What the 'Eck

lest we forget

2012-01-26T01:49:00.000Z

lest anyone forget - handy links for wherever Alex Neil is mentioned - http://bit.ly/ck8RRd abd http://bit.ly/dCzh1n

SNP = Scotland. Not.

2009-12-10T12:17:00.001Z

Arrogance: A politician who equates the interests of his own party with the interests of a country that mostly voted for other parties.

SNP urged to act on low standards

2008-10-29T15:27:00.006Z

Looking at SNP press releases, I note numerous examples of errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling. For example:

Voting SNP gives you cheaper perscriptions

In addition to the poor proofreading, and absence of spellchecking, it is notable that the mistake has not yet been corrected. Is this because
a) no one has noticed?
b) no one cares?
c) no one reads SNP press releases? - or perhaps,
d) the people who read SNP press releases have difficulty with words containing so many syllables?

That said Rlights of a child should be Scots law has now been corrected, as has SNP Government acting to see of repossessions. Maybe someone noticed that I searched using these headlines!

Labour dithering on miner's compensation however still begs the question of whether the SNP is concerned about a particular miner, or has misused the apostrophe. Reading on would suggest the latter, although rather than being misplaced as in the headline, it is simply not used thereafter.

Apparently "Tricia Marwick said it his remarks actually reflected ..." (etc). Are words missing or surplus? It is tempting to suggest that whatever words are used by the SNP, the latter is the correct assessment.

If the SNP press office is reading this, you may also like to correct this sentence:
"Mr Salmond who was campaigning in the town with SNP Candidate Peter Grant visited, Gordon Brown, 28 year old truck driver and former member of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards at his Glenrothes home."

Before anyone searches this blog for comparable mistakes, please note that I'm not in charge of the nation's education, and I don't have a large staff of allegedly competent press officers. I'm also not so arrogant as to believe that proofreading your own output is best practice, so please let me know if you spot anything.

Summer Summary

2008-08-27T00:00:00.000+01:00

OK, so we've been really lazy and spent the silly season ignoring politics and enjoying ourselves like normal human beings. Sort of, but not quite. We noticed the stories but were too busy enjoying ourselves to write about them. If you also have a passing resemblance to a normal human being, then you may also have been too busy enjoying yourself to read beyond the headlines. Tell you what: in case you are sufficiently aberrant to want to know what you missed, here's the summer summary, part deux.

SNP hypocrisy under scrutiny ... Scottish government hires firm accused of torture in Iraq Sunday Herald - 26 Jul

The big money backs the nats ... SNP spent £1m more than Labour on campaigns last year Herald - 30 Jul

I told you it was the silly season ... Not so smart Alex gets a real dressing down Scotland on Sunday - 3 Aug

The impartial civil service ... Sir John Elvidge in 'bias' row Times - 3 Aug

SNP U turns make me dizzy ... SNP signals a U-turn as it hints at tram extension Scotsman - 7 Aug

Would you want a councillor who knows how to use an AK-47? Councillor Kalashnikov Evening Times - 7 Aug

SNP gives more funding to ally's Islamic group Scotland on Sunday - 10 Aug ... By Eddie Barnes ... THE SNP Government is facing more criticism from Muslim groups after ploughing a further £190000 into an Islamic group led by one of Alex Salmond's closest allies.

SNP's rural policies looking like the weather: a washout Scotsman - 11 Aug

Creative Scotland on a shoestring ... SNP 'must tell truth' over soaring cost of arts body Times - 12 Aug

The SNP And John MacDougall By Kevin Maguire - 13 Aug ... I see the SNP leader in Westminster Angus Robertson has issued a tribute to MacDougall. That'll be the same Mr Robertson who was seen by my spy on a flight between between England and Scotland a few weeks ago leafing through what looked suspiciously like SNP canvass returns for MacDougall's seat.

More questions on SIF ... Worrying questions about funding remain Herald - 14 Aug

Fury over SNP plans to cut hospital's A&E unit Daily Record - 16 Aug

SNP is accused after 'doctoring' flag image Scotsman ... THE SNP has come under fire for digitally altering a photograph on a Scottish tourism website to show a Saltire rather than a Union Flag.

Scotland likes Salmond. Salmond likes Thatcher. Therefore ... Alex Salmond: Scotland 'didn't mind' Thatcher economics

Scotsman - 21 Aug

£42m to be cut from city health budget

Evening Times

Alex Salmond 'screeches into reverse' over Margaret Thatcher gaffe

Times - 22 Aug

SNP face backlash for hiring firm accused of Iraq torture Sunday Herald -23 Aug

Hello, Hello, Hello ... SNP breaks promise on more police

Scotsman - 24 Aug

SIF ... Watchdog questions Government grant to Islamic group with SNP link

Scotland on Sunday - 24 Aug

What's going on here then? ... Snp Slated For Claiming A Third Too Many Police Daily Record - 25 Aug

On the buses

2008-07-25T03:18:00.000+01:00

"We are starting to see a fundamental shift towards public transport" Brian Soutar 25/06/2008

"LOCALS have hit out at plans by Stagecoach Strathtay to slash bus
services in the town, saying they feel Montrose is already
short-changed by the operator" Montrose Review 25/07/08

"SNP accused of dumping bus plan to please millionaire backer" Sunday Herald 22/4/07

What's the score, Jenny Dawe?

2008-07-25T03:14:00.000+01:00

More fun and games in the uneasy coalition that runs Edinburgh ...

Council split on green parking
Liberal leader Jenny Dawe didn't know it was happening, but having discovered that SNP Deputy Leader Steve Cardownie is not happy about charging gas guzzlers more for parking, declares that the SNP is "probably not as green as we are."

Hmmm. So not the Liberal love of income generation versus the SNP fear of upsetting "poorer families" (who can somehow afford big engined 4x4s) then?

What a difference a month makes

2008-07-25T03:11:00.000+01:00

It's been a busy few weeks, and amidst the hustle and bustle, a few interesting tales have passed by without due comment.

Rather than let them lie, I'll give each of the sleeping dogs a quick nudge ...

Salmond hit by 'cash for cronies' row (Scotsman) - MUSLIM leaders accused Alex Salmond of blatant cronyism. SNP accusations that this was a non-story led to a debate on Allmedia about whether the report on the SNP complaint was itself a non-story ... SoS Stories Stir up SNP Frustration

'Smug' blast for Alex Salmond from new poll (Daily Record) - FIRST Minister Alex Salmond, chef Gordon Ramsay and actor Ewan McGregor are on a list of Britain's 20 smuggest people. Salmond was labelled a smirking "smarta***" in the poll.

It's an SNP reunion party at RBS - plus ça spare change, an a' that

SNP scraps pledge of £2000 for first-time home buyers (Times) - The SNP's promise to give all first-time home-buyers a £2000 grant was declared dead last night (plus ça même chose, an a')

Doubts cast over SNP's claim for oil-cost windfall (Scotsman) & Oil-obsessed SNP figures simply do not make sense (Scotsman) - 'Nuff said

Payback?

2008-07-23T03:26:00.000+01:00

I see that Falkirk SNP Councillor Lynda Kenna - "highest paid member of the opposition on the Labour-run council last year" (Daily Record) - has quit as head of Central Scotland Fire Board, because of "family issues" (Falkirk Herald)

Apparently, there are issues in her life "more important than high office ... Everyone has times in their lives when family problems must be tackled and that agenda is my priority."

The SNP's "Convenor of Local Government", David Alexander said: "No one I know has more passion for the fire service than Lynda, but I understand her family life must come first. We will support her and continue to work as a team for the betterment of all within Falkirk district."

The good people of Falkirk could perhaps be forgiven if they had mistakenly assumed that the resignation had something to do with Ms Kenna being taken to court for debt, and being given a fortnight by Falkirk Sheriff Court to repay £2000 she borrowed from a constituent.

The case gives an insight into the councillor's dedication to her constituents' well-being. The woman who was looking for her money back said that Lynda Kenna "helped me get a flat in Larbert, she even drove me when I had things like furniture to get for my new home. She didn't ask me for money, but there were hints, so I loaned her £2500. "

Despite calls for her resignation as a Councillor, Ms Kenna has indicated that "her constituents in the Tryst and Kinnaird Ward will now get more of her time." But at what cost?

LIT Criticism Grows

2008-07-23T03:23:00.000+01:00

How much longer can the SNP's state of denial persist? When will they move on from their Local Income Tax delusions? Here are a few more press stories to add to the examples already listed.

Local income tax plans 'hit troops'
Press Association

Local income tax plan’s ‘affordability gap’
Herald

Flagship policy is in serious trouble
Scotsman

SNP plans for local income tax hammered
Press and Journal

Local tax plans under pressure
Press Association

FSB attacks SNP local income tax plan
Herald

ICAS: local income tax 'unworkable'
Scotsman

Council counts out SNP's local income tax plan

SNP tax plans 'could disadvantage Scottish businesses'

LumpenNationalismus

2008-07-14T20:36:00.000+01:00

I'm no slum landlord, claims SNP housing campaigner Jahangir Hanif.

According to the Daily Record, "the SNP's Jahangir Hanif rents out a two-bedroomed flat to a family of Romanians in Westmoreland Street which is considered so bad that locals have nicknamed it 'Ground Zero'."

He didn't mention the flat at a residents' meeting, because "he wasn't given enough time to raise it". Although he did have enough time to promise to bring Nicola Sturgeon to see the street.

Apparently it's quite a nice flat really, for the area. "Clean and basic", the Record says.

It's just the close and the rest of the building that's mingin'. And the rest of the street.

"It is a bad property, they all are in the street," he said. But "it's not a slum in 100 per cent sense."

Oh, so that's OK then. Maybe just 99% ?

Baby Bloomer

2008-07-14T20:34:00.000+01:00

The Daily Record reports that SNP by-election candidate John Mason sparked anger yesterday when he claimed the Government want to "experiment with babies".

He said: "I'm extremely unhappy about experiments with babies, or research, or anything like that."

The terminology later changed to "research on embryos".

All very emotive and highly inaccurate, unless you are one of those people who believe that every sperm is sacred.

Which reminds me, I must check for recent SNP donations from Brian Soutar.

LIT is like an ashtray ...

2008-07-14T20:19:00.000+01:00

... full of LIT-tle doubts.

The recent revelation that financial experts have their doubts about the viability of Local Income Tax plans (Financial experts tell SNP: Local income tax won't work - Scotsman) is only the latest in a long line of stories detailing the credibility gap between SNP plans and real world (how long before I can report that the SNP have hit the Credibility Crunch?).

Many of the criticisms originate from organisations that are not normally regarded as Labour-friendly ...

SNP dropped from Highlands

2008-07-11T20:40:00.000+01:00

The SNP have clearly proven themselves very difficult people to work with in the Highlands. As the BBC reports, a new coalition has been formed, comprising 30 Independents, 20 Liberal Democrats and seven Labour councillors. The 17 SNP councillors will join the six fellow travellers of the Independent Members Group in opposition.

Why doesn't Alex stand for Glasgow East?

2008-07-11T17:06:00.003+01:00

Dear Alex,

Is it terribly awkward for you?

Your party must be desperate to challenge Margaret Curran about how she could possibly manage to do a job as an MP at the same time as being an MSP - but of course, that would also throw the spotlight on your own situation.

Why don't you just explain that you are so wonderful that while being an MP and and MSP and First Minister is a piece of cake for someone with your ability, mere mortals like Ms. Curran could not hope to emulate you.

Now there's a thought. Maybe she wants to be an MP and First Minister too!

Hope you are having a nice holiday in Westminster,
Best wishes,
PQS

PS. Saw you on Newsnight recently. Seriously classic. Anyone who missed it should check it out on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czCjAh1xRuw

The Homonymous Others

2008-06-19T20:43:00.000+01:00

Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows, and while still using personal observation and maintaining a network of informants, I have to say it's a lot easier to check out the dark recesses of men's souls than it used to be, thanks to improvements in search technology, RSS feeds, and Google News and Blog Alerts.

So for natwatch, I regularly wade through the morass of dark tales reporting the activities of the SNP. Generally this is a depressingly wretched task and I am easily led astray by more interesting items about SNPs that have nothing to do with fishy sounding leaders, but occasionally even our piscine pals provide a little "sol y sombra" relief.

For example, from a website that is dedicated to openness and transparency, we have this remarkably unenlightening entry ...

Alex Salmond’s Letter : Asked whether Downing Street had received the letter from Alex Salmond that had appeared in some Sunday newspapers, the PMS said that he could confirm that we had received a letter of today’s date. He added that as far as we were concerned, we had no intention of putting it into the public domain so it was a private letter. Asked if Downing Street had responded to it, the PMS said that it would have to be looked at and we would then consider what response there would be. It was a letter on a subject that related to the letter that appeared to have been given to some of the Sunday newspapers of a previous day’s date, which we did not appear to have received. Put that it was not necessarily the same letter, the PMS reiterated that it was a letter on a similar subject, but it did not appear to be exactly the same letter as people had read about in the Sunday newspapers.

And here's a link to a photo from a bygone age of fashion ...

As for the other SNPs, there has been lots of market interest in SNP Corp, a Singapore based printer of books, magazines and packaging products; and Shenandoah National Park looks a nice place to visit.

Single Nucleotide Polymorphism produces some of the best headlines:

Did you know that the SNP is the main opposition party in the Seychelles? In a curious coincidence of national nomenclature, one of their blogs is SNP English River

And check out two of the more interestingly irrelevant results ...

Journal of Allah's Five Percent

SnP III: Baseball and Monkeys

What the Papers Say

2008-05-28T20:46:00.001+01:00

Some stories you might have missed in the last few days ... with brief comments

'Poll tax' warning over SNP plan (BBC) Scottish plans for a local income tax could lead to the sort of unrest Scotland experienced with the poll tax, a law expert has warned ... "'Eck! 'Eck! 'Eck! Oot, oot, oot!"

Swinney bids to quell independence fears of Scotland's financial sector (Scotsman) John Swinney yesterday revealed that an independent Scotland could retain a UK-wide system of regulation for the financial services ... makes you wonder how far the word independence can be stretched.

Swinney admits SNP funding reform relies on PFI financing (Herald) John Swinney yesterday conceded that his plans to reform funding of schools, hospitals, roads and the new Forth bridge are part of the same financing system that has been extensively criticised by the SNP for years ... and the smoke clears revealing a cracked mirror.

Students angry over immediate payment of £2000 graduate endowment (Times) At least Labour allowed people to wait until they could afford to pay.

Alexander calls SNP funding plan ‘financially illiterate’ (Herald) Wendy Alexander yesterday attacked as "legally incompetent and financially illiterate" the SNP's plan for raising private finance to fund public projects ... she'll probably be accused of picking on easy targets.

Health Test Rap For SNP (Sunday Mail) The SNP government has been accused of breaking its promise of free health MOTs for adults over 40 ... all this stuff about broken promises is getting really boring because there are so many of them.

Lochhead’s fish quotas proposals raise storm among political parties (Press and Journal) Liberal Democrat MSP My Grumbles urged the SNP administration to “focus on supporting the fishing industry rather than picking a fight with the UK Government" ... just goes to show how unrealistic the Liberal Democrats can be. And no mention of quotas for salmond or sturgeon.

SNP Are Leaving Old Folk In Cold (Daily Record) Future applicants for the programme will be subject to "prioritization" ... will they use a points system - multiply age by latitude and divide by body temperature?

Goldie: No regrets over backing SNP (Scotsman) Just so long as she refrains from Edith Piaf impersonations.

Wrong MSPs elected in poll fiasco (Scotsman) "Some MSPs may have no right to sit at Holyrood" ... and that could mean some have no right to be in government.

Kenny Macaskill has announced plans for minimum per unit alcohol prices. He seems to have a real bee in his bonnet about drink. Is he still trying to expunge old blots on his copybook?

Figuring out Grangemouth

2008-04-27T16:15:00.012+01:00

The Ineos site at Grangemouth reputedly makes over £1m profit a day. Some reports make this as much as £3m a day. The site is certainly a big and profitable part of their UK operation, which had profits in 2006 of £630m. This was up on the previous year, and strike apart, that trend seems likely to have continued. Whatever the current figure may be, Ineos make an awful lot of money out of Grangemouth.

The strike has been caused because Ineos want to replace the current pension scheme. This would reduce workers' payouts by an average of £10,000 a year. The company currently contribute about £16m a year. The union say that the new scheme would only be reduce the Ineos contribution by £1.5m a year. Whatever, the company is trying increase its profits by a very small fraction at the expense of its workforce.

The company claims that the pension costs 25% of the salary bill compared to the industry norm of 16%. But then salaries are reported to be £5-6,000 below industry norms, so maybe that balances out. Whatever, the salaries and pensions combined are very small compared to the profits.

The scheme was also considerably in surplus when Ineos took over, and remains so.

It has been reported that the Grangemouth refinery strike could cost the economy £50m a day. I haven't seen a report of how much it will cost Ineos, but the site is a biggest production centre within Innovene, whose acquisition took Ineos from a £4bn turnover in 2005 to £18bn in 2006. With the shutdown affecting production for a few days beforehand and taking up to three weeks afterwards to get back to 100%, the loss of turnover could be several times the company's total annual pension contribution, and many more times the difference their imposed scheme makes.

All in all, pushing the workforce into a strike by imposing a new scheme, when the unions are prepared to negotiate, doesn't appear to make a lot of financial sense.

Maybe though, there are other things at stake. Such suspicions (that there is more to this dispute than has currently met the public eye) might also have been roused by the provocative legal action, which is unlikely to to have helped efforts to bring the two sides together and avoid a strike.

Perhaps, rather than an end in itself, this dispute is just a prelude to further action in Grangemouth and against other groups of Ineos workers? Or given the impact it has had on prices, maybe it will increase profit margins? Whatever: any factually-supported conspiracy theories will be gratefully received.

Christina McKelvie Fan Club

2008-04-25T13:41:00.004+01:00

I note that support is being solicited for the following petition: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/McKelvie/

We the undersigned note the appearance of Christina McKelvie MSP on Newsnight Scotland on 23 April 2008; congratulate her on agreeing to take part in a discussion on the SNP's Scottish Futures Trust despite clearly not having the slightest inkling of what she was going to say; note Ms McKelvie's valiant attempt to read from a crib-sheet in front of her, which resulted in her blurting out an erroneous figure of £500 billion; commend Newsnight Scotland's Gordon Brewer for his restraint and for eventually taking pity on her; believe the programme to have been the finest light entertainment on the BBC in a generation; consider that it should be a requirement of the BBC Charter that Ms McKelvie is a guest on Newsnight Scotland at least three days a week; regret that there are millions of Scots who did not see the programme on 23 April and therefore call on the BBC to ensure that it is placed permanently on BBC iPlayer so that private profiteers do not profit from the sale of unauthorised copies of the programme.

for more car crash commentary, see Kez and Fraser Macpherson

Workers' Rights and Lefts

2008-04-24T10:28:00.000+01:00

It's often said that the SNP is well placed to take on the mantle of centre-left social democracy deserted by Labour in its quest for power.

The SNP can be quite lefty when the issue is one that sets it apart from Westminster with little consequence, and attending the STUC with a cheesy smile, a few jokes and some warm words is also a relatively low risk option.

But when it come to supporting Scottish workers who have been pushed into industrial action to protect pensions, where are they?

Poignantly for the nationalists, as with the poll tax, this attack has been launched north of the border, with the pension rights of the company's Runcorn workforce so far untouched. Yet even with this added incentive, where are they?

Swinney and Salmond fielded questions today with replies that spoke of getting an actuary to help the two sides resolve their dispute. This could be seen as mildly laudable or mildly laughable, but whichever, it is completely devoid of any hint of working class solidarity. They even turned down the opportunity to express nationalist solidarity.

OK, leave aside for the moment the questions of legal action against the union putting a damper on talks, and company warnings of fuel shortages promoting unnecessary panic; and accept that Ministers are constrained in what they can say (although the even handed approach in Westminster did not prevent commendation of the unions actions and acknowledgement of the importance of their objectives): what about SNP backbenchers? After all, being in power never stopped Labour backbenchers showing solidarity.

Grangemouth's MSP and MP have helpfully tabled motions for their colleagues to sign - and guess what? Signatories so far do not include anything remotely resembling evidence that the SNP is anywhere near supplanting Labour in the left of centre working class social democratic solidarity stakes ...

Check for yourself - in the Scottish Parliament, Cathy Peattie S3M-01760 and in Westminster, Michael Connarty motion 1391

Turn! Turn! Turn!

2008-04-17T18:22:00.005+01:00

To every thing there is a season ... A time to weep, and a time to laugh (Ecclesiastes 3, verses 1–8)

Earlier today, Wendy Alexander welcomed the First Minister’s second u-turn in two days when he guaranteed that the SNP will not break its manifesto promise to deliver two hours of quality PE for very pupil.

Ms Alexander said: "It seemed the two hours promise was ditched. But then they did a u-turn and said it is subject to discussion with local government. It’s good to see the First Minister u-turn twice in 24 hours under pressure from Labour. Last night on water rates for charities, today on PE for children.

Then came the debate and vote on Labour's call for the Scottish Government to extend the previous Executive's water rates exemption for church and village halls to 2014.

The debate "saw enterprise minister Jim Mather confirm that the government is to extend the exemption of water rates in village and church halls" (PA)

But then came the vote ...

U-Turn! U-Turn! U-Turn!

Following the result of the vote on Water rates, Labour's Elaine Murray said: "This is astonishing, the SNP are all over the place. Somehow they have managed to vote against their own amendment which proposed the extension of the payment of water rates - a u-turn on their u-turn!"

Mr Salmond goes to Westminster

2008-03-27T21:42:00.005Z

... but not very often.

According to Public Whip, Alex Salmond has taken part in just 18 votes at Westminster since May 2007. He has spoken just twice. In this time he has claimed £116,389 in Westminster expenses.

Until December he rented a flat, claiming accommodation expenses of nearly £14,000 for the property in his first six months as First Minister. Yet last year, he only went to Westminster to vote twice - on 25 July and 19 November.

So far this year he has voted on 21 January, 26 February, 5 March and 18 March. On 13 March, he flew down for Question Time, but didn’t speak or vote.

Some might argue that the cost per trip or per vote is not good value for the taxpayer, although that does assume that his attendance and voting has some value.

Likewise, if he were there more often, it would become a question of whether a part=time First Minister was a good thing. Again, some might think this desirable.

More to the point though, the next time any nationalist points the finger at an MP who has abstained or missed an important vote, or pontificates on politicians' expenses, just remember and remind them ...

Political Deprivation

2008-03-26T19:14:00.006Z

Please spare a thought for the plight of those whose careers falter and slide. For the down and out, life can be hard, merciless and unrewarding, but never more so than when Society's rejects were previously high fliers whose company was sought after, whose achievements were valued, and whose every pronouncement was grist to the mill for the wordsmiths of the media.

It can be hard for such fallen stars to cope with the daily grind and drudgery, cast adrift from the oxygen of publicity, reduced to begging for crumbs of media coverage. Faced with this hand to foot in mouth existence, failed politicians can become increasingly desperate: promising more than they can deliver in memoirs; trying to maintain their addiction to "celebrity", getting their fix by whatever means are available - radio chat shows, reality programmes, no opportunity is ignored.

Some lurk in the shadows, rogue hunters stalking their prey, ready to pounce when the time is right, quotes dripping from their hungry jaws, fighting with others, often indiscriminately, in a vain attempt to regain status within the pack and rekindle the glory that was ...

We need to be understanding of their situation, and not overly concerned about the fleeting collateral damage they cause. They need your sympathy and support. For their own sake and for the sake of the nation, we should help to reconcile them to the terminal nature of their decline. However tempting it may be (and if they are like David Owen, the answer is "very"), it would be wrong to exile them to the barren lands of their former enemies.

Nobody knows you when you're down and out;
In the newspapers, not one quote;
And interviews, you haven't any...

Dear Alex ...

2008-03-21T19:07:00.004Z

DONALD Trump warned Alex Salmond he was considering moving his £1billion golf complex - the day before the government stepped in to save it. Secret emails revealed yesterday show the American tycoon sent press cuttings to Salmond which reported that he was thinking of taking the scheme to Northern Ireland.

(Daily Record 19 March)

If There's a Hell Below

2008-03-19T14:49:00.004Z

Alex Salmond dies. Arriving at the Pearly Gates, the duty angels discover that there are large gaps and a lack of detail in his record. They tut tut and mutter that it could take quite a long time to sort out whether he should be allowed in or sent down below, and tell him to go and join the purgatory queue while his application is processed.

Not used to being put on hold, Alex takes out his mobile and dials 666. Auld Nick is delighted to hear from him and assures him that he will sort it out. A few minutes later, he gets a call to say St Peter has agreed to call in his application.

He is offered a deal. He gets to spend 24 hours in each place and then he is allowed to decide where he wants to spend eternity.

Arriving in hell, he spots his pal Donald and other cronies, and spends an enjoyable morning on the new golf course that Donald has designed for the Devil. They are then transferred by a stagecoach to the racetrack for an afternoon of betting on the unleashed Hounds of Hell Hurdles and the four horse Apocalypse Stakes.

The evening meal is taken in the Hades Highland Resort's Scotch Bonnet Curry House ("Get the Fires of Hell inside You") before moving on to the Black Bitch a Go Go Night Club where they party the night away.

The next day, he wakes up in heaven where, miraculously, he has no hangover. The day passes pleasantly, listening to harp music and heavenly choirs amongst the clouds.

When decision time arrives, St Peter asks Alex to cast his vote.

"Well, I never thought I'd say this, but on balance, I'd rather go to hell."

He is instantly transported to Hell, which is now a very different place, all fire and brimstone and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

"Hold on a minute, this wasn't what I expected," says the horrified former First Minister.

Smiling, Auld Nick replies: "But you of all people should know: that was the campaign, and now you have voted ..."

The Privatised Patient Experience

2008-03-19T02:51:00.007Z

I have never found privatisation an attractive proposition, so I was dismayed to see that while the SNP have often stated their own misgivings, they are now extending privatisation into new areas.

A group of University Professors have expressed their concern that outsourcing surveys on the patient experience programme to the private sector introduces serious commercial conflicts into NHS service planning and information and public research.

The Scottish Patient Experience programme represents a significant threat to the academic integrity of survey design, to the vital independence of public health departments, and the integrity and reliability of public information organisations such as the Information Services Division. Public information is the lifeblood of any health care system. The commercialisation and privatisation of these functions represents a very considerable threat to public health care and research.

Full letter to Nicola Sturgeon

LIT gap grows to £1.5bn

2008-03-19T01:56:00.007Z

The problems continue to stack up for the Local Income Tax proposals.

It has been calculated that some businessfolk will see their local taxes rocket from a few grand to over £100k. While this might seem a good idea to some, the odds are that they will just flit over the border and take their dosh with them.

Now it appears that in some forms, LIT will be unconstitutional.

Professor Richard Kerley, of Queen Margaret University, said the proposal could become mired in a legal wrangle as it was far from clear whether the Scottish Government was actually allowed to bring it in. (Scotsman)

The SNP could opt for tartan tax - using the 3p tax varying power - but this only applies to the basic rate of income tax, not the higher rate. This would add another £500 million to the existing £1bn hole in their finances.

John Swinney doesn't want to do this of course, and thinks he can use the Scotland Act powers to alter local government finance.

But the Act refers to local taxation and specifically mentions only changes to the council tax and business rates, not introducing new taxes at a Scottish level to replace them.

Under the Influence of Affluence

2008-03-17T21:45:00.002Z

Controversy as SNP consult Souter on drugs read the headline in the Sunday Herald.

So what was he on when they consulted him I wondered? Or perhaps it was the SNP who were subject to some hallucinatory supposition that party donor number one was an expert on mind bending reality warping ideas. Fair enough I thought, he does have some experience of propaganda, having bankrolled a campaign to suppress discussion of homosexuality in schools.

But then the page materialised on my computer screen and I discovered that the Souter Charitable Trust had been granted a private meeting with SNP minister Fergus Ewing on the new administration's "pro-abstinence" strategy. Given that the disappearance of the SNP policy of re-regulating the bus network is thought by the Sunday Herald and others to be not unrelated to Souter's megabucks donations to their election campaign, opposition MSPs will be understandably worried about the implication of this meeting.

Consultation LITe

2008-03-13T18:51:00.004Z

As I have already noted, there are a few important bits of information missing from the Local Income Tax Consultation Document.

Price Waterhouse Coopers have also identified a few things that they "would have expected to see" but did not, namely "an analysis of the financial implications of the introduction of LIT, specifically covering:

the likely year of introduction;
the projected LIT yield in that year taking into account projected number of taxpayers and modelling based on the proposed 3p in the £ LIT;
the council tax yield which is being replaced, projecting forward from the current council tax yield;
perhaps some estimate of 2nd home yield ,although that could be more difficult to project;
administration cost savings for local authorities from not collecting council tax (bearing in mind the need to still administer the 2nd home council tax charge);
HMRC costs to be met for administration of the system”.

(Source: email to Wendy Alexander)

Having made some estimates regarding these missing details, using Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) and Treasury figures, Labour believe LIT would raise £545m per penny on tax in the financial year 2011/12.

The Scottish Government however are working on a figure of 1.7bn from a 3p rate. This may represent a mere £65m discrepancy, small by comparison with the £1bn shortfall to which it can be added, but it is interesting to note how the Scottish Government figure was derived.

In an email to SPICe, they stated that “the figure was deemed to be internal advice to ministers based on a micro-simulation model the government has developed modelling the interaction of the tax and benefits systems, underpinned by data gathered by the family resources survey”

Oh well, that's OK then.

A Tale of Two Donalds

2008-03-13T18:21:00.009Z

The Trumpton and Aviegate report has been published ...

The Local Government and Communities Committee concluded that "although the Trump Organisation was advised by its expert advisers that the call-in process is more streamlined than the appeal process, it was 85 days after the call-in decision was announced, before the Cabinet Secretary announced how the application is now to be taken forward. This is to be done by means of a local inquiry. To the Committee, it appears that the process of call in was no more streamlined than the appeals process.

"Given that the representatives of the Trump Organisation contrasted the reception which their application had had in Scotland compared to other countries, the Committee notes that they did not offer any views on how it might be improved despite being given the opportunity to do so.

"The Committee recommends that Ministers should only take significant decisions, particularly in exercising their planning functions, on the basis of proper written advice from officials, and that officials should ensure there is a full audit trail, including full Minutes of Meetings, and assessment of the risks to impartial decision making in the process and/or decision.

The Committee recommends that Ministers intervening in the Ministerial decision making process affecting planning applications should be particularly mindful of the Ministerial Code, how particular actions might affect the perceptions of the public, and whether Ministerial or official action might have the potential to imperil the decision.

"The Committee is concerned by the implications of Ministerial intervention in the Aviemore case. FOI evidence reveals that intervention by 5 Scottish Ministers pre-dates any request for action by a cross-party group of MSPs. Critically, the case reveals Ministerial intervention which favoured one planning proposal over another with which it was in competition.

"The Committee is concerned by Ministerial action which reinforces the view that there is preferential access for some developers and some developments over others and this clearly will undermine confidence in the balance of the planning system.

"The Committee notes that on Thursday 28th February the Cabinet Secretary for Finance announced that a public local inquiry would be held to determine the Trump Organisation application."

£1bn council cuts proposed

2008-03-11T19:28:00.016Z

A £1bn cut in local authority services would benefit 9 in 10 Scots.

This is the logical conclusion of statements made on the Consultation on abolishing the council tax and replacing it with a local income tax (a web only document - I appreciate the environmental imperative but this document should perhaps be more widely available).

"SNP tax plans would benefit 9 in 10 Scots" says the Scotsman.

"Most council tax payers in Scotland will be better off" reports that Sunday Herald, adding that John Swinney "said that four out of five households will be better or no worse off".

These statements, however, rely on an assumption that the tax rate will be 3p, despite the Burt Review having concluded that a 3p rate would produce a £1bn pound shortfall in council income. To fully replace Council Tax with Local Income Tax, Burt concluded that the rate would have to be 6.5p. Even if the £400m in council tax rebates that is paid to Scottish people could somehow be paid via the Scottish Government or direct to councils (it cannot as things stand) then that still leaves a £600m funding gap, representing a massive cut in local services - or a tax rate using my back of an envelope calculation, of about 5p.

To be fair, this disparity was admitted by John Swinney, who "said that the local income tax will raise somewhere in the region of £1.7 billion which compares generally to about £2.3 billion for the council tax - but this does not include £400 million in council tax benefit which is currently paid" - so it seems that he is willing to accept a £600m cut in council services for the sake of a 3p rate. While he has clearly not given up on the £400m, without it that will become Burt's £1billion.

Are the SNP seriously proposing a £1bn cut in services?

The Local Income Tax is also being touted on the basis that it is somehow fairer and more progressive. Yet any cuts in services would fall most heavily on the poorest and most vulnerable. These are also the people who currently get the benefit of that £400m rebate. Note that if it could be used to reduce the local income tax rate, it would instead give more benefit to those who earn more. What's progressive about that?

Fortunately, the SNP and the Liberals still don't see eye to eye. The Liberals are not happy with the SNP proposal for a Scottish national Tax rate applied across the board rather than locally set. They are also not overjoyed by the prospect of massive cuts. The SNP may allow local councils to set a rate below 3p, but that would produce even bigger cuts. The Greens have also been calling for a plague on both their houses.

There is also the interesting question of how the tax would be collected. On the possibility of a Scottish Government collection agency, the consultation notes that "this would be a large financial and administrative commitment and the new Agency would be required to work with employers in the same way as HMRC does for UK income tax. We believe that this extra tier of bureaucracy and administration would represent duplication of effort by the public sector and would not be welcomed by businesses or individuals in Scotland."

Which is of course one of the arguments against independence. Or would an independent Scotland pay its divorced partner to collect its taxes? And maybe all those other things that are cheaper and more sensible to do at a UK level could still be left in the hands of the current administration. Along with everything continuing to need royal assent, and all those powers remaining in the EU and beyond ... I'm sorry, but despite my knowledge of etymology, I'm having difficulty understanding the SNP concept of independence.

God, Queen and Scotland

2008-03-11T10:07:00.005Z

If anyone asked me to recite an oath of allegiance to god, queen and country, my initial reaction would be to ask how it was possible to have wars fought and terrible deeds done by countries who all have god on their side.

As for the monarchy, it is difficult to see how anyone can think it is compatible with a democratic society built on equality, accountability and justice, but somehow, even some people who call themselves socialists still manage to support the anachronistic, feudal bastion of privilege and inequality.

I have absolutely no envy for our most prominent dysfunctional family. Their lives have been warped by their accident of birth and their stories are often not happy ones. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that one or two of them were closet republicans, albeit not fans of John Maclean and a Scottish Workers Republic.

Maclean of course, as well as being a socialist hero, is an important figure in the mythology of the nationalists, and it might be suspected that many members of the SNP would have republican sympathies. Certainly this was true in the past. The Amazing Mr Salmond himself was a leading member of the 79 Group - "a left wing organisation committed to the idea that the SNP should be in favour of an independent Scotland being a socialist republic". Other members included Kenny MacAskill, Margo MacDonald, Roseanna Cunningham and Stewart Stevenson, to name but a few.who are now MSPs.

However I don't recall hearing much mention of republicanism with regard to the National Conversation or the frequent kite flying regarding independence. Surely any referendum should include a question on whether an independent Scotland should be a backward looking monarchy or a modern progressive democratic republic?

I get the impression that with the exception of of Republican Rose, most of the former firebrands would happily settle for a compromise where a so-called "independent" Scotland continues to be ruled by Queen Elizabeth the First of Scotland. Not to mention the European Union and the pantheon of transnational corporations and organisations.

As for that pledge from Lord Goldsmith, it will be disappointing if the suggestion is taken seriously by anyone in a position to something about it, but note that all MSPs have to make an oath or an affirmation to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, Her Heirs and Successors, according to Law.

To date, all the dissenters have decided that taking it is the lesser of two evils, protested before and after, quoted Burns and kept their fingers crossed so that it didn't count ... so there's a good example to follow if anyone is stupid enough to try to introduce a Citizen's pledge to the Queen.

The First Swallow

2008-03-10T19:10:00.004Z

After riding high on last year's Holyrood victory and subsequent by-election wins (albeit in seats where any other result would have been surprising) the nationalist bandwagon must have found it very hard to swallow the result of Thursday's by-election in South Lanarkshire Council's Cambuslang East ward.

Labour boosted their numbers to 31 out of 67 councillors, winning the seat from the SNP. Labour had 725 first preference votes to the SNP's 609.

OK, I'll not play their game. The other two councillors for the ward are already Labour, so it's only due to the perversities of STV that it becomes a Labour gain. That said, it will still stick in the nationalists' craw.

But it wasn't all good news. Like so many votes last year, counting in this one was abandoned until the morning - even though it was only one seat in one ward.

It turns out that DRS, who were providing the equipment and staff for the count, did not have a licence for the software needed to process the votes into final totals. DRS claimed it was using the system in partnership with Electoral Reform Services which did not make it aware there was a problem with the licence. Electoral Reform Services said it was unaware DRS was still using the system.

In January, DRS refused to appear before the parliamentary inquiry into the 2007 election.

Electoral Reform Services is a business offshoot of the Electoral Reform Society, growing on the back of voting reforms championed by the Society.

And for those who understand STV, note that with only one seat, there are no reduced value transfers and the first person to get over half the votes wins. It becomes the same as the alternative vote system: the person with the lowest vote drops out and their votes are redistributed at full value to next preferences until someone is elected. With only 2594 votes cast, this count could have been done manually very quickly.

(more on this in The Herald)

Hook Line & Spinner

2008-03-09T12:18:00.000Z

I'm not a fan of the Daily Telegraph, but Alan Cochrane seems to have the measure of Alex Salmond in his article Bully Alex Salmond gets comeuppance

While the opposition don't always have such a strong line, and the Salmond sometimes gets off the hook, there is nevertheless a discernible pattern for many first minister's questions.

After the initial excuse for a question, Alex gets asked the real question as a supplementary. That much is of course a ubiquitous and time-honoured formula to allow topical questions in the hope of getting an unrehearsed answer.

In the past, the sometimes witty repartee was normally swiftly followed by a decent attempt to answer the question. Under the new management, the first line of defence is almost invariably slagging off the questioner and/or having a dig at their party, generally on an issue with little or no relevance to the question.

In the absence of an answer, the question will of course be asked again. The next line of defence is likely to be answering a different question - the question that Salmond wanted, was never going to get, but had rehearsed the answer to anyway, because it is the answer that they are going to get regardless of the question. This answer almost inevitably involves praise for the First Minister, his cabinet colleagues and his party.

Pressed further, particularly on details, and he is like a football team playing for a draw, watching the final minutes tick away, kicking the ball into touch at any opportunity. Basically, waffle and hope that someone from the SNP ranks can throw him a lifeline. A few more words and then the question is over.

The philosophy seems to be, above all, to remember that the questions and answers will be hardly noticed and soon forgotten by the general public. What will persist and hence what matters is the image. The image of a strong, combative, assured, humourous, seanconneryesque First Minister verbally lashing his opponents.

Undoubtedly Salmond has learned the lessons of Westminster well - particularly that Question Time is more about spin and spectacle than substance. So much for the hoped-for new politics of Holyrood, now struggling more than ever.

I have wondered this before, but some questions are worth repeating: why does the public have this almost fetishistic love-hate relationship with "strong" leaders? Is it just media fuelled, or do the media take their cue from the public, or do they feed off each other?

There's no doubt that being a "strong" leader is worth a few votes, even beyond the initial honeymoon period, until eventually the tide turns unequivocally and decisively against you. Equally, the media get much more mileage out of a good humdinger barney than they ever can from boringly consensual and thoughtful politics.

This allows the "strong" leader to consolidate their image and even to paper over cracks that would be seen as gaping chasms after the tide has turned.

And of course, there is an inevitable tendency to believe one's own propaganda. It is simultaneously interesting, alarming, and frustrating to watch as the leader gets taken in by their own facade, while the public increasingly sees through it. The Emperor's new clothes ...

Feeding the Backbiters

2008-03-08T12:01:00.008Z

According to the Scotsman, Donald Macdonald, the businessman at centre of the Aviemore controversy, has launched a scathing attack on Scotland's "political backbiting".

If he's so opposed, then why did he give £30,000 to the worst offenders?

Did it never occur to him that this might be seen not only as an endorsement of the confrontational style of politics so beloved of the SNP and their Westminster-adversarial-style-loving leader, but also that it would inevitably draw him into the fray that he now claims to detest?

Or is it just a petulant case of hell hath no fury like a capitalist deprived of megabucks?

SNPosse

2008-03-07T01:31:00.005Z

Reports reach me of a spate of Cars and homes being damaged by graffiti in Cambridgeshire.

Eleven cars and two homes were damaged in a "despicable" spate of crime carrying the tag "SNP". "SNP" was written in spray paint across cars, and in other incidents homes were damaged.

"What we need is the public's help. Anyone who has been a victim of this type of crime will know how upsetting it is. Please, if you know anyone who uses the tag 'SNP' ... please tell me or your local officer."

The local police believe that this may be the work of a group called the St Neots Posse. However, that bit about knowing anyone who uses the tag SNP ...

Obviously, on the basis of my own experience of these initials being used by Scottish "street artists", it is tempting to suggest an alternative hypothesis, but perhaps more significant is the question this story raises: have they never heard of the Scottish National Party in Cambridgeshire?

The Alasdair Allan Fan Club

2008-03-07T00:38:00.008Z

Interesting and entertaining insights into life in the Western Isles and the internal democracy of the SNP from Angus Nicolson - an incredulous eye on the isles ("This is the blog of an ordinary, boring, former Councillor in the Western Isles of Scotland. I am taking a sabbatical to be with my young family. Debate strengthens democracy, except inside the SNP, as I have discovered. If you want balance then get some scales. This is opinion - my opinion.")

In his posting of 25th February, Angus discussed the mystery of the SNP AGM - "Without exception, the Members who have contacted me have confirmed that they were totally unaware of the AGM"

His venom for Western Isles MSP Alasdair Allan is so severe that he compares him to Alasdair Morrison and when the flight from Edinburgh was struck by lightning, points out that "there is no truth in the rumour that it was aimed at our MSP who was on the flight."

There's also an interesting tale about a Windfarm opponent and his short-lived SNP membership and the tale of the Stornoway Trust, our MP and our MSP. His Donald Trump postings were also remarkably free of SNP-can-do-no-wrong syndrome ... "Imagine the outcry if Lewis Wind Power met with our former MSP, Alasdair Morrison, and he placed a call there and then to the Chief Planner to arrange a meeting... (if he had even got through!)... the day before a major decision on the application was taken."

Of course, he takes plenty of predictable swipes at Labour too, but set against his healthy disrespect for his own party, who could begrudge him that pleasure?

Storm over Aviemore

2008-03-06T18:30:00.006Z

Roseanna Cunningham, SNP Convener of the Scottish parliament's Rural Affairs and Environment committee was accused of "party politics" when she prevented Lib Dem MSP Mike Rumbles from asking Scottish Environment Protection Agency witnesses about the planning application for the Aviemore Highland resort.

SEPA were giving evidence to a committee inquiry on flooding. But then the flood risk was central to SEPA's concerns and had been referred to in the recenly released correspondence.

Mike Rumbles was "appalled that the SNP convener has played party politics with such an important issue and I believe that she has risked bringing the Scottish Parliament's well regarded committee system into disrepute."

Karen Gillon, who also wanted to ask about SEPA's role in the case and its implications for wider flooding policy, said that it was "completely unacceptable that this line of questioning should have been closed down by the convener for overtly political reasons."

Roseanna Cunningham claimed (wrongly) that the issue was being dealt with by the Local Government committee, and argued that the inquiry was about the wider picture, and not specifics.

But without looking at specifics, MSPs are left with only the broad brush analyses of others providing the wider picture, and they have limited means of assessing the generalisations they are offered.

As with the Budget and the First Minister's non-answers, the SNP knows that the devil is in the detail and hence details are best avoided. This has been commented on before in this blog, but increasingly it is being noted elsewhere - such as in this article from Alan Cochrane and this one from Ian Bell

(sources OR, Press and Journal and PA)

A Mixed Case

2008-03-05T00:25:00.001Z

SNP ACCUSED OF DOUBLE STANDARDS ON ALCOHOL TAX (Press and Journal)

or should that be triple standards?

SNP under fire over cheap drink deals via website (Scotsman)
or even quadruple standards?

Arrest incident 'closed', insists SNP (BBC)

Debt Monster

2008-03-03T01:56:00.004Z

On STV's Politics Now programme on Thursday night, Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop said: "We never said we would write off student debt. We promised to service that debt."

Is this a monstrous distortion? Cast your mind back to the pre-election promises.

The campaign paper which stated: "With an SNP Government led by Alex Salmond we will write off the debt to the Student Loan Company for Scottish domiciled students."

Deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon, who said that the plans would "allow for the write-off of the existing graduate debt from student loans that holds so many young people back from taking entrepreneurial risks and getting on the housing ladder". (July 2006, unveiling the policy)

Fiona Hyslop: "An SNP Government will abolish the student loans system and replace it with a fairer system of student grants and will write off the outstanding student loans debt." (November 2006)

Anger over Hyslop's student debt U-turn (Scotsman 02/03/08)

More Aviemore

2008-03-03T01:24:00.008Z

Fresh information released last week revealed that MacDonald, who gave £30,000 to the SNP in 2007, wrote three times to Salmond last year about the problems he was having in the planning process.

Last night, the SNP was facing questions as new documents came to light. In a report written last November, and obtained under freedom of information legislation, Martin Boshoff, the senior hydrologist at SEPA's Dingwall office, discusses a letter from the Government.

"This letter instructed SEPA 'to deal with' the flood risk issue before close of play on Friday. Apparently, the financial benefactor of the projects threatened to pull out unless the flood risk issue is resolved asap," it declared.

In reply to Boshoff's report, SEPA manager Robert Brown urged him to remove all reference of MacDonald's threat.

"My only suggestion would be to delete the… sentence… as this sort of information should not form any written part of our reckoning and anything such as this may be subject to an FoI inquiry (yes, I'm getting paranoid!)"

SNP faces probe over Aviemore planning row (Scotsman 01/03/08)

SNP MINISTERS put huge pressure on a public body to make a decision on a stalled planning application involving a party donor who had given the Nationalists £30,000, according to confidential papers obtained by the Sunday Herald .

SNP ministers 'interfered' in due process (Sunday Herald 02/03/08)

Quote from Labour Shadow Minister for Parliamentary Business Jackie Baillie:

"The correspondence and emails released today confirm that no fewer than five SNP ministers from the First Minister down were actively involved in trying to accelerate a live planning application for a major SNP donor. And critically is shows that those ministers brought inappropriate pressure to bear on the planning authorities and the government's independent environmental protection agency (SEPA). Even the Chief Executive of SEPA dubbed the affair "Aviegate".

"The information also conclusively proves that ministerial involvement in assisting the MacDonald's hotel group pre dated by many months the later involvement by a cross party group of MSPs that the SNP falsely claimed was the basis of ministerial involvement.

"It is stretching credibility to breaking point to believe that the First Minister never saw or read the three separate items of correspondence and enclosures sent to him by Donald Macdonald on the subject.

"Do the SNP really expect us to believe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that the First Minister failed to discuss the planning application with Donald MacDonald at the SNP Conference in Aviemore? Mr MacDonald wrote saying he was "looking forward to welcoming" him and expressed the "critical" nature of this planning application and inviting him to visit a "small exhibition" of the proposed development he had "arranged" for him to see at conference?"

LITerary quotes

2008-02-28T15:36:00.002Z

More Quotes on Local Income Tax:

"Our proposal to abolish council tax and introduce a local income tax will be a central feature of the first year’s legislative programme." It’s Time to Look Forward, The first 100 days of an SNP Government (page 27)

"We intend to launch a consultation later this year on our proposals for a fairer local tax" John Swinney's answer to S3W-4867 (Friday, October 26, 2007)

Scottish Government Consultation.
A Fairer Local Tax for Scotland
This consultation will seek views on changes to local taxation in Scotland, including the abolition of council tax and its replacement with a fairer local tax based on ability to pay.
Starting: Monday, December 31, 2007 Deadline: Friday, June 27, 2008

"The government's plan to replace the council tax with a local income tax is misguided." Iain McMillan, CBI Scotland (Herald 28 December 2007)

"The SNP's plans for a new local income tax... would be an anti-business measure that could seriously impact on our competitiveness, in addition to adding more tax-collection burdens on business." David Watt, head of the Institute of Directors (Scotland) (Scotland on Sunday, 29 April 2007)

"I have concerns about implementation costs, about the long-term impact on the appeal of Scotland in contrast to its immediate competing geographic neighbours" Owen Kelly, Scottish Financial Enterprise (Scotsman, 11 February 2008)

"A Local Income tax could lead to huge administrative costs for business" Andy Willox, FSB Scotland Policy Convener

"raising income tax rates would be naive in a knowledge economy" Jim Mather MSP (Times, 26 April 2007)

"Let me be clear: the SNP will scrap the unfair council tax and replace it with a local income tax based on the ability to pay, and set at 3p nationally." John Swinney MSP (Herald, 7 April 2007)

Taxing Question

2008-02-28T12:20:00.004Z

At today's First Minister's Questions, Wendy Alexander wondered whatever happened to Local Income Tax ...

Reminding the First Minister that he had promised plans within 100 days in government, she suggested that

"As ever the First Minister has a lot on his plate. Making sure we can see footie on the TV and currying favour with the people of Berwick - although perhaps it’s the people of Lockerbie who need some TLC. But amongst all this, can the First Minister tell the Chamber when he will publish his plans for a Local Income Tax.

"The First Minister may talk a good game but it’s time he started doing his talking on the pitch because we are already into extra time when it comes to Local Income Tax. First we were promised plans within 100 days in government. It never happened.

"Then John Swinney promised in November it would be ready ‘in a few weeks’. Christmas came. Christmas went.

"And until 10.23 this morning the Government website said it would be published today.

"At 10.24 the website changed.

"By tomorrow we will have been waiting 300 days for what was meant to be a 100 days promise. So First Minister why the delay?

"Meantime the SNP’s council tax freeze will save the average family 71p a week. Seventy-one pence a week. Less than the price of a naan bread at the First Minister’s favourite curry house. Meanwhile the real cuts in real services are starting to bite across the country.

"What Scotland needs to know is when will the plans be published and, more importantly, does the SNP’s promise of a local income tax rate of 3p in the pound still stand? Yes or No?

Wendy added: "The First Minister has got his knickerbockers in a twist when it comes to Local Income Tax. He is never shy to quote others when he thinks they’re on his side, but when it comes to the local income tax what had he to say to:

The CBI – ‘a local income tax is misguided’.
The Institute of Directors ‘a local income tax would be anti business’
Federation of Small Business ‘huge financial costs for business’
And even, Jim Mather, his own Enterprise Minister has said ‘Raising income tax would be naïve in a knowledge economy’.

"Isn’t it the case that when the SNP finally gets round to publishing their plans the people of Scotland will see what’s next on the menu for Mr Takeaway: a huge chunk out of the pay packet of every hardworking Scot?"

Mather's Money Matters

2008-02-28T00:35:00.001Z

"On appointment to each new office, ministers are advised to provide the permanent secretary with a full list in writing of all interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict of interest." (Scottish Parliament Ministerial Code of Conduct)

Somehow, Enterprise Minister Jim Mather neglected to inform Permanent Secretary that he owned £350,000 worth of shares until September 20th. By a strange coincidence, that was the same day that Scotsman asked about the shares.

"On that day – four months after taking office – Mr Mather said he would put his shares into a blind trust or do whatever the permanent secretary advised to put his shares beyond his use. He has not put them in a blind trust, but he has promised not to trade them while a minister. The Scotsman has been asking since last November for details of Mr Mather's meetings with Sir John to discuss his shareholdings. But only now, after The Scotsman made a formal complaint to the Scottish Information Commissioner, has the Scottish Government released the information." (Scotsman 27/02/08)

Toad in the hole

2008-02-27T18:48:00.009Z

Chris Harvie - warts and all, so to speak ...

At the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 20 February 2008, Professor Harvie indulged himself with a rant that included the following statements:

"On getting to Lockerbie, I discovered that the place is a dump—it was Tescotown. It should really have a certain attraction of a rather sombre kind as a place where something terrible happened; there are, after all, places on the western front and that sort of thing that have such an attraction for families who have lost people there."

"The kids are a problem, and those are the people that the industry needs as its staff. It is a problem that one encounters almost nowhere else in Europe. It must also be said that the most immense fortune that has been made in Scotland in the past few years—that of Tom Hunter—has arisen from selling people what must be the ugliest clothes worn by anyone on the entire continent."

He then turned his attention to Bavarian knickerbockers, before being asked by the Convener what question he was asking ...

It appears that this is not an isolated incident.

In an interview in the Majorca Daily Bulletin, December 28, 2007, he talks of "dodgy foreign city dealers and suspicious characters flooding into London from overseas, in particular Russia"; states that "the Europeans nearly run all our services, the Germans practically run Scottish Radio" and that Britain has "sold out to Europe"; and compares Scotland’s relationship with England to that between Rolling Stone Mick Jagger and ex wife Jerry Hall.

He also maintains that "Tories, Lib Dems and Labour are joined in a bid to encourage Scotland to accept greater powers, but it will not work and electing Cameron will swing it for Scotland."

If this makes you want to read more of his views, check out Intelligent Mr. Toad

Anybody know whether there is a connection with the Wikipedia User of the same name?

SNP Creek

2008-02-26T18:36:00.001Z

The issue of Scottish Water is one that matters to many politicians - and opinions are not strictly divided on party lines.

Over the years, we have fought attempts to privatise our water. The left wings of the SNP and Labour are opposed to any form of privatisation. They are also suspicious of mutualisation, not because they oppose that form of owner per se, but because it would make privatisation easier if it were just a matter of demutualisation.

The SNP are probably the most divided of the parties on this issue (SNP cabinet 'split over Scottish Water' Telegraph).

Labour's divisions are less of a problem - there may be some supporters of privatisation, but not enough to make it an issue. Mutualisation also has it supporters, but most of them would not want privatisation. The resultant consensus is to keep things the way they are.

The Tories, of course, are long time proponents of privatisation, and the Liberals like mutualisation (and may support or refuse to acknowledge where it may lead). So with the Tories pushing the boat out for a review and action within this session of parliament, battle lines are being drawn, and those lines are in danger of going right through the nationalist camp.

But never fear, here comes the Labour cavalry with an amendment to simply keep it "under review" (Mutual respect). In the language of politics, that means not necessarily doing anything that you wouldn't do anyway, since everything is, in theory at least, always under review.

Nat So Green

2008-02-22T02:39:00.005Z

How green are the SNP? Like every other party they would like to be seen as environmentally friendly, not least because they are relying on Green votes to get their policies passed. How long will Robin and Patrick allow their love of nationalism to overcome their primary raison d'etre? Did they feel no remorse when following the budget vote that they supported in return for a few vague promises, John Swinney, Minister for Finance and Sustainable Growth (including Climate Change) hopped into the ministerial Volvo for a trip to the BBC at the Tun 200m up the road (The Journal).

Grassroots green activists cannot be happy that the SNP have not only removed the tolls completely from the bridges (Labour's manifesto called for their retention as a peak time congestion charge), the SNP has also said it will block any attempt to introduce congestion charging (SNP vows to block road tolls north of Border).

The SNP fondness for their ministerial chariots is nothing new - back in October last year, it was reported that SNP's green credentials questioned as official car trips increase.

And this week, the Government refused to ban snaring. Both Greens, 24 Labour (over half their MSPs), 2 Liberals and 3 SNP MSPs signed a motion in support of a ban. So a victory for the Tories there.

And there's more. SNP MSPs trumpet their allegiance to renewable energy - but how many have opposed windfarms (e.g. Green Energy Day)? The Greens cannot be terribly chuffed about the reliance on incineration (e.g. Incinerator go-ahead sparks fears). Or the opposition to trams. Or their plans for more roads.

It remains to be seen whether the Climate Change Bill will measure up to the 3% reduction promised in the SNP manifesto, but don't hold your breath, since the figure has been notable by its absence in their economic initiatives, and contraction and convergence didn't figure in Swinney's Climate Change statement. Delays are blamed on the requirement to produce a regulatory impact assessment. As if that didn't exist when they made their promises. And it didn't delay the tolls decision.

I'm not saying the Greens are right on all these issues. I would tend to side with them, but there are disagreements within the Green camp, and decent environmentally aware arguments from outside the Greens, but that's not the point.

The bottom line is, the Greens have not actually gained very much from their support for the SNP, but they are still letting them get their own way. How much longer will Robin and Patrick support the tartan tory alliance?

Cuts

2008-02-21T01:54:00.006Z

This is likely to become a tediously recurrent theme, but here come the cuts ...

Dundee University has announced major cuts, and others are likely to follow.

First university posts go after Budget fiasco

While referring to neoclassical endogenous growth theory and virtuous cycles of growth has been known to result in prominent politicians being given plain english awards, the application of the theory is quite important to the social and economic wellbeing of the nation. Put simply, having a skilled and educated workforce is essential to growth and taking money from education and training is a false economy because we will end up with less money to spend. Investing in human capital pays dividends in other forms of capital.

Of course, some cuts will be dressed up in Orwellian doublespeak, as Terry Kelly reports. Cuts in social and cultural capital also have negative effects beyond their immediate victims.

Forsyth Saga

2008-02-11T02:31:00.004Z

It must really grieve Michael Forsyth to see his old University colleague Alex Salmond as First Minister.

As Forsyth in attack on Tory MSPs reports, he just can't understand how the Tories can get into bed with the nationalists. While it's possibly not the first time that has happened between consenting MSPs, I suspect that it may not be the unionist/separatist dichotomy that is most distressing.

When Alex and Michael were at University together, they rarely voted the same way. Indeed, for a while the Tories had a majority on the Student Representative Council but rarely won votes. Partly this was because half the Tories were too apathetic to turn up to meetings, and partly it was because Comrade Salmond voted consistently with the left.

Michael, things have changed. Gone are the days when the radical Alex was thrown out of the SNP for organising a lefty '79 group. He has done his time working for Scottish capitalism, and is now a natural ally for your Holyrood colleagues. Get used to it.

Who Ya Gonna Call?

2008-02-06T12:16:00.000Z

Plan(objection)busters!

The politicians and planners saga rumbles on.

The tale of the Trumpton Tees continues to unfold, and has now been joined by further allegations of the hand of government straying out of bounds.

SNP faces hovercraft dust-up (Scotsman) reveals concerns that "that the SNP's biggest donor could receive millions of pounds of public money to subsidise a hovercraft service across the Forth without the contract going out to tender."

Salmond snared in donor row (Sunday Herald) reports on the case of an £80 million development in Aviemore.

"The first minister called his most senior planning official last month at a time when the development, backed by a hotelier who gave the SNP £30,000, looked at risk of collapsing because of a delay in the planning process."

Environment minister Michael Russell then contacted SEPA's Chief Executive.

Fergus Ewing has also been involved with his local MSP hat on, with a couple of non-nat MSPs providing cross party cover.

SEPA, which had concerns about flooding, "unusually" withdrew them

Aviemore Highland Resort (AHR) Ltd executive chairman Donald Macdonald gave the Nationalists £30,000 last May.

Copies of correspondence have been promised (Carrick Gazette - now there's a paper I don't often get the chance to reference), but personally I suspect recordings of telephone conversations would be more enlightening.

The Amazing Mr Salmond

2008-01-24T02:17:00.000Z

Alex Salmond is "an amazing man" - so says Donald Trump.

"I know for a fact that he - and anyone else who's representing Scotland, unless they're the enemy - wants billions of pounds to come into Aberdeenshire and Scotland."

If that makes you want to know more about the views of "the enemy", read Questioning Trump's green credentials

Trump's backing was probably not what Alex Salmond most wanted as he faced up to the Local Government and Communities Committee. Asked about the meeting with the Trump team when he had called chief planner Jim Mackinnon, the First Minister's quite amazing response was:

"I asked him what I had asked him a few days previously - if it was permissible for him or someone from his department to meet the Trump organisation. He said it was, as long as what was being discussed was not the merits of the case, but procedures and timescales. On that basis I handed the phone to George Sorial who then requested and arranged the meeting."

Clearly somewhat amazed by this, Jim Tolson wondered "what possible purpose could there have been to making that phone call other than to influence the subsequent actions. The organisation had access to highly trained and qualified advisors who know the basic and often detailed information about Scottish planning. Therefore there was no need to meet Mr Mackinnon."

Quite. Amazing.

National CONversation

2008-01-22T01:05:00.000Z

The National Conversation cost £48,000 to set up. In its first five months, as deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon told a Holyrood committee, only 50 letters had been received, along with another 50 or so replies by email.

I can't help feeling that it is a little overpriced. It may be good to talk, but there are cheaper ways to do it. After all, a website capable of supporting a discussion forum with hundreds of messages a month can be set up for nothing. Even if you want to avoid the advertising, a few quid a month would be adequate.

As Jackie Baillie said: "The fact that out of a population of just over five million Scots and with hundreds of organisations, the SNP government have only had just over 100 replies by email and letter in five months, shows just how much of a sham exercise the National Conversation really is. No matter how much the SNP talk up their national conversation, they can't disguise the fact that it is being met with total indifference by the Scottish people." (Nats 'Conversation' Costs £1000 A Letter, Daily Record)

CONservative Opposition

2008-01-20T03:16:00.000Z

Tory leader Annabel Goldie claimed her party was the "real opposition" to Alex Salmond's SNP government ... (Tories acting as 'real opposition' Press Association)

So that will be why the Tories voted with SNP on the Spending Review (Official Report 10/01/08), as they have on so many other votes. With an opposition like the Tories, who needs allies?

An honourable mention, however, for Angela Constance (Livingston, SNP) who voted against her party! Maybe she was confused by the "real opposition".

Breaking the fence

2008-01-11T01:51:00.000Z

The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive/Government have many programmes and policy objectives that depend on local government for their realisation and fulfilment.

There are two basic ways of influencing and controlling what they do with the money they are given.

The "input" method is achieved by attaching conditions to their funding, giving specific money for specific purposes, i.e. ringfencing. While not perfect, this has distinct advantages, making the budget process more transparent, and being relatively easy and straightforward to operate. Ringfenced funds may be automatically available on a per capita basis or some other measure of need (e.g. social deprivation) or may be subject to competition. While the latter diverts some effort to the process of application for funds, it also helps to prioritise expenditure, improve standards and encourage innovation.

The "output" method depends upon specifying outcomes. This may be achieved through legislation imposing statutory duties upon local authorities. But beyond those things that local authorities have to do because they are legal obligations, things are more complicated. It is not enough to just say what you want and then leave it up to local authorities. Their decisions will inevitably reflect the local rather than the Scottish agenda. Fair enough, you may say - until you can't get something in your area that is provided elsewhere, when you will shout "postcode provision!", and probably shout all the louder if it something that has been supposedly prioritised by the Scottish Parliament or Executive.

Yes, this can be overcome by securing agreements from all local authorities, setting targets, monitoring outcomes, and for good measure linking future funding to achievement, to ensure adequate funding and resources are devoted to Scottish Executive policy objectives. But such "output control" has its own problems. Not all desirable outcomes have appropriate and easy to measure targets; efforts tend to concentrate on meeting the specific targets chosen rather than broader policy; and monitoring needs resources and funding, more so than ringfencing where it is to some extent "built in".

Check how many parliamentary questions currently get a response that information is not held centrally. To effectively police local government adherence to the full gamut of Scottish Executive set objectives would mean a massive increase in such activity. It would also be a waste of resources if the same outcome, with greater transparency and easier scrutiny, could be achieved by controlling the use of funding through ringfencing.

That said, there is a dearth of output measures in the Scottish "Government" budget proposals. The removal of ringfencing without adequate alternatives being introduced - and the sheer lack of detail in the budget proposals - are what lies at the heart of the current debate about the budget. The SNP are trying to buy the acquiescence of local government on the Council Tax issue by giving away their ability to make other promises meaningful. They can say whatever they want, but it's all so much hot air if they have no means of securing their objectives, or even checking whether anyone is paying any attention to their wishes.

Of course, there is one big advantage to the SNP in this arrangement. When it does come to light that local authorities are not keeping their end of the bargain, the Scottish Executive can just say "it wasnae me Gov, it was that local kid wot dunnit".

New Year Quiz

2008-01-08T01:47:00.000Z

When is the Scottish Government not the Scottish Government?

a) When a member of the Scottish Parliament asks it a question?
b) When accuracy is important?
c) When it's using the powers given to it by the Scotland Act?
d) When it's the Scottish Executive?
e) When it matters what it does rather than what it says?
f) All of the above?

Merry Xmas Mr Salmond

2007-12-21T02:46:00.000Z

Alex Salmond clearly hoped that he would get some recess respite, but alas, it was not to be. He remains resolutely stuck in the sand trap. He had 54 shots at answering parliamentary questions tabled on the issue, took a drop ball at a press conference, chipped in a letter from Sir John Elvidge and a statement from John Swinney explaining the Scottish Executive aka Government approach, only to see the ball blown back into the bunker.

The cold blast came after he revealed that after meeting members of the Trump camp on 3 December, he had phoned the government chief planner, Jim Mackinnon, to see if he could meet Team Trump. Mr Mackinnon said he could and did, the very next day.

The SNP line on this is that Salmond was only doing his job as a constituency MSP, as he is allowed to do under the rules. The trouble is, constituency MSPs simply don't have that level of access, and can't get that sort of action, even on major issues and despite months of trying and waiting for a response.

Being First Minister however, is a different matter. He clearly has privileged access, and how brave would a civil servant need to be to refuse a request because the First Minister was wearing a different hat?

And why did the Trumpers get the benefit of Mr Salmond's ability to open doors in a way that was not made available to those who are opposed to the plan?

After First Minister's Questions, Labour MSPs tabled a further 25 questions on the issue. That should keep him in the bunker over the recess, and when parliament returns, he can expect to be "called in" for questioning by the parliament's local government committee.

An insight into the Trump view of planning was revealed in his latest book, which lists Aberdeen Golf Club, Scotland in a section on Trump Organisation golf clubs. As an RSPB spokesperson commented: "The fact that Mr Trump can publish a book which states that not only does he own a golf course in Aberdeen but also implies that it is consented, constructed and operational, gives a very clear signal of the regard with which he holds the decision-making process and the decision-makers themselves." (Scotsman, 18th December)

Red Hot Salmond

2007-12-19T19:34:00.000Z

A person is known by the company he keeps ...

Not content to consort with Soutar and Trump, it seems that Alex has now got a thing going on with Richard Desmond. Yes that Richard Desmond, as in owner of Express papers, Red Hot TV and former owner of a stable of porn titles

(reports - see Spike on Allmedia and the Guardian)

Trumptongate

2007-12-19T04:00:00.000Z

16 December SNP face Trump resort probe call

It also emerged that, on the day ministers called in the Trump application, Aberdeenshire Council confirmed it had terminated a call with the government's chief planner, Jim McKinnon, as Mr Trump's team was also present.

The Scottish Government said MSPs had asked a large number of parliamentary questions on the Trump application and that information gathered by officials was currently being considered by Finance Secretary John Swinney, who will make the final decision on the plans.

17 December Trump inquiry could be ordered

The Scottish Tories have said that Holyrood's local government committee should mount its own investigation. The Scottish Liberal Democrats had initially called for an inquiry headed by a judge, but they have now backed the Tory plan. The Scottish Labour Party said it was still considering its position ...

18 December Salmond to be brought before MSPs to explain actions over Trump plan

The Tories say they will move tomorrow to have the Scottish Government's actions over the Trump plan examined by a Holyrood committee, with Mr Salmond called to give evidence. Labour and the Liberal Democrats are backing that idea.

Mr Trump is said to be increasingly annoyed at the "meddling" of politicians, warning the "malicious attacks" could scupper the project, in Aberdeenshire, once and for all.

John Swinney, the finance secretary, who will take the final decision on the plan, visited a Trump resort in the US days before calling in the application.

Trumpton

2007-12-14T03:42:00.000Z

For some reason, Wendy Alexander chose not to play the Trump card when she teed off First Minister's Question Time, asking instead about support for families with disabled children. In England and Wales there is a dedicated fund, while in Scotland it is up to local authorities what happens to the equivalent £34 million

But she couldn't avoid chipping in with a comment about "how readily the First Minister will meet those whom he believes to be important"; and putting the question: would he meet representatives of Scotland's 50,000 families with disabled children, who "do not have £1 billion to invest in Scotland ... do they not deserve the same hearing as Mr Trump's representatives?"

"The Deputy First Minister met young carers in Ayrshire this Monday" was Alex's attempt to get out of the rough, but since this was not what had been asked, Wendy asked again, also inviting support for a budget amendment to guarantee support.

Faced with a different question to avoid, the First Minister changed the subject, then said he would meet the families, then repeated the mantra that local government would increase respite care.

Annabel Goldie took a more direct line, noting Aberdeenshire Council's rejection of the Trump application and the First Minister's meeting with the Trump team four days later on December 3rd.

"That same day, the Trump team made it clear to journalists that no appeal would be lodged and that there were only 30 days in which to save the development. On the following day, the Scottish Government called in the planning application - a decision that raised eyebrows in planning circles, because no appeal had been lodged."

Why, she asked, contrary to the Scottish ministerial code, did the First Minister meet only the developer during that critical period, and why did he take action that, according to the code, "might be seen as prejudicial to that process"?

Alex Salmond said that he had also met Sustainable Aberdeenshire, Michael Forbes and his mother; and that he was free to pursue the normal duties of an MSP, while making no public comment.

Annabel pointed out that the only party he had met after the rejection was the developer, and his attendance at the meeting as a constituency MSP was in a Government car, accompanied by a Government special adviser.

"The First Minister has failed to comply with the ministerial code. He has made inappropriate use of Scottish Government facilities, and he did not display the visible neutrality that is required of any Government minister when they are dealing with a planning matter. Astonishingly, as the First Minister, he was not even-handed, he was cack-handed. Either that is ignorance or arrogance, and ignorance is not a condition with which I associate the First Minister."

"Was the meeting of 3 December ever denied and, if so, why? What individual issued the press statement that was eventually given to a local paper about that meeting, which the First Minister insists he attended as a constituency MSP? When, on 4 December, the Government's chief planner telephoned the chief executive of Aberdeenshire Council to advise that the application was being called in, was any other party present or participating in that telephone call?"

The First Minister said that he was not present during a telephone call between the chief planner and Aberdeenshire Council, and that he attended the meeting as a constituency member of Parliament. "The clue to that is in the fact that, apart from the two representatives of the Trump Organization, who asked for the meeting and I am duty bound to respond to that"

There was laughter and a chorus of "no you're not".

Next up, Nicol Stephen, who pitched up the unanswered third party question. Were any representatives of the Trump Organization in the chief planner's room when he telephoned Aberdeenshire Council about the Trump proposals?

The First Minister said he didn't know because he wasn't there. Then he attempted to deflect the issue with a reference to Nicol Stephen's lack of prior knowledge of a Aberdeen bypass route proposal in 2006.

Alex may have somehow managed to maintain his ignorance, but Nicol Stephen knew the answer.

"Aberdeenshire Council will confirm that it had to ask for the Trump representatives to leave the chief planner's room during a phone call last Tuesday. This is a serious situation for the First Minister and his Government. Every step of the way, there has been contradiction, concealment and cleverness from his Government on the issue. It smells of sleaze. Will he now establish an independent inquiry to investigate what happened in those 48 hours last Monday and Tuesday, to find out why the developers were present with the chief planner on the very day that their application was called in and to examine what pressure the chief planner was put under by ministers to take the potentially prejudicial actions that now jeopardise the project? Does he understand that few people will now believe that his Government is a fair and proper body to decide the application in an open and transparent way?"

The First Minister resorted once more to denial (he had followed the rule book), diversion (Liberal-led Aberdeenshire Council's procedures had caused "certain difficulty") and deviation (via the Aberdeen bypass)

After a few friendlier questions and an excursion on the M74, things came back once more to Ministerial behaviour and how to deal with complaints about it.

Would the First Minister consider appointing an independent person to investigate complaints made under the Scottish ministerial code, asked Mike Rumbles

That it was being reviewed did not answer the question, so it was asked again, noting that the First Minister polices the code and acts as sole judge of complaints, even if one is made against himself - maybe the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner could do it?

He doesn't want to, said the First Minister, before talking about Westminster, and then noting that fundamentally, ministers and the First Minister are accountable to the Parliament.

Accountable? Maybe, but not without a struggle.

Two men and a wedge

2007-12-12T20:08:00.000Z

A few weeks ago, Donald Trump was just another billionaire at a dinner date on a short business trip to New York. Now Alex can't bear the thought that two SNP councillors and a casting vote might deprive him of the object of his yearning ...

Furious Alex Salmond to save Donald Trump's £500m golf plan

Salmond steps in to save Trump's billion-dollar Scottish golf course

Original post 5th December / updates ...

12th: Clearly the yearning was too much, they had to meet again ...

SNP accused of 'hypocrisy' as Salmond is urged to explain Trump meeting

13th: Will their relationship survive in the heat of the media spotlight?

SNP Trump move 'smells of sleaze'

and as a bonus, I have obtained an exclusive picture of their meeting ...

Salmond Flounders

2007-12-12T18:53:00.000Z

It is rare for the First Minister to answer the question that he has been asked. Particularly if to do so involves any detailed knowledge. He much prefers to talk about some unrelated matter, throwing in frequent insults. The biggest insult is to the public who thought they were voting for someone who would give straight answers. They were sadly deluded by a man who prefers Westminster style duck, dodge and dis to the more forthright and even consensual approach that had evolved in the first eight years of the Scottish Parliament.

Take last week's First Minister's Questions. Question one from Wendy Alexander.

Ms Alexander: Will the First Minister tell the chamber what meetings he has had with representatives of disability groups prior to the publication of the Scottish budget, and what meetings he has had with them since the publication of the budget?

The First Minister: The ministerial team will be pursuing meetings with all sections of Scottish society, including the important disability groups, which are held as a high priority by the Government.

Ms Alexander: I will take that as a no.

Annabel Goldie asked about sentencing and police numbers and got a reply about police wages and a YouGov opinion poll.

Nicol Stephen asked about an incident the previous day: "on the steps of the Parliament, carol-singing students, who came to protest about the Scottish Government's real-terms cut in higher education spending next year, were met by ranks of paid SNP researchers and MSPs armed with placards and megaphones. Is that what we can expect from Alex Salmond's 21st century nationalist party?"

He too got a reply about the YouGov poll.

Mr Stephen noted that this was an SNP poll.

"I have here the last poll that was not paid for by the SNP in Scotland. It shows that, of the views expressed about all the leaders of all the parties, the most common was that Alex Salmond is "arrogant" and "patronising".

After an interruption, he continued: "The First Minister might try to brush off what was a serious incident yesterday, but does he agree that it was an ugly development? It is one thing for ministers to stand here and be evasive about figures, make the numbers up and generally fail to give straight answers to straight questions; it is another thing completely for them to order paid SNP staff out to disrupt and shout down student campaigners. Will Alex Salmond give a guarantee that, in future, young students and all other peaceful campaigners who come to the Parliament will not be jostled, barracked and abused through megaphones by state-funded supporters of his Government?"

True to form Alex Salmond ignored the question of SNP bad behaviour, and crowed some more about the SNP's opinion poll.

He fared slightly better on the next question, since this came from his own side.

On the fifth, a question about who would benefit from the Council Tax freeze was met with an a response about the Council Tax rather than the freeze. When Elaine Murray pointed out that "council tax bands F, G and H would gain most from a freeze in council tax but that the poorest 20 per cent of households would not gain at all from freezing council", he floundered on about the Council Tax being bad a bit more, until Alex Neil came to his rescue with a reference to a CoSLA statement about the savings of the "average family".

Of course, the question wasn't about the average family, but it got Salmond off the hook long enough to take a question about CoSLA only having agreed to freeze council tax for one year. The non-answer to this was that John Swinney's budget was for three years.

Derek Brownlee then returned to the issue of the disproportionate benefit of the freeze to the better off. Perhaps Alex Salmond was not prepared for a Conservative being concerned about regressive taxation, since in a rare moment of openness, he admitted "I am not certain whether I fully followed the question ..."

Ignorance is no excuse

2007-12-03T14:35:00.000Z

We are often reminded that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Neither, it appears, is ignorance of the crime.

According to Roseanna Cunningham, Wendy Alexander would be guilty even though she didn't know that the donation, ostensibly from a UK company (legal), was allegedly from a Jersey-based businessman (not). I'm sure that Paul Green did not intend this to happen - but others may ...

... wish to try this great new wheeze for any foreign person who wants to sabotage our political system. Just set up a UK company and use it to donate to a party or a politician you don't like. Then leak the truth and drop them in it.

Judging by the fuss over Wendy, this would be much more effective than traditional uses of terrorist or spook funding. Parties could end up spending more money checking out donations than they took in. Democracy would be threatened with collapse under the weight of the bureaucracy.

Then we could argue for the provision of a state funded service to check out donations - until someone points out that it would be cheaper to ban donations and give political parties some of the money that would have been spent checking them. Hey presto, state funding!

Power to the Poor

2007-12-03T08:25:00.000Z

I've never been a fan of any political system that gives power to the rich.

Yet while many people would be outraged if we had an electoral system that gave the vote only to property owners, or to people who could afford to pay a community charge, there has been less concern (among the public or in the media) about the principle of political parties being funded by rich people, or for that matter, the role of the super-rich and large transnationals whose economic power gives them enormous political leverage over governments.

The current hoo-ha about political funding is a case in point. There is concern that the rules introduced by the UK Labour government have been broken (so far, the Labour Party has been hoisted by its own petard, but would anyone be surprised by similar skeletons in other closets?)

This concern though, is steadfastly over the transgression of the rules governing the operation of the system rather than the system itself. The media concentrate on the latest manifestation and dismiss as a diversion suggestions that attempt to address the root of the problem.

Do rich altruists exist?

Do people give donations to political parties out of self-interest or altruism?

Capitalist economics doesn't take much account of the latter. While consumer altruism can no longer be ignored - and there are a few companies for whom ethics is more than a branch of public relations - it's probably still not a significant feature governing the actions of most capitalists seeking success. And among those who have already made their bundle, those who worry about getting through the eye of a needle are the exceptions.

Self-interest does not imply that donations are given in the expectation that there will be any direct return. But they can still be a good investment in other ways.

Undoubtedly, support for most parties comes mostly from people who believe the party's policies will benefit them or those close to them. There's nothing wrong with parties attracting voters, activists and donors on this basis - as long as the financial support does not give disproportionate influence. The problem is that the more a party relies on larger donations, the more difficult it is not to be influenced by the interests of large donors.

How to win friends and influence people

If nothing else, major party backers are likely to get invited to party events, and hence to meet and have the opportunity to speak with leading party members. If they also make media statements, help with party political broadcasts, this will further enhance their relationship with the party. They may even become close social as well as political friends of party leaders, and get invited to select dinner parties.

Backers may have spoken out publicly on controversial issues. In the course of their contact, views may be expressed. Maybe nothing needs to be said. Business interests and the impact of proposed legislation or government action are often clearly understood.

Principled politicians will of course attempt to make their decisions in the public interest, but even with the best will in the world, how likely is it that there wouldn't be at least some reluctance to upset major donors?

This is a problem for all parties. Maybe we should stop arguing about the rules of an inadequate system, and concentrate on creating a better one.

What a difference an election makes

2007-12-01T01:29:00.000Z

The SNP policy development process ...

Before the election: "Overall wealth to increase and the proportion of national wealth by each of the lowest six income deciles to increase." (Let Scotland Flourish)

Now: "To increase overall income and the proportion of income earned by the three lowest income deciles as a group by 2017." (The Government Economic Strategy)

Before: "The wealth of every region to increase and for there to be a 10% reduction in GDP disparity per head between the richest and poorest parts of Scotland." (Let Scotland Flourish)

Now: "To narrow the gap in participation between Scotland's best and worst performing regions by 2017". (GES)

The Poverty of SNP Policy

2007-11-28T21:48:00.000Z

From the Scotsman

UP to 1.75 million Scottish households will be worse off under the Scottish Government's flagship policy of freezing the council tax, The Scotsman can reveal. Those living in homes in bands A to D will lose out, according to figures presented in secret to MSPs yesterday.

Professor David Bell, of Stirling University, has calculated that most of the 1,751,000 households in the four lower council tax bands will be between 18p and 30p a week worse off. Although the amount is tiny, it runs directly counter to the SNP Government's claim that everyone will be better off under the freeze.

The calculation is part of a detailed academic study which also shows that freezing the council tax will help the better off at the expense of the poor. In a paper submitted to a private meeting of Holyrood's finance committee yesterday, Prof Bell revealed that people in houses in bands F, G and H "gain the most from a council tax freeze".

The Emperor's new slogan

2007-11-28T01:59:00.000Z

Welcome to Scotland

I wonder how long it took to think of that one.

Picture the scene: the furrowed brows, the perspiration, every time someone has an idea, it's shot down in flames. The hours wear on, everyone wants to go home, then the Big Yin has a brainwave and runs it up the flagpole to see if they salute it. Nobody wants to say it's naff, they are afraid that they'll be castigated if they do, and anyway, they want away home. So they all say it's a wonderful idea and bugger off, delegating some poor sod to organise some market research to endorse it.

It couldn't happen like that, could it?

Quangos

2007-11-21T01:46:00.000Z

"It is our intention, in the course of this Parliament, to reduce the number of quangos and government agencies in Scotland by a quarter."
Thus spake Alex Salmond

There were 199 quangos, so how are they doing with their pledge? The First Minister's favourite sparring partner (it's a Westminster thing) has been trying to find out ...

S3W-4325 - George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab) (Date Lodged 14 September 2007) : To ask the Scottish Executive what consultative committees, groups, councils and other bodies have been set up by ministers since 16 May 2007 and what the estimated cost is of running them.

Holding reply by Mr John Swinney (4 October 2007): I shall reply to the member as soon as possible. (Due for Answer 28 September 2007, but this date came and went ... )

S3W-6026 - George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab) (Date Lodged 2 November 2007) : To ask the Scottish Executive when it will provide a substantive answer to question S3W-4325 which received a holding reply on 4 October 2007.

Holding reply by Mr John Swinney (16 November 2007): I shall reply to the member as soon as possible. (Due for Answer 16 November 2007, but this date also came and went ... )

Eventually ... SNP creates 24 new quangos despite pledge

So will they still get rid of 50, or is it a quarter of the new total - 56 - or is it the original 50 plus 24 makes 74 to go on the bonfire?

Budget

2007-11-15T01:01:00.000Z

If the SNP manifesto had comprised these spending proposals, would they have got as much support in the election?

Student debt abolished. Not.
£2000 grant for first time buyers. Not.
1,000 extra police. Not.
Class size reductions. Not.
Nursery teachers. Not.
Kinship care funding. Not.

Lots of dosh, much of it transferred from ring-fenced funds, thrown in a big pot - but is it enough to maintain existing council services, take on additional responsibilities and have a council tax freeze without cuts. What do you think?

Complaints about the "tight budget settlement" don't wash. The budget settlement was much as forecast. The SNP chose to base their figures on the upper end of the predicted range (£1.8bn above inflation). Even then, compared to the money the SNP manifesto commitments were based on, they got about 99% (£1.1bn above inflation) - plus they have been given access to an additional £874m from past underspend. What's tight about that?

The fact is the figures didn't add up and now they have had to admit it.

Of course they will blame someone else. They always do.

If anyone had been daft enough to go into coalition with them, they would have dropped spending commitments and blamed it on their partners. Probably that's why the Liberals rejected their advances.

But they are on their own, and the impossibility of keeping all their promises is now there for all to see. If another party had done this, the SNP would have been down on them like a ton of bricks. Karma time?

Next, we have the budget process where

MSPs look at who is going to suffer for the sake of their remaining commitments;
MSPs try to persuade Ministers to change specific items;
Ministers decide whether to accept changes; and
MSPs decide whether they prefer the (amended) budget proposals or
whether they would rather stick with the existing expenditure.

Pass those bricks.

The Sincerest Flattery

2007-11-13T11:10:00.000Z

The SNP and the mystery of the vanishing bobbies

As the Scotsman reports, it's now 500 new police officers in the next four years (150 a year for the first two years, then 100 a year), plus 500 they persuade not to retire ... out of 2,300 who are due to retire during that period.

And just in case you have been given the impression that even 500 is better than was achieved under the previous administration, please note:

Scots police recruitment set to hit a seven-year low

There will be 576 officers trained in this financial year, or if they manage to recruit another 150, that's 726 this year and next, and 676 for each of the following two years.

This is the lowest recruitment this century (last year's official figures are not on the Scottish Government website yet)

year - recruits - total
2000/1 - 1053 - 15155
2001/2 - 770 - 15307
2002/3 - 850 - 15517
2003/4 - 966 - 15745
2004/5 - 1107 - 16175
2005/6 - 941 - 16368
2006/7
2007/8 - 726
2008/9 - 726
2009/10 - 676
2010/11 - 676

Every year since devolution has had higher recruitment than the level that the SNP is now promising.

So, using this as the base level, we'll get 576x4=2304 (roughly the number due to retire)

With the 500 newbies, that's 2804 in the next four years, or an average of 701 per year, well below the average for recent years.

But at least we can now see how the SNP figures are derived. With 500 not retiring (dubious given the generous pension on offer) out of the 2300 due to retire, they get their increase of a thousand

BUT ... this leaves no leeway for police officers leaving the force for reasons other than having done their time - such as ill health, early retirement/resignation, being sacked, transfer out and so on. Such wastage averages over 300 police officers per year.

Realistically, they stand to lose a thousand or more officers in addition to those reaching retirement age.

So the SNP figures still don't add up. Maybe Carol Vorderman could help them with their sums. Countdown to meltdown.

The Mystery of the Vanishing Polis

2007-10-31T11:47:00.000Z

It has been reported that there is a hole in SNP policy: the police are looking into it.

Specifically, as the Scotsman reports, despite Alex Salmond's avowed intent, he has been informed that Ministers have no power to dictate how officers are deployed. It's up to Chief Constables to decide whether they are behind desks or on the beat.

This is the latest in a series of grim pills to beset the SNP's election promise to recruit 1000 police officers.

It started with an outbreak of ifs, buts and maybes. These were corralled by a civil service SWAT (SWAT= Salmond's Whitewash, Artifice and Trickery) team, set the task of delivering "efficiency savings".

The additional cops suddenly became equivalents. That is, not real additional cops. Virtual cops, so to speak. But not cybercops, although he might let them have a blaeberry (cause they want them on the beat, not sitting at a computer).

The SNP has now promised "to have an additional 1,000 police officers in our communities through increased recruitment, improved retention and redeployment" (OR 251007)

The Scottish Police Federation clearly thought the original commitment was for new recruits, not redeployment: "If you think there are enough efficiencies to produce anywhere near the 1,000 extra officers needed in Scotland, you are up a gum tree" said Joe Grant

And then we had the unedifying spectacle of Kenny MacAskill asking Westminster for help. He wants them to be let off vehicle checking duties. That would give two fifths of an officer extra in Highland force, so only another 999.6 to go.

stuck in low gear

2007-10-29T17:34:00.000Z

The number of committee meetings is a good basic performance indicator for parliamentary activity.

Take a look at this graph ...

Now, I realise that there are a couple of committees less than there were a year ago, but you would think that would make the remaining committees busier.

I also realise that there was an election in May (how could I forget?). But the SNP were supposed to hit the ground running. If they had, surely the parliament would be ablaze with activity now?

Not just with the Westminster style fireworks and damp squib answers of First Minister's Questions (i.e. don't answer the question, slag off the opposition), but throughout the parliamentary process, in committees and in chamber debates.

Yet, the committees are struggling to keep busy. They are cancelling meetings. On Wednesday this week, only ONE committee will meet. I'm sure that things weren't so quiet six months after the previous elections.

The SNP parliamentary machine is stuck in low gear, making lots of noise as they rev the engine, but not much real progress. This all reinforces the impression that they are avoiding confrontation in Holyrood and seeking confrontation elsewhere ... "full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing" (Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5)

Gamblers Anonymous

2007-09-30T03:14:00.002+01:00

It is claimed that MSPs are having a little flutter on whether Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson will be the first SNP minister to lose his job (MSPs BACK STEVENSON FOR THE AXE)

The article quotes Mike Rumbles as a critic, and Brian Adam as a defender, but names no punters' names.

Speaking on behalf of Mr Stevenson, a SNP Government spokesman said: "Really these MSPs are cowards if they are taking bets but aren't willing to put their names to it."

Speaking on behalf of myself, I say "Who is this SNP Government spokesman, and why isn't he willing to put his name to his comment?"

Where is the evidence that actual bets are being taken? Nothing is offered to substantiate the allegation. For all we know, it is just somebody's idea of a joke. Just a big wind up that has succeeded. If so, somebody needs to get a thicker hide if they are going to survive in politics.

There is not even any indication of the odds being offered, or whether it's being run as a sweepstake or a tote. What a shambles. You wouldn't get elected members organising this sort of thing in other parliaments. What's the point when Paddy Power is offering 11/10 on Bertie Ahern being the next leader to go, and Betfair will give you 8/5 against Menzies Campbell stepping down by the end of this year.

This is clearly something that could benefit from a more professional approach. We should have our betting organised by someone who knows the difference between a reverse and a dual forecast. Come on Alex, puts your real skills to good use.

My Grumbles

2007-09-20T03:03:00.000+01:00

Rumbles defends homes allowance

Far be it from me to defend Mike Rumbles, but ...

Yes, far too far.

What I will say is that any story that is so slender that its meagre six paragraphs have to be padded out with anonymous comments like "All our MSPs enjoy their own individual office. Let's just put a fold-down bed in each" is a good example of the increasingly desperate state of Herald journalism. No wonder people are upset with Newsquest.

Be that as it may, can you imagine the furore if MSPs were bought fold down beds? If they want to take an afternoon nap, they only need to follow these links

(and to be kind to Robbie Dinwoodie, I can only imagine that this truly underwhelming piece was written in said state of stupor after he had interviewed Mr Rumbles)

SNP Kapitalisten Stoß Entsetzen! (wieder)

2007-09-20T02:33:00.001+01:00

Totally unrelated to politics - or is it?
After publishing that last blog I got the following message:

Your blog post published successfully!
Blog anzeigen (in einem neuen Fenster)

SNP capitalists shock horror! (again)

2007-09-20T02:27:00.000+01:00

MSP who'll shape energy policy to sell shares in power company
SNP denies conflict of interest
Percieved (sic) conflict of interest goes against ministerial code of conduct

Says it all really, but if you want more, complete with spelling mistake, go to
Minister forced to sell £30,000 of shares over 'conflict of interest' and
Sitting pretty with £½m nest-egg and biggest majority of any MSP

The Tartan Spectrum

2007-09-15T01:33:00.000+01:00

Tory's tartan register plan backed by SNP

It would be too easy to take this story and argue that it is an example of the ties that bind Tartan tories and tartan Tories. It is, and undoubtedly there will be many more examples to follow, but to leave it there, would be to tell only part of the story. The SNP are all things to all people, so long as they believe in an independent Scotland. While there are broad kirks in other parties, I doubt if any are as broad as the SNP. The SNP support and membership ranges from the ubercapitalist to the neocommunist. When not engaged in internecine strife, the SNP has used this its advantage, presenting its right wing in the rural areas as an alternative to the Tories and Liberals, and in the inner cities, in the past as an alternative to Labour, and more recently, vacuuming up the debris of the SSP implosion and a big chunk of the Green vote.

In opposition, it is easier to maintain the fiction of the united party. In power things are harder. The old divisions are still there. Curiously, Alex Salmond's website (see note 1) does not mention that the SNP is led by a man it once expelled as a result of his membership of the 79 Group / Scottish Socialist Society (note 2)

How long will the earthly delights of minority Scottish "Government" enable them to paper over the cracks? Will the carrot of a referendum on independence enable Alex to keep his troops in check until the next election? Or will the harsh realities of having to prioritise spending commitments and choose between contradictory and incompatible pledges force the divisions into the open?

Hmmm ....

note 1: On the Scottish Parliament website, Alex Salmond's website is given as www.snp.org - I know of no other MSP who lists their party's website as part of their personal entry. Perhaps, following on from the electoral success of the "Alex Salmond Party", he now regards the SNP website as his personal domain.

note 2: The '79 group membership also included Kenny MacAskill, Stephen Maxwell, Roseanna Cunningham, Stewart Stevenson and Margo MacDonald. Does anyone know where I can get the full membership list? The expulsions were based on membership of the Scottish Socialist Society, which was judged to be a continuation of the proscribed '79 Group, despite its membership extending outwith the SNP. I wouldn't mind the SSS membership list too.

Ka-pow! Wham! Thwak!

2007-09-10T18:23:00.001+01:00

"Before May's elections, Holyrood was a rather tame place with little of the bare-knuckle politics which characterises Westminster. Between them, Alex Salmond and George Foulkes are changing that." (Scotland on Sunday, 9th September)

Do we really want to emulate Westminster? Holyrood has tended towards a more thoughtful approach to politics, at least in comparison to the yah-boo-sucks, opposition-always-wrong, adversarial cockfighting pit that is the House of Commons. Do we really value the ability to avoid issues by answering a different question or resorting to personal putdowns? It may make more entertaining television, and make the sketch writers' jobs easier, but does it throw light on the political process, or hide it in the hyperbolic fog of the war of words?

My answers would be no; yes, but not as much as a straight answer that gobsmacks the opposition; and I'd rather do without the smokescreen fug of war.

However, I strongly suspect that I am in a minority. The media have never been very good at conveying the more collaborative and consensual sides of either Westminster or Holyrood because, frankly, most people find them intensely boring unless they are actively engaged in the process of seeking cross party support for their ideas, issues and campaigns.

Somewhere between a dilemma and a paradox lies the attitude of a public that regards the most beneficial way of working as the least interesting, and hence the least attractive option, to be rejected in favour of something that's a better spectator sport but delivers less.

A quandary of a similar ilk is that of the "Strong Leader" syndrome. I'm sure you can think of numerous examples.

The Strong Leader's policy objectives may vary, but what they have in common is their belief in their own infallibility, the suppression of dissent (methods vary from the brutal to the bureaucratic), and the promotion of those who reflect the Leader's views.

The Strong Leader will often begin with a small coterie of trusted allies, whose own political principles are at best secondary to their function in maintaining the power the leader, but more likely are derived from that function. This group tends to shrink with time leaving the leader increasingly isolated and out of touch with public opinion.

The Strong Leader invariably ends up pursuing policies that accelerate and then consolidate the decline in their popularity. We get so fed up with them that we cheer when we hear of their misfortunes. In a dictatorship, they enter a state of advanced paranoia and start a reign of terror until someone tops them or they escape into exile. In a democracy we count the days until they get turfed out, and then heave a huge sigh of relief.

What gets me is that people don't learn from the experience. They continue to value the "strong leader" and dismiss consensual, politically inclusive leaders as weak and ineffectual. They jettison one strong leader and then go on to vote in another.

If we do have a leader (or a leadership candidate) who seeks to decentralise power (within the party and more widely), and who genuinely listens and cares, then they are portrayed as ineffectual, lacking flair and dynamism, and unable to stand up for the public interest. So we dump them (or don't select them).

What is it that motivates this behaviour? Why does the idea of a strong leader turn people on? Why do we have a perverse desire to be politically dominated? Apparently without any irony, Mao exhorted revolutionaries to oppose leader worship. Not bad advice, but perhaps "Avoid Strong Leader fetishism!" might be closer to the mark.

Personally, I prefer a weak leader who lets other people participate in the decision making process ...

Slice of Salmond or Sturgeon?

2007-09-03T21:49:00.000+01:00

For between £8,500 and £9,500, either Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon, or another of the SNP's ministerial team can be hired to offer a speech at what the party managers are touting as "premier fringe events".

Firms will also be given the chance to put their case direct to the minister. For the more personal touch, £950 will give you a slap-up lunch with John Swinney on the party's "Corporate Day".Scotland on Sunday, 2 September, and further comment and details can be found here)

Of course companies get involved and sponsor events and take stalls at conferences. They pay for the room hire and refreshments at meetings because it is good PR (Energy Utilities like to sponsor Eco-friendly groups etc); and events and stalls give them a chance to network with politicians, and they might expect to get a photo or two out of it.

And it is not news that politicians make speeches at party fundraising dinners full of corporate tables. The existing situation is not ideal, but that said, this is a step in the wrong direction, and the media are right to focus on such developments. What next? Megabuck premium rate hotlines to phone the Minister of your choice? "Hi, I'm waiting for you to call, just text CASH on your mobile ..."

Coming just a month after the costs were revealed of a dinner in Bute House in honour of Sir Sean Connery and attended by Sir Tom Farmer and Brian Souter, this is another blow to the SNP's image. The response to a Freedom of Information request put the cost of the four-course dinner for the 15 guests, billed to the public purse, at a grand total of £1,446.50.

From the Electoral Commission website ...

Received by	Donor	Address	Date accepted	Donation
Scottish National Party	Mr Thomas Farmer status: Individual		10/4/2006	£100,000.00
Scottish National Party	Mr Brian Souter status: Individual		3/22/2007	£300,000.00
Head Office	Brian Souter status: Individual		4/8/2007	£200,000.00
Scottish National Party Head Office	Thomas Sean Connery status: Individual		4/11/2007	£30,000.00
Head Office	Brian Souter status: Individual		5/18/2007	£125,000.00

Update: Also there was Sir George Mathewson, who (according the Herald) "has given financial backing to the SNP and is chairman of the Scottish Government's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA)", and "Crawford Beveridge, the former chief executive of Scottish Enterprise, member of the CEA and Nationalist donor".

I can find no donation listed for Sir George Mathewson. Crawford Beveridge donated £10,000 on 15/2/07.

Guess who's coming to the dinner?

I wonder if Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson knew he was being cast into a den of nationalists.

Did they politely not mention the fact that he was a (spit) unionist? Or did it crop up in conversation, prompting an awkward silence, eventually broken by comments that "some of my best friends are unionists"?

Thoughtfully, Rangers chairman Sir David Murray was also invited to illustrate this point, him being a pal of Sir Sean. Reports do not state whether the accompanying WAGs are SNP supporters.

Apologists point out that the presence of non-nationalists means this was not purely an SNP supporters' dinner. So that's alright then.

STV Politics (3)

2007-09-03T17:55:00.000+01:00

Edinburgh
The Liberal Democrats were left high and dry by their SNP coalition "partners", when the nationalists backed down in the face of rising opposition to their school closure plans.

Disappointed that the closure plan was being shelved, the LibDem leader Jenny Dawe maintained that it "could have produced some very creative solutions for education in Edinburgh."

SNP leader Steve Cardownie said they weren't looking for an amended report - "We want to go back to the drawing board"

Consultations have been arranged and may still go ahead, and the plans could be brought back for a vote next year, but unless there is another spectacular SNP U-turn, they face certain defeat. (Scotsman, 3 Sept)

STV politics (2)

2007-08-31T15:42:00.000+01:00

Fife
SNP Councillor George Leslie has stepped down as chairman of the housing and communities committee without chairing a single meeting, and will now continue as an independent for his Kirkcaldy East ward. Cllr Leslie said he had been forced to resign following a witch-hunt by other party members, who he claimed had behaved "abysmally" towards him after he nominated independent councillor Andrew Rodger as licensing board chairman against the wishes of certain SNP councillors. (Fife Today, 22 August)

Dundee
Nationalist MSP Nigel Don has stepped down as a councillor for the Lochee ward. He said that he had decided to quit Dundee City Council after he was appointed liason officer for the cabinet secretary for justice (BBC, 23 August)

Highland
The escalating cost of the Eden Court theatre project led to the resignation of Independent Councillor Roddy Balfour as chairman of the education, culture and sport committee - and SNP councillor David Bremner was ordered to attend a disciplinary meeting for having supported him. (Inverness Courier, 21 August)

Edinburgh
Liberal Democrat and SNP councillors have vowed to stand up for the schools which their party wants to close - but none has promised to vote against the plans. The Evening News contacted all 24 councillors who have schools and community centres threatened with the axe in their own areas. Of those who responded, many promised to lobby colleagues to keep facilities open. Not one councillor, however, would commit to voting against the administration if their local school remains on the hit list. If the Labour, Tory and Green groups vote together in opposition to the council cuts after the consultation, it will only take one Liberal Democrat or SNP member to go against their party for the administration to suffer a defeat. (Evening News, 27 August)

Also under threat are four community centres - see Stop the Council Cuts for more information about the cuts and the campaign against them.

But at least Edinburgh Council won't have to have any more comfort breaks while Stefan Tymkewycz goes to vote in the Scottish Parliament (Scotsman, 20 August)

STV politics (1)

2007-08-30T14:42:00.000+01:00

Thanks to the preferential voting system delivered by Labour's coalition deal with the Liberals, most local authorities are now also beset by coalition or minority politics.

It took some longer than others to sort themselves out, but give or take a few days haggling, by about the dreaded hundred days ago, most had done so. Indeed, it took so long that the national media seems to have lost interest before the deals were all done and the overall picture of the democratic carve up became clear.

And not just the media. The Electoral Commission and VoteScotland simply direct result seekers to the BBC - despite the BBC still showing 27 councils with no overall control, and the distribution of seats on each council requiring a lot of clicking.

For actual ward results, you need to go to the councils' own websites, noting that the ease of finding and the level of detail on the counts varies a lot. There is clearly an ambition to get this information onto Wikipedia, but the council pages I checked still had only one sample ward; and similarly, WriteToThem.com hasn't managed to incorporate the new councillors into their website yet.

For the record, this was the final score:

Yellow denotes parties in power. That's

14 Councils run by a single party or by independents, with 9 of those being minority administrations.

18 Councils run by coalitions. 5 of these exclude the biggest party. 2 are minority administrations.

13 two-party coalitions: 5 LibDem/SNP coalitions; 4 SNP/Ind; 2 LibDem/Tory; 1 Lab/Con and 1 Con/Ind.

4 coalitions with more than two partners: Con/LD/Lab/other - everybody but the SNP in Angus; Lab/Con/LD (Dundee); Lab/SNP/LD/other - everybody but the Tories in East Renfrewshire; Con/LD/other - everybody but the SNP in the Borders.

The ones that got away

2007-08-27T12:22:00.000+01:00

It was this big! Honest! Anglers are renowned for telling tall tales to mask the disappointment of an outcome that did not live up to expectations. It appears that their quarry's political homophones share this quality. In their first hundred days, Salmond, Sturgeon and the rest of the SNP shoal had promised they would land a netful of political objectives.

They didn't end up totally empty handed - after all, some of the targets were jumping at the hook. It's not difficult to

make an announcement that you will go ahead with what's already in the pipeline,
publish a report that's already been written,
set out proposals that you've had up your sleeve for some time (that White Paper on Independence wasn't written yesterday);
not agree to somethings that's not been requested (new nuclear power stations or dumps);
demand you get to do what's already being done,
demand a meeting,
commission a study,
set up a committee to discuss something, or
play at reorganising the boxes that things are kept in and
reduce the Ministerial team by giving all the work to John Swinney to keep him busy (a technique previously used on Wendy Alexander).

And with the resources of the Scottish Executive at your disposal it shouldn't be too difficult to

expand teacher training places,
take forward legislation to remove the graduate endowment fee, and
initiate a new entrants scheme for farmers.

But apart from that, no other pledges have been fully realised.

There are a few pledges where there has been progress, but not to the extent or as quickly as promised:

no decision yet on the Forth Bridge,
Healthcare Bill, Local Healthcare Bill, Patients Rights Bill and prescription charge proposals still to be published,
elderly care review still to get off the ground;
a 15% increase in free nursery provision as a first step to the 50% promised;
electrification of Glasgow to Edinburgh rail line but nothing on journey times from Aberdeen and Inverness;
details to follow on the Saltire Prize to support innovation in renewable energy; and
I think somebody had a word with Jack Straw about guns but it's not quite "negotiations".

And then the biggest list, what's not been done, not been published, not been announced, and not yet been budgeted for:

freeze the council tax and then replace it with a local income tax
cancel the EARL project (Auditor General to report back to the Parliament in September)
EU wide green energy research centre to be based in Aberdeen (Energy Technology Institute awarded to Strathclyde University)
discussions with the UK government on options for the transfer of responsibility for oil and gas resources to the Scottish Parliament
a meeting of Scotland's sports stakeholders to discuss and agree a joint approach which I hope will lead to a Scottish application for membership of the IOC and a Scottish Olympic Team representing out nation at the 2012 Olympics in London
proposals for a Criminal Justice Bill
early report to Parliament on the delivery of an extra 1,000 community police officers
a full, judicial public inquiry into the Shirley McKie case
Savings will be re-directed from the administration of government into frontline services in health, community safety and early years education.
A strengthened role for Scotland's Futures Forum
Recommendations on new management and monitoring arrangements based on the successful model in place in Virginia.
proposals for the extension of e-procurement
discussions on a new target for administration efficiency in the Scottish Executive and its agencies.
an early review of our agency structure.
look to the best of international models to ensure delivery and accountability are central to our new government approach.
Request a detailed proposal for a strengthened government and agency wide approach to procurement in Scotland.
principle of local engagement and involvement extended - new powers for Scotland's community councils.
consultation on whether new ward boundaries could form the structural basis for new community councils,
identify and deliver funding to allow for the phased introduction of school nurses
examine whether resources for the recruitment of new teaching posts translates into new jobs in schools.
legislation to replace the current system of student loans with grants.
bring forward detailed proposals for the Executive to service the existing loan debt for Scottish domiciled graduates by meeting their annual loan repayments, as long as they are resident in Scotland.
proposals to introduce a First Home Grant.
a review of the current anti-social behaviour orders
a Bill to abolish tolls on the Forth and Tay
steps to create a Scottish Futures Trust
increase support for family and community micro-generation with a tripling of current funding.
set out options for rolling out household generation to low income and fuel poor households in Scotland.
draw down funds currently held at UK level and available for the Scottish Executive to support renewable projects
discussions with local authorities on maximising recycling in Scotland.
an early meeting with Norwegian Ministers to explore options for taking forward a North Sea super-grid
proposals to reduce the rates bill for Scotland's small and medium sized businesses, with the reform of the Small Business Rate Relief Scheme.
proposals to bring the Parliament closer to the people of Scotland
a new mechanism whereby backbench MSPs can bring forward legislative proposals from the best supported public petition each year
St Andrews Day as a full national holiday
creation of an EU Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Research Centre, based in Scotland
increase Scotland's International Development Budget by 100%.
better finance through bond issues

One or two of the final list might be arguable because of the terminological inexactitude of phrases used, such "we will take the first steps" but if there is no evidence of any steps beyond the occasional mention in conversation, then it seems reasonable to conclude that either it's not been done or it wasn't much of a pledge in the first place.

So not exactly an unmitigated success, but in the SNP's favour, it does stop the stock of policies being depleted too rapidly ...

Spinning out the Salmond spreads

2007-08-24T12:31:00.000+01:00

This one hundred days thing has been going on forever. Next time, let's agree how we are going to count to one hundred, so it's all on the same day and we can get it over and done with.

Reports on the first hundred days started to appear on 10 August (Herald), with several others appearing on 11 August and Iain MacWhirter doing his SNP in Power: The First 100 Days on radio 4 on the 12 August.

On 14 August in the Guardian, it was reported that "Alex Salmond today unveiled the promised white paper on independence as the climax to his first hundred days in office" (Iain MacWhirter again, I suppose he has to make a living).

The assessments of the first hundred days continued through the weekend with the Sunday papers getting a second bite at the cherry on the 19th, followed on the 20th by the first of the hundred days as First Minister articles, an STV documentary looking back on the first hundred days on the 21st, and a steady flow of verbiage leading up to today's 'EckPower100 day. So now the Sundays can now fill a few more pages, and Iain MacWhirter can make an easy few bob more, but what worries me is that next week someone will think of a way to stretch the hundred day theme further.

Next week: Parliamentary Questions reviews one hundred days of the Scottish Cabinet.

Who wants private prisons?

2007-08-24T12:25:00.000+01:00

The Scottish Executive has decided that the new Low Moss Prison will be publicly run.

Some media commentators have expressed surprise that the Labour Party is supporting this decision. They should pay more attention to the views, critical of the private prisons and the Scottish Prison Service, that have frequently been expressed by Labour backbenchers - and not just the collective responsibility statements of the Labour/Liberal coalition. In particular, they should bear in mind that at the time of the SPS estates review, the Minister for Justice was Jim Wallace.

Take for example this BBC report of a Scottish Parliament committee meeting where Jim Wallace defended plans to build three new private prisons. The criticism came from Labour member Maureen Macmillan. And note the role of SPS chief executive Tony Cameron, who told MSPs that private prisons were half the cost.

You can bet that if the proposal was for three private prisons, then more were considered (a well placed source told me I could double that number). In the end, the decision was to build a private prison at Addiewell in West Lothian and a second prison at Low Moss for which the public and private sector would compete. This was a climbdown for Jim Wallace, in the face of widespread opposition that included members of his own party (he got a rough ride at Liberal Conference that year) and many Labour Party members, including both backbench MSPs and some who weren't in a position to openly criticise the plans ...

For whom the Bell tolls

2007-07-30T18:06:00.000+01:00

The Scottish Parliament finance committee has appointed David Bell as an adviser. Prof Bell was the author of a paper on local income tax that warned that families with two incomes would be hit hard, the tax would have to rise by 17%, and there could be "substantial cuts" to public services.

The Executive would of course already be expecting a difficult time when their financial plans are scrutinised by MSPs. Looks like the MSPs are making sure.

Hooked on Westminster

2007-07-27T22:29:00.000+01:00

ALEX Salmond is still claiming expenses for living in London despite being elected First Minister, reports the Daily Record

MPs from outside London get an allowance for travel, food, accommodation and other "additional costs". Alex claimed the full £22k last year, is still claiming even though he's hardly been there, and said that he would continue to claim the allowance "for the time being".

Mr Salmond goes to Westminster

2007-07-25T19:52:00.000+01:00

(and returns as the right honourable Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond MP MSP)

The news that Alex Salmond can't keep away from Westminster prompts me to check his stats on Public Whip.

Of course, he has been busy in Scotland of late, so I am not expecting too much, but perhaps a little more than 130 votes out of 541 since 5 May 2005. He did slightly better than that between 2001 and 2005, making 38% of votes, but his voting before that was abysmal, even allowing for his first temporary sojourn north of the border as an MSP. From 1997 to 2001, Alex took part in less that one vote in six.

Also interesting is the "friends" comparison - the degree of similarity with other MPs' voting patterns. While three of the top four are Plaid Cymru (97-99.4% agreement), only one is SNP (Michael Weir 97.5%). These are then followed by loads of LibDems (up to 91.3% agreement), the other SNP MSPs, tons of Tories (79.6%), and Ian Paisley (78.4%). About half way down the list comes the SDLP (65.7%) and Sinn Fein (Gerry Adams on 50%). The "friendliest" Labour MPs are Kate Hoey on 61.4% and Jeremy Corbyn on 58.5%. Tony Blair is a distinctly frosty on 32.2%, but Alex iciest relationship is with Alan Milburn on 13.8%.

Doubtless some of this is artifactual, stemming from the nature of the votes that Alex Salmond has bothered to participate in. But it is interesting that out of the 130 votes that have been important enough for Alex to bother voting, there is a relatively high level of disagreement with other members of the party he leads (Stewart Hosie 91%; Angus MacNeil 89.9%; Angus Robertson 89.8%; Pete Wishart 88.3%). Indeed, the rest of the SNP MPs seem to be closer to Pete Wishart (92-96.9%). Public Whip do state that "This may reveal relationships between MPs that were previously unsuspected. Or it may be nonsense." You decide.

Since Alex was going to try to speak in Westminster during his wee trip south, I also check his record on speeches, courtesy of They Work For You. I suspect that the taunts about his physique have led to a new yoyo exercise regime, for they list twelve interventions by the right honourable member. I can call him that now since he's visiting Buck House to get sworn in as a privy councillor by his Queen.

It doesn't say whether he blushed when he noted that " the poor attendance of the debate is no more than a fact. There is 33 per cent. of the Scottish National party's representation in the Chamber this evening."

Responding to an attempted "innovation" from Mark Lazarowicz, he said "Let me develop my points for a few seconds before I give way to my old university friend from Edinburgh." Ignoring the ambiguity (they were at St Andrews together but he's referring to Mark's constituency), this is redolent of the Salmond attitude to Westminster. Even moreso, take his response to Tory John Bercow... "To be called provocative by him is one of the great phrases that makes me miss this place. It is the pot calling the kettle black, and it is extraordinary to hear it from the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have such enormous affection." Say no more.

Looking further back, I see that the yoyo routine is not a new innovation (intervention?), with particular energy devoted to points of order. But if his activity is measured by debates that he has taken part in rather than the number of times he has intervened, then we find that he "has spoken in 18 debates in the last year — below average amongst MPs." - a little surprising for someone who is so fond of the sound of their own voice.

For those so inclined They Work For You also has extracts from the Register of Members' Interests; a summary of their expenses; and other sections including "useful links for this person". I note that clicking on "Alex Salmond's personal website" takes you to http://www.snp.org/ . I can't argue with the accuracy of the link, reflecting as it does the Salmondisation of the SNP, but I do wonder what Pete Wishart would say?

Three nights and a Sunday double time

2007-07-17T16:48:00.000+01:00

There's a fella doon the road that I avoid,
He's wan o' them they call the unemployed.
He says it's all because of me,
He canny get a job and I've got three.
Three nights and a Sunday double time.

Alex and Stefan aren't the only ones with more than one job.

It appears that several others are doubling up.

Willie Coffey, SNP, is the MSP for the constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun AND an East Ayshire councillor for "30 hours per week". Remuneration: "between £15,001 and £20,000".

Nigel Don, SNP, is a North-East list MSP AND a Dundee councillor for "up to one day per week". Will claim expenses "up to £500 per annum".

Jim Hume, LibDem, is a South of Scotland list MSP AND a Borders councillor. "I work 1½ days for which I receive remuneration of between £15,001 and £20,000 per annum."

Bill Kidd, SNP, is a Glasgow list MSP AND a Glasgow councillor for "20 to 25 hours per week". Remuneration, including a travel pass, of between £15,001 - £20,000 per annum.

John Wilson, SNP, is a Central Scotland list MSP AND a North Lanarkshire councillor. "I work two half days and two evenings a month. I will not be receiving any salary, pension or expenses."

Stefan Tymkewycz (see previous post) devotes "16 - 20 hours per week" to council duties. Remuneration, including Lothian Region Bus Pass, expected to be "between £501 - £1000".

Being a constituency MSP is normally a job and a half anyway, so it's difficult to see how Willie Coffey will squeeze another 30 hours into his working week, and if he does, how he will manage to stay awake during Audit Committee meetings.

Looking on the bright side, the list MSPs won't have much time for hanging around the corridors of Holyrood on the off-chance of a media interview; and the large amount of time devoted to one small part of their regional list area will limit their ability to cherry-pick local issues across the rest.

But the latter point also raises other questions:

Can they possibly keep their council and MSP roles separate?
Will the council focus compromise their ability to represent their broader MSP electorate?
And what about the legitimacy of how they use the respective office and staff resources available to them as councillor and MSP?

Marrying for Money

2007-07-13T16:04:00.000+01:00

Iain Duncan Smith's four-years-in-the-making proposals on how to deal with poverty (bribe people to get/stay married, etc) were greeted with a rousing chorus of LOLs and ROFLs, including from some of my nationalist colleagues. But what they may have missed was the official SNP response.

"Iain has a long-standing interest in many of these issues and we will consider ideas that he has put forward" said Mr Salmond of his fellow MP's report, noting that the ideas did come from another party (good job he noticed), "so I doubt if we agree with all of them".

Nobody ever claimed tackling poverty was easy. Apart, maybe from the SNP before they were elected. Now faced with reality, perhaps having noticed that they are a few ideas short of a strategy, will former left-wing outcast Salmond opt for a tartan tory solution?

Money: Salmond claims impotence

2007-07-11T16:41:00.000+01:00

So Alex Salmond is to put his £18k MSP salary into a trust. He will still collect his £60k as an MP and £77k as FM. Apparently "Mr Salmond said Holyrood officials told him he had to accept his MP's salary plus one third of his MSP's pay." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6284740.stm)

Did he argue? "Holyrood officials" have been wrong before. Did he point out that Stormont AMs are allowed to turn down the Westminster dosh and take their devolved pay packets?

Perhaps the AMs are more strongly opposed to Westminster, or maybe devolution legislation discriminates against MSPs. Surely, the SNP should make an issue of this. Or maybe it suits them.

The SNP press release refers to Section 81 of the Scotland Act 1998, and a resolution of the Scottish Parliament of 21st March 2002, claiming that this says MSPs who are also MPs must take their Westminster salary and one third of their Scottish Parliamentary salary and that there is no discretion to reverse that position.

It's actually Section 82 that deals with deductions and it is not that precise. It basically says if an MSP gets money from Westminster or Brussels, their MSP salary should be reduced "(a) to a particular proportion of what it would otherwise be or to a particular amount, or (b) by the amount of any salary payable to the member as (an MP or MEP), by a particular proportion of that amount or by some other particular amount."

So actually, it allows for not getting the Westminster salary, and for the deduction to be based on a proportion of either the MSP or the MP or MEP salary.

Section 81(5)(b) allows the Scottish Parliament pass resolutions to confer salary scheme functions on the SPCB, but as this is a resolution it can of course be superseded by a further resolution under the same section. Has there been any attempt to do so?

Why wasn't the omniscient 'Eck aware of all this, or at least why didn't he check it out before making his pledge? If he was aware, then he was making a promise he could not keep.

Exercise: compare and contrast the above with First minister ‘very unlikely’ to meet pledge to pay council tax on Bute House.

As for the trust, I will of course counter any suggestion that it is morally reprehensible to use the money in and near his own electoral area rather than say, the whole of Scotland, or even the ancestral Linlithgow, simply by making reference to the difficulty inherent in any criticism of a fund established in his mother's name, not to mention the difficulty inherent in any criticism of the act of establishing a fund in his mother's name. Suffice it to say that I thought it was a very Alex way of playing the game.

SNP capitalists shock horror!

2007-07-09T16:37:00.000+01:00

Stefan Tymkewycz owns 15 properties worth over £2m. So what? Did he ever lie about them? Has he pretended to be something he's not? Has he ever made political pronouncements which are at odds with being a landlord, or done anything as a landlord which is morally reprehensible? (any information gratefully received).

We do not have a dictatorship of the proletariat. We live in a bourgeois democracy, where the propagandist and financial support of the rich is highly valued. The SNP has its fair share of affluent backers (see here for more details), and it is natural that it should attract and include such people among their candidates. That other SNP members have pretensions of socialism only highlights the lack of any unifying SNP political philosophy beyond independence.

Stefan Tymkewycz is an Edinburgh businessman elected by the people of Lothian whose party vote, for better or worse, was given to the Alex Salmond for First Minister party list. He should be judged on what he says and does as a politician (and particularly on whether what he does is what he says other people should do).

Admitting being rich does not hack it unless he previously said he wasn't, or at least deliberately gave the impression that he wasn't. If you voted for him thinking that he was a wee working class laddie, then I'm afraid the response has to be "more fool you".

I would not deny that making unjustified assumptions about the nature of the SNP was cause for concern, but so far as Mr T goes, a more serious cause for concern is that Alex Salmond is not the only one with more than one job. I'm not sure that voters in the rest of Lothian realised that Mr T was also seeking to be elected as a councillor for Craigentinny/Duddingston, and he will clearly have difficulties fulfilling both roles - see 2 jobs Tymkewycz

Ironic footnote: other parliaments have rich people, why not Scotland? We seriously lag behind the United States. There are a few rich politicians on the UK scene, with the Times 1000 richest list including the likes of Lords Sainsbury, Ashcroft, Ballyedmond, Heseltine and Archer. Historically, there have been some very rich UK politicians. Elsewhere in the world, the rich frequently find their way into government (Silvio Berlusconi, Rafik Hariri, Prime Ministers and Presidents) and many find politics a very lucrative career, even without siphoning funds (The richest politicians in the world). Pass the pork barrel.

Diplomacy

2007-07-06T12:05:00.000+01:00

I have acquired some Alex Salmond ephemera, and now present some extracts from several ephemeral sheets of tatty paper that date from the days when DIY publishing consisted of an old typewriter, a stencil and a hand-turned duplicator. The paper would be yellowing if it wasn't yellow or orange to start off with and now fading instead (I've toned down the background in the clips below). The sheets give details of the moves submitted each week by the players in two postal diplomacy games, the resolution of conflicting moves, and comments from players.

Diplomacy is a game that mostly involves a) trying to persuade opponents that the moves you want them to make are actually in their best interests; b) trying to persuade opponents that if they do one thing, you will do another, to your mutual benefit; c) trying to persuade opponents that if they don't do what you want, you will do something to their disadvantage; d) working out the best time to double-cross the people who think they are your allies; e) having shafted them, making out that it was a misunderstanding which won't happen again, so they can still trust you.

As you might imagine, most of the play takes place away from the board (smoke-filled corridors etc), and any record of proceedings is a fairly dry reflection of the intrigue and betrayal behind them. So I won't bore you with a blow by blow account. If you are one of those people who are really into Diplomacy and you want to see all the moves, then please get a life.

The full 7 player game is based on the geopolitics of Europe in 1900, with each "year" consisting of two sets of moves and a consolidation of pieces based on territories conquered. Participants take on the roles of Russia, Germany, Italy, France, Turkey, Austria and ... England. Not Britain. Always a good wind-up if there's a Scot Nat playing, and best if they have to play England - as Germany, Alex avoided the worst of the pain. He was not the most verbose of the players, but by 1905 his growing strength prompted him to quote the good book ...

By spring 1907, his growing empire led to this declaration...

I don't think the Floyd quotation was part of his declaration. I suspect it was inserted by the newsletter compiler as a space filling comment on the game in general - or perhaps Alex in particular - whichever, its placement was apposite.

By Autumn 1907 he was looking across the English Channel, sending an open message to London ...

So much for the SNP's flagship policy of Independence in Europe. The following week, he had clearly asked for clarification to be included...

I'm told that the clarification was unnecessary and awe was markedly absent.

Finally, I suspect that the Modern Political Studies contribution was also penned by Alex ...

What light does this shine on Chairperson Salmond?

The reverence accorded to Churchill is probably still there. As I have noted before, he clearly has a strong affinity for Westminster, its heritage, and its style of politics (not to mention its superior wage and pension levels). Not so long ago he chose to be there rather than stay in Holyrood.

Then there is the game playing, avoiding the question, wriggling out of situations by subterfuge, semantic pedantry, doing and undoing deals, and so on. This is not just a matter of the transferability of such skills to the political arena - more than that, it is about treating politics as a game. Although people occasionally stumble into politics (and leave by the same route), most politicians are of the conviction or career variety. The two are not exclusive categories, but a tendency to the latter is much more common among those reach high office, simply because getting there requires compromise and game-playing. Which applies to the current SNP hegemony in general and Chairperson Salmond in particular? Remember how, before the first transport debate, the SNP decided that they could vote for the opposition motion because it spoke of not "arbitrarily" cancelling the Trams and EARL projects, and it was then reported that "SNP spin doctors and ministers were last night celebrating what they regarded as a lucky and narrow escape." All very Westminster and all very game playing.

Another thing about Diplomacy: it is not a game of equals. Alex fared well when playing a strong country like Germany. But the SNP do not have the luxury of that position in Holyrood - they are more akin to Austria, which always finds it difficult to make alliances and is often eliminated after a few moves ...

The Westminster Shilling

2007-07-04T21:53:00.001+01:00

Alex Salmond can act quickly when the mood takes him.

He is quick to spot and jump on suitable bandwagons that will bolster his popular appeal and support his political agenda; he is quick to identify issues that give him sticks with which to attack Westminster; and he is quick to deflect criticism and awkward questions (more on this anon).

In other respects, however, he is foot-draggingly slow. Quick to make promises, but not so quick to keep them. Take for example his promise to take only one salary.

An article in a February edition of the Gordon Guardian, a Lib Dem freesheet, accused him of "potentially reaping an income bonanza of more than £500,000 if he won Gordon and remained as the Westminster MP for Banff and Buchan" whereafter "an angry Mr Salmond lodged a complaint with the Electoral Commission and pledged only to draw one salary if successful in the May elections." (Scotsman 16th April.)

Now according to the BBC, Liberal Democrat Scottish spokesman Alistair Carmichael has said that "Alex Salmond won the votes of the people of Scotland on the express promise that he would not continue to draw his Westminster salary."

For what it's worth, I cannot find a pre-election pledge to this effect - only the "one salary" deal. Post election, however, in the Press & Journal of 18th May, it was reported that "his basic MSP's salary of £53,091 will be increased by £76,907 for his duties as first minister, giving him a total of £129,998. Now he is an MSP, he will not be claiming an MP's salary, even though he stays MP for Banff and Buchan. A Salmond spokesman also confirmed he would not now claim Westminster expenses."

So what do we find? Yes, he is still drawing both salaries (see Hansard), but has said (BBC) that "he would continue claiming his MP's salary and repay the money he has received from Holyrood." Don't hold your breath.

So he will continue to take the shilling of the hated Westminster. But I must point out that it's not the money, because he really loves Westminster, so much that he gave up Holyrood after two years in order to stay there. And to be accurate, it's not a shilling, even allowing for inflation. MPs get paid seven grand more than MSPs.

You might think a First Minister with his additional £77k would forego that, but evidently not. So he will only be breaking a post election pledge. Eventually when he gets around to it. Unless anybody has a pre-election reference to not taking the MP salary?

The other promise that may be broken is in regard of what he hasn't said yet. Will he stop claiming the Westminster allowances? Please refer to the aforementioned advice on not stopping breathing.

Lairds of Misrule

2007-06-28T22:00:00.000+01:00

As a footnote to the transport debate, or more specifically what happened after the debate, one question raised is why the SNP churlishly refused to say during the debate what they would do when they lost the vote. Perhaps they still thought they might win the vote (aye, and they believe in porcine aviation too).

Given that they were about to capitulate at a press conference, they belatedly misused a point of order after the vote to announce what they were about to say to the press. They could have given way to the inevitable earlier and that might have taken some of the heat out of the debate. I suspect they didn't because there were internal disagreements over the tactics and the principle of their dictatorial stance.

On tactics, I believe that there are some nationalist MSPs whose inclination in such circumstances is to be upfront about their intentions, and I defy any SNP supporter to tell me that such people do not exist (other parties, please form an orderly queue). Clearly however they are in a minority, or at least not in the ascendancy, since the SNP said nought until the press were scuttling to hear their spin conference. This is consistent with the anything-but-upfront political game playing of Chairperson Alex.

Are the tactical differences mirrored by points of principle? Again, I believe that there are some nationalist MSPs whose inclination is to stand by their past public statements about the relationship between parliament and the executive - indeed, they persuaded their party to stand by these statements - but the posturing and prevarication prior to this being revealed as the party's position, strongly suggests that this was not a decision easily won. I am sure that some SNP members thought they should respond to the will of parliament with a metaphorical two finger salute, and I defy any SNP supporter to tell me otherwise (and I'm not expecting any dissent from other parties on this one).

Tram stramash

2007-06-27T22:20:00.000+01:00

The SNP hit a brick wall when they tried to drive a coach and horses through the tram plans.

The extent of the bruising suffered by the party's crash test dummies is still unclear. John Swinney put on a brave face and claimed victory on the Edinburgh Airport Railway Link. A decision on EARL, which is still at an early stage having only received Royal Assent in April, has been deferred until September to allow time for consideration of cost and other project issues. This means, Swinney says, that it is "pretty dead".

Time will tell, but the fact is that EARL's fate was also part of the amendment that the SNP were forced to accept. They said they would ignore the vote, and they maintained this fiction throughout the debate. But in the end, they gave in to the will of parliament.

They did so not because of any spinmeister explanation about consensus. They did so because they had no realistic alternative. Not only because they would have faced a no confidence vote, but also because in light of past comments, including by most of their Ministers, anything else would have been blatant hypocrisy - see caught in the net.

So a good day then for democracy - the first major defeat of the "Government party", as they are now calling themselves (it's a bit snappier than "Alex Salmond for First Minister" but no less arrogant).

I do hope staring into the vortex of reality does not completely unhinge them. It's bad enough having the Master return on Doctor Who ...

Caught in the net

2007-06-27T21:02:00.000+01:00

This internet is a wonderful thing. Every word that every MSP says in a formal meeting of the Scottish Parliament is only seconds away, ready to be used against them. Every time they contradict themselves, it is preserved for posterity. Wonderful.

Of course, you still need to put the right words into the search facility, or have a good memory of who said what when, in order to find the best wee gems. So here's a wee help on a topical issue.

The first use of the casting vote in parliament was in favour of motion S1M-1725 as amended. This was contentious, because standard chairing practice is that casting votes are used for the status quo, i.e. voting against the motion.

But what's most interesting and relevent to current events, is the motion that followed, S1M-1745, which said "that the Parliament agrees that it is the national representative body of the Scottish people, with responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the people on devolved matters, and therefore, in keeping with Scotland's democratic tradition, demands that the Scottish Executive implement all such decisions of the Parliament ..."

The motion was signed by Dennis Canavan, Roseanna Cunningham, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Mr Robin Harper, Alex Johnstone, Mr Kenny MacAskill, Tricia Marwick, David McLetchie, Michael Russell, Mr Alex Salmond, Tommy Sheridan, Mr John Swinney, Mr Ben Wallace, Mr John Young, Brian Adam, Bill Aitken, Colin Campbell, Bruce Crawford, Mr David Davidson, Dorothy-Grace Elder, Dr Winnie Ewing, Mrs Margaret Ewing, Fergus Ewing, Ms Linda Fabiani, Mr Alex Fergusson, Phil Gallie, Mr Kenneth Gibson, Miss Annabel Goldie, Christine Grahame, Mr Duncan Hamilton, Mr Keith Harding, Fiona Hyslop, Mr Adam Ingram, Nick Johnston, Richard Lochhead, Mr Michael Matheson, Mr Jamie McGrigor, Irene McGugan, Mrs Lyndsay McIntosh, Ms Fiona McLeod, Mr Brian Monteith, Alasdair Morgan, David Mundell, Mr Alex Neil, Mr Gil Paterson, Mr Lloyd Quinan, Shona Robison, Mr John Scott, Nicola Sturgeon, Mr Murray Tosh, Mrs Kay Ullrich, Mr Andrew Welsh, Ms Sandra White, Ms Margo MacDonald, Mary Scanlon, Mr Andrew Wilson ...

Yes, that list does include most of the Ministers who yesterday threatened to ignore the will of parliament. And if you check the Official Report for Thursday 15 March 2001 you will also find John Swinney saying

"We are not interested in the Executive's "having regard to" or listening to Parliament; we want the Government to tell us how it will implement the will of Parliament."

and

"The debate is about ensuring that the will of Parliament prevails. Why is that important? Because it is deeply rooted in the democratic tradition of the people of Scotland."

Caught in t' net.

Trident not now (but Greens won't say never)

2007-06-14T20:30:00.000+01:00

What newspaper reports on the Trident debate do not say is that the Green Party motion was not a clear anti-Trident position.

It merely proposed that Trident renewal should not take place "at this time", leaving open adoption of Trident at a later date, and conceding the principle of renewal.

The call for "Trident: Not Now ... maybe tomorrow ... " was designed to get support from the Liberals, but was counter productive for the anti-Trident campaign. Since Holyrood has no power to delay matters, would it not have been better to vote on a principled position of "Trident: Never!" ?

The five Labour MSPs were not allowed to move an amendment to delete the words "at this time".

The Green Party should have allowed more time for the debate, and taken a principled stand rather than using it as a party political football. Without the party political posturing, there might well have been more Labour rebels (albeit at the expense of a few pro-Trident Liberal votes).

Reconstituted Convention

2007-06-12T18:06:00.000+01:00

Yesterday's Herald reported a call for a new constitutional convention. Just in case anyone takes this seriously, here are a few questions that should be answered when considering the proposition.

Will civic society, the voluntary sector, churches, trade unions, and so on be represented, as before?

Will the SNP refuse to play if they don't get their own way, as before?

Are the people who want a new Constitutional Convention the ones who don't accept what was delivered by the old one?

If so, will they ever be able to agree with anybody, or is this just a platform for those who want to create disharmony, disagreement, and turf wars with Westminster?

The Scottish Constitutional Convention took place in the absence of an adequate forum for debate on Scotland's future, and it helped to create that forum. Are we saying that now the SNP are in charge, the Scottish Parliament is no longer able to listen to civic society, take on board the desires of the Scottish people, and develop a consensus for progress?

Give 'Em Enough Rope

2007-06-01T11:50:00.000+01:00

The SNP have made commitments that they cannot afford to keep unless they increase taxes, make cuts, or both. It was very easy in opposition for the SNP to get cheap publicity and popular support for a wide range of proposals (which will not readily be forgotten by those who stand to benefit) without worrying their little heads about the cost and where the money would come from. But now that they are in power, there will come a day of reckoning when they can no longer sidestep such questions. They are the victims of their own success.

I assume that they do not all believe their own propaganda. Those who are not deluding themselves must be hoping that the opposition will rescue them by voting against their more profligate promises. If other parties block SNP proposals because they do not believe they can be funded without unacceptable tax increases or cuts, it's a win-win situation for the SNP. They escape the consequences of their policies AND get to blame others for blocking them. Odds are it won't be the SNP getting blamed for making promises they cannot afford to keep.

Of course, some SNP policies will be opposed as matters of principle, particularly where there are manifesto commitments, but there will also be times when disagreement is about priorities rather than desirability per se.

Sadly, SNP voters will only understand the consequences of their actions when they have to pay more or lose services because of SNP policies. This can only happen if other parties vote for, or at least, don't vote against SNP proposals, even though they have reservations about the wisdom of prioritising those proposals. So where opposition is not to the principle, but because of doubts about SNP claims of affordability, this can be represented by abstentions that let the SNP get their own way.

Give 'em enough rope ...

piscatorial pictorial quiz

2007-05-24T13:02:00.000+01:00

What do the following have in common?

A cunning strategy?

2007-05-22T19:06:00.000+01:00

It doesn't take a genius, or even a Baldrick, to work out the SNP's post-election strategy. Which is just as well for the SNP. In a nutshell, if you are a minority administration, you play to your strengths and do what the SNP always do. Grandstand.

If you want a little more detail, here's a handy ten point checklist:

1. Oppose anything you have no control over. Whatever happens you can blame it on Gordon Brown / Westminster / EU / USA (not exhaustive: Scottish Executive department to be set up to expand the list)

2. Propose things that you have no power to do. When it doesn't happen, you can blame the usual suspects. If it does happen, you can claim it was because of pressure from the SNP. Unless it goes wrong, when clearly although worth doing, it wasn't done the right way.

3. Advocate popular measures that nobody disagrees with.

4. Conversely, avoid anything too contentious, unless 1 or 2 apply.

5. If it's contentious and unavoidable, and the Scottish Executive has powers to act, see 6 and 7.

6. If the Scottish Executive has power, and it goes wrong, just blame it on the previous administration (note: use judiciously, i.e. all the time)

7. If the Scottish Executive has power, and things are working well, don't panic! Contrary to your propaganda over the last eight years, this is not unusual. If it aint broke, don't fix it.

8. When you have got used to the idea that the previous administration was doing a good job, remember to take the credit for it.

9. While grappling with the realities of power and the constraints of reality, reorganise and restructure the Scottish Executive to give the appearance of action.

10. When you realise that in doing 9 you ignored 7, then it's clearly time for 6, even if it's part of John Swinney's remit.