Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Archive for category Parties

Where has it gone wrong for Scottish football?

Sep 9

Posted by Jeff in Europe, Parties | 6 Comments

I knew the situation was bad when Liechtenstein scored their unexpected (but not entirely unsurprising) goal against Scotland at Hampden on Tuesday night. Not because we were losing to minnows from a country with a population less than Stirling’s, but because the banterous text I’d sent to several English colleagues (that I wouldn’t be in the next day if the scoreline remained the same) was met with an eerie silence.

The next day confirmed my suspicions as one of that number gingerly approached my desk, chewing his bottom lip and looking away at the last second out of a painful awkwardness… “Jeff, why are Scotland so bad at football?” he ventured. My answer couldn’t have been more tragic and self-defeating… “I don’t know Mark” *sigh* “I don’t know”.

Wales have just parted with their coach John Toshack due to a poor set of results, a job-losing run that managed to include a 3-0 hammering of Scotland. A few weeks ago Scotland lost by the same scoreline to Sweden, a country that considers football only as an afterthought after ice hockey and has a vastly inferior domestic league. A disappointing draw with Lithuania followed with our best chance being a tame header and, well, we don’t need to say much more about Tuesday beyond a 97th minute winner against Liechtenstein.

And yet, this is more or less the same team that outplayed World Cup finalists Holland, the same team that beat France (home and away) and the same team that beat recent World Cup quarter finalists Ukraine and Czech Republic. Consider this too – Scotland beat Liechtenstein 2-1, Lichtenstein lost 4-0 to Germany and Germany also put 4 past England (ergo, England and Liechtenstein are on a par), Capello’s boys beat Swtizerland this week 3-1 and Switzerland beat Spain 1-0 during the World Cup. We are, if you really want to see it, world champions.

No, I’m not convinced either (particularly, as Malc has pointed out, Germany’s tonking of both Liechtenstein and England nullifies any claim we may have had, not to mention Argentina’s 4-1 over Spain win this week). Anyway, I am digressing here with my ‘conkers’ philosophy applied to football.

There are, of course, other sports out there and we shouldn’t get too hung up about whether eleven of our countrymen can kick a pig’s bladder around a grassy knoll better than another country’s eleven men but there’s no denying that Scotland’s people have suffered through their starvation from football tournaments. 1998 was so long ago and the next World Cup is at Brazil. Brazil! We need to get better in order to be there. I’ve already freely admitted to the key stakeholder involved that I’d happily plan the family planning around my frolicking in a kilt at Copacabana 2014.

So, let’s focus, what factors can be ruled out?

Managers Granted, Berti Vogts was a blip but we have had a long(ish) line of great managers that have achieved excellence with clubs but have failed to take Scotland to equally great heights. Whatever the run of results are that lie ahead, fault can hardly be blamed at Craig Levein’s door given that Walter Smith, Alex McLeish and George Burley never made the step forward in their tenures.

Population
Scotland may be a small country and not quite have the same populations as other countries out there but if Denmark, Switzerland, Sweden, Ireland, Portugal, Croatia and other countries can qualify regularly, so too should Scotland. We must have more kids per capita playing football than the above countries since we don’t have hockey, winter sports, hurling and other sports clouding our youngsters minds. I would say that we can look to New Zealand for hope as that tiny nation even had a banker come on as a substitute as they drew with Italy but, well, last time played them we scraped a 1-1 draw. (It was painful, I was there…)

So where are we going wrong? Well, too much talent must be slipping through our fingers. Why isn’t Aiden McGeady playing for Scotland? Or Hamilton wunder-kid James McCarthy? Both have opted for Ireland in spite of their Glaswegian roots and both have been hailed as special talents, the former only this week by his boss Giovanni Trappatoni.

We can’t build World Cup quality teams with players who only know how to ‘throw it up the line’ in the hope that they’ll make it all the way to the end and win the ultimate prize…. a corner. McGeady and McCarthy took their Glasgow accents over to Republic of Ireland because the Scottish setup does not allow kids to play for their country and their school. Of course teenagers are going to want to play with their mates week in and week out so it’s no wonder that they use their ancestry to get the best of both worlds.

It’s such a silly rule making kids choose international football over school football. We shouldn’t be scaring away our next generation of talent on the off chance that Twechar High School breaks a few legs. Well, there’s more than an off chance of that, but you take my point.

The Old Firm must surely take its fair share of the blame, buying up talent at the other Scottish clubs and leaving it to rot in the reserves. You have to wonder about people who train all their lives to play football and then take a ‘dream move’ to Celtic or Rangers and get paid tens of thousands a week just to warm the bench.

There’s more to it of course. A better diet and less junk food would help (free school meals anyone?), more time spent outside just playing on the street and a more rigorous P.E. set up at schools are surely all areas where we’re lagging behind our sporting rivals. More importantly, we need to set the imagination free on the football field; more time on the ball, more time on tricks and flicks and more time bringing on the next McRonaldo that will take us to a Tartan Army-tastic World Cup.

I look forward to that day, that day when English colleagues can look me in the eye again as they joyfully, respectfully, healthily give Scotland a right slagging in the name of banter.

Advice for the Labour at heart

Sep 8

Posted by Malc in Holyrood, Parties | 6 Comments

If they trusted him, WWTD would be the new motto of the Labour party:  What Would Tony Do?

Yeah, maybe not.  But as more information seeps into the public domain about the premiership of Tony Blair (I’ve just finished Mandelson’s memoir – which paints a particularly bad picture of Gordon Brown) Labour are once again at a turning point.  They are out of office – a situation not unknown to them – and, once again, they are considering a lurch to the left.  The problem for them here is twofold:  historically (1983) this was a disaster and the country is not where they think they need to go.  So a lurch to the left would probably have a similar disastrous outcome to that of 1983.

Ignoring the UK level issue at the moment and turning attention to Scotland, the situation is less critical in terms of policy programme but more so in terms of personality.  At least with the leadership contest for the UK party, Labour have an opportunity to fill the power vacuum left at the top of the tree.  In Scotland, that vacuum remains and, undoubtedly, needs to be dealt with.

Prior to their defeat in May, Labour effectively had three leaders in Scotland.  The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, as leader of Labour party, was constitutionally at least, leader of (what is known by name only) as Scottish Labour.  In order not to elevate the SNP First Minister to his level, the Prime Minister appointed Jim Murphy as Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with him for the UK Government – effectively becoming de facto leader of Scottish Labour in the process.  And finally, of least importance to the internal workings of the Labour Party but probably most prominent when it came to devolved politics, we have Iain Gray, leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament, to give his full title.  That was prior to the election.

Now we have a situation where Labour don’t have a leader at UK level (which removes them from the equation).  They also don’t have a Secretary of State for Scotland – being out of power, they have a Shadow Sec State, which is simply not as powerful.  I can’t see the First Minister calling Jim Murphy all that often now.  Iain Gray is still in position of course, but here’s the issue:  his remit only stretches as far as his MSPs.  Of course they can work out policy for the Scottish Parliament in devolved areas (although I think – but I’m not sure – that if it differs substantially from UK Labour policy, it has to be ratified by their NEC) but that’s it.  He has no control over Labour’s substantial group of Scottish MPs.

I think it is fair to say that Iain Gray has not exactly set the heather alight as leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament.  That’s not a criticism as such, merely an observation.  Time and again at FMQs he has barely grazed the First Minister (though on one or two occasions he has landed a punch, albeit one which tends to have been fairly easily parried).  And outside of Holyrood he has tended to be overshadowed by his Westminster colleagues.  And even in the four months that Labour have been out of power, he has not really come forward and owned the Labour agenda in Scotland.

I called this post “advice” for a reason… but I know those who are Labour-minded will not like it.  Iain Gray and Scottish Labour have to assert their independence (although they probably shouldn’t use the word independence).  Eleven years after devolution began it is time that the party north of the border – and its leader – took responsibility for their own actions and stopped deferring to the UK party.  I think if they do so – if they really are allowed to separate, or at least become a more “federally” organised party, like the Lib Dems – then they will be much better equipped to present themselves as a party which is in direct competition to the SNP in fighting for particularly Scottish interests.  I realise that Scottish MPs are unlikely to accept a ‘mere’ MSP as their leader, but this is a fight that Scottish Labour MSPs have to take on – and win.  Otherwise I really can’t see how the public will view them as anything other than proxies for UK Labour.

That, I think is the biggest challenge for Labour before next May’s Scottish Parliament election – make the Scottish party more Scottish internally, and reap the rewards of it electorally.  It won’t be easy, but that which is necessary for success never is.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Is an unholy alliance the divine intervention that SNP and Tories need?

Sep 7

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood, Parties | 23 Comments

In the previous post Malc suggested the “utter madness” of a grand coalition between bitter foes, the SNP and Labour, but pointed out reasons why it may be beneficial for both sides. To my mind, it is simply impossible. There is no love lost between the two parties and the visceral hatred that does exist is an insurmountable barrier, a barrier all the more strange as the two parties are not really so dissimilar. Perhaps opposites attract after all.

With that in mind, I’m going to go one better than Malc’s ‘crazy concept’ of an SNP/Labour coalition and that is to suggest an SNP/Conservative coalition. Yes, that’s right, thinking the unthinkable but you can call me names and throw things at the end but please hear me out.

For a start, the cuts are on their way, there’s no avoiding that so, if you can’t beat them, join them. The SNP could even use the Tories as a shield in the same way that the Tories are using the Lib Dems as a shield down south. Imagine putting Annabel Goldie up to bat to defend health cuts against a baying media scrum.

And hey, let’s be honest, the two parties get on very well indeed, arguably the best relationship among the four main parties. At the top, Annabel Goldie and Alex Salmond do not enjoy a working relationship, which could be a problem, but I envisage Annabel calling it a day at the next election, if the electorate do not decide to call it a day for her. Whichever of the young Tory turks were to take over, I would imagine there would be enough personal chemistry between the two parties for a stable Government to be formed, something along the following lines:

Alex Salmond – First Minister
Murdo Fraser/Derek Brownlee – Deputy First Minister & Education Secretary
John Swinney – Finance Secretary
Nicola Sturgeon – Health Secretary
Kenny MacAskill – Justice Secretary
Derek Brownlee/Murdo Fraser – Business Secretary
and so on and so forth…

Furthermore, the numbers make this prospect all the more possible if the Lib Dems haemorrhage seats, as current polling and knowledgable talking heads suggests they will do.

Let’s say the election result was:

Labour – 47 seats
SNP – 45 seats
Conservatives – 20 seats
Lib Dems – 10 seats
Greens – 6
BNP – 1

Labour, being the biggest party, unofficially receives the first chance to form a coalition. The Grand Coalition fails to take off (sorry Malc), a coalition with the Conservatives isn’t even entertained and the Lib Dems and Greens don’t offer enough seats. The Conservatives see their ‘Scottish Tory moment’ and let it be known that the SNP can have their referendum if a deal can be reached.

This is where timing would come into it.

An election has just been held so there isn’t another one for four long years, an election that will be taking place at the same time as (perhaps even on the same date as) the Westminster election in May 2015. The SNP will probably suffer in that election for the same reasons as why they suffered this May due to the TV leader debates and being squeezed out of the national spotlight. So, why not go for the ‘all-in’ strategy of an unholy alliance and take the only independence referendum that is open to them?

Sure, many Scots would go absolutely mental, I mean heads would explode kind of thing (not least of which would be Iain Gray himself) but the SNP/Tory administration would have four years to win them round, a philosophy that Nick Clegg has clearly adopted down South.

Ok, there’s the minor issue of the SNP having a clause in its statute book saying that it will not form coalitions with the Conservatives. I admit that would be a problem. However, if that could be erased in a Blair-esque ‘Clause IV moment’ or even an informal deal could be reached on a confidence-and-supply basis, some sort of deal is doable.

The Conservatives need some way back into Scotland’s hearts and the SNP needs some way past the Unionist blockade in order to achieve independence.

Perhaps this unholy alliance could act as divine intervention for both parties.

Will the Lib Dems pay for being a Tory shield?

Sep 4

Posted by Malc in Parties, Westminster | 7 Comments

On MitB, I regularly whacked the Lib Dems for everything I could think of.  But given we’ve started afresh, with a blank canvas and a promise of positivity, that has to stop.  Which is a shame – there isn’t much more fun in the blogosphere than baiting Lib Dems.  Nevertheless, I’ll try to get through a post without dissing them too much.

I think one of the most surprising things that came out of the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition was, for me, the fact that the Lib Dems took on the role of Secretary of State for Scotland.  I was a little surprised that they didn’t give it to Alastair Carmichael, who acted as Scotland spokesperson during the election debates (and, in my mind, was a very able performer, even – and I don’t think its unfair to say – outshining Alex Salmond in the event at the Hub) when they did get the position.  More surprised that they gave it to Danny Alexander, and then Michael Moore after Alexander’s move to the Treasury, but then I don’t know that much about internal Lib Dem personalities and cliques.

Anyway, I was more surprised that they took on the role – though I guess the Conservatives didn’t really give them much of a choice (with only one MP in Scotland, the role was probably odds-on to go to a Lib Dem).  For me, the Conservatives must be delighted with this – and the fact that they have a Lib Dem in the Treasury too – for the simple reason that, although the policies that are being enacted (and for “policies” read “cuts”) are pretty much Tory ones, they can point to the Lib Dems and say it is them who is doing it.  In essence what Scotland has is a Lib Dem “Governor General” who fronts for the Tories in Scotland – providing a shield for them and their unpopular cuts up here.  The Tories must be delighted.

But… I said I’d be positive, so here’s something:  I can understand why they took the job.  I think pre-Nick Clegg and the TV debates, the Lib Dem vote was in free-fall.  There were some polls in which they had fallen below 15% nationally – and, indeed, they were squeezed out of the Lab-SNP and Con-Lab narratives in Scotland.  The Clegg effect kept them at 2005 levels.  But because of the two narratives here, they do need a handle on why they remain relevant in Scotland – and I think the fact they have the Secretary of State for Scotland gives them that opportunity.  Now it may be that relevance is symbolic – that Michael Moore can say what he likes in the Cabinet room and no one will really listen – but it does look to the public like they have a role to play.  And that, in elections, is important.

So yes, on the surface, having a Lib Dem Secretary of State for Scotland gives the Tories a nice shield in Scotland.  But on the other hand, it also delivers something for the Lib Dems too – a measure of relevance (which, arguably – and I’m sure you’ll debate the point – they may not have without it).  Everyone’s a winner.

But what about the voters?  Will they see it the same way?  “The Lib Dems have the guy running Scotland in the Cabinet, therefore we must vote for them” is one way they could look at it.  Alternatively, the “Lib Dem Scottish Secretary is a front for Tory cuts in Scotland – we must punish them by voting against them” is another potential view.  So how will that go?  I guess time – and the full force of the cuts – will tell.

Tags: , ,

What price a retiring MSP?

Sep 3

Posted by Jeff in Elections, Holyrood, Parties | 1 Comment

Whenever I turn my thoughts to election speculation, (which is more often than is perhaps healthy), I typically assume that an MSP retiring in a certain seat will mean that the constituency is more ripe for a challenging PPC from a rival party at the next election. I have belatedly decided that this somewhat lazy assumption needs further scrutiny and, with Holyrood 2011 (as ever) in mind, I started to crunch some numbers and put the hypothesis to the test.
 
Of the 11 constituencies that have seen retiring MSPs during the 1999-2007 period, 10 of them resulted in the party reducing its share of the vote at the next election. The 1 constituency that saw an increase in the party’s share of the vote after one of its MSPs retired was Banff & Buchan when Alex Salmond chose Westminster over Holyrood.
 
The average decrease in vote-share when an MSP retires is 6.1%. The median decrease is 7.4%.
 
Were we to adopt the hypothesis that a party is as likely to increase its share of the vote as decrease when an incumbent retires (against an alternative hypotheis that the share of the vote should decrease), then the probability of 10 (or more) out of 11 instances all decreasing is as follows:
 
P (X > 10) = (0.5)^10 = 0.049%
 
Pretty conclusive then – at a 5%, 1% and even a 0.1% level of significance, my ‘lazy’ assumption that retiring MSPs are more likely to see their vote-share go down seems to hold true.
 
Of course, perhaps most seats see the incumbent lose votes and perhaps the above is tainted by the fact that the sample includes mostly Labour MSPs who will generally have seen vote shares decrease due to an increased public appetite for a new Government.

Of the 11 constituencies with retiring MSPs, 10 saw decreases in vote-share over and above any decrease for the party nationwide. This increases to 13 out of 14 when the deaths and forced retiral of Donald Dewar, Margaret Ewing and Lord Watson are included.     
 
So let’s delve into the detail a bit more to see what’s happening:
 
When looking at individual parties, there seems to be little to suggest that there is little variation across the board. (Note that the Conservatives have not yet experienced a retiring FPTP MSP so have no data to provide from a strictly Scottish Parliament population)
 
The retiring MSP is an event that has hitherto affected Labour much more than any other party simply because Labour holds considerably more First Past the Post seats. In each of the nine instances where an MSP has not contested the next election (including retirements, deaths and ‘other’), the party share of the vote has decreased more than the national average. The detriment for these constituencies was on average 3.7% at the 2007 election and 6.2% at the 2003 election.
 
Looking at individual instances, from 2003 to 2007 – vote share decreased by 5.5% on average across all 73 constituencies for Labour.
 
Retiring MSPs include:
Edinburgh East (Susan Deacon) – 14.8% decrease
East Lothian (John Home Robertson) – 10.4% decrease
Glasgow Rutherglen (Janis Hughes) – 7.5% decrease
Dundee West (Kate MacLean) – 7.0% decrease
Glasgow Cathcart (Lord Watson) – 6.2% decrease
 
So, as in the final case, even convicted politicians are popular enough to ensure that their retiral (not to be confused with retrial!) results in a more adverse movement in vote share than the national average. This, of course, is as it should be as we would hope that the known sum contribution of our politicians’ previous efforts outweighs the unknown potential of whoever is next in line.
 
Note that, again for Labour, the same trend was evident from 1999 to 2003 with the following retirements resulting in voteshare decreases that were below the party’s nationwide average (of -0.7%):
 
Fife Central (Henry McLeish) – 9.1% decrease
Strathkelvin & Bearsden (Sam Galbraith) – 7.9% decrease
Ayr (Ian Welsh) – 1.4% decrease
 
The Lib Dems support this trend, albeit with only two retirements to work with:
 
Jim Wallace’s former constituency of Orkney saw a 3.3% drop in vote share for the Lib Dems in 2007, relative to 2003, compared to a nationwide movement of only -0.3%. 
 Ian Jenkins’ former constituency of Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale saw a 7.4% drop in vote share compared to a 1999-2003 nationwide movement of +1.8%, the biggest drop for the Lib Dems across Scotland except for, interestingly, Jim Wallace’s seat of Orkney which decreased by 15.8% (the largest single decrease in any constituency for any of the parties).
 
 This helps highlight that the largest movements in any given constituency at any given election will not necessarily be caused by a retiring incumbent.
 
Airdrie & Shotts witnessed a massive 33.5% swing from Labour to the SNP between 2003 and 2007, despite Karen Whitefield being the sitting MSP in each contest. The individual change in vote-share was the largest deviation from the average for each of the two parties and is an example that may highlight what a change in challenger can potentially do to the statistics.
 
Ross Finnie saw his share of the vote sink by 14.2% from 2003 to 2007, 13.9% of which went to the SNP. The Labour incumbent was largely untroubled by these significant movements, holding onto the seat with relative ease.
                                 –
The Lib Dems saw double digit increases in their share of the vote in Aberdeen South, Edinburgh South, Ross, Skye & Inverness West, Strathkelvin & Bearsden and West Aberdeenshire at the 2003 election. This was presumably less to do with incumbent MSPs and more to do with the targeting of the party’s resources. Needless to say, each of these five movements were way above the 1.8% increase in vote share at a national level.
 
So, moving back to retiring MSPs, what does this mean for next May then?
 
Well, boundary changes may well dilute or accentuate the occurrence but retiring MSPs include:
 
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland & Easter Ross) (majority 10.9% over the SNP)
John Farquhar Munro (Ross, Skye & Inverness West) (majority 12.1% over the SNP)
Cathy Jamieson (Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley) (majority 11.8% over the SNP)
Margaret Curran (Glasgow Shettleston) (majority 20.0% over the SNP)
Jack McConnell (Motherwell & Wishaw) (majority 26.1% over the SNP)
 
Labour’s existing majorities in the above seats are probably too big for a retiring MSP and the ‘hit’ of 4-7% to make much of a difference. Indeed, there is a fair chance that the reversal of Labour’s fortunes since 2007 are such that an increase in the party’s general popularity will neatly net off against the downside of a retiring MSP to result in more or less ‘nil gain, nil loss’ from the last result.
 
However, for the Liberal Democrats, and the considerable woes that they face, that lack of incumbency could make all the difference to their hopes of clinging on in the two seats that they currently hold.
 

The conclusion, if any such thing can be reached from the above, is that with numbers expected to be tight in the electoral arithmetic come May 2011, it may end up being who is stepping down and where, rather than who is standing, that makes all the difference…