The future for Malc...

I can’t be the only one who is just feeling a bit… well, unenthusiastic about the Scottish Parliamentary campaign thus far.  I know.  I’m never the most enthusiastic when it comes to our political parties (I always expect far too much from them) so perhaps its just me at my Victor Meldrew best.  But this campaign has just failed to inspire me.  Thus far, that is.

I don’t want this to be a full-on moan, but there are some things I have noticed in the way the campaign has gone.

Usually when a party has been in government they’ve had to defend their record from attacks from their opposition… but not this time.  And this is despite the fact that, as a minority government, the SNP haven’t been able to deliver on everything they promised in 2007.  And yet, they’ve had a largely free-ride to remind the electorate what they’ve done so far and make a few more promises to boot.  They’ve also kept it largely positive thus far, focusing mostly on themselves and the strengths of their team.  But its the latter element that is slightly concerning when it comes to policy.  Yes the team of Salmond, Sturgeon, Swinney, MacAskill, Russell and Lochhead (not to mention Crawford et al.) is impressive – and, in my eyes, considerably more impressive than the alternative – but the people are only as good as the policies, which we haven’t heard that much about.  Sure, the big ticket items – the Council Tax freeze, the keeping fees free, keeping the 1,000 police officers – they’ve been happy to trumpet, but the main message has been “if you like our team, vote again for Alex Salmond for First Minister”.

Contrast that with Labour – the supposed government-in-waiting.  They spent the whole of the previous parliamentary term picking fights with what the SNP wanted to deliver… then when the starting gun went for the election, they adopted many of these same policies in their manifesto.  They decided that their campaign shouldn’t focus on the election in question and instead re-fight last year’s UK election (which was successful for them) and the 1980s battles with the Tories (which weren’t).  When they realised that folk didn’t like that negative message, they turned their fire on the SNP, calling Salmond “dangerous”.  Other than the SNP’s policies in Labour colours, the discredited knife/ prison policy and the increasingly negative (and in some cases, vitriolic) critiques of the SNP, I don’t know that much about what Labour are about – and I really don’t know what they’d do in government.

The media have made this an SNP-Labour fight, but the Tories have managed to look distinctive on certain issues.  Or perhaps that “distinctive” should be “controversial”.  Taking 14 year olds who don’t want to be in school out of school and putting them into apprenticeships has been billed as the Tories forcing children into work.  Which tells you what the campaign has been like really.  On the face of it, that’s an accurate description of the policy – but scratch the surface a bit, and think it through a bit… maybe it makes a bit more sense than you first think.  By all means, disagree with it if you don’t think its a good idea – but lets have less of the hyperbole.  Its not putting kids into work – its letting them have a choice about what is good for their future.  Anyway – that’s a distinctive Tory policy.  They’ve also claimed responsibility for freezing the council tax, town centre regeneration funds and 1,000 new police officers and since the SNP needed their votes to deliver these things, I suppose that’s fair cop.  But what are they proposing for now?  Apparent from the apprenticeships thing… I really don’t know.

And then there’s the Lib Dems.  They’ve taken a different tact from the other parties and made their campaign about one issue: stopping the amalgamation of Scotland’s police forces into one force.  They even made their PEB about it.  Tavish is driving a car with the slogan “Save our Police” around Scotland for two days to hammer home the message.  If people know one thing about the Lib Dems in this campaign, its that they want to “Save our Police”.  Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, since knowing more about them means equating them with the coalition) that’s about it.  They’ve talked so much about the police issue that even my Gran knows that’s what they stand for (not that it helps – she won’t vote for them!).  But neither my Gran nor anyone else knows anything else they would do in the next Scottish Parliamentary term if they are in a position of influence.  I could mention the Scottish Water thing – but even then I only know about that because I watched their campaign launch.  Since then its been police, police, police.  Just think about that – a liberal campaign focused on justice.  For me, they need to make the next week about something else – partly so we know a bit more about them and partly so we don’t get bored.

The Greens… well, Scottish media have decided this campaign is about the SNP & Labour and given the Tories and Lib Dems their necessary airtime but largely ignored the Greens.  Which is a shame for several reasons, not least because they are actually saying things which are radically different from the other parties.  They want to keep tuition fees free – and pay for it with a rise in tax.  They want to stop the cuts – again paid for by an increase in tax.  And they want to insulate every home in Scotland.  Three clear objectives which set the party out as distinct.  But again, I’ve heard little about the policies (mainly because the Greens have mostly been counted out of political debate).

So – next Thursday you can vote for a party with a great team to run Scotland.  Or a party who will simply criticise everyone else without saying what they’ll do better.  Or a party who (apparently) want to force children into work.  Or a party who want to “Save out Police” and nothing else.  Or for a party who the media have decided don’t really count.

Any of those choices sound appealing?  I don’t know, maybe I’m just being cynical (never!) but I’d like to have a bit more than soundbites and personalities to go on when I go to vote next week.  Since none of the campaign thus far has focused on it, can we have a final week that focuses on policy please?  I won’t hold my breath.

A guest post today from Alex Neil, Minister for Housing and Communities in the latter part of the 2007-11 Parliamentary term and the SNP’s candidate for Airdrie & Shotts in the forthcoming Scottish Parliamentary election.

Alex Salmond’s SNP Government has proved over the last four years that it delivers for the people of Scotland. Despite being a minority government and having massive spending cuts imposed on it by Westminster the SNP has achieved 84 out of 94 of its 2007 election promises.

The SNP Government has been a progressive government with fairness and social justice sitting alongside economic growth and employment as our top priorities.

The Council Tax has been frozen for four years, helping many families who aren’t on large incomes and who previously struggled to pay the 60% increases in council tax which had taken place during the first eight years of the Scottish Parliament. Labour’s destructive plans to close the Monklands and Ayr Accident and Emergency units were overturned. Tuition fees for our university students have been abolished, making it easier for children from families with modest incomes to be able to go to university. Prescription charges have also been abolished, benefiting 600,000 modest income families. We have also put an extra 1000 police on the beat, resulting in a 32 year low for recorded crime in Scotland.  And locally, in Airdrie and Shotts, we have delivered the new Airdrie-Bathgate line on budget and on time, and we are building the new Airdrie Health Centre.

If re-elected we will keep the council tax freeze for another five years, pending the introduction of a fairer system of local government finance in the 2016 parliament based on the ability to pay. We will keep the free bus passes for pensioners and the disabled intact – we fundamentally disagree with the Liberal Democrat and some Labour politicians’ position that these benefits should be curtailed. We will ring-fence the National Health Service budget in Scotland. Given the level of inflation in the NHS we need every penny we can use to improve it and ensure that it gets the level of investment needed to provide for those who are sick and disabled. We will also introduce new measures to further reduce crime rates, including an expansion of the highly successful schemes designed to engage young people in diversionary activity and prevent them from getting involved in crime.

Both locally and nationally our top priority will be to bring new jobs and industry to the area. I have always held the view that high levels of employment and low levels of unemployment are a pre-requisite to maximising the success of any economy and creating not just a wealthier but a happier society.

As Alex Salmond rightly says the opportunities from the renewable energy sector alone has the potential to create thousands of high quality jobs in Scotland. We also have huge potential in other sectors such as the biosciences. If we had control over our own natural resources then we could do even more to create the levels of investment in Scotland which could get our people back to work. That is why for me the independence referendum is key, as I believe that with sovereign power over our own country Scotland can become one of the most prosperous and fairest nations on the planet.

Another guest post, this time one which is not directly election-related.  Well, it is, kind of.  But more to do with whether you should vote or not.  Its from Andrew Combe, a guy Malc went to uni with, who now lives in Norway and is missing out on all the fun the Holyrood election is bringing us.  Not that he minds, since he probably wouldn’t vote anyway…

The right to vote is as universal and uncompromising as the right to life, the right to education or the right to clean drinking water and good sanitation.  As with all rights that can be justly described as ‘universal,’ it is better protected in some countries and regions of the world than others.  However, to say that a right is universal is not to say that it is impersonal.  Voting is a highly subjective experience, comparable to one’s sexual orientation, religious beliefs or absolute autonomy over his or her body.  If I happen to be promiscuous, that’s my business.  If I choose to lead a life of meditation, self-chastisement and celibacy, that’s my business.   Equally, if I choose not to exercise my right to vote, that’s my business.  Moreover, my (not) doing so is as legitimate-a-fulfilment of my voting right as it is putting a cross next to my preferred (or, as is too often the case, tactically selected) candidate at every available opportunity, or indeed stubbornly turning in a ballot paper across which is scrawled Not Fit For Purpose time and time again.  If a member of society chooses not to vote, he or she cannot be described as any less engaged with their society or government than any other member.  Those who exercise the right not to vote should also enjoy the right not to be berated and devalued by society for taking that choice and moreover, should be regarded as equals in society, something that they remain come-what-May.

In the nine or so years that I have had the vote, I have put a cross next to one candidate’s name (a down-to-Earth Conservative who seemed to be genuinely interested in local issues in the Stirling area) and spoilt my paper three times (twice in county and parish elections in Kent).  Upon disclosing this information I more often than not get a distasteful look followed by a catalogue of what would seem to be perfectly legitimate arguments as to why I should vote.  A typical discourse can be paraphrased as follows:  “It’s your duty to vote as a responsible citizen.  If you don’t like the way things are then you’re not helping to change them.  Every vote counts.  If you don’t vote then you’ve no right to complain when decisions are taken that you don’t agree with or that adversely affect you.  Even if you don’t like any of the main contenders, you should at least vote to a) rid us of the current incompetent incumbents or b) suppress such-and-such-a-group.”  This ‘such-and-such-a-group’ is most often a particularly unpleasant yet noisy bunch of extremists who are continually being egged on by all wings of the media just to propel a good rolling story, albeit under the guise of the Expose Them For What They Are argument.  I usually provoke yelps of indignation, disbelief and typically a cry of “well you should bloody well know better then,” upon revealing that I studied politics pretty seriously for five years.  I’ve also been accused of being a cynic.

As clearly stated above, I regard voting as a right, something that should be differentiated from a duty.  As a state citizen, it is the government and other elected representatives who have a duty towards me.  This is the cornerstone principle of democracy upon which electoral systems and other democratic institutions are designed and built.  Politicians are accountable to the people they represent, not the other way round.  Moreover, there is no middle ground which allows politicians to say “we’re in no way accountable to you as you chose not to play your part in the system when you couldn’t be bothered to vote.”  The dynamics of the accountability principle are in no way changed no matter how many people abstain from voting.  Citizens are part of the fabric of the system of representation and government to which they are subjected.  There is no ‘opt-out’ clause triggered by the act of not voting, no alternative system or society to turn to.  When I choose not to vote, I remain bound by the same laws and social norms as all those who do vote; The Big Society is in fact The Only Society.  I’m obliged to pay taxes which fund services that I am dependant on and which fund initiatives and wars that I regard as a waste of time and morally reprehensible respectively.  I’m obliged to respond to a census (a perfectly legitimate obligation), providing information which determines how government policy is rolled out for the following ten years.  In such a captive environment, every single citizen has the right to question, scrutinise and criticise the work and conduct of those who both represent and serve them.  (In the interests of full disclosure, I might at that I did ‘opt-out’ two years ago when I moved to Norway where I’m not eligible to vote for a further three years.  Such an Oh But You Did Turn To An Alternative System argument would however, be a little convoluted.)

I’ll conclude with the suggestion that to vote tactically, for whatever reason, exposes wholesale inadequacies in the electoral system in use (or perhaps just the manner in which the democratic process tolerates systematic abuse by various stakeholders).  Voting should be a positive experience, one that is simple, natural, free, and free of stigma.  The fact that it basically isn’t, even in the most developed democracies in the western world, is the most significant reason for which so many people choose not to vote.  An electoral system (or ‘electoral environment’) in which citizens don’t feel free to vote for the party or candidate of their preference is a system which has itself compromised the right to vote, and choosing not to participate in that system through the act of not voting is one of many ways of highlighting the urgency of electoral reform.  Similarly, I would suggest that to compel citizens to vote (as, for example, in Australia) is to sabotage the democratic process even before it is in motion.  (The theme of compulsory voting was picked up on in the early days of Better Nation).

If you do come across someone who didn’t vote, be it on 6^th May or in the aftermath of any other election, don’t be too hard on them.  It doesn’t mean that they don’t care, aren’t interested, or of any less value to society than the most avid of political activists.