taking a firm stance against Pakistan, technically a former colony. Cameron may or may not have been right to do so (does Wikileaks now drive foreign policy?) but it must be particularly annoying for Pakistan to be told what to do by a country that literally describes itself as better than you.
 
Similarly, there was an admission from the coalition that Great Britain is the ‘junior partner’ in the special relationship with the United States. That is true and there’s no point in denying it but what better time and reason to dilute the greatness of our name than when accepting subordination to a global superpower. How can we call ourselves ‘Great’ when we freely admit that we’re not as good as some?
 
We could even do it in stages. From 2011 we could be called Good Britain, from 2021 we could be Quite Good Britain, from 2031 we could be Not Bad Britain and then finally in 2041 we could just be Britain, as we always should have been even all the way back in 1604. Personally I’d rather cut to the chase.
 
Indeed, timing is playing into our hands in another way. With the Olympics only two years away, when Team GBR will be a main focus, what greater statement could we make to the world that we are embracing the collegiate, equal 21st century than changing our moniker to Team BRI. We’re going to look a bit daft when Team GB is sitting 13th in the medals table anyway but that’s not a bad showing for Team BRI.
 
In any case, there is an ironic, rewarding upside to simply being Britain rather than ‘Great’ Britain. A long overdue showing of humility would make us collectively greater and, on global terms, we could probably do with a bit of both.

What next for Scotland?

The Crawford Beveridge report on public spending is so important and so good that only a non-politician could ever have been put in charge of it. That's a sobering thought before one even begins to delve into the detail.

Pay freezes, cuts, u-turns on popular policies, pension recalculations and job losses will be required to meet the decline in spending that is on the way.

So where does one begin? That 'one' being John Swinney of course.

Well, it seems starting with what won't be cut is the preferred approach. Health spending is to be ring fenced, travel for the elderly is safe and so too is free personal care. I'm not convinced the latter is sustainable in even the short term and the game of chicken over who can keep it on just one more parliamentary term is potentially very damaging. I would hope to see the following: a total realignment of salaries and pensions in the public sector pulling all payments towards the median, some sort of tuition fee brought in, the bridge postponed and a trimmed down civil service based on ability. The public sector can surely no longer be seen as a job for life irrespective of how much of a contribution one makes. Whatever happens, the difficult position Scotland finds itself in can't really be overstated but there's no reason why it can't be seen as an opportunity too.
One problem is that of the two main options that should be available to Scotland, one is closed off. We could have each of the above luxuries if we raised personal taxation levels north of the border. We know this can be done as Sweden enjoys each of the above policies and is in solid financial health too.

Senators come to Scotland/UK for answers on Lockerbie

Watching Newsnight right now from London and it has the rare opportunity for me to see Alex Salmond in action.

The reason is due to Lockerbie being the top UK story for the evening as Senator Robert Menendez, the Senator in charge of the review into BP's involvement (if any) in the release of Al-Megrahi, is suggesting that he may come to the UK to find answers to his questions.

It really has been maddeningly unclear what questions the US has left to ask as they have received quite substantial answers from both the Scottish Government and Ministers from the last Government. Thankfully those questions were put forward by Senator Menendez:

What were the circumstances regarding Megrahi's release?

What involvement did BP play in his release?

How did the doctors get it so wrong?

All of the above have been answered many times before so the madness continues it seems.

The point was made to Senator Menendez by Newsnight's Gavin Esslier that he should perhaps just believe First Minister Alex Salmond when he says there was no BP involvement in the decision to release Megrahi and leave it at that. This was dismissed with the suggestion that the Scottish Government was lobbied by those acting directly or indirectly on behalf of BP.

Alex Salmond then appeared in person and stressed the point many times that he and his officials are not answerable to the US Senate so will not be travelling out there to answer questions that have already been answered. Furthermore, if Senators visit Scotland then they will be extended the courtesy of a meeting but an American hearing will not be being held in London or in Edinburgh.

Moving on to the representations made on behalf of BP, Salmond was clear that any such request, apparently made by a Tory peer, was one of a thousand representations and was rebuffed immediately with official responses from Kenny MacAskill and the decision was taken on judicial grounds.

Over the course of the segment the decision to free Al-Megrahi was shown to be, as has always been clearly the case, a clear cut decision and one made following Scots Law and the Justice Secretary's judgement.

Barack Obama and numerous Senators may not like it, but they are going to have to learn to lump it. That lesson looks likely to be some way off yet if they are preparing to fly out here for answers to unnecessary questions.

Wendygate Returns

I had no idea that such a campaign was ongoing but it seems a China-based writer has been resolutely pursuing the Electoral Commission to understand why the body dropped the case against Wendy Alexander.

One's first thought is why would anyone want to rake up old coals but that is easily countered with the recognition that no quest for the truth should ever go unimpeded.

That said, I can't help but hope that a minor issue surrounding an ex-leader who was unchallenged for the role stays outside the main debate, particularly in an election year.

Scotland is at its best when it's looking forwards rather than backwards. There is a policy discussion void to be filled over the coming months and one can only hope that something unproductive doesn't fall into that gap.

Clegg is the coalition's weakest link

Earlier this year, Louis Theroux claimed that he was Nick Clegg's 'fag' at school, a position that perhaps betrayed the now Liberal Democrat leader's lack of respect for those he saw as beneath him.

It seems, some two decades later, such attitudes haven't changed.

Here is a rundown of the lack of regard Nick Clegg has had for certain people in the two and a half short months that he has been Deputy Prime Minister:

Mervyn King
Time after time, Clegg has used a private discussion with the Bank of England Governor as a handy excuse to explain his about turn on bringing down the deficit faster and more painfully than he campaigned for during the election campaign.

Any benefit of doubt that the public may have granted the Lib Dem leader over this has been blown out of the water today with Mervyn King's admission that he said nothing in that phone call that wasn't already in the public domain.

Nick Clegg, quite clearly, used the independent Governer of the Bank of England to cover his back politically in a particularly tawdry manner.

Proponents of Proportional Representation
If coalition MPs do manage to vote in a referendum and if the public does vote in favour of the Alternative Vote, when can we expect a second referendum to bring in the truly proportional Single Transferable Vote?

10 years? 20 years? 50 years? First Past the Post has been with us for centuries. Is that how long we'll have to put up with this baby step towards progress that AV represents?

Nick Clegg talked the talk during the election campaign about a fairer voting system but he's cashed in all of his chips at the earliest opportunity and with very little to show for it. Furthermore, if Labour are successful in scuppering the referendum then Clegg will look a bit foolish going back to pushing for AV+ or STV.

He has yanked around all of those who wish to see an end to the unfair First Past the Post system in order to get his feet under the coalition table. A shabby way to treat your best policy and most ardent fans.

Parliament
Nick Clegg might have been so excited about being 'the first Lib Dem to lead PMQs since 1922' (sic) that he forgot a few things about how it is meant to work when you speak on behalf of the Government but that wouldn't excuse his rather embarrassing defence that he was speaking in "a personal capacity" when he said the Iraq War was illegal.

PMQs is not, nor has it ever been, a platform for the Prime Minister to air their personal views. That wasn't even the case back in 1922 although, of course, we didn't even have PMQs back then.

Scotland
Not content with directly affecting the Scottish Parliament elections by holding his AV referendum on the same day (and not discussing it with the Scottish Government beforehand) not to mention suggesting scrapping Trident when his proposals didn't stack up, Nick Clegg (and Michael Moore) are pushing on with the Calman recommendations despite their party's stated preference being further devolution.

Sheffield
Nick Clegg has stood idly by while a Tory donor has successfully campaigned for the Government to decide against giving Sheffield Forgemasters an £80m loan, a company that is within Clegg's own constituency. Not only that but the Tory donor had tried to invest in Forgemasters directly which makes one raise an eyebrow when he says the public sector can fill the funding gap.

Any self-respecting constituency MP would step up and speak up for their local company and workers. Clegg seems to be doing neither.

Voters
We are stepping into the unknown to a certain extent with this coalition a Government, a feeling that is both exciting and scary. However, one of the first things that the coalition agreed on was to have five year fixed terms despite this never being an issue during the election campaign and despite four year terms being the norm over the past few decades.

Cameron and Clegg have ridden roughshod over the electorate to ensure they can squeeze out another year in power and I think it is an undemocratic poor show from both men and an early example of how Clegg's promise of 'a new politics' during the election campaign was nothing but empty rhetoric.


It has felt like a long time since the General Election but this five year term must look like an eternity for Nick Clegg and the rest of his party as their poll ratings slide terrifyingly (for them) and tantalisingly (for the rest of us) towards the single digits.

It does seem, genuinely regrettably, that Nick Clegg is rapidly losing sight of what he stands for and seemingly uncaring about who he steps on in order to stay at the top.

Neither situation can last forever and a new direction is required if Nick Clegg isn't singlehandedly going to bring down the coalition.

Scotland would be less proportionally representative under AV

2010 Westminster General Election result:
 
Labour – 42% (41 seats) 70% of seats    Diff – 28%
SNP – 20% (6 seats)  10% of seats    Diff – 10%
Lib Dems – 19% (11 seats) 19% of seats    Diff – 0%
Conservatives – 17% (1 seat) 2% of seats    Diff – 15%
 
Total variance from true proportional representation = 53%
 
 
The experts (at Guardian's data blog) have predicted that under AV there would be one change to the election result, the SNP would lose a seat to the Lib Dems. I’m not entirely sure how they arrived at this conclusion, assuming only that Labour would pick up Western Isles from the SNP (!?) and the Lib Dems would pick up Edinburgh South from Labour.
 
Anyway, however the result was arrived at, it would give a final result under AV of:
 
Labour – 42% (41 seats)  70% of seats    Diff – 28%
SNP – 20% (5 seats)  8% of seats    Diff – 12%
Lib Dems – 19% (12 seats) 20% of seats    Diff – 0%
Conservatives – 17% (0 seats)  0% of seats    Diff – 17%
 
Total variance from true proportional representation = 57%
 
(Note that I would strongly suspect that, under AV, David Mundell would not have won his Dumfries and Galloway seat given the strong anti-Tory sentiment coursing through the rest of Scotland. I have not included this assumption in the above but, if I had, it would have pulled the variance even further away from a more proportional result)
 
So we are holding a referendum on a supposedly more representative voting system, adversely affecting the Scottish Parliament elections that will be held on the same day and the result would either be the status quo or a voting system that actually gives a less representative result?
 
It makes one wonder what the Lib Dems think about it all….
 
 
Note, under AV+ and STV, the results would be as follows -
 
AV+
Labour – 42% (36 seats)  61% of seats    Diff – 19%
SNP – 20% (9 seats)  15% of seats    Diff – 5%
Lib Dems – 19% (11 seats) 19% of seats    Diff – 0%
Conservatives – 17% (3 seats) 5% of seats    Diff – 12%
 
Total variance from true proportional representation = 36%
 
STV
Labour – 42% (28 seats)  47% of seats    Diff – 5%
SNP – 20% (13 seats)  22% of seats    Diff – 2%
Lib Dems – 19% (11 seats)  19% of seats    Diff – 0%
Conservatives – 17% (7 seats)  12% of seats    Diff – 5%
 
Total variance from true proportional representation = 12%

Glasgow SNP in fake members storm

The Daily Record has a quite remarkable story over on its website regarding Glasgow Councillor Jahangir Hanif and the apparent forging of signatures to recruit new members to the SNP. Several new members who had been signed up by Hanif were contacted by the newspaper and it transpired that they were unaware of having been signed up and had no intention of doing so. I don’t tend to read the Record but for this story I would recommend it as it is gripping stuff.
 
To add plenty of colour to the story, the Record has somehow managed to obtain an email sent from Shona McAlpine to Councillor Hanif challenging him on the matter, stating her frustration in no uncertain terms.
 
The cracks in the voting procedures to get into Holyrood do seem to start being pulled apart and manipulated, I’m sure such instances are not specific just to the SNP. The best way to get around such a problem is to ensure that anyone who votes for a PPC or a representative on the regional list is there in person to make their vote count. I was a member of the SNP Leith branch for (sadly) only a short time but I secretly marvelled at how only a handful of people would turn up to meetings when there were 50+ members, it may even have been 100+. My memory fails me but there wasn’t much of a correlation between those at the forefront and those who had an equal say on who could stand in what contest.
 
Much like lingering issues over postal voting at elections, there is no better process than a person on voting day turning up with party card or passport in hand and face in full view when casting their vote. Democracy and a party’s integrity deserves nothing less.
 
The ‘Kalashnikov’ issue that Councillor Hanif was involved in was a media mountain out of a very small molehill. However, if the above is as bad as it sounds, then tough action will have to be taken.
 
I am no longer a member of the SNP so it’s not really my place to say, but it’s probably best that the party cut this Councillor adrift.

SNP TV

In March of this year, an Ofcom investigation was announced looking into claims that the SNP influenced the programming of the STV. The particular focus was on Homecoming Scotland.

It was good to see therefore that the Homecoming Scotland arrangement was found to be satisfactory and STV was given a minor slap on the wrist for short programmes of 1 to 4 minutes long

It will be interesting though to watch political opponents leap from crying foul over Homecoming to crying foul over, er, the lesser watched The Great Scottish Meal.

A wider question as to whether Homecoming Scotland should be advertising on Scottish television seems to have been overlooked. I guess it wasn't within Ofcom's remit but one can't help but think of preaching to the undispersed.

An even wider question to ask is what business does any Government have to indulge in advertising anyway? I have always galled at the fact that some of my taxes go towards telling me not to be racist or to eat my 5-a-day on giant billboards. I appreciate that a clever person somewhere has worked out that a Goverment spending £x millions in advertising will lead to a benefit of £y millions with y hopefully being greater than x.

However, it would make more sense (to me) if funding for anti-racism drives came from extended fines for racially-aggravated crimes and healthy eating adverts came from (a long overdue) 'fat tax'.

Homecoming Scotland was a great idea and a great event. Sponsorship from it of sport trophies and TV programmes was never really taking the high road and nor did it fit the bill.

Claims of SNP TV though? Quite ridiculous now that Ofcom has reported and partically ridiculous given that Scotland suffers from, at least at the worst of times, Unionist Newspapers.

SNP to win majority by 2019?

There is a quite remarkable article over at Financial Times suggesting that the SNP will win a Holyrood majority in 2019.

Anyone who knows how the voting system works for Scottish elections will know that such a result is no mean feat, requiring as it does winning 50%+ of the vote.

The logic, coming from the Chief Economist at Toscafund, is that there is a direction of travel towards fiscal autonomy for Scotland, suggested issues with EU rules notwithstanding. While this may be bad news for those who freeze like rabbits in the headlights at the thought of going further than the Calman proposals, it is good news for everyone else and a reasonable prediction to make. I suspect however that Scotland getting to spend it's oil revenues translating to huge SNP gains is too simple a conclusion to draw.

Fiscal autonomy would be a giant leap towards independence for Scotland so the SNP are of course happy and spending what you earn is a key plank of most Conservatives' philosophy, over and above what makes for good Politics.

If only it wasn't for those pesky Lib Dems who can't even muster the courage to go for Calman Plus.

As much as an SNP majority at Holyrood in 2019 would be a fascinating prospect, I don't think we should be pencilling it into our diaries just yet.

The snapping back of many in Scotland to Labour off the back of a Tory UK Government, the retirement of the unbeatable and irreplaceable Alex Salmond, the current lack of strength in depth in the SNP ranks and a relatively sluggish economy north of the border will ensure that overwhelming landslides are out of the question for the foreseeable future.

One consideration in the short term that is worth thinking about though is this - with the Tory/Lib Dem coalition already down in the polls after having to implement cuts, is the 2011 Holyrood elections a good one to lose for the Nats?

With the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour bringing in painful cuts, regardless of how necessary they may be, if the electorate is not as understanding as many in the media suggest, then the SNP could in theory be licking its lips at the thought of taking a back seat. I suspect the members wouldn't be of course, and shouldn't be.

Winners should want the ball be it 2011, 2015 or 2019.

Calman - The only show in town?

Michael Moore (the Secretary of State for Scotland for those who aren't fully up to speed) has a good article in the Scotland on Sunday preparing the populace and pushing the appeal of the Calman recommendations that the coalition will seek to make law later this year.


It is a persuasive piece, not so much fuelling the reader's imagination as tempering it. Michael states, quite correctly, that "detailed analysis, proper consultation and a substantial cross-party agreement" is required before a change can be made to the devolution arrangement and to this end it is only Calman alone that currently passes each three tests.


This is surely inadequate. One can't prove the merit of a particular proposal by urging the audience to disregard all alternatives. Has anyone anywhere yet argued why Calman is the best solution for Scotland? Not that I have seen. An added oddity is the intriguing fact that the Liberal Democrats have a stated preference for 'Calman Plus' which would see Scotland raise 70% of its own taxes, not the standard 'Calman' which would see us raise only 20% of our own taxes. Even Michael Moore's party doesn't believe that the Calman recommendations is all there is.


I am not suggesting that a higher percentage of raising our own taxes is necessarily better. Following such a philosophy through to its natural conclusion would mean the coalition writing a new law resulting in Scotland raising 100% of its own taxes, a result that perhaps some on the Conservative benches (and all on the SNP benches) would be happy to contribute to. Full fiscal autonomy is my personal preference as it removes all imbalances in the relationship between spending and tax-raising and ensures that the Scottish Government has the appropriate responsibility for its decisions.


So it begs the question - when did Scotland decide that Calman was the best option? Yes, there was a review group of 15 members which of course each will have had a significant (if varying) contribution to make but Calman is hardly the "culmination of an extensive programme of engagement all across Scotland" that our Secretary of State claims.


Where is the consideration of Reform Scotland's call for significantly more fiscal powers? Where is the consideration of fiscal autonomy/responsibility as called for by the Chief Executive of MacDonald hotels, the Chief Executive of Aberdeen Asset Management, the Policy Institute, Gerry Hassan, The Spectator's Fraser Nelson, Kwik-Fit founder Tom Farmer, Clyde Blowers Chief Executive Jim McColl and so many more. That is not to mention the SNP of course who forms the Government of Scotland.

In falling short of their own preferences by compromising with Calman, the Liberal Democrats are making the exact same mistake as they made over the AV referendum when they prefer a significantly more proportional voting system to what is on offer. How can we know what Nick Clegg and his party really want if they continue to refuse to stand up for it?

Calman may well be the most popular option amongst Scots as well as amongst 'unionist' politicians but we won't know until we ask them. It's certainly not "the only show in town" when Calman Plus, fiscal autonomy and independence are perfectly viable and woefully under-srcutinised options.

Fisking Caley Merc

I thoroughly enjoy Scotland’s youngest (and in one way oldest) newspaper the Caledonian Mercury. Despite it being a fair old age now, it still feels energetic and fresh.

However, in light of my last post and the furore over a US Senate Committee wishing an audience with Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, I couldn’t help but decide to fisk their latest post – 9 reasons why Mr MacAskill should go to Washington:


1. He could explain his position, and the position of the Scottish Government, to senators who appear still to have trouble grasping what went on and explain the process of releasing Megrahi.

Kenny MacAskill should not feel duty bound to travel the world explaining his decision just because some people still don’t get it. Al Gore may wish to do so with his Inconvenient Truth dvd but that doesn’t mean the rest of us should follow. There is sufficient information available to US Senators for them to understand the approach taken by MacAskill and, to put it bluntly, if they don’t fully understand then it is incumbent upon them to learn quicker rather than MacAskill to explain more often.

2. He could tell the senate committee what compassionate release is all about (because they don’t do mercy very well in the States).

For a country so proud of its religious core, one would hope that the USA already had a good handle on what compassion is and how it should be applied. Kenny MacAskill has that preacher/sermon deliver down to a tee, yes, but it doesn’t mean he needs to spread it around willy nilly. I’m sure Senators have cable which has plenty of God Channels available to them if they need a refresher course on compassion.

3. He could explain devolution and how this was his decision and his decision alone.

Again, this is surely not a difficult concept for a US Senator to grasp. There are 50 states in the USA, each of which I believe has some sort of power devolved to them in a similar way in which power has been devolved from Westminster to Holyrood.

4. He could explain how, as he has claimed, he was not lobbied by BP.

Why should anyone break up their holiday break to travel halfway across the world to explain something that has already been clearly stated in a latter and via numerous news bulletins. A bizarre reason to make the trip to Washington this one.

5. He could explain how he was forced to reject Megrahi’s application to be released under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement because of a number of factors, one of which was confusion over commitments made to the families by the American government.

This could be a valid reason to go as it did seem to be a complicated process and there does seem to be some conflation, in the media and otherwise, over the Prisoner Transfer Agreement and the compassionate release. However, it seems strange to travel to a Senate Committee to explain something you didn’t do as opposed to explain something that you did.

6. He could explain that the Scottish Government has released all documents it has been given permission to release and that the only material still not in the public domain is because of decisions taken either the US or the UK Governments.

Again, this was clearly stated in the First Minister’s letter explaining the Scottish Government’s position. What extra benefit is there in explaining this to US Senators who have the power of sight, the skills to read and Alex Salmond’s letter in their inbox?

7. He could appear as a Scottish minister on the world stage. The first and only time this would ever have happened in such a way.

Now we’re talking! This would be a politically selfish reason to go but not really justifiable from an objective perspective, particularly as first class travel to Washington DC with one week’s notice would be exorbitantly expensive. And anyway, how could anyone ever trump George Galloway’s virtuoso performance a few years back.

8. By not going, he will allow conspiracy theories to fester and grow and give ammunition to those who say he has something to hide. Indeed, he will make it appear as if he does have something to hide.

Of the many stakeholders involved in the release of Abdelbasset al-Megrahi, I would hope that rabid conspiracy theorists would be somewhere close to the bottom were they to be ranked in terms of relevance.

9. By not going, and by allowing UK ministers to go instead, Mr MacAskill risks leaving the Scottish Government in isolation, giving the UK Government the chance to give its view when there is only silence from Scotland.

By not going, and allowing UK ministers to go instead, this gives the suggestion that the UK Government has questions to answer and the Scottish Government does not. A suggestion that may not be so far from the truth given the press investigations into the lead up to the PTA deal.


So there we go, a fair attempt from the Caley Merc to try to add to the Justice Secretary’s discomfiture but ultimately a rather weak attempt. It’s still a great ‘paper’ though.

Incidentally, I bet Hamish McDonell was itching to get that nicely rounded tenth reason. He did well enough squeezing out nine I suppose…

If I go there will be trouble, if I stay there will be double

I bought a Times today. Wild, I know.

I'm glad I did though as page 3 holds a good article on Straw "stalling" and Salmond "rebuffing" the US Senate over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

The 'Senate Foreign Affairs Committee' has invited the duo, as well as SPS Director Dr Andrew Fraser, BP's Tony Hayward and former MI6 Sir Mark Allen to the enquiry. This rather scattershot RSVP approach doesn't instil confidence that the Committee really knows what the key line of questioning is.

For me, the big question is simply, should MacAskill and Straw go to Washington to answer whatever questions the Committee may have?

Easy answer really. No, they shouldn't.

Of course the families of the victims deserve the full truth but that doesn't mean that foreign politicians should come running over with only a week's notice. If the Committee had asked them to jump off a cliff..., well, you know the rest.

The Scottish Government has already got its defence in early anyway with a well-timed and well-crafted letter sent to John Kerry. In it the denials of having "received any representations from BP in relation to al-Megrahi" are made clear and the assertion that any lingering suspicions should be directed towards BP and/or the previous UK government is made. Fair enough too, it seems a waste of a trip to travel all the way out to DC just to reconfirm denials that have already been made on paper.

One factor of this development I do find particularly interesting is this. There were many, and still are, who believed that the SNP only came to this decision on the release of this prisoner as it served up an opportunity for them to steal the media's gaze, to cast itself in the global limelight while looking and feeling like a fully fledged independent Government.

I don't buy into such wild theories but following this fanciful logic through to the present day, the SNP's rebuffing of the Senate Committee is contradictory to that charge. An SNP Minister appearing at the US Capitol would raise the Scottish Government's profile even further and yet the offer was declined.

No doubt a new cack-handed rationale for this decision will be proferred by those who seem unable to accept that this was a simple decision based on Scots Law and medical evidence but what can you do.

In terms of Holyrood opposition, Annabel Goldie's rather leaky and obedient response was: "A no-show would only fuel suspicion that they have something to hide."

I don't know. I said it when al-Megrahi was released and I'll say it again now. If a lucky corollary from all of this is getting to show the Americans that they don't always get to call all the shots and they can't simply summon people at will, then that isn't necessarily a bad thing at all.

I am sure this al-Megrahi debate will run out of steam once all stakeholders realise that there is nothing left to talk about irrespective of whether the cancer-stricken man lives or dies in the near future.


Note - Alex Salmond's letter to John Kerry can be read in full on Caledonian Mercury. It is a brilliant example of respectful diplomacy and beserves a wide audience.

Might Holyrood lose Mike Russell MSP?

There is little doubt that one of the key battlegrounds in the coming Scottish Parliament election will be Argyll & Bute. The former constituency of George Lyon MEP was (perhaps surprisingly) won by the SNP in 2007 with Jim Mather seeing off the Lib Dem incumbent. Jim has recently announced his retirement from the Parliament so the SNP’s decision as to who will stand in the constituency next will surely be a key one.
 
There are two main challengers, the Education & Lifelong Learning Minister Mike Russell (who has decided to move on from the difficult terrain of Dumfries) and Mike MacKenzie (who came 4th in the UK election, raising the SNP’s share of the vote by 3.4%, cleverly peddled as a 27% increase in the Westminster vote by some in the constituency).
 
I have little opinion on who should win the nomination given I don’t really know the constituency or the candidates but I would suspect that Mike MacKenzie’s local position within the party as Constituency Association Organiser and Vice Convener will make him the favourite going into the contest. It certainly puts him in a good position for some healthy arm-twisting and deal-making.
 
However, despite currently being a South of Scotland MSP, Mike Russell has lived in the area for twenty years and his oratory skills and public profile could make all the difference when voting comes around. Furthermore, this contest could be decided by the Conservative tactical voters if they correctly decide that Tory candidate Jamie McGrigor won’t win. I personally believe that would-be Tory voters would be enamoured by Russell’s performances to date.
 
And let’s face it, Mike Russell is one of the strongest performers for the Scottish Government, if not the strongest. His being put in charge of the fledgling Referendum Bill and then being part of the only Cabinet reshuffle to replace Fiona Hyslop at the ‘wobbling’ Education brief speaks volumes for the man. However, there is a real risk that he is going to end up falling between two regions if he misses out on Argyll & Bute.
 
Having moved away from the South region to the Highlands & Islands region, Mike would have to supplant either Rob Gibson MSP or Dave Thomson MSP in the party lists to make his way back into the Scottish Parliament. There would be no guarantees of success and it wouldn’t be the first time the Education Secretary faced a frustrating four year break from Holyrood.
 
So, we wait and see how Argyll & Bute plays out but I’m not sure for how long the SNP can continue losing some of its strongest assets at election after election through the cracks in its internal selection process and still remain as potent a force as it should be.
 
 

British PM trashes Scotland on world stage

On the wonderful Joan McAlpine blog:
 
That White House press conference demonstrates why Scotland needs independence. Since foreign affairs are not devolved to Edinburgh, David Cameron officially speaks for us. On this occasion he trashed us in front of the world. Where were we? We should have had a right to reply at least.
 
I think Joan rather sums up my hitherto vague frustration over this whole episode so I thought the above point was worth repeating.
 
Scotland is in the world’s headlines once again, either directly or indirectly depending on the publication. Those headlines tend to include Cameron’s insistence that releasing Megrahi was “a mistake” or Miliband’s assertion that it was “clearly wrong”. Precious few news stories on the matter include Salmond’s calm statement today that he regrets nothing over the matter or Kenny MacAskill’s repeating of the perfectly reasonable logic surrounding how he came to his decision. I seem to remember that the country was split reasonably 50/50 over this matter at the time, maybe closer to 60/40 against the release in some polls, but the narrative that this was some sort of ‘accident’, some sort of breakdown in the political process rather than a straightforward interpretation and application of Scots Law (by a trained lawyer I hasten to add) is insulting. I would hope that even those who (quite reasonably) disagreed with the decision to release Al-Megrahi would agree that Cameron should respect the decision and defend it to some extent on an international stage when Scotland has no distinct voice.
 
It is easy to be indifferent to independence because on the vast majority of days it makes little difference either way. You still have to get up and go to work, buy the messages, cook your dinner, take the dog out and so on and so forth regardless of whether you have a First Minister of Scotland or a Prime Minister. But on those key days - the Iraq War invasion days, the EU election days, the renewal of Trident days and, now, the unsettling days when you realise that what you perceive your country to be is top billing on the news but those who are speaking up for your viewpoint don’t get their say, well, it just makes you wonder about your place in the world.
 
Pure and simple, Cameron needs to be more of a team player on these issues and, even if he doesn’t personally agree with it, he needs to communicate the rationale for Kenny MacAskill’s decision alongside his own reservations. He can’t just slam us against the wall in front of the world’s media knowing there is little comeback from the many who think differently on the matter.
 
David Cameron claimed that if you cut him open he would have the Union Jack running through him like a stick of rock. Well, he needs to start showing it, he needs to start covering every opinion on these islands when he represents us globally or he will find that the top part of his British stick of rock will be breaking off before too long.

Megrahi & McKinnon - Somethimg to talk about

The latest wave of Al-Megrahi headlines have for once resulted in a substantive result. Cameron’s promise to release ‘The Lockerbie Files’ (whatever they are) is a welcome move as the American sceptisicm and even cynicism over BP’s involvement in Libya should not be taken lightly, however unfounded it may ultimately prove to be.

I am, however, surprised that it is this element of the President and Prime Minister’s talks in Washington that have dominated the headlines. After all, what is there is to talk about on the matter?

Both men disagree with Kenny MacAskill’s decision which, as we all know by now, was claimed to be “the right decision for the right reasons”. However, both men would surely accept that it was the Justice Secretary’s decision to make and it is now effectively irreversible.

With an economy to fix and oil still ruining the Gulf of Mexico, one would think that Obama and Cameron would wish to discuss issues that they can improve or even solve.

One such issue that was discussed, I was delighted to learn, was the fate of Gary McKinnon. The Prime Minister showed great fettle in raising this matter with Obama and, reading between the lines of the “appropriate solution” that both countries are now looking for, it is quite right that Gary and his mother have renewed hope that he won’t be extradited after all.

I tell you what though, this turn of events has shown up Gordon Brown, Alan Johnson, Jacqui Smith and all the other Home Secretaries who have had the opportunity to fight McKinnon’s corner and turned a blind eye.

I have always thought that if Labour can’t summon the courage and will to fight for a guy like Gary then they wouldn’t have the stomach to govern.

Applying that same logic to David Cameron, I can only say that, on this evidence alone at least, the Prime Minister looks like he has the energy and vigour for the job and, crucially, his heart is in the right place. Even when sitting face to face with the US President.

Megrahi & McKinnon - Somethimg to talk about

The latest wave of Al-Megrahi headlines have for once resulted in a substantive result. Cameron’s promise to release ‘The Lockerbie Files’ (whatever they are) is a welcome move as the American sceptisicm and even cynicism over BP’s involvement in Libya should not be taken lightly, however unfounded it may ultimately prove to be.

I am, however, surprised that it is this element of the President and Prime Minister’s talks in Washington that have dominated the headlines. After all, what is there is to talk about on the matter?

Both men disagree with Kenny MacAskill’s decision which, as we all know by now, was claimed to be “the right decision for the right reasons”. However, both men would surely accept that it was the Justice Secretary’s decision to make and it is now effectively irreversible.

With an economy to fix and oil still ruining the Gulf of Mexico, one would think that Obama and Cameron would wish to discuss issues that they can improve or even solve.

One such issue that was discussed, I was delighted to learn, was the fate of Gary McKinnon. The Prime Minister showed great fettle in raising this matter with Obama and, reading between the lines of the “appropriate solution” that both countries are now looking for, it is quite right that Gary and his mother have renewed hope that he won’t be extradited after all.

I tell you what though, this turn of events has shown up Gordon Brown, Alan Johnson, Jacqui Smith and all the other Home Secretaries who have had the opportunity to fight McKinnon’s corner and turned a blind eye.

I have always thought that if Labour can’t summon the courage and will to fight for a guy like Gary then they wouldn’t have the stomach to govern.

Applying that same logic to David Cameron, I can only say that, on this evidence alone at least, the Prime Minister looks like he has the energy and vigour for the job and, crucially, his heart is in the right place. Even when sitting face to face with the US President.

Florence and Precious

There is a certain irony that it is on the same day of David Cameron announcing his Big Society idea that the latest and perhaps final last ditch effort to save Florence and Precious Mhango takes place. The local community want these two people to stay in Glasgow and if only the locals were empowered to make the decision then there wouldn't be the need for such an effort in order for common sense to prevail.

But effort it is to be in order to force Home Secretary Theresa May's hand. I believe a vigil is taking place now on behalf of the Mhangos and there is something of a blog-in going on(of which this is part of), lead seemingly by Indygal and Caron.

Hopefully this story will have a happy ending and Florence and Precious will stay where they want to be and where they are wanted.

Theresa May, their lives are in your culpable hands...

Le Tour de Mull

There can't be many countries in the world where you can come home from your travels with a bag of wet clothes and sunburn on your face and lower arms but Scotland is certainly one of them.

I've been away for the past weekend cycling around Mull, new territory for me but a very welcome break from the hustle and bustle of London. The air was cleaner, the sounds were gentler, the people friendlier and the sights from start to finish were easier on the eye.

Although the generously titled 'saddle pain' is not much fun, there is something distinctly pleasing about a 'stay-cation' and not having to faff around with planes and airports. On top of that, the CalMac ferries were excellent, the guest house was utterly superb and the roads were fine for cycling.

Mull has plenty to offer too: the best 9 holes of golf on Tobermory's hilltop, whale & dolphin watching, Staffa Island (which we sadly didn't make it to), possibly the perfect Scottish boozer in The Mish Nish and some awesome seafood whichever way you turn that you can be sure was swimming about in the sea when you woke up that day. Crossing over the water is Ardnamurchan Point, the most westernly place on the British mainland and home, as we learned to our visual delight, to basking sharks, two of which we saw hugging the coastline.

With gulls diving headfirst into water, sea eagles taking up residence on golf courses and stunningly fresh honey served from our landlord's own beehive, it was the wildlife which somewhat surprisingly stole the show over the past few days.

With more and more new animals coming into Scotland's shores, often in 'super pods' (notably the tourist-friendly whales and dolphins), perhaps it is time a new wildife and/or tourist strategy was drawn up to harness the potential for Scotland? It was a shame, for example, that upon picking up the Sunday Herald going back to the mainland I read that the UK kills more dolphins through fishing techniques than any other state in the EU. It wasn't clear how much Scotland plays a part in that but it would be nice to know that effort was being made to keep accidental killings to a minimum.

Maybe the joined up approach is taking place already but the cultivation of a rich seam of wildlife off Scotland's waters, financed by delighted tourists in boats above with cameras, binoculars and ruddy cheeks, seems like a happy result for VisitScotland. Again, it may exist already, but a 'swim with dolphins in Scotland' message could bring foreigners flocking to our freezing seas with wet suits at the ready.

Just watch out for the sharks!

My favourite mistake

I've enjoyed a good debate over banning the burqa in a previous post but there has been a lifting of a very different veil in the past couple of days.

David Cameron's insistence that Raoul Moat deserves no sympathy coupled with his unequivocal assertion that releasing Al Megrahi was "a mistake" is strong evidence that our Prime Minister really is devoid of compassion. When we are facing an age of austerity, high unemployment and potentially a double-dip recession, the wrong tone at the top could be a real problem.

Specifically on Megrahi, I find it remarkable that we're revisiting a decision that was discussed to death (well, not literally of course) almost a year ago. The decision may be in theory reversible but I can't imagine anyone raiding Libya to get the Lockerbie bomber back. And why should we? The act was state sponsored terrorism. If those states are now friendly and prison is about rehabilitation rather than revenge, why do we need to keep Megrahi behind bars, particularly when he has terminal cancer?

The somewhat separate news story on this issue is the suggestion that BP won access to Libyan oil reserves via the prisoner's release. How would that work exactly? How would BP swing a deal with the Scottish Government and why would the SNP agree to it with so little, if anything, to gain? It all sounds too much like a wild conspiracy theory to me. And if Libya has untapped oil reserves, surely there's only a handful of companies that has the skill and experience to extract it, of which BP is one.

I just fear the whole issue of Megrahi's release, a compassionate decision which is regularly taken under Scots Law, is being played fast and loose with and one of the worst culprits is David Cameron.

The PM's calling Kenny MacAskill's decision a mistake was a mistake. If he didn't agree Cameron should have sought to understand it and if he couldn't understand it then he should have sought to respect it.

Respect, now where have I heard that before?

The Lib Dems and a Graduate Tax

Just when you think the twists and turns of the Liberal Democrats can’t get any more breakneck, Vince Cable comes along and suggests implementing a Graduate Tax.
 
What will the students who have been caressed, cajoled and carved up by the Lib Dems election after election think of it all? And what will be left at the soul of this party once all these ‘volte faces’ have been completed?
 
I won’t be too harsh though, a Graduate Tax is a good idea after all. Investing in your own future retrospectively means that you don’t have to pay fees when you can’t afford them. Furthermore, looking ahead to the inevitable cat calls coming Tavish Scott’s way next year, there is nothing wrong with a party arguing for something in Scotland something different in England & Wales. The Lib Dems are federalists after all.
 
In many ways a Graduate Tax is a de facto increase in the top rate of tax with increases for many to the basic rate. Looking at it another way, one could argue that we already have a graduate tax given the way income rates are staggered across salary levels. Either way, going to university is a privilege as less people go than want to. That privilege does not mean that only the privileged should get to go and a Graduate Tax goes some way to finding an appropriate compromise between widening access and ensuring appropriate funding.  
 
One thing that crosses my mind in this move, particularly as a graduate of Edinburgh University, is how likely is it that the Scottish Parliament would mirror the move?
 
Some may say no because such a tax is unfair but others would say no because Holyrood has set its stall out too far as a perennial cutter of taxes and grower of spending. There is so little wiggle room, yes wiggle room, for any of Labour, SNP and/or Lib Dems to bring in unpopular decisions. The clamour over the proposed Local Income Tax shows how poor the level of public debate can be.
 
Another aspect of this policy idea from Vince Cable is for how long can the Lib Dems put up with being the bearer of bad news? The cuts message came initially from David Laws and latterly from Danny Alexander, Nick Clegg had to sit awkwardly onscreen beside George Osborne as the VAT rise was announced while Cameron ‘hid’ directly behind his Chancellor and now Vince Cable has set himself up as a straw man on university funding. They must really love that AV referendum because it’s the only plus side coming out of this coalition deal, aside from ministerial salaries, of course.

Deleting the veil can help solve Britain's long division

The vote yesterday in the National Assembly in Paris on banning the wearing of the full veil has created a storm of controversy amongst blogs today. My view is neither trendy nor leftie I suppose but on balance I think our friends across the Channel made the right decision and it is certainly a move to ensure that France stays French. I can’t help but think that a similar move in the UK to ensure Britain stays British might not go amiss.
 
Enforcing people not to cover up from head to toe save for the eyes is little different in my view to the perfectly reasonable rule that those moving permanently to the UK must learn English.
 
I may not like people wearing hoodies or ‘kappa trackies’, (Caron makes a comparison with football tops), and one could argue that banning those is a similarly ridiculous proposition to banning the veil but there is a subtly different argument in those examples. The key difference is why such garb is worn in the first place. The wearing of a hoody or a football top is a freedom of expression and possibly just bad fashion sense depending on context whereas the wearing of the full veil is a symbol of inequality and oppression which is out of step with what Britain is and the image the country largely wishes to project. I accept that most (hopefully all) women choose to wear the full veil out of their own free will but I think there is still a valid argument that it is too far removed from the core British way of being to be permissible.
 
Of course all walks of life, all religions and all creeds should be respected, understood and accepted in a 21st century United Kingdom but not at any cost, not come what may. Was a religion to tolerate violence towards women (as some do) that would not be tolerated in this country and at the same time, were a religion to insist upon doing a handstand at 1pm everyday (as all sadly don’t), that would be tolerated. So where should the line be drawn between what is allowed and what isn’t within our borders?
 
For me, the wearing of a full veil is just on the wrong side of that line and although I’m not going to lose any sleep over a similar law to that of the French not being introduced in the UK, if there was one brought before the House of Commons, I’d probably, on balance, wish to see it passed.
 
Yes, this would probably serve to galvanise the BNP and EDL which would be a truly unfortunate downside but the key objective for our lawmakers, as Britain becomes more and more diverse (which I’m strongly in favour of), has to be integration and that will always involve compromise. A more competitive job market for those already in the UK can be balanced out with a more cohesive community.
 
We are not currently realising that cohesive community so maybe it is time to remove what is causing division and, for me, the veil has a part to play in that.

There's no avoiding a VAT rise

I have to admit to finding the debate over the VAT rise difficult to interpret. My main problem is in differentiating between the genuine concerns and the the hollow objections.

We didn't really need Mandelson's behind-the-scenes accounts to know that Labour would have pushed up VAT if it had won a fourth term in office, they did after all have a plan to half the deficit in four years and would have had to have taken many of the measures that the LibCon coalition are taking now, though not quite all of them as Osborne is going faster and deeper than Brown and Darling would have.

So the objections raised by the Labour benches to the rise in VAT look a little opportunistic to me, not that they would be holding the Government to account very well if they nodded everything through the Parliament, ruefully accepting that they'd have done the same.

The SNP and Greens on the other hand seem to have a more deep-seated, fundamental problem with VAT being pushed up to 20%, as evidenced in yesterday's defeated amendment to scrap the rise altogether, an amendment that interestingly Labour could only bring itself to abstain over. Some could say the SNP objections are a luxury borne out of being free from the shackles of ever having to form a Westminster Government and not having to take the tough decisions but the arguments deserve to be taken at face value and on merit.

The SNP argues that the VAT increase will put pressure on households by increasing spending for some poorest families by £31 a week, will take spending power out of the economy and increase spending for the NHS in Scotland by £26m. No doubt all true but this has to be weighed up against the cost of debt to the country year on year and the opportunity cost of doing nothing. The SNP has made an excellent stance against PFI programmes but if we're not careful then UKplc will become a PFI programme in itself, borrowing for its present at the expense of future budgets. There's no stopping that imbalance without significant pain here and now. Of course, if that pain spills over into a double-dip recession then we will have fallen too far from the line but, for me, a double-dip recession won't be caused by a VAT hike, it will be caused by the Government pulling in the reins too quickly and too sharply.

The thing about reducing the deficit is, if a party is really serious about doing so, then it is just as infeasible to ringfence 'the poor' as it is to ringfence health spending. Everyone has to take a hit and the change in private final-salary pensions from a link to CPI to the currently lower RPI is one example of where those better off are paying their share back to improve the country's financial health. We truly are all in this together and should surely not want to follow the path tread by Greece, Spain and Ireland.

I would have liked to have seen higher spending continued to a certain extent and cutting to be gentler than the Tories & Lib Dems have opted for but any rescue scenario for the UK's perilous finances would have involved a VAT rise. There's no getting away from the sizeable amounts of money it can raise in a short time frame.

Consequently, whether the objections are hollow or genuine, I think they are incorrect and a VAT rise to 20% is justified.

Are the Greens top of the blogs in Scotland?

I noted with interest that the Scottish Green Party’s MSPs have set up a bright new blog, already chock full of substantial posts. With a domain name of http://www.greenmsps.org/, there is little doubt that ‘The Editor’ has more than half an eye on several scribes joining the team (and the Holyrood chamber) from next May. For now though, Patrick Harvie and Robin Harper will be shouldering the responsibility and with a posting rate of about 3/week, the signs are looking good for a consistently updated website from those at the front line and a much needed shot in the arm for political online content for Scotland in general.

There’s something unmistakably pleasing about the sight of two MSPs freely speaking their minds, particularly when so many politicians are terrified of saying something untoward in public and facing the genuine wrath of party whips or the faux-outrage of newspaper journalists. A free flowing blog direct from the fingers of our representatives is certainly an improvement on the strangled messages that emanate from the tightly-controlled press release sections of party websites or the individual MSP blogs that bizarrely talk about themselves in the third person.

Openness is to be rewarded and I hope this new site goes from strength to strength. It is worth noting that last week was the week that Sweden celebrated the ultimate in political openness with ‘Almedalsveckan’ where party leaders, party members, journalists, unions, bloggers and you name it from all parts of the political spectrum come together on the island of Gotland for a week of political debates and events. It would be nice if Scotland could follow suit and have something similar. The only suggestion to that end that I have ever heard of came from (surprise surprise) a Green party member. Despite their lowly number, in many regards they lead a chasing pack and this website could be one such example.

With blogging not exactly being flavour of the month at the moment, not to mention an eyebrow-raising link between Labour bloggers hanging up their keyboards and Iain Gray “almost spitting the word ‘bloggers’ out at Conference”, it is understandable to ruminate on the future of the medium that was not so long ago held up as the next great contributor to political discussion. It may yet be of course, it may yet be but if the direction of travel is anything at the moment it is backwards, though hopefully only because someone has left the handbrake off and is nothing that a good hill-start won’t fix in due course.

So while I’m on it, I note that on some blogs it is time once again to look inwards rather than outwards with the navel-gazing blognation conversation beginning in earnest, a conversation that I was keen to involve myself in but, somewhat ironically given the subject matter, I couldn’t really be bothered in the end. That’s not to cheapen the debate so far as primarily showcased in the excellent posts from Stuart and Will but rather just a reflection of my own blogging malaise of late. London man, it’ll gobble you up with little to show for if you’re not careful.

That said, while a slight breeze deigns to swell my blogging sail, I have to say that there’s no reason why the sum of the MacBlogosphere parts should be an important or even minor player on the great stage of Scottish Politics, it needs to earn that position and, for me, is way off course at the moment. Will encouragingingly asserts that the MacBlogosphere will always carry on in some form but one person going for a walk does not make a march. Quality will always be key and with newspapers having time, money and resource to devote to rolling news, rolling comment and rolling blogs, there is a squeeze on those of us with jobs to satisfy and unreliable enthusiasm that shouldn’t be ignored. An autonomous collection of blogs is impregnable but not impenetrable. I won’t go on as that would undermine my opinion that it doesn’t matter anyway, as long as whoever blogs enjoys what they do and doesn’t let the pressure to post constantly (or win Iain Dale votes for that matter) spoil a day to day hobby for what it is.

But back to political parties online and the sack race that it seems to be. When it comes to new media, it is the SNP that had been widely tipped to be leading the way but with many of their number staring at their shoes, the Lib Dems still in a bit of shock, Labour quietly exiting stage left and the Tories nowhere, the Greens now seem to be setting the pace. Examples abound from their Head of Media happily, wittily, enticingly tweeting FMQs in real-time, their MSPs punching beyond their number online and the party members in general providing the new energy with quality blogs either sprouting up or proving sustainable, they certainly have the momentum.

Might Scotland lose its only Tory MP already?

David Mundell, Scotland's only Tory MP, looks like he could be in serious trouble over his campaign costs from the last election. 'Fluffy' is facing an enquiry into a £700 advert in the Peebleshire News that may have been recorded in the wrong period.

The precedents do not look good for David.

Were he to go for the 'it was a muddle not a fiddle' defence, then he'd be going down the same path that Henry McLeish did which resulted in his resignation as First Minister.

Were he to go for the full disclosure as per Wendy Alexander, it would still see him hounded by an unsympathetic opposition, particularly if he has broken the law as the former Labour leader did.

So not many options for Scotland's only Tory MP if the inquiry doesn't go his way and I can't see the authorities taking this as anything other than a serious matter. It wouldn't send a great message if a blind eye was turned, particularly given the backdrop of the MPs expenses scandal, a scandal that David Mundell found himself engulfed in after the revelation that he spent a whopping £3,000 on photos for his constituency website.

So what next then? A by-election? As much as I'd personally enjoy such a spectacle down in Dumfriesshire, that seems highly unlikely. I daresay an overspend of a few hundred pounds does not in itself cause a 4,000 majority.

Good thing for the administration that Mundell was overlooked for Secretary of State for Scotland though...

Leave the NHS alone for a while

Billed as the biggest shake-up in the NHS since 1948, the transfer of budgets from accountants to GPs is a bold move from David Cameron. It is also a mistake.

In the the classic 'we need to do something, this is something' policy, the devolution of power to doctors is a transfer many do not want and do not think they have the necessary skills to handle. Local black holes will crop up all over the country and power will just have to be moved back when it proves to be the case that the financial forecasting and budgeting skills of thousands of GPs does not match their medical skills.

Here is an idea - leave the NHS alone for a while. Let nurses nurse, let doctors prescribe and let accountants control the purse strings in the back office. Change, any change, costs money and if we don't have money then let's just batten down the hatches and keep the status quo. Is the NHS really so bad as things stand?

The coalition's blinkered aim of ensuring frontline services are not cut under any circumstance should not mean that back-office tasks are simply added to the workloads of those facing off to patients.

Furthermore, there's something worryingly shifty about this whole plan. The Lib Dems have been the face of many of the cuts and one can't help but think that the Conservatives are hoping that it is GPs that will be seen as the axemen/axewomen.

In handing over NHS budgets to GPs, the Tories really are passing the buck.

This move will backfire and I hope Scotland doesn't follow the lead of the Lib Con administration.

Asch cloud descends on Holyrood - travel chaos follows

In the 1950s, the social psychologist Solomon Asch conducted a famous experiment that highlighted the fragility of the person in a mass society when he is confronted with the contrary opinion of a majority, and the tendency to conform even if this means to go against the person's basic perceptions. This is a chilling text that should be carefully read and remembered whenever we think we are swayed by the mass, against our deepest feelings and convictions. At that moment we should be on the alert, re-examining all positions (our included) and then taking decisions as free, mature and fully responsible human beings, whatever the direction taken by the mass or by a majority.
 
 
Given the above, I wonder if it was only 3 or 4 MSPs who voted in favour of a £2bn replacement Forth crossing rather than the £200m recabling before the group pressures kicked in and everyone (bar the Greens and Kenny MacAskill) started voting the same way.
 
I say this because Lawrence Marshall of the ForthRight Alliance has penned an excellent opinion piece on the matter which I hope Scotland's "free, mature and fully responsible" politicians tackle head-on before herding, en masse, Scotland's capital spending finances over a cliff.
 

Total Lib Dem Wipeout

The problems faced by the Liberal Democrats were encapsulated perfectly last night on BBC Question Time as a young girl bemoaned her lack of career, education and housing options, ultimately telling the browbeaten Michael Moore to 'get a grip' after he tried to defend the cuts his party is bringing in alongside the Tories. Dougie Alexander indirectly assisted in the Scottish Secretary's unease by pointing out that Labour's deficit reduction plan would have involved spending £40bn less than the current coalition. This in turn was backed up by the thoroughly excellent Ed Byrne who, no doubt in keeping with many Lib Dem members, believes that in tough times it's not unreasonable to pay someone to dig a hole and pay someone else to fill it in again.

I had thought that during the term of this Parliament the Lib Dems might find a narrative of being the reasonable partners in an unpopular coalition but on last night's evidence it will be a tough needle to thread. I am finally beginning to wonder just how hard the Lib Dems will be hit in next year's election and, only somewhat mischievouly, is it worth considering if they could be wiped out entirely?

The Liberal Democrats hold 11 First Past the Post seats with Dunfermline West (maj 1.6%), Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale (maj 2.0%), Edinburgh South (maj 5.9%), Aberdeen South (maj 9.1%), and Ross, Skye & Inverness West (maj 11%) amongst the most vulnerable. 

In Central, Lib Dem MSPs were voted in 6th on the list, North East 6th and in the South they were 7th so a net loss of 3 list MSPs wouldn't be too difficult to achieve with a few thousand less votes in each region all things being equal. Furthermore, the single Glasgow Lib Dem MSP could be in jeopardy if Nicola Sturgeon is not voted back into Glasgow Govan as 5 SNP MSPs, 1 Tory MSP and 1 Green MSP could quite easily freeze them out.

A total Lib Dem wipeout is of course unlikely but if Tavish Scott's party are swept back largely to just the Orkney and Shetland Islands, one can only conclude that their decision to be the face of the Tory cuts was a humiliating disaster.

Who votes Lib Dem? People who don't want Labour, don't want the Tories and don't want independence. That's a lot of things that are not wanted. What if those same people don't want cuts that the UK Government is bringing in?

A brimful of Asher on the fortified

Jane Asher, posh movie star and now maker of cakes apparently, has caused a bit of a stooshie after filming in Glasgow by casually suggesting that all drugs should be legalised.

The opinion does seem to have been formed from more than just a drive around the city but that hasn't stopped MSP for the Govan area, Nicola Sturgeon, from being heavily critical.

Jane's argument seems to be that there are untested, dangerous legal highs out there so the illegal highs should be made as safe as possible and brought into society. The problem with that argument, for me, is that ecstasy and cocaine have no positive contribution to make to society so why should a government spend time and money regulating and licensing them? I don't think anyone would get away with suggesting that shooting up together in a local setting is the same as having a few drinks in the pub.

Legalisation of marijuana on the other hand, particularly when considered alongside libertarianism, is well worth thinking about.

Now, I wonder where I can get one of Ms Asher's lovely cakes....

Lib Dems are AV'n a laugh over election date change

For how long does Nick Clegg think he can just make up the rules as he goes along?

Granted, being Deputy Prime Minister grants one a certain authority but I’m struggling to understand the journey from wanting to see a new style of politics, past insisting on a 55% limit on votes of no confidence to pushing that up to 65% to now suggesting that the Scottish Parliament elections should be on a different date so it doesn’t clash with his precious AV referendum.

One slight problem Nick, the date of the Scottish Parliament elections are enshrined in UK law. On the other hand, the May 5th date for your referendum was plucked out of the thin blue air so if there was anything that needs changing it is the date of the AV plebiscite.

Perhaps we can just give the SNP Government another year and make Holyrood terms five years instead of four years. I don’t think we need to check with anyone. I mean, the LibCon coalition made that change themselves without receiving public approval first.

So the question is, now that the wheels are in motion for some sort of date change, are the Lib Dems an unstoppable force or is the Scottish Parliament election date an immovable object?

I don’t think the jury will be out for long on that one…

Boris Johnson's hot air

One doesn't have to live in London for a long time before noticing the 'Mayor of London' tags stamped here there and everywhere. After a while the nakedly political overtures begin to wrankle. It seems BoJo is the George Foreman of Mayors.

However, Boris may have stamped one sign too many. On the underground there are many signs boasting how the London Overground escalators use enough energy to travel twice around the world each week. The 'Mayor of London' emblazoned poster seems a tad misguided if you ask me. Couldn't there be steps to reduce the clearly vast amounts of energy being used here?

In Germany for example, a country that is on so many scores streets ahead of us on environmental innovation, the escalators only move once someone goes to step onto it. Those that are less used therefore do not wastefully run all day.

Now that's an idea worth stamping your name on!

We should aim high and accept the May 5th date

I watched University Challenge this evening. It's not something I typically do but I do find the difficulty, indeed the impossibility, of answering any of the questions part of its appeal. I am constantly impressed by the bespectacled youngsters knowing answers to the most intellectually challenging of questions. It is not clear when in their lives they decided to aim so high but kudos to them for doing so.

University Challenge is also a refreshing respite from the channel surfing options of Britain's Next Top Model, endless repeats of Friends and 'Hotter than my Daughter', all of which were on at the same time as tonight's show. Paxman's show is the prime number sitting gloriously off-kilter against the lowest common denominator brainlessness that tends to come out of the tv set.

Where am I going with this? Well, I fear the growing debate over the date of the AV referendum is beginning to pander to the dumbest amongst us. Apparently there is concern that having an election and a referendum on the same day will lead to confusion, as if the public won't be saturated with news on what will be happening on May 5th for months beforehand, whichever side of the border one lives on. Furthermore, even without such political discussion as a lead up, are most Brits really too thick to work out what they need to do in a polling booth?

Labour, Nationalist parties and Tory backbenchers are circling Nick Clegg, scenting vulnerability over the Deputy Prime Ministers push to improve the arcane voting system that saddles our democracy. The white knight of British Politics may soon be knocked from his steed out of something between malice and sport from his opponents. There is little principle at stake in the objections to both the implementation of AV or the proposed date of the referendum, particularly with no genuinely proportional voting system as an alternative option.

We should aim high. Aim high for a better voting system, however incremental an improvement it may be, aim high by recognising the financial savings in holding a referendum on the same date as elections and aim high by trusting that the majority of people are above confusion if faced with more than one ballot slip on polling day.

And for those who do find a 'yes/no' question too much to take, should we really lament their lost votes? Really? I daresay they in turn will only be lamenting having missed the latest Hotter than my Daughter episode...

Scotland should be exempt from migrant cap

SNP MSP Ian McKee has made the interesting call for Scotland to be exempt from any migrant cap that the UK Government creates in the near future. Despite Scotland’s population now growing again and border issues being a clear complication, I reckon it is a great idea.
 
The free flow of people across borders has been one of the greatest successes of the past few decades and if free trade stops wars, then so too does the further integration of peoples across the globe.
 
We have already seen in some quarters an automatic reaction to the recession that the first thing to be done is safeguard work for UK citizens, the cringeworthy ‘British jobs for British workers’ comes to mind. However, evidence clearly shows that immigrants are a net contributor to the public purse and often take up work to plug gaps that exist in the market.
 
Nick Clegg was, I think unfairly, ridiculed for suggesting that specific areas could be targeted for increased or maintained immigration by ensuring immigrants are sponsored by an employer. I don’t see why this couldn’t work for Scotland if it was tightly controlled and it would mitigate any concerns over how England & Wales having a cap and Scotland not would work in practise.
 
Ultimately, the transfer of powers of immigration from Westminster to Holyrood would be a welcome step for the devolution project. It is clear from regular polling that there is a difference of opinion either side of the border surrounding the benefits and need for various immigration levels.  
 
Let’s test the flexibility of our United Kingdom by satisfying both sides of this question by having two policies for two parts of our islands. Were it to be successful, increased devolution may follow. Were it to be unsuccessful, well, then you have the choice of two extremes.
 
A one size fits all immigration cap for the whole of the UK or taking devolution to its final destination of full independence.

Labour should steal a march on AV

The awkward relationship between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives inside of the Westminster coalition has no greater example than the AV referendum, pencilled in for May 5th next year.

AV is a long way short of what the Lib Dems want but it is so much more than what many Tories wished to give. Even Lib Dem activists seem a bit unmotivated in campaigning for the slight improvement on First Past the Post and, even if they do end up trooping out to argue in favour, they'll be up against the Prime Minister himself stating his reservations on prime time.

So what can Labour (largely watching on from the sidelines thus far) do with all of this? Easy as far as I can see, it should table an amendment to the future Bill calling for the referendum to be on AV+ or STV or something truly proportional. Why take a baby step towards a better system when one can go the whole hog in a giant leap? Or, failing that, why not serve up a hospital pass for Cameron and Clegg to agonise over?

Granted, each of the Labour leadership candidates have said that they are in favour of AV so it may look a bit shifty to amend that stance. One can be in favour of two things at once though and prefer one to the other. In short, Labour would get away with it.

Whether it is a Miliband, Balls, Burnham or Abbot in charge, they can really stir up some trouble for the ConDem coalition by pushing for PR that Lib Dems won't be able to resist voting for and the Tories, particularly those on the backbenches, will fight tooth and nail against. The fallout could be ugly.

Another First Past the Post election in 2012 anyone?

More Nats, Less Scruples

The news that there was a flood of new SNP members just days before the deadline for voting the party list for the regional vote in the 2011 election should come as no surprise to those who are aware of the weaknesses in the Additional Member System that the Scottish Parliament uses to elect MSPs.

Indeed, two years ago I predicted this very thing happening in my '£5,000 to become an MSP' post by pointing out that, in theory, it would only take an initial outlay of £5,000 in member fees to force oneself into taking the regional Lib Dem MSP slot in Glasgow, Central or the West of Scotland. It seems I selected the wrong party.

Thankfully the SNP has shut the door on these new recruits by changing the deadlines. Let's be honest, there can be little doubt that there was foul play at hand. However, despite most of the names being of Asian origin, one should not automatically assume that the intent was to vote in the only Asian SNP member with a realistic chance of becoming an MSP next year - Osama Saeed. Indeed, the ruse was so cack-handed and noticeable that one could be tempted to believe the opposite. Why were the hundreds of new members paid with just eight cheques? Why weren't the new members gradually built up throughout the year? Someone, somewhere, is desperate to be an SNP regional MSP, that's for sure.

Whatever the backstory to this story, the Additional Member System needs to change. There are similar weaknesses in the voting method which is open to exacerbation and exploitation. For example, what is to stop a party not standing in the regional round with a proxy party effectively standing in their place. 'The Nationalist Party' instead of the SNP, or 'The Trade Unionists' instead of Labour. In places like Glasgow, were the public to appreciate that this trade unionist proxy party was de facto Labour, then the spirit of the elections would be compromised and a majority Government would be delivered relatively easily. Indeed, in Glasgow alone, this could make as much as a 6 seat difference as 'Labour' gobble up seats that the SNP would have won.

Fundamentally, the balance of power needs to be shifted back towards the people which is why open lists are more preferable to closed lists. Why not allow each party to put forward an unranked list of seven party members and let the general public rank the total group of candidates from 1-7 in each region? This would mitigate the risk of fake or late members trying to push an individual to the very top of a list against the party and the public's will.

The jostling and coercing and, well, the backstabbing that must be going on right now as all parties decide who will stand in the regional vote seems like a wasted effort when we could have a fairer, clearer and cleaner system going forward.

Same day for AV referendum and Holyrood elections

Typical, you spend days considering and writing a post on the ten factors that will impact the upcoming Holyrood election and then a whopping eleventh factor comes along just as you hit ‘publish’.
 
So, the announcement that there will be a UK referendum in May next year on adopting the Alternative Vote was not immediately met with the ‘that’s good news’ that it perhaps should have but rather with the consideration of what having Scottish Parliament elections and a national referendum on the same day may mean.
 
Two distinct advantages spring to mind immediately:
 
1 – There are cost savings to be realised through returning officers and counters only working one day rather than two.
2 – Voter turnout will increase giving the Scottish Parliament even more legitimacy next term.
 
The downside is that this was sprung upon Scotland seemingly without consultation. I’m not suggesting for a second that the Scottish Government should have some say over when a UK referendum should take place but discussing the considerable impact this will have on Scotland’s election, with a cross-party delegation of MSPs or with a relevant SNP Minister, would have been evidence of the “respect” that Cameron has promised.
 
The really interesting considerations of all of this are at a party level though. Who will gain from this dual-vote?
 
In the United States, anti-abortion/anti-gay state-wide referenda have been arranged in the past to mobilise the conservative electorate while referenda on raising the minimum wage has been used to get the liberal vote out. Both rather cynical but both are examples of how personal gain can be realised from plebiscites.
 
The Liberal Democrats would be the most likely beneficiaries of a referendum on a more proportional voting system. They delivered this referendum in their coalition negotiations and their party is typically most in favour of such a change. Tavish Scott could reasonably expect an increased turnout amongst his supporters and an increased degree of goodwill towards his party in general. Were Tavish to be successful in aligning voting ‘Yes’ to AV with voting Liberal Democrat, then he really could expect some huge gains in the Parliament.
 
Note that Alex Salmond is the constituency MSP for the typically Lib Dem stronghold of Gordon. An improved showing for the Lib Dems off the back of an AV referendum could achieve the unthinkable for Team SNP - dethroning the party leader. It is difficult to imagine a First Minister of Scotland not winning his/her constituency but we could potentially face that prospect next year.
 
The Greens, similarly, may see an increase in their fortunes due to their supporters turning out in droves to ensure AV is introduced at future Westminster elections. Given that voting Green is not a wasted vote for Scottish Parliament elections, there’s no reason why they wouldn’t vote Green while they voted ‘Yes’.
 
The SNP could take a slightly different tack and campaign on something along the lines of ‘Referendum for British AV but no referendum for Scotland’ which may or may not succeed in gaining traction with the public.
 
Labour would campaign in favour of AV which should serve them well while the Conservatives arguably have the most to lose as they’d be seen to be an obstacle to progress, campaigning as they would in favour of continuing with First Past the Post. Then again, if (say) 30% of Scots favour First Past the Post, then there is scope there for the Scottish Tories to improve its sub-20% vote share on this issue alone.
 
So I seem to have ended up with the potential result where every party will increase its vote thanks to the Alternative Vote referendum. In terms of increasing the all-important share of the vote, I can’t help but think that the Liberal Democrats will have the edge and consequently may well emerge as clear coalition partners for whoever wins out between the SNP and Labour.
 
 
For the record, when the AV referendum comes around, subject to my reading up on it a bit more, I’ll be voting in the order of (1) Yes, (2) No, (3) Staying at home.

Same day for AV referendum and Holyrood elections

Typical, you spend days considering and writing a post on the ten factors that will impact the upcoming Holyrood election and then a whopping eleventh factor comes along just as you hit ‘publish’.
 
So, the announcement that there will be a UK referendum in May next year on adopting the Alternative Vote was not immediately met with the ‘that’s good news’ that it perhaps should have but rather with the consideration of what having Scottish Parliament elections and a national referendum on the same day may mean.
 
Two distinct advantages spring to mind immediately:
 
1 – There are cost savings to be realised through returning officers and counters only working one day rather than two.
2 – Voter turnout will increase giving the Scottish Parliament even more legitimacy next term.
 
The downside is that this was sprung upon Scotland seemingly without consultation. I’m not suggesting for a second that the Scottish Government should have some say over when a UK referendum should take place but discussing the considerable impact this will have on Scotland’s election, with a cross-party delegation of MSPs or with a relevant SNP Minister, would have been evidence of the “respect” that Cameron has promised.
 
The really interesting considerations of all of this are at a party level though. Who will gain from this dual-vote?
 
In the United States, anti-abortion/anti-gay state-wide referenda have been arranged in the past to mobilise the conservative electorate while referenda on raising the minimum wage has been used to get the liberal vote out. Both rather cynical but both are examples of how personal gain can be realised from plebiscites.
 
The Liberal Democrats would be the most likely beneficiaries of a referendum on a more proportional voting system. They delivered this referendum in their coalition negotiations and their party is typically most in favour of such a change. Tavish Scott could reasonably expect an increased turnout amongst his supporters and an increased degree of goodwill towards his party in general. Were Tavish to be successful in aligning voting ‘Yes’ to AV with voting Liberal Democrat, then he really could expect some huge gains in the Parliament.
 
Note that Alex Salmond is the constituency MSP for the typically Lib Dem stronghold of Gordon. An improved showing for the Lib Dems off the back of an AV referendum could achieve the unthinkable for Team SNP - dethroning the party leader. It is difficult to imagine a First Minister of Scotland not winning his/her constituency but we could potentially face that prospect next year.
 
The Greens, similarly, may see an increase in their fortunes due to their supporters turning out in droves to ensure AV is introduced at future Westminster elections. Given that voting Green is not a wasted vote for Scottish Parliament elections, there’s no reason why they wouldn’t vote Green while they voted ‘Yes’.
 
The SNP could take a slightly different tack and campaign on something along the lines of ‘Referendum for British AV but no referendum for Scotland’ which may or may not succeed in gaining traction with the public.
 
Labour would campaign in favour of AV which should serve them well while the Conservatives arguably have the most to lose as they’d be seen to be an obstacle to progress, campaigning as they would in favour of continuing with First Past the Post. Then again, if (say) 30% of Scots favour First Past the Post, then there is scope there for the Scottish Tories to improve its sub-20% vote share on this issue alone.
 
So I seem to have ended up with the potential result where every party will increase its vote thanks to the Alternative Vote referendum. In terms of increasing the all-important share of the vote, I can’t help but think that the Liberal Democrats will have the edge and consequently may well emerge as clear coalition partners for whoever wins out between the SNP and Labour.
 
 
For the record, when the AV referendum comes around, subject to my reading up on it a bit more, I’ll be voting in the order of (1) Yes, (2) No, (3) Staying at home.