Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

The Scottish Political Archive needs you (well, your help at any rate)

Apr 27

Posted by Malc in Elections | Comments off

I wrote in November alerting readers to the Scottish Political Archive at the University of Stirling.  If you can’t be bother going looking at that link, don’t worry – I’m going to say most of the same stuff again here!  But it is timely – as you will see in a moment.

Anyway, once again, I’m trying to advertise it.  It’s kind of a service for political junkies (the kind of people who, say, read political blogs…) to show the evolution of Scottish politics through media, photography and campaigning over the last 60 or 70 years.  So use it – go and have a look through some of the photographs, look for your favourite politicians, keep an eye out on Facebook for updates to the site as well.

You can see the photographs on Flickr here or “like” the Scottish Political Archive on Facebook here (Facebook login required).  Alternatively, the Scottish Political Archive’s photo blog is here, which carries the same material in a slightly different format.

But I’m also looking for some material – but its not anything you wouldn’t perhaps already be doing.

The project that the Scottish Political Archive is currently working on is, rather unsurprisingly, the 2011 Scottish Parliamentary election.  As you can see from their Flickr album, they already have plenty of material.

What they are looking for is photographs of politicians at campaign stops or conferences (and of field posters, A-boards, polling stations on election day, the count itself… you get the idea) and election literature (leaflets, posters, newspapers, election addresses etc).  I suspect most activists are holding onto this kind of stuff, or taking photos to share on Facebook or Twitter, or other social networking sites… if so, they’d like you to get in touch!

The Scottish Political Archive would be delighted to take it, scan it, archive it online – and return it to you (unless you want rid of it!).  Alternatively, they are keen to take digital versions of stuff – so if you have something which you can easily scan, or photographs you wouldn’t mind archived, you can email them at scottishpoliticalarchive@stir.ac.uk.  If you have stuff you want to post to them, the address for that would be Scottish Political Archive, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA.

You can probably tell from the Flickr pages that I’ve been giving them every election-related note that has come through my door in Edinburgh Central.  I’ve also gotten parents (and parents-in-law) to send on stuff from both Moray and Aberdeenshire East, not to mention my Gran (in Stirling) and a friend in Cunninghame South doing the same.

Anyway, if you can help, please do.  After the election is fine – since activists presumably don’t have a lot of time on their hands at the moment – but like I say, if you have stuff, they’d be delighted to hear from you.  Just let them know where the picture is from, a rough date and they can do the rest.

Thanks again all – and enjoy the old photographs of some of your favourite politicians looking slightly different from their 2011 selves!

#SP11 – Apparently, we can’t handle the truth

Apr 27

Posted by Jeff in Economy, Elections, Holyrood | 41 Comments

The recent furore regarding superinjunctions has largely passed me by, though that hasn’t stopped me dipping into Twitter to find out (within seconds) who the famous names involved are. Personally, I don’t think the rich and the powerful should have access to a special law because they can afford the legal costs and while tabloids are a despicable scourge on UK society, famous people can’t expect to have it both ways.

Actors and football stars are happy to take the inflated salaries, the fame that drops onto their laps at an early age but not happy to have their private lives open to scrutiny. They want the goodies from being famous with none of the downside. Well that’s fine, but can we have our money back please?

I don’t think it’s too far a mental leap to suggest that politicians too have recently opted for a form of superinjuction, almost literally in the case of Alex Salmond regarding LIT. It is too early to say for sure what this election campaign will be rememered for but don’t be surprised if the legacy is the financial truth of the coming five years being shielded from the public, where the supposed ‘Hollywood for ugly people’ politicians wanted the fame and fortune without bothering to be open and transparent with us little people.

The funding of Higher Education is a classic example and I’m amazed, not to mention disappointed, that the SNP, Labour and Lib Dems haven’t been pushed on this much harder:

If fees in England are to settle at an average of £7,000, then (ignoring inflation), the funding gap in Scotland would be £97m. This is the figure that I have seen the SNP and Labour cling onto over the past few weeks. 

If fees in England settled at an average of £7,500 and inflation was taken into account then the funding gap would be around £202m. 

We now know that average fees in England will be closer to £8,678 and the funding gap therefore may well be £300m+ a year. So that’s easily a £1bn shortfall in the next parliamentary term that’s going largely undiscussed, and this is before Council Tax freezes, extra NHS spending, building more prisons, keeping police local and the whittling away of savings from (unspent) bridge money are taken into account. 

Parties can talk about these areas being priorities for future budgets but if every upside needs a downside, if every credit needs a debit, then surely we deserve to know what the priorities are for what will be cut and when? Put another way, whose necks are on the chopping block for each of the parties? Noone likes hearing such news but we deserve to know, don’t we?

Seemingly not. Like the grinning actor and the celebrating footballer hiding a barrelload of sins beneath that shiny veneer, aided and abetted by a handy superinjunction, it is what our party manifestoes don’t say that speaks volumes.

Don’t believe me? Just ask the Centre for Public Policy for Regions that has released a paper on manifesto costings. Some choice lines include:


In many pages on these Manifestos there is a plethora of seeming commitments and
pledges. However, when the current funding proposals are broken down these are
often found to have no (increased) funding attached to them. In some case this
funding is, yet again, expected to arise from generic efficiency savings. The true
worth of such commitments must therefore be called into question in many cases.

As we have previously reported, the 2011-12 budget was already tight with spending
being delayed and all spare funding being fully allocated. There is no reserve in the
event costs rise faster than projected or savings and revenues fail to be generated to
the level of in the timescale proposed.

Overall, serious questions have to be asked of all of the four main Parties as to
whether what they have outlined in their Manifestos is sufficient to meet the
challenges facing them in terms of real terms cuts to their budgets over the next four
years. Voters are entitled to be highly sceptical as to whether what they are being offered in
the Manifesto’s is actually what will happen, rather than a pale imitation of the
difficult choices that await, post-election. In fact, rather than playing a critical role in determining
how difficult future budget choices are to be made, voters are being sidelined.

Double digit cuts to budgets over the coming years means that we either have to tax more or spend less just to stand still, that’s the basic truth of 2011-16. So, if there was any justice, this election would really be a straight fight between the revenue-raising Greens and the happy-to-cut-back Tories. 

On current evidence, the SNP will only fleetingly enjoy this election win (if it comes to pass), opposition parties look set to have plenty of ammunition to hold the Government and its mandate to account over the coming years. Maybe being upfront, rather than adopting the superinjunction ethos, is the way to go after all.

Scotland’s Seas – Scotland’s Lifeblood

Apr 27

Posted by Guest Blog in Environment | 4 Comments

Today’s guest post comes from Lindsay Roberts, Marine Policy and Advocacy Officer at Scottish Environment LINK.  She’s a total mad surfer type and practically lives in the sea, so it’s not like she’s not talking from experience here.

This year Easter Sunday was spent the same way it is every year – a big BBQ on the beach with friends and family. It’s an event steeped in tradition, but this year marked a turning point. For the first time ever, the Easter egg hunt was cancelled.

Apparently we are too old. To be fair, a group of 20 – 30 somethings racing around the rocks, cheered on by overly competitive parents was beginning to look a little ridiculous! As I looked at us, all grown up, I realised almost half of ‘the kids’ now earned a living working with the sea, including me.

I work as marine policy and advocacy officer for Scottish Environment LINK. For those of you who haven’t heard of LINK before, we are the umbrella body representing over 30 environmental NGOs in Scotland. Together we represent almost 500,000 people.

Now my friends’ choices of profession are perhaps not surprising for a group of kids brought up on the beaches of East Lothian, but it made me think about how life in Scotland is inextricably linked with the sea.

Simply put, Scotland’s seas are Scotland’s lifeblood. They provide us with a huge variety of goods and services. They are at the forefront of the renewable energy revolution holding a quarter of Europe’s tidal and wind resource; aquaculture is Scotland’s most valuable food export; we have world class conditions for sailing (one of our Easter BBQers is a former Olympic squad member); and following his victory at the Cold Water Classic at Thurso East, Australian Brent Dorrington said the week provided the best waves he had surfed in a competition – ever.

Underpinning all of this is the fact that Scotland’s seas are one of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet. Our waters support over 40,000 species of plant and animals from single cell species to sharks, whales and dolphins. The oceans represent the largest carbon sink on the planet, and recent reports suggest marine and coastal habitats such as salt marsh, sea grass and kelp forests, all plentiful in Scotland, could be more efficient at storing carbon than peat.

We should all be seriously concerned, therefore, by the contents of Scotland’s Marine Atlas. Published around a month ago, it passed without much fanfare, yet its findings are pretty shocking. There is serious concern over the vast majority of Scotland’s seabed, and the health of virtually every single broad scale habitat type is in decline. Important seabird populations continue to struggle, common seal numbers appear to be in freefall, while all around our coast sharks and rays remain in a perilous condition. These species and habitats face a huge number of pressures from fishing, offshore development and now climate change.

That is why we are asking candidates to sign our ‘2011 Marine Declaration’. The Declaration asks candidates to commit to reversing the declining health and biological diversity of our seas throughout the next session of Parliament, by protecting and enhancing the marine environment through the Marine (Scotland) Act, and an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas.

Last year the Marine Act was unanimously passed by the Scottish Parliament, giving us new tools to help manage human activity in the marine environment.

The way the next session of Parliament chooses to implement the Act will be crucial to stopping and reversing the declining health of our amazing marine environment. MSPs can choose a business as usual scenario, which I fear may damage our seas to a point from which there is no return. Alternatively, they can grasp the opportunity provided by the Act to protect and regenerate our seas, respecting the environmental limits of the resource upon which we are so reliant.

So next time you bump into your candidates, why not ask them if they have signed LINK’s ‘2011 Marine Declaration’? We will be posting the names of all those who have signed up on our Facebook and Twitter pages.

A brief defence of the right not to vote

Apr 26

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood | 6 Comments

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 6th 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.

#SP11 – Only the Lib Dems can disappear here

Apr 26

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood, Parties | 87 Comments

Waking up the next morning it is easy to feel embarrassed, stupid and remorseful. Those easy words, those seductive plays; of course they were rehearsed and aimed to trick you but it’s easy to be taken in at the time, get swept away in the moment; thinking that this one’s different, this one is for the long term.

And yet there you are on that cold day, sharp shivers that cut to the bone, more from the icy memories than the cool Spring temperature. A walk of shame that can last four or five years before the wrong can be righted.

Yes, voting Lib Dem can leave even the most battle-hardened with scars for life. We all experiment and do stupid things when we’re young I suppose.

Memories of elections are starting to merge into one for me but I think it was 2005 when it was my turn to dip my electoral finger into the appealing icing offered by the Lib Dems, without considering what, if any, substance there was in the cake underneath. Perhaps that is why I am being so hard on the Lib Dems during this campaign, some latent anger at having been duped by a party that I don’t really associate myself with, or perhaps it is the 2010 deal with the Tories, or perhaps it is the disappointing sight of train fares rocketing and wi-fi being stripped out of East Coast while domestic air travel remains King or perhaps it is just the continued duplicity that seems prevalent within the Scottish Lib Dems, even today.

Take their policy to keep policing local. A fine policy and an important argument against the likely move to combine policing into one cost-saving merged force. I personally have no strong feeling either way; I recognise the financial benefits of shared resources but I also recognise the benefits of having a localised service that can adapt more easily to local factors. However, as much as I understand that the Lib Dems don’t have many policy strings to their bow right now, it is just downright deceitful to assert time and time and time again that they are the only party that is fighting to keep policing local. From Orkney through Aberdeen to Perth, and no doubt beyond, this lie, for there is no other word, is being propagated.

How can we sympathise with Chris Huhne attacking the No to AV campaign for spreading lies when his party is doing the same thing up here in Scotland? I can understand why the Lib Dems would want to wish the Green party away but it doesn’t seem to be working as the (hitherto) 5th party of the Parliament is finally gaining some traction in the polls.

Another Scottish Lib Dem bugbear of mine is equality. The party likes to paint itself as at the forefront of any fight against discrimination and, again, there is plenty of merit in their words and deeds. However, they let themselves down by allowing that moral high ground go to their heads. Take Caron’s rationale for not signing this 1,100-strong petition to include Patrick Harvie in the leader debates:

“I actually think that rather than push for Patrick, I’d have been a lot more engaged with the idea if they’d decided against putting another middle aged bloke in a suit on that stage, where, frankly, there are already enough of them, and gone for a woman who has equal authority and status in their party.”

Given that one of those ‘middle aged blokes in a suit’ is Tavish Scott, I thought this was a pretty shaky premise to build an argument on but Caron went on:

“It just screams of blokes in a huddle again, not looking at the bigger picture. They want Patrick in the debates to give them more balance, but they’ve missed the chance to show that they are aware of and act on other sorts of imbalance.”

That’s fine, I don’t get to dictate what people sign or don’t sign, just as Caron doesn’t get to dictate which co-leader the Green Party puts up to argue for its policies, but I take exception at Caron’s complaints of ‘blokes in a huddle’ when the Scottish Lib Dem MSP group for 2007-2011 consisted of 2 women and 14 men. The worst gender imbalance of any of the so-called ‘main parties’.

So, are they set to improve on this lamentable position given that they so often claim to be the party of equality and fairness? Well, no actually. The number of women in the Lib Dem MSP group is expected to decrease from 2 to 1.

The most recent poll suggests that the Lib Dem group will reduce to eight:

Liam McArthur – Orkney
Tavish Scott – Shetland
Alison McInnes – North East
Mike Rumbles – North East
Mike Pringle – Lothians
Willie Rennie – MS&F
Jim Hume – South
Ross Finnie – West

How’s that for “missing the chance to show that they are aware of and act on other sorts of imbalance”?

It is not only a squeeze on policy that has led to desperation for the Lib Dems, it is the result of the 2007 election. You may have noticed a decline in the number of leaflets stating that ‘only the Lib Dems can win here’. That is because the Lib Dems are sitting in second place in only 5 of the 73 constituencies, and 4 of those seats are SNP-held which should remain the case after May 5th. The Lib Dems are struggling to win seats with an honest vote or a tactical vote which perhaps explains, though does not forgive, the behaviour discussed above.

I have no similar problems with the Conservatives or Labour, parties that I also rarely associate myself with. At least they know their place in the political debate and know what it is they are standing for. I really would question whether that is the case for the Scottish Lib Dems and would question whether Scotland needs them at all. What does Tavish’s party bring that the more grounded, robust left of centre parties of SNP, Labour and Greens not already offer? Are the Scottish Lib Dems just becoming a distraction?

This awkward prospect of letting a political party simply slip away is strengthened by the main news item on the Scottish Lib Dem website. Desperately and unashamedly using the inaccurate headline: “Only Lib Dems have solutions for Scotland”, the article talks about volunteering and scouting. Worthy, fuzzy, well-meaning but ultimately ancillary to the core needs of Scotland. For how long can Tavish Scott scurry around the fringes of the debate, looking for a demographic to lead and expect to remain at the top table? What is left of the party when the easy patter, the quick-win protest vote and the dodgy bar chart is no longer an option?

The only sensible way to deal with the smooth-talking Lib Dems? Just say No.