Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Holyrood

Scotland the timid

Nov 15

Posted by James in Economy, Holyrood | 28 Comments

On Wednesday John Swinney will start the long election campaign with the publication of his draft Budget, and his usual deft political sense appears to have deserted him.

We can tell a fair bit about his plans from the detailed advance briefing provided to the newspapers. First, and most inevitably, he will seek to continue the Council Tax freeze. The share of local services being funded through local taxation is diminishing, and so too their responsibility and accountability to local voters: but the advantage of this for the SNP is pure politics.

Having spent previous campaigns making a progressive case for fairer taxes and protecting public services, the SNP have apparently decided they can only win by claiming a crude low-tax position. Labour have rightly recognised that the freeze is untenable, given the consequences for local services, but their position still feels weak and nervous. If you’re aiming to top the poll, raising taxes may well be a brave move, but there has never been a greater need for devolved Ministers to find ways to raise more revenue.

The second frankly bizarre proposal from the SNP is to shift revenue spending into capital projects. Revenue spend is what pays the wages, and this shift is what is driving the cut in public sector pay they’re also floating – a cash freeze of course being a real terms cut.

Ministers would have us believe that the boost to capital budgets means “schools’n’hospitals”, but a quick look at the actual figures shows where this money will go in the longer term. By 2011-12, next year’s Budget, the absurd additional Forth Bridge will begin to be a massive drain on the capital budget, costing almost 50% more than the current total capital spend on education across the whole of Scotland. By 2015 it will be costing us almost £400m a year, assuming the costs don’t rocket and it’s somehow managed better than the SNP/Lib Dem coalition are managing the trams.

For SNP Ministers, that’s what capital is, roads. If they were honest, they’d say “roads and roads”, not “schools and hospitals”. That’s their priority, hardly a surprise given their own lifestyles – I would say the most common single story I get asked for a Green comment on is an FOI request showing SNP Ministers’ absolute addiction to the car. The most recent one showed Alex Salmond being driven from Holyrood to Holyroodhouse. Literally across the road and the First Minister was either too lazy or too regal to consider a two-minute walk.

This is a government of back-seat policy-makers, where the world passes by through the car window, not the bus or train window, let alone being seen from the cyclist’s or pedestrian’s perspective. And a dire squeeze on public funds is being aggravated by their absolute road-building obsession. The last lot were bad enough for it, with the M74 extension and the Aberdeen Western Peripheral, but now it’s front-line services and public sector staff that will really pay the price.

That £400m a year cost for the additional Forth Bridge is, by coincidence, what the Treasury estimated a penny on the Scottish Variable Rate would bring in this year. Next time you hear Ministers object to using the tax-varying powers they once supported, remember you’ll be paying the equivalent of a penny more on income tax simply for Alex Salmond’s contract-signing photo-op, an event already scheduled for the election campaign and bizarrely backed by the non-Green opposition parties.

And so we know what’s coming. As Brian Taylor said on the Politics Show today, cuts, cuts and more cuts. Tory-led economic illiteracy driven from Westminster with Lib Dem assistance. Those Tory cuts now being handed on by the SNP, apparently to woo the Daily Mail. A Tory austerity drive which will apparently be accepted by Labour too. If the Scottish Greens’ conference hadn’t decided to offer the public an alternative, the chance to use the existing powers to raise revenue rather than waiting for Calman (let alone independence), then the public would be looking forward to a choice of five Parliamentary parties with nothing different to say, no alternative to passing on a variation of the same cuts.

Scotland is a country which voted by 63% to 36% in favour of a tax-varying power. A country which has consistently voted for more progressive politics than England favours. A left-wing nation led by Ministers determined simply to implement Tory cuts, afraid to use the powers we endorsed in 1997. A governing party obsessed with independence as the universal panacea but who cannot see how the case for self-governance is undermined by their refusal to use the powers they already have. Ministers who behave like the Daily Mail speaks for Scotland. A country whose two largest parties dare not look at an alternative to the Coalition’s cuts.

image credit

Just choose your cuts?

Nov 8

Posted by James in Elections, Holyrood | 61 Comments

Caroline Lucas and Patrick Harvie at Conference 2010 Less than a month ago, Jeff wondered whether any of the parties would be brave enough to consider using the tax-varying powers of the Scottish Parliament. I held off commenting because I hoped the Scottish Greens would vote at Conference to back revenue-raising to block the worst of the cuts, and indeed we did this weekend, overwhelmingly so.

The UK Government, has, we believe, made the wrong decisions with their deficit plans and spending cuts. They are enthusiastically regressive in the detail – a return to the work-house? – and economically illiterate in their overall effect.

Greens don’t want to see massive deficits pile up and have taxpayers’ money wasted on interest payments, but neither do we believe the payback should be made by the poor.

A massive clampdown on tax avoidance, a Robin Hood tax, a one-off wealth tax on the richest, these are the ways in which a progressive UK Government would act. But we do not have such a thing, any more than we had one prior to May.

UK Ministers have three dimensions to consider. Revenue, expenditure and borrowing. Scottish Ministers have only the first two (which is probably a good thing given the perverse desire of the other four parties here to blow billions on the Alex Salmond Additional Forth Bridge).

Without significant borrowing powers for the Scottish Government, John Swinney can only look at revenue and expenditure. Yet the SNP have themselves ruled out revenue changes. The tax varying power is “impractical”, despite having campaigned for it to be used not so long ago as the old Penny For Scotland. Council Tax will be frozen too, despite the regressive nature of the freeze as well as the tax itself.

The Labour leader has done the same, telling the Today Programme two weeks ago that:

“the debate in Scotland is about managing the reduction in the finances that we’ll have available”.

Both the SNP and Labour are terrified of frightening the rightwing press who have cheered on the coalition, and neither party feels they can afford the other slamming them for some “tax bombshell” or similar. In Jeff’s post he said he thought the Nats would be the most likely to be brave, but I never believed that. Their political proximity to the Tories has been striking, as has their growing terror at being evicted from office having achieved not much.

Neither the Conservatives nor the Lib Dems could credibly take a position which criticised their London colleagues’ cuts, either. Again, Jeff had the Libs down as second most likely to take a progressive position: that struck me as impossible too.

Contrary to the Scotsman headline, Scottish Green Party conference didn’t pass a call for a 3p increase in income tax. We voted for a manifesto which would find progressive ways to raise revenue, within the limits on Holyrood to do so, including Land Value Tax and the Scottish Variable Rate. The detailed proposals will go through the party’s Council, but I’ll eat my hat if they recommend the full 3p.

Every other party in Holyrood is now apparently committed to passing on the Westminster cuts in their entirety. The only debates for them are about where they fall. Should they hit health or housing harder? Should capital budgets be cut for roads or schools? (not a hard one, that)

So here’s the dividing line. The election will be about the cuts above all, and the Scottish Greens will be the only party in the next election offering an alternative to them.

Here’s how Patrick had it yesterday.

“Labour and the SNP are just bickering about how to implement the Coalition’s cuts. This vote today means the Scottish Greens will provide the people of Scotland with a pragmatic alternative, the only alternative to those cuts. When the Scottish public voted in 1999, they voted not just for a Parliament but also for that Parliament to have tax-varying powers. The options are limited, but they are there. If they remain unused during the gravest threat to public services in the post-war era, when will they be used?

“In May, the public will have a choice. They can vote for one of the four parties who either relish the cuts or are too afraid to challenge them. But they will also have an alternative – to vote Green, to boost the green economy, and to protect the public services we all rely upon.”

I’m proud of our position, and I’m looking forward to fighting an election on this basis – who’s with me?

Incidentally, the March 2010 UK Budget said what the powers would bring in: around £400m a year in 2011-12 (pdf, see A9) for a 1p increase.

Tags: , , , ,

Scottish Labour – What’s the story in Tobermory?

Oct 31

Posted by Jeff in Democracy, Holyrood, Parties | 8 Comments

Iain Gray, the LOLITSP“You’re gonna open your mouth and lift houses off the ground. Whole houses, clear off the ground.”

So spake Leo McGarry in the West Wing series, highlighting the oratorical power that his friend and President-elect Jed Bartlett possessed.

While some prematurely see Iain Gray as Scotland’s First Minister elect, albeit without the same rhetorical flair and building-lifting verbal ability that the admittedly fictional Bartlett possesses, there was at least a wind in the rafters created by yesterday’s valiant and aggressive performance at Labour’s Oban conference.

For Iain Gray, trying harder seems to equate to shouting louder so one must wonder what sort of rage machine the Labour leader will be by the time he is at his most trying come May next year.

The primary positive from yesterday’s speech was that it was policy heavy, though it could have been heavier still with a staunch defence of why his party believes we need to raise Council Tax. A single Scottish police force, a Scottish care service and a 1-to-1 tuition project for unemployed teachers are all positive ideas that are worthy of consideration.

However, much of what Iain Gray said yesterday, via a delivery that still needs a strong polish, was inane nonsense. Even the short part that I was able to see live felt interminable.

Overly long and irrelevant content on teaching, working abroad, Keir Hardie, the NHS in 1948 and Pinochet for goodness sake… I mean this in the nicest possible way, noone cares. As for the line “the worst of housing makes the best of people”, one can only wonder what monstrous policy idea that ludicrous soundbite emanated from. One suspects that there will be an uprising from the downtrodden if Gray’s working class hero schtick continues to be so clumsily and insultingly deployed.

The overriding impression that I (and my fellow onlookers) were left with was that this was a speech steeped in negativity and Labour still lacks a key message, a reason for all the sound and fury; something other than being for winning and against losing at least, to borrow another West Wing line. Even the Labour stalwarts looked dullly uninspired as they obediently clapped at respectful intervals.

Don’t get me wrong, there is the beginnings of something there, a restirring of the Scottish Labour beast but this Oban Conference still left us to mull over what Labour’s core message is. What’s the story from Tobermory? Well, wouldn’t we like to know.

And for me, Labour’s problem is this. Scotland doesn’t really need radical change right now. The next Government, regardless of party affiliation or constitutional aspiration, just needs to batten down the collective hatches for a few years. It needs to safeguard as many jobs, put as many students into universities and colleges, protect as many OAPs from a good number of risks and create as fertile an economy for sustainable growth as it possibly can. That’s not radical, it’s straightforward management and a business that the SNP has already marked itself out as an effective provider of.

So genuine questions, and ones that Scots will be asking themselves soon are: Why do we need Jackie Baillie instead of Nicola Sturgeon? Why do we need Baker instead of MacAskill? And, most pertinent of all, why do we need FM Gray instead of FM Salmond?

One can point to reasons why we moved from Labour to Tory in 1979, from Tory to Labour in 1997 and from Labour to SNP in 2007. That reason does not yet exist in 2010 and is the message that Iain Gray, and Scottish Labour as a whole, still need to find in advance of May 2011.

Eddie does gallus

Oct 29

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood, Westminster | 5 Comments

Labour’s Ed Miliband will deliver his first speech in Scotland as party leader today and if The Scotsman’s sneak preview is anything to go by then the fire and ire will be turned on the SNP and First Minister Salmond will be called a big liar.

The snippet includes the line:

“Let’s face it, across the world, the debate has changed since the financial crisis. Who is left behind? The Scottish National Party.”

I have to admit I find it an odd choice of narrative, an unnervingly pessimistic tone from the ‘new generation’ in Labour’s ranks.

With this rhetoric, Ed will invite Scots to think back to 2007/2008, when Scottish politics felt exciting, when the Scottish Government could seemingly do no wrong and the Scottish people flirted seriously with the idea of independence. Harking back to those times when Labour didn’t have too many ideas is a dangerous thing to do for a party that, north of the border, still doesn’t have too many ideas.

After all, first impressions count. Ed is setting his stall out for the Scottish Labour party and the Scottish people as a whole so he surely wants to get off on the correct tone. Iain Gray moodily bashed the SNP in his acceptance speech and he has barely looked up since. Let’s hope Ed decides to raise the bar a little bit higher than that.

So this all begs the question, what should Ed Miliband say?

Well, I rather hope that we are being fed the meanest lines of today’s speech and Ed will strike a more upbeat, optimistic tone. I do hope there is, as promised, some agreement with the cuts that the coalition are bringing in and I hope Ed is specific about what areas he disagrees with Cameron and Clegg the most. There may not be an election around the corner but it is important to have clear dividing lines amongst your leading politicians rather than just broad bickering back and forth.

I hope to hear more about Ed’s thoughts on Trident replacement and on the Calman proposals, getting into the specifics a bit more. The former Enivornment Secretary’s views on the fight against Climate Change and how Scotland is placed to both contribute to and capitalise from it. I would also like to hear about how he plans to propose amending the coalition’s housing policy, particularly after Nicola Sturgeon’s revelation on BBC Question Time last night that 97% of Scots who currently claim will be £10 a week worse off, money many of them can ill-afford to lose.

I rather suspect listeners will get to tick off the tired lines of ‘an independent Scotland couldn’t have saved the banks’ and ‘Ireland and Iceland? some arc of prosperity’ but I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

We are surely past the time when a leader of any party can trot up to the lectern, bash every other party and then trot offstage again thinking that was a job well done. We in turn should be ready to reward a political leader who dares to look beyond the horizon of the next headline.

Preaching to the converted Ed Miliband may well be in Scotland today but he still has a big job on his hands.

Dead Set

Oct 27

Posted by James in Health, Holyrood | 17 Comments

Margo Macdonald’s current proposals on assisted suicide go by the hard-to-argue with name of the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill. Who wouldn’t want to be assisted at the end of their life? I know nothing scares me more than the thought of non-existence, nothing that is except inescapable pain or the loss of function in my body or my mind. Some assistance would be appreciated, thanks society.

Of course, it’s an ambiguous name, and what it’s really about is assisting people to end their lives. No doubt the decision was taken to find a less controversial name than the Euthanasia (Scotland) Bill or the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill.

This is an issue normally phrased as a challenging moral debate, with newspapers feeling obliged to locate quotes for and against, the latter normally from the Catholic Church or similar. Sometimes it’s the supporters who don’t get a look in. For instance, the Daily Mail recently ran a virulently negative piece which suggested such legislation would lead, UK-wide, to 1,000 deaths.

I don’t get it. It’s a pure freedom issue to me, I have nothing but respect for Margo’s decision to bring the legislation forward, and I agree with her that there needs to be a set of robust safeguards. Personally, I cannot imagine what it would be like to suffer interminable pain and to be denied the choice to end it. If you’re against it, religious readers, simply don’t do it. Don’t take part. It’s absolutely your freedom, should you find yourself in the situation the Bill is intended to cover, to suffer on as long as you wish.

There’s a theme here we see in other areas: people seeking to project their own individual moral preferences onto society and make universal laws accordingly. It’s like the debate over decriminalising gay sex in the 60s. Just because you don’t want to do it yourself, fine, but that’s no reason why you should be allowed to limit the freedom of others to do so. I also wonder whether any of the small number of vociferous opponents ever find themselves in the situation they’ve speculated about later in life, and if that new feeling of powerlessness occasionally changes their mind.

That Daily Mail article can be read completely differently. The figure seems high, but if they’re right about it, there are 1,000 people in this country suffering unbearably and being denied the final relief, people whose freedoms must not be denied in their time of extraordinary need. Some of those thousand people would decide to ask for help to end their life, others may decide otherwise. Whatever the numbers, the choice should be theirs, and Scotland would surely be a better place if Margo’s Bill passes.

Tags: , ,