Congratulations

Congratulations to Tavish Scott - newly elected leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

One thing that does catch my eye, though, is that while he secured the position with a stonking 59% of the votes cast, this equates to a rather less than stonking 1,450 votes in total. Which, with a 61% turnout, by my reckoning puts the Scottish Lib Dem membership at (1,450/0.59/0.61) = 4029.






Back in the 2005 leadership election, Nicol Stephen triumphed with 2,108 votes, ahead of Mike Rumbles, who trailed on 642. Given it was a 65% turnout, the membership then would have been 4,231, or 202 members higher than today.

Back then, the Lib Dems were in government too, and Mr Stephen immediately took on the mantle of Deputy First Minister. A Lib Dem leadership election was therefore a matter of great national significance. Today, Mr Scott has simply been elevated to position of parliamentary leader of the fourth party in Scotland.

Progress, anybody?

Hoy, Wait a Minute...

Belated congratulations to Chris Hoy, the Scottish/British/equallyscottishandbritish (delete according to personal preference so as to avoid offence) triple-gold medal winning Olympic hero.

It's a tenuous claim to fame, but I know his girlfriend. And her big sister. We used to play together in the Lothian Schools Strathspey and Reel Society. Much as I enjoyed cycling as a teenager, I have no hesitation in admitting I was considerably better at music than sport.

Mr Hoy, or Sir Chris as he may become shortly, should probably get used to people claiming to know him or generally wanting to get a piece of the action. All of a sudden, he's marketable. Want to sell bikes? Get Chris' agent on the phone. Energy drink? He's your man. Life assurance and pensions? Well, you can never start too early. Want to consolidate all your debts into one single easy monthly payment? Err, maybe he'll get back to you.

He's also got a bit of political marketability now. If he wants to campaign to keep the velodrome in Edinburgh open, then as far as I'm concerned, good luck to him. We're about to get a world-class one in Glasgow for the Commonwealth games, but his moral clout on this issue will never be stronger than it is now. He's quite right to make hay on this while the sun shines. Whether he's successful or not, I hope he encourages more than a few to take up cycling, whether as hobby or competitive sport.

By any measure, 'Team GB' has had a successful games to date. The haul of medals and incidences of pristine Union Flags being raised seems to have moistened more than a few eyes. However, have the games really shown, as the Torygraph's Iain Martin claimed today, 'fellow Britons proving what we can achieve when our national shoulder is put to the wheel'?

Really, Iain? Even in individual sports? And what of the contention that Alex Salmond will somehow have to take account of the London Olympics in 2012 as he plans an independence referendum? Does that mean all journalists exposing the shortcomings in 2012 financial management will now be denounced as traitors and fifth columnists? And what to make of the claim from the normally sensible government minster Tom Harris that "The fact that his bike was actually manufactured in Derby is a fine illustration of the benefits that can accrue to both nations through the Union"? Laugh? I almost had a Ken Bates moment :-)

Sorry to be a party pooper, but Usain Bolt wouldn't have run any faster if Jamaica was a state of the USA, any more than Michael Phelps would have swum less well had he been from downtown Ochos Rios. It's individual dedication and the support on offer which makes a champion. And, when it comes to team efforts, there's nothing to suggest that bigger always means better. Really, when it comes to succeeding at the Olympics, your passport is only of relevance in getting through customs. Everything else is about preparation, your physical state and above all, your mental state.

So, good for Chris Hoy. In fact, good for all the gold winners, wherever they come from. And, believe it or not, good for team GB. And if some want to claim that using a lot of energy to go round in circles repeatedly is somehow symbolic of progress for those who support the union, then as far as I'm concerned, they're more than welcome to the analogy :-)

Kerr In The Community

From the Daily Record:

LABOUR must tackle the SNP head on or "whimper out of existence," MSP Andy Kerr warned yesterday.

He said: "Labour people who are in hand-to-hand combat with the SNP want to see me as leader of the party.

"This is a battle to the death with the SNP. That's how I see it and many party members see it."

It's nice to see that Mr Kerr is mantaining a sense of perspective and balance in his party's hour of need...

An Outbreak of Common Sense?

From The Scotsman:

"IAIN Gray, the frontrunner in the Scottish Labour leadership race, raised the prospect of a groundbreaking pact with the Conservatives yesterday as a way of taking on the Nationalists in the Scottish Parliament."

His justification? Simply, that the Labour Party should be prepared to undertake that kind of cross-party approach if it was to use the parliament of minorities to its advantage.

How very pragmatic of him. Sensible too - after all, since each party is in a minority, the only way to ever win votes in Parliament is to build alliances on an issue by issue basis. For that reason, I can only assume that it was a completely different Iain Gray who stood up in Parliament last February to deride Conservative support for the SNP budget as "a tartan Tory tango".


Still, there's more rejoicing in heaven etc etc. On the bright side, perhaps we've now heard the last of Labour's dead-from-the-neck-up rhetoric about the SNP somehow being in an unholy alliance with the Conservatives. After all, having so publicly outed himself as a raving consensualist, Mr Gray will look mighty foolish if he resorts to that sort of silly jibe in future...

BBC News - MEP Helps to get 20 cows pregnant

So. How was it for moo?

Populism and Smugness

Oh dear. One Labour MP accuses a party leader of 'smugness'. Another Labour MP accuses a party leader of 'frantic populism'. Just another series of skirmishes in Scottish Labour's daily attempted media assault on the SNP? Surprisingly, this time, no it's not.

Proving that you instantly in some Labour minds become 'smug' if you look like you're about to beat them, Mr Eric Joyce has weighed into David Cameron. His crime? Letting it be known that the Conservative party is starting to prepare for the prospect of Government at Westminster.

Looking at recent UK-wide polls (Scotland being a different story entirely), it doesn't seem an unlikely prospect. However, Labour is the natural party of government, runs the thinking, and anyone who may be about to usurp that position is 'smug', 'presumptious', 'arrogant', or perhaps even all three if the press officer on duty is particularly articulate.

Turning now to frantic populism - is this another initiative of the Scottish Government falling victim to attack from a Labour Party too timid and guileless to do likewise in office? Again, no. This time, it's Nick Raynsford, a former housing minister, who in a clear-sighted article for the New Statesman, has turned his fire on Gordon Brown, and urged his government to recognise that "there is no single 'Get out of Jail' card" for their current difficulties.

Referring to policies floated over the past week in an attempt to regain the political initiative, such as a suspension of stamp duty (how to kill housing market activity in one fell swoop) and a £150 payment for families to help with fuel costs, Mr Raynsford said: "'When you are in a hole, stop digging'."

He goes on: "So what types of digging needs to stop? First is the frantic search for some magic populist policy solution. There is no single 'Get out of Jail' card, and it is foolish to believe that such simplistic solutions will do the trick. Indeed some are counter productive, inviting the public's contempt by implying a desperation to "buy" support by ditching unpopular taxes or offering dubious incentives."

"Just as dubious is the siren call for more initiatives. One of the greatest mistakes in government is to confuse activity with outcomes. Just because ministers feel busy devising 101 new ways of tackling a problem does not guarantee the problem gets solved. Instead the public grow cynical as government rhetoric becomes increasingly divorced from reality, while practitioners grow exasperated to implement yet another initiative, often before the previous one has even been evaluated."

Sounds pretty sensible to me. But then, so did Tom McCabe's recent take on the current travails of Scottish Labour, which saw him dismissed by a backbench Glasgow Labour MP as being 'out of the loop' for his troubles. For others, Labour's Scottish troubles are the fault of PR in local government, which saw many of their minority FPTP citadels toppled. For Brian Wilson, it's all the fault of devolution itself. The party collectively flails and thrashes in all directions. The public like less and less what they see and Labour's electoral fortunes decline accordingly, in England as well as Scotland.

Harold Wilson was fond of comparing the Labour Party to a stagecoach - when it was rattling along at speed, people were either too exhillarated or too queasy to worry about the direction. It was only when the coach stopped and the passengers got off that there were squabbles over where to go next.

Personally, I'm fond of pointing out that a fish always rots from the head down. A party which became solely about the pursuit, retention and exercising of power, once denied that power, will no longer have a purpose. Sure, the payroll can keep things ticking over in the absence of broader support, but once the councillor allowances start to disappear, when the MSP numbers become diminished, when the patronage can no longer be sloshed around as once it was, when the membership and activist commitment begins to dry up, when those at or near the top start bickering, it becomes a vicious and self-reinforcing cycle of decline.

Could we be witnessing here with these misplaced scripted jibes and internecine squabbles the puffs of acrid smoke which herald the long-term disintigration of the Labour Party? Or is the smoke the first signs of the bushfire which will, in time, allow vibrant new growth to appear through the scorched earth? Either way, the stench of defeat and purposelessness eminating from Labour on both sides of the border is becoming overwhelming.

Turra Show

Pics from Sunday and Monday at the Turrff show:




L-R: Banff & Buchan Candidate Eilidh Whiteford, Stewart Stevenson MSP & Richard Thomson







And a special mention to Kate and Shona, for whom I sadly lack pictures, but who as well as having the foresight to wear wellies, were also kind enough to get me a burger and a can of Irn Bru :-)

S&I Elsewhere - The Banks That Like To Say 'No'

Matters credit-crunch related have been covered elsewhere in the Scottish blogosphere in recent weeks, notably by Bill Cameron. However, in a bid to maintain frequency during a relatively fallow blogging month [Blame the by-election/moving house/ a crawling GPRS internet web connection - but broadband should be on it's way in a week's time - hooray!] here's my column from this month's Scots Independent.

The credit crunch. It almost sounds like a new kind of chocolate biscuit, albeit one which threatens not to leave such a nice taste behind.

We know the story. Banks in America lent too enthusiastically in a market of cheap credit to 'sub-prime' mortgage customers, who had stretched themselves to their financial limits. As the cost of living rose, people found themselves unable to repay their debts on the terms agreed. Falling house prices then left the assets worth less than the loans they were supposed to guarantee.

And then the fun really began. Financial institutions which had bought packages of consolidated mortgage debt started to panic, since in light of the defaults and property market falls, they could no longer say with certainty what these investments were worth. Banks became reluctant to lend to one another, inter-bank lending rates soared above official central bank interest rates and in short order, there was a 'liquidity' crisis which threatened to bring the banking system grinding to a halt, like an engine without oil.

But why should the inability of homeowners in the US to repay their mortgages be pushing up our cost of living here? Simply, it's because our economies are now so open and interlinked. The whole basis of our economic system is confidence – we don't insist that every pound in circulation is backed by an asset of similar value, because we have confidence in the money we carry around with us. And like the banks with other banks, when our creditors lose confidence that their loans will be repaid, they become reluctant to lend and the cost of borrowing begins to rise.

I've been feeling the effects of this myself in recent weeks as I've sought to buy a house in the constituency I hope to represent following the next election. Getting a mortgage was far harder than it was last time I bought a flat, and the providers are now hiking up interest rates, padding their 'arrangement fees' and reducing the maximum loan-to-value they are prepared to offer. Bad enough for a second time buyer like me with a modest amount of capital, but disastrous for first-time buyers already struggling to scrape together sufficient deposits.

Some 42,000 home loans were approved in May, a 28% fall compared with the previous month and 64% down on a year before. The Bank of England has also reported that the number of new mortgages approved for house purchases had fallen to its lowest level since figures began in 1993. The number of mortgages available on the market has also plummeted, from over 11,000 different types a year ago to fewer than 4,000 today. As indicators go, they make for pretty grim reading.

Our homes have been the way we have funded much of our recent consumption. Rising house prices made us all feel prosperous, even if that profit was only a paper one until such time as you either traded down or got off the property ladder altogether. It stands to reason, if not logic, that a period of falling prices will make us feel more gloomy.

Almost certainly, personal credit has been too free and easy over the past decade or so. For a while, it seemed like anyone could get a credit card with a debt limit representing a significant fraction of their income. With banks falling over themselves to offer 0% deals, juggling card debt between one introductory offer and another seemed to become something of a national sport. After all, we worked hard, and what the hell if income didn't match expenditure? That better paid job was only a couple of years away, so what did it matter if we borrowed to get the holiday, the suit, the car or the mobile phone straight away?

That said, debt, quite rightly, is no longer something to be ashamed of. If you go to university these days, it's practically state-sanctioned and compulsory. I certainly don't want to return to a situation where you are made to feel that the building society is doing you a favour if it deigns to lend you the money to buy a house, or release home equity to start a business. However, it's another matter when our levels of unsecured debt, from personal loans or credit cards, becomes almost a rueful badge of pride.

But then, we've had a lousy example of financial management over the past decade from the man who only last year moved from number 11 to number 10. Gordon Brown has racked up £40bn of government debt this year, with the UK fast approaching a cumulative debt of £650bn. He's also about to break his self-imposed 'golden rule' of only borrowing to invest over the economic cycle.

That rule, alongside his professed desire to keep debt below 40% of GDP, is certainly of greater symbolic than economic importance. Why does it matter, then? Well, Brown has been like the schoolboy who sets his own exam questions before marking his own papers. He's basked in his own self-proclaimed brilliance for a decade, on a boom fueled by consumer debt, and shifted the goalposts when it suited. Having set the terms by which he wanted to be judged, he can hardly complain if he is now found wanting when judged in precisely that manner.

The biggest surprise of the credit crunch is that anyone is surprised it came at all. Our debt-fueled splurge of the past decade was always going to have to be paid for at some point and after all, in any market economy, there are always periods of expansion, followed by periods of contraction or slower growth. But then, surely none of us were daft enough to swallow Brown's claims to have ended boom and bust in the first place?

We'd have gotten away with it, if it hadn't been for his pesky Lordship...

I am roused from the box-strewn midden I am proud to call my new living room and my dial-up internet purgatory, by this piece of idiocy:

SNP 'brainwashes' Scotland by painting trains in blue and white Saltire livery

"The Scottish National Party was accused of attempting to "brainwash people into independence" after it emerged that Scotland's trains are to be re-branded in a blue and white Saltire livery.

"Labour said the move was a "huge waste of money" and accused the Scottish Executive of adopting the design for nationalistic reasons.

"Stations will also be repainted in a dark blue colour scheme similar to that already used at Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley.

"Lord Foulkes, the Labour MSP, said it was "independence by creep" and followed on from the SNP re-branding of the Scottish Executive as the Scottish Government".

Drat, rumbled again! All those hours spent plotting away in secret at Nat Towers on McDonald Road, agonising over our strategy on how to get the last few percentage points we need to win an independence referendum. Eventually, we alighted on a scheme whereby die-hard unionists getting on a train at Glasgow Queen Street at 7.45am on a Monday would become Nationalists through colour-scheme osmosis by the time they'd stepped off at Haymarket 50 minutes later. It was as villainous and cunning as it was masterful. And it's all been ruined! We'd have gotten away with it as well, if it hadn't been for his pesky Lordship...

Mind you, it still doesn't explain how I managed to spend my childhood hopping on and off Edinburgh's maroon and white buses without ever being converted from an Aberdeen supporter into a Hearts supporter. But then, perhaps I can thank the Tories for their bus deregulation, which meant that the effects of this sinister Jambo/LRT subterfuge were neutralised any time I stepped on a green and white citysprinter.

Now I think about it, maybe my nationalism was affected by travelling on all those Citylink coaches as a student, with their sinister and insidious use of the prefix 'Scottish' and their stylised saltire logos? Maybe all those British Airways flights I've taken to and from London over the past year have turned me a little Unionist? And what about the effect of all those orange-liveried Easyjets? Goodness, where will it all end? With me taking walking holidays in Belfast in July?

Alternatively, and much more likely, his Lordship could just be talking nonsense and be in need of a lie down. Perhaps some kind soul could offer him a soothing expenses claim form to help cool his fevered brow?

Leaving London

Not sure this sums up all my feelings right now, but it would be remiss not to give this classic ad another airing in the circumstances.

Some Shameless Favour Seeking

I'm coming to this a bit late thanks to the by-election, but it would appear it's that time of year again. Yes folks, Iain Dale is compiling his list of top blogs for 2008.

It would be nice to keep that top 5 place in the Scottish Political Blogs, especially since the 'competition' has got a lot tougher over the past 12 months, particularly in the SNP-aligned section of the blogosphere. Good - there's nothing like a bit of stiff competition to provide a bit of inspiration and force people to keep their standards high :-)

A-n-y-w-a-y... votes can be submitted by sending an email to the following address: toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com . I'll be submitting mine in due course and would encourage everyone else to do the same. Needless to say, though I'll say it anyway, any votes for yours truly which make it into the mix will be greatly appreciated!

Reasons To Be Cheerful

£20 last Saturday at 15/8 - that's winnings of £37.50, or almost 2/3 of a tank of diesel...

Did The Earth Move For You?

It was a late night. I'm bleary-eyed and need coffee. In the meantime, here's a golden oldie for the delight and delectation of all those who are happy about yesterday's result in Glasgow East :-)

Glasgow East Miscellany

This Edinburgh/Glasgow dialect thing can be a bit of a problem. I've already had the lorne sausage roll/roll and sausage debate in a bakers shop on Baillieston Road, but today, speaking to some kids in Easterhouse, I surpassed myself.

Wee Girl: Who's that Polish guy over there?
RT: Polish guy? Who are you talking about?
WG: [Points] Him. The Polish guy staunin' over there!
RT: [Looks, and on seeing nothing out of the ordinary] Who are you on about, and how do you know he's Polish anyway?

My companion then pointed out that in all likelihood, she was referring to a wee chap who we had dressed in a policeman's uniform, which therefore rendered him a 'polis' guy....

RT: Oh, right, sorry. I didny ken what you were on about there.
WG: Why do you say 'ken'?
RT: I just do. I'm from Edinburgh...

[Lengthy pause]

WG: Can I get a balloon?
RT: Sure - here you go.

*****

*****

Canvassing a street just behind Shettleston Road last night, I was party to the following exchange with a couple of punters after being buzzed into a close. I went straight to the top flat, where I found an unlocked door. After knocking on the door, events unfolded something like this:

Irate Voter 1: Can ye no' open the f****** door yersel'?

[Door flies open. Whoever he's expecting to see, it's clearly not me]

RT: Sorry to bother you. I'm round from the SNP on behalf of our candidate John Mason. It's about the by-election this Thursday...

IV1: Naw. We're no' interested. We're at our tea anyway. [Shuts door]

[RT starts to record refusal on his canvass sheet, then overhears the following through the door]

IV2: Who was that?
IV1: Bloody politics. Some guy looking for votes when we're at our tea.
IV2: Aye, but which lot was it?
IV1: SNP.
IV2: Oh, that's all right. If it had been that Labour mob I'd have kicked them down the f****** stairs!

*****

*****

At the end of the street, the tenement blocks had given way to 2up-2down flats. I was just about to knock on my final door when a window cleaner came up next door's path. He glowered at me and said "I canny get any money from folk tonight. They're all blanking me when I go the doors 'cos they think I'm after their votes!"

There are times when it may be appropriate to remind people of the finer points of the SNP government's small business bonus scheme. This, I felt, wasn't one of them...

Moving In

Well, for those of you who've been following the saga, the keys for my new place in Ellon turned up yesterday. I've still to buy furniture and a washing machine, but as you can see, some civilisation has been imposed on an otherwise empty flat...

Content Warning

Those of a normal, courteous and gracious disposition may find the following scenes disturbing and offensive.

Let's make sure that if we have to endure this sort of shrill, partisan nonsense in the early hours of Friday morning, that Ms. Curran has to wait until after the SNP candidate has finished his speech before she gets her turn...

Crap By-Election Chat

Never having been one to miss a chance to crash through a quality threshold, I've been inspired by Labour's only unelected Scottish blogger of note to tell some tales of my own out of school:

Q. Which Labour Party Candidate for the Glasgow East by-election was heckled at the PCS hustings, before flouncing out only an hour into the debate?

Now, with that out of the way, a serious observation - I've been involved in every by-election campaign in Scotland since 1995 (with the exception of Falkirk West - I was on a ship in the Mediterranean at the time with a band). In all that time, I can't remember a more shambolic campaign that that mounted to date by Labour in Glasgow East.

Consider the evidence. First, their MP resigns unexpectedly, which prompts the party to cut and run to limit the time the SNP would have to campaign. Unfortunately, their preferred candidate elects not to turn up to his selection, so a 5th choice candidate is hoiked out of the Scottish Parliament to stand instead and seek a dual mandate.

They then get caught trying to re-write history, deleting every press release on their website which criticised Alex Salmond for being both an MP and an MSP. Next, the candidate claims she'll invite the Chancellor to the constituency to see the effects of rising fuel prices, but only once the election is over.

Cabinet Ministers refuse to make high profile campaign visits, presumably being smuggled in instead with blankets over their heads. The candidate then claims to have lived in the 'East End' all her life, despite the fact she lives in the South of Glasgow. Her campaign also writes to the SNP Candidate John Mason asking for his support as part of a blunderbuss constituency-wide mailing, and tries to canvass Nicola Sturgeon at home.

Perhaps after this, the Labour candidate was correct to describe a poll showing a 15% swing to the SNP as representing 'progress' for Labour. However, worse was still to come...

Her campaign 'blog' told the story of a 93 year old war veteran, beside a picture of a 67 year old Labour supporter receiving an MBE. They then wheeled out an actor from 'Taggart' as a high profile supporter who once - whoops! - appeared on the BBC's 'This Week' programme describing the Union as "the last vestiage of an empire on which the sun has well and trully set".

There's just under a week to go, and I must report that I've seen more Conservatives out than I have Labourites. Labour look as if they are still trying to canvass every door in parts to find out where their support is. And their candidate looks more and more shifty by the day - that much-vaunted phone call to the Chancellor has not yet materialised, it was revealed on last night's Newsnight Scotland debate. And what on earth do you make of an MSP who tries to claim that they don't know where the local MP (from their own party) had their constituency office? I'll credit the Labour candidate with having some basic competence and cunning, and assume instead that she simply wasn't telling the truth.

Anyway, enough chat. I've got doors to knock. Many of those undecided voters may be converting to the SNP by themselves, but every little helps :-)

Glasgow East SNP Photoblog...

... is now live here. Take a look and see what you're missing out on :-)

The Credit Crunch and Glasgow East

Lighter blogging than usual this week, mainly due to the small matters of a house purchase and a by-election. I finished up at Westminster on Monday, came back to Scotland on Tuesday, signed paperwork with my solicitor on Wednesday, and have spent the rest of the week alternating between campaigning in Glasgow, and trying to get a lender to release funds.

After growling at them yesterday, I was delighted to learn that the funds were now ready to release. However, since I'm away from home, getting the cheque sent to my home address was not ideal. So, in an attempt to get round this, after explaining my predicament, I asked them to make a CHAPS payment to my bank account instead, which I would pay for. The conversation with the major high street lender then went something like this:

MHSL - “We can't do that”

RT - “Nonsense. You're a bank – you must do this sort of thing all the time!”

MHSL - “We only do it for people who have accounts with us”.

RT - “Come off it – do you mean can't or won't?”

MHSL - “But we don't normally do it”.

RT - “In that case, can you extraordinarily do it?”

MHSL - “...”

RT - “Well?”

MHSL - “You'll need to speak to another department...

20 minutes later....

RT - “So this is what I'd like to happen...”

MHSL - “We can't do that. It's not allowed”

RT - “Not allowed by whom?”

MHSL - “The FSA – our regulator”

RT - “??! In that case, can you post the cheque to another address?”

MHSL - “No. For security reasons”.

RT - “OK then. Can you send the cheque to my bank?”

MHSL - “No. For security reasons”.

RT - “In that case, could you maybe send it to one of your own branches, so I can pick it up from them?”

MHSL - “No. We're not allowed to - for security reasons.”

RT – [Banging head off table] “What do you suggest then?

MHSL - “One of our branches could print you a cheque.”

RT - “Fantastic! I'll go to the nearest one straight away”

Half an hour later, at the branch of said MHSL, my request was met with bafflement, before they realised that this particular section of said MHSL wasn't able to issue a cheque, because the monies were coming from the other part of said MHSL which operates only in England. We then spent another 30 minutes on hold before spending a further 15 minutes once more going through the rigmarole detailed above. Then came the piece de resistance – the suggestion that I find a branch of the English section of said MHSL instead of the Scottish one – something which would have required a 200 mile round trip on my part!

So, because said MHSL can't be arsed doing an electronic transfer; because it doesn't trust the security of my bank, the security of its own branches OR the security of an address I say is safe, my cheque will get entrusted to an unsecure postal system to go from Yorkshire to Edinburgh to be redirected to South London, where it will sit until such time as I can either head back down to London, or arrange for a housemate to forward it on. Way to go, guys. Way to go.

Anyway, at least there was some cheer in today's opinion polls. The Telegraph, as ever, were determined to try to paint it as bleakly as possible for the SNP, but how can you play down figures which show that you're up 15% in Westminster voting intentions to 33%, while Labour are down 11 on 29%, with the Lib Dems down 9 to 20%? And how could it not warm the cockles of a nationalist heart to see that 49% of those polled wanted the SNP to win in Glasgow East, compared to 33% for Labour?

So, a third of Scots intend to vote SNP for Westminster, but nearly half want to see us give Labour a right kicking on the 24th? No wonder John Robertson MP looked so edgy on the STV news this evening :-)

Ministry of Truth

In light of Baillieston MSP Margaret Curran's sudden entry into the Glasgow East steeplechase, I went looking to see if I could find a Labour press release anywhere in which they had called for Alex Salmond to quit as an MP. It would be a bit of a turnaround, after all, for a representative of party which had been criticising the SNP venomously for months for having a dual-Westminster/Holyrood mandate member, to then go out and seek exactly the same role for themself.

My researcher, Mr Google, directed me to this page on the Scottish Labour website. Sadly, the page no longer appeared to be active, which was a shame since it seemed like the smoking gun I was looking for. Ever the innocent, though, and always prepared to believe the best of people, I thought that perhaps the url was simply broken. Curiously, though, Mr Google had the foresight to store a previous version in his cache here:

What makes things all the stranger is that there are press releases for the same date (15 June 2008) on Labour's 'news' page, but this one calling for Mr Salmond to step down as an MP appears to be absent. This is curious, because a friend of mine was able to make a screen grab which shows how as recently as earlier today, Labour's demand for Mr Salmond to step down was still being given pride of place (bottom right of screengrab - click to enlarge):


How odd! Surely Labour isn't trying to conceal a highly embarrassing u-turn, here?

Meanwhile, in other news at thirteen o'clock, Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia...

Calman, Have A Go If You Think You’re Hard Enough

Another Scots Independent column, albeit one somewhat overtaken by events - the 'Lib/Lab suicide pact', as one of my colleagues put it upon hearing the news that Nicol Stephen had followed Wendy onto his party's backbenches.

Still, the thrust of it still stands - However much they might wish it otherwise, the devol-unionist blethering classes can't simply wish away support for independence; it's high time we learned what 'more powers' might actually mean; and that while the Calman Commission may indeed turn out to be a crock, it's still a gift for the SNP.


Do you remember the Calman Commission? Oh, come on… pay attention at the back, there. The Calman Commission – the one the unionist parties set up to produce options for constitutional change, right after they’d spent an entire election campaign saying no such changes were needed? The one which is now costing you as a Scottish taxpayer some £500,000? Still nothing? Oh, well…

This abstraction of your hard earned tax money started life as a plain ‘review’ before becoming, to the reported irritation of Gordon Brown, a ‘Commission’ on the future of Scottish devolution. Meantime, the Scottish Government’s ‘National Conversation’ on the future governance of Scotland continued along its merry way, boycotted by those behind Commission for supposedly being a ‘front’ for Independence.

There’s a crucial difference between the two processes, though. While the Government’s ‘Conversation’ has remained open to the possibility of people opting for a ‘settlement’ which falls short of Independence, Calman has excluded the independence option from the outset.

Amusingly, the first set of minutes state that “the Commission starts from the position that Scotland should remain a distinctive part of the United Kingdom”, before immediately contradicting itself by saying “The Commission will consider the distribution of powers between the Scottish Parliament and Westminster without preconceptions”. So, no preconceptions at all, then, except for those they already have…

It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the Commission was set up in response to, and with the sole intention of trying to stymie the Scottish Government’s National Conversation. However, despite the shared aim of stuffing the SNP which exists in Labour in Holyrood and Westminster, the Commission has since its inception struggled to gain acceptance in Westminster.

The lack of enthusiasm for constitutional change starts from Gordon Brown down. Backbench Labour MPs are openly scathing, not least because they can see the erratic and unreliable hand of Wendy Alexander on the tiller, and because seeing themselves, as they do as still being ‘in charge’ of Scotland, they feel this is playing into the SNP’s hands.

In a sense, they’re absolutely right. If it hadn’t been for the SNP taking power, the Commission would never have been established so to that extent, its existence and the willingness of unionist parties to consider further powers is testament to their fear of being left behind by public opinion.

However, the most troublesome questions are not concerned with the principal of ‘more powers’ – that bit is easy. Rather, it’s the question of ‘which powers’ that is about to bedevil participants. I can’t wait to see how the respective positions of no-change unionists are reconciled with the federalist position of the Lib Dems. They may agree on what they don’t like – independence and the SNP – but what is it that they actually do agree on? And what about engaging with the public? Well, you know, I get the feeling that we’re not really all that welcome.

Public meetings have been ruled out as being too easily ‘hijacked’, and submissions which stray beyond the remit of the Commission (i.e. mention independence), may not even be published. The ‘experts’ on the Commission, some no doubt selected for their ability to bring empty minds to the problem, will deliberate, ruminate and cogitate. They will then hand down their findings to a populace which will remain forever grateful for being spared the temptations of independence, or the burden of being asked their opinion in advance.

That said, it’s still hard for me to see how the cause of independence can emerge from this twin processes of Calman and Conversation anything other than enhanced. Since the SNP took power, a direction of travel has clearly been established on constitutional reform and expectations set accordingly. Already, the Commission has every indication of resulting in a soggy, lowest common denominator compromise which satisfies none of the participants, let alone the rising aspirations of the voting public. It’s elitist, exclusive, top-down and prescriptive – the very antithesis of the democratic processes which were supposed to become the hallmarks of the new Scotland.


But here’s the rub. Since by definition the SNP will agree with every power recommended for northward transfer by Calman, to a large extent the Calman participants will be doing our work for us. For the SNP, the outcome will never be enough, but for Labour, the outcome is one on which they will never be able to agree as a final destination. And unlike independence, whatever Calman produces can’t be delivered without the consent of non-Scottish MPs.

On present evidence, that support is almost entirely absent. If Calman runs into the sand just before the 2010 Independence referendum, the British state will have been shown to be incapable of further reform, and people will cast their votes accordingly. On the other hand, if it does come up with a package of proposals, it will just whet the appetite for what seems likely to come. All told, it’s hard to see this as anything other than a win, win for the SNP.

Much as some might wish it otherwise, the issue of Independence won’t disappear on a whim of the devol-unionist blethering classes. There’s nothing so powerful in politics as an idea whose time has come and if those behind Calman really wanted to remove the legitimacy of a move for Independence in this Parliamentary session, they should have taken part in the Conversation so that the resultant fell some way short of what the SNP may have liked.

But they haven’t, and all told, that’s probably for the best. Calman was, in a former guise, the Chief Medical Officer for England. For a medical man, he seems to be taking an awful long time to recognise that his patient's case is terminal.

Brass(ic) Flunkeys

Further to DougtheDug's link in the comments of the previous post but one, I've been boning up on how Scottish Labour goes about selecting a leader. In the past, it's been possible for a narrow 'selectorate' to pick a candidate, who has then become the party's nominee for First Minister within the 28 day deadline as set out in the Scotland Act.

However, having been released from that particular time pressure by the Scottish electorate last year, there's no longer any particular hurry to select. And with at least 4 candidates purported to be weighing up their options, it looks like there will, for once, be a contest which relies on the whole electoral college for its outcome, rather than as a North Korean-style affirmation.

The Labour electoral college gives 1/3 of the votes to their parliamentarians; 1/3 to party members, and 1/3 to affilliated organisations (Labour Trade Union members). That means sending a ballot paper and a reply paid envelope to each voter. At the last count, that was over 400,000 ballots. It also means hiring an organisation, like ERS, to supervise the ballot.

None of this comes cheap, and there's one big problem - Labour is skint. Brassic. Potless. With a by-election to fight in the next month and major donors refusing to stump up while Brown remains in post, can the party really afford to fork out the £200,000 plus this contest is going to cost them?

The Writ's In The Can...

The writ for the Glasgow East by election will be moved in the Commons tomorrow. That makes the date likely to be the 24 or 31 of July.

Bet you won't be able to move in Easterhouse in the next month for Labour leadership hopefuls...

Wendy and Labour - Bitter To The End

I can't say its a huge surprise, but Wendy Alexander has this morning quit as the Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament.

Throughout, she and her aides have twisted and spun to try to put the best possible gloss on what was, let's not forget, a deliberate attempt to keep campaign donations secret. The law was broken, and while I think it merited only the sort of token admonishment she received from the Standards Committee on Thursday, even then, Labour seemed unable to accept fault.

Instead of bluster about honesty and integrity and lack of 'intentional wrongdoing', she should simply have put up her hands and accepted the hit. Had she done so, she may have started to show a human side which hitherto has often seemed to rather drift in and out of focus.

Labour is trying to blame the SNP for this - everyone, in fact, but themselves. This is cant, pure and simple. Wendy and her team were the architects of their own misfortune, and the briefing against her came from within her own party throughout. I've no doubt that she's pretty bright, certainly by the standards of her colleagues, but ultimately, it's her unfortunate personal style, lack of attention to detail and inability to take others with her that has been her political undoing.

This is a personal tragedy, but it's also one of her own making. My sympathy would be complete and entire, if only there would be some recognition in Team Wendy that maybe, just maybe, it wasn't the horrible nasty Nats who turned her over. The answers, as ever in Labour, lie much closer to home.

At Least I'll Get My Washing Done

Love it :-)

Anyone?

Anyone in Holyrood know if there's any truth in the rumour of a minor fracas between a certain spin doctor and a gentleman of the press, and if it was caught by STV, who were apparently interviewing Wendy Alexander at the time?

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...

'mon the GERS!

Oh, looky there! The latest edition of 'Government Expenditure and Revenues in Scotland' has been published and with heed having been taken of many of the criticisms levelled at previous editions, the methodology seems to have been refined somewhat.

Nothing too dramatic, you understand. Just minor details like including a geographical share of oil and gas revenues to Scottish accounts; trying to identify Scottish spending as accurately as possible and improving the estimates of Scottish tax revenues. And guess what? While the UK ran a budget deficit in 2006/07, on these estimates Scotland ran a surplus of £800m. Since the price of a barrel of oil has doubled since then, I can't wait to see what next June's figures hold...

By a country mile, this is the most comprehensive and rigorous analysis yet undertaken of Scotland's finances. Maybe now, we'll start to hear a more articulate and intelligent unionist case for Britain based on the argument "Scotland more than pays her way, and here's why she should continue to do so"

Nah. It'll never catch on... :-)

Showing Bottle?

The Scottish Government's consultation on alcohol seems to have ruffled a few feathers in blogland this week, not least because of the suggestion that off-sales may be restricted to those over the age of 21. For what it’s worth, here’s my tuppence-worth…

Firstly, I think there's much in the Scottish Government’s consultation to welcome. Like many other north European countries, Scotland has a troubled relationship with the bottle. Any proposals which make it harder for under-agers to get access to alcohol, and which help foster a more mature attitude to drink, have to be worth consideration in my book. Hopefully, careful consideration is exactly what they are going to get over the next few months.

While it’s the proposed age restriction for off-sales which has attracted the greatest attention, there’s much, much more to the consultation than this alone. Despite some of the attacks on the Scottish Government from south of the border, there's actually a great deal of overlap with what's being proposed by Whitehall. According to last Wednesday's FT, proposals for a minimum price per unit of alcohol are on the agenda south of the border as well. For those reasons, most of the criticisms I’ve heard to date, particularly in regard to legislative competence, seem rather weak and misplaced to say the least of it.

Now for the ‘but’. I've remarked before that I'm generally uncomfortable with the instinct to ban things whenever a social problem rears its head and I have to admit, preventing 18-21 year-olds from buying alcohol in supermarkets and off-licences is something which ordinarily would chafe with my generally libertarian instincts. However, I freely admit to being in two minds on this one.

Firstly, here’s my ‘leave-things-as-they-are’ argument. The main argument in favour of raising the age for off-sales is to reduce under age drinking. However, under age drinking is already against the law, as is the sale of alcohol to anyone under age. There is already a pretty broad package of measures which can be used to tackle alcohol related problems, including laws which allow for dispersal of crowds and confiscation of alcohol; by-laws which can be introduced to ban outdoor drinking; ASBOs which can restrict behaviour; and the more usual charges of being D&D, or the catch-all breach of the peace. As such, the authorities have substantial powers already to deal with the particular problem being identified. If it’s felt that the problem is not being dealt with vigorously enough under current laws and regulations, then why would tougher legislation necessarily aid matters?

Now, here’s the more nuanced case for change which is gnawing at me. The argument about getting married and going off to fight for your country has been done to death in recent weeks in connection with the votes at 16 debate, an initiative which I support, incidentally. I’ve met 16 year olds who know more about politics than many 60 year olds, but even then, I’m not sure I’d want to see a 16 year old behind the wheel of a car. Ultimately, lines have to be drawn somewhere, and given the different prohibitions we have in society and the different rates at which we mature, it’s not always necessary or desirable in my view for those lines to be consistent.

So how should this apply to drink? Well, in truth, we already have different legal drinking ages in Scotland. For instance, at 16, you can buy alcohol in licensed premises to accompany a meal, but not to drink in a bar. The amount which can be consumed is limited to the duration of the meal. It’s also delivered in a highly regulated and supervised environment, which means it’s not possible to drink as much as it would be in a pub. As a public introduction to civilised consumption of alcohol, it has much in my view to commend it.

At 18, the delights of a pint in the local pub are open to you for the first time, legally at least. Again, this can have a socialising effect on alcohol use, since barstaff, bouncers and other customers generally can be expected to keep amateur topers in some kind of order. According to the existing laws, it’s also illegal to serve someone who is already intoxicated. While that’s often a highly subjective measure, it does at least in theory mean that drinking yourself into a complete stupor isn’t an option.

So, why might we benefit if off-sales were treated differently? Well, let me continue with the ‘socialisation’ argument. A parent might buy alcohol in the full knowledge that an under-ager is going to drink it and while that may be an offence, in the privacy of your own home, there’s little the law is likely to do about it. However, if it’s bought for a group of young people to drink together, that supervision/socialising element is often absent. Under those circumstances, consumption tends to increase and with it, the chance of injury, illness, and anti-social behaviour, particularly when it happens outdoors and in relative seclusion.

Now, I know perfectly well that drink fuelled anti-social behaviour isn’t the sole preserve of the under 21s. When I lived in Portobello, my flat was just a few doors up from a (now closed) pub. It was also just up from the beach and promenade, which was something of a magnet for under 18s, who regularly used to sit down there at night to have a smoke and pass the flagon round.

Given that their tipples of choice seemed to be alcopops, cheap spirits and mixers or white cider, the objective seemed to be to get drunk as quickly and as cheaply as possible. Nonetheless, more often than not, the kids used to clear up the cigarette butts, put their bottles in the bin and then slope off home reasonably quietly. The pub, on the other hand, would spew out nightly a noisy and clearly intoxicated middle-aged clientele, some of whom thought little of kicking over motorbikes, separating cars from their wing mirrors and peeing in doorways on their way back up the street.

With that, I realise I’m in danger of contradicting my argument about the socialising effect of drinking in licensed premises. However, I believe the main point – that young people drink more responsibly when supervised and in suitable locations and that off-licences can be a hindrance to that - remains substantially accurate.

So what difference would it really have made to me between the ages of 18-21? I suppose the bars of Stirling and the Student Union would have got even more of my custom than either Victoria Wine or the campus shop. Kitchen parties in 1st year halls would have more or less become extinct… older students would have bought the booze for house parties or pre-clubbing… I might never have felt the need to sample the epicurean delights of Thunderbird or MD 20/20 before hitting the dancefloor.

All things considered, though, an off-sales restriction probably wouldn’t have made a huge difference to me – I’d just have gone out to different places and probably drunk slightly less when I did. However, what it would have done is made it a good deal harder for me as a young teenager to get a carry-out to take up the golf course, or for a sneaky house party when someone’s parents went out for the night. I also can’t say I’ve ever noticed a shortage of under-21’s in most supposedly over-21 establishments, although the higher age limit does make it harder for the very obvious under-agers to get in.

All of which leads me to suspect that when it comes to off-sales, most 18-21 year olds will probably still find a way to either get served or obtain their carry-out by other means, while most under 18’s will find it that bit harder to do likewise. That, though, means both purchaser and vendor breaking the law, which clearly is not a desirable situation for either party. Even having more lenient penalties for those selling to those under-21 but over 18 would send the wrong signal.

Which leaves me in something of a quandary. Alcohol and its excess consumption, for better or worse (largely worse, I would say), is synonymous in Scotland with adulthood and rights of passage and therefore, is always going to have an added appeal to those denied it by law. The main question for me, which I hope the consultation will help with, is whether increasing the age for off-sales should form part of the approach to tackle problem drinking, or whether, alongside some of the other measures proposed, we should simply better enforce the laws we already have in place.

It's a tough one, and I'm not as certain as I would have been at 18 that I know the answer...

In Sleepy London Town There's Just No Place For...

Another weekend on the stump - I spent most of Thursday on a train to Edinburgh then in my car to get to Lumsden, where the local Post Office is threatened with having its opening hours cut back to just 6 hours per week as part of an 'outreach' service. There were over 50 people at the meeting - nearly a fifth of the village. I spoke, briefly, from the floor, but was there primarily to listen. What impressed me most was the determination of those present to work with the other villages affected, Rhynie and Kennethmont, to try and get a better deal from the Post office - no mean feat in a process which seems almost custom designed to pit community against community. How ironic that in an age where we're being told that public services will be reformed to fit our lifestyles, that some communities are now being told to fit their lives around drastically reduced Post Office services.

Friday was spent mostly in Ellon, for reasons I'll return to later, as was Saturday afternoon. Saturday morning was in Kintore meeting with an energetic couple who are trying to set up a community cafe. The afternoon was at the music festival and continental market in Ellon, mostly on the SNP branch bottle stall. I was intrigued to see that the headline act at the evening dance was an outfit called Big Vern and the Shootahs - I remember as a Stirling University fresher, dancing away to them at the ball in the Dunblane Hydro c. 14 years ago. I didn't stick around for the evening's carousing, but I'm sure a great time would have been had by all.

Over the last year, I've become quite adept at throwing stuff in a case for the weekend, but there are the occasional mishaps. Right now, for instance, I'm on a southbound train while my mobile sits obstinately in the hallway of my parents' house in Edinburgh. On the way up, I got to Edinburgh before realising that I'd left my black shoes back in London. Cue a quick stop-off in Perth for Thursday late night shopping so that I could avoid the indignity of turning up for meetings in brown shoes and a black suit. Anyway, no more, as all this travelling back and forward between London and Scotland is about to come to an end for me, at least for the moment.

Much as I've enjoyed London in the year I've been there, it's time to head back and get the Gordon campaign going in earnest. It's hard trying to fight a campaign from London - something I expect my Lib Dem opponent knows full well already and of which I intend to take full advantage in the months ahead. As others have observed, this is a highly winnable seat for the SNP, but the only way to turn good polls and local goodwill into votes is for the candidate to be living locally and bursting a gut - the sooner that happens, the greater will be the chances of success.

I dare say I'll have more to write about my year in London before I head back. I've had a fantastic time, made some great friends, and learned a lot more about Westminster and indeed myself. The move South gave me a shake-up I badly needed but wasn't going to get where I was and I'll be sorry in a lot of ways to leave that new life behind. However, I'm also quite excited at the prospect of the move. The hassles of viewing and buying a house I could see far enough, to be honest, but there's nothing I'd like more than to be the next MP for Gordon, and there's nothing like having the smell of possible success linger in your nostrils to get you psyched up!

So, it promises to be an eventful few weeks. Thanks to my efforts on Friday, I've also seen a couple of nice flats that might be in my price range. All I need now is the number of a good solicitor...

Origins Of The Specious

Predictably, the debate over 42 days detention bubbled up into Prime Ministers Questions today. I thought Gordon Brown turned in an unusually strong performance, even if his arguments for 42 days detention were, in the opinion of this scribe, a lot of specious nonsense.

Much has been made of the ‘safeguards’ which will be put in place for 42 days detention without trial, including the need to bring each case before Parliament. But how can you discuss the specifics of a case in Parliament without prejudicing any future trial? It’s a good point which has been made several times already today and as yet, remains unanswered. Fundamentally, if you can’t discuss the specifics, then Parliament merely becomes a rubber stamp and the ‘safeguard’ is rendered worthless.

Another good point so far unanswered came from Sammy Wilson, the DUP MP for East Antrim. Namely, if you want to deny terrorists the oxygen of publicity, why is the government prepared to commit to discussion of individuals each time their period of detention without charge means their case has to come before Parliament? It didn’t sound like warm-blooded support for the government to me – could we be looking at DUP abstentions this evening?

Ah, but the Government has the support of the authorities, we’re told. Really? MI5 hasn’t called for 42 days detention and neither have the prosecuting authorities, including the Lord Advocate, the Director of Public Prosecutions and a former Attorney General. All we have is vague assertions of a complex threat from ministers along the lines of “If you could see the evidence that I get to see”. Except, of course, we can’t.

Everything this government says or does is about triangulation, only Brown’s version involves a form of political navigation without reference to any fixed point. But then, Brown is a man obsessed by tactics but devoid of principle. He posed with Baroness Thatcher on the steps of Downing Street, not to invite a predecessor to tea, but to try and draw a contrast with David Cameron’s attempts to distance himself from her in ‘modernising’ the Conservative party. He threatened an election, not because one was needed but simply because he thought it might yield an advantage. With 42 days, it’s now about trying to show how much tougher he is than his predecessor, who failed in 2005 to secure a similar measure. He’ll be a good and tough leader, because he’ll have managed what Blair couldn’t.

At its heart, this is a completely unnecessary spat. If Brown wins, he will have used up much of the dwindling goodwill which exists towards him on the Labour backbenches. It’s also hard to appear tough when throwing money around left right and centre to try and buy support. After all, next time there’s a tight vote looming, backbenchers will rightly start asking ‘what’s in it for me?’. Good old WII FM – the most listened to radio station in politics…

And if he loses? Expect more guff about ‘taking the right long-term decisions for the security and prosperity of Britain’, as well as a fresh outing for my current favourite Brown soundbite: ‘I will listen and I will lead’. The problem is, on planet Brown, the before always represents the 'right long term decision' at the time, just as does the contrary position he’s invariably forced into afterwards.

I really can’t fathom why Brown seems so determined to take this one to the wire. After all, if I were a Labour backbencher sitting on a majority below 5,000, a call from the whips telling me that the future of the Prime Minister was at risk tonight if the government were defeated might only tempt me to give him a shove, in the hope that someone else might take his place.

There is another possibility. Brown may be so sick of it all that he feels he’s nothing left to lose – win, and he can portray himself as a strong leader, at least temporarily. Succumb to defeat, and it may bring the blessed relief of a hastened end. It’s going to be an interesting 48 hours.

UPDATE: So, Brown squeaked it 315-306, with the help of the DUP. Hope they got something nice for their trouble.

UPDATE 2: £1.2bn - the total cost to you and I of Brown buying the support of the DUP and his internal would-be rebels. Nice to know our oil windfall is being spent so responsibly.

S&I Elsewhere - An Invisible Giant

Maybe unusually for an SNP economics anorak, I don't write all that often about the North Sea. However, with oil prices and the UK public finances as they are, and in the aftermath of this BBC Scotland documentary, it's an issue once more creeping up the agenda.

This was written for the Scots Independent newspaper a week or so before 'Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland' was broadcast north of the border (It's on the BBC iPlayer for a few more days for anyone who missed it). In the event, the programme was no-where near as incendiary as its title. However, when you've been told as I have by middle aged oil workers that despite the decades of production to come from the North Sea and into the Atlantic, that there's a shortage of young people coming into the industry because they all think the oil's going to run out tomorrow, you begin to realise what a good job people did in the 70's and 80's of persuading Scots, against all the available evidence, that this was just a transient windfall.

The first 30 years of revenues have been peed up against the wall. The kneejerk reaction to Alex Salmond's call for just 10% of the current North Sea windfall (not 95%, not even a percentage of the total tax take) to be invested in an oil fund for Scotland, should tell us all we need to know about how important the resource, and its revenues continue to be to the UK Treasury. It should also tell us why so many of the British political classes are so opposed to Scottish Independence - the cheek of some in continuing to claim subsidy as an argument for Union while raking in the taxes, still takes the breath away.

An Invisible Giant

What is it about the oil industry that causes many otherwise sentient minds to shut up shop? To some, North Sea Oil has been about to dry up imminently for the past 30 years. To others, it would have been ‘selfish’ to see the revenues as being anything other than British. Some, meanwhile, prefer a zero sum view that because a resource is finite, no benefit can arise from its use.

Ill-informed negativity masquerading as insight and wisdom isn’t only a feature of Scottish politics, but with oil and gas, it seems to be the default position for many. Although the wealth brought by the North Sea is clear to anyone who works in the industry, its economic significance has routinely been played down, leaving many in Scotland with a false impression of how big the industry actually is.

Perhaps one of the reasons for this is because with one or two very obvious exceptions, the onshore signs of the industry are few and far between for the majority of Scots. It’s simply never become part of our iconography in the way that Ravenscraig or Clyde shipyards did – remarkable, when you consider that the offshore industry is worth something like a sixth of total Scottish economic activity.

[Scottish GVA without oil = 96% of UK GVA including oil. Scottish GVA including oil = c. 110% of UK GVA including oil]

Figures from the UK Offshore Operators Association show that in 2006, the industry invested more than £5.5 billion in the North Sea; spent a further £5.5 billion on operations; and contributed £9 billion in direct taxation to the Exchequer. It employed, either directly or indirectly, some 480,000 people across the whole UK – with 380,000 jobs related to domestic production and a further 100,000 to the export of oilfield goods and services.


That latter number is of particular significance to Scotland. Thanks to the experience gained over the past 40 years, Scotland is now a major provider of oilfield goods and services throughout the world, with exports growing at 10% per annum and worth some £4bn every year. Like financial services, this is another Scottish industry with a truly global reach.

But it's not just onshore that our visibility of this giant is restricted. When it comes to UK economic data, North Sea revenues are always included in overall UK accounts, but excluded from the Scottish accounts as 'Extra Regio'. This means that when a Scotland shorn of oil and gas revenues is compared with a UK figure which does include these revenues, Scotland is made to look relatively less prosperous than she actually is.

One of the most flagrant examples comes when measuring the size of the Scottish public sector. We’re often told that Scotland enjoys Scandinavian levels of public spending, yet pays only UK levels of taxation. The statistic used to back this up is that Scottish public spending exceeds 50% of GDP, while UK spending is sitting at 43% - a statistic from which we are then invited to believe, entirely falsely, that the Scottish public sector is uniquely inefficient and further, that Scottish public spending is being subsidised from elsewhere in the UK.

Let’s leave aside the fact that even if resources were being transferred to Scotland by the Treasury, present UK debt levels mean it would be being done with money borrowed internationally. Let’s also leave aside for a moment the fact that with 1/12 of the UK population being spread over 1/3 of the UK landmass, it’s always going to cost more to deliver the same quality of government services in Scotland than it would in more densely populated parts of the UK.

When you include the 90% plus share of North Sea revenues which would accrue to a Scottish Treasury, Scottish spending isn’t above 50% of GDP – it’s 41% - lower than the equivalent UK figure. In fact, pull the same stunt of removing those North Sea revenues out of UK accounts completely and the UK would have failed even to meet the Maastricht Eurozone convergence debt criteria from 2003/04 onwards.

It was in 1999 that the late Donald Dewar stood before the Scottish Grand Committee and intoned gravely that the $10 barrel of oil would be with us ‘for the foreseeable future’. Today, with greater competition for resources and increasing consumer demand, high energy prices and the challenges which flow look like they are here to stay. With our surfeit of renewables potential, and with as much to come from the North Sea as has already been extracted, Scotland is almost uniquely well placed to ride out the transition to this new world of energy insecurity.

We’re looking now to the second age of the North Sea, founded not on the prodigious rates of extraction of the early 1980's, but based on the high prices which make development of smaller resources worthwhile. However, the capital needed to maintain this success is both finite and highly mobile. To make the most of the remaining opportunities in the North Sea, government is going to have to focus on how to maintain an environment that makes Scotland at least as attractive to investors as other fields throughout the world.

Labour, with little or no affinity for the industry or those who work in it be they 'fat-cat' or 'roughneck', has only ever seen it as a convenient source of cash when the books won't balance. A Scottish Government could never afford to be so cavalier. This surely bodes better for the long-term future of the industry than the erratic behaviour of Whitehall debt junkies, desperate only for their next fix of corporation tax revenues.