Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

The once in a lifetime deferendum

Apr 13

Posted by Jeff in Elections | 29 Comments

The election campaign is bumping along quite nicely so far and there is still 3 weeks to go for issues to be drawn out and debated, not to mention a few manifestos still to be published (SNP tomorrow, Greens several days hence).

The main battlegrounds thus far have included local taxation, minimum pricing and policing but one policy that has been conspicuous by its absence is independence. Indeed, it is the pro-UK parties that are making the most noise around this issue, warning voters of a broken up Britain that their main rivals, the SNP, seem surprisingly nonplussed about.

The expected logic from the outset of the last session was that competent Nationalist Government coupled with a Parliamentary defeat for a Referendum Bill would see Salmond campaigning hard on ‘the Scottish people being denied their sovereign say on the future of our great nation’, or something else similarly overblown.

It hasn’t happened and we are left with the Jim Sillars of the independence movement flying the flag for separation. How has this come to pass? Why does the SNP PEB ask what the Scottish Government has done for us and not what you can achieve for your country? I appreciate that many Scots misundertand the N in SNP to the party’s electoral disadvantage but it has snapped back the other way quite dramatically.

There are reasons why of course: the Referendum Bill never did get voted on, let alone down, the economy went haywire, Scottish confidence freefalled and polling figures for independence sank as a result. This, as far as I can see, shouldn’t dim the SNP’s appetite for independence so why is the party immersing itself in the snug embrace of devolved Scotland and what is the strategy for the coming term?

Well, the answer to the first question is simple – suppressing its independence aims is the only way for the SNP to win this coming election. This contest is about preaching to the converted and a recent poll has shown that the NHS, policing and free university education are Scotland’s top priorities, while independence (and an extra Forth Road Bridge) are seen as irrelevant.

So, what can we expect during the next parliamentary term on independence? Nothing referendum-related unless there is an SNP/Green coalition as the other parties can, quite reasonably, claim there is little mandate for the barely discussed issue.

Perhaps a bedding in of Calman and a hope that Coalition rule from London will drop independence into Scotland’s lap is sufficient for the SNP over the next five years but one would expect that, for a party whose stated objective is independence, it might want to talk about it in some detail and make its case once in a while.

On the representation of women at Holyrood

Apr 12

Posted by Malc in Elections, Holyrood | 23 Comments

After I wrote this post rounding up our “Region Watch” series, I copped a bit of flak on Twitter for my projections of female representation at Holyrood after May’s election.  Apparently I was too positive.  I actually spotted I’d made a mistake, and the numbers we projected would make 47 female MSPs and not 46 (as I said in the post).  Which would make me even more positive.  Cue even more scepticism I imagine.  So I thought I’d delve into the numbers a bit more.  Obviously, this is subject to the usual caveats surrounding opinion polls – so keep that in mind.

First, a bit of background.

In 1999, there were 48 female MSPs (37.2%).  That rose to 51 (39.5%) in 2003 before taking a dramatic tumble to 43 – 33.3% – in 2007.  With the passing of the SNP’s Bashir Ahmad – the only (EDIT ethnic-minority) “non-white” MSP Holyrood has seen – and his replacement as an MSP by Anne McLaughlin, the total at Holyrood’s dissolution stood at 44 (34.1%).  For more analysis and division by party, see this article in Scottish Affairs (pdf).  50% of the seats at Holyrood is, for the sake of clarity, 65.

And so to 2011.  The Guardian reports that only 28% of all candidates for the election in May will be women which, according to both The Hansard Society and the Centre for Women and Democracy, means there will be fewer women elected to Holyrood than in 2007.  And yet, from our analysis (and by our, I mean Jeff and I – James and Kate should be exonerated from any of the following – though Kate ran numbers previously and ended up with 43) we have a rise – a small one, but a rise nonetheless – in female representation, from the 43 women elected in 2007 to 47 now.

Here’s where we’ve projected them to come from:

Highlands & Islands (3)
0 constituencies – which isn’t a surprise, since most have never had a female MP never mind a female MSP
3 list MSPs: Rhoda Grant (Lab – seat #2), Eleanor Scott (Grn – #4) and Mary Scanlon (Con – #5)

North-East Scotland (5)
1 constituency: Shona Robison (SNP – Dundee City East)
4 list: Jenny Marra(Lab – #3) Nanette Milne (Con -#4) Lesley McMahon (Lab – #5) Maureen Watt (SNP – #6)

Lothian (8)
3 constituencies: Sarah Boyack (Lab – Edin Central), Margaret Smith (LD – Edin West), Mary Mulligan (Lab – Linlithgow)
5 list: Fiona Hyslop (SNP #2) Shirley-Anne Somerville (SNP #3) Alison Johnstone (Grn #4) Margo MacDonald (Ind #5) Angela Constance (SNP #6)

Mid-Scotland & Fife (7)
4 constituencies: Helen Eadie (Lab – Cowdenbeath), Marlyn Livingstone (Lab – Kircaldy), Tricia Marwick (SNP – Mid-Fife & Glenrothes), Roseanna Cunningham (SNP – Perthshire South & Kinross-shire)
3 list: Elizabeth Smith (Con #2) Claire Baker (Lab #4) Annabelle Ewing (SNP #7)

West Scotland (4)
2 constituencies: Irene Oldfather (Lab – Cunninghame South), Jackie Baillie (Lab – Dumbarton)
2 list: Annabel Goldie (Con #2) Fiona McLeod (SNP #5)

Central Scotland (7)
3 constituencies: Elaine Smith (Lab – Coatbridge & Chryston), Cathy Craigie (Lab – Cumbernauld & Kilsyth), Cathy Peattie (Lab – Falkirk East)
4 list: Linda Fabiani (SNP #2) Margaret Mitchell (Con #3) Siobhan McMahon (Lab #5) Christina McKelvie (SNP #6)

South Scotland (7)
3 constituencies: Karen Gillon (Lab - Clydesdale), Gillian Dykes (Con – Dumfriesshire), Christine Grahame (SNP – Tweeddale & Lauderdale)
4 list: Aileen Campbell (SNP #1), Elaine Murray (Lab #2), Claudia Beamish (Lab #5), Joan McAlpine (SNP #6)

Glasgow (6)
4 constituencies: Pauline McNeill (Lab – Kelvin), Patricia Ferguson (Lab – Maryhill & Springburn), Johann Lamont (Lab – Pollock), Nicola Sturgeon (SNP – Southside)
2 list: Sandra White (SNP #3) Ruth Davidson (Con #4)

That makes 47 – and you can see the regional variations above without the need for me to point out the glaringly obvious bias in favour of male MSPs in H&I and West.  Its perhaps not fair to single them out, since no region has a particularly good record here.  The exception is perhaps Lothian, where 50% of the MSPs returned in our analysis would be women (and see below for potential increase).

Of course there could be more or there could be fewer than I’ve outlined above.  A lot of the list seats (where the majority of the female candidates are) depend on the outcome of some marginal seats – and the outcome of those depends entirely on how people vote on the day.  Here’s a few that might have an impact:

Western Isles – Jeff projected Donald Crichton would win this for Labour over the SNP’s Alasdair Allan.  I think he’s wrong – but in the final party mark-up, it doesn’t matter, since Labour would take a list seat at the SNP’s expense.  But on gender, it does, since next on Labour’s list is a woman – Linda Stewart – which would add one to the tally above.

Aberdeenshire South & North Kincardine – I went for John Sleigh of the Lib Dems here, but if the SNP’s Maureen Watt can win it, that’d free up a list seat for the Lib Dems – which would go to Alison McInnes.  Add one more (for best case scenario).

Almond Valley – If Angela Constance won here (or, less likely but still plausible, if Shirley-Anne Somerville won in Edinburgh Northern & Leith) she would beat out a male Labour candidate.  Labour would likely win a list seat, replacing their male constituency winner with a female list MSP (Kezia Dugdale).

Airdrie & Shotts – Alex Neil was projected to pick this up for the SNP, but if Karen Whitefield held on, Alex Neil would be returned on the list, with Labour losing a list seat held by a male.  So there’s potential here for a net female gain as well.

If all four of those go against our projections, then we could be looking at 51 female MSPs, taking us back up to 2003 levels (which, granted, is still only 39.5% of the seats).  However, I can find one example of it going the other way:

South of Scotland – Two female candidates fighting out Dumfriesshire, which is notionally Conservative.  If they hold on (as we currently project) then Gillian Dykes is the constituency MSP and her opponent, Elaine Murray, is returned on the list.  If the positions are reversed in Dumfriesshire, the Conservatives do win the list seat to compensate for their constituency loss, but the seat is taken not by Gillian Dykes but by Derek Brownlee – which would mean a net -1 for women at Holyrood.

It is a complex business working this out, and fine margins exist everywhere.  With the exceptions of Sarah Boyack, whose constituency is notionally Lib Dem, Nicola Sturgeon (notionally Labour seat), Christine Grahame, who has notionally inherited the seat from the Lib Dems, and the aforementioned Dumfriesshire seat, most of the seats which currently have female MSPs are relatively safe.  Thus I expect most of those will be returned to Holyrood – which means it all comes down to the list as to whether more or fewer female MSPs than 2007 are returned.

While this is nowhere near the parity expected of the “new politics” in 1999 (where has that disappeared to, by the way?) nor anything to get excited about, I’m more optimistic than the Guardian and others about the outcome in this respect.  And I never thought the words “Malc” and “optimistic” actually went in the same sentence.

What a difference a PEB makes…

Apr 11

Posted by Malc in Elections, Holyrood | 29 Comments

Or does it?

Each of the 5 parties with representatives at Holyrood now have (at least) one party election broadcast in the public domain.  There are five different messages here, and several different styles. But what do we really get from each of them? Well let’s try to find something positive and something negative with each of them.

SNP (5 April)

The SNP’s “Monty Python” video is an original-ish idea, its funny and it taps into people’s psyche when it comes to elections – the “why bother, what have they ever done for us” mentality. On the other hand, there’s a kind of “that’s what we got in the last election – what are you going to give us this time around?” notion as well.

Scottish Labour (6 April)

(I can’t find Labour’s latest PEB on YouTube or on the party’s website to embed here, but you can see the video of it on the BBC website here).

Labour’s “Iain Gray focus piece” is more about introducing the man who might be First Minister than any Labour policies, and while the tactic is probably right – and certainly warranted – when you compare it with Welsh Labour’s video which is based on the same format, Carwyn Jones shows Iain Gray how it should be done. The idea of talking about your family and using that as your frame of reference for politics works… but I’m not sure Iain Gray sells it right.

Scottish Conservative (7 April)

The Conservative video uses the same principle – leader Annabel Goldie talking to camera, touting the achievements of the Scottish Tories during the last session of parliament, pointing out that it was only with their support that certain measures (Council Tax freeze, small business bonus, 1,000 police officers…) were passed. I expect this message will be the central theme to their campaign. However, the format – with the leader shown at home, out rambling, birdwatching – is tired (indeed, its just about the same idea Labour have had) and I feel like I’ve seen this PEB a million times before.

Scottish Liberal Democrat (8 April)

The Lib Dems video is, for me, the most bizarre. Granted, it is certainly the most focused on a single issue (stopping the centralisation of police forces) which means you get a bit more information on that issue… but it just seems a bit small. Where do the Lib Dems stand on other things? What is their vision for Scotland? Does this issue really warrant the 2 minutes of my time over everything else? Also, the style is a bit weird. It seems to me like a news report – I’m expecting to hear “Tavish Scott, Reporting Scotland, standing beside a police car” at the end. And surely you re-shoot the bits where the leaflet gets blown about a bit, no?

Scottish Greens (11 April)

And the Greens – the concept is good here. Let’s have as many different people, different voices, different faces, from all over Scotland giving one message: “we’re using our second vote to vote Green because…” Its a simple message, delivered simply and effectively. However, each of the previous four parties utilise their leader – and I think the Greens could have given a bit more public recognition if they’d had one of their more prominent figures, Patrick Harvie or Eleanor Scott, or even Martin Ford, involved in the video. Ordinary folk work to a point – but they aren’t the ones standing for election.

So – is there value in party election broadcasts? Any more so than leaflets? No idea. Gives me something to critique though…

UPDATE:
On a vaguely-related note.  I’m looking to put together a post with some folks views on why they are voting a particular way in May.  Hopefully, I’ll get around 9 or 10 – and then we can have a debate around the issues arising out of that.  I’m not looking for much – 100 words or so – setting out a positive case why you’ll be voting for X in May.  Anyone interested – drop me an email or tweet, or a comment and we’ll set it up.  Cheers.

Banks – jumping through hoops and climbing over ringfences

Apr 11

Posted by Jeff in Economy | 6 Comments

Anyone that works in banking, as I do, has been on tenterhooks over what the Independent Banking Commission would report from its interim recommendations. And, well, now we know.

There are over 200 pages in today’s IBC report but the main outcome seems to be the suggestion that banks should ringfence its retail operations (mortgages, current accounts) from the supposed ‘casino’ operations of investment management (the part of the bank that gets people a decent return on their pension).

I have had a few scattershot thoughts about this result and I just thought I’d throw them out there:

– The main priority at the moment, and presumably into the future, is to get banks lending again to boost the economy and boost employment. This suggestion of effectively splitting banks within banks will require separate pillars of capital structures and consequently achieves the exact opposite. With more money going towards capitalising ringfenced areas and a bank’s inability to use deposits on one side to fund loans on the other, the cost of funding will increase significantly. That cost will be passed on to a bank’s customers and begs the question – who wins?

– The Scottish Government did away with ringfencing in 2007 as it allowed greater flexibility and greater efficiency. If that logic applies for public spending, why should not apply for banking entities?

– I can’t help but wonder how many of the people who jeer that banks are too big have their mortgage/loans with RBS or LBG or Barclays. The quickest and cleanest way to realign a market is to pick a favourite and reward it with consumer power. That link doesn’t seem to be coming through at the moment, going by the apparent level of disgust at certain banks.

– From some of the rhetoric coming from Danny Alexander today, I am concerned at who is leading who. The Lib Dems do seem to be trying to leverage public ill-feeling towards banks, irrespective of the level of understanding that is tacked onto that ill-feeling. The strategy seems to be: ‘banks don’t like these proposals, the public doesn’t like banks, therefore we will support the proposals, irrespective of what they mean’. A dangerous game but thankfully, speaking of capital, Danny Alexander and Vince Cable don’t have much political capital left.

Yes, bonuses are too high and yes, the bluff on bank’s threats to leave the UK should be called; but we need many, well capitalised, strong banks filled with technically-minded, professional people who, yes, can command higher salaries. Unless we ditch Capitalism altogether which even in a leftie’s wildest dreams is unlikely to happen. You’d struggle to find anyone volunteering to be an accountant in a Communist state.

For me, banks will no longer be ‘too big to fail’ if we simply have more of them and we are already moving in that direction. Lloyds has to create and sell a bank under EU rules, Santander is an aggressive new entrant to the UK market, so too is Metro Bank, the Swedish Handelsbanken is quietly going from strength to strength, Edinburgh-based Tesco and Virgin seem to be gaining a foothold and mutuals, the Co-ops and Airdrie banks are always options too.

So ringfencing within banks? All things considered, I’m not yet convinced the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Where did LIT all go wrong…?

Apr 10

Posted by Jeff in Economy, Elections | 34 Comments

During the 2007 election campaign, it was billed by the SNP as “the biggest tax cut in a generation” but this weekend sees the SNP manifesto team frantically working behind the scenes to either patch up their Local Income Tax policy or pull the plug on it entirely. My personal prediction is that there is too much uncertainty, too much suspicion around what the tax will mean for Scottish taxpayers that the Nationalists will decide it’s not worth including as a blatant target for attack in its manifesto. The hitherto successful strategy of messaging ‘record, team, vision’ will be deemed as critical to carrying them over the line and anything (or anyone) that works against that over the next few weeks will be swept aside, LIT included.

This whole issue stems from the electorally toxic news that Alex Salmond has been using the courts to prevent the detail of Local Income Tax going public, inviting rival parties and the wider public to speculate on what is so damaging in the calculations that we shouldn’t get to see them less than a month shy of an election. Amid heightened tensions over how Scotland can meet a spending squeeze of some 12.5% over the next few years, this is the worst problem at the worst time for the SNP and, really, someone, somewhere has taken their eye off the ball.

The bad news appears to be that, had Local Income Tax been introduced, there would have been a shortfall of some £800m which would have required a rate of 4.6p on income tax to cover. This adds fuel to the flame of the otherwise disingenuous claim that Local Income Tax would make Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK. (It may carry the highest level of income tax, but that is to ignore the key point that Council Tax would be scrapped)

The appeal of Local Income Tax (which, along with Land Value Tax, I am very much a fan of) is that payment largely comes through PAYE so that people know what they are paid net from their employer is largely theirs to spend on whatever they please. That is, the money that lands in your account each month is yours. There is little doubt that the simple mechanics of Council Tax can get people into trouble with cash management and no doubt reduce the tax intake for councils as some simply cannot afford to pay the tax once the reminders start landing on doormats.

The hyperlocalism of the tax is appealing too, although the SNP wish to set the rate nationally. Under the Lib Dem proposal the local councils would be more accountable and value for money would be more recognisable. That can only be an improvement on the status quo.

However, as fine an idea as this local tax is, it is facing some new challenges in 2011:

– We’ve already voted on Local Income Tax and the electorate will be less sympathetic to even the same promises this time around. The SNP may well claim that it needs more MSPs to deliver the policy in the face of hostile opposition but, rightly or wrongly, I can envisage that falling on deaf ears.
– We’ve had four years of a Council Tax freeze which, somewhat ironically, makes Council Tax less unpopular than it might have been and arguably less unpopular than it was in 2007. That also makes LIT a harder sell.
– The Greens have pulled together a fully costed and highly attractive Land Value Tax policy that has garnered a good bit of press for the party. LIT is not longer ‘the only show in town’.
– The SNP is suggesting that it is keen to continue minority Government if it emerges as the largest party, how that squares with delivering a Local Income Tax that requires a parliamentary majority, it is not quite clear.

With the SNP and Lib Dems only a couple of votes short in delivering a Local Income Tax in the 2007-11 term, the Lib Dems demoting it in this year’s manifesto (1 mention in 89 pages) and the policy now a millstone around the SNP’s necks, it is looking increasingly likely that this policy has had its day.

Where that leaves us with five different parties and three or four different policies is anyone’s guess. The only option that I can see emanating from the pack, assuming the SNP does wash its hands of LIT, is an SNP/Green deal on a Land Value Tax at some point down the line and only if the numbers fall in that favour.

The tax brings in more money each year, makes efficient use of land/buildings (fileld or empty) all the while not requiring higher bills from the vast majority of houses that are banded A-E. It is, to my mind, a cleaner and more fully formed version of Vince Cable’s reasonable Mansion Tax policy from last year.

Patrick Harvie says that for the next Parliament “it is either Land Value Tax or bust”. Despite being a fan of LIT, I am inclined to agree.