Banks to be sold

Plans are being made to break up and sell off the public stakes in the banks. Part of the deal will be that the purchasers must not be banks. Maybe it's just me but is excluding possible purchasers from the market, especially purchasers who know the market, the best way to get a good price?

Whispers

One hears - and so do I - that Labour's reshuffle was even more botched than it appeared (quite an achievement). The whispers, as yet unsubstantiated, say that not everyone who was asked to serve agreed. Amongst those who are said to have refused are Ken Mcintosh, Margaret Curran, Hugh Henry and Wendy Alexander. I wonder why they would refuse - if they did, of course.

In other interesting developments we have news coming from CJ and from a chap with the ould interests that 4,000 previously unidentified electors have appeared on the electoral roll in Glasgow North East, taking the total up to 64,000 or so - that would mean that, for every 15 voters who were on the register there was one hiding in the lobby press... It would be interesting to see the distribution of these new arrivals - are they entirely new households being added to the register or are they additions to households that were already on the register? Why did we have to wait until November for the contest to fill the vacancy?

Postal votes are up as well - by an extra couple of thousand, 1200 in the last month, 600 applications delivered by Labour on the last day. Terribly nice of Labour to save all those people the awful trouble of posting the form themselves - hopefully they'll be around to post the ballot papers back as well, save the voters any trouble at all. I wonder how many of those people newly on the register have also just become postal voters?

Vote early, vote often!

He forgot

Remember when Labour's reshuffle was announced and I pointed out that there was no shadow minister for transport nor one for climate change? Want to know why? They forgot. Yesterday when a story was breaking about ferries, Labour was asked for a comment from their transport spokesperson and they said "um ... hang on a minute", climbed into a cupboard, hasty a hasty confab and then announced that Charlie Gordon was in transports of delight and Cathy Peattie was responsible for climate change (and you thought it was greenhouse gases!). Anyone would think that this reshuffle was done in a panic.

You can understand why Labour might want to forget about transport given their record on trams in the capital but Climate Change? Does no-one in the Labour party read the newspapers? Sheesh! Here's a thing, though, Iain Gray was saying that he was sure that Wendy Alexander would return to a front bench position without actually promoting her to a front bench position - then he promoted Charlie Gordon, the guy who brought about her downfall. Does he really dislike her that much?

I was right as well - James Kelly has been promoted (although it's community safety rather than transport).

Here's a thing, though, why stop John Park talking about apprenticeships and move him into a mute role? Might it be that the Labour Government in London will be cutting apprenticeship funding in the budget and so John has to be silenced well in advance in the hope that no-one will remember he made a big thing of it?

Here's another interesting thing - the SNP Government has 6 Cabinet Secretaries and 10 Ministers; a total of 16. The old Lab/Lib Scottish Executive had 22. If there was a terrible calamity and Labour took power today they would have 26 (assuming their junior whips don't get Ministerial posts). Not only more Ministers than the SNP, but more Ministers than they shared with the Lib Dems back in the bad old days - along with the Ministerial salaries, of course...

One more thing too; for the sake of decency I would have thought that Lewis Macdonald's name would be spelled correctly on his own party's website. And to think they want to run the country.

Wrap up warm now, mind how you go!

Tuition fees

I've just heard Andrew Cubie calling for post-graduation tuition fees to be reintroduced for Higher Education scholars in Scotland. His argument is that graduates get a higher lifetime income as a result of being graduates so they should pay a consideration towards their education costs.

I think he'll find it's called income tax.

Mind how you go!

Soft Shoe Shuffle

More on Labour's plan to run around and look like a crowd. At the time of writing Labour still doesn't have a transport spokesperson to replace Des McNulty; and there's no-one in Labour's ranks been tasked with addressing climate change.

Here's a laugh, though, who shadows whom? Labour has 11 members of its shadow cabinet to shadow the six members of the SNP Government cabinet, but it's not quite that simple ...

• Salmond v Gray - standard stuff, but Salmond has cabinet responsibility for culture and the constitution and Pauline McNeill's in the Hank Marvin Cabinet with those responsibilities for Labour, so she shadows Salmond too. That'll scare him!

• Swinney v Kerr - seems JS was having too easy a time of it because Michael McMahon has lumbered onto Labour's front bench for local government - and David Whitton has responsibility (but not front bench responsibility) for *ahem* Finance and Sustainable Growth. Three against one - did I just hear John Swinney laugh?

• Lochhead v Boyack - straight fight, except Karen Gillon is Sarah Boyack's deputy and responsible for Rural Development which is entirely Richard's responsibility in Government, so he's got a double-upper.

• MacAskill v Baker - wee Ricky's left without a tag-team member. The poor wee guy looks like an aperitif.

• Sturgeon v Baillie - looks like a straight wrestling match until you remember that Ms Sturgeon (hey, I'm only brave once in a while) is also Deputy First Minister, so Johann Lamont is coming charging in from behind and Cathy Jamieson is Labour's Housing and Regeneration personage in cabinet so three of Labour's Shadow Cabinet members are there to deal with Nicola Sturgeon - that's more than a quarter of their cabinet! Jings, crivvens and help ma boab!

• Hyslop v McNulty - what will Des do next? Well, actually that's a good question because Claire Baker has responsibility for tertiary education, Ken McIntosh schools, Karen Whitefield children and early years, Karen Gillon (again) skills, so what, exactly, is Des doing? Is he the mild-mannered janitor?

• That leaves one member of Labour's shadow cabinet that we haven't accounted for - John Park - he has no equal! Well, actually, he's doing a party job (elections and campaigns) as a part of Labour's parliamentary shadow cabinet. I do hope he'll not be using any parliamentary resources for that job; like his parliamentary office, his computer and other office equipment, telephone, blackberry, expenses for shadow cabinet away-days, and so on. Parliamentary in this instance obviously covers anything paid for by Parliament whether it's on the Parliament campus, in the constituency office or even wee and portable!

Still with me? Right well, there's also the Ministers, 12 shadows to 10 real ones, but it's not that simple:

• Crawford v Martin - only one against Bruce Crawford? With his reputation?

• Russell v McNeill - except Pauline McNeill's in the shadow cabinet so it's an SNP Minister against a Labour shadow cabinet secretary. She'll have to split her time - Salmond saved from Dennis Healey - type mauling.

• Robison v Simpson - except Shona also has sport, so Frank McAveety gets added to her load.

• Neil v Mulligan - except Cathy Jamieson has the same portfolio as Alex but at cabinet level (is it a job creation scheme?). Like Des McNulty, though, what is Jackie Baillie actually responsible for in Labour's ranks? Her deputies fill all the responsibilities for her.

• Mather v Macdonald - can Lewis Macdonald keep up with Jim Mather on the move? Can he mind-map while he does it? And why is this job listed under Environment in Labour's list?

• Stewart Stevenson gets a walk-over, no-one in Labour's ranks has responsibility for tackling climate change or transport. There has to be a suitable successor to Des McNulty, surely? Of course there is - James Kelly! Go on, Iain, give the man a job!

• Brown v McIntosh - it was always going to be a walk-over for Keith, so Barbie's beau gets Karen Gillon as a pal on skills (surely that's a typo on Karen Gillon's job? Rural Development, Economy and Skills and all under the environment portfolio?)

• Ingram v Whitefield - Karen Whitefield (ignoring the conflict of interest with a party spokesperson chairing a committee which handles her spokespersonish duties) has shown a distinct lack of empathy for the subject matter and Adam Ingram has a detailed knowledge and a real desire to deliver for the children of Scotland. Karen will have to settle for being Robert McNeil's muse.

• Ewing v Martin - yup, Paul Martin's got two jobs, one dealing with Bruce Crawford and the other trying to keep up with Fergus the Furious, famed Viking warrior (or something like that). It's almost like Labour's given up on making any impact in Justice - Iain Gray's put forward one Richard Baker and half a Paul Martin to take on MacAskill and Ewing. I bet he's looking forward to cheering on Third Lanark against Barcelona.

• Cunningham v Murray - a contest strictly for rubber-neckers, one presumes.

That's half of Labour's group with shadow ministerial posts (and that's without counting those appointed whip, one on the Corporate Body, and committee convenors); is it a case of the leader having to avoid offending people? That's a sign of weakness, a sign that all is not well in the Labour leadership camp. It's time to dust off an old slogan - Eadie to Leadie!

Mind how you go.

Labour - shuffling along

Iain Gray has reshuffled his pack and it's come up jokers again.

Rhona Brankin's out of the education portfolio - and a good thing too, she never had the good grace to acknowledge the smallest ever class sizes, the school buildings pledge met a year and a half ahead of schedule, the introduction of the baccalaureate, the record support for Scottish students, the record funding for our colleges and universities, or any of the other successes in education. That portfolio is no place for a small-minded and bitter person, Scotland needs and deserves better. Still running that Labour party literacy commission (no it's not an oxymoron, don't be cruel) which was launched by Wendy Alexander more than a year ago and still hasn't done anything. Des McNulty comes galloping in to add some va-va-voom to the job. Fiona Hyslop will have to stay awake and pay attention to every detailed nuance from Des's desultory dialectics.

Andy Kerr becomes Shadow Secretary for Finance & Economy because that will free him up, he having been Shadow Secretary for ... erm ... Finance and Sustainable Growth. Right ... Anyway, he's been swinging wildly and catching air for two and a half years, maybe losing sustainability is just what he needs. John Swinney will spare time for a quick guffaw before launching back into the serious business of running Scotland's finances and ensuring sustainable growth in spite of the incompetence of the Labour Government in London

Cathy Jamieson is sacked from health and brought back in Housing and Regeneration. Earnest but uninspiring, at least Cathy still has some principles at her back. Alex Neil won't be worried, though, Cathy's been too principled to tell lies so far, so she's likely to actually welcome the good job that the SNP Government is doing.

Jackie Baillie flies back to front at health, shadowing Sturge the Unstoppable. The Health Secretary has been outed recently as a secret fan of Tunnocks Caramel Wafers, surprising those of us who thought she led an ascetic life - will the additional pressure of Jackie Baillie crush her will to win? The race is not always to the swift - but that's where the smart money goes.

Richard Baker stays at Justice. It's almost cruel to put that poor wee laddie up against Kenny MacAskill.

To be fair to Iain Gray he didn't really have much to choose from; his barrel has been scraped until the ground is showing through it. Henry McLeish may be right that Labour is "intellectually exhausted" and "time is running out for Scottish Labour". Perhaps that's why Iain Gray's MSPs have begun a whispering campaign against him.

They've still got a photograph of the wrong cabinet up on the website though.

America? I'm ambivalent

Having watched the gyrations of politicians desperate to curry favour with the President of the United States of America - my good buddy Barack (honest) - including the embarrassment of a 'world leader' lurking in the kitchen disguised as a commis chef because he knew that POTUS (pretentious? Moi?) likes nothing better than a sneaky after-cake, I took a wee trip down memory lane to a passage I particularly liked as a boy:

Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.
Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils. Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her
politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

President George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796 - and I was delighted to find it online - Yale's a good university - I thought I was going to have to type it up.

He goes on to say that the US should remain neutral in Europe's conflicts - a position I'm glad the US has drifted from at times as the world has developed - but the substance of the passage chimes with my vision of nationalism and how we should relate to other countries; an equidistance, friendly with all, subservient to none.

As old George says:

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

That's what I call a special relationship.

Mind how you go!