Archive for category Holyrood

Predicting the Predictable?

Jeff beat me to it, but for what its worth, here are my predictions for 2011.

I think Will’s predictions are pretty much in line with what I think will happen in the coming year (the politics ones, not the sports ones so much) but given I’ve tried my hand at predictions every blogging year, I figured this should be no exception.  So, let’s get to them.

AV referendum: No vote, by 65% to 35%.  It isn’t something anyone wants, and the lack of popularity of the only party who vaguely support it will bring the vote down.  I suspect a higher turnout in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland – but I also foresee a sizeable number of spoilt ballots, whether through intention (Bella Caledonia’s campaign) or by mistake simply because it will be held on the same day as the devolved legislatures.

Welsh Powers referendum: Yes vote, by 58% to 42%.  I think it’ll be a comfortable-ish victory for pro-devolutionalists, though they will have to work hard over the course of the campaign.

Scottish Parliament election: Labour ending the night as the largest party, but we’ll have to wait a few days at the least to work out who will form our next government.  Have a look at Will’s comments regarding numbers, which make it difficult to predict who will be in a position to negotiate coalition and/or confidence and supply positions, but I suspect we will have limited options given numbers (requirement to reach 65 combined seats) and ideological reasons (SNP have rules against working with the Tories at national level; Labour and Tories ideologically opposed).  So, potential outcomes are: Labour minority, confidence & supply deal between Labour and SNP, confidence and supply deal including SNP, Tories and Greens.  The last one sounds like a stretch, so I think my money is currently on minority Labour… which if it happens, might not last that long.

In terms of post-election stuff, new leaders for the SNP (Nicola Sturgeon to comfortably emerge from the contest ahead of Kenny MacAskill, Mike Russell and a surprising candidate) and the Conservatives (the lack of Derek Brownlee returning to Holyrood means I’m with Jeff on Murdo Fraser taking over the reigns here – though I have a hunch Elizabeth Smith may have a shot at it as well).  I do think if Iain Gray is FM, Salmond will take a short period as leader of the opposition before riding off into the sunset… though if (and its a big if) there is any kind of agreement between the SNP and Labour, it may hinge on his pseudo-retirement (ie – no longer being leader).  But that’s a long shot.

At Westminster, the coalition will blunder on, the Dave and Nick show surviving another year with more protests at cuts to, well, everything.  But when the economy starts to turn, people start to be less noisy about it.  At least, that’s what they are hoping for, right?

Sporting predictions:

Football: I think Celtic will take advantage of Rangers hectic schedule (and the fact they have a bigger and better squad) and win the SPL in Neil Lennon’s first year in charge. Hearts a lock for third while Edinburgh rivals Hibs are the shock side relegated, with Gordon Brown’s Raith Rovers replacing them in the top flight. Rangers get the League Cup (Smith’s final trophy) and Hearts the Scottish Cup.

In England, I can’t see past Man Utd for the Premiership, ahead of Arsenal, Man City and Spurs. Chelsea will make the Europa League in fifth, and probably win the FA Cup to not quite make up for a disappointing season. Relegations: West Ham, West Brom and… Fulham.  Barcelona for the Champions League.

Rugby: France for the Six Nations, but no Grand Slam this year.  Optimistically, Scotland to finish second.  Rugby World Cup… New Zealand to finally achieve their potential. And if we get through our group as winners… well, notch us up as Bronze medalists.  Is that optimistic enough?

Tennis: Well it’s time isn’t it? (what do you mean “It’s time” was four years ago?).  Andy Murray will finally win a Grand Slam.  But he’ll have to wait until the last one of the year – the US Open.  Though he will reach the final in Australia and at Wimbledon.  Honest.  And he’ll end the year as #3 in the world, behind Nadal and Federer.

The myth of the “Penny For Scotland fiasco”

Some blue penniesDid the SNP’s Penny For Scotland cost them the 1999 election? Eddie Barnes seems to think so, in an otherwise fair blog post on the Steamie. Sure, it was their most notable campaign slogan, and sure, they definitely didn’t win in 1999.

But was that what the 1999 election was about? I’d argue that 1999 was primarily about the mere fact of the Parliament itself. New Labour were still in honeymoon mode down south, boom and bust was supposedly over forever, and voting for a Parliament itself was the exciting political step for most of the electorate.

In 1997 45.5% of Scotland had voted Labour and just 22% SNP. Just two years later, following the supposedly disastrous Penny For Scotland campaign, the SNP were up 5% on that on the list and up nearly 7% in the constituencies.

In 2002, under John Swinney, they dropped the policy because Labour were then raising NI and so circumstances had changed. Understandable logic (and the David McLetchie quote in there is still fresh, incidentally). And this decision was surely in line with the smart advice that people are lying when they tell pollsters they want better services and are prepared to pay for them?

Yet the 2003 result was much worse for the new-style low-tax (or steady-tax, they would say) SNP. Their vote fell on the 1999 level by 5% in the constituencies and 6.5% on the list. Would it have gone better for them with a retained Penny For Scotland? Who knows. That’s the problem with “political science”: it’s not science, there are no repeatable experiments, and no controls.

Furthermore, even if they’d got a better result in 2003 than 1999 it wouldn’t have proved the point. Scientists and skeptic bloggers always remind us not to confuse correlation with causation. Ice-cream sales don’t increase deaths by drowning, nor do firefighters increase the size of fires. The same is true in politics. The factors are much more complicated and the temptation to fall back on explanations that suit pre-existing perspectives is strong.

Was the change of SNP leadership not more of a reason for the 2003 switch away from them? Or perhaps the view that Labour wouldn’t be radical in office and the SNP couldn’t replace them led to the support for Greens and Socialists. And their narrow 2007 success was surely more about a credible alternative government in waiting (and FM in waiting) taking on a tired administration, one tied to the increasingly unpopular Blair government. It certainly wasn’t because they still weren’t proposing a Penny For Scotland and that fact had taken four years to sink in.

Eddie suggests we Greens won’t get “a thumping vote of support” for identifying cuts we wouldn’t make and progressive ways to boost Scotland’s budget. Maybe he’ll be proved right, but if no other party in Parliament were to put a practical alternative to the cuts within Holyrood’s existing powers into their manifesto then the Scottish electorate would be looking forward to a much narrower choice. Whatever 2003 shows, more than a third of the electorate were at least ready to back parties with positions to the left of where the SNP (and Labour) are now.

Fees high? Ho hum. I smell the blood of an Englishman

I caught a snippet of a news article late last night, I think on the BBC, saying that English, Welsh and Northern Irish students would pay fees in Scotland but Scottish students would continue to not have to. I had believed this was already the case and that students from other member states of the EU don’t pay fees due to rules set down from Brussels. (Upon a second look, I note that the news item was that fees would go up from ~£1,900 to £6,000)

It does, on the face of it, appear a nakedly opportunistic way of doing business, smash and grab cash injections with more than a hint of independence-trailing to it from the SNP decision-makers. Of course, the plan may not even raise further revenue as if 67% of English students decide to stay away from Scotland then we won’t make any more money and, indeed, the Scottish students that take those freed up places will cost Scots more. Consequently, I hope a cut in the number of students attending higher education is also in the Green Paper and access becomes more competitive.

However, as opportunistic as this all seems, the Scottish Government has been backed into a corner as it believes in free education but has been handed a spending allocation that does not allow for it without deep cuts elsewhere. There is no reason why Scotland should accept the Browne Review if the proposals are so at odds with what the SNP, Greens and Holyrood Lib Dems (typically) argue for. This, of course, is the harsh reality of devolution, one must take the rough with the smooth, but, equally, those in the rest of the UK cannot complain if Scotland’s MSPs aggressively defend Scotland’s students and their future education.

The four nations of the UK jacking up fees for their three nearest neighbours seems counter-productive and mean-spirited but Osborne cutting so fast and so deep leaves little choice but for administrations light in power to plug the revenue gaps.

So much for we’re all in this together.

Anyway, today sees the Scottish Government announce its plans on how further education courses will be funded going forward. Politically, there is only one announcement that Mike Russell will realistically be able to make and that is to keep university free. A May election, student protests, the Lib Dem u-turn and pushing Labour onto the backfoot will mean that it will be business as usual for now. If you’re Scottish that is, of course.

The Lockerbie Wikileaks cable

Today’s big Scottish news is that of a mysterious man offering us a parade of treats if we’ve been good boys or girls. No, not Santa Claus but rather the figure of Colonel Gaddafi. Thankfully, no-one took the man up on his selection pack offer in return for sitting on his lap, as the latest Wikileaks cables show.

There has been much anticipation over what these leaks would say regarding the Megrahi debacle, a debacle that has caused much heat and light since the Justice Secretary decided to release the man on compassionate grounds. However, today’s news is something of an anti-climax for those hoping for a dramatic twist in the tale.

The Scottish Government was offered goodies by the Libyan leader but these were clearly rebuffed and the situation was played with “a straight bat” by the SNP.

Perhaps the most interesting quote from the US is this:

“It is clear that the Scottish Government underestimated the blowback it would receive in response to Megrahi’s release and is now trying to paint itself as the victim. The Scottish Government severely underestimated both US government and UK public reaction to its decision… Alex Salmond has privately indicated that he was ‘shocked’.”

It would be a shame if there was to be confusion between being shocked at an overblown reaction and admission that the Government got it wrong. I was certainly surprised at a reaction that dragged on at a Scottish level, UK level and international level. That surprise was exacerbated once the situation moved past the point where most people had agreed that the decision was taken in good faith and that Kenny MacAskill was the right person to make that decision, whether one disagreed with the decision itself or not.

I’ve not read that much about the latest revelations but first impressions are that Scotland comes out of this latest Wikileaks instalment looking robust in its dealings and, as much as one would like to keep discussing the Megrahi chapter in Scotland’s history, is there really much else left to say? Particularly if even Wikileaks can’t fashion a meaningful talking point around this story other than Gaddafi’s unwelcome offers that most people had suspected all along?

All backs to the wall makes them difficult to scratch

Due to a very busy schedule yesterday evening (chiefly involving a business Lord and eight entertaining contestants), I never did get to see the Holyrood battle over SvR. Given that probably keeps me in line with the majority of Scots and there’s little else to be said on the matter, I’m not going to worry too much about it (particularly as my chance to view it tonight is scuppered by going to watch Andy Murray at the O2!)

I am concerned however about the noises the Swinney’s problems will have consequences for the budget. That’s a dark road where only trouble and strife may lie, for the Parliament and Scotland as a whole. Ironically, it is Patrick Harvie, the only party leader who actually wanted to use the tax-varying powers, who has made the clearest call from amongst the Opposition parties to move on from the issue and look forward afresh. Iain MacWhirter is in delightfully scathing mode about the petty games being played –

““The greatest act of political sabotage since devolution,” according to Andy Kerr. Get a life.” Indeed.

There’s a pattern in business that many like to employ where you do a bit of planning, do a lot of work and then stop and ‘take stock’. I reckon that’s the stage that the Scottish Parliament should be approaching, if not today on the highly-charged First Minister’s Questions, then at least Friday or over the weekend.

Scotland has an economy that is lagging behind the rest of the UK, unemployment going up when the rest of the UK’s is going down, a huge opportunity with renewable energy if it can just find some investment capital, a big decision to make over how the next generation of graduates is funded, a growing reputation as a tourism hot-spot and a huge looming debate over how it funds its devolved self. I’ve no doubt only scratched the surface of where Scotland is and what it should be talking to itself about but I do hope I’ve at least made the point that SvR should be way, way down the list of priorities.

Let’s just hope that, against the backdrop of a nerve-jangling election contest, enough MSPs can push beyond partisan temptations and deliver a top drawer financial plan for the year ahead that will stand us in good stead for the next parliamentary term to come. More back-scratching and less back-stabbing.

There’s no avoiding a budget being quid pro quo, but it shouldn’t be tit-for-tat.

(I can’t speak for my fellow editors but I suspect this’ll be my last post to touch on SvR)