Last night’s tussle between Alex Neil and Andy Kerr on Newsnicht was hardly edifying. The tone was not raised, the debate was not had, and by the end Gordon Brewer joined them in all talking over each other. No civilian watching could have been impressed by either of them. In the argot of the playground Alex Neil did start it, and Andy’s first “I listened to you” was entirely justified, but by the end no-one was standing on the high ground.
As Twitter had it..
Paul:Â Well, I, for one, am glad that this tax issue has been sorted once and for all after that insightful and thoughtful discussion on #newsnicht
Cowrin:Â They should put them both in the same studio next time, with a couple of handbags on the table in front of them #newsnicht
The public aren’t served by hearing politicians ranting away on top of each other, nor will they all unilaterally start behaving either. Perhaps instead BBC and STV could agree some rules, and enforce them. Give Gordon Brewer and other interviewers a red and a yellow card to use.
Anyone talking over another person in the studio could be warned, and repeated offences could lead to a yellow. Perhaps a Michael Howard-style failure to answer the question might also lead to a card. A particularly egregious performance despite warnings from the referee presenter could be a straight red: mike off, interview over. The PO does it in the Chamber.
Anyone sent off either for a second yellow or a straight red could then not be invited onto that network for a fixed period – a month? Six months? I’d certainly like to see if MSPs would play a cleaner second half knowing they were in danger of being sent off. And if it works out, perhaps Gordon Brewer and Hugh Dallas could try a jobswap once the strike’s been sorted out.
#1 by Despairing on November 24, 2010 - 3:40 pm
As they’re in separate studios already, surely it’s easy to just switch off the mike when that person hasn’t been asked a question.
But 2 things:
Given the number of debates that have MSPs stuck in various Edinburgh boltholes (one last week had to shoehorn an MSP into Brian Taylor’s cubbyhole in the Parly), surely it would be easier to move Gordon Brewer to Edinburgh for those nights and have everyone in the same studio?
Secondly, I’m not entirely convinced the public finds the spectacle unedifying. PMQs is the prime example – the cut & thrust is all part of the theatre and I’m not sure I’d like to see it go. Similarly, we like to see a politician completely lose it once in a while and start a rammy.
#2 by CassiusClaymore on November 24, 2010 - 5:25 pm
Will Andy Kerr be apologising, now that is has emerged that the administrative arrangements to collect the SVR lapsed prior to to Swinney taking power?
(And will James be apologising?)
CC
#3 by James on November 24, 2010 - 5:37 pm
No apology for me. Swinney has apologised for stopping the payments and letting the power lapse, and he’s also agreed to meet us to look at how we can restore it as soon as possible.
Finally, during his closing speech, he realised he had to drop the bluster and give a proper apology. It shouldn’t have taken six days.
#4 by somepapfaedundee on November 24, 2010 - 9:26 pm
I understood that the original arrangement had already lapsed prior to Swinney taking office.
Have I misunderstood thedetails presented?
#5 by Dubbieside on November 24, 2010 - 5:40 pm
If you wondered before why Jim Murphy was like a Trappist Monk about this, now you know.
This power lapsed under the last Labour executive, before the SNP came to power. All the unionist have left is fake indignation.
The big question for Labour is, why did Murphy not tell his Labour MSPs that they were making fools of themselves? Did have some axe to grind against them and let them keep digging?
There are lessons here for everyone including people who blog, do not believe everything you see in the papers, wait until all the facts come out. There are more than politicians with egg on their face today.
#6 by Dubbieside on November 24, 2010 - 5:52 pm
You can get a flavor of how the unionists and the insignificant parties will now play this.
No mention that the power lapsed in May 2007 before Swinney was in office. No mention that the unionist Secretary of State had ask for confidentiality about this.
So Swinney apologized for not breaching confidentiality and not bringing it to parliaments attention something that had happened before he took office.
The unionist I am not surprised at, however the Greens will remain a small and totally insignificant party if this is their level of politics, down in the gutter with Labour.
#7 by somepapfaedundee on November 24, 2010 - 10:53 pm
Agreed Dubbieside, but you’ll not see those critical details anywhere but some blogs and comment threads, but I guess we’re all used to the mainstream media now (the narrative on Reporting Scotland tonight was shocking btw).
I think that’s why the unseemly (and premature) vitriol has been so disappointing from some quarters, I’ve always had an ear for the Greens – i’ve given them my regional tick prior to now because I thought they’d be good for our system – I’m disappointed in them in form as well as content now and that’s sad. I know it must be hard when transitioning from movement to political party (the SNP must have suffered similarly), I hope they find the right line to walk as a party. Harvie was OK today, and quite graciously held out the hook for Swinney to hang an (unneccessary IMO) apology on.
#8 by CassiusClaymore on November 24, 2010 - 5:54 pm
James
Astonishingly, you continue to mislead. Swinney did not apologies for “letting the power lapse” – in fact, he expressly stated that the power to levy SVR has not lapsed, nor can it.
How can you expect to retain any credibility by simply repeating this lie over and over again?
Do you also now acknowledge that the arrangements to collect SVR were mothballed under Labour, and that the SNP are guilty only of continuing the status quo?
CC
#9 by Jeff on November 24, 2010 - 8:50 pm
A repeat offender too. I agree language definitely has to be tighter.
#10 by James on November 25, 2010 - 8:25 am
I disagree. If it can’t be used, that’s what I mean by a lapse.
#11 by Stuart Winton on November 24, 2010 - 7:58 pm
But why didn’t the SNP kick up a stink about this years ago; it was all surely an open goal for Nationalist grievance? Whatever the precise course of events, one of the two planks of devolution was in abeyance, and HMRC in London wanted megabucks to retain it.
For what it’s worth I reckon it’s because if the SNP made a meal of it they they’d be portrayed as wanting to resurrect the “Penny for Scotland”, which clearly none of the main parties want to do, because they know it would be electorally suicidal.
#12 by somepapfaedundee on November 24, 2010 - 9:41 pm
Slightly tangetially, I thought very few of the baying mob 😉 aquitted themselves well; Harvie almost did, but couldn’t resist going into mainstream-style ‘party political broadcast’ mode near the end – ah the pressure of exposure.
Among ‘coalition of opposition’ only a measured and statesmanlike Brownlie stood out, thankfully the tories don’t have the wit to put him at the helm. Labour and the LibDems are a travesty IMO, nothing to say and no-one to say it.
#13 by Erchie on November 24, 2010 - 10:06 pm
Jeff, Malc
Can you not have a word with your colleague about accuracy?
#14 by Dubbieside on November 24, 2010 - 11:11 pm
somepapfaedundee
If you want an idea of how the main stream media will play this, try this,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/24/alex-salmond-crisis-tartan-tax
I stopped watching the BBC news a while ago.
#15 by somepapfaedundee on November 25, 2010 - 12:23 am
Thanks for the link Dubbieside! Despite being a mere commenter myself, i always find it very disheartening when even the comments section contains more actual facts than the article 🙁
#16 by cynicalHighlander on November 24, 2010 - 11:23 pm
“Work as if you live in the early days of a
Better Nation”
Not here!
#17 by somepapfaedundee on November 25, 2010 - 12:26 am
I’m sighing with you cynical
#18 by Doug Daniel on November 25, 2010 - 12:52 am
John Swinney did a good job today. Things could and perhaps should have been done differently, but if you look at things with a fair and open mind, you can understand why certain decisions were made and how changing circumstances (i.e. HMRC’s time-lines and costs for the IT upgrades) conspired to turn a fair judgement into a bad one.
The following statements from opposition MSPs were laughable in their synthetic indignation (Iain Gray’s bumbling performance and Tavish “HECK!!!” Scott in particular), until Patrick Harvie, whose words seemed like genuine and probably warranted anger, but which asked to forget about blame and look towards making sure the situation could be resolved. That’s the sort of politics I like to see. Derek Brownlee also seemed to be offering a more considerate and fair reply than most, and looked to be bringing the day to a reasonable close. Then, of course, the tone went riiiiiiiiiiiight the way down when Andy Kerr took to the floor, and besieged us with another heavily partisan politicking-for-the-sake-of-politicking rant that is typical of the Scottish Labour MSPs.
Why is it that the Greens and (shudder!) the Tories are, after 3 and a half years, still the only MSPs capable of acting like adults and getting their point across with any level of maturity? This continued on Newsnicht, with Harvie saying he had already spoken with Swinney about trying to get things sorted and wanting to move the focus from who-said-what (hilariously followed directly by Andy Kerr saying he wanted to continue that focus…) and Brownlee refusing to back up Jeremy Purvis until all the facts are out in the open for absolute certain. If only Labour and Lib Dems could be eradicated from Holyrood entirely…
#19 by somepapfaedundee on November 25, 2010 - 1:14 am
I didn’t see Newsnight, but your description doesn’t elicit any surprise. As for today’s show, i agree with your summary here, and your breakdown of the substance of the matter ( http://albamatters.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-swinneys-statement-today-look-i.html ) is well worth anyone here taking a look at.
My one issue with the Tory approach to it was at the top end, Goldie’s grossly over-egged conspiracy angle – lucky for them Brownlee was more memorable (and in a good way as you say).
#20 by Doug Daniel on November 25, 2010 - 1:47 am
Yeah, Goldie’s response was just as predictable as the two numpties, Gray and Scott. The conspiracy theory stuff is just nonsense, and it does Holyrood an injustice. It’s just the sort of rubbish I hoped we wouldn’t see in Holyrood when I first imagined how grown-up our parliament could be when i voted “YES” to a Scottish Parliament, and “YES” to that parliament having multiple tax varying powers.
Incidentally, when I was about 10, my mum took me to the Wimpy for lunch. The service was both slow and awful, with my mum’s coffee being more like milk with some coffee in it, and my order being completely wrong. After waiting for nigh on half an hour and with the mistakes piling up, my mum shouted “This is not GOOD ENOUGH!!!!” and slammed her fists down on the table. I’ve never seen someone get so angry over something which, in the grand scheme of things, was pretty inconsequential.
Until I saw Tavish Scott’s latest Holyrood performance, that is. What the HECK indeed.
#21 by Sean on November 25, 2010 - 12:56 am
What promised to be a fair, forward looking blog has turned into nothing more than the rantings of a madman in the last few days.
For shame, James.
#22 by Fitalass on November 25, 2010 - 5:24 am
“Yeah, Goldie’s response was just as predictable as the two numpties, Gray and Scott. The conspiracy theory stuff is just nonsense, and it does Holyrood an injustice. It’s just the sort of rubbish I hoped we wouldn’t see in Holyrood when I first imagined how grown-up our parliament could be when i voted “YES†to a Scottish Parliament, and “YES†to that parliament having multiple tax varying power
#23 by cynicalHighlander on November 25, 2010 - 7:38 am
“tax varying power”
I voted for ‘Tax-varying powerS’ you obviously voted somewhere else.
http://albamatters.blogspot.com/2010/11/john-swinneys-statement-today-look-i.html
#24 by Fitalass on November 25, 2010 - 5:27 am
That comment registered without me finishing it or even pressing submit!! Gremlins in the system I suspect. But in highlighting that comment, I hope those that wade through SNP conspiracy theories raise a wry smile as they read it.
#25 by Erchie on November 25, 2010 - 8:02 am
Fitalass
It obviously has you exercised enough to wander around any comment page you can find to add in your outrage.
A Theory is something that tests for the facts as they occur and hold up, as opposed to a hypothesis.
In this case the theory has held up, the Beeb not reporting on the Alex Salmond response, leaving out the fact that this power lapsed under the last Government etc.
But the situation as it occurs does not need an actual conspiracy, a cabal meeting in a dark room, the close relationship in Scotland between the media and one Party does that without the need for anything formal
#26 by Stuart on November 25, 2010 - 8:13 am
And here was me thinking Better Nation was going to ensure the debate was kept rational and constructive- doesn’t look that way reading some of these comments-
“What promised to be a fair, forward looking blog has turned into nothing more than the rantings of a madman in the last few days.
For shame, James.”
As far as I see it, that’s lowering the tone, and is a pretty unacceptable comment to make.
James’s comments aren’t the ranting of a mad man. They are simply giving fair criticism to the Government.
Swinney has admitted he should’ve done things differently, and has now agreed to work with the Greens on looking into putting money into getting the damn thing up and running- so if Swinney can be reasoned and fair and accept he was wrong (and for that matter perhaps pay the money for getting the system working- a main argument coming from Nats on this board) why can’t other Nats?
#27 by Jeff on November 25, 2010 - 9:42 am
Good call Stuart.
In terms of our starry-eyed raison d’etre, we may have made ourselves a hostage to fortune with it but I don’t think much on the blog of late, if anything, has fallen short of our shared objective.
As for what happens next, as you say, a bit of positive collaboration specifically between Patrick and John, would be a fine result.
#28 by somepapfaedundee on November 25, 2010 - 10:09 am
James had a good old rant about how the SNP had let the power lapse in 2007, he pointed out that the LibLabs had kept it going throughout their prior spell in office. He painted a very provocative picture of ‘a nationalist Government, scurrying about in limos handing powers back to London.’, of Salmond being ‘at it’, and what Salmond would have said had Labour let it lapse.
People did kind of gently nudge that perhaps the full detail wasn’t out yet, and his ire was premature, that there was another side and more info to come. Grist to the mill though, and apparently the Nat bloggers not seeing it as the huge issue James does was simply evidence that the Nat bloggers are too loyal to the SNP.
As it turns out James had been premature about many of his judgements, many of his assertions turn out to be inaccurate.
Arrangements had in fact lapsed with the prior (liblab) administration; oooh imagine what the SNP would do?! er, seek advice on how to get it reinstated as it turns out.
The liblabs hadn’t in fact keep it up.
‘a nationalist Government, scurrying about in limos handing powers back to London.’ Nope, none of that either.
Oh yeah, and he a good old ‘waaaaaa!’ because Salmond dared to not include the Green’s 2-man parly band as a main party.
Perhaps more time should be spent figuring how to make a green message that actually presents acceptable solutions to modern problems, rather than embracing righteous indignation before full possession of the facts, then perhaps the Greens might start to increase their parliamentary presence at Holyrood. It’s not as if the greens don’t already have a problem coming across as the ‘we know better than you’ brigade. I always gave them my list nod, but they’re wearing pretty thin now.
Swinney ‘admitted’ that he should have told the parly, that’s what he accepted was wrong, that’s about all. He engaged with HMRC in trying to get the system the previous administration had let lapse back into operation, HMRC failed to do so and keep wanting to increase the cost. Now they want 7m for a new system, when the SVR will go when Calman gets forced though by Westminster. What do the Greens want to do? Make him cough up money for nothing! Well as long as it makes you feel you were right, eh? Never mind about the precedent it helps to present for the cost bearing of government systems.
I don’t want the Scottish govt throwing good money at a redundant system whose upgrade they shouldn’t be paying for! I strongly resent the fact that the greens are manoeuvring Swinney into it!
#29 by Indy on November 25, 2010 - 10:19 am
“But why didn’t the SNP kick up a stink about this years ago; it was all surely an open goal for Nationalist grievance?”
Because that is not what the SNP is about.
#30 by Chris on November 25, 2010 - 12:06 pm
I really hope your site doesn’t get invaded by people who think that their side is always right and anyone who disagrees with them is naive/a fool/a quisling.
I guess there is not much you can do about it. But much more of My Party Right or Wrong will put me right off.
#31 by James on November 25, 2010 - 12:09 pm
We’ve gone back to moderation, sadly, for exactly that reason.
#32 by Chris on November 25, 2010 - 1:48 pm
I find it really hard to put much energy into this issue. Although I will smugly point out that before this issue raised its head I thought that any tax variation would be difficult to collect for all the companies with cross border employees. Little did we know that it was going to be impossible for the government.
My take on this:
1. It is perfectly reasonable that Scotland should pay for maintaining this ability and for our share of the upgrade costs. It is clearly only of benefit to Scotland to simply have the option open. I can’t see why taxpayers in the rest of the UK should pay for this.
2. I think the option should at least have been kept open or brought to Holyrood’s Finance Committee to discuss in a non-partisan way. Well, at least give it a go.
3. The story is completely overblown. £7m of capital expenditure is not significant. It’s a one-off cost of a major IT project affecting 5million people. So what…
4. The paucity of leadership in all sides is laid bare by this argument. Not even a debate. Can’t we find leaders who want to lead rather than jab fingers? Can we not leave these matters to the deputy leaders who both seem to be able to look for pragmatic solutions rather than screaming from their soap boxes?