Good news. The motions lodged this week were of sufficient quality such that there is no worst motion of the week. So, that frees us up to showcase two of the best ones.

Motion S4M-00892 – Richard Simpson ( Mid Scotland and Fife ) ( Scottish Labour ) : Vive la France That the Parliament applauds the French Government, which is introducing a tax on sugary drinks that it expects to raise €120 million for the French treasury; understands that French MPs have rejected the statement by the corporate chief executive of Coca-Cola, who, in the statement he later withdrew and described as a miscommunication, indicated that the company would not carry through its €17 million investment in reprisal if the tax proceeded; further understands that the average person in France has increased in weight by three kilos since 1997 and that consumption of sugary drinks has hugely increased and that Scotland consumes 20% more sugary drinks than England and more than France, and calls on the Scottish Government to consider giving local authorities power to introduce a tax on sugary drinks and use the income to improve school diets and support community-based nutritional improvement initiatives and build on the work of previous Scottish administrations to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks in schools.
Supported by: Patricia Ferguson, Helen Eadie, Ken Macintosh, Mark Griffin, Alison Johnstone, Richard Simpson

Oui, oui, oui. Absolutement! Free dentists for kids, free fillings for kids and cheap coke and irn-bru for kids. Who is with me?

Yes, there is a problem with that last one there isn’t there? I don’t see any problem with using the tax system to guide good behaviour especially when money is in short supply and, as Dr Simpson points out in his motion, “Scotland consumes 20% more sugary drinks than England and more than France”. Fatty food tax, sugary drink tax and unrecyclable packaging tax. Why not? We already tax to the hilt booze and fags. Starting off with a local levy based on the French initiative seems as good a place as any to begin.

So I reckon the above motion is worthy of serious consideration and do hope that it gains a few more signatures over today and the coming week.

The next motion in many ways goes hand in hand with the one above. Would as many kids be drinking fizzy juices if they were immersed in sport? Answers on a postcard please (or the comments section will do)

Motion S4M-00895 – George Adam ( Paisley ) ( Scottish National Party ) : Paisley, a Centre for Tennis Excellence in Scotland
That the Parliament welcomes the redevelopment and resurfacing of the Brodie Park community tennis courts in Paisley, a joint initiative by Renfrewshire Council and Paisley South Vision Group; acknowledges the £160,000 investment in the project by the Lawn Tennis Association; applauds the aims of Tennis For Free, a charity set up to campaign to make all publicly managed tennis courts available for free use; welcomes the announcement of free child and adult tennis lessons at the courts, and considers that this, coupled with the recent Davis Cup tennis matches played at the Braehead Arena, makes Paisley and Renfrewshire a centre for tennis excellence in Scotland.
Supported by: Jamie Hepburn, Bill Kidd, Sandra White, Rob Gibson, David Torrance, Gil Paterson, Kenneth Gibson, Derek Mackay, Hugh Henry, Richard Lyle, Joan McAlpine, Mike MacKenzie, Stuart McMillan, Neil Bibby, Bob Doris, Humza Yousaf, Drew Smith, Annabelle Ewing

I remember fondly the days of sneaking onto our local tennis club’s courts with our dodgy 1960s wooden rackets and one ball that wouldn’t bounce properly after the place had been locked up for the evening. Had light stopped play in the way it does at Wimbledon, we wouldn’t quite have gotten as many games in!

Balking at the membership costs and knowing fine well that it wasn’t affordable for us was a harsh, early notice that some things in life are out of your reach, things like big yachts, fast cars and a holiday home on a tropical island. I can live with that quite easily but tennis being out of reach for young kids? Surely something can be done there (and it’s worth noting that tennis is free on numerous courts in London) so good on Tennis for Free and George Adam for taking it on.

So there we go, it seems recess has been a welcome break for our MSPs. A bit of clarity, a bit of fresh air and a bit of clarity comes to the fore.

Let’s see if it lasts into next week….

If you need a reminder of the stuttering halt that the UK economy has come to this year, even after the tumult of 2008 is taken into account, then you need only read the following excerpt from Alistair Darling’s 2010 budget delivery:

“This year … I expect the economy to grow by between 1 and 1.5 percent. I will bring my forecast for 2011 in line with that of the Bank of England, to growth of between 3 and 3.5 percent.”

The IMF downgraded the UK’s growth forecast to 1.1%, less than a third of what Alistair had forecast less than two years ago (his Dec 2009 forecast was 3.75%).

It is within this climate of anaemic growth that John Swinney had to stand up in front of the Scottish Parliament yesterday to explain how he would balance the books for the coming years, albeit safe in the knowledge that all of his fellow SNP MSPs would vote in favour of whatever he said.

So, how will the Scottish Government square the circle of meeting manifesto commitments (freezing council tax, protecting NHS spending) and keeping existing benefits (free tuition, free care for the elderly) with a shrinking pot of cash over the next few years.

Well, taken directly from John Swinney’s statement, we will see the following:

– The pay policy for 2012-13 therefore extends the freeze on basic pay and suspends access to bonuses for a further year. My aim is that 2012-13 will be the last year of a pay freeze and we may be able to see modest increases in the years that follow.
– I propose that the business rates paid by large retailers of both tobacco and alcohol will be increased by a supplement from 1st April 2012.
– We are reducing organisational costs, including a reduction of 18% in the core Scottish Government’s operating costs over three years and with a requirement that all public bodies will bear down on their own comparable costs.
– In addition, I have taken a decision on the local government capital settlement that, maintains their share of the total capital funding across the period, but will be reprofiled over the remainder of this Parliament. This reflects the Government’s wish to maximise the availability of capital spending and recognises that local government has the power to borrow in order to supplement their capital budgets. We will work with our partners in local government to see to what extent this can sensibly be used to maximise capital expenditure, which is critical to economic recovery.

Let’s look at some of the key items in turn:

Tesco Tax
This one was always a no-brainer, even if the papers are trying to whip up a storm about it today. If those with the deepest pockets need to carry most of the cuts can, then Tesco and other major retailers are near the front of the queue. Add to that the angle that John Swinney is targetting retailers of problem-creating products of alcohol and tobacco to raise revenue and this is a measure that is coming in one year too late, but is welcome nonetheless.

Public Sector Pay Freeze
I’m sure if John Swinney could freeze the pay of private sector workers then he would have done too. The alternative to freezing public sector pay is sacking some people and increasing the pay of others. A freeze therefore is the clearest way of reducing the pain and showing we’re all in this together. Again, a relatively straightforward decision for John Swinney to make. Noone likes their pay going down in real terms but I’m sure we can all agree that that is preferable to losing one’s job entirely.

Councils
This is where things start to get interesting. SNP MSPs are protesting to Westminster that they do not have the necessary economic levers to manoeuvre their way through the economic storm. And yet, those same SNP MSPs, with John Swinney at the helm, seem comfortable enough to place restrictions on individual councils in order to centralise decision-making and push priorities at Holyrood. Perhaps that is the most efficient use of taxpayers money but there is more than hint of hypocrisy about it. Why shouldn’t we let individual council areas decide if they want to pay more Council Tax in order to have more, better local services? Is it right that the SNP have councils in a financial arm lock just to help make them electable?

The Scottish Government is effectively taking capital spend from councils in order to pay for capital spend of Holyrood projects, leaving those councils to have to borrow instead. Fair? Probably not. I don’t think I’d want my local council taking out too big a loan just as the cost of borrowing is reaching new heights. We saw with the Icesave debacle that councils are not always the smartest when it comes to where to place deposits so the less finance decisions the better. That said, there is no arguing that the Council Tax freeze is a bad thing for families feeling the squeeze in a good number of ways, so that side of the coin has to be kept in perspective.

All in all, on the face of it, there is a distinct lack of shocks, surprises or, well, serious pain here and at some point one has to decide that John Swinney is not so much putting off the inevitable but actually making the numbers add up year after year and getting Scotland through the eye of the needle/storm (delete as appropriate depending on your analogy preference).

The clues as to the weak spots in John Swinney’s arguments must come from the Shadow Finance Secretaries from the opposition parties:

Labour’s Richard Baker had this to say: “We must assume there has been extensive consultation with major retailers to make sure this proposal is fit for purpose unlike the previous attempt. For a government that is meant to be keen on economic recovery, there are some savage cuts that will not help that cause.”

Attacking the budget over the Tesco Tax is, for me, solid evidence that this is a solid budget. It is small and medium-sized businesses that are facing the worst of this economic crisis and furthermore there is an argument in favour of rebalancing the marketplace more in favour of the smaller retailers out there anyway. We don’t need more Tescos so why is charging it higher rates bad for economic recovery?

The Conservatives’ Gavin Brown has picked up the reins from ex-MSP Derek Brownlee with a forensic challenge to John Swinney’s positioning: “Their own document calculates a £1bn reduction in real terms for local government. They have completely backtracked on their pledge of four years ago to increase teacher numbers, they are making cuts to enterprise, innovation, the third sector, Skills Development Scotland, higher and further education and housing and regeneration.”

This is undoubtedly the weak point of the budget for the year ahead, shifting the risk and the responsibility over to councils and potentially scapegoating them. Gavin is right to question this perceived shortfall and hopefully all stakeholders will be clear what their budgets mean for the next three years, as there is clearly currently confusion and suspicion.

Patrick Harvie for the Greens noted: “There is something fundamentally wrong with a spending plan where the motorways budget is over three times the size of the housing and regeneration budget, and these figures are moving in opposite directions every year. It’s very easy for Alex Salmond to call for a summit on high fuel bills but his Government has consistently failed to deliver the £100million a year home insulation programme that fuel poverty campaigners have been asking for year after year at budget time.”

Patrick is, as usual, very much correct. I stayed in rickety cottages in Norway last week that had better insulation and glazing than quite possibly every house I’ve ever lived in in Scotland. It’s bizarre that homes in cities in Scotland can be freezing but a little hut that looks out onto the North Atlantic Ocean can be toasty with minimal heating required. It is a crisis that Scots either do not care for or truly do not appreciate and, either way, much like road-building programs, the Greens rightful protests will fall on deaf ears as usual.

Willie Rennie said: “The SNP have delayed making any decisions for a year. Today they are still not making the right choices. Their priority is not the economy but on getting tough choices off their desks and onto someone else’s. The Scottish Government must take responsibility for their part in getting Scotland back on the road to economic recovery and acknowledge the key decisions taken by the UK Government to achieve this.”

It’s all a bit jumbled there for my liking. Perhaps trying to attack the SNP on too many fronts prevents one key point from getting through, a regular Lib Dem fault these days. Willie doesn’t say what the “right choices” are so how do we know that the SNP choices are the wrong ones? Furthermore, John Swinney spelled out in detail what his plans are for Scotland’s economic recovery and the Plan MacB has been trailed for days. I don’t think the Lib Dems can expect to get away with ignoring the detail and just claiming, urging people to believe, what it is that the Lib Dems want to believe.

So, all in all, once again, the Scottish Government has (so far) managed to keep all the tartan goodies since 1999 intact, maintain the promises of its manifesto and seemingly not have to inflict too deep cuts on the Scottish public. Do we need to know how John Swinney does it as long as he can? Well, yes, we do need to know and there is still a risk of Scotland’s finances unravelling.

Indeed, rather than any political chicanery, trickery or sleight of hand, our undoing might end up being that growth forecast of 1.1%, already down from 3.75%, dropping much, much lower and Scotland’s budget falling past a tipping point that even our beloved Finance Secretary cannot salvage an appropriate budget from.

I suspect John Swinney has worried eyes on Greece, Italy and Portugal just as much as the EU Finance Secretaries do.

But so far, so good.

I was probably quite naive about Refounding Labour. I thought it started out well, the editable, visible wiki format for the consultation was great. The Murphy-Boyack Scottish Review seemed genuinely engaged.

It’s all gone badly wrong. Despite the heroic efforts of the likes of Johanna Baxter, the UK Review seems destined to be a stitch up of epic proportions. Details of proposals are leaking out slowly, the NEC only agreeing final recommendations on the Tuesday before Conference votes on them on Sunday evening with the delegates having had the full proposals in their hands for a matter of hours.

Never mind having time to consult with their constituency parties to get a considered view, they’ll barely have had time to read them. Presumably it’ll be a take-it-or-leave-it vote as voting on it chapter by chapter would take too much time from the important conference business of drinking. This is a classic party stitch up. The only real consultation and feedback is being on unofficial blogs. In the words of the great philosopher, good grief.

Now, I did some phone banking for Ed during the leadership campaign because I thought he had the ruthless streak we needed. So far, he hasn’t disappointed on that front – the move to appoint the shadow cabinet directly for instance. But every single move is undermining the democratic structures that are left in the party, which is precisely the opposite of what was promised. I want ruthless but I want ruthless in the right direction, damnit!

The Scottish Review is similarly vexing. The consultation wasn’t as good, with preliminary changes happening soon after it started, and the final Scottish Executive Committee meeting happening before they’d have had time to print off submissions from the last day.

The first set of changes bringing in a candidates contract was fair enough, but not exactly uncontroversial in some quarters. The 2nd tranche, looking at internal party structures was broadly good but the way that it’s being handled is.. disappointing. More importantly, there’s a lot of vagueness and how those changes sit in the context of the wider review recommendations still to come is important. How will the political strategy board work with the policy making process? Will policy forums still exist? Will the new Holyrood oriented CLPs (a good move, particularly given the inherent instability of Westminster boundaries if those changes pass) be able to choose from a range of structures from delegate only to all member, one member one vote? Will the Scottish Labour Leader have authority over MPs and MEPs on non-devolved issues that affect Scotland? Who knows!

The Scottish Review seems to be on inputs only with members having very few, if any, way of influencing the outcome. The full report is unlikely to be published in time for the special conference to agree the rule changes. It’s not clear if the conference will vote on the proposed package as a whole or if the individual changes will be voted on separately. There is very little time for people to reflect on the changes, most parties will have 1 branch meeting and 1 constituency meeting before conference. Half a dozen bullet points on a webpage do not a full and inclusive discussion make.

Worse, the changes to the leadership rules seem to have been prejudged, the first hustings will take place on the day of the special conference itself so if they don’t pass god knows what’ll happen. Tom Harris might find himself all dressed up with nowhere to go. The member’s reps on the SEC and NEC have done good work (which I appreciate), but this is the sort of high handed, authoritarian, centralising, control freakery which people found so objectionable and which stops members engaging with the party and lead us to two epic defeats. Have we forgotten that? Are we still too bloodied and dazed, slumped in the corner that we think pugilistic party management is the way to go?

Maybe I’m expecting too much. Maybe I’m too used to full and frank debate in decision making, where some says weigh more than others but everyone has a say and everyone has a vote. But Clause IV says Labour is a “democratic socialist” party and this feels profoundly undemocratic. That’s important, there are things in the review which won’t work and people will find objectionable at the time and after the fact. But if they’ve had a proper chance to consent to them, those changes won’t be resented as much as if they’re imposed from on high.

Another guestpost  from the fabulous and multi-talented Kirsty Connell, a former Labour candidate.   Thanks Kirsty!

Now the Scottish Labour Party has new structures to start to play with, the next stage for its political rehabilitation is the biggie: choosing a new leader, one able to work with new powers and a base far beyond what their predecessors enjoyed.

A candidate to take on the might of Salmond and his SNP majority, and to galvanise and rebuild the Labour movement in Scotland, against the forces of Independence and Conservatism. A tall order. Too tall for Tom, certainly. But too tall for even this post to attempt.

Like back in 2007, however, far more can be garnered about the state of the Labour Party from looking to those manoeuvring in what is deemed the lesser race.

With Brown back then as the only candidate for leader, the party was left to exorcise some of its Blair-era demons with the Deputy Leadership campaigns, albeit beneath the behemoth of Brown’s inevitable leadership juggernaut. From Jon Cruddas on the working left to Hazel Blears for the Blairites, Hilary Benn for the intellectuals and Alan Johnson for the moderates, to the eventual Unite-backed victor Harriet Harman and Peter Hain for – well, it’s a broad church – the party could test some new directions and try on some old and new policies for size, before plumping for the counterpoint to Brown who held the traditional backing.

With current deputy Johann Lamont to officially announce her candidacy by the end of September, the Deputy Leader of the Scottish Labour Party position will presumably be vacant and thus contested. As back in 2007, the three likely sections of the party where the candidates could emerge from will show far more about Scottish Labour than the leadership contest itself.

Much like the probable eventual leader, the first constituency where the Deputy Leader could appear is from within the Holyrood parliamentary party, first elected pre-2011. Whoever it is, they’ll be described as a ‘safe pair of hands’, a ‘known quantity’, probably with the gravitas of having served as a Minister in a previous parliament and almost certainly with a safe seat, safe being frankly any constituency Labour still holds in Scotland.

Electing this candidate as Deputy Leader would be undoubtedly the safest choice for Scottish Labour, resorting to small steps instead of giant strides in progress back towards electability. Any candidate fitting this mould would have to be asked why they weren’t, given their experience, standing for Leader itself. Awkward. With Scottish Labour electing its leadership team from within this scion it will need a lightning bolt of Frankenstein proportions to revitalise the beast.

The second likely constituency for a Deputy Leader candidate is again from the Holyrood party, but elected in 2011. More daring, more exciting, more willing to embrace change and not rely on what went before, but the pressure on any individual, if elected as the heir-presumptive, could kill a fledging career. Scottish Labour probably can’t afford any more sacrifices this term.

Of course, one candidate for Deputy Leader is very openly being speculated upon, and his position, as a new-ish Scottish Labour MP would help embrace the new structures, while releasing some the pressure from Holyrood as it wrenches itself through the reforms. It also helps that Anas Sarwar is bright, articulate, capable and quite photogenic (although not as photogenic as Humza Yousaf, memo to Daily Express...).

Given the need for reforms to percolate through the party conferences, the new leader won’t be elected until December. An ongoing game then, but don’t forget to keep half an eye on what’s going on on the sidelines.

We did wonder if Hero of the Week, in a kind of perverse way, ought to be Helen Eadie MSP for her bizarre outburst in the Chamber on Thursday and persistence in the strategy of using Opposition to remind everyone why they voted SNP in the election in May.

Or if it should be Ken Macintosh MSP, for launching his leadership campaign, travelling hopefully and nicely, as befitting one of the nicest MSPs around, which is why he should not and probably will not be the next (first?) leader of Scottish Labour.

But actually one hero did emerge from the flotsam and jetsam of mealy-moothed motions. Step forward one Richard Simpson, Labour MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife. Fetch a cup of coffee: it’s a long ‘un but well worth the concentration and perseverance:

S4M-00859 Richard Simpson: Older Carers’Health-That the Parliament welcomes the report, Always on Call, Always Concerned, by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers, which surveyed 639 older carers aged between 60 and 94 (80 in Scotland) who look after a sick or disabled family member; notes that the report found that 67.5% of older carers have long-term health problems or are disabled themselves and that only half feel safe or confident in lifting the person that they care for, with many worrying about what will happen to their loved one should they become ill themselves or when they have gone; agrees with the report’s recommendations that GPs should offer both a physical health check and screening for depression to older carers once a year; also agrees that GPs should offer home visits to carers, if necessary, to fit around their caring role and that hospital appointments should be flexible to meet the needs of carers; believes that carers who need to carry out lifting as part of their caring role should receive the training and equipment to allow them to do so safely, and that this should be funded by their local health service or local authority; considers that local health services should work with local authorities to help fund breaks for carers, since it believes that having a break helps to maintain physical and mental health; further considers that effective methods of promoting mental wellbeing in older carers should be developed by health and social care agencies to reduce the risk of stress and depression, and further believes that all carers should be offered the opportunity to agree an emergency plan that covers the possibility of them being unable to care.

At last, someone using motions for what they should be used. To highlight an issue of national concern, that affects one of the most marginalised groups in society who do not always get their voice heard. And best of all, it suggests solutions to a problem. All of which are eminently achievable with a tweak here and there to established practice which would make a huge difference to people’s lives. None of it difficult either or would cost anything. Politics at its best.

Sadly, however, it seems there’s a competition amongst MSPs for the apparently highly coveted Worst Motion Of The Week, at least that’s the speculation here at Better Nation Towers (might just be our newly inflated egos) as we can’t otherwise explain the embarrassment of options this week. Colin Beattie (S4M-00864 and S4M-00865) has been reading National Lottery Grant notices, Mary Scanlon’s (S4M-00849) presumably on the look out for a shrubbery.

But then there’s Irn Bru, which was the subject of not one but two near identical motions this week, bitterly dividing the judges. Marco Biagi’s (S4M-00830) clearly living up to his “one to watch” billing with the chemistry pun in the title, urging that we “Don’t Let the Sun Set on Irn Bru”. However, he moved to quickly and 3 motions later…

S4M-00833 – Jamie Hepburn: It’s Still fizzy, It’s Still Ginger, It’s Still Phenomenal
That the Parliament welcomes that the secret recipe and iconic colour of Irn Bru, Scotland’s other national drink, is to be retained; notes that the European Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health had considered reducing the maximum Sunset Yellow artificial colouring to as little as 10 mg per litre for flavoured drinks but opted to reduce the level to 20 mg, the amount used by AG Barr in Irn Bru; considers that both the European Food Safety Authority and the Food Standards Agency have deemed that the 20 mg per litre limit poses no risk to consumer health; considers that common sense has prevailed in this ruling, and commends all those involved in delivering this positive outcome.

Supported by: Christina McKelvie, Bill Kidd, James Dornan, Marco Biagi, Colin Beattie, Roderick Campbell, Kevin Stewart, Adam Ingram, Gil Paterson, Kenneth Gibson, George Adam, Fiona McLeod, Paul Wheelhouse, Jean Urquhart, Mike MacKenzie, Neil Bibby, Bob Doris

Squeezing in the advertising slogan on top of what was really a non-issue (reducing the amount to 10mg was one option, but it had never been the likely outcome) is a stroke of genius, making it our Worst Motion of the Week

Jeff is away