Sunday Herald and SoS back SNP-led Executive

Are my eyes deceiving me? Apparently not, since with varying degrees of enthusiasm, both titles are backing an SNP-led Executive post May 3 with Alex Salmond as First Minister :-)

Let's not be churlish about deciding at the last minute to back what looks increasingly like a safe bet. Fairness, not favours - that's all the SNP has ever asked for from the Scottish media!

Sunday Herald Editorial

Scotland on Sunday Editorial



UPDATE: The Sunday Times and even the Sunday Express (!) are getting in on the act as well:

SUNDAY TIMES

Time for a change

“The Sunday Times has always been a Unionist paper. It may seem strange therefore that we should now come out for an SNP-led coalition. Yet that is our position . . . The choice now is not between the Union and independence, but between a Labour party that has run out of ideas and the SNP which promises more vigorous and imaginative government. We need a change of government, and only the SNP can provide this. Within the confines of devolution, and in the awareness that there will be another opportunity to vote for the Union, we have concluded that an SNP-led coalition is the best option for voters.”

SUNDAY EXPRESS

It’s Time

"Thursday’s poll is all about change, not independence. In his party’s manifesto, Alex Salmond offers ‘fresh thinking’ and there are few who would disagree that this is exactly what the country needs.”

Goldilocks Weather

Not too hot, not too cold, but just right. That summed up today's weather as I went out to campaign in Edinburgh Central for the SNP's candidate, Shirley-Anne Somerville. We've been friends (and occasionally rivals!) for the best part of a decade, but having worked so far in Stirling, Dundee East & West, Livingston and Argyll, it was time to clock up a few more hours in my 'home' constituency and help a friend to hopefully get elected.

So, off I went, delivering leaflets in and around Ravelston. It's not a place you would normally expect the SNP to do well in, but the returns from our resident canvasser (a QC, as it happens) have been pretty exceptional, and back up the polls which show that the SNP currently has a lead amongst all socio-economic groups in Scotland. (Apropros nothing, I'm told there's been a steady stream of pupils from Fettes College coming in to SNP HQ to buy party badges - we live in interesting times!) And with no entryphones, quiet streets and lots of well-kept gardens, it's without doubt one of the nicest and easiest parts of the seat to work.

But back to the morning. By the time I arrived in Gorgie we were already set up, with the Labour Party close by. For all the disagreements and occasional banter we have with them, there's never any nastiness between ourselves and Labour in Edinburgh Central. Both parties seem to recognise the sincerity and good intentions in each others' people, and as such when paths cross there's always been a certain amount of mutual respect, even when for example we ran them fairly close in 1999.

Would that I could say the same about the local Lib Dems. Having had no presence in the seat since the days when Donald Gorrie was a Councillor, they had what was for them a unusually good result in 2003, when weel-kent face Andy Myles was once again their candidate. But even on what was a fairly grim night in Edinburgh for the SNP, the seat was still in effect a 4-way marginal, with the Greens actually winning the regional 'list' vote in the seat.

Seemingly undaunted by the fact that this time round it's the SNP which appears to have 'The Big Mo', the Lib Dems and their new candidate have resorted to some pretty questionable tactics. I've mentioned one of their letters before (and this from a party which once squealed like a pig when a 'Literal Democrat' polled 10,000+ votes and cost them a European Parliament seat - how short some memories are). However, they've surpassed themselves with their latest wheeze - a letter which claims that the SNP are urging their voters to back the Lib Dem candidate in order to turf out Labour!

The cheek of them! Of course, the SNP has done no such thing, since even if we weren't the ones on the way up and the Lib Dems becalmed, we'd still be fighting for every vote. This sort of stunt requires no skill or guile - only a willingness to get lower and dirtier than a snake's belly. If the Lib Dem candidate feels that she is justified in attempting to swindle voters to try and get into Holyrood, then God only knows how she'd conduct herself if she did manage to get in.

But then, maybe this is just a variation on the sort of campaigning which the 'Northern Scot' newspaper apparently failed to understand during the Moray by-election, when editor Pauline Taylor took exception to the Lib Dems' doctoring of quotes from her newspaper, to show their candidate in a favourable light. After being accused on live TV at the count by Lib Dem MP Malcolm Bruce of running a "rural newspaper which does not understand robust campaigning", she hit back with a pithy: "Being a rural newspaper, we recognise bullshit".

Zing!

An Arresting Tale

This has to be a mistimed April Fool story, right?

Blast From The Past

Looking back through my recent blog posts, I've noticed to my discomfort that while I'm quick to criticise others for fighting a negative election campaign, I've not exactly been adding a huge amount here myself that's particularly positive.

All I can say in my defence is that it's a busy time just now. I've never made any bones about where my allegiances lie politically and there are some things which just shouldn't be allowed to pass unremarked. However, with any similar long-held allegiance comes the danger that you begin to obsess about the 'game', losing sight in the process of what it was that led to you holding these views in the first place.

To try and remedy this, at least in part, here's an article I wrote back in 2004 for 'The Flag In The Wind', the online offshoot of the 'Scots Independent' newspaper, explaining why I joined the SNP. The last paragraph, I think, still remains relevant, even though it does refer to an earlier set of elections. Fortunately, it looks like the SNP might be on course to do a little bit better this time round!

Why I joined the SNP - Flag In The Wind, May 2004

Anybody who joins the SNP does so for one reason above all others – to secure Independence for Scotland. But I think we can all point to different reasons why we decide to support Scottish Independence.

For me, I suppose it was a number of factors which just came together. I was the first in my family to go to University. When I went to study, it was a period just after the industrial turmoil of the Thatcher Years and the Poll Tax. The Iron Curtain had collapsed and all over Europe, historic nations had reunified or were emerging from the stifling power politics of the Cold War era. Amidst this, it was hard for me not to think, if Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia could do it, then why not Scotland?

At the previous election in 1992, Scottish voters had rejected Tory policies overwhelmingly, yet Tory Ian Lang was still returned as Secretary of State off the back of the Conservative victory in England. Not unreasonably, but against my developing beliefs, Labour increasingly saw moving to the right as the best way of beating the Tories in their heartlands. I saw how Labour’s George Robertson tried to play down the significance of the 20,000 who marched in Edinburgh in 1992 in favour of home rule at the European summit in December that year. I was also disgusted at how these dignified and respectable people were smeared by Mr Lang, as he accused them of disgracing themselves in front of the European leaders who had arrived for the summit.

Watching Scottish Questions at Westminster made me realise just how much of an old-boys club it really was. It didn’t really matter which of the 2 UK parties Scotland had voted for, because by and large that would be decided by the votes of our much larger neighbour to the south. It also didn’t matter who the Secretary of State was – with Scottish Ministers coming under scrutiny once every five weeks whenever Westminster happened to be sitting, the Scottish Office could obscure far more than was healthy – certainly more than was healthy for a department spending around £20bn of taxpayers money each year.

It seemed self-evident to me that Scotland was a prosperous country – yet all around there was ample evidence that not everybody shared in this. We were told by Conservatives and Labour that Scotland prospered under the Union – yet they argued simultaneously that somehow we were too poor, too small or too stupid to manage for ourselves. What was worse was the sheer number of fellow Scots who without a moment’s consideration were happy to accept this as gospel and parrot it endlessly to their fellow countrymen. In contrast, I found the belief of those who mounted the vigil for a Scottish Parliament on Calton Hill vigil inspiring and would often take detours in the car on my way home from work so I could ‘toot’ for Scotland and show my support.

For me, all of this made for a potent combination. It gave me a cast-iron belief that the best people to govern Scotland were those who had chosen to make their lives here. But what really hit home was that whatever we tried to achieve in Scotland for our people counted for nothing, unless we first had the power to do something about it. John Major and Malcolm Rifkind could talk all they liked about Scotland punching above her weight in the world as part of the UK. It counted for nothing if we weren’t even in the ring in the first place.

Recent figures show that Scotland is the 8th richest country in the industrialised world, yet it is a country where 1 in 3 Scottish children are growing up in poverty. A country where 600,000 adults have difficulty reading. A country where hundreds still sleep rough every night. A country where we still have fuel poverty amidst energy plenty. A country where has one of the lowest life expectancies in the western world. To my mind, the economic, social and moral imperative for Independence has never been greater.

Nearly 15 years on from the political revolutions in Eastern Europe which woke my interest in politics, many of those countries have just joined the European Union as member states in their own right. After all this time, I still find it hard to reconcile the way the Labour party rolls out the red carpet for these nations, nearly all smaller than Scotland, yet still tries to slam the door in the face of demands for Scotland to enjoy the same status.

Yes, we have a parliament now. But it’s only a job half done. Our politicians and civil servants are now much more accountable. But when it counts, as it does over the common fisheries policy, the war in Iraq or running the Scottish economy in our interests, we’re still the invisible nation.

On June 10th, we have another chance to start to change this when we vote in the European elections. These elections, of course, will include the new entrants to the European Union. A vote for the SNP can help to ensure we join those dining at the top table. A vote for any other party will continue to leave Scotland a bit like Banquo’s ghost – the phantom at the feast.

You Spin Me Right Round Baby Right Round

Another day, another 'turning point' in the Scottish election campaign according to Labour's strategists.

So far, I've counted at least four such 'turning points' being hailed in this way. Now, unless they are happening in increments of significantly less than 180 degrees, what does this birling around say about the state of Labour's campaign?

Tesco And Small Countries

For some strange reason, when I heard that the Chairman of Tesco had organised a newspaper ad backing the union (but not Labour), the memory of this clip from the BBC's 'Time Trumpet' shot into my head...

For a company which operates in multiple countries, it seems a very strange stance to be taking. Somehow, I think I'll still need cat litter in an independent Scotland!

Lib Dems Economical, But Only With The Actualité

My parents have received a letter from the Lib Dem candidate for Edinburgh Central, Siobhan Mathers. Nothing unusual about that during an election, except for the fact that there was no obvious Lib Dem branding, and for way she chooses to begin her letter:

Dear XXXX,

As Secretary of the Scottish Green Liberal Democrats....

Now, a quick Google has revealed that the Scottish Green Liberal Democrats do exist, but as an affiliated organisation of the Lib Dems. However, does anyone else think that using the name of another party in this way at election time is just, well, a little naughty? I mean, it would be like me choosing to describe myself as a Scottish Labour National Party candidate off the back of a membership of the SNP's trade union affiliate.

Frankly, I think I preferred them when they confined themselves to dodgy bar graphs and the usual 'can't win here' porkies about the other parties.

When Scotland Calls...

No doubt timed to coincide with the SNP unveilling an advert showing 100 leading business people who endorse the party, today's Sun carries an advert from a few ex-footballers and managers, speaking out against independence and in support of the union.

Their ad begins with the assertion that 'We are proud Scots', alongside the claim that 'When Scotland calls, we answer'. A touch self-regarding, perhaps, but all fair enough. But I did laugh when it was pointed out to me by a friend that a signatory to this missive was one Walter Smith Esq, erstwhile manager of Scotland. Now, this couldn't possibly be the same Walter Smith who decided to put club before country by walking out on Scotland in the middle of a European Championship qualifying campaign, could it?

It would seem that it could. Aye, Scotland's a great wee place right enough, just providing we keep it confined to the sports pages :-)

Whoopdedoo For Standy, Pointy, Lib Dem Leaflets

Blogger Whoopdedoo has plenty to say about the standard of the political leaflets she's received so far in Edinburgh South. Very amusing!

More In Sorrow - Reprise

Hand-wringing Observer columnist admits he'd rather give legitimacy to an illegal war than support an SNP administration or independence.

Oh, well, at least I can't say I'm surprised...

Delightful

Thanks to Thames Water, it seems that currently, there is 100 million litres of s**** floating down the River Forth past the end of my street...

Thank heaven, then for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which is offering the view that a 'major solution' is needed. But apart from stopping any more from leaking out, what can they do? Stand on the coastal defences at Seafield and whistle for it to start swimming back?

(Frank Boyle cartoon from Edinburgh Evening News, 23/04/07)

Gigha's A Break From Canvassing

I've spent today in the company of my mate Russell, his sister Vivienne and his friend Jen, campaigning for his mother in her bid to become one of the 3 councilors for the Kintyre and the Islands ward on Argyll and Bute Council. It seemed like a great idea in the pub last night (back in Leith...), but this morning was a bit of a fankle getting bins emptied, dishes washed, windows locked and the cat dispatched to her regular sitter, Richard.

To save him the hassle, I set out to buy both food and cat litter before we left. This led to a bizarre moment in the Tesco on Great Junction Street, when the assistant told me that she had litter, but it was still in the delivery crate so could I come back later in the afternoon? I wonder if she tells cross-legged customers the same thing when they run out of toilet roll? Anyway, all such minor niggles behind us, we duly hit the road at about 11am, only an hour behind our planned schedule.

We reached Tarbert in under 3 hours, which was reasonable going given the number of dawdling Sunday drivers about the place (we wouldn't have got there at all yesterday, thanks to a lorry spilling Formic Acid all over the road). And after a cup of tea and a sandwich courtesy of Russell's mum, we all piled back into the car and headed off to catch the Gigha ferry. There's only about 60 houses on Gigha, so given the size of the ward, it would have been an easy place for candidates to overlook. However, suitably armed with our leaflets and a couple of SNP umbrellas to advertise our presence, off we went round the houses.

It was my first visit to the island, and for all that the day was dull and dreich, the beaches were still the equal of anything I've seen in the Caribbean. There's been a fair amount of development there too, with a number of new houses around the jetty area, many of them by the looks of things being occupied by young families.

All to the good. I'm sure it would be an idyllic place to bring up children, and with the community recently having bought the island, there seems to be a real spirit about the place. It was epitomised for me by a man who having earlier offered to deliver our leaflets to the rest of the island, popped into the hotel we were having a quick drink in before the ferry came back. His outlook was straightforward - having campaigned for the 'independence' of his island, he said, he was now going to do exactly the same for his country. Fair play.

The evening ended in the back bar of the Tarbert Hotel, perhaps predictably in a debate about politics. I got involved in a fairly robust exchange with one punter, in which he expressed his extreme dislike of Labour alongside his continued scepticism over the SNP. My parting shot that if he wasn't going to do any good, that he should at least avoid doing any harm, seemed to touch a nerve. But having listened in to all this badinage, I just wonder how the Finnish barmaid, who claimed that the discussion was 'educational' for someone 'uneducated' like her (aye, right!), will decide to cast her vote?

Best Buddies?

I like it!

'Scots and Independent' Banned In China!

WTF?

Perhaps the pen is mightier than the sword. Still, it makes you realise how fortunate we are...

Lies, Damn Lies and Labour Party Leaflets

I was the recipient this morning of no fewer than three leaflets from the Labour Party. Sadly, two of the three are glossy (or should that be Panglossy?), so they have few alternative uses around the home. However, the one which really stuck out was the party’s official Election Communication for the Lothians.

It’s printed on a piece of very flimsy 1/3 A4 card, and says not a word about what Labour has achieved in office or what they plan to do if returned. Instead, they give an example of an ‘average family’ (Question - why does their ‘average family’ always seem to consist of a firefighter and a nurse cohabiting? Does their publicity guru have a thing for uniforms or something?), whom they contend would be £913 per year worse off if the SNP were to win power.

That seems an unusually precise figure, although sadly no-one in the Labour team has seen fit to explain how they have arrived at this amount. It’s also significantly at variance with the £5,000 per family figure they have on their billboards and party political broadcasts currently. To make things even clearer, there is considerable confusion amongst Labour spokespeople as to whether this £5,000 figure relates to alleged SNP spending commitments; or to the supposed ‘borrowing requirement’ identified by the now discredited GERS report, divided by the number of households in Scotland.

So far in this campaign, they’ve tried to terrify us with ‘deficits’ of £6bn (Labour’s North-East Scotland leaflet), £7bn (their analysis of supposed SNP spending commitments), £11.9bn (GERS), and £13bn (Labour press conference). Quite clearly, they are just making it up as they go along. Perhaps more to the point, though, if I were to speak to their economic team (assuming it even exists), would I even get an attempt at an explanation for all these competing figures, or would they all be too busy sitting around on what they think are their elbows to give me a proper answer?

Hark! The Herald's Labour Spin

Why does this not surprise me?

Curiouser and Curiouser

Over the last few days, The Scotsman has been running an online poll to ask readers whether they think Jack McConnell or Alex Salmond would make the best First Minister. It had been chugging along fairly slowly since it started, with Salmond enjoying a consistent 84%-16% margin over McConnell, albeit with fewer than 2,000 votes cast.

You can probably imagine my surprise then to find out this afternoon that McConnell had turned things round. From a position of trailing heavily, McConnell now led Salmond by 70%-30%, an achievement which had seen nearly 8,000 votes piled on in just in a matter of hours!

It seems that I'm not the only one to be surprised by this Lazarus-type comeback. So, where has this sudden rush of votes come from? Has Jack perhaps learned how to use the internet at last?

For Whom The Bell Tolls

It's been a busy weekend (one party, a visit to Stirling and a Scots Independent article which needed written in a hurry). However, in the meantime, here's an interesting article written by broadcaster Alex Bell for allmediascotland.com, on the curious approach of the Scottish press to the current election campaign.

This afternoon, though, the bell tolling may be for Defence Secretary Des Browne, who has the unenviable task of explaining to the Commons why he allowed the 15 captured Royal Navy personnel to sell their stories to the press. The decision was wrong on so many levels it's difficult to know where to begin. However, it's hardly the worst strategic choice ever made by this government, so it's hard to fathom why Tony Blair has allowed the pressure to build up on him in this way.


Maybe to shaft one of the Chancellor's allies before he departs this political life? Who knows, but it seems unlikely. Browne is a fairly dull and dilligent politician about whom it is difficult to have any strong feelings. However, even less fathomable is the behaviour of Gordon Brown, who has refused conspicuously to stand up for his ally.

Is he now so terrified of alienating anyone on his way to Number 10 that he can't even muster up some basic loyalty for a friend in need? We all know that Brown has made a lot of enemies on his way to the top. But if he won't even ride to the rescue of Browne, just what sort of slippery, gutless, spineless creature are a small cabal of Labour MPs set to inflict on us as Prime Minister once Blair rides off into the sunset?

As Jeremy Thorpe once remarked, 'Greater love hath no man, than that he lay down his friends for his life'.

Labour Campaign Grinds To Halt

Says it all, really.

(With thanks to Holyroodbelle for the pic).

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...

Jack - 'Out Of All My Top Priorities, This Is The Top One'

So now we know. 'Education, education, education', the infamous pre-1997 Blairite mantra, is to have yet another comeback tour if Labour get back in (watch out Francis Rossi and Rick Parfitt). After jostling with a range of issues to be the 'top priority' for Labour over the past few years, it will now take pride of place, even ahead of health, with, according to McConnell, all other departments being forced to 'cut their cloth' in consequence.

But we've been hearing this for the past 9 years, so what is Labour planning to do that it couldn't have done earlier? What's that, Jack? Get more children to learn modern languages? That sounds like a good idea, but tell me Jack, wasn't it your Executive which removed the requirement for Scottish pupils to learn a language up to the age of 16, leading to a 13% reduction in the numbers presented for examination? So would that mean that your promises on education are a case of déjà vu, or when it comes to delivery, perhaps even jamais vu? Oh dear, Jack, and you a former maths teacher and all. Go to the bottom of the class...

But licking her wounds this morning must be Cathy Jamieson. Given the task of explaining how Labour's plans to introduce extra council tax bands might work on Newsnight Scotland, she turned in an excruciatingly abject performance. She couldn't give elementry answers on how many people would be affected at each end, or explain how the numbers would add up. As it happens, by introducing a new top band and a new bottom band, Labour are expecting 11,000 householders to bail out nearly 500,000 others.

In the Orkney Islands, for instance, there are only two homes in Band H, so the entire burden will fall on either one or two householders! Labour's position yesterday was a bit of a mess, but to describe it today as shambolic would be an act of irrational charity.

Newsnight Scotland clips only stay online for 24 hours. Get it while its hot, and marvel at how Cathy could ever have been let loose on the government of Scotland. Remember - she's one of the better ones!

UPDATE: Now that the Newsnight clip has disappeared into the ether, here's a transcript of the exchange between Cathy Jamieson and presenter Gordon Brewer. My commiserations to the poor SNP press officer who drew the short straw and had to type this out!

UPDATE 2: Thanks to the wonders of YouTube, her performance has been saved for posterity!

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid...

...if you are an AC Milan or Bayern Munich supporter.

Maybe a UEFA Cup spot for Aberdeen next season isn't such a bad option after all!

Taxing Times for Labour

The Labour Party has been scathing in recent weeks about the SNP’s proposals to scrap the Council Tax and replace it with an income based alternative. It’s been described variously by Labour spokespeople as a tax rise for low earners (Not so - 90% would pay the same or less); and as a tax against small businesses (Again, not so - businesses pay separate business rates, not council tax or the SNP’s proposed replacement).

The argument for a local income tax is a simple one. Essentially, the value of your property bears little or no relation to your ability to contribute towards meeting the costs of the local services we all use. And if you are on a low income or live on your own, despite the various ‘reliefs’ which exist, the tax can still represent a very large proportion of your overall income.

Labour knows this, which is why wee Jack is waffling at the moment about including ‘extra bands’ for the Council Tax, in order to make it fairer. The trouble is, including more bands would do no such thing, since the general rise in house prices since the last revaluation would move only a small number of homes up or down a band relative to where they sit currently. It would do nothing to counter the ability to pay argument which is currently driving the debate forward. And the killer for Labour is that as history shows, property tax revaluations are about as popular with the voters as a fart in a space-suit.

Labour’s arguments don’t seem to be cutting much ice just now, since according to SNP polling, 71% of voters want to see the Council Tax gone. This is most likely why the Edinburgh Labour Party has made a very welcome concession in its local manifesto, where with commendable candour, it states that:

“The other big expense for everyone is Council Tax… …we know that Council Tax, as it is organised at the moment, isn’t always fair, with poor people paying a larger proportion of their income than rich people.

Sounds like an argument for a local income tax to me. Trouble is, notwithstanding this display of local disquiet, Edinburgh Labour is running on the same commitment to keep the Council Tax as wee Jack and the rest of the Labour Party. Despite this plaintive plea for mercy from Labour’s Embra Cooncillors, the fact remains that the only way to get rid of the Council Tax is to get rid of Labour. Period.

Independence Dealt A Trump Card

Who’d have thunk it? Donald Trump, New York property developer extraordinaire and star of ‘The Apprentice’, has given his views on Scottish Independence to the Sunday Times. Amidst dire warnings from the Chancellor of ‘instability’ leading to a ‘flight of investors’ if anyone other than Labour ends up running Scotland post-May, the man behind a planned US$500m leisure investment in North-East Scotland has signaled that he would feel equally comfortable doing business in an independent Scotland:

“I think Scotland is an amazing place and the people are incredible’, says Trump. ‘ I think if they set their minds to do something, they can do whatever they want. The biggest people in New York are from Scotland. They are a tremendous success. Scotland will always be a success, whether it is independent or not independent.”

Whoops! There goes another rubber tree plant. However, the politics of fear and uncertainty remain to the fore. Edinburgh’s Ian Rankin, author of the Inspector Rebus novels, has spoken out in recent days against independence, on the grounds that he feels the Scots are ‘too chippy’ as a nation to make a go of it. He’s entitled to his view, but I find his ‘we’re not worthy’ argument a very strange one indeed. (That said, he does offer this today).

Scotland and her people, like any country on the planet, are not without their flaws and foibles. But I wonder what sort of ‘purity test’ of the national character, such as it exists, we would have to pass before Rankin would change his mind on this point. I’m assuming he doesn’t intend to include himself amongst those he deems to be too chippy to make a go of it, but amidst the barrage of statistics and claims driving the debate at present, it does seem a rather eccentric contribution to have made.

It’s almost like the ‘subsidised Scot’ argument. They must exist, because Labour and the unionist-minded press never tire of telling us they do. However, confront those making the argument, even amongst voters, and it is never they who are subsidised personally. Oh, no, it’s someone else who’s on the scrounge. They earn every penny and have worked hard for all they've got.

As they probably have, which makes tracking down the subsidised Scot an elusive business indeed. A prime example of the same argument was used on one of the Scotsman message boards today, where one Jeremiah claimed not to understand how the 2.5m Scots in work could ever be able to support the 2.5m Scots not in work (that’s presumably the young and the pensioners as well as the unemployed).

Well, I’ll stick my neck out here and suggest it would happen in much the same way as the 29m Britons in work manage to support the remaining 30m who are not. I’m willing to bet that said punter has never met this fabled subsidised Scot, any more than he or she has ever met their English or Welsh counterpart, who logically must also exist in similar numbers.

I’ll finish with this observation. I went out on Friday night and was quizzed at length by one of the company (an SNP-sceptic) about the current state of political play and on why I thought Scotland should be independent. In the end it was a case of ‘no sale’, but on the grounds that he just didn’t see what independence would do to change things for the better, rather that it was somehow difficult or unviable. A bit like Ian Rankin, but minus the chippiness argument.

That sort of view I can respect. I hadn’t gone out to the pub with the intention of converting anyone, but if I failed on this occasion, it was down to me and me alone – I’ll just have to do better with my pitch next time I get the chance. What puzzles me is why so many capable Scots, Ian Rankin included, seem to set a bar for Scotland that they would never dream of applying to any other nation on the face of the earth?

Vacancy - Proofreader Required

This is taken from a Lib Dem campaign freesheet in Penicuik:


I think this is even better than the leaflet they put out in the same seat back in 2001, which committed the Lib Dems to improving 'pubic transport'. Now, that would have been worth voting for...

(With thanks to Anastasia Beaumont-Bott for the pic)

Right for Scotland?

The right wing of Scottish politics seems agog at the prospects of the Scottish Tories withdrawing themselves from the UK Conservative party and going it alone. Fraser Nelson, he of the irritable vowel syndrome, appears to be acting as a conduit for the idea through the pages of the Spectator. Perhaps tellingly, no-one in the Scottish Tory hierarchy is running a mile from the notion.

I’ve blogged previously about my feelings on an independent Scottish Tory Party. While any such venture would play an important part in making Scottish independence a success, it’s something which I would have expected to happen after any vote for independence, rather than in advance. Nevertheless, I sense that this is all kite-flying at the moment and nothing more. If it's going to happen at all, it won't be until after May and until after Annabel Goldie has decided to spend more time with her petunias.

However, the perennial question of ‘independence for what?’ remains. The Strathclyde Commission, held after the 1997 wipeout, gave the Scottish Tories a set-up which allowed them considerably more autonomy from London than Labour, but they've conspicuously failed to use any of it. For that reason, even if they did cut adrift from the English Tories, it would still be the same people with the same tired old ideas trying to run the show, insisting that 'virtual' apron strings remain in place.

Although the Tories would still nominally be unionist under any such arrangement, administrative and policy independence would shoot right through that argument – after all, if you need independence from Westminster to run your party properly, why shouldn't Scotland have independence so the country can do the same? Nonetheless, if there’s anything in this story, it looks like the Scottish Tories might finally be being dragged kicking and screaming into the mainstream of modern Scottish political life.

However, you don't change the culture of a party overnight, so they’ll need to do much more than simply copy the Bavarian model to prove their independence from London. Otherwise, people will rightly conclude that the whole thing is just a cosmetic con trick, a bit like when Windscale was repackaged as Sellafield. Another hiding at the polls is just what the Tories need if any mood for change is to be suitably galvanised.

The Best Wee Numpty in the World ( updated)

I'm a bit behind some others with this, but who cares? It's times like this I wish I could play the guitar as well :-)

Press and Journal Lost At Sea

I finished today up on Dundee Law, the extinct volcano which towers over the city, giving magnificent views in every direction. Even high up, the mercury was reaching 20C (70F) in the early evening – a minor miracle for Scotland in early April.

The occasion was a flying visit by Alex Salmond, for a photo-opp to unveil the Tayside and Fife breakdown of a recent YouGov poll on the forthcoming Holyrood elections. Even allowing for the enhanced margin of error, it still puts the SNP the proverbial country mile ahead of every other party, including Labour, which once had this part of Scotland in its pocket. I’m not going to post the figures, but let’s just say tomorrow’s Courier should make for interesting reading!

The Courier’s north-eastern stablemate, the venerable Press & Journal, carried a frankly daft and febrile feature today based on a straw poll of local businesses. From a total of 21 responses, most of which represented nothing more than a polite refusal to become involved, the P&J claimed to have found 6 businessmen who had said that independence would represent ‘a social and economic disaster and a colossal backward step’.

Trouble was, most of the six had said nothing of the sort, with at least one complaint about the way their comments had been represented landing on the editor’s desk during the afternoon. Of the most outspoken, Maitland Mackie, the P&J did at least have the grace to point out that he had stood unsuccessfully as a Lib Dem against Mr Salmond as recently as 1999. However, the biggest belly-laugh came in the editorial, where they appeared to suggest equivalence between the business success of Mackie and that of George Mathewson, the former chairman of Edinburgh-based banking giant RBS who recently endorsed the SNP and independence.

Let me say that coming from a farming background myself, I have the utmost respect for the ice cream business Mackie has built up over the years. As the employer of 70+ people, he's without doubt a serious enough figure in his own right. However, surely comparing his achievements to Matthewson’s stewardship of RBS to take it to being the 5th largest bank in the world, really is taking things a bit far.

More New Links

I've added a few new links. On the SNP front, my good pals Chris Stephens and Anne McLaughlin have recently joined the small corner of the blogosphere that is forever Scotland, as have Lachie MacNeill and an unknown (to me at least) member of the party’s student wing, who goes under the moniker of ‘Waxing the Lyrical’.

A blog which I’ve dipped in and out of for a while is that written by Doctorvee, who is also a leading light in the Scottish Blogging Roundup. Elsewhere, Bill Cameron writes a good blog covering a wide range of subjects. Living between Scotland and Spain, he also intersperses his conservative-leaning political observations with some impressive photos from his travels.

Finally, on a more general note, two new Scottish election blogs have started, written by the respective political editors of BBC Scotland and Scottish Television, Brian Taylor and Bernard Ponsonby. While it will be interesting to read their thoughts as the campaign develops, I hope that they choose to run them as blogs rather than as diaries. As any party activist will tell you, the best people to drink with at any political conference are the journos. A wee bit of banter and indiscretion now and again helps keep the wheels moving!

Endorse... It Confuses People

I'm not usually too bothered about celeb political endorsements, but I'll make an exception for Banff quine Sandi Thom, who has announced that she'll be backing the SNP and Alex Salmond in May's election. As well as quite liking her and admiring the shrewd way she honed her craft and got herself signed in an industry full of wannabees, it also gives me a gratuitous opportunity to include a couple of pictures of her on my blog :-)

End Of Term

Today sees the end of the second term of the Scottish Parliament. With the Executive going into 'Purdah', Labour will no longer have access to the Scottish civil service, or have a legion of Executive press officers to highlight their triumphs and bury their mistakes. Instead, they'll have to rely on their own people and a campaign machine which seems increasingly creaky and rudderless.

There's a funny atmosphere about Holyrood today. Jack McConnell is turning in a shouty, beleaguered performance at FMQs, assailed from all sides over broken election promises, health, crime, council tax, nuclear power and the performance of devolution. His rants about the SNP seem even more heated and lacking in humour than usual. All told, his demeanor is not one of a man brimming with confidence about being returned to his position in May.

The next parliament seems set to be very different indeed. 12 MSPs are standing down of their own volition, but a wee glance at the polls suggests that there could be more than a few new faces about the place come May. Both The Times (yesterday) and the Daily Mail (today) have carried polls putting the SNP ahead of Labour, both in terms of support and likely seats in parliament. The solitary thread of comfort which Labour spokespeople have clung to for dear life has been the apparent fall in support for Independence, down from 50% plus earlier in the year to just 27%.

Proof that the Labour campaign is working at a certain level, perhaps? Well no, actually. The difference is in not just the question asked, but the number of questions asked. You see, when the question of 'Independence - yes or no?' is put, there's a roughly 50/50 split. However, throw the rather nebulous option of 'more powers' into the mix and unsurprisingly, the numbers change. In fact, we find that in addition to the 27% who want 'independence, nothing less', some 52% would like more powers, perhaps as a further step towards sovereignty.

Game, set and match for the union then, and vindication for the Lib Dem stance that there should be no referendum on independence? Again, no. No-one takes the trouble to set out what these 'more powers' might be - would they include full fiscal autonomy, for example? The right for Scottish Ministers to represent us in Europe? Control over broadcasting regulation? The simple fact of the matter is that no-one knows. You'd get as worthwhile an answer by replacing the question with one asking whether you are in favour of fluffy kittens and nice sunny days.

The Lib Dems justify their anti-referendum stance by citing such polling data and by highlighting their support for federalism. In this way, they argue that there can be a 'middle way' on the constitution, whereby Scotland gets more powers and can stay happily in the union. That would be an honourable position, if it weren’t for the fact that they've supported federalism for over a century, yet still don't have a viable plan on how to bring it about.

All they have in their locker is to call for powers which Westminster would have to cede, over which the Lib Dems would have no leverage. And let's be brutally honest here - the only leverage for getting the powers worth having will be a strong SNP vote in May. Westminster might cede more powers to Holyrood, but only if Independence looks like it will be on the cards and even then, as with devolution V1.0, only as little will be ceded as they think they can get away with in order to dissipate the SNP 'threat'.

This is where it gets interesting. With any referendum likely to come towards the end of a 4-year term, there will be ample opportunity for Westminster to make its play. However, the SNP has already set out a little shopping list of powers it would like for Holyrood, such as control over North Sea Revenues and that right to lead negotiations, such as over fishing, in Europe.

If it can be shown through the rejection of some fairly modest requests that further reform of the British State is either impossible or won't come until many years into the future, won’t that make voters more inclined than ever to demand a referendum on independence? And where would that leave the Lib Dems, other than on the wrong side of the argument?

Support for independence down? It all depends on the question you ask, as well as the number of questions you ask. Alex Salmond could be unwrapping the mint Viscounts at Lancaster House yet.

Strange Happenings at Holyrood Towers

The Scottish Parliament goes into dissolution this week, which means that from Thursday until after the elections, there will be no MSPs. Accordingly, every corridor in the MSP block is strewn with packing crates at the moment, while members decide what to throw out, and what to keep in case they find themselves re-elected.

All mundane stuff. So why, then, have the Solidarity staffers chosen to 'black out' the windows in their resource centre with binliners and sellotape, while they undertake this process? What on earth could they possibly be doing that they don't want the rest of us to see? Maybe more to the point, would we particularly care even if we did?

Guardian of My Concience? Not Today...

One of the advantages/drawbacks of my job is that most days, I've read all the Scottish newspapers worth reading by 11am. This leaves me with the problem of which one to buy at lunchtime. Usually, the Evening News wins out if I'm in Edinburgh. Today, however, I opted for the Guardian, which due to the amount of tedious crud in its pages I managed to get through at near flickbook speed. That said, 2 articles jumped out for long enough to tee me off.

The first was a feature in G2 on Whole Foods, a US food store chain which is about to open its first UK outlets. Now, I quite like food shopping in the US - just 10 minutes walking round somewhere like Harris Teeter shows up many of our own supermarkets. Whole Foods, though, is in a different league - a bit like a reasonably upmarket deli the size of a small supermarket. If they are going to be any like the ones in the US, then as far as I'm concerned, they can't get to Edinburgh fast enough.

Surely then, this is just sort of enterprise which would get your average Guardianista hugging themself with delight. But woe and alack, you will be horrified to learn from G2 that there is a dark side. Trade-offs between what consumers want and the high ideals the company started out with; frozen TV dinners for sale alongside the organic produce; happy employees but only because they get high pay(!).

I'm sure you get the picture. All that's missing in the critique is a particularly graphic description of a dark Satanic mill, even though its Satanicness or otherwise would only be measured in comparison with the ideals set for it by the über-green Birkenstock wearers of California. Anyway, I'm lucky to have an old-fashioned high street and the time to shop there, but in the absence of same, give me a Whole Foods any day of the week.

But today's prize for putting the cart before the horse goes to George Monbiot, who makes the frankly bonkers claim that biofuels are causing 'more harm than good'. Eh? Causing more harm than their mineral-based equivalents? Pull the other one...

Apparently, our demand for biofuels is contributing to deforestation, and will lead to farmers growing more crops geared towards biofuels instead of providing food for those without. At a certain level, the argument has appeal - an apocalyptic paradox that by doing good, you end up doing more harm. In truth, it's well suited to the messianic 'I know better than you lot' tone that he seems to have as his stock-in-trade.

But there's 2 big problems with this thesis. The first is that since there's no shortage of agricultural land in the world, there's no reason for anyone to lose out as a result of increasing biofuel production. The second is that by trying to make a causal link between issues like all deforestation and all biofuel production, he damns the very considerable levels of potential production which can take place on currently fallow land.

All in all, if you're feeling miserable, I can recommend today's Grauniad for being chock-full of the sort of self-flagelatory, ill-informed 'we're all doomed' prose guaranteed to keep you that way. If you're in a reasonable humour, though, then steer clear. It's a lovely day, after all, and life is short.

Labour Doesn't Know Jack - Official!

Sometimes, it never rains but it pours...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5PG16p-JLc

Zip-i-dee-doo-dah, Zip-i-dee-ay...

I've been in an exceptionally good mood today. There was a wee bit of a hangover following yesterday's post-match celebrations, but that was soon forgotten about. I've even managed to sail serenely past Lord George Robertson's latest shroud-waving drivellings in the Sunday Times about the SNP.

The reason for my good mood? Well, ever since my old car got taken away to see what could be done with it after my accident, my hallway has been strewn with the general detritus from the boot. Fed up of stepping round it for the last couple of weeks, I determined that today was going to be the day I'd start deciding what to keep and what to throw out.

Rewinding a week or so to when I actually bought the new car, the salesman offered to fit a CD autochanger to it for me at a cost of c. £300, an offer which I felt more than able to turn down at the time. So you can no doubt imagine my delight to find this morning, when putting my first aid kit under the passenger seat that, unbeknown to me, a CD autochanger had already been fitted to the car!

Did the salesman already know this and was trying to sneakily screw the £300 cost back out of me? I don't know and to be honest, I don't really care either. Normally when I look down the back of my car seats, all I ever find is loose change and fluff-covered polo mints. This was a very pleasant surprise, and coming in the week that the insurance cheque came through, it's a nice and unexpected coda to this particular drama!

None Of Their Business

Usually, this blog has quite a bit of admiration for the institution that is the Royal Bank of Scotland. Although I'm not a customer of theirs, through their sponsorships, expanding branch network, free cash machines and mobile banking, they play a role in the community which suggests to me that despite now being the 5th biggest bank in the world, they haven't forgotten the essential values which have helped make the company what it is today.

Today, though, I'm going to give them a well-deserved slap. This follows the news that some jumped-up 'executive', doubtless puffed up with his own sense of self-importance and desire to please those above him, has issued a tablet of stone memo 'reminding' staff that they could face disciplinary action if they do not get their monthly salaries paid into a Royal Bank account.

Now, I don't have too much of a problem with the idea that staff should show some commitment to the organisation they work for. Nor do I have any difficulty with the idea that if you want to benefit from some of the perks of working for a bank, like getting a cheaper mortgage, you need to toe the line and use their products. However, where I draw the line is when it is made compulsory to order purely personal affairs, which do not impede your ability to do your job, in such a way as to please the whims of management.

Despite being the most dynamic part of the Scottish economy, the financial services sector can still be a hotbed of reaction and old-fashioned attitudes. I still remember with bemusement the attitude held by local management at one employer where those working 8-4 were regarded as hard workers; 9-5ers were solid and dependable; while 10-6ers like me were idle, scrimshank malingerers. Flexitime, yes, but only if you use it to suit conventions. From another employer, I can remember horror stories from the past of staff being summonsed to get a dressing down from their line manager, simply because they hadn't paid their bank credit card bills in time.

Luckilly, data protection law and more enlightened employment practices mean that for the most part, these intrusive, paternalistic and ultimately self-defeating attitides have died out. Increasingly, as lifestyles change, there is a realisation that the only way to attract and retain the best staff is to be flexible in the benefits you provide as an employer, and to drop any intrusive aspirations of having social control over your staff outside of the working environment.

Quite frankly, this 'executive' has crossed a line and deserves to be dumped on from a great height for turning this into a mini-PR disaster for the bank. Ulitimately, where RBS employees choose to place their business is none of the RBS Management Team's damn business. On this occasion, the affected staff should tell the bank exactly where they can swipe their Cashline cards.

Mr Cock-Up Comes To Town!

On Monday, wee Jack was clenching his fist with fury at SNP plans to 'wreck' the union (which on closer inspection, just meant he wasn't happy that the SNP wanted to discuss things like getting more powers from Westminster). However, in today's Scottish Parliament Business Bulletin, a motion appeared in the name of the Scottish Executive, calling amongst other things for more powers for Holyrood.

Embarrassing enough, you might think. However, not content with shooting a hole clean through one foot, this afternoon, they took careful aim at the other, then fired by amending the part of the motion which called for more powers for Holyrood 'where appropriate'.

Since it was an Executive motion, Jack would have known all about it at the time he was in full rant mode against the SNP (wouldn't he?), and presumably, was therefore in favour. He can therefore stand accused of rank hypocrisy, but now that it's been pulled, we can surely add rank cowardice to the charge sheet as well.

Who at Westminster, do we think, might have pulled his strings to get the motion amended? Where does Labour really stand on more powers for Holyrood? Who on earth is running their campaign - Gordon Brown, or Jack McConnell? And perhaps more importantly, will Scottish voters manage to emerge from their convulsions of laughter in time to cast their votes in May?

You couldn't make it up. Would the last strategist to leave the Labour party please turn out the lights? :-)

I Always Know When You're Lying, Darling

Alasdair Darling has some neck on him. Interviewed as part of BBC Scotland's post-budget coverage, he had the effrontery to claim that Labour was trying to cut income tax by 2p, while the SNP wanted to increase it by 3p.

What he forgot to mention, of course, was that under Labour you would continue to pay Council Tax, whereas under the SNP, you wouldn't pay a penny. Expect more similar Labour untruths between now and polling day.

Another Lord a' Leaping

The indescretion! Lord Turnbull, a former Head of the Civil Service who spent 4 years at the Treasury as a Permemant Secretary, has chosen to lift the lid on the M.O. of the Chancellor. And, comble de malchance!, has done so just in time to spoil Brown's budget speech tomorrow.

Brown's Treasury, we are told, surprises by "the more or less complete contempt with which other colleagues are held". Brown himself takes a "very cynical view of mankind and his colleagues"; does not allow "serious discussion" with colleagues; and in enhancing Treasury control over domestic policy, had done so "at the expense of any government cohesion and any assessment of strategy".

The Chancellor also has a "Macavity quality - he is not there when there is dirty work to be done". He also uses denial of information as an instrument of power. And just to make sure we all get the message, Turnbull goes on to conclude that "You can choose whether you are impressed or depressed by that, but you cannot help admire the sheer Stalinist ruthlessness of it all."

It's a devastating critique, all the closer to the bone for its echoes of what Brown's opponents in the Labour Party have been saying about him for years. Given Milliband's reluctance to challenge for the leadership , perhaps Blair's favoured successor really is the man charged with responding to, rather than delivering, tomorrow's budget speech.

Conference Dispatch - Sunday

Rather surprisingly for being the morning after the night before, delegates seem unusually invigorated today. However, that might have something to do with the gale force winds and near-horizontal hail which scoured us all as we arrived at the conference this morning. A few intrepid smokers are huddled outside, looking thoroughly miserable as they get blasted by the elements – I suspect they may not be the most enthusiastic of attendees at this afternoon's health debate!

The papers seemed mostly favourable for the SNP this morning, a few amusing brown-trousers-and-bicycle-clips pieces aside. The Sunday Herald has, disgracefully in my view, tried to stir it up over Brian Souter's donation, despite the fact he got no favours at all from the SNP during the repeal of Section 2A. What inference are we being invited to draw? That the SNP is tainted, while Labour and the Lib Dems, who started the Section 2A repeal process then ran and hid from the ensuing brouhaha instead of making their case, are worthy of our continued support? Eejits.

The main event this afternoon will be Alex Salmond's speech. It's being spun that he will be unveiling the SNP's proposals for government, but it wouldn't be a Salmond speech if he didn't have at least one rabbit to pull out of the hat. The actual conference hall is a bit too small for all of the people here, so I suspect I'll end up watching it on the TV in the breakout area instead.

Overall, there seems to be a sense, even amongst the most hardened of SNP-sceptics in the media, that this might really be it. The polls are all good for the SNP; the party is winning big-hitting endorsements left, right and centre; while Labour are left to fight a relentlessly negative campaign, torn tactically between wee Jack's gang on one side and the 'Brownies' on the other. I have to confess that the grim faces of Labourite journos Angus MacLeod of the Times and Magnus Gardham of the Record have been an absolute joy to behold! 46 days and counting...

Conference Dispatch

I've made it through to Govan, and despite the greyness of the skies and the awfulness of the result from Ibrox, there's a lot of cheer to be had at the SNP conference in the Glasgow Science Centre. The conference, already on a high thanks to yesterday's endorsement by George Mathewson, has been positively buzzing with the news that long-time supporter Brian Souter has donated £500,000 to the SNP election fund.

This matters on two levels. First, it represents yet another endorsement of the SNP's policy stance, albeit from a long-standing and high-profile supporter of the party. Perhaps as significantly, though, it will put the SNP on an equal financial footing with a Labour campaign which will be heavily bankrolled from London.

There's more conference business tomorrow, and rumours have persisted all day of yet another big announcement to come. However, it wasn't in Nicola Sturgeon's generally well-received address to conference, so if it's coming we'll have to wait now until tomorrow to find out if there's anything in it.

Sadly, there'll be none of the usual après-conference shenanigans for me, since rather foolishly I've already taken a gig to play at a wedding tonight in Fintry. Easy enough to get to from Glasgow, of course, but with a midnight finish I'll be lucky to see my bed by 2am. Nothing unusual for an SNP conference, I'll grant you, but tomorrow will doubtless be spent looking like a half-shut knife and facing allegations from friends of drunken excesses which won't have taken place. The joys...

By George!

Sir George Mathewson, former Chairman of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the old Scottish Development Agency, has on today's Scotsman letters page come out in favour of independence and an SNP-led government post-May. It's a timely contribution, since Labour, a bit like a child which has learned a new word, has discovered that a lot of Scots work in financial services and now opts to try and tell them at every opportunity that their jobs would somehow be 'at risk'.

Total garbage of course, and Mathewson, who transformed RBS from a struggling local outfit to the 5th largest bank in the world, is clearly having none of it. I can't wait to see how Labour are going to try and spin this one!

'There are several reasons why I shall vote SNP at the forthcoming Scottish election, the foremost of which is that I believe the SNP offers Scotland the best chance of escaping from the dependency culture that is currently all-pervasive at every level in Scottish life.

'I do not share the fear of independence which is currently being fostered by those who have most to lose by a change in the status quo and those who see Scotland as a source of safe seats, thus guaranteeing their rule over the United Kingdom.

'In addition, comments that have been made on access to the English market are patently absurd. Currently, a huge proportion of the English financial services market is supplied by companies in the United States, in Holland, Germany, Ireland, etc.

'Globalisation is here and Scottish companies have embraced it and indeed have benefited from it.

'Finally, our votes will choose the new First Minister of a parliament which has consistently disappointed since its creation, partially due to the lack of high-quality leadership. The outstanding candidate must be the SNP leader, Alex Salmond'.

(SIR) GEORGE MATHEWSON, Ballintrium, Perthshire

UPDATE: We didn’t have long to wait. Blair has resorted to claiming that RBS is somehow not a ‘real business’, and that Mathewson’s contribution is ‘self indulgent and absurd’. What a deluded fool Blair has become.

£9bn... Do I Hear £12bn?

Having just come out of a horrific accountancy exam this lunchtime, I'm loathe to start talking about numbers. However, with today's confirmation that the official cost of the 2012 London Olympics has hit £9.3bn, I'm afraid I can't help myself.

When I last blogged on this and mentioned a figure of £10bn, the official cost was still £2.4bn. Nonetheless, the following day (21 November 2006), it was announced that costs had increased by £900m to £3.3bn.

Appearing before the Commons culture, media and sport committee, Minister Tessa Jowell told us that this rise was partly due to a doubling in the price of steel, along with a decision to revise transport costs to take into account inflation (!) in the years to 2012. It also included an extra £400m to pay "delivery partner" CLM to make sure the games came in on budget and on time.

Jowell duly gave assurances to the committee that 'This project is under control. Cost control is a daily part of the rigour'. Yet just four short months later, another £6bn has been added to a figure which, according to Jowell, already represented a project 'under control'.

This is just one project amongst many big infrastructure projects due to come 'on-line' around 2012, including the Edinburgh Airport Rail Link, an Edinburgh Tram Network and the start of a replacement Forth Road Bridge. Since the date of the Olympics can't move, the only variable that can be altered is the amount of money we throw at the project, doubtless to the detriment of the costs on other projects - and don't the contractors just know it.

'Dripping roast' doesn't even begin to describe the bonanza that awaits the construction industry at our expense. Most public sector projects seem to run over budget and behind schedule, but the shower of blisteringly incompetent Panglossians we have in government right now seem determined to set some new kind of Olympic record of their own. Quite frankly, I wouldn't even trust them to sell union jack tat to spectators outside the games.

Keeping Hold Of Nurse

I enjoyed this wonderfully mischievous letter in today's Herald from SNP MEP Alyn Smith. I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but even Scottish Tories would have to admit there might be a certain logic to this one.

Sir,

If noted intellect David Mundell MP sees fit to grade his Tory MSP colleagues then the Tory gene pool must be gey shallow right enough. More of a paddling pool, or perhaps a gene puddle.

But am I being too cynical in wondering why a paper that has existed since the summer was only leaked just before their turmoil-by-the-Tay on the eve of David Cameron's speech to the hushed faithful?

I spend time in Brussels, and this week in Strasbourg, talking to a number of colleagues, from all parties. The younger English Tories are almost unanimous in their view, at least in the bars and coffee lounges, that it is only a matter of time until the Tory mother-ship cuts the Scottish Tories loose as a bad job. They bear Scotland no particular ill-will, if they think of us at all, seeing us as the "near abroad", a convivial place to hunt and fish, and the source of the battalion of knuckle-draggers padding out the Labour benches at Westminster.

They see their party soft-pedalling on the Barnett Formula, the West Lothian Question and the, as they mistakenly see it, squillions in subsidies we ungrateful jocks fleece from the English taxpayer, not to mention the Scottish Raj running their government. They think their party in England could go after these issues harder without the need to shield their Scots colleagues from friendly fire. They view independence as a matter for us to decide and, increasingly, as a potential advantage for them.

So, is this leak in fact the opening salvo of covert friendly fire from Tory Central Office? If so, how should the Scots Tories react? I would have loved to be a fly on the wall as David Cameron headed back south having brought his cheery vacuity north to be greeted by Bill Walker and views more at home in Jurassic Park than Cool Britannia. Surely he must be tempted along the same lines as he looks towards his next Westminster election, probably facing the self-proclaimed Great Briton but irredeemably Scottish Gordon Brown.

I know a number of decent Scots Tories, and if it comes to it there are competent ones as well, looking to get a decent result for the people of Scotland, same as most Scots politicians of other parties. But is the party as a whole going to allow misty-eyed illogical sentiment for the Union to destroy them? Not least when their own UK party views them increasingly as at worst a hindrance and at best a slightly embarrassing mad old Scots Auntie Morag who sits at family gatherings dribbling into her soup muttering about the Treaty of Union?

In the European Parliament, there are dozens of modern centre-right political parties of the Christian Democrat model from large countries and small. Would the Scots Tories not do rather better to put sentiment to one side and embrace independence? The Tories right now are a de facto anti-Scottish party, so the SNP currently has a policy of not entering into coalitions with them. If they wised up they could reinvent themselves as the only party promoting a centre-right, pro-Scottish agenda. I disagree with the "centre right" but I'd work with them on the "pro-Scottish".

That does, of course, presume that they will change, though I suspect the change is going to be forced upon them anyway. Something for them to think about. Perhaps David Mundell could write us a memo?

Alyn Smith MEP, SNP Europe spokesman, European Parliament, Strasbourg.

Train Kept A Rollin'

I'm on my way to London just now to spend a couple of days out on the lash with an old friend of mine from Scottish Widows. We both bailed out at around the same time, myself to go and work for the SNP, while Rich moved to London to be a mortgage broker. As he's just bought a house in deepest, darkest Beckenham, I'm guessing he did the right thing by moving on when he did too!

The idea was that we would go to see the England-Scotland women's international, which was due to be played on Sunday at Wembley. Although the English FA got the keys to the stadium today, the game has been moved to Wycombe Wanderers ground instead, which would be a bit of a hassle for us to get to. For that reason, the girls will just have to do without our support while we go out and get trashed instead. Ochone, ochone etc.

Anyway, I'm on the train in a first-class carriage, getting free coffee refills; getting online thanks to GNER's free wi-fi; no-one caring if I've got a set of nail clippers or a bottle of water in my bag; sitting in a big comfy seat with plenty room to stretch my legs; and in less than 3 hours time will be delivered slap-bang into the centre of London and all for under £40. I'm racking my brains just now to come up with a good reason why I used to always fly down, but right now I'm damned if I can think of one.

Get the Edinburgh-London rail journey time down below 4 hours, and I can guarantee that the airlines and their shareholders will start cacking themselves. Now, remind me again, why was it again that former British Airways Chief Executive Rod Eddington thought high-speed rail travel was such a non starter? All answers on the back of an airline boarding pass, please, to the usual address.

With friends like these...

The capacity of the Scottish Tories to self-destruct never ceases to amaze. After the wipe-out of 1997; David McLetchie's little confusions over expenses; Annabell Goldie's reluctant leadership and persistant attempts by a grassroots minority to throw the current MSP group overboard; it was difficult, although by no means impossible, to see how they could slip any further.

With an election coming up, the party high-heidyins must have been praying that everyone would just stick to the script and stay gaffe-free until polling day. The last person they would have been expecting to pull the plug on their campaign would have been Shadow Scottish Secretary, David Mundell MP. Alas, on the eve of their Scottish Conference, the Daily Record (I feel nauseous linking to this) has obtained a memo sent by Mundell to party leader David Cameron, which contains a damning assessment of his erstwhile Holyrood colleagues.

According to Mundell, the MSP group suffers from a "simple lack of thinkers". They are 'incapable of coming up with new policies', while "there are more obvious problems than solutions emanating from Scotland from a party point of view." The replacement of Scottish party chairman Peter Duncan should be an "immediate priority". And while "key personnel need to be identified to take on strategic roles...nobody obviously comes to mind".

With friends like these... there are conflicting views amongst Tory bloggers, with Ian Dale supportive, while Conservative Home demands his head on a stick. I think if I were a Tory activist, though, I'd be arranging my holidays to coincide with the elections so I could be as far away as possible from the impending carnage in May.

There's a place for a party of the centre-right in Scotland - but the prospects of anyone being able to hew it from the rotten timbers of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party now look not so much slim as positively skeletal. Independence and cutting the apron strings to the party in London must now be their only hope for recovery.

UPDATE - Widespread praise in the canteen for Annabell Goldie's riposte to Jack McConnell's use of the above memo at First Minister's Questions. 'At least, First Minister, my party's internal memos don't end up being scrutinised by Scotland Yard'.

Splat! Who said that Holyrood had banned bloodsports? :-)