There’s nothing like arriving fashionably late to a party. Though I don’t suppose making it here for teatime and managing to miss not just one Ministerial speech, but three constitutes anything but rude. It wasn’t deliberate, honest.
Welcome, dear BN readers, to our outpost from Inverness and the SNP Conference for the weekend, where the enterprising Burd has secured blogging accreditation rights and will be posting all the highlights from speeches and resolutions. Almost as they happen.
It’s a bit of a first in that the SNP has never deigned to allow official blogging and I have promised to behave myself. And tomorrow, ensure that I am here on time for all the big speeches.
So if it wasn’t for the small mercy of transcripts, what might I have missed today? A rather defensive display from Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill MSP and a barnstormer from Nicola Sturgeon MSP, Depute First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport (outposts on both to follow later). But the opening Ministerial speech was a real crowd-pleaser from Cabinet Secretary for Capital and Infrastructure, Alex Neil MSP.
As well as taunting the other parties in Scotland – “the Tories are fighting like cats and dogs with some of them even wondering if Murdo Fraser is even in the blue corner….Labour is scurrying around its third and fourth divisions looking for its new leader in Scotland…”, Alex Neil also made time to have a square go at the UK Government and in particular, its perceived interference in the proposed independence referendum. He suggested we might like to “ask David Cameron why he thinks he can come to Scotland where he has no democratic mandate and try to dictate the terms of the independence referendum to the Scottish people and their democratically elected Parliament”. Methinks we will be hearing more of this refrain over the weekend and indeed, over the winter.
Interestingly, the failed 79 devolution referendum was referenced too: “this Conference and the Scottish Government should send out a loud and clear message to David Cameron that the days when the Unionist parties at Westminster can rig a referendum, on Scotland’s constitutional future are over. There will be no 40% rule in this referendum.” I can practically hear the spontaneous, rapturous applause Alex Neil got at this point.
But it suggests, or rather confirms, following the First Minister’s intervention with the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster last week, that the current approach to the independence referendum is one of deflection. No one practises the politics of grievance with the London lot as effortlessly or as skilfully as the SNP. The tactics are of course correct, even if they are a tad obvious, and allow the SNP to avoid answering calls to set the date and determine the questions for the referendum by implying that it’s bugger all to do with Westminster and they should keep their noses out.
For all that, most of the Cabinet Secretary’s speech was given over to his day job and the focus was very much on fuel poverty, including an announcement that the Boiler Scrappage Scheme would be extended and increased by £1.5 million “a 60% rise in its budget despite the Westminster cuts”. The scheme will cover over 10,000 houses in Scotland. Other actions highlighted include extending the central heating programme and other energy assistance measures to carers from 30 November this year and the initiation of a universal insulation programme to cover over 200,000 houses throughout Scotland in its early years.
Concentrating on fuel poverty also allowed the Cabinet Secretary to point up the difference that could be made in independent Scotland. “If Scotland had control over all of our energy resources we could: bring every house in Scotland up to the standard in Scandinavia and eliminate fuel poverty in Scotland.”
Again, expect to hear more on these lines – hints and tints of the brave new world that can be delivered with independence – throughout the weekend. Indeed, the Depute First Minister continued to develop this theme in her speech – which suggests that while the other parties are caught up in the process, the SNP is already whirring away in the backrooms working out its narrative to sell independence and its merits to the nation.
#1 by Lost Highlander on October 21, 2011 - 7:23 pm
There is still time to get down to the legion for the ceilidh it starts at 8.
Alex Neils speech was a good humorous one and he had the hall. Kenny Macaskills was more cerebal still well recieved. Nicola’s was a barnstormer but singing from the same hymn sheet as Alex Neils that only Scotland has the right to choose her future not westminster.
#2 by Stuart Winton on October 22, 2011 - 12:13 am
“Alex Neil also made time to have a square go at the UK Government and in particular, its perceived interference in the proposed independence referendum.”
Would that be the same Alex Neil who on Newsnicht was making the point that it was for the Unionist parties to define what was meant by devo-max etc?
#3 by Doug Daniel on October 22, 2011 - 3:29 am
Don’t see your problem Stuart. Devo Max is an idea for a method of government, whereas the referendum is a process for determining the method of government. They don’t have to interfere with the process in order to define the idea behind one of the options.
If that’s the best criticism you can come up with, then you’re clutching at straws.
#4 by Stuart Winton on October 22, 2011 - 7:51 am
Rather than me clutching at straws I think it’s you who’s trying to split hairs, Doug.
However, I don’t really think there’s much in the way of hairs to split, since surely the UK govt can’t really ‘interfere’ without getting involved in the ‘method of government’. After all, assuming Westminster does interfere then it’s to impose a simple yes/no option in the hope that we’ll baulk at the thought of a complete shot in the dark, as the opinion polls have historically indicated.
As a corollary, the SNP want to call the shots because at the moment they don’t think a vote on classic independence could be won, hence they’re floating the idea of a third way, because they know that in view of the history of the polls that the Scottish public would almost certainly endorse a third way, however it’s precisely defined.
But let’s not get into the substance of the independence argument here – suffice to say that the process of a referendum and the substance of the methods of government proposed are inextricably linked, at least insofar as both sides are positioning themselves on the matter.
Indeed, Alex Neil’s precise words were:
“When David Cameron, a Tory Prime Minister with no democratic mandate in Scotland, comes, ask him: why does he think he can come here and try to dictate to the First Minister and the directly elected and democratic Scottish Parliament when we should have a referendum, *what the question should be*, and what the rules governing the referendum are going to be?”
So he’s asking the Unionists what devo-max amount to, while at the same time telling the Tories not to interfere with what the question is.
Let’s face it, Alex Neil is just trying to deflect attention from the SNP’s lack of clarity on the various issues.
#5 by Doug Daniel on October 22, 2011 - 7:39 pm
I don’t think you get it Stuart. The referendum is the SNP’s to arrange – they’ll decide the timing and how many options are included. Their favoured option is independence, but they’ll include Devo max if they’re satisfied with how the unionists have defined it.
However, if the UK government try to dictate when it should be held or what it should contain, then that would be interfering with the mandate given by the voters in May to the SNP.
They can define Devo max, but it would only be interference if they imposed the option onto the referendum. It’s not splitting hairs – you just don’t seem to understand what “interference” means.
#6 by Jeff on October 22, 2011 - 10:00 pm
I have to say, I’m with Stuart on this one, though I’ll happily admit that I may not get it either.
You can’t on the one hand invite parties to provide an option in the referendum while slamming the leaders of those parties for interfering. It’s a bit like kids getting their parents to help them build a den and then sticking a ‘No Adults Alowed’ sign on the front.
There may be a very subtle distinction between the nature of the interference and the offer of input but, on the whole, it doesn’t look anything other than contradictory.
#7 by The Burd on October 23, 2011 - 11:30 am
But do you know what? It’s tactical and it’s working.
#8 by Jeff on October 23, 2011 - 11:42 am
A tactical solution, by definition, won’t work in the long term.
Stand somewhat corrected on Type I/II diabetes GP W. Good shout.
#9 by Barbarian on October 22, 2011 - 10:41 am
The eliminating fuel poverty sounds good, but there is no substance. The only way that this can happen is if the government controls the energy prices, and even the best insultation won’t help. Can’t help digging here, but this is all soundbites by Neil, a politician I personally think is a hinderance to the SNP. If anything goes wrong with the referendum, he will be amongst the first to break ranks.
As to Sturgeon, that was a superb speech, and she is a powerful politician, and young enough that the SNP has a stable line of succession.
But conferences will always be successful for political parties – well usually, since Labour manage to cock theirs up on occasion.
Getting the conference delegates into a lather is easy – it’s convincing the electorate that requires the real work.
#10 by Allan on October 22, 2011 - 11:27 am
Can I make a couple of points of order…
Firstly, the Cambot doesn’t have much of a mandate without his doorm… sorry Lib Dem coalition partners. Remember he failed to “seal the deal”, so has to live within that coalition with partners who won more votes & seats here than his party did. If anything gives the Cambot a mandate to stick his oar in here (apart from being the leader of this country for the moment), it will be those Lib Dem votes.
Secondly, the SNP’s performance in that Westminster election seems to have been swept under the carpet. They held on to 6 seats comfortably, but really should have been pushing to take more. Their campaign struck precisely the wrong chord, while their complaints about the “Leaders Debates” came accross to many people as whinging.
Having said that, the SNP must be getting brave if they are willing to reference 1979, George Cunningham and all that given that led to the jump the shark moment for so many Scots voters – the vote of no confidence of the 28 March 1979.
#11 by Chas Booth on October 23, 2011 - 1:00 pm
Alex Neil’s ambition to have Scandinavian home energy standards in Scotland is admirable, and would slash fuel poverty levels from the current 33% down to below 5%.
The problem is, he already has the powers to set Scandinavian standards: home energy efficiency and building regulations are both devolved.
So what’s stopping you Alex?
#12 by James on October 23, 2011 - 1:02 pm
Quite!