A Mandate To Oppose

Over the past few weeks, I've found myself at odds with an argument being put forward by some folk with whom I usually agree. It concerns the 'mandate', or lack of one, which the LibCon coalition has in Scotland, and whether or not pointing out their lack of majority support constitutes a 'grudge and grievance' agenda better suited to the 1980's.

Wherever you stood politically the 80's was an eventful time, with the sense of great issues of principle being tussled over at home and abroad. For those able to adapt to the dramatic social change, the personal possibilities seemed limitless as old orthodoxies, for better or worse, were torn down. With the ending of the Cold War and the redrawing of the European map, it seemed that a new age of self-determination, liberated from the stifling power politics of the post-war period, was set to be ushered in.




Culturally, Scotland flowered in opposition to the Tories. Denied devolution in 1979 by the unwillingness of a weak Labour government to take on its backbenchers, the home rule cause was galvanised and emboldened, with the sense of there being a different Scottish polity taking hold across the unionist/nationalist divide. With the argument being advanced, even by staunch unionists that the Scottish people were sovereign, the idea of the Tories, by then reduced to 11 seats out of 72 holding no mandate to govern Scotland, took hold in the popular imagination.

To say that the present situation in Scotland is not like the 1980's, as Gerry Hassan has done several times since the election, is certainly accurate, if a bit of a straw man. Circumstances for the moment are quite different – for one, Scotland now has her parliament and seems increasingly at ease with herself, in contrast to the brittle assertions of difference once used as a common currency by Scotland's social democratic left.



The second difference is that the current Prime Minister gives the impression of being a far more emollient character than Margaret Thatcher, who managed systematically to irritate and ultimately alienate white collar 'middle Scotland'. Thirdly, and crucially if you are to believe those disparaging the no mandate argument in its newly resurrected form, the Tories are in coalition with the Lib Dems, who following the election have a combined total of Westminster seats and votes double that of the SNP.

This is true, although why the SNP should be chosen here as the yardstick by which legitimacy is measured is beyond me. However, whether in votes or seats, the Lib/Con coalition falls well short of a majority on both counts. Leaving aside the discomfort which a number of Lib Dem voters must be feeling at their party's shotgun marriage with the Tories, the parties combined still have only one more MP than did Margaret Thatcher at the height of her crisis of legitimacy in Scotland, following the 1987 'Doomsday' election.

Another reason why this argument is bunk is that while the SNP was allowed by parliament to form a Government, if it wants to legislate, it still has to gain the support of a majority of parliamentarians elected within Scotland under a proportional system. Compare and contrast with the LibCons, who have gained their ability to govern Scotland solely through the combined strength of their First-Past-The-Post performance in England.

There is also a fourth dissimilarity which is not being spoken about, but which makes all the difference right now. Simply, the new LibCon government hasn't yet had a chance to do anything unpopular, and most people will for the moment be inclined to give them benefit of the doubt. It's only when the effects of controversial decisions – such as the impending and well-trailed spending cuts – begin to manifest themselves that people will start to question the wisdom of the government, and the level of support it has for its agenda.

If the new LibCon government is shrewd, it will live up to the rhetoric of its self-proclaimed 'respect' agenda by behaving consensually and recognising the limitations of its Scottish mandate. In what are being trailed as some early 'wins' for this approach, it is being hinted that progress might be made on releasing the £180m from the Fossil Fuels levy to Scotland, and on granting borrowing powers to Holyrood. Evidently, a nationalist 'grudge and grievance' agenda can become an agenda of 'respect' when carried out by a unionist!



So, the mandate issue, just like the funding issue, is one which is very much alive and lurking away in the undergrowth, however much some might like to assert otherwise. However, where they are on to something is in identifying that an obsession over the matter right now would look premature, and runs the risk of making anyone who uses the argument too forcibly look peevish and out of touch.

There is a further risk, which is in fairness nailed very effectively by Hassan. Throughout the 80's and indeed the 90's, home-rulers of all stripes seemed far better at defining themselves by what they were against policy-wise rather than in terms of what they were for - something which arguably left us with a hangover of unrealistic expectation when we finally got our parliament. If we approach the new Westminster government solely in terms of the comfortable slogans of yesteryear, we run the very real risk of repeating that mistake, and slowing the progress to independence in consequence.

With that said, the mandate argument still deserves to be made and heard as a corrective to aspects of the of the Lib Con administration's agenda, and could very well prove to be a useful restraint on the untrammeled power of a Westminster Government. That’s something which Scots of all persuasions might become grateful for in the not too distant future – whether they voted for the coalition parties or not.

Lib Dem Fudge and Fall-Out

We had the first proper hustings of the Gordon campaign last night in Ellon Academy, organised by the community council. A good couple of hundred people turned out to hear a wide ranging debate on subjects ranging from the current economic situation to how the various parties would approach a parliament where no party had an overall majority.

However, one issue dominated, whether the subject was defence or the economy, and that was the future of Britain's nuclear 'deterrent'. As you'd expect, both myself and the Green were against a £100bn Trident replacement, while Labour and the Conservatives were in favour. The curiosity was the Lib Dem position, which claims to be against a 'like for like' replacement.



It smacks of a classic Lib Dem attempt to be all things to all people, allowing them to hear exactly what they want. To those who support nuclear weapons, it gives the impression that the Lib Dems are in favour of a British nuclear weapons system – just not Trident. Meanwhile, to those who support doing away with British nuclear weapons, it can give the impression that just like you, the Lib Dems also support disarmament.

The fact is that it is the first of those statements which represents their real position - the Lib Dems support British possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Which begs the question – if not Trident, then what delivery system would they have in its place?

It's worth taking a short walk through the history of British nuclear weapons at this point, and why we arrived at having a submarine based system. Initially, British weapons were freefall bombs, deployed by the RAF using V-class bombers. However, bombers are vulnerable to counter measures, whether by opposing fighters or surface to air missiles. For that reason, a number of missile-based systems were considered instead.

The trouble with both bombers and land based missiles in the UK, however, is that both are highly vulnerable to a first strike from Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. This made submarines, which can remain mobile, undetected, launch their missiles while underwater and survive a nuclear attack on the UK, the obvious method of delivery. Although the UK retained a stockpile of 'tactical' freefall nuclear bombs well into the 1990's, so it was that first Polaris, then Trident, became the main means of delivery.

But back to the Lib Dems. If the UK were to have a nuclear weapons system which was not Trident or similar, it would need to involve a new fleet of bombers or land based missiles, both of which would retain exactly the same vulnerabilities which led to the adoption of Polaris. With international treaties prohibiting the use of either outer space or the sea bed for the deployment of nuclear weapons, a submarine based system remains the only practical option.

A cruise-missile based system could be adopted, although the range of cruise is considerably shorter at 3,000 miles than the present Trident system at 7,000 miles. Cruise is also limited in the size of warhead it can deploy. A ballistic-based missile system therefore continues to provide the greatest flexibility.

If a ballistic system is chosen, then that clearly requires a class of submarine capable of launching the missiles. If the deterrent is to be operative 24/7/365, then four vessels, as are available presently, will also be needed. It's a brutal, grim logic, but given the infrastructure already in place, a variation on the present Trident system will be far and away the cheapest and most effective option if you wish to retain a British nuclear weapons system with the current capability of being able to ride out attack, and also be able to attack or retaliate anywhere in the world.



From a personal point of view, I believe that replacing Trident risks leaving us both financially and morally bankrupt, while offering us little or nothing in the way of tangible security benefits. No matter how many anti-nuclear votes the Lib Dems might think they can harvest on the sly, or what they might like us to believe regarding the chimera of cheaper alternatives, there really is no clever-clever alternative out there waiting to be discovered by Menzies Campbell and his 'review' which has been hitherto overlooked by lesser mortals.

Ultimately, the decision about whether or not to possess WMD is a matter of principle and not tactics. Maybe that's why the Lib Dems are having such difficulty wrestling with it.

Gordon Fuel Campaign

Regular readers of the local press in Gordon (or even those who tuned into Alex Salmond's SNP Conference Speech) will know that I've managed to make a few waves recently over the differences in the price of fuel between Aberdeen City and the Shire, notably between the supermarkets. It's a real bone of contention locally, where people can see little justification for the often 3-4p per litre price diference which there is over a distance of less than 20 miles.

However, the biggest contributory factor in high fuel prices is the tax that's levied by the government. A flat rate of duty, with VAT on top, means that almost three-quarters of the price we pay when we fill up goes straight to the treasury. And with prices now at £1.20 per litre or more (over £5.50 a gallon, or $7 per US gallon for my American readers) - something which impacts upon the cost of everything transported by road - it's rapidly becoming one of the defining issues of this election.

And so it was that yesterday, I was out on the stump in Huntly with a certain local MSP and some of our activists, highlighting the impact of high fuel prices on motorists:


[Pic credit: Alan Milligan]

Worryingly, the Lib Dems are swerving all over the road when it comes to their own tax policies. In a recent Politics Show interview, party leader Nick Clegg argued that the 3p duty rise planned for 1 April should go ahead, only to be flatly contradicted by his 'Chief of Staff' 15 minutes later in the Scottish segment of the programme - a shambles which was repeated a couple of days ago when Clegg and economic spokesman Vince Cable contradicted eachother over VAT increases [follow the link - it's a lovely picture!].

However, their confusion over fuel duty kind of pales into insignificance when compared with the policy that they really want to introduce - road pricing, with charges of up to 13p per mile for using a car.

It probably looked great over a breakfast table in, say, Twickenham, where you are spoiled for choice when it comes to public transport. However, in large parts of Scotland, not to say the Gordon constituency, a car is a necessity, whether for getting to work, for doing the shopping, or simply for meeting family obligations.

To give an example of what policy would mean for local families, think of someone who uses their car to commute the 30 mile round trip from Ellon, Oldmeldrum or Inverurie into Aberdeen. That would mean a bill of nearly £1,000 per year, just for getting to work. If you travel down the A96 each day from Huntly, that bill would be £2,300 every year. It's a policy which sits in complete defiance of the way life is lived in the North East, and indeed across swathes of Scotland where the Lib Dems currently have Westminster representation.

We're having a great campaign here in Gordon. In addition to continuing to fight for fair play on fuel, I look forward to contrasting my party's policy with that of the Lib Dems - who will simply end up pricing off the road the least well-off motorists, who also have the fewest practical alternatives to the car.

Problems For Union Square - And Shopping Centre Not Very Happy Either

Some sad news from Aberdeen:

Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Tavish Scott was told by security staff to leave the grounds of an Aberdeen shopping centre yesterday.

Mr Scott visited the city to lend his support to the party’s Fair Deal for Aberdeen campaign, which aims to secure additional government funding for the local authority.

Less than 20 minutes after arriving outside the Union Square shopping centre in Guild Street, the Lib Dem leader was, however, asked to stop canvassing members of the public.

Oh dear. I wouldn't like to be an aide in Tavish Scott's office...

The Euro Political Map

Last night was a late one for a Sunday, what with staying up for the Euro Elections and all. I'm really pleased to see the SNP topping the Scottish vote, although there's more than a twinge of regret that we didn't get Dr Aileen McLeod elected. Just another 5% would have done it, but nevertheless, the overall result goes to show that 2007 was no flash in the pan.

For Labour, it's the individual stories that are probably more damaging than the overall result: losing the popular vote in all but 3 Scottish council areas; beaten into 3rd place in the English popular vote; coming behind the Conservatives in Wales; finishing behind Mebyon Kernow in Cornwall; and (sadly) what became the story of the night - the BNP picking up a seat in the North west and another in Yorkshire and the Humber.

Anyway, numbers are all very well in charting an election, but here's how people voted in Scotland by local authority:


Incredibly, that's 3 Labour (they 'won' Fife by only 205 votes!), 3 Lib Dem, 4 Tory including East Renfrewshire (where the SNP came a close 2nd to push labour into 3rd - bye, Jim) and 22 SNP.


In Aberdeenshire, the SNP topped the poll comfortably (35%) with the Conservatives second (23%) and the Lib Dems trailing some way behind in third (14.5%). The SNP vote is up over 10% on 2004, with the Lib Dems down over 4%.

That's a 7.5% swing from Lib Dem to SNP since last time - a figure which given their poor showing last time in Banff & Buchan, is going to be even larger when applied to Gordon [declaring an interest...] and to West Aberdeenshire. Again, this suggests that our advances here in 2007 are not only solid, but are being built on.

The results from Aberdeen City were every bit as encouraging for the SNP:

Given that the Gordon Westminster seat has a fair chunk of Aberdeen North in it including Dyce and Bridge of Don, from my perspective, it's all good.

All told, it's hard to see any positives for Gordon Brown in this. As one backbencher said last night, their choice seems to be instant death in an election led by a new leader, or a slow death next June with Brown. Who'd want to take over if that were to be their fate?

The Scottish Play

Given that it's supposed to be all 'hands to the pump' in the present economic crisis, you have to admire the sheer chutzpah of Lib Dems in demanding that the SNP forget about independence, while seemingly talking of little else themselves.

The spin and the cycle can be summed up thusly: talk of constitutional change is bad right now if it concerns Independence, but is tickety-boo if it's concerned with 'further powers', whatever that means. Independence is a distraction in the present crisis; will put at risk recovery when it comes; and will be deemed pointless in an economic upswing which shows, we will be told, that Britain is working. In short, it's always going to be 'not the time' for any constitutional option which the Lib Dems decide they don't want the people to have their say on, in the vain hope that eventually, Independence will become the constitutional choice that dare not speak its name.

Genies and empty bottles spring to mind, almost as readily as does this little skit from Blackadder. Given the evident discomfort of the Lib Dem leadership to talk of referendums, I wonder if they go through a similar rigmarole each time the word is mentioned? I do hope so :-)



P.S. I admit I'm coming a little late to this, but in light of some of the present mince which there is about, I can't recommend this post from Julie Hepburn highly enough.

Budget - The Aftermath

Per the post below, there's a poll in today's Sunday Times, which gives the first indications as to how the public at large might be viewing the budgetary shenanigans of last week. However, I thought it might be interesting to take a fresh look at events given the benefit of a day or two to reflect.

There's been some severe criticism of the SNP for not having the support of the Greens in the proverbial 'bag for life' before the budget vote. I've remarked elsewhere on my surprise at this,but it's maybe worth pointing out that in any negotiation, there is, by definition, more than one party involved. If it's not possible to have a deal, then it's not possible to have a deal – simple. With further detail emerging about the pressures on Patrick Harvie from his own side in this Sunday's papers, it's suddenly clear why John Swinney went out of his way to emphasise the common ground between the SNP and the Labour party during the debate.

As things stood, it required Labour abstentions to get the bill through. It wasn't enough. Harvie had his moment in the spotlight and funked it. Labour seemed intent on finding fault with initiatives like apprenticeships and town centre regeneration funding, simply because they wanted to claim a monopoly of ideas across the parliament. The Lib Dems, meanwhile, were still in a self-imposed splendid isolation over their demands for £800m of cuts.

And so, when it came to the vote, the Greens went against, having been unable to take yes for an answer. And Labour and the Lib Dems, who were certain that they could have a painless kick at the SNP by voting against the budget, thanks to the Greens suddenly found themselves where they neither expected nor particularly wanted to be - on the winning side.

That simply wasn't in the script, and for all Ian Grey's bravado in the aftermath about confidence motions, Labour and the Lib Dems found themselves experiencing a sudden and bowel-loosening acquaintance with realpolitik. No budget? No government. No government? 28 days to elect a new First Minister. Would Labour and the Lib Dems combine to elect Grey or Tavish? Not a chance. Which placed rather a lot of power in the hands of Annabel Goldie and the Tories...

Goldie excoriated Labour's tactics at FMQs. When she announced that one Labour government was damaging enough for Scotland and that we certainly didn't need two as a result of a bloodless coup, that really was check mate. Anyone daft enough to think that Grey could be installed as FM was suddenly faced with the prospect of the election they had accused the SNP of being 'arrogant' for pointing towards. And as the phones began to heat up with Labour Council leaders and trade unionists demanding to know what the hell Labour MSPs thought they were playing at by putting jobs and budget plans at risk, the bravery pills overdose wore off pretty quickly.

So, we are where we are, and a new spirit of co-operation appears to be abroad. Labour seem willing to deal on apprentices, while the Lib Dems appear to have put themselves back in the game by dropping their demand for a 2p tax cut. It's also become clear that no-one of any consequence would have criticised Harvie for taking the deal he was offered. Discretionary spending within the £33bn block is actually quite limited, so £33m would have been a remarkable achievement for a party with 2 MSPs. As it is, his principles remain pure, but the pot remains empty.

For my own view, having a unanimous vote in favour of the budget is not essential, but would be highly desirable. As the poll results below show, the public has taken a pretty clear view of who it considers to be the heroes and villains in this affair. The best face-saver for all is for everyone to back a budget which may not deliver all that they want, but which, in these 'difficult times', represents a good deal for Scotland as a whole. That way, everyone can emerge with something and we can all move on.

On a final note, there's been a lot of nonsense written about the supposed 'arrogance' of the SNP this week – frankly, since the party enters every Holyrood vote in the full knowledge that it could lose, it's always been a nonsensical and rather self-serving charge. You'll find no-one in the SNP disputing the responsibilities which come with minority government. However, now might also be a good time to recognise the responsibilities which come with opposition.

As I said after Glenrothes, sometimes a disparate opposition will be able to combine in ways which defeat the largest single minority. In truth, the opposition parties at Holyrood have always had the power to bring proceedings to a juddering halt any time they wanted. That's what happened this time, even if it did come about by dint of a Lib/Lab miscalculation and the idiosynchratic internal politics of the Greens.

Just because the government can be defeated, it doesn't mean that it should be, particularly on issues as important as a budget. The vitriol and venom directed in some quarters towards the SNP this week has not been particularly edifying – maybe this can be a watershed whereby the legitimacy of the government can be recognised, and a recognition also be made of the common ground which actually exists between the parties in the chamber, be that on the economy or even elsewhere.

Oops!

My researcher, Mr Google, has drawn my attention to an article in the Scotsman, where Tavish Scott is having a go at the SNP.

No change there. However, this time he's making the case for something called an 'Infrastructure Investment Board' to be set up, which would take the decisions about which major transport infrastructure projects ought to be progressed out of the clammy hands of ministers.

'Why on earth would he want to do that?', I hear you ask. Well, it seems Tavish has it in his head that the SNP is only interested in advancing major projects in constituencies which they hold, or would like to hold. This, he contends, would be a way to stop such low down skulduggery.

Golly. I wonder if he means the Edinburgh Tram Project? Oh, sorry, that one's going ahead, and the SNP was against it, wasn't it? Ah, here we go - he means improvements to the A9 between Perth and Inverness, which, he contends, the SNP only want to press on with, not because it might be a good and useful thing to do, but because it runs through Fergus Ewing's constituency.

R-i-g-h-t. Now Fergus, I concede, is indeed the SNP MSP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber, and could, I suppose, accurately be described as someone with an interest in seeing improvements to the A9 go ahead. But remind me - which party currently represents the seats containing Caithness and Sutherland; as well as Inverness West at Holyrood? And which party is it that represents Inverness and all points north at Westminster? And which party, other than the SNP of course, is it that has repeatedly called for the A9 to be dualled between Perth and Inverness over the past 4 decades?

I'll give you a clue. Russell Johnston, a formidable advocate in his lifetime for improving the A9, used to be one of their MPs [for Inverness, as it happens].

Still nothing? Well, they provided the transport minister in the last Scottish Government, before the SNP took over in 2007.

Still nothing? Oh, OK then. That former transport minister, who singularly failed to improve the A9 during his term of office, is the one now complaining in this Scotsman article about the SNP going ahead and doing what he didn't.

It's certainly a novel tactic - trying to hold onto seats by complaining about transport improvements which you've always supported going ahead. Anyway, all answers, this time on the back of a dodgy by-election bar chart, to the usual address.

Otherwise Engaged

This is fantastic - the tears are still rolling down my face :-)

Where There's Brass There's Muck

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg is today taking a pop at the Conservatives and the 'unanswered questions' over their finances. Namely, the tax status of major backer Lord Ashcroft and the extent to which his money is bankrolling campaigns such as the by-election in Henley, and the Crewe and Nantwich contest just past.

Reasonable points both. However, wasn't Michael Brown, the Lib Dems largest ever donor, non-resident for tax purposes? Isn't there a suspicion that the company he funnelled the cash through, 5th Avenue Partners, never actually traded in the UK, which would mean, however unwittlingly, that electoral law had been broken by both the proffering and the acceptance of the donation? Isn't he currently serving time in one of Her Majesty's more secure establishments for the crimes of perjury and obtaining a passport by deception? Isn't it the case that the Lib Dems have still to repay a single penny of this cash to the creditors of 5th Avenue Partners? And isn't it also the case that this £2.4m windfall allowed the Lib Dems to fight a much stronger election campaign in 2005 than they otherwise would have been able to do? Just as they, er, accuse the Tories of being able to do with Ashcroft's money?

Don't get me wrong - Ashcroft's status should be questioned, just as should that of Lord Laidlaw, the Scottish Conservatives' Monegasque sugar daddy. The rules about non UK-registered donors are pretty clear, and although the suspicion remains that they were only introduced to try and stop one individual in particular donating to the SNP, they apply equally to all parties and should be enforced as such.

Michael Brown is on trial this coming September, where he will face a string of charges 'relating to obtaining money transfer by deception, transferring criminal property, theft, furnishing false information and perverting the course of justice'. Which, depending on the outcome, may be the trigger which finally forces the Electoral Commission to insist that the Lib Dems repay that £2.4m. With interest, hopefully.

How does the proverb go again? Something about persons residing in vitreous constructions who might be well advised to refrain from hurling heavy projectiles...

Focus Leaflets: Fibbing All Year Round - Guaranteed!

My folks have been trained to keep back all the political leaflets they get so I can have a read of them whenever I visit. The Lib Dem 'Focus' leaflets (delivered free to every home!) are always a favourite, and since the area my parents live in has been treated as something of a 'makeweight' down the years, shunted between the Murrayfield, Corstorphine and Stenhouse areas of Edinburgh to make up the voter numbers as and when needed, we've had more than a few from the various local Lib Dem 'personalities' over that time.

Anyway, the latest 'Focus on Murrayfield' has plopped through their door. Page 1 brings us the glad tidings that "The first Liberal Democrat-let council budget for the city has been approved". However, before you cheer too wildly, inside there is a dark tale of political skulduggery, the likes of which you might use to terrify young children who won't eat their Brussels Sprouts. You see, the Conservatives voted with the SNP in Holyrood to pass the Scottish Government's budget! And by so doing, they "have done what they said they would never do and have played fast and loose with the union".

Clearly, then, it's only the stout-hearted unionists to be found in the Lib Dems that can be trusted not to deal with the dirty nationalists. But hang on - who is it that's in coalition with the unionist Lib Dems in Edinburgh, who allowed them to get that budget through that they were so proud of back on page 1? Why, it's the SNP of course...

So, Lib Dem principals remain intact when they do a deal with the SNP in the City Chambers, but when the Tories support the SNP budget, that's them undermining the union? Honestly, just how stupid do the Lib Dems think people really are?

When Is A 3-Line Whip Not A 3-Line Whip?

Nick Clegg has put a 3-line whip on his Lib Dem colleagues to abstain on tonights Commmons vote on whether there should be a referendum. 'Sounding the trumpet and marching his troops fearlessly towards the fence on which they are to perch', as Tory MP Michael Ancrum put it earlier.

However, it seems that at least 3 of Clegg's frontbenchers are set to defy the whip and resign their posts this evening. The word is that to try and stem the anticipated tide of further resignations, he has now given dispensation to his junior spokespeople to vote for a referendum, but without forcing them to resign if they do.

By trying to make a false choice between a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and a referendum on the EU itself, Clegg has made his party look opportunistic. By putting a 3-line whip on an abstention (I ask you!) and refusing to support amendments which would let his party get their referendum, he's made them look ridiculous. Now, by backing away from his earlier threat, he's made himself look weak and incompetent, and his party irrelevant.

You couldn't make it up, but it seems that if you're Nick Clegg, you can certainly manage to muck it up. Where's Vince Cable when you need him? :-)

Belated Update: Orkney & Shetland MP Alastair Carmichael has quit the frontbench, which means the Lib Dems will be on their 4th Scottish Spokesperson in 2 years.

Sterling Efforts

Another story from the slow, festive news period was the synthetic outrage from the Lib Dems, as they learned that Scottish Bank notes were not legal tender in England. Stop the press! Hold the front page! Lib Dems pick fight with London shock!

You have to wonder where the Lib Dems have been, though. Scottish banknotes have never been ‘legal tender’ - that which is acceptable in settlement of a debt - even in Scotland. In fact, not even Bank of England notes are classed as being ‘legal tender’ in Scotland.

That said, the term ‘legal tender’ doesn’t have any influence over the acceptability or otherwise of bank notes as a means of exchange between interested parties. It really comes down to whether or not you have confidence in being able to redeem the note for its stated value, and therefore continue to enjoy the ‘double coincidence of wants’ which bank notes are supposed to provide.

Everyone has their own horror story to tell about a surly London cabbie refusing to take Scottish notes, many of which I dare say grow a bit in the telling. As it happens, most places in the centre of London are quite happy to take any kind of note you proffer. Vending machines can be a bit temperamental, although that applies every bit as much in my experience to many of those installed in Scotland too.

My only outright refusal to accept Scottish notes came a few months ago from a Polish barman in deepest, darkest Beckenham (Kent commuter land), who complained very obnoxiously about my ‘funny money’. He then became particularly aggressive when I then enquired if his refusal to accept my money meant that the already poured pints in front of me were therefore free. However, with a wee bit of initiative, you can sometimes make it work both ways.

Flying out of Muscat Airport a few years ago, I had a wallet-full of Omani Rials, which I didn’t fancy trying to get changed back in Scotland. The guy at the Bureau de Change obviously recognised my Scottish accent, and knowing the reluctance of some English people to accept Scottish notes, pronounced with regret that the only Sterling notes he had were Clydesdale Bank twenties.

Primed from a few days bargaining in the various Souks, I sucked on my teeth, shook my head and told him that I didn’t get such a good exchange rate for Clydesdale notes when I took them back home. To which he smiled, offered them to me commission free and agreed to round the transaction up in my favour. Sold!

Sure, it’s annoying when Scottish notes get knocked back. Yes, people outside Scotland should be better aware that these are also sterling notes and yes, sometimes we need to be more assertive than we might feel comfortable with to get them accepted. This is hardly a new phenomenon, but it’s going to take more than a publicity-seeking Lib Dem spokesman to ensure Scottish banknotes get the recognition and acceptance they deserve.

It's Early Days

Well, that's two weeks into an SNP government and the sun still rises in the east; the earth still turns on its axis; no-one's been forced to sell their first born son into slavery; and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse seem curiously absent from the horizon. More prosaically, business confidence appears to be on the rise, exposing those who claimed to foresee a flight of business from an SNP-run Scotland as the charlatans they always were. With no-one leaping out of the top floor windows of a burning Standard Life building, or running for the first shuttle to London (Michelle Mone's gone awfy quiet, don't you think?), it looks like another demon has been exorcised.

I had my doubts about minority government, but thus far, the signs look reasonably promising. Having to build up consensus for policies instead of being able to railroad them through, might spare us the legislative diarrhoea which afflicted the first eight years of devolution. Fair enough, after 300 years of being a legal afterthought, much needed done. But banning fur farms which don't exist or getting into a fankle over fox hunting? I mean, come on.

Although it will probably take the Lib Dems a while to get used to not being in government, oddly, it seems to be the Tories, the last bastions of FPTP winner takes all absolutism, who have best grasped the possibilities offered by minority government. Sure, the potential is there for the other parties to bring everything to a grinding halt, but with a 2/3rds majority needed to bring down the administration and the SNP having over 1/3rd of the MSPs, it ain't going to happen unless a few SNP MSPs decide to vote against their own side in a confidence motion.

No, while Labour still chunters away as if Scottish voters have somehow conspired to cheat the party of its birthright, the Tories are the ones bringing forward proposals to the SNP on which they'd be prepared to co-operate. Together with the Greens on ship-to-ship transfers, and potentially the Lib Dems on council tax, a coherent program for government should be possible with sufficient give and take on all sides. Only Jack McConnell is left arguing for a demolition derby of unamended manifesto proposals.

There's been a marked improvement in the quality of ministers, and so far partisanship has been at a premium. Keeping Elish Angiolini as the Lord Advocate but out of Cabinet was a shrewd move, allowing the SNP to retain a talented member of the government while responding to concerns about the politicisation of the prosecution service. As Iain MacWhirter writes in today's Herald, it might come back to bite the government later, but it was still the right thing to do.

It's not all good, though. I'm still trying to stifle a yawn at the myriad 'conflict with Westminster' stories which have cropped up to date (is it too cynical to wonder if most were drafted in advance?). If revisiting the issues of attendance allowance; fishing representation in Europe and reminding people that nuclear power is neither economical nor necessary in Scotland can be seen as provoking 'conflict', it just goes to show how unambitious previous administrations must have been.

Nothing that the SNP has said so far in government would have raised so much as an eyebrow in Flanders, Bavaria or Catalunia. But the relationship between Edinburgh and London does need to be tested, if only to establish some ground rules on how the two governments will deal with one another in future. Labour's informal networks could allow differences to be resolved privately in the past, but with both Blair and Brown apparently refusing to lift the phone to the First Minister, some government protocols and political lines of communication need to be established.

Conflict for its own sake is a waste of everyone's time and energy. However, honest dialogue which establishes boundaries, clarifies relationships and resolves areas of contention, can only be of benefit to Scotland and Whitehall. Having government ministers who won't always feel compelled to keep their counsel when differences appear between Holyrood and Westminster is a huge step forward for the good governance of Scotland. Handled properly, it can be a maturing process for both parties.

The Lib Dems' Big Huff

Tom Gordon, in today's Sunday Times, has lifted the lid on the fatuous posturing from the Lib Dems about why they can't sit down and talk with the SNP re a coalition for Holyrood. Now, Tom is not always the easiest guy to deal with, but he's certainly not in the habit of printing anything which he knows to be untrue. For that reason, pay particular attention to the quote attributed to the Lib Dem present at their first Holyrood group meeting since the election:

'The decision to rebuff Salmond's overtures to support the SNP in a coalition was swift.

'Amongst those most fiercely opposed to a deal were Tavish Scott , the party's deputy leader, and Mike Rumbles, an influential backbencher. "If Nicol had made a deal with the SNP, even if the referendum was off the table, there was a fear that Tavish and Mike would have walked," said one of those present. "There was a power struggle going on between Nicol, who wanted another coalition, and Tavish, who wanted no deal at all costs.'

So there you have it. If that's the true state of play within the Lib Dem group at Holyrood, then they've probably done the SNP a favour by walking away from a deal. The question for the future is, once the Lib Dems have ensconced themselves in fourth party obscurity on the backbenches, will Tavish have the guts to take Nicol out, or does he just want the power of leadership without the responsibility that goes along with it?

UPDATE: Here's a typically erudite and reasonable, albeit slightly different take on events, from veteran journalist (and, for what it's worth, former Lib Dem parliamentary candidate), Neal Ascherson.

Lib Dems and SNP Agree Coalition

But don't get too excited... it's for Edinburgh City Chambers, rather than the Holyrood Chamber. However, it does mean that Labour is out of office in Edinburgh for the first time since 1984.

A lot has changed since then, most of it for the better, even if some things have happened in spite of the varous councils rather than because of them. However, Labour has been dining out on Council ventures like the Gyle Centre, the EICC, the Festival Theatre and the Exchange financial district, for far too long now. The glory days were the best part of a decade ago, and since then, a smug, complacent, 'we ken best' mentality has been allowed to set in, particularly over transport, which I can't say I'll be sad to see the back of.



So the capital, along with East and West Lothian, becomes yet another Labour citadel to fall. At this rate, they might not even be left in charge of COSLA. Now that would represent a new broom indeed!

In For A Nicol

The world and his wife can see that there's no majority in Holyrood for a referendum on independence. So why, then, are the Lib Dems insisting on this being dropped, as a precondition to even sharing a cup of coffee with Alex Salmond and Robin Harper?

Could it be that they don't really want to be in government at all, but don't have the courage to say as much?

(High cartoon from today's 'Scotsman').

New Brooms

Leaving aside the current tango between the SNP and Lib Dems over whether a Holyrood coalition will be possible, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at the outcome of the local government elections:

SNP – 363 councillors (29.7% of the total)
Labour – 348 councillors (28.48%)
Lib Dems – 166 councillors (13.6%)
Conservatives – 143 councillors (11.7%)
Others – 194 councillors. (15.9%)

Much of Labour's power base in Scotland came from the local authorities, and the subtle and occasionally not-so-subtle control which this allowed them to exert. Thanks to PR, Labour has now lost 161 (almost a third) of their councillors, sweeping away their one party client states in all but the most unreconstructed parts of West Central Scotland. Even there, they will now face scrutiny from a new cadre of SNP, Conservative and Lib Dem representatives, who will doubtless be keen to subject their local administrations to unprecedented levels of accountability.

Scottish politics was changed utterly and forever last Thursday - I'm just not sure how many of the politicians yet realise how different things are going to be.

SNP Manifesto Launch

I spent this morning at the SNP manifesto launch, held up at the Lindsay Stewart Lecture Theatre on Napier University's Craiglockhart Campus. It's a striking building from the outside, offering an equally striking view over Edinburgh from inside. It's just as well that there's window blinds installed, otherwise I can imagine the attention of students wandering away from their lecturer to the city skyline instead!


There were no such problems today, though, as the media packed in to question the man who looks increasingly as if he will be the next First Minister of Scotland. Grilled by a press corps determined to barbeque him on any number of issues from local tax to the economics of independence, an entirely unscripted Alex Salmond turned in a thoroughly assured performance. There might have been a change in style in recent months commensurate with the SNP's lead position in the polls, but there was still room for a piece of vintage Salmond tail-tweaking, when he remarked about how his relationship with Gordon Brown would probably be better than that which Brown shares with Tony Blair.

After Labour's disastrous manifesto launch and the Lib Dems' hapless efforts yesterday, it was important for the SNP that this passed off without a hitch. That's exactly what happened, and all those involved can give themselves a huge pat on the back. Sure, the Daily Record will carp tomorrow and there'll probably be a bit of bad-tempered harumphing from The Times, but if they were being honest, no-one could have left without at least a grudging respect for how professionally the whole affair, and indeed the whole SNP campaign to date, has been conducted. Just 21 days to go...

Age Shall Not Weary Him

'What is the point of Menzies Campbell?', is a question with which I've been wrestling for quite a while now. In many ways, it's a question I never thought I'd ever be asking myself, since I'd long had a kind of sneaking regard for him. Sure, whenever matters SNP reared their head, I'd always found his knee-jerk patrician sniffiness to be absolutely insufferable. Otherwise, though, he earned my respect for both looking and sounding like a thoroughly competent MP who knew exactly what he was talking about.

I see in retrospect that mine was quite a rose-tinted view. That sure-footedness, demonstrated in matters of home and international affairs, has never quite been there when it comes to the equally important arenas of economic, health and education policy. In fact, it seems that the very qualities that made him appear so well cut out to be a Home or Foreign Secretary - his dispassionate aloofness and cultivated appearance of somehow being above the vulgar posturing of lesser mortals - are the very same qualities which are now rendering his stewardship of the Lib Dems such a becalmed and uninspiring affair.

Oddly, he seems to have diminished in stature since assuming the Lib Dem leadership. His perceived lack of support for Charles Kennedy tainted him from the start, as did his many fluffed appearances at Prime Minister's Questions. But never mind the recent fuss about whether he'd dump PR to get into government with Labour. To me, it is his apparent inability to connect with voters or to articulate any kind of coherent policy agenda, which should be causing the most discontent in Lib Dem ranks just now.

They are dropping, slowly but surely, in the polls. Where people liked Charles Kennedy even if they didn't necessarily respect him, Campbell seems to suffer from the reverse. Concerns about his age are raised, to which he now responds with an unbecoming prickliness. Watching him try to address this irrelevant jibe is becoming an increasingly painful sight. Like Gordon Brown trying to convince Middle England that he would make a good Prime Minister, the more Campbell tries to stress his youthfulness, the less it convinces.

Let's be clear, his age is largely irrelevant if we regard it as being an attitude of mind rather than a physical characteristic. In fact, I get the feeling that Campbell was probably middle-aged by his early twenties. And as one of the many politicos spawned by the Glasgow University Union Debating Society in the 1950s, it would have been surprising if he'd turned out any other way.

For all his protestations of having grown up in a Glasgow tenement, Campbell is a politician from the upper-middle classes, imbibed with a paternalistic and slightly patronising sense of noblesse oblige. But what once reassured about Campbell now just grates. And it is this, I think, which is what is hampering him and his party, rather than any questions about age. Like Gordon Brown, a section of voters has decided that they don’t particularly like him. And while voters cite Brown’s ‘Scottishness’ as being his prime draw-back (something which doesn’t seem to affect John Reid), it is Campbell’s age which is being held against him.

Highlighting the most obvious perceived flaw of someone we dislike is an instinct we develop in the playground. It might not be fair and it might be as base as it gets, but as Neil Kinnock, William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith all found out, if the voters won’t take to you then electorally-speaking, both you and your party are toast.

The Lib Dems, while often confounding the pundits, have for the past while seemed like a party in search of a role. The charisma of a Paddy Ashdown or a Charles Kennedy has always in the past allowed them to escape the scrutiny they deserved for being all things to all people. With a revitalised Tory Party in England under David Cameron, also no slouch at appearing to be all things to all people, the days of the Lib Dems being able to hoover up the votes of the disenchanted now look to be numbered.