Labour and alcohol

Most interested was I in the 'independent' commission on alcohol that Labour set up. It had six members: Sam Galbraith, Labour party member and former Labour Minister; Stephen Doran, Labour party member and Glasgow Labour councillor; Brian Fearon, Labour party member, former Labour councillor and Labour's candidate in Ochil in 2007; Sally Brown (chair), former Labour party member and friend and neighbour of Labour MSP and former Labour Minister Richard Simpson; Graeme Pearson, former policeman and now Labour's adviser on crime (providing the skeleton for Richard Baker's sterling work); and Jeremy Blood who spent 21 years working for Scottish & Newcastle and is now a director of Mitchell's & Butler's. Impartiality - ye canna whack it!

Anyway, this commission, fascinatingly, came up with proposals that are already Labour party policy - remarkable the prescience that Labour politicians have - and scorned Minimum Unit Pricing (the policy of the SNP Government). This commission argued that "MUP is not in place anywhere in world and the evidence presented for its effectiveness relies on estimates of impact" just before it refers to the Canadian Social Reference Pricing which it suggests differs markedly from MUR. Perhaps they should have done the tiniest bit of research, something like reading the submission from the Brewers Association of Canada to the Alcohol Bill which describes SRP and shows it to be the same as MUP. In addition, Russia introduced minimum pricing on vodka earlier this year to curb consumption and has already had minimum pricing for other spirits for a couple of years, Moldova introduced it on strong alcohol products, Ukraine and China both have minimum pricing (Ukraine's politicians were arguing about how much it should rise by in April last year), and Australia was considering it at the beginning of last year (just me and my research assistant Mr Google finding MUP in action)

If you want something more stunning than that, though, look at the recommendations - this commission rejects the idea of Scotland bringing in a minimum price for alcohol based on the strength of the product and suggests, instead, that the Scottish Government asks London to introduce a floor price below which alcohol may not be sold and harmonise prices so that the cost of the drink will be based on the strength of the product. So that would be an argument that we shouldn't do it but should ask London to - the argument being that you shouldn't have a different system in Scotland. The irony of Labour being last to understand devolution is almost painful. Also interesting in that section, though, is that Labour's minimum price is based on adding together the cost of production, duty and VAT but there is an aside that "The Commission is unconvinced by those who argue that it is not possible to arrive at a notional basic cost of production." This is the only time in the report that it is mentioned that someone has suggested that it might be impossible to isolate notional basic costs (for instance, if one site is producing 20 different products on 7 different lines, how do you allocate production costs to each unit of each product?)

Labour once again ignoring the duty of responsible politicians and, instead, messing around looking for a tiny political pointscoring opportunity - a party that really can't be trusted. It's time to properly address Scotland's unhealthy relationship with alcohol and Labour just isn't interested.

Let's leave the last word to some international alcohol experts who have written to MSPs encouraging them to support the SNP Government proposals.

Top Trumps - Justice

As I said before, you can buy Top Trumps packs but they've forgotten Holyrood (how could they?). One of the comments on the Top Trumps post on the candidates for First Minister suggested that I should have added "Ability to think on ones feet" as a category - it's one I didn't consider but it would hardly be fair, would it? Salmond seems mildly disappointed if nothing unexpected happens while the Labour front bench looks like it would need to go home for instructions if the newsagent didn't have its favourite brand of chewing gum.
On to Justice though; our contenders are
SNP - Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill MSP
Lab - Shadow CSfJ Richard Baker MSP
Con - Shadow CSfJ John Lamont MSP
LD - Spokesperson on Justice Robert Brown MSP (I had to look that up)
Green - I dunno, I'll let James tell us

Categories:

Tough on crime

MacAskill takes assets from criminals and recycles them into assets for communities - on his watch Scotland’s police and courts have been pursuing organised crime and getting results . This is, of course, a big change since Labour’s time in power - I think he gets 10 out of 10

Baker talks about ASBOs for teenagers drinking but won’t agree with action to address the drinking and wants to jail daft wee laddies who go out with a knife in their pocket but won’t agree with the action needed to persuade them not to. He never mentions serious crime and has never talked about taking on organised crime. He wants to appear to be tough on crime but doesn’t have what it takes to actually be tough on crime. He gets 0

Lamont is new to the job, having taken over after Bill Aitken decided to sing the closing aria on his political career so he doesn’t have much of a record to examine. He does seem to have slotted straight into the strange twilight world of the Scottish Conservatives Justice theory, though, (a pity that he doesn’t take a leaf out of the book of Ken Clarke who takes somewhere approaching sense on Justice issues) and is obsessing on a few matters rather than offering solutions. He’s for short prison sentences and agrees with Labour on jailing wee laddies – wants to appear tough on crime but doesn’t know how. He gets 0

Brown is strange, it’s never very clear where he stands on anything (enough with the ‘typical Lib Dem’ comments, now), he’s unusually indirect for a Geordie. He doesn’t actually say much about the operation of the Justice system and hasn’t brought forward any alternative policies. He most certainly hasn’t spoken about how he would like to see us tackle organised crime. He gets 0

Tough on the causes of crime

MacAskill wrote a fair bit on how to address the causes of crime in the books he wrote a few years ago as well as in articles – firstly address the three Ds – drink, drugs and deprivation, lock up the bad guys, treat those needing treatment, and find ways to give society a fair crack of the whip. In Government he’s implemented restorative justice – Cashback for Communities as already mentioned, but also in putting community service workers to work in places where it will be helpful – like clearing snow from pensioners’ paths last winter or putting headstones back up in Edinburgh graveyards or helping restore peatlands in Lanarkshire. He’s set up a review of sentencing, gave the Advocate General free reign on reforming the prosecution of rape, moved to get rid of short sentences, started the process of addressing Scotland’s unhealthy relationship with alcohol, and started to make sure that offenders pay back to the communities they have damaged.

He’s addressing recidivism – removing short sentences is a big part of it, keeping people out of prison as far as possible and trying to make them productive members of society, keeping prison for those who are a danger to society . He hasn’t done everything yet, so only 8 out of 10

Baker has never laid out his thought on paper as far as I can tell and only comments to say “I’m against that” – I can’t recall a single time when he has said that he agrees with something that is begin done. He’s in favour of short sentences – even wanted a mandatory six month sentence in spite of the overwhelming evidence that short sentences encourage reoffending and embed many people in a life of crime. Instead of offering the underprivileged a hand up and out of the hole they’ve landed themselves in, Baker appears to want to just put a lid on the hole and keep them down there. For a devastating indictment of the lack of vision in Labour’s Justice policy, there’s only one place to go. Scores 0

Lamont hasn’t said much (give him time) but he’s got to defend this barking policy he hasn’t scored yet, but he could do worse than learn from Malcolm Rifkind who delivered the Kenneth Younger Memorial Lecture to the Howard League for Penal Reform while he was the Minister in charge of Justice policy in Scotland in 1988 and he said:

There will always be those who commit serious or violent crimes and who pose a threat to society which requires them to be confined for significant periods. Nevertheless there are many good reasons for wishing to ensure that, as a society, we use prisons as sparingly as possible. While the use of imprisonment may be inescapable when dealing with violent offenders and those who commit the most serious crimes, we must question to what extent short sentences of imprisonment and periods of custody for fine default are an appropriate means of dealing with offenders and there is no single answer to that. Prisons are both expensive to build and to run and do not provide the ideal environment in which to teach an offender to live a normal and law-abiding life, to work at a job or to maintain a family. If offenders can remain in the community, under suitable conditions, they should be able to maintain their family ties, opportunities for work or training and they may be better placed to make some reparation for their offence.

Brown is just wishy-washy, nothing much there, but he does oppose short sentences. Give him 3 points (is this like Eurovision?)


Taking decisions while resisting undue influence

MacAskill Showed his mettle here by holding off the US Government in the decision to free Megrahi, making the decision on the basis of the evidence in front of him rather than the political pressures that were on him. 10 by gum!

Baker doesn’t have that fortitude; he even thought that MacAskill should go and beg forgiveness from the US Senate. Nil points

Lamont – nae record to examine, he hasn’t made clear how he would make decisions. He doesn’t even get to speak on Megrahi, Murdo Fraser does that.

Brown gave MacAskill full support in refusing to kowtow to the US Senate, saying that the Scottish Justice Secretary is accountable to the Scottish Parliament and not the US Senate – then he ruined it with a sly dig – 8 out of 10

This would be an awfy boring game of Top Trumps but you get the picture. I think a legal mind might do a better job of analysing these contenders, I know one who frequently opines on Mr Baker, for instance …

Mind how you go!

L'esprit de l'escalier

I was having a wee debate about capital punishment last night (not with myself you cheeky rapscallion) and the deterrence effect of punishment on levels of crime (next to nought in my opinion) and I've just thought of the question I should have put to my pro-hangin-an-floggin chum:

Do you need the deterrent of capital punishment to prevent you committing murder?

Must remember in future ...

Twits of the world unite!

You may remember that cool, hip and groovy chap, Frank McAveety MSP who turned out not to be cool, hip and groovy and had to resign from his convenorship over offensive remarks. He has decided not to be offensive in future and has, instead, decided to employ someone else to do that for him. Step forward Stuart MacLennan, onetime Labour candidate for Moray who resigned in disgrace over, erm, offensive remarks and is now happily ensconced in Mr McAveety's Glasgow office.

I'm sure that they've both learned their lessons and there will be no more behaviour treating people in a derogatory and dismissive fashion. Move along, now, nothing to see here!

Art lovers

Here's a thing to go to when you're tired of seeing shows at the Edinburgh Festivals - art that you can contemplate in peace. Barbara Rae is exhibiting some prints in the Dundas Street Gallery (paintings across the road in the Open Eye Gallery).

If you fancy being really nice to me the one I like best is on the left hand wall just opposite the pillar (I've forgotten the name of it). You can see some of her stuff on her website. Mind how you go!

Ane Pleasant Satyre of the Southern Estaitis

If it hadn't been for the chance promotion of wee Danny Alexander to Chief Secretary to the Treasury the UK Government would lack a single Cabinet Secretary who represents a Scottish seat other than the Scottish Secretary. John Major's last cabinet, with fewer Scottish Members to choose from (11 Tory seats under Major, 12 Coalition seats now), had Lang at Trade and Industry and Rifkind as Foreign Secretary (Forsyth was Scottish Secretary).

Interestingly, Brown had only three (including himself) but Blair had four in his last cabinet - each with far more to choose from than Major. Is the quality of unionist MP from Scotland in decline? I suppose it is blindly obvious that Mundell does not have the quality of Rifkind or Forsyth, that Moore is no Jo Grimond and Danny Alexander isn't even Russell Johnston. It's just as clear, I suppose, that Murphy is no Tom Johnston and Douglas Alexander can't hold a candle to Willie Ross, but are they really that much worse than the fodder being served up south of the border - Vince Cable, Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Huhne, Andrew Lansley, Eric Pickles?

It's just as well we can fend for ourselves, isn't it? Mind how you go!

Remember when?

A long, long time ago there was an election and some people used videos, remember these ones?







Ah, principles, eh?

Let's play Top Trumps

Top Trumps is a series of decks of cards which all have the same theme - you compare the attributes of two of the cards and the person holding the card with the best attribute wins. So, for example, if you and I were playing with a deck of F1 cars, I might pitch speed as the attribute and whichever of us had the fastest car on our card would win the hand. A fun wee game which lots of us enjoyed as children and which covers subjects as diverse as baby animals, football players, Harry Potter, Horrible Histories and Politicos. Inexplicably, they've never done Holyrood and the politicians in Scotland's Parliament so I find myself shouldering that burden.

Let's start with the candidates for First Minister in next May's election:

Alex Salmond:
First Minister of Scotland
Leader of the Scottish National Party

Election history –
Won Banff & Buchan Westminster seat1987, re-elected in 1992, 1997, 2001, 2005 – retired undefeated
Won Banff & Buchan Scottish Parliament seat 1999 – retired undefeated
Won Gordon Scottish Parliament seat 2007

Current majority – 2,062

Age - 55

Employment immediately before election – Oil Economist and Bank Economist, Royal Bank of Scotland


Ian Gray
Opposition leader
Leader of the Labour Group of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament

Election history –
Won Pentlands 1999
Lost Pentlands 2003
Won East Lothian 2007

Current Majority – 2,448

Age - 53

Employment immediately before election – SPAD to Alistair Darling


Annabel Goldie
Opposition leader
Leader of the Scottish Conservatives

Election history –
List Member for the West of Scotland Region 1999, re-elected 2003 and 2007

Current majority – none

Age - 60

Employment immediately before election – solicitor



Tavish Scott
Opposition leader
Leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats

Election history –
Won Shetland 1999, re-elected 2003 and 2007

Current majority – 4, 909

Age - 44

Employment before election – councillor and farmer



Patrick Harvie
Opposition leader
Leader of the Scottish Green Party (co-convenor with Eleanor Scott)

Election history -
List Member for the Glasgow Region 2003, re-elected 2007

Current majority – none

Age - 37

Employment immediately before election – youth worker and development worker for PHACE Scotland


Other things
Then, of course, there's debating and rhetorical skills. Out of 10 points you've surely got to give Salmond at least 8 and possibly 9, Goldie probably 7 maybe 6, Harvie has to be 5 or 6, Scott about the same, and Gray 2 maybe 3.

Stature (in terms of befitting the office) - Salmond 7, Goldie 5, Harvie 3, Scott and Gray down about 2.

Capacity to develop policy (relies on party to a great extent and how much freedom there is to work) - Salmond 10, Harvie 8 maybe 9, Goldie 3, and Scott and Gray 0.

Recognisability wouldn't be a fair category, Salmond is the only one who would figure.

Courage to take decisions - Salmond 10, Harvie 10, Goldie 4, Scott 2, Gray 2


I can't think of any other categories to add at the moment, but feel free to suggest some. It doesn't look like a very even contest just now, does it? That might change when I get the chance to look at the other cabinet positions, right enough...

Mind how you go!

Charles Kennedy

The riders on the negotiations have been severe - what's wrong with red smarties anyway? Funny that the papers got it wrong and suggested he'd be joining Labour, isn't it?

Ahem.

Mind how you go!

Effective Government?

I am indebted to m'learned friend for alerting me to the presence of a very important commission operating under the auspices of the Westminster Government - the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, known as the National Debt Commissioners - a commission which, I hear you say, is coming not a moment too soon, it's about time the National Debt was reduced.

I thought so too, and I was about to applaud the institution of this fine and well-thought-out organisation until I realised that I would be roughly 224 years too late (we'll have no comments about my working practices, thank you!), the body was established in 1786, the year that Robert Burns published his first collection of works (Poems, Chiefly in the Scottish Dialect), the year that the first prison ship sailed for Botany Bay, the year that Mozart's Marriage of Figaro premiered, and the year that the Affair of the Diamond Necklace helped prepare the ground for the French Revolution and the creation of the First Republic - interesting times, indeed. This bit is from page 85 of the list of Ministerial responsibilities of the new Government:

COMMISSIONERS FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE NATIONAL DEBT
The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt (CRND), established in 1786, primarily manage the investment portfolios of a number of government and public bodies including HM Revenue & Customs (National Insurance Fund), National Savings and Investments (National Savings Bank Fund), Her Majesty’s Courts Service (Court Funds Investment Account) and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (National Lottery Distribution Fund). It also manages some residual operations relating to the National Debt including Donations and Bequests and 3.5 per cent Conversion Loan Sinking Fund. The statutory functions of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt (CRND) are carried out within the United Kingdom Debt Management Office.

There are eight commissioners:

1. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
2. The Governor of the Bank of England
3. Deputy Governor of the Bank of England
4. The other Deputy Governor of the Bank of England
5. The Speaker of the House of Commons
6. The Master of the Rolls
7. The Accountant General of the Supreme Court
8. The Lord Chief Justice

How often do they meet? Well, back to the UK Debt Management Office:

Meetings of the Commissioners were at first held regularly, but the last recorded business meeting took place on 12 October 1860.

Move along, move along, nothing to see here! They leave the responsibility for managing down the national debt in the hands of two civil servants. I have no doubt that they are extremely competent civil servants but surely the elected politicians would want to be in control of such an important function? If you were hoping that the Government of the day in Westminster was keeping an eye on the massive debt then it's probably best you don't look at the other pages on the Debt Management Office site. I looked at the sections on accounts hoping to see some figures that I could ponder upon. Alas and alack, it would appear that I must seek such information elsewhere.

That'll be for another day, I think. Mind how you go!

McAveety is disgraceful

Frank McAveety has been in the news a bit for his tasteless comments about a member of the public during a Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee meeting. His comments were lewd, sexist, a tad colonial and imperialistic in tone, and, frankly, unprofessional.

This former Labour Culture Minister, though, should also hang his head in shame for this bit:

"She looks kinda . . . she's got that Filipino look.
"You know . . . the kind you'd see in a Gauguin painting. There's a wee bit of culture."

Gauguin in the Philippines? I think not! Tahiti and a couple of other islands in French Polynesia, yes - nowhere near the Philippines.

Sheesh!

Told you so

Following the realisation that Edinburgh now definitely, absolutely cannot afford the tram project, council officials and TIE representatives will meet with John Swinney soon to ask whether the money received from the Scottish Government will have to be paid back when the project is cancelled. Told you so!

Some time ago at a briefing in the Scottish Parliament we were told that investors were champing at the bit to get a slice of the Edinburgh Tram project but that TIE wanted to build it with public money (we were told that you could raise 100% of the dosh in London or Munich) - wouldn't that be a solution (he asked in all innocence). I still haven't had that other briefing ...

There's nothing worse than falling flat on your face and getting your nose stuck in a tramline (unless you fling your leg over the wire at the same time). Tramatic it is!

Mind how you travel ...

Let's support England in the World Cup

After all, they're our nearest neighbours and dearest friends, and they've never won it before, have they? No, no, laddie that was a Swiss referee and a Russian linesman. England is, after all, the greatest footballing nation in the world - although they are so modest about it you would hardly know - and they play beautiful and graceful football with good manners and great sportsmanship. Pip pip for our boys in white with the three scrawny leopards on their chests, and if we need any more inspiration, let's turn to their national bard:

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility:
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon; let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock
O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide,
Hold hard the breath and bend up every spirit
To his full height.
On, on, you noblest English.
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof!
Fathers that, like so many Alexanders,
Have in these parts from morn till even fought
And sheathed their swords for lack of argument:
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest
That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war.
And you, good yeoman,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding; which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base,
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start.
The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit, and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

The game's afoot indeed - mind how you go!

More Nats

There are Labour MSPs wandering around Parliament just now wearing badges that say "More Nats". En route to Damascus?

Holier than who?

Turn your back for two minutes and the Lib Dems are at it again, preaching piety and claiming superior probity and all the while they're dipping the till. Remember Clegg of Clegg Hall in the pulpit saying he was out to clean up politics, that MPs ripping off their expenses was a "symptom of a deeper malaise" and that MPs had been "abusing the system on an industrial scale". There was a new sheriff in town, though, a superhero - Nick would deliver "fair, decent, transparent politics". Of course, he'd need a few expenses to do the job - £83,824 should do it, including £160 a month for a gardener to prune his fruit trees and maintain his rose garden (no, honestly).

He had a damned fine rationale for it all, though, “It was in a state of complete disrepair, the garden was a complete eyesore, it hadn’t been touched for ages." Great reasoning - he bought a hovel so we should pay to clean it up - he can't be expected to wield a pair of secateurs by himself, after all, and it is "a modest semi-detached home" after all (you know, the kind of place that thousands of people aspire to have as their only home), not a palace... I wonder if he's stopped making claims on our money for his refurbishment of this white elephant he bought with our money?

And so to David Laws. He knew that he shouldn't have been paying rent to his partner since at least 2006, admitting that he and his partner should "probably have changed our arrangements". Probably? It goes further, though, the house was paid for partly by David Laws - and that was after the rule change that meant he was no longer allowed to pay his partner for accommodation. He was, in effect, paying himself rent for his second home using his Parliamentary expenses. Its different in detail but surely not in degree from Nigel Griffiths and his first office scandal or, for a more contemporary comparison, Elliot Morley's phantom mortgage.

David Laws has referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner - whoop-de-doo, I'm not sure I can contain myself. The behaviour to which he has admitted is criminal, he's committed fraud, he shouldn't be in the rector's office worrying about a bad report card, he should be in the police station worrying about a court case. Just to top off the ridiculousness of his position, Clegg and Cameron have both said that Laws might return to Government at some point in the future - I wonder who else they might be considering for a return to the fray?

We shouldn't be surprised, of course, the Lib Dems have a reputation for encouraging their MPs to use Parliamentary allowances in ways that were never intended.

Let's polish off wee Danny Alexander while we're at it (what is it with politicians with that surname) - there was a stooshie over his sale of his London home and not paying Capital Gains Tax. He was, of course, entitled to relief under the three year rule (as would Hazel Blears have been if she'd thought to claim it) and so not obliged to pay CGT. I can't help feeling that the biggest part of the story has been missed:

Mr Alexander bought his London home in 1999 when he was a press officer for the Britain in Europe campaign. In 2004 he got a job as press officer for the Cairngorm National Park (how did someone living in London get that job?), and in 2005 he was elected as an MP and immediately designated his London home as his second home in spite of not owning another home. He rented a place in Aviemore but the home he owned in London was what he called his second home.

Here's the thing, though - he'd owned the London home for six years before getting elected but as soon as he got elected he started spending money on doing it up, a new boiler, repairs to the roof, and so on - £37,000 worth in two years, then he sold it. Basically, he charged us for the costs of doing up a house he already owned and then he flogged it at a huge profit (about £150,000) and bought another (and charged us for the costs of moving as well) - I wonder whether he's been charging us for the refurbishment of this flat as well?

The Lib Dems - never knowingly underclaimed.

Mind how you go!

Is Labour bankrupt?

Leaving aside the question about moral bankruptcy, is the Labour party bust? It was twelve million quid in the red at the end of 2008 having sold assets and brought union contributions in early to reduce its massive structural problems. Given that it spent around £25 million on the 2005 campaign and that it had a bigger fight on its hands this year, it's a decent guess that its 2010 election spend was over £20 million (it's a party known for irresponsible spending, after all). Given that it only brought in £5 million during the campaign, it's a decent question to be asking - is Labour broke?

If, as I suspect, the answer is "awfy broke" and it is now out of power without a single leadership candidate looking like they'd be a credible alternative Prime Minister any time in the next decade, thereby affecting the possible business donations, will it have to fold? If it does, would that leave each of its members liable for a proportion of the debt as members of an unincorporated association?

If the Labour party is scooshed, how will it fight the next election?

Mind, now!

Jack's back!

Remember Jack McConnell? You might have thought that he had fled these verdant shores for pastures new and exotic given that he had his eye on a diplomatic post in Malawi (what do you mean he should leave diplomatic posts to diplomats?) - a post that his big buddy Gordon Brown had secured for him. He had the opportunity to copy his muse, Helen Liddell, and nip off to warmer climes and less intrusive politics - or so he thought. It all went wrong when Labour realised it didn't want a byelection in Motherwell and told him to stay as an MSP - part-time, of course.

It was thought at one stage that he'd step down at next year's election and take up the Malawi posting, even chatting up the Conservatives to try to secure himself a deal in spite of having already eyed up standing again and taking another pop at leading the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament. Now he's making sure he's noticed again, with public pronouncements and the 'human being, honest' revelations of this week. Why would he be seeking the limelight so blatantly now? I think it's straightforward, he thinks that Labour is in trouble, dispirited at its plight, that members and activists will drift off, and that there is little chance of Labour winning an election in 11 months' time.

I think Jack McConnell is positioning himself for the leadership battle when Iain Gray steps down after losing the election. Ironically, he's using the same tactics as Iain used when he sensed a weakness in Wendy Alexander. Lupus pilum mutat, non mentem.

Mind how you go!

Charlie Kennedy MP to join the SNP

Charles Kennedy (he prefers the proper name; he's a highlander) will join the SNP in the next couple of weeks. He hasn't said so yet - and probably hasn't considered it yet - but remember you heard it here first.

Priorities, priorities, priorities...

In spite of Lib Dem promises to the contrary, another child has been seized and incarcerated at Dungavel - a baby in prison - eight months old and a failed asylum seeker - quite clearly a threat to this great nation, eh?

Immigration Minister Damian Green said they hoped to "have plans agreed within the next few months" to stop putting babies in prison. See how fast this new UK Government acts? They have, of course, already allocated the grace-and-favour houses and stately homes that their Ministers will luxuriate in.

Priorities, priorities, priorities...

Lib Dems duplicitous? No, surely not!

Chris Huhne, Lib Dem MP and Energy Secretary in the Whitehall Government, has already started breaking Lib Dem election promises - he's signalled that he'll give the go-ahead to new nuclear power stations. The Lib Dem manifesto, though, said Liberal Democrats will reject a new generation of nuclear power stations (pages 58 & 59 - the list of pledges). Those much-vaunted principles sold for the chance of a Ministerial salary and car - most politicians want to get into power to use the offices of state to implement their policies - it's a sad thing to see politicians using their policy as bargaining chips to get into power. I presume we'll be in for a long shift of these u-turns and back-tracks as policies are tossed overboard like ballast in an attempt to keep the Libservative coalition flying.

Ach well, back to the barricades, mind how you go!

Oh Danny Boy ...

Secretary of State for Scotland - Scotland's man in the Cabinet or the Cabinet's man in Scotland? Does the SoS work for Scotland in the Cabinet or for the Cabinet in Scotland? I find myself from time to time wondering, if this United Kingdom is the wonderful and cohesive place we're so often told it is, why does Scotland need a man or woman in the Cabinet and why does the Cabinet need a man or woman in Scotland.

If you take the opportunity to read the piece written by John McTernan that appeared in the Scotsman today, you might be forgiven for thinking that the last Secretary of State was Labour's man in Scotland. John McTernan was Jim Murphy's Special Adviser, he advises that

Your press team will be your Praetorian Guard. Listen to them.

How telling that statement is. The Praetorian Guard was consolidated by Augustus to protect him from the wrath of the people he ruled as he turned Rome from a republic into a monarchy. Politicians viewing press officers as a shield against the wrath of the people could be taken to be an indication that the politicians have lost touch with the people they purport to represent - not that I would draw such an inference, of course, with my innocent and accepting demeanour ... If the press office is the Praetorian Guard, though, we'd be quite entitled to ask quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Our good friend and guide to the internal workings of the Scotland Office continues with his sage ponderings:

You must make the case for reducing the deficit – it's in the national interest, will deliver economic stability and is what the voters wanted – while passporting the responsibility for unpopular decisions onto the SG.

SG is his abbreviation for SNP Scottish Government. How sad it is that he thinks that it is an appropriate use of a Cabinet Secretary's time to be using his publicly-funded office of state for party political purposes, never mind making it his first priority. Knocking the Scottish Government and trying to blame it for the failings of the UK Government shouldn't be the job of the Scottish Secretary, making the relationship work and serving the people of Scotland should be the number one priority. That attitude, though, might help to explain the strange and sharp rise in marketing spend by the Scotland Office as soon as the SNP won the Holyrood election up from £114,826 in 2006-07 to £161,328 in 2008-09.

He's not finished yet. Talking about implementing the Calman recommendations he says:

it must draw a sharp dividing line with the nationalists. You need a consensus that isolates your opponents.

Strangely, I had thought that the debate was about how to best serve Scotland and her people. It had been whispered to me that the other parties might be involved in some petty political point-scoring but I couldn't believe that of these fine, decent upstanding people who just happen to disagree with me on the best way forward for Scotland. Mr McTernan has destroyed my illusions, though - ah, woe is me!

We're not through yet, though, he advises that a presentational strategy is required and says:

Achievement is 25 per cent perspiration, 75 per cent promotion

This may explain why Labour never managed to do much, the obsession was with what was in the papers rather than with what was being done and it indicates the dearth of analysis and the poverty of ambition which so bedevils Labour. Dare I say that this country may have been better off if it had had a Scottish Secretary who was pulling for us over the last few years instead if trying to knock our Scottish Government?

Our whirlwind tour of Labour's attitude to the Scotland Office ends with Mr McTernan's advice that

You need to put country before party at every stage, and to be seen to do that.

It's ironic that he's just spent the rest of the article saying exactly the opposite, is it not? Ah, Labour, Scotland's Janus, advising Scotland's Novus Homo of the Lib Dems on how to aid their Conservative partners - Scotland's Caligula (whose Praetorian Guard, of course, assassinated him). We can only hope that the SNP will not turn out to be Scotland's Cassandra.

We have a new Secretary of State for Scotland, a man whose career so far is unparalleled, he has been:

1. A student.
2. A press officer for the Lib Dems
3. A press officer for the European Movement
4. A press officer for the Cairngorms National Park
5. An MP for five years (this is only his second term).
6. Erm, that's it.

We could have had a real heavyweight in the shape of Charlie Kennedy. I know the Lib Dems stabbed him in the back, but he'd serve if he was asked. Perhaps he'd overshadow Clegg, but that's a price worth paying! If not Charlie, then what about Alistair Carmichael - not quite in the same league as Kennedy but still streets ahead of Alexander, he's a former solicitor, a former Procurator Fiscal Depute, a former hotel manager and he's a third term MP. Or what about Michael Moore? In his fourth term as an MP, he was a successful chartered accountant before he fell amongst thieves and became a Lib Dem MP. Malcolm Bruce maybe - 27 years an MP, a previous successful career in publishing as well as experience in other businesses?

It may, perhaps, be a little uncharitable of me, but I think that in Danny Alexander we have been given not Scotland's man in the Cabinet, not the Cabinet's man in Scotland, but Nick Clegg's man in the Cabinet. I hope that I will stand corrected at some future time but it appears to me that this is not an appointment based on ability but on that most base of purposes - cronyism - that Danny Alexander has been appointed because he will cause no trouble for Clegg and Clegg will never have to doubt his loyalty. I find it difficult to picture Alexander holding his own against George Osborne in arguing for Scotland's budget, getting points in Scotland's favour made to William Hague before the Foreign Office takes action, making Scotland's case to Ian Duncan Smith, or getting a fair deal on defence for Scotland out of Liam Fox. That's before you come to the picture of him squaring up to Ken Clarke Justice Issues.

I hope I turn out to be wrong but I cannot but suspect that Scotland will pay a heavy price for the appointment to the Scotland Office of a man who aspires to be a featherweight. Scotland faces an uncertain time when we will need a collective will to protect our country from the worst when the legionnaires of Whitehall cry 'Havoc' and let slip the dogs of war, we must gird our loins for the task ahead, civic Scotland will have to defend her again. This time, though, we have a Scottish Government on our side.

Mind how you go!

Well, that was fun!

Right, years of campaigning, months of pounding the streets, thousands of pounds spent, hundreds of episodes of Coronation Street interrupted, dozens of dinners burnt, scores of shoes worn through and hundreds of exhausted activists and we've got exactly the same result as in 2005 across Scotland.

It's like jogging on a treadmill so it is. Still, plenty politics to come in the next wee while, cheer up there, sit up straight at the back, stop telling those dreadful jokes, and mind how you go!

To the barricades!

M'learned friend is squaring up to Auntie (not his auntie, he's scared of her) and is currently engaged in a most interesting legal case. The question to be settled is whether the BBC is in breach of its duty to be politically impartial by screening the leaders' debates in Scotland. It costs a fortune, apparently, and there's a wee appeal out for funds - it's already past the half-way point so dip in your pocket and shell out a shilling for the cause of fairness. I'm told that any amount will be welcome and that the spirit of Voltaire is knocking on the door of the BBC.

In other news, the leaves are back on the line with a secret weapon in tow.

Mind how you broadcast!

Lib Dem cuts

Ever wonder what a Lib Dem Government would look like? Well, where Nick Clegg promised 'savage cuts' Vince Cable has laid it all out for us. Here's the Lib Dem plan for cuts:

• £2.4 billion a year cut from public sector pay
• 25% cut in salary for highly paid civil servants
• Ending national pay bargaining (in Lib Dem speak, decentralised bargaining and independent pay reviews)
• £1.35 billion a year reduction in family tax credits
• £5 billion a year cut in child benefit
• Higher retirement ages brought in quickly
• £500 million a year cut from the Child Trust Fund
• £28 billion a year cut from public sector pensions
• Dismantling Contactpoint (English system that helps professionals care for children) - £40 million a year
• Scrapping ID cards (but not biometric passports) to save an unidentified amount of money somewhere between £5 billion and £20 billion (big capital costs)
• £50 million a year cut from England's NHS IT scheme (Barnett consequentials will apply, of course)
• Save £6 billion by scrapping a communications database that has only been discussed and not costed
• £500 million by using freeware
• £2.3 billion cut by scrapping England's Regional Development Agencies
• £200 million by scrapping the Export Credit Guarantee Department
• £500 million cut to England's skills and training budgets
• Unspecified amount to be cut from agriculture support £1 billion cut by scrapping England's Audit Commission and other watchdogs
• £2 billion cut by scrapping the Government's regional offices in England (they deliver things like the Supporting People Programme for vulnerable people, tackling social deprivation and encouraging local enterprise)
• £200 million by scrapping English Strategic Health Authorities
• £600 million cut from England's education budget
• £5 billion cut from maintenance and upgrade on military aircraft
• £22 billion cut from military aircraft purchase (didn't the Lib Dems criticise Brown for not providing enough aircraft?)
• £7 billion cut from military vehicle purchase
• £70 billion saved by not buying the Trident replacement - offset by the Lib Dems' intention to buy other nukes.
• £1 to £2 billion cut from military procurement by privatisation
• £2 billion cut from England's NHS budget

There's an awful lot of Barnett consequentials in there...

Then they want to raise money:

• Privatise Royal Mail
• Privatise Royal Mint
• Seek other Government enterprises to sell
• Sell the Highways Agency (that'll be England's roads then) and allow them to be tolled
• Sell the shares in the banks early (rather than wait for a good price)
• Sell off any public properties they can find

Can I just ask - what will they do next time there's a problem?

Mind how you go!

A wee thanks

Before the election consumes us all I thought I might just put on record my gratitude to the fantastic team we have at SNP Headquarters who seem to be working every hour of the day providing us with excellent support. Thanks very much, your efforts are appreciated.

My campaign team as well - you're all wonderful (well, most of you anyway). Thanks very much - three more weeks and then you can sleep!

Mind how you go.

Greens - do they practise what they preach?

When I left my office tonight I noticed that the Greens had left their office lights on - I had to go in and turn them off. Honestly, if the environment police are slipping up what hope is there? Everyone should complain to James.

To far more serious matters, I hear that the Greens are coming on a storm down Norwich South way and there's a possibility we may see the first Green MP elected in May. That'd be something, wouldn't it?

Campaign launch in Edinburgh North and Leith

The SNP's short campaign (the last three and a half weeks) was launched in Newhaven today with the First Minster, Alex Salmond MSP, rousing our activists from all over Scotland to get out and campaign for victory in seats the length and breadth of the country. Then he came campaigning with us in Stockbridge and the reception he got was as good as the reception we're getting on the doorsteps. I think, though, that it's the first time I've seen people queueing up to meet politicians campaigning.

2007 saw a sea-change in Scottish politics, 2009 confirmed the SNP as Scotland's biggest party, 2010 is going to show that Scotland keeps moving forward.

Mind how you vote!

A wee message

Indeed!

Neigh bother!

Have a laugh, go on. In the midst of an election where some candidates are being rude, some are telling lies, some are getting caught being twits with tweets, and some are taking themselves far too seriously, a wry smile and a wee chuckle helps things along. Politics is a serious business, just like comedy and tragedy, and there's enough faux gravity around. A bit of levity is in order.

This lovely poster was sent to me (as was the 'fire up the quattro' one) and I thought I'd share.

Mind how you vote!

Nukes away

Only one day after I write about nuclear weapons having no place in our world, the US publishes its plans to reduce its nuclear capability. Good to know they're paying attention over there. I like these bits:

• No development of new warheads
• Change of attitude to nuclear engagement with a conventional attack no longer leading to nuclear reprisal
• Presumption against using nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries
• Reduction in SDVs
• ICBMs reduced to carrying single warhead

There are a couple of disappointing points but by and large it's a step in the right direction. Interesting that the US is intending to just refurbish its nuclear weapons rather than build new ones while the UK is still ruminating about replacing Trident.

Ach well...

No nuclear weapons here, thank you.

Nuclear weapons, created during the Second World War, used only twice in anger (both times against a nation which had not managed to develop nuclear weapons - although this could not be known at the time), and displayed ever since as totems of state virility, have no place in modern weaponry and we should be doing all we can to rid our world of them.

Leo Szilard, the physicist who first properly developed the concept of nuclear weapons (purportedly after reading an HG Wells novel) and it was his urging, supported by Einstein, that moved the US administration down the path that led to the Manhattan Project. Szilard worked on the Manhattan Project to develop the first nuclear weapons (Einstein was refused security clearance and never worked on it) and petitioned the US President not to drop the bombs on Japan but to allow them to observe a demonstration of the power of the bombs, thus persuading them that they should surrender. His views were made clear after the war:

Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?

He wasn't the only one of the scientists involved in the development of nuclear weapons who opposed their use. Joseph Rotblat resigned from the project when he found out that the Germans had not made a nuclear weapon and Klaus Fuchs shared information with the Soviet Union to ensure that there was parity of knowledge - a move that may have led to proliferation but certainly led to the stand-off of Mutually Assured Destruction which may have focused minds and helped hold off a nuclear holocaust.

They weren't the only people whose opposition to nuclear weapons might be termed surprising. Colin Powell, for example:

The one thing that I convinced myself after all these years of exposure to the use of nuclear weapons is that they were useless. They could not be used.

Mountbatten argued that nuclear weapons had no military utility, Kissinger said they risked the destruction of civilisation, Gayler said:

There is no sensible military use of any of our nuclear forces. The only reasonable use is to deter our opponent from using his nuclear forces

They were bested by Field Marshal Lord Carver who asked of Trident:

What the bloody hell is it for?

Nuclear weapons are ludicrously expensive and singularly useless pieces of military hardware.

There can be no moral justification for such an indiscriminate and deadly weapon; not only would nuclear weapons affect non-combatants, their very nature suggests that they are designed to target civilian populations, designed to inflict damage on non-combatants rather than to give a military advantage.

In fact, one of the reasons for the choice of targets in Japan during WWII was that these places had escaped the worst of the fire bombing we had already inflicted upon that country and it would be easy to see how much damage could be done to a city by a nuclear weapon. I can see no justification for their use and, therefore, no justification for their existence.

Interestingly, an Observer story last year indicated that the UK was the only one of the established nuclear powers to have increased its arsenal between 200 and 2009 - http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=phNtm3LmDZEP-ZIl-TOB9Pw - not only is there talk of replacement in the UK Government, there also appears to be growth in the nuclear arsenal.

While other areas of spending, even other areas of defence spending, are being squeezed until the pips are squeaking nuclear weapons appear to be untouchable - the UK's virility totem is protected while public services suffer but would-be international statesmen demand the mojo. If only they had the moral strength to work towards what is right rather than what they think makes them look tough...

I was delighted when the SNP Scottish Government set up the working group Scotland Without Nuclear Weapons even though defence, and therefore control over these things, is reserved to Westminster - defence may be reserved but morality and common human decency cannot be reserved. I look forward to seeing our Scottish Government continue to seek to drive the issue forward. I want to see nuclear weapons removed from Scotland and I want to see disarmament across the world, and each of us has to do our bit to try to make sure that that happens.

Victor Meldrew I presume?

Leith Business Association sent out its regular news update today and one of the pieces of news had me in full Victor Meldrew mode. LBA invited the tram contractor to attend a committee meeting to allow the businesses to better understand the project. You would have thought that this was a reasonable thing to do, wouldn't you? TIE vetoed the request on the grounds that Bilfinger Berger might accidentally breach the confidentiality agreement.

So the businesses which are being badly affected by the fiasco formerly known as the Tram Project are being denied the opportunity to get a bit of knowledge about what's going on. TIE regularly attends LBA meetings but they don't want the contractor to go and 'accidentally breach the confidentiality agreement'. It would appear that having someone tell the truth about the project isn't helpful to TIE's way of thinking. Could it possibly be because the project has run into the sand, hundreds of millions of pounds over budget, years behind schedule, about to be truncated and fast reaching the position where it will have to be cancelled?

TIE still hasn't returned with a date for the briefing on the project that it promised for candidates. I suppose candidates might accidentally tell someone about it.

And there's more

Where was I? Oh yes, additional responsibilities and powers from 2002 back to 1999:

Agency arrangements for Kyoto responsibilities;
Agency arrangements for responsibilities under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (information gathering on the import, acquisition, release or marketing of genetically modified organisms, maintaining the public register, and commercial confidentiality exclusions); receiving and processing applications for the release and the marketing of GMOs; Air Quality Limit Values regs; and Control of Ozone-Depleting Substances;
Promotion and construction of railways:
Financial assistance for shipping;
Funding rail travel franchises;
Regulation of social landlords;
Electricity and Utilities;
Agency arrangements for controlling ozone-depleting substances;
Agency arrangements for CJD surveillance; control of medicines; and seven different parts of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981;
Transfer of staff, property, rights and liabilities from the National Audit Office to Audit Scotland;
Temporary speed limits; Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors boards; child care regs for tax credit purposes;
Agency arrangements for air quality standards; ozone monitoring; the sulphur content of liquid fuels; and "The function of taking steps preparatory to the implementation of Directive 96/62/EC of 27th September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment and management and the legislation provided for in Article 4 thereof";
Financial assistance to post offices; strategies for rail services; provision and regulation of rail services; strategies for air services; and a wee bit on pesticides;
Wireless telegraphy for crime fighting purposes; intrusive surveillance; compulsory purchase and compensation for gas supply pipes; partial regulation of electricity generators; and poisons;

That's back to the beginning of 2000 (I might have missed something). The transfers in 1999 will have been, by and large, part of the starting of devolution so shouldn't be regarded as being additionals, I think. The links are here if you want to look at them:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19991104.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19991105.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19991106.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19991512.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19991596.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19991748.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19991750.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19991756.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19993320.htm
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19993321.htm
this one is a modification of the reservation schedules:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19991749.htm

I haven't even looked at the stuff sent to me by other people yet, so there may be more. There is the obvious caveat that some of the orders will have replaced others and some of the movements are relatively small administrative changes. I think, though, that the increase in responsibilities of the Scottish administration from 1999 onwards is clearly enormous. Most of these transfers appear to me to include expense and some would leave the Scottish Government incurring substantial additional expense. Many of them have transferred functions but not powers (particularly the agency arrangements), placing burdens on Scotland without us having the ability to alter those burdens.

Having considered the increase in expenditure which these burdens would create I find myself thinking that the siren cry of Labour politicians of "there's twice as much money coming to Scotland now as there was in 1999" a rather hollow jibe. Indeed, looking at it I can only surmise that double the money isn't nearly enough, it should be doubled again. Scotland is being short-changed by the Labour Government in London and it's time it stopped! I suppose it would be a good thing if someone quantified that, and I'll applaud anyone who does - or we could just have fiscal autonomy just now and be satisfied.

Mind how you go.

Additional responsibilities and powers

I asked a couple of people (the type of people who would know) about what responsibilities and powers have been devolved to Scotland since 1999, and I looked at the very important Scotland Act 1998 and Associated Delegated Legislation web page. Ready?

Convention rights limitations;
Agency arrangements for Artificial Insemination of Pigs, Export of Horses, Rabies, Importation of Animals, Diseases of Animals (Approved Disinfectants, Importation of Birds, Poultry and Hatching Eggs, Importation of Embryos, Ova and Semen, Bovine Embryo (Collection, Production and Transfer), control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, animal by-products not intended for human consumption, The Pet Travel Scheme, the intra-species recycling ban for fish, the burial and burning of animal by-products, Animal By-Products regulations, animal health requirements for the movement of circus animals between Member States of the EU, TSE research, control, eradication and limitation on feedstuffs, Products of Animal Origin regulations, Animal and Animal Products regs, Bovine Semen regs, Zoonoses and Animal By-Products regs;
Environmental protection and pollution control;
Agency arrangements for prisoners on licence being transferred to Scotland from England;
Agency arrangements for environmental protection and analysis of heavy fuel oil
Investigatory powers;
Feedstuffs and additives under EU Designations;
Hydro electric generation;
Agency arrangements for the purchase Fire and Rescue radio systems (admit it - you thought that would just be part of the normal operation of the Fire Boards, just as I did);
Financial implications from the fisheries on the Tweed;
Agency arrangements for welfare food;
Welfare food definitions and renewable energy obligations;
Agency arrangements for a load of NHS functions;
A whole load of functions across Fire and Rescue, Electricity, Energy, Food and Environment, Food Standards, Road Traffic, and Roads;
Health and Safety on construction sites;
Something under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (I didn't bother looking it up), control of fireworks and consumer protection in the area of fireworks;
Common Agricultural Policy burdens;
CAP stuff again (I'm struggling to see the difference between 3324 and 2980);
Railways and academic research;
Tax Commissioners, rehabilitation of offenders and access to justice;
Warrants under investigatory powers;

That's as far back as 2003, more later if my brain recovers. Mind how you transfer!

Changing the debate on climate change

Ever heard of Gaia? The planet as an organism theory was developed by Professor James Lovelock and he's said some very interesting things in an interview with John Humphrys. I find myself agreeing with him in his criticisms of politicians and scientists who are taking liberties with data and observations - that helps no-one. The full broadcast is worth listening to, I love his frank admission that he could be wrong - a proper scientist - and his comment that fudging data is tantamount to "a sin against the holy ghost". He's said similar things before, right enough.

Well done that man!

Vote SNP

That chap Iain Dale has published a book or two on who to vote for in the election. I've read the "Vote SNP" one (what do you mean I've missed a word out?) and can only say that Iain Dale has me convinced - I'll be voting SNP. I note that the SNP book has a higher price than all of the others except Plaid - obviously of a higher quality...

Mind how you go!

SCDEA

I watched Newsnicht earlier (as ye do) and it had one of those daft chats between a presenter and a reporter - this time talking about Steven Purcell's puff piece in the Sun. The young reporter chappie mentioned the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency visit to Purcell while he was in office and reasoned (it seemed to me) that, since the SCDEA is an intelligence-led policing organisation that doesn't tell anyone what it's up to and the officers didn't arrest the council leader for drug use, we should accept Mr. Purcell's explanation that two officers from the SCDEA had nothing better to do with their day than wander up to George Square to warn him that some drug dealer might have a video of him taking drugs.

As Jeremy Paxman would say "yeeeeesssss.....". The hubris we have come to expect from Labour politicians is quite clear in Purcell's claim but surely a journalist would look a little harder? Might not the officers from an intelligence-led organisation be gathering intelligence, for example? Is that not a more reasonable explanation? It's about time a journalist challenged this daft claim that serious police officers spend their time sooking up to councillors.

Maybe tomorrow, eh?

Double your money

I keep hearing Labour politicians talking about how the Scottish Government has twice as much cash as the 1999 administration had. Leaving aside the effects of inflation, the 99 administration never had as much responsibility - railways, for example.

I think I'll take a closer wee look...

Catch the glacier!

Here's an interesting thing (well, I'm interested) - there's a glacier in Alaska called the Hubbard Glacier which is advancing so far and so quickly that it's threatening to dam a river and create a glacial lake. It's done this before (with debris that it shoved against the opposite shore in 1984 and in 2002) and there's a possibility that the lake it creates will overflow into a small creek, enlarging the creek by about 20 times and possibly ruining some fisheries - as well as possibly flooding villages!

The US Geological Survey says that calving glaciers are not affected by climate and it will keep coming - it's been advancing for over a century and it's moving at a speed of 32 metres per year into Disenchantment Bay (must have been a right cheery cartographer who named that).
It's 123km long, as high as 100 m above sea level and 414 m below sea level with a calving face that is 11.4 km in length. That's some monster on the move.

To think some people complained about clearing the snow from their own paths this winter.

Mind how you slide!

Vanities and Quangoes

Today, I predict, there will be the touching of the flame to the foot of the pyre in which the quangoes rest, the beginning of the bonfire. The Public Services Reform Bill also includes provisions which will allow Ministers to get rid of quangoes more easily in future. Some opposition parties want that bit of the Bill removed. Go figure!

Mind how you burn!

Jim Murphy!

Being a cheeky fella for a few minutes, can I just share with you something that occurred to me as I saw Jim Murphy being interviewed earlier.

Sorry about that, Secretary of State, mind how you go!

That didn't last long!

They'd got me hooked, and then it all fell apart!

Call that a bribe?

What do you do if you're asked by a corrupt official to pay a bribe?

Well, if you're an Indian who's cheesed off paying bribes, you might just hand them a zero rupee note and watch them back down.

That's fantastic!

Trams - changed my mind

I've always opposed the tram project in Edinburgh. I like light rail as an urban transport system but it should be separated from road traffic and, more importantly, pedestrians. I've criticised the poor planning (we were told that the city centre utility diversion work would be completed by August 2008 - it's still going on - and that all of the utility diversion work would be finished by February 2009), questioned the costing (TIE indicated a "final contract cost" of £508 million on 24th April 2008 - up from £438 million the year before), worried about the disinformation (we were told that tram track would be laid in Leith Walk in October 2008), and prodded the schonky business case (well, at least I've read it).

Given that two trams will now be painted with pictures of Ian Rankin and Alexander Graham Bell, though, what can I say? I'm sold on it - bring on the trams!

Just keep them off the roads.

Maybe use some of the miles of underused railway track around the city.

Mind how you go!

Unassailable SNP lead

The Sun's daily tracker has the SNP having soared past Labour and into an unassailable lead of three points (27 to 24) with a huge sample size of 136. On a uniform result right across the country that would give the SNP 59 seats!

Mind how you go.

Farewell to a friend

Billy Wolfe has died. Like thousands of other members of the SNP I regarded Billy as a friend and a good companion on the road to independence. The tributes will pile up on the party's website. He was one of those grand old stagers of the party who was an ever-present at conferences and campaigns, gently eccentric and always ready with a smile and a bit of encouragement for all of us. One of the first pieces of mail received by newly elected SNP Parliamentarians would be a wee card from Billy with his congratulations and best wishes for the term ahead, his incredible generosity of spirit always lifted people who came into contact with him and he was always delighted to share a joke and a laugh.

He's credited with turning the SNP into the modern party it is today, reforming our organisation and our campaigning methods, underpinning our policy platform with a socially democratic ethos, driving our cause forward.

His activism and his energy seemed not to know any limits, as well as turning up at elections when he was well into his 80s, he was a determined campaigner for nuclear disarmament, part of the deep-seated opposition to nuclear weapons that is part of the lifeblood of the SNP and created SNPCND. Billy's CND membership led him into as many 'interesting' positions as his SNP membership, he was one of those who went to Cape Wrath to protest against the US Navy using it for shelling practice and there's a tale told about Billy and Ian Hamilton QC at Faslane sitting on the road side by side and complaining about the police refusing to manhandle them out of the way with the refrain of "what's an old man got to do to get arrested around here?" and complaints that they'd paid their taxes all their life and should have the right to get lifted. A formidable pairing, you might say.

He was an environmental campaigner as well, leading the charge to protect Scotland for future generations, and I believe he was a prime mover in setting up the Eilean Mor MacCormick Trust to look after the SNP's island which is at the mouth of Loch Sween and home to a 12th century Chapel dedicated to St Cormac. In the same spirit in which Billy did everything else, visitors are always welcome on the island:

Billy was a man who believed in peace, in love and in gentleness. He served in the Second World War and campaigned for peace thereafter. An excellent bloke, he'll be missed by a lot of us but we'll still be cheered by the memory of him. His family have lost a husband and father, we've lost a friend, and Scotland has lost a patriot but Billy was the kind of person who would rather you celebrated his life than mourned his death. There's a lot to celebrate.

So long Billy.

Lib Dem king-makers? Nope.

The fuss and flutter of speculation and feverish rubbish from commentators in the run-up to the election really getting started has led some people to speculate that the Lib Dems will be in a position of strength after the election and ready to decide who becomes Prime Minister. I've come to the conclusion that it's all havers, and the reason I've come to that conclusion is simple - the Lib Dems are going to lose a lot of seats at this election, they won't pick up any in Scotland, and they'll do rather badly elsewhere too (maybe picking up one in Newcastle).

They're consistently fourth in Scotland in opinion polls, third across England, miles behind the Conservatives in the South of England, they're showing up fourth in Wales and are falling further and further behind and I think they face losing seats. They don't have a leader with the charisma of Charlie Kennedy or Paddy Ashdown or even David Owen any more, having apparently been left with the runt of the litter in Nick Clegg.

Looking at opinion polls, adding in 2005 results (boundary changes coming in England), adding my excellent judgement and terrible prejudice to that, totting up what's what, I don't think they can take a single seat that they don't currently hold, I think they'll get squeezed everywhere, and I think that this is what will happen to the seats they currently hold (some nominally after boundary changes):

Scotland:
Inverness Nairn Badenoch & Strathspey - lose

West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine - lose heavily

East Dunbartonshire - lose

Gordon - lose (taken by a blogger)

Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk - lose

Argyll & Bute - lose

Dunfermline & West Fife - might hold, might lose. Willie works hard and that might be enough to save him (it'd be lost otherwise)

Edinburgh West - weakened, a possible loss and will only be saved, if it is, because of the battles going on in nearby seats (they have a terrible candidate here) - and it goes in 2011 if they do save it this time.
NE Fife - hold
Orkney & Shetland - hold
Ross, Skye & Lochaber - hold
Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross - hold

Furth of Scotland:
Mid Dorset & North Poole - lose to Con
Taunton Deane - lose to Con
Solihull - lose to Con

Southport - lose to Con

Cornwall North - shrinking majority, lose to Con

Westmorland & Lonsdale - lose to Con
Bath - lose to Con
Romsey & Southampton North - lose to Con
Camborne & Redruth - lose to Con (Labour nominally second but have faded here)
Portsmouth South - about a 3,300 majority about to be lost to Con.
Somerton & Frome - lose to Con
Oxford West & Abingdon - boundary chanegs remove the university, Evan Harris is looking for a new job - lose to Con.
Carshalton & Wallington - a battle, but probably lose to Con

Teignbridge - the home of Buckfast is abolished, but Boris Johnston's dad got to 6,000 votes away last time, the new seat will be lost to Con.

Eastleigh - lose to Con

Torbay - lose to Con

Brecon & Radnorshire - lose to Con

Cheadle - lose to Con

Richmond Park - Jenny Tongue's old seat, never safe, lose to Con

Cheltenham - rapidly shrinking majority - lose to Con.

North Devon - Harvey's majority was lower in 2005 than in 1997 - lose to Con

Hornsey & Wood Green - lose to Lab
Birmingham Yardley - lose to Lab
Chesterfield - lose to Lab
Cambridge - won't be able tohold onto the 4,000 majority; lose to Lab

Manchester Withington - lose to Lab

Leeds North West - lose to Lab

Rochdale - the cowboys are going to ride on out, lose to Lab

Brent Central - lose to Lab

Ceredigion - lose to Plaid

Thornbury and Yate - hold
Bristol West - hold
Cardiff Central - hold

Berwick Upon Tweed - hold

South East Cornwall - hold

Sutton & Cheam - hold

Twickenham - hold

Sheffield Hallam - hold

Kingston & Surbiton - hold

St Ives - hold

Lewes - hold

Harrogate & Knaresborough - bit of a boundary change but probably hold

Bermondsey & Old Southwark - a straight choice, hold.

Hereford - disappears Lib Dem should take new seat of Hereford and South Herefordshire

North Norfolk - hold

Yeovil - hold

Meon Valley (successor seat to Mark Oaten's Winchester - Lib Dem hold

Montgomeryshire - hold

Colchester - hold

Hazel Grove - hold

Truro & St Austell - splits in two, I've no idea how that'll pan out.

So, that's between 4 and 6 seats in Scotland and maybe 22 elsewhere. It's going to be a sore election for the Lib Dems, very sore. Far from being king-makers, questions about their viability will be asked. With no policy platform, having tossed it aside for this election, and no real purpose in politics, why would that party stay together?

Of course, I might be wrong. Mind how you go.

Labouring the point

The Scottish Government announced today that it was dumping the proposal to allow local authorities to advertise online instead of in local newspapers. Labour leader Iain Gray said:

"This decision is a victory for democracy and a humiliating climbdown for the SNP. John Swinney's proposals to allow local councils to put public notices online instead of in newspapers were undemocratic and I am glad that they have now been dropped.
"Large numbers of people in Scotland don't have access to the internet and there is a real danger that putting public notices online would have led to important decisions being taken without proper scrutiny."

The proposal was introduced in 2006 by the last bunch who were in power. That'd be Labour then!

Mind how you go.

John Scott - 10 today

Ten years ago today the good people of Ayr went to the polls in the first by election of the Scottish Parliament. Labour MSP Ian Welsh, who had had a majority of 25, resigned for family reasons after eight months in Parliament.


There were some tiring journeys back and forward to that constituency, but it was an interesting exercise and an interesting result. The Labour vote plummeted less than a year after they had become the largest party in Holyrood (unlike the SNP, of course, we won Glasgow East after becoming the largest party in Holyrood), the Conservative vote eased upwards, and the SNP vote shot up by nine and a half points to take us into second.


Victor on the day was John Scott of the Conservatives with a majority of 3,344 and he's held it in two elections since then.


Here's the result as announced

William Clifton BOTCHERBY Scottish Independent 'The Radio Vet' 186
Gavin Nelson CORBETT Scottish Green Party 460
Kevin James DILLON Independent, Anti-Cloning Candidate 15
Robert GRAHAM Pro-Life Alliance 111
Jim MATHER Scottish National Party (SNP) 9,236
Alistair David McCONNACHIE UK Independence Party 113
Rita MILLER Scottish Labour Party 7,054
Stuart David RITCHIE Scottish Liberal Democrats 800
John SCOTT The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Candidate 12,580
James STEWART Scottish Socialist Party (Convener Tommy Sheridan) 1,345
Rejected papers 58
Majority 3,344

And here's a picture of John Scott and David McLetchie trying to keep up with William Hague shamelessly nicked from Ian Old's excellent site: