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 :-)
Friday, July 18, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
Glasgow East SNP Photoblog...
... is now live here. Take a look and see what you're missing out on :-)
Friday, July 11, 2008
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 :-)
Sunday, July 06, 2008
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...
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...
Friday, July 04, 2008
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…
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.
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.
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.
Monday, June 30, 2008
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?
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...
Bet you won't be able to move in Easterhouse in the next month for Labour leadership hopefuls...
Saturday, June 28, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
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...
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...
Friday, June 20, 2008
'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... :-)
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...
Monday, June 16, 2008
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...
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...
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
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
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
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.
Saturday, June 07, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
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
Scottish Futures (
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.
Frighteningly well informed commentary on matters Treasury related - clearly has far too much time on his/her hands. Number of default attitudes towards
If she’s not already on your blogroll, add her immediately.
Family, politics, life in general – the musings of a stay at home Dad.
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 :-)
Sunday, June 01, 2008
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...
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...
Thursday, May 29, 2008
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.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
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.
"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.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Monday, May 19, 2008
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...
Fire at will...
Friday, May 16, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, May 12, 2008
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.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
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? :-)
Saturday, May 10, 2008
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?
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?
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
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!
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
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…
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
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
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
Luckily, most of
While prescription charges go up by 25p in
So, while one party huffs and puffs about social justice and prosperity, there’s a party in
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
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
Thursday, May 01, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
