Except, unless you’ve been living under a local rock recently, the local government elections in May are already causing a lot of trouble.

Glasgow (Labour majority) and Edinburgh (SNP + Lib Dem coalition) councils budgets nearly failed, Stirling (SNP minority) councils actually did. There’s a variety of rammies in progress as a result of the funding settlement, the power dynamics between the parties and there’s doubtless more brewing.

Having said that, council elections are possibly the last vestige of truly representative democracy. Except perhaps in particularly contentious places like Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen councils don’t do “high politics” and even with those there’s specific local issues in play: Edinburgh has the trams fiasco; Aberdeen Union Terrace Gardens and Donald Trump’s boondoggle; Glasgow has roughly 1 in 10 Scots living in it.

Most people outside of Glasgow and North Lanarkshire probably can’t accurately describe the political make up of their councils executive. I’d put 50p and a pound of grapes on more people being able to name one of their Councillors, though. What they do do are pot holes, buses, parks and dog poo. Not to mention councillors being the first port of call for folk having trouble with truculent social services, benefits and planning departments. Prosaic stuff compared to the constitution or energy policy but definitely the sharp end of politics.

It’s that prosaic stuff that’s likely to determine elections in many wards, and probably enough to swing control one way or another in many councils. Yes, there’s a national effect where some people vote on whether they like Alex Salmond, Johann Lamont or Ruth Davidson but because these local elections are decoupled from national elections for the first time in a long time that’s likely to be more muted. That muting means there’s a bigger personal vote for those candidates that are running again and have helped people in the past, a bigger anti-vote for those that haven’t done well by their constituents and a chance for new faces to make a meaningful impression.

Because of that, it’s going to be an ugly, bitter, vicious election. Things are going to be said and done which aren’t edifying, illuminating or even true. It’s unlikely to be Daley’s Chicago vicious, but only because nobody has the capability for that sort of politics. If they did, they would use it.

Some people will argue that the stakes are far higher: that the SNP have to retain their existing councils and make substantial gains; conversely that Labour has to either hold control in Glasgow or take Edinburgh. I’m not convinced about that. Without falling into cliche, Scots have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to decouple different elections.

Prosaic as it is, it seems to me that the local elections are going to come down to two things: organisation and effort. If you’re prepared to work hard and you’ve got some sense you’ll be ok. If you’re not well, good luck with that.

I’m not sure if this counts as a worst motion of the week, a best motion of the week or neither but I couldn’t help but raise an eyebrow at the Labour MSP who supported the following motion:

Motion S4M-02056: Kenneth Gibson, Cunninghame North, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 20/02/2012
Fool Me Once
That the Parliament notes the recent comments by the Prime Minister regarding additional powers for the Scottish Parliament; understands that the carrot of extra “powers” will be available only if Scots do not vote positively for independence in a referendum; considers that no attempt whatsoever has been made to define such powers; believes that the same tactic was used in the 1970s by the Tories, who promised a better assembly bill if the one on offer was rejected; considers that the Tories, on gaining office in 1979, betrayed this promise and shelved any pretence at delivering devolution during 18 years in power; believes that Scots have learned from bitter experience not to trust the Tories on the constitution, and urges a Yes vote in the independence referendum.

Supported by: Adam Ingram, Gordon MacDonald, Mike MacKenzie, John Mason, Stuart McMillan, Dennis Robertson, Bill Walker, Bob Doris, David Torrance, George Adam, Angus MacDonald, Maureen Watt, Kevin Stewart, James Dornan, Colin Beattie, Chic Brodie, Joan McAlpine, Margaret Burgess, Annabelle Ewing, Gil Paterson, Bill Kidd, Jim Eadie,

Kezia Dugdale

, Jamie Hepburn, Roderick Campbell, Dave Thompson

Given that the motion “urges a Yes vote in the independence referendum”, what are we to take from this?

Has Kezia cast off her unionist beliefs, been blinded by the anti-Tory sentiment at the start of the motion or is this another ‘wrong button’ from an MSP?

Either way, one can’t help but wonder what Johann Lamont will make of it…

This week’s Worst Motion of the Week was such a close call that I decided to lump two close contenders in together. Like a couple of naughty school children sitting down doing lines outside the Head’s office, they’ll never learn otherwise…

First up, is the inimitable Kenneth Gibson, a repeat offender sadly.

Motion S4M-02041: Kenneth Gibson, Cunninghame North, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 16/02/2012
Scots of the Antarctic
That the Parliament recognises what it considers the remarkable incompetence of Labour ministers in the previous UK administration who, it has emerged, accidentally devolved some responsibility, including the ability to launch scientific research expeditions, over Britain’s 660,000 square mile Antarctic territory to the Scottish Parliament; believes that, in pursuit of a respect agenda, it would be wrong as a point of principle for the UK Government to seek to reserve these powers once more; understands that more research is conducted in Scotland than any other country relative to wealth per head of population, that Scotland has the highest concentration of universities in Europe, with Scottish institutions undertaking world-leading research, over half of which is rated as internationally excellent, that Scotland is also home to five of the world’s top 200 universities, while it ranks third in the world for the number of research publications published per head of population; considers, therefore, that the UK Government should not only cease in its attempts to have this responsibility reserved, but actively encourage Scottish involvement in planning and conducting scientific research and expeditions in the region; further considers that, due to Scottish scientific and educational excellence, the UK Government would also be wise to devolve some control over space exploration to the Scottish Parliament, and believes that, if the UK Government seriously wants to have full control over the Antarctic territory, it may wish to consider the issue as part of an agreement to return 15,000 square kilometres of Scottish waters, as agreed in the Continental Shelf (Jurisdiction) Order 1968, which it considers were transferred unilaterally from Scottish to UK jurisdiction under the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999 just weeks before the Scottish Parliament came into being and which was subsequently endorsed by unionist MSPs acting, it considers, as always, in London’s interest.
Supported by: Adam Ingram, Gordon MacDonald, Bill Kidd, Mike MacKenzie, David Torrance, George Adam, Kevin Stewart, Dennis Robertson

I don’t fully follow how, in the one motion, Kenny can slag off Labour for “remarkable incompetence” in accidentally devolving the launching of scientific research expeditions to Holyrood while also claiming, “as a point of principle”, that those powers should remain with the Scottish Parliament. I can’t imagine that there are any Scottish-based expeditions out to Antarctica that are raring to go, irrespective of the long list of irrelevant accolades that Kenny has manage to shoehorn into this motion. Even if an expedition is due to get going, I can’t imagine that it’ll make a blind bit of difference as to whether the powers are held at Holyrood or Westminster.

Mentioning good things about Scottish universities does not a good motion make, and indeed is a clue as to what cracks are trying to be papered over.

Next on the list, and jockeying for WMOTW top spot this week, is Hugh Henry, a recent Scottish Politician of the Year so someone who should really know better.

Motion S4M-02004: Hugh Henry, Renfrewshire South, Scottish Labour,
Date Lodged: 10/02/2012
Linwood
That the Parliament regrets the comments reportedly made by SNP councillor David Berry describing Linwood as a “dead end”; considers that Linwood is a proud community, which has suffered from the effects of industrial decline; recognises and pays tribute to the many community organisations in the area, including the churches, community council, the Community Development Trust and the Elderly Forum, that are working hard to make Linwood a better place, and believes that an apology is due as a result of what it sees as this unwelcome slur.
Supported by: Neil Bibby, Neil Findlay

Any motion with the phrase “unwelcome slur” in it is bound to be a bit of no-good Punch and Judy that may be worthy of page 17 in a tabloid, but isn’t really welcome in the Scottish Pariament. I don’t know if Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick has an official equivalent of ‘take it outside lads’ but, if so, I hope that it is utilised.

Both motions are really aimed at journalists and rival councillors respectively, rather than the Scottish public, so here’s hoping that their next attempts are a better effort and don’t drive us up the Pole.

Indeed, you could say that, much like the Antarctic and Linwood itself, the only way is up.

Photo by J D Mack

Last week the Monetary Policy Committee decided to go ahead with another £50 billion round of quantitative easing in which the central bank buys gilts (UK government debt) on the secondary market (i.e. it buys bonds from private holders on the secondary market rather than buying it directly from the government. That’s the theoretical difference which differentiates us from Zimbabwe). That makes a total of £325 billion of new money floating about in the economy.

It’s worth, at this point, briefly exploring exactly what money is these days. There are two measures that the UK normally uses, narrow money supply (M0) and broad money supply (M4). The first, M0, is the total of the physical notes and coins in your pocket and in the tills and safes of companies as well as the deposits from retail banks held by the Bank of England. The second, M4, is the notes and coins held by people and firms other than banks (including the BoE), the total sum of private bank deposits and certificates of deposit.

Allowing for a substantial difference between M0 and M4 is the essential point of having a fiat currency rather than being bound to something like the gold standard. Quantitative easing, as implemented in the UK, expands the money supply by increasing demand for the bonds deposited with the BoE in M0 thus reducing their price and therefore the relative cost of cash to retail banks.

Which they’ve basically then sat on.

The BBC’s excellent Money Box had a section on this where they challenged the way that QE is implemented and questioned why, if the ostensible purpose is to stimulate demand, peoples bank accounts aren’t just incremented by about a £1000 each. Answer from the Institute of Directors representative came there none.

It’d be bloody brilliant. If we’re going to actually make up £50bn in new money that didn’t exist before, which is literally what is happening, why shouldn’t everyone get a cheque in the post? We could make it taxable so the policy would be progressive and still be sanatised so we weren’t directly printing money for government spending which is the theoretical reason countries get in trouble. It’s far more likely that people would spend it directly (or reduce their overall debt) which helps keep the economy going, businesses from going under and people in work.