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.

Some Blog Love

Having been tagged by Jeff in his recent ‘Top Blogs’ post (and since I’m now able to get my head through the door of the house again after receiving such a lofty accolade), it’s time to continue the chain. After all, break a chain-thingy like this and as any fule kno, not only will you lose your job, all your hair will fall out as well, with further misfortunes too gruesome to describe following in short order.

This is by no means a list of my favourite or most read blogs, since if you’re Scottish and into politics it’s probably a given that you already have people like Brian Taylor, Mr E and Guido on your blogroll. There’s also a fair bit of overlap between Jeff’s choices and what some of my own would be were I to conduct the same exercise, so I’m deliberately avoiding duplication. Finally, I’m leaving out favourite blogs either defunct, on hiatus or in the early stages of a transition, which sadly, at present excludes Scottish Patients, Reactionary Snobs and people exclaiming Whoopdedoo, wherever they may be.

With that understood, and in no particular order, here then are ten blogs which in my view, are examples of the genre which rise above the ordinary:

Calum Cashley (SNP)

I’ve know Calum for years, and his idiosyncratic sense of humour often as not chimes well with mine. Not only that, he’s a smart cookie, frequently digging out the nuggets of information which become tomorrows’ newsprint. Without doubt, the best connected SNP blogger in Holyrood.

Cllr Andrew Burns (Lab)

One of the good guys. An opponent of mine at the local elections in 1999 (I lost), he makes his points well, avoiding the ad hominem which plagues the blogs of many elected members. Hints of a life outside politics as well.

Tom Harris MP (Lab)

For my money, the best blog written by an elected politician in the UK, never mind Scotland. Pithy, personal and pleasingly indiscrete. I hope he’s keeping a diary…

Scottish Futures (Ind Nat)

Über-thoughtful blog, hosted by Scottish polymath Pat Kane. Home to articles from sundry McChatterers like Prof Chris Harvie, Gerry Hassan and Ian MacLaren. Never less than thought-provoking.

Normal Mouth (Lab)

Another Labour blogger, this time from west of Offa’s Dyke. Cerebral, not afraid to criticise their own side when they see fit, and takes an interest in Scottish politics to boot. Essential for anyone interested in Welsh politics, especially when read alongside….

Adam Price MP (Plaid Cymru)

Highly rated Member of Parliament for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr. Bilingual posts - a bit serious but worth reading.

Burning Our Money

Frighteningly well informed commentary on matters Treasury related - clearly has far too much time on his/her hands. Number of default attitudes towards Scotland which inhibit objectivity from time to time, but don’t let that put you off.

Clairwil

If she’s not already on your blogroll, add her immediately.

Man About The House

Family, politics, life in general – the musings of a stay at home Dad.

Richard Havers

Former airline executive with a dislike of windfarms, now living the dream as a writer and guest house owner in the Lammermuir Hills. Seemingly exhaustive knowledge of post-war music and counts a Rolling Stone amongst his friends - would be on my fantasy pub-quiz team for those reasons alone.

And that’s my duty done. Except for a sneaky reference to two other sites I’m involved with which don’t really count as blogs, but which merit a mention for the contributions of others – Destination, set up by Julie Hepburn, and The Flag In The Wind, the online presence of the ‘Scots Independent’ newspaper. Here endeth the plugs :-)

Something From The Weekend

Just back from a very productive weekend out on the stump. Let's see... on Friday, there was the SNP golf day in Ellon, which as well as letting 11 teams have a great day out, looked like it raised a tidy sum for the Gordon campaign; I took a trip to Rhynie during the day to visit a post office which is in danger of having its working hours cut back from 37.5 to just 8; then at night, there was the chance to meet some of the movers and shakers of the Collieston and Slains Community Trust, who are seeking to build a new Community Hall for their village (please take a look at their site and read about how much they've achieved so far - it's really quite remarkable).

On Saturday, there was the Ellon Fire Station Fun Day, where one of the highlights (apart from the BBQ) was a demonstration of how a casualty is cut free in the aftermath of a car accident. It was good to meet the high-heidyins of Grampian Fire and Rescue; to run into fellow Blogger Cllr Mark MacDonald who sits on the Grampian Fire Board; and also to spend some time with another chap whom you may recognise if you watch to the end of the second video :-)

Almost every time I'm in Huntly, it seems like there's some kind of big event on and this weekend was no exception. Today, it was the 'Music in the Square' festival, which as the name suggests, saw the town square being given over to music and dancing.

It was great to run into folk whom I've got to know over the course of the campaign so far, and also to meet new people like fellow fiddler Paul Anderson for the first time. I remember hearing him absolutely walk away with the seniors competition at the Strichen festival nearly 20 years ago and hoping that one day I might be able to play to his standard. I think I've done allright music-wise since then, but that may be an ambition permanently out of reach! He was performing later in the day - sadly, I didn't have my fiddle with me to join in the sessions promised for afterwards, but there's always next time.

We had to knock the music and dancing on the head for a couple of hours to have our monthly Gordon SNP Constituency Association meeting in the ex-Servicemen's club, but afterwards, we went for a walk round the square with the First Minister. He gets a tremendous reaction wherever he goes but this was truly exceptional - he could barely walk 10 yards without being stopped for a chat or to have his picture taken on someone's mobile phone... manna from heaven for the candidate seeking introductions when given the task of walking around with him!


Anyway, this weekend saw the culmination of a rebranding of Huntly, which has seen the town get a clever, stylised variation on its traditional stag's antler crest. However, the highlight of the afternoon was a communal rendition of the Waterboys number 'Room To Roam', inspired by Huntly-born George MacDonald's poem of the same name, which has been adopted as the town's 'anthem'. You can get a sneak peek here:

If you look closely, you might even catch a glimpse of Waterboy Mike Scott himself, resplendent with red guitar in the middle of the stage, leading the performance.

All in all, it's been a great weekend. Flying back south tomorrow and going back to work is going to be a bit of a grind...

Off The Rails

Hmm... maybe it was a good weekend to be away from London!

Caught...

Please read this - not only is it a hoot, it really tells you all you need to know right now about the integrity of Scottish Labour's spin operation, the woeful standard of their research and the sheer contempt in which they appear to hold our collective intelligence.

The Electoral Commission's New Broom

Is it just me, or has Douglas Fraser, Scottish Political Editor of The Herald, missed the real significance of his story from this morning?

"A referendum on independence could lead to unfair and unbalanced campaigning by political parties if it were called by Holyrood, it has emerged".

That part of it isn't a new story, I'm afraid. Under the direction of Prof. Sir Neil McIntosh, the Electoral Commission in Scotland had a public position, perhaps one born of diplomatic politesse towards the former Lib Lab coalition but a public position nonetheless, that it was outwith its scope to oversee any Independence referendum organised by Holyrood, meaning that any rules over campaign expenditure would not be enforceable. This I know, because I once asked Prof. McIntosh that very question when I worked at SNP HQ.

No, the big story is surely that in interviewing Prof. McIntosh's successor in Scotland, former BBC Scotland Controller John McCormick, there appears to have been significant movement from this earlier position on oversight of a referendum. Viz and to wit:

"If the Scottish Government came to us for help, advice, or to run the referendum, then we would be willing to do that," he explained.

That's quite a departure, though no less welcome for that. Nonetheless, this is liklely to have two very significant outcomes. Firstly, following their contortions regarding the bringing it on or otherwise of a referendum, Labour spokespeople have been spinning frantically that they support a referendum - it's the SNP which doesn't want an immediate vote, but that anyway, the SNP's proposed question would be unacceptable, so they won't commit to supporting a bill.

Labour has yet to say what would, in its collective view (assuming such a thing exists right now), constitute an acceptable form of wording for the question. Now that the Electoral Commission is happy to get involved, including over the wording of the question, they really are running out of excuses not to back whatever emerges.

Secondly, and potentially even more significant, is that if the Electoral Commission were to oversee the referendum at the request of the Scottish Government, both sides would then be subject to spending limits. Now, Wendy Alexander's erratic nature notwithstanding, who would have thought a year ago that a minority government would have looked this likely to get a majority in parliament for an independence vote, far less make sure that the campaign couldn't be drowned in floods of cash from South of the Border?

That, my friends, looks like a bit of a result for the SNP. It also looks like Douglas Fraser has underplayed what would have been one of the political scoops of the year - but than again, that's probably why I don't have a job as a mainstream political journalist.

Mercurial

If this isn't true, then it certainly ought to be :-)

Monday Caption Contest

Busy week ahead on just about every front, so in lieu of proper blogging, here's a caption competition for you all:


Fire at will...

Stayin' Alive?

"Going nowhere,
Somebody help me,
Somebody help me yeah"

Tom Harris Is Back

Delighted to see that Tom Harris MP has made a return to blogging. His used to be one of the blogs I visited most frequently (often partisan, but quite funny and always well-written), before he pulled it last year after, if I remember rightly, landing in a wee bit of hot water for something he'd written about the SNP.

He sometimes used to dismiss the SNP as being anti-English (which is a real peeve of mine, particularly when it comes from people who should know better) and on that basis, I was prepared to thoroughly dislike him when I came down to work at Westminster. It was pleasing then, if momentarilly disconcerting, for me to find out that when the cudgels are put away, he's a genuinely nice guy. It doubtless says more about me than it does about him that this should have have surprised me even slightly - I suppose that's why you should always try to seperate the argument from the person making it.

After being introduced by one of the SNP MPs in the Strangers Bar a few weeks ago, I asked him if he'd any plans to restart his blog. He didn't quite say no, but expressed a bit of regret that time pressures had meant he'd had to stop. So, I don't know if I'm in any way responsible for his starting back again, but a blogging minister who genuinely writes his own posts, as opposed to the bromide served up by certain of his colleagues in the name of blogging, has to be a good thing.

Wendy and Douglas - Right All Along!

At the last election, Wendy and Douglas Alexander claimed that an SNP Government would cause chaos and confusion over an independence referendum; would force the ‘average family’ to forfeit nearly £1,000 more of their hard-earned income to the government; and would split families apart north and south of the border.

One year on, I see now that it was all true. Only, who would have sussed that the Alexander siblings were describing their own impending fate and that of the Labour Party, rather than that of Scotland?

Scottish Blogging Roundup

I took a shot at compiling this week's Scottish Blogging Roundup. There's some cracking posts for you this week - please go and visit.

So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye!

A big 'thank you' this evening to National Express East Coast and to South Yorkshire Police. Why? Well, I'm on a train just now to Kings Cross (spent the weekend in Gordon, got to be in the Commons early tomorrow morning, can't afford an early flight). At Durham, a shower of tanked-up Manchester City fans from Colchester (??!) got on, sore from an 8-1 cuffing from Middlesbrough. They then proceeded to spend the next hour or so cursing, passing wind, regaling us with tales of their mates who got lifted earlier, and urging a fellow passenger to expose herself for their gratification, all to the general annoyance of everyone else within ear and nose shot.

Even after the guard gave them a couple of warnings to pipe down, they refused to take the hint, except perhaps for the one who had already passed out. Anyway, come Doncaster, there were half a dozen of South Yorkshire's finest waiting for them. So, a night in Doncaster beckons, even for the comatose one, who when he came to, showed commendable solidarity and got off as rest of his mates were ejected.

Have to say, I loved the tannoy announcement afterwards, which apologised for the delay and referred to the ejection of some 'unruly characters'. Anyway, the comments section is open... what is there to do in Doncaster after 10pm on a Sunday night when you've got work 200 miles away the next day? :-)

Focus Leaflets: Fibbing All Year Round - Guaranteed!

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

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

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

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

Take Your Partners By The Hand...

Is it wrong to be so easily amused? :-)

Don't send a lame eCard.
Try JibJab Sendables!

Fun For All The Family

A few more thoughts on the Labour Independence referendum fiasco...

Firstly, there's no good way to look at this for Labour. Basically, Wendy Alexander and Gordon Brown's positions are mutually irreconcilable. Something's gotta give, and as Alex Salmond says, it's most likely to be Wendy.

Secondly, Brown, by claiming at PMQs that Wendy had said that which she hadn't, and that the SNP were at fault (t'was ever thus...) for 'breaking' a manifesto pledge (we haven't), he's 'inadvertently' misled Parliament.

Thirdly, how can you call for a referendum on Scottish Independence (even if you now say that's not what you were doing), and justify not having a vote on the Lisbon Treaty?

Fourthly, Brown got hosed in last week's local elections in England and Wales. The very last thing he wants to be doing now is talking about the Scottish constitution.

Fifthly, all of this feeds right into the 'Wendy and Gordon are rubbish' narrative, which is taking root to a quite remarkable extent in the country at large.

There's probably more (only 10 minutes til the fun starts on 'Scotland at Ten' and 'Newsnight/Newsnicht') but that's your lot for the moment. There really is something for everyone in this story!

U-Bendy

I’ve been keeping schtum about Wendy Alexander’s screeching hand-brake turn on an Independence referendum. Not because of any unease or lack of ‘bottle’, as some would have it, but simply because it was such a seismic and unexpected political event, that I thought it would take at least a few days to get a measure of what some of the aftershocks might be.

I was wondering how the referendum u-turn might affect the Calman Commission, set up to try and derail independence. I was curious to see how the Tories and Lib Dems might react once the enormity of the change sank in. I was intrigued as to whether Calman’s recommendations would be put to the vote, or whether they would be left as the fallback in the event of a ‘no’ vote to Independence. It would be fascinating to find out whether Wendy would support a referendum in 2009, but revert to opposing one in 2010. Most of all, could Gordon Brown, the arch control freak himself, really have consented to such a ploy?

Well, now we know. Courtesy of Prime Minister’s Questions, we have learned that when Wendy Alexander called for a referendum on independence, what she really meant was that she was content to wait for the report of the Calman Commission. When she said she had the support of Gordon Brown for her move, she really meant that he didn’t support it at all. And when Scottish Labour MPs said that this was a decision for Labour in Holyrood to take, they meant exactly the opposite.

Shambles, meltdown, burach, farrago, car-crash, fiasco, debacle, SNAFU – choose your adjective or acronym as you wish. The clunking fist has clunked down on Wendy’s head – she can either tell him where to go, or back down compliantly. Either way, she risks losing Brown’s patronage or losing what remaining credibility she has within her MSP group, the wider Labour party and the country at large.

First Ministers Questions should be interesting tomorrow…

Airbrushing History

In The Scotsman of Saturday 3rd May, there were some very strange remarks from Malcolm Bruce MP, my opponent in the forthcoming Westminster election. This was to the effect that following his triumph last year in the Gordon constituency, Alex Salmond had somehow behaved ‘gracelessly’ in his victory speech – a charge Mr Bruce backed up with an accusation that Mr Salmond had neglected to thank the other candidates, or even the voters who had just elected him.

Unfortunately for Mr Bruce, if anyone cares to watch the clip in question (embedded -about 2'00" in), they will find that the First Minister in fact thanked all of the other candidates within 10 seconds of taking his place at the lectern, with his thanks to the voters of Gordon following very swiftly afterwards.

It’s possible, of course, that Mr Bruce’s continued discombobulation at the Gordon result has in some way clouded his recollection of that particular moment. I can only hope he will suffer from no such further confusions with the facts in our exchanges to come.

What The Gord Giveth, The Gord Taketh Away

As threatened/promised, this month's article from the Scots Independent newspaper on the 10p tax rate.

Those who pay close attention to the deductions on their pay slips will likely have noticed a bit of a difference this month. Although it's been long in the pipeline having been announced by Gordon Brown in his 2007 Budget, as of 6 April this year, the basic rate of income tax was cut from 22p to 20p, with the 10p starting rate of tax being abolished to pay for it.

Overall, the effect to the UK public finances was fairly limited. The move from 22p-20p will reduce revenues by roughly £9.6bn, while the abolition of the 10p band – which doubles the starting rate of tax - is expected to bring in £8.6bn. However, the impact on the lowest paid will be anything other than limited. Overall, it's estimated that some 5.3m people – 500,000 in Scotland, including some 324,000 Scots who paid only the 10p rate - will be made worse off by the change.

The main winners according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, will be anyone earning over £18,500. The main losers will be anyone earning less than £18,500 and who either doesn’t claim or is ineligible for tax credits. By way of an example, the changes will see a Labour MP who voted the measure through some £300 better off, while a cleaner earning £7,500 would lose out to the tune of £150 each year. Avanti popolo... it’s a wonder, frankly, that any Labour MPs feel able to look many of the House of Commons staff, who serve them daily, in the eye at present.

Yet in wrapping herself in the red flag and presenting herself as the socialist 'first line of defence', Wendy Alexander stood up at her party's Aviemore shindig to claim that “when you strip away the spin it's clear where the SNP stand. It is not on the side of those who believe in progressive taxation and public spending - but with those who favour tax cuts for the rich and what’s left for the rest”. Ladies and gentlemen, from that single sentence, I think we can diagnose with some certainty that even in opposition, Ms Alexander continues to suffer from the most acute of irony deficiencies.

The disconnect between her words and the actions of her party is jaw-dropping in its audacity and shamelessness. So consumed seem to be some in the Labour party with their own sense of righteousness that they believe themselves incapable of doing anything unjust. ‘We are the people’s party’, they say. ‘Our historic mission leads us to believe in social justice. Therefore, everything we do is, by definition, socially just and for the good of the people’.

In fact, listening to the Prime Minister, he’s even using his proprietorial demeanour to justify the fact that some people may be left worse off by the change. Graciously acknowledging the “debate” his change has provoked, Brown told the STUC in Inverness that "We have done more as a Government in the last 50 years for poverty than any other government”. Leaving aside the fact this sentence can be taken in two very different ways, the attitude seems to be that what the Gord giveth, the Gord can taketh away.

Luckily, most of Scotland moved on from that sort of tribalist mindset last year, leaving Labour to gnash its gums and weep and wail in the burning lakes of growing electoral indifference. Luckily also, at least for viewers in Scotland, is the fact that there’s an SNP government determined not just to deliver improvements in services, but also to let people keep more of their own earnings in their pockets.

While prescription charges go up by 25p in England, they’re coming DOWN by £1.85 in Scotland. Council tax has been frozen for the term of the Parliament. Payments for free personal care are being uplifted in line with inflation. The iniquitous ‘graduate endowment’ tax of £2,289 has been scrapped. Tolls have been removed on the Forth and Tay Road Bridges. A £73m tax cut is in the pipeline for 150,000 of Scotland’s small businesses, which will promote economic growth and help revitalise our town centres. All of this has been delivered in the first year of an SNP government, in the teeth of bitter opposition from the self-proclaimed people’s party.

So, while one party huffs and puffs about social justice and prosperity, there’s a party in Scotland getting on with actively delivering it. Judging by the opinion polls, it’s an approach which is finding favour with the Scottish public, in terms of approval ratings and support for both Holyrood and Westminster elections. Crucially, people now seem to be more open than at any other time in recent history to consider the arguments for Independence. That doesn’t make independence inevitable by any means, but it does mean that there is a momentum building towards further powers which will be increasingly difficult for anyone to stop.

I’m sure that scrapping the 10p rate must have seemed like a good idea at the time. After all, very few politicians would press ahead with something they knew to be a rotten idea. However, this measure has finally undermined for all time the argument that a Labour government in Westminster is in any way a guarantor for the interests of the lowest paid in Scotland.

Wendy Alexander’s argument about the Labour party being a ‘first line of defence’ has been completely shot through. How ironic it would be if, set against the achievements of the SNP government in Edinburgh, this measure were to be the spur for Labour’s remaining pro-independence voters to take the final step towards the SNP. This is a potent retort to a perennial unionist question which few of their number ever want to hear an answer to. It’s 10p, it’s arrived on a payslip near you - it’s the cost of not being independent.

Minimum Rage

There's a debate taking place right now in the Commons on child poverty in Scotland. I fully expect everyone to declare themselves to be very much against it. However, Anne MacGuire has just claimed, yet again, that the SNP didn't vote for the National Minimum Wage.

This didn't tally with my recollection, so I went back to check. And lo and behold, would you Adam and Eve it, she's not being entirely straight with us! When it came to the 3rd reading on 9 March 1998, where the bill was due to be rubber stamped, it would seem that it wasn't only the SNP MPs who were elsewhere - according to the list for the division, the following were absent also:

Let's see... in no particular order, there was no Anne Begg, Jimmy Hood, Tony Worthington, Tom Clarke, Rosemary MacKenna, Brian Wilson, Russell Browne, Ernie Ross, Adam Ingram, Gavin Strang, Malcolm Chisholm, Linda Clark, Nigel Griffiths, Michael Connarty, Mohammed Sarwar, Maria Fyfe... right, that's enough - I'm getting bored now.

But not so bored so as to miss the following. There was no Donald Dewar, and no Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary of the day either. Nor was there any sign of present Chancellor Alastair Darling. Or for that matter, a couple of characters by the name of Tony Blair and, er, Gordon Brown. Let alone the newly elected MP for Stirling, one [ahem] Anne McGuire!

Now, I'm sure they all had good reasons for not being there. In that spirit, can Labour people please stop using this exceptionally silly jibe to try and damage the SNP? If I was a parent of one of the 20% of Scottish children currently living in povery, I'm not sure I'd be very impressed by such a transparent and ludicrous attempt to point-score as we've just heard from the Minister.

Rock Bottom?

Intermittent web access meant I wasn’t able to see much of yesterday’s proceedings at Holyrood. However, after seeing Brian Taylor’s blog afterwards, I caught up today through the Official Report and the BBC’s iPlayer.

Let’s deal with Nicol Stephen first. Clearly, Grangemouth was and remains the story of the day, so he asked a question about fuel supplies and forecourt prices, to which he received an honest and intelligent response. He then went on to, well, read the rest for yourself. I know that every politician wants to grab the headlines, but sometimes, shouldn’t the urge to exaggerate in aid of a headline be suppressed by a higher motive?

And then there was Wendy. Fresh from her indifferent reception at the STUC conference, she decided to continue in what must have seemed like a relatively successful vein. However, accusing the government of offering ‘special access’ to SNP donors was, frankly, beyond pathetic.

The leader of the opposition should be holding the government to account but every week, we seem to end up instead with a display of inept questioning, petulant sneering and post-match foot stomping. She should learn from Annabel Goldie, who manages to get the best out of Alex Salmond week after week, whether she attacks him or, as yesterday, concentrates on a bigger picture.

Someone really needs to have a word, because even the neutrals are starting to remark on her lack of judgement and poor performances. Make no mistake, she owes her position entirely to Gordon Brown. If he were to be thrown out tomorrow, her colleagues at Holyrood would be making sure she wasn’t far behind him.

The afternoon saw a debate on the alleged wrongdoing of Scottish Ministers over proposed Trump development at the Menie Estate, something on which I’ve commented before. However, given that no evidence of wrongdoing could be found anywhere, the cheap innuendo, mud-slinging and partisan language of those behind the report really did leave a bad taste in the mouth. Such brazen playing of the man rather than the ball would have seen a flurry of red cards had it taken place on the football field.

As a measure of the significance of this silly attempted witch-hunt, the story was buried on the BBC website on the Scottish Politics pages, and even then, featured only as an addendum to the story that Aberdeenshire Council had voted to back the project when it came before the forthcoming public enquiry. Which really does sum things up – ‘The dogs bark’, as they say, ‘but the caravan moves on’.

In fairness, the Tories and the Lib Dems were in on the act yesterday, but did at least manage to maintain a veneer of propriety. I’d like to think that yesterday’s display of mindless carping and throwing of vitriol represented Scottish Labour hitting rock-bottom – a point from which they could only improve. These days, though, they quite regularly cease to amaze me…

New YouGov Poll

There's a poll in today's Daily Telegraph which makes grim reading for Gordon Brown. However, I've just got hold of the Scottish breakdown (It's a Westminster poll), which runs as follows:

SNP - 35%
Labour - 28%
Con - 22%
Lib Dem - 12%

Usual health warnings about small sample sizes apply... but the high polling for the Tories aside, they're not so very out of step with recent trends. It may not be the actual numbers which are so important, as the direction of travel with Labour's ratings rapidly heading South as the SNP continue to do well.

Electoral Calculus makes for interesting reading if you plug these figures in. The SNP take 25 seats; Labour would be on 21; there's a mini-Tory revival taking them to 7; while the Lib Dems plummet to 6. Interesting times... :-)

S&I Elsewhere - destiNATION

I'd like to tap the side of my glass and bring you all to order for a brief moment, for I have a couple of announcements to make.

First of all, a happy St George's day to one and all. With any luck, there'll be roast beef in the canteen, and I may even sink away a pint or two of Boddingtons, or London Pride if I can't find any of that, after work as I watch Manchester Utd take on Barcelona in the Nou Camp.


Now, the main business. My good friend and former colleague, Julie Hepburn, she of the 'Bid for Freeedom' blog; SNP Westminster Candidate for Cumbernauld & Kilsyth; wife of Jamie Hepburn MSP and all round good egg, has embarked on a new project. As if she didn't have enough to do already...

It's a website called destiNATION Scotland, which in her words is intended to be "an online forum for progressive political debate from a pro-independence perspective". The idea being to pull together articles, and prompt an online policy debate in Scotland, without having to pay over much heed to the restriction of the present powers of Holyrood.


If you have time, go take a look. If you can bear it, I've contributed an article on local taxation - some of my arguments you may be familiar with from previous posts, but don't hold that against it :-)

I've also been busy writing for the 'Scots Independent' newspaper, this time on the 10p tax rate fiasco. I'll post it here once the paper comes out, but in the meantime, do please go and read what Labour blogger Kezia Dugdale has to say on the subject. I admire her for regularly sticking her head above the parapet, but would it be uncharitable to suggest that for all the spit and fire, there's maybe just the hint of an element of her trying to persuade herself here that it isn't as bad as it seems?

Anyway, here's a quote from the 1997 Labour manifesto, which is worth dwelling on for a moment:

"Our long-term objective is a lower starting rate of income tax of ten pence in the pound. Reducing the high marginal rates at the bottom end of the earning scale - often 70 or 80 per cent - is not only fair but desirable to encourage employment. This goal will benefit the many, not the few".

Couldn't have put it better myself...

Echo Chambers

I'm sat backstage in the press room at the SNP conference at Heriot-Watt university. The auditorium is packed right now, in anticipation of Nicola Sturgeon's big speech.

My only gripe is that we don't have a closed circuit feed from the hall, which leaves us somewhat reliant on BBC Scotland's webcast of proceedings. While our internet access is much better than it has been at similar events in the recent past, we're kind of struggling a bit trying to keep up with events on our laptops.

All our laptop speakers are puny, and the webcast feed is a bit on the erratic side, occasionally cutting out and always reaching different computers at different times, leading to a bizarre echo effect round the room. I wonder if there's time to run back to my room to pick up a set of headphones?

Gordon Brown - A Stranger To The Truth

This little clip sums up everything I dislike about Gordon Brown. Remember, it was while he was Chancellor that he took the decision to sell British gold reserves, at what turned out to be the bottom of the market:




That patronising 'correction'; the passing of the buck (it was those evil Tories again); the refusal to accept responsibility; the deliberate confusion of the facts (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here - if it's not deliberate, then it's simply worrying that people in his own party have allowed someone with such a tenuous grasp on reality to get this far unchallenged).

There really is nothing there, is there?

H/T Iain Dale

S&I On The Stump

Been out and about in Aberdeenshire the last few days, sorting a few things for my campaign in Gordon, preparing for the upcoming SNP Conference, and knocking some doors for a local by-election in the Troup ward in Banff and Buchan. Not much to report, other than that much as I wish this particular campaign weren't necessary, the response has been absolutely rock-solid.

Anyhoo, tonight we were out in Gardenstown, and in between knocking doors, I managed to snap off a pic on my phone:


Stunning doesn't even begin to describe it.

For Fox's Sake

Jackie, one of my housemates, found a dead fox in our garden about 20 minutes ago. I phoned Lewisham Council to ask whether anyone from environmental health could come round to pick it up. 'No', came the answer, since it's Saturday afternoon and that's out of hours. However, they would see if someone from refuse collection could come round instead.

About 10-15 minutes later, a bin lorry drew up outside and yes, it was in response to our call. Impressed doesn't even begin to describe it - despite the published response times, there might be occasions when you'd struggle to get an ambulance that quickly if you'd dialled 999!

Well done Lewisham Council. Have a gold star :-)

Gordon Brown - Robin Hood In Reverse

As I said last week, I gave Wendy Alexander's Aviemore Conference speech a miss in favour of an afternoon in the pub watching the Celtic-Rangers game. It's therefore with thanks to the Man About The House Blog I stumbled across earlier today that I am able to offer you this little gem from her speech:

“And when you strip away the spin its clear where the SNP stand. It is not on the side of those who believe in progressive taxation and public spending - but with those who favour tax cuts for the rich and what’s left for the rest”.

Now, remind me again… what happened to income tax rates effective 6 April? Oh, yes – the starting rate was doubled for the lowest earners, and cut by 2p for everyone else.


So, that's a tax cut for the rich, and what’s left for the rest earning below £18,500? A higher tax bill…

Does Labour's hypocrisy and willingness to tell porkies about their opponents know no bounds? At least the SNP's local income tax would put some of the money back in the pockets of the least well off that Gordon Brown has just swiped away.

Court Circular

I might as well be the first...

"As the lawyers tell their tale,
Fisher's face at first just ghostly,
Turns a whiter shade of pale..."

Duff Luck

I was asked last night what I thought of Duffy, the Welsh R&B singer who's been top of the album charts for the past 4 weeks. Truthfully, I said I knew who she was, but admitted I couldn't think off the top of my head how any of her stuff went.

Idiot. Given that I was sitting with 3 Welsh people at the time, the reaction was restrained - except for one individual, who accused me of being more like 51 than 31. Ouch!

Anyway, after bursting out laughing (it was a good line), the best retort I could come up with was that I could have said I thought Duffy was great and no-one would have been any the wiser. Stung by the continued scoffing (and the fact I was coming off a clear second best here) I tried to salvage what was left of my credibility by pointing out that my old band, the Canongate Cadjers, had played at 'T in the Park' in 2004 and 2005.

OK, not strictly relevant, but it took the heat off a bit. Anyway, I've no idea if my tormentor from last night reads this blog or not, but just to prove to the rest of the world I wasn't lying, here's some of the evidence:




OK, it was the ceilidh tent and not the main stage, but it was still one of the best things I've ever done - particularly the bits where we got 300+ folk to sing along to our take on the Sensational Alex Harvey Band's version of 'Delilah'. I'm even nostalgic about getting a tennis ball thrown at me just before I was about to take a solo, only to find out afterwards that it had a six-inch nail pierced through it. Rock and roll, as they say...


So, there you are. I might have been a bit too honest for my own good last night, but history still records that the Canongate Cadjers once shared a bill with Franz Ferdinand and the Scissor Sisters :-) Thanks to Alex (the guy playing the box) for mailing me the pics and reminding me of two of the best days of my life.