Better Nation

31 Comments (and one trackback)

• #1 by Malc on March 16, 2011 - 10:12 am

  

  First up – thanks for participating. I’m pleased that my prospective representative – whichever one of you succeeds – has tried to engage with a new audience, in a new way. I hope you all get something useful out of this experience!

  I do have a question – though I don’t know if any of you are about and available to answer. To do with student fees.

  I’m PhD candidate and also a teaching assistant at university. I’m hearing from several sources at several universities that they are having to cut back first year places by as much as 50-60% because of a lack of money (and I’m not making this up just to get a discussion, honest). That likely means that fewer folk like me will get opportunities to teach, meaning less experience and less chance of getting an academic job. Equally, it also means FEWER students coming into universities, since there simply are not the places available to them.

  In my view, this is a direct – and unavoidable – result of free tuition. Universities cannot afford to run at the levels they are currently funded at, especially if they no longer get cash from students. The only way for them to plug the gap is to increase their acceptance of English students (since they’ll be paying) meaning Scottish students will lose out – having the opposite effect that dropping tuition fees was intended to have: lessening, rather than widening access for Scottish students.

  If it was up to you, how would you fix this problem? Do we re-introduce fees? At the start or end of studies? Institute a graduate tax? Or take money from elsewhere in the budget to fund universities?

  • #2 by Iain McGill on March 20, 2011 - 9:01 pm

    

    Malc – it is clear that universities cannot continue to run as they are at their current funding levels. In Perth we made our position very clear. We urged Holyrood’s other major parties to “tell the truth” over their plans to fund higher education in Scotland.
    The Tories would introduce a graduate contribution to plug the estimated funding gap of £202 million – more than £100 million more than the Scottish Government’s projected shortfall.
    We recently challenged Alex Salmond and Iain Gray to tell us the truth about where they will get the money to keep higher education free, because quite frankly I don’t think the public believe them.
    How many students places or courses will they cut or which aspect of other government spending will be reduced? The voters have a right to know and so too do our colleges and universities.
    Education is the most precious gift we can give to any generation but it has to be properly funded. I would dearly love to be able to stand in front of any audience, just as the SNP, Labour and the Liberals have done and say it will all be free.
    But to do so would be a gross dereliction of our duty to students, to staff, and to college and university principals and their courts, because whatever arithmetic is used the very blunt fact remains that the state cannot afford to pay if we want to aspire to all the ambitions for our further and higher education sectors, and not just for the next few years but well into the future.
    A graduate contribution, payable once the graduate has started to earn a basic salary at a rate that is affordable to them, would make available more bursary support to poorer students.
    On the apparent funding gap Labour and the SNP say it is £93 million. Scottish Universities say it’s £202 million. Which one is it? I know who I believe. If you want high-quality education for all our future generations we’re going to have to pay for it.

• #3 by James on March 16, 2011 - 10:32 am

  

  Also, this is one of the Greenest constituencies in Scotland, and it might be worth a direct pitch to Green voters who won’t have an obvious choice for their first vote. Any more on that from anyone?

  • #4 by Iain McGill on March 20, 2011 - 9:02 pm

    

    James – to pitch for the green vote I would ask you to judge us all on our records.
    Labour have said the right things on climate change, but tough action has not followed. It took the longest and deepest recession for 60 years for Labour to achieve any noticeable reduction in the UK’s carbon emissions. The UK’s energy supplies are becoming less secure and our dependence on fossil fuels, increasingly from imports, has risen to over 91 per cent.
    We have started to take immediate action to keep Britain’s lights on and give Britain leadership in a low carbon world. We will cut carbon emissions and promote low carbon energy production. We will safeguard our energy security by ensuring there is sufficient capacity in the energy system. We will make it easier to go green, including through a ‘Green Deal’ to cut household energy bills.
    The Conservatives in Government believes that climate change is one of the gravest threats we face, and that urgent action at home and abroad is required. We need to use a wide range of levers to cut carbon emissions, decarbonise the economy and support the creation of new green jobs and technologies. We will implement a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy.
    • We are pushing for the EU to demonstrate leadership in tackling international climate change, including by
    supporting an increase in the EU emission reduction target to 30% by 2020.
    • We are seeking to increase the target for energy from renewable sources, subject to the advice of the Climate Change Committee.
    • We will continue public sector investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology for four coal fired power stations.
    • We will establish a smart grid and roll out smart meters.
    • We will establish a full system of feed-in tariffs in electricity – as well as the maintenance of banded Renewables Obligation Certificates.
    • We will introduce measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.
    • We will create a green investment bank.
    • We will introduce measures to encourage marine energy.
    • We will establish an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient carbon capture and storage to meet the emissions performance standard.
    • We will cancel the third runway at Heathrow.
    • We will replace Air Passenger Duty with a per-flight duty.
    • We will introduce a floor price for carbon, and make efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits.
    • Through our ‘Green Deal’, we will encourage home energy efficiency improvements paid for by savings from energy bills. We will also take measures to improve energy efficiency in businesses and public sector buildings. We will reduce central government carbon emissions by 10% within 12 months.
    • We will reform energy markets to deliver security of supply and investment in low carbon energy, and ensure fair competition including a review of the role of Ofgem.
    • We will instruct Ofgem to establish a security guarantee of energy supplies.
    • We will give an Annual Energy Statement to Parliament to set strategic energy policy and guide investment.
    • We will deliver an offshore electricity grid in order to support the development of a new generation of offshore wind power.
    • We will encourage community-owned renewable energy schemes where local people benefit from the power produced. We will also allow communities that host renewable energy projects to keep the additional business rates they generate.
    • As part of the creation of a green investment bank, we will create green financial products to provide individuals with opportunities to invest in the infrastructure needed to support the new green economy.
    • We will work towards an ambitious global climate deal that will limit emissions and explore the creation of new international sources of funding for the purpose of climate change adaptation and mitigation.
    This is comprehensive list, and has to meet with green approval!

• #5 by Stuart on March 16, 2011 - 10:32 am

  

  I have a question for Sarah Boyack- could you give more details on how a Labour government would take advantage of the RHI and FIT system?

  And a wider question- do you think it is right that the UK government should be reviewing the current Feed In Tariff system for renewables? Do you believe Scotland could do something about retaining the system at current levels, and if so, how?

• #6 by Sarah Boyack on March 16, 2011 - 12:53 pm

  

  Firstly, thank you to Better Nation for the chance to participate in the blog, I will try to respond to comments between today’s business in the chamber.

  Dealing with the current comments in reverse order…

  Stuart, on Labour’s Green Housing Revolution we want to help homes and businesses to install insulation and community renewables to reduce emissions and help lift people out of fuel poverty. Our initial target is 10,000 in the lifetime of the next Parliament but if we are to meet our climate change targets by 2020 we’ll need to accelerate that rate over the next decade.

  The Feed in Tariff system, which began operating in April 2010, provides payment for electricity which is produced by an individual or a community. There are additional payments made when excess electricity is exported to the grid. The Renewable Heat Incentive is a similar scheme to reward the installation of renewable heating systems such as heat pumps and solar panels for water heating. When the scheme is launched, people installing such systems would receive a fixed amount based on the how much heat the system produces.

  If Scottish Labour is in power following the next election we will assist local authorities and community groups to install insulation and renewable devices and pay for it against future income from the FIT and RHI.

  I am concerned about the UK Government’s review of FIT. I will be campaigning for the Government to keep investing in the FIT and to properly implement the RHI to enable us to make the step change from seeing renewables as an add on to being standard practice in our built environment.

  Moving on to James, I agree that Edinburgh Central has a high proportion of constituents who care deeply about green issues. I would say to them that I believe I have a strong track record in the Scottish Parliament and within the Labour Party in supporting a more radical approach to climate change and to stronger protection for our environment.

  Before entering Parliament I served as Scottish Organiser of the Labour Party’s Environment Campaign, SERA, in my spare time for seven years and as a Minister and backbencher in the first and second sessions of Parliament I championed a number of policies from sustainable transport and renewable energy targets to national parks and land reform. In the second and third sessions I also worked to promote a Member’s Bill on energy efficiency and micro renewables much of which was taken up as part of the Climate Change Act.

  Over the last two decades I’ve played my part in transforming the Labour Party to make environmental concerns mainstream and have worked hard to use whatever opportunities I’ve had to make progress.

  Finally Malc on the issue of tuition fees. In recent months I have held meetings with student representatives and have joined students at their rallies outside the Scottish Parliament. Many of the students I spoke to had voted Lib Dem in the belief that they were opposed to tuition fees and feel badly let down by the party. It’s a double whammy as the Tories have cut the university teaching budget by 80% and tripled tuition fees at the same time.

  At the start of this month Labour made a commitment not to introduce tuition fees, either up front or back-ended, during the lifetime of the next Parliament. Our proposals have received the backing of the NUS in Scotland. We believe that education can help to transform lives and contribute to the economy. More young people in Edinburgh leave school for the dole than anywhere else in Scotland and unemployment is rising. I do not believe that we should be placing additional burdens on young people who want to go on to higher education.

  Much has been written about the sustainability of such a policy especially in light of the reported funding gap facing universities.

  We believe that this gap is less than has been predicted and that it can and will be met. A huge part of this will be a thorough examination of the entire further and higher education system to look at the transition between school and university and how the sector can be made more efficient.

  We need to see how we can improve the student experience and how we can we improve access. It is vital for the Scottish economy that people with talent can afford to get to university.

  I hope that this has addressed at least some of the issues you have asked about and thanks again for the opportunity to contribute.

  Sarah

• #7 by Alex Cole-Hamilton on March 16, 2011 - 1:57 pm

  

  Thanks for the opportunity to debate in this manner Malc. The use of the blogsphere in generating political discourse will serve to engage individuals who would have otherwise been disconnected or felt disenfranchised. That can only be a good thing.

  Also I just wanted to thank my fellow candidates for conducting this online hustings in the same way that this campaign has been fought so far, with respect and civilty, both of which had been sadly lacking in politics at large of late.

  With regard to tuition fees Malc, for me and for my party, access to higher education is of critical importance to germinating the kind of graduate workforce that will breed innovation and new industry, the key ingredients to our own economic recovery. I joined the Lib Dems after being president of Aberdeen Uni Students’ Association in 1999 it was the same year that the Lib Dems scrapped tuition fees in Scotland after the UK Labour government had brought them in (despite similar assurances to the contrary, like the ones Sarah has given in her response). I believed that the Lib Dems had delivered the best deal for our students. I still believe that today.

  Now I marched with Edinburgh Uni Students’ Association in the winter as well, because I opposed the tuition fees increase and had publicly called on our MPs to vote against. I’m very proud that Edinburgh West’s Lib Dem MP Mike Crockart resigned from the government to vote against. Sarah states that student’s feel let down by the fees increase, that may be true, but they have not forgotten that it was Labour who brought tuition fees in the first place and moreover scrapped the maintenance grant restricting access for the poorest students in our society. If Labour have changed their minds in Scotland and are willing to embrace the policy of free higher education then I welcome that. But time will tell. So in answer to your question I believe that our funding gap in the HE sector should not be met by reducing the number of places we offer to undergrads, but instead through efficiency, through encouragement of philanthropy and yes, if needs be, with increased public spending.

  With regard to James’s questions about pitching to green voters: As a Quaker, a voluntary sector worker and a committed environmentalist, I have always had a great deal of sympathy with the green movement. Our manifesto for the forthcoming elections is packed with policy to make our country and our economy more sustainable and cognisant of our responsibilities to the world around us.

  This includes a dramatic refocusing of our economy towards the renewable energy sector, something which, if done correctly, could provide thousands of new jobs. We are also committed to the full implementation of the Climate Change Act. The Liberal Democrats were the only major party consistently to argue for the 42 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, and we are proud of the role we played in securing the inclusion of cumulative emissions, sectoral targets and tough annual targets within the Act. Concerted effort is now required to meet those targets, and we recognise that sustained, early action over the course of the next parliamentary session is crucial.

  Stuart, we need to enable people to take action on climate change in the home as such I wholeheartedly support the RHI and I believe that we should do everything humanly possible to encourage people to install micro renewable technologies in the home. Incentivising this through the FIT is something I’m very supportive of. But the review currently being undertaken by the UK government is not there to dismantle FIT instead it is seeking to tackle those who would seek to abuse the current system. There is a shadow economy industry in generating renewable power solely for the purpose of deriving profit from FIT. Nobody would want public money to line the pockets of those who use large scale solar panel energy production under the guise of domestic renewable feed in, that’s what the review seeks to stop and I support it.

  Once again, thanks to Malc for setting this up and for the questions.

  Best
  ACH

  • #8 by James on March 16, 2011 - 2:25 pm

    

    Alex, thanks for the info, but I can assure you won’t win over many Greens by saying we’re not a major party. Also, the best interpretations of the science suggested a 50% reduction by 2020 would have been better, a level which would also have helped us get an early advantage over other countries on green technology.

  • #9 by Stuart on March 17, 2011 - 7:29 am

    

    Alex,

    Thanks for your response to the FIT review question. My concern here is that if you reduce the economic incentive for larger scale projects, then you actually cut out the chance for community developed projects. I appreciate that most of the solar farms in the country have been developed by the usual developer, but surely there is a way to still allow communities to benefit from a rate.

    I believe that the FIT review will only benefit homeowners, who can afford the cap ex and have south facing roofs. Not the majority.

• #10 by Alex Cole-Hamilton on March 16, 2011 - 3:01 pm

  

  James, I agree, 50% would be better, but so would 60%, we are fast approaching 2020 and 42% is what we realistically see as being achievable with concerted effort and concentrated political will, but still far more ambitious that the stance taken previously by many of our opponents, but aspirationally, the greater the reduction, the better. We continue to look to countries like Denmark who have reduced emissions through investment in renewables still further.
  No harm intended in reference to the relative size of political parties!
  Best
  ACH

• #11 by Danny1995 on March 16, 2011 - 5:32 pm

  

  Thanks to all candidates for taking part, this is a key marginal and it’s great to see the politicians use the internet to engage with voters Scotland wide.

  My question is a follow up to Malc’s on tuition fees. Both Alex and Sarah have come out against tuition fees, I’d like to ask both if, in the hypothetical scenario that their party revised their tuition fees policy(Ala Westminister Lib Dems) if they would be prepared to rebel against the whip to deliver free tuition? As Alex stated, it’s right that governments and MSPs are accountable to their electorate and I feel the local electorate ought to be put before the party whip.

  Also, if there’s time I’d like to ask:

  -Given recent moves by Labour MP Brian Donohoe to introduce First past the post at Holyrood, is the electoral system up for negotiation?
  -Can the SNP, Lib Dems and Greens sort out their differences on Local income taxation and vote together to abolish council tax?
  -How does each candidate feel about Trident? Personally I think we should replace with nuclear weapon defence systems, like the one the USA planned in Eastern Europe, but with no party offering that, I can’t feel safe without Trident.

  • #12 by James on March 16, 2011 - 7:43 pm

    

    Hi Danny, I think Local Income Tax is dead for now, for a number of reasons. First, the Scottish Variable Rate mechanism that has now lapsed would have been required to bring it in. Second, the Lib Dems (as I understand it) voted to look at Land Value Tax – the preferred Green model – at their recent conference.

    Council Tax is regressive and getting worse as revaluation is postponed endlessly, and we have to get shot of it, but a tax that allows existing tax avoiders to avoid more tax, narrowing the base on which taxes are raised, and which would even ignore share income, isn’t the answer. I suspect the longer term answer will be giving each local authority the power to choose from a menu of local taxes, and to vary it according to the circumstances and the political makeup of the authority. It’d also make council elections more important, and make them more accountable.

    • #13 by Douglas McLellan on March 17, 2011 - 7:45 am

      

      I am pretty sure that it was only LVT has a replacement for business rates. As I have been advocating for some time. At least thats what the original motion was about. But I dont know if an amendment expanded the scope into personal taxation.

      I agree (again!) with your thinking about the direction of travel allowing local authorities to use a variety of taxes.

    • #14 by Indy on March 17, 2011 - 6:12 pm

      

      I don’t want to intervene in this but should clarify that the Scottish Government did not propose to use the Scottish Variable Rate Mechanism to bring in a local income tax. The consultation specifically ruled that out because the Scottish Variable Rate can only be applied to basic rate and not higher rate taxpayers. Rather, they proposed to pay HMRC to administer local income tax to both the basic and higher rate of income tax.

      • #15 by James on March 17, 2011 - 6:19 pm

        

        Sorry, to clarify, it wasn’t the SVR that would have been used, but the code and database that HMRC no longer maintain would have been essential to deliver Local Income Tax (or the National Salary Tax, as it was known around here, given the absence of local variability and exclusion of share income).

  • #16 by Iain McGill on March 20, 2011 - 9:05 pm

    

    Danny 1995 – is the electoral system up for discussion? Maybe! But let’s get the AV discussion out the way first. The electoral system is linked to your next two questions. On LIT I do not think they will sort out their differences on it – so it is an issue that would be kicked into the long grass of any hypothetical coalition deal. Much as trident has in Westminster. I believe strongly that we need to renew our nuclear deterrent, and that we should do it asap. But as we are in coalition with the Lib Dems who also have strong views on this massively important issue, we are frozen from making the important call one way or another for the 5year period of our Government.
    My view is that any system that creates more coalitions are a hindrance to strong leadership on some issues that Governments need to lead on. We all saw that the Lib Dems, SNP & Greens despite having the numbers could not agree on a LIT. We see issues like Trident and our relationship with Europe deferred for 5 years in Westminster, it’s hardly ideal.
    So it’s no2av for me.

• #17 by CassiusClaymore on March 16, 2011 - 6:42 pm

  

  I’d like to ask all of the candidates:-

  “Given that, given current opinion poll standings, the only realistic choice of Finance Minister is John Swinney or Andy Kerr, which of them do you think is best suited to the job? Give as objective and honest an answer as you can, without descent into the usual politicking”

  CC

  • #18 by Jeff on March 16, 2011 - 7:07 pm

    

    “No descent into the usual politicking”, just say it’s John Swinney and be on your way.

    CC, this is the kind of question that is detrimental to a campaign. The Conservatives, Lib Dems and Greens have their own ideas, their own policies and their own key individuals in their parties, they should feel no obligation to be drawn into the Labour vs SNP narrative that can plague an open debate, whether it’s here on a blog hustings or on a BBC leader debate.

    Anyway, the candidates are of course free to answer your question, but I suspect you’ll be lucky to get an answer you’re holding out for.

  • #19 by Iain McGill on March 20, 2011 - 9:05 pm

    

    Cassius Claymore
    Derek Brownlee is the most financially capable MSP – until May that is, when he’ll be 2nd behind me! I back Brownlee for the job.

• #20 by Top Tory Aide on March 16, 2011 - 10:53 pm

  

  My question for Alex Cole Hamilton, how’s the scurvy and are you aware, contrary to your press comment, that it’s a medieval illness and not a Dickensian one.

• #21 by Peter Smythe on March 17, 2011 - 7:05 am

  

  Thanks for the opportunity to ask the candidates questions.

  To my mind, we need a stronger Conservative voice in Edinburgh. Scotland is drifting away from the UK and we need this reined in – Iain Mcgill what is your view on increased powers to the parliament?

  We need to lower taxes! With more powers to the Scottish Parliament, all we will see is more tax to pay for our excessive public sector here. More of the public services need to be privatised so that they can be more efficient and make profits for entrepreneurial minded people. Public sector workers have a cushy life while business minded people work hard to create wealth.

  Candidates – what are you doing to support entrepreneurs?

  A lot of unemployed people soak up tax payers money for years. We need to be a lot tougher on this. I know this is a reserved matter, as it should be, but can the Scottish Parliament get unemployed people to contribute to society through new schemes?

  Thanks in advance for your replies

  • #22 by Doug Daniel on March 17, 2011 - 11:34 am

    

    “Public sector workers have a cushy life while business minded people work hard to create wealth.”

    Yeah, it really makes my blood boil thinking about all those public sector workers with their massive bonuses and massive salaries, sitting at their desks wearing their expensive suits and going home at the end of the day in their Ferraris and Porsches.

    Whenever I hear a nurse complaining about her pay, I give her a piece of my mind for not being more grateful for her cushy life, especially when you think about all the loopholes rich people have to jump through in order to minimise the amount they pay in tax to a more reasonable level. Poor things.

    I mean, who needs nurses, policemen, firefighters, teachers and care workers anyway???

  • #23 by Iain McGill on March 20, 2011 - 9:06 pm

    

    Thank you for posting – I could not agree more on the need for a stronger Conservative voice in Edinburgh! The Scotland Bill heralds a new era – From now on, the debate will not be about the powers Scotland has, but about how those powers are used.
    And let’s look at what those powers involve.
    Real fiscal accountability – this Parliament will now have to think about how it raises money, not just how it spends it. That is a crucial discipline, the absence of which has weakened political responsibility and accountability.
    This Parliament will now have a real financial stake in the success of the Scottish economy.
    These powers offer a huge opportunity for the Scottish Conservatives. We are the party that froze council tax bills – cutting them in real terms – and reduced small business rates. Now we have the opportunity to argue for tax competition within the UK – to encourage and reward the Scottish entrepreneurial spirit that will return this country to prosperity. To grow our private sector and rebalance our economy.
    There has been a wide debate over many years with diverse ideas feeding into each party’s discussion and into the Calman submissions themselves. Yes, there are those who worry about devolution and who have no desire to move it out of the current limbo. It is that very atrophy that is dangerous to the Union. So too there are those who argue that full fiscal autonomy is the only way forward. But after years of scrutiny and of evidence, the broad consensus across the parties, across the Parliament and across the country is that this is the way forward.
    David Cameron and the coalition government pledged to act on Calman and they have delivered and I support this legislation.

• #24 by Robert Smith on March 17, 2011 - 10:17 am

  

  #14

  While no one, I imagine, is suggesting that we do not need ‘entrepreneurs’, your comments also demonstrate ignorance and prejudice. I’ll be interested to see what the candidates say too.

• #25 by Alex Cole-Hamilton on March 17, 2011 - 1:28 pm

  

  Interesting questions, Keep them coming.

  Danny: On a fees vote, I wouldn’t have to rebel against a party whip on fees, because there wouldn’t be one. The Scottish Lib Dem commitment to oppose the reintroduction of fees remains absolute, it’s our party policy, and our MPs and MSPs aren’t whipped to vote for something that is contrary to party policy. But I understand that your question is a hypothetical about some situation where an unforeseen set of circumstances may paint us into a corner. I’m on record saying I will never vote for the reintroduction of fees, I would honour that.

  With regard to the electoral system: I think we should review the additional member system, with a view to replacing it with STV. At present you can have a constituency MSP voted out of office for incompetence but find themselves re-elected through the regional list. Furthermore, at present political parties, through internal selection for regional rankings, pick the majority of our MSPs, not voters. That is clearly undemocratic and STV would remedy that.

  Council Tax needs to be abolished, but as James rightly points out, the tools needed to replace it are unavailable to us until the variable rate mechanism is reinstated. We need a system of local taxation which is based on liquid assets rather than property value.

  On Trident: As a Quaker I have been, am now and always shall be passionately opposed to the retention of any nuclear arsenal. The biggest threat to our way of life is no longer in the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile of a former super-power, but rather in the hearts and minds of fanatics who live amongst us and who we simply cannot aim a guidance system at. I make no apology for being a unilateralist, because frankly multilateralism has failed. We’ve had 50 years of multilateral disarmament but still have enough fire power between us to blow the planet to kingdom come several times over. Someone has to set an example as to what real disarmament should look like. Let that be us.

  Cassius: I like your style, but am afraid I reject your basic assertion that ‘the only realistic choice’ for Finance Sec is only Swinney or Kerr. Any way you slice it, it is more than likely that the next administration will be made up of more than one party, so we could very easily have a Tory, Lib Dem, or even a Green finance Sec. Now I say with this in all sincerity, I know and Like both Swinney and Kerr and think them both very able in their different ways, but I’d take Jeremy Purvis to steward the nation’s coffers any day of the week.

  Peter: I recently introduced a group of Edinburgh based Entrepreneurs to Danny Alexander, they told us what we have known for some time, that the biggest barrier to growth and success for business start-ups is red tape, (particularly in areas like intellectual property, finance etc) and a support structure which is no longer fit for purpose. We’d scrap Scottish Enterprise and instead establish regional development banks that would be more responsive to local business needs and simpler to operate.

  With regard to encouraging people to find work, we are already taking steps to do this by changing the benefits system so that it will always be considerably more lucrative to be in work than to stay on JSA. Incentivising work is one thing, but we need to have jobs for people to take up, through investment in new technologies, renewable energy and life sciences we have a plan that could bring 10s of thousands of rewarding jobs to Scotland. We also have to get to people before they enter a lifestyle of economic inactivity in the first place. Almost 40,000 16-19 year olds are outside of education, employment or training- this must represent the focus of any government’s approach to tackling unemployment.

• #26 by Iain McGill on March 17, 2011 - 1:34 pm

  

  Thanks for all the questions – and just as important taking time to read the blog! I will pitch in with answers to them all (well, I might skip the Kerr/Swinney one) but it’ll probably be over the weekend – the questions deserve more time dedicated to the answers than I can give until then!

  It’s a busy week – I still have a day job to pay the bills, as well as campaigning – and it’s our party conference starting tonight until Saturday and Broughton High Schools politics week – so we have a live hustings tomorrow!

• #27 by CassiusClaymore on March 18, 2011 - 12:11 pm

  

  Alex C-H – I’m glad you like my style. In return, may I say that I admire your bravura. If it helps, I do admire Jeremy Purvis and I’d take Purvis over Kerr in a heartbeat.

  Jeff, apologies but I think it’s highly unrealistic to suppose that anyone other than a SNP/Lab bod will be finance sec, even if there is a coalition. The Swinney/Kerr paradox gets to the heart of the choice facingt the electorate, in my opinion, and I am genuinely interested to see what the Labour candidate believes to be Kerr’s advantages over Swinney.

  CC

• #28 by Peter Smythe on March 22, 2011 - 8:39 am

  

  Well, Mr Mcgill?

  • #29 by Iain McGill on March 22, 2011 - 4:30 pm

    

    Is there something further you wish me to address?

    My answers so far are underneath the questions – I think I’ve covered most of the points

    • #30 by Peter Smythe on March 25, 2011 - 1:19 pm

      

      Mr Mcgill
      I didn’t see your reply above. Thank you.
      So you assert that, the Scotland Bill means that the debate will no longer be about what powers Scotland has anymore? I think that is a facile assumption. The Nationalists are not going to give up on getting more powers for Scotland! You seem complacent about this!
      And George Osborne isn’t helping. He’s giving Scots every reason to want to leave the UK! Why on earth is he allowing Northern Ireland to reduce Corporation tax – this will be disastrous for Scottish businesses and inward investment!.
      Also, he’s using North Sea oil to pay for tax cuts in England. Another reason for Scots to cut fiscal ties to England.
      Finally all he is doing in this budget to help business here is some woolly talk about enterprise zones which can’t happen in Scotland until after the Holyrood elections whereas in England its full steam ahead!
      I am a Conservative but despair of this government giving good enough reasons to keep the UK together. If the SNP were a bit more pro-business, I would be tempted, not for independence, but for full fiscal control of Scotland’s resources. In the end, Conservative values are to stand on one’s own feet.
      What do you say Ian?

• #31 by Peter Smythe on March 24, 2011 - 7:42 am

  

  Mr Mcgill

  I didn’t see your reply above. Thank you.

  So you assert that, the Scotland Bill means that the debate will no longer be about what powers Scotland has anymore? I think that is a facile assumption. The Nationalists are not going to give up on getting more powers for Scotland! You seem complacent about this!

  And George Osborne isn’t helping. He’s giving Scots every reason to want to leave the UK! Why on earth is he allowing Northern Ireland to reduce Corporation tax – this will be disastrous for Scottish businesses and inward investment!.

  Also, he’s using North Sea oil to pay for tax cuts in England. Another reason for Scots to cut fiscal ties to England.

  Finally all he is doing in this budget to help business here is some woolly talk about enterprise zones which can’t happen in Scotland until after the Holyrood elections whereas in England its full steam ahead!

  I am a Conservative but despair of this government giving good enough reasons to keep the UK together. If the SNP were a bit more pro-business, I would be tempted, not for independence, but for full fiscal control of Scotland’s resources. In the end, Conservative values are to stand on one’s own feet.

  What do you say Ian?

• Pingback: #SP11 – Edinburgh Central (Physical) Hustings « Better Nation

Comments are closed.