Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Ae fond vote and then we sever

Feb 14

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 4 Comments

Valentine’s Day is the most curious of scams. Couples that don’t know how to spread their love evenly and spontaneously throughout the year instead fall into the ‘Cards Galore’ trap and shower their one and only with the same cards, teddy bears and chocolates that people up and down the country are also purchasing. Rows upon rows of tables-for-two in restaurant after restaurant, synchronised staring into those special someones’ eyes. Are they one in a million or just another sucker trying to quantify their feelings with £££ signs?

Anyway, relationships exist not just within the narrow, shallow parameters of Valentine’s Day that I snort my derision at (and will pay a heavy price for later! (not really)). A relationship exists between public and Government. Honeymoon periods move on to ‘it’s complicated’ until suddenly you’re living completely separate lives just waiting for the next smiling buffoon promising the earth to come along.

We don’t help ourselves either. How many couples have a long comfortable time together, break up, go their separate ways for a while and then the pangs hit, realisation sets in and before you know it you are back together for good. It seems to be part of human nature. We quibble, we nitpick, we pontificate as the three or four year itch strikes, despite the person in front of us being quite simply, and unromantically realistically, as good as it gets.

We wonder if this really is the one despite them ticking all the boxes and allow ourselves to look elsewhere, the demons teetering us closer to the tantalising prospect of someone new, or maybe someone old, the calmer, sensible angels roughly pushed to one side. We panic, go back to our old love, what we know, what we’ve always known, that relationship that became so tired and lacking in passion but we know it, it’s easy and that counts for something, somehow.

And sometimes in love and politics you have to be burned twice before you know where you stand and who you should be standing with. In following its heart rather than its head with Labour, will Scotland be putting its fingers into the fire when deep down we should really know better?

I can’t imagine Alex Salmond wants roses or cards or teddy bears or chocolate. Ok, he might want the chocolate but he will want us to think what these past four years have meant. Would you trade them in if you could?

Remember saving the A&E departments? Remembering scrapping tolls? Remember the first Council Tax freeze? That was a good day. Oh, remember James MacFadden’s wonder goal against France?

Acht, well, whatever you decide to do, we’ll always have Paris.

Brian Souter’s £500k campaign donation

Feb 13

Posted by Jeff in Elections | 36 Comments

There are many ways to look at the news that Stagecoach tycoon Brian Souter is to repeat his funding of the SNP with a donation of up to £500k. The two conflicting views that I hold are these:

1 – It allows a fair contest to take place between the historically under-funded SNP relative to the more established (but currently skint) Labour party

2 – It pushes Scotland closer to an unbecoming two-party system, much like the hideously riven-in-two United States

We have already seen this week how large the divide between Labour and the SNP is in terms of consensus politics. As Duncan Hamilton describes in deliciously vicious detail in the Scotland on Sunday today, Labour couldn’t even bring itself to vote for a Scottish budget that contained all of the detail that Iain Gray had been calling for. A political arms race between two parties that increasingly detest each other to the decreasing benefit of Scotland can only end badly. Funding candidates who gleefully talk about getting “pugils at the ready” and calling the other side “patsies” doesn’t seem to be getting us very far. However, as can be backed up by electoral math, Labour and the SNP could be on course to take 100 of the 129 seats in the Parliament this year, a worrying milestone for those wanting to move away from punch and judy politics.

The correlation between winning seats and spending power speaks for itself. The four largest parties all spent about £20k-£30k per MSP during 2007, suggesting that the number of leaflets rather than the message printed on them is key. The Greens spent about £54k per MSP, suggesting perhaps that, all things being equal, more money goes further once you have some momentum. With the top two parties seemingly raising even more than the rest here and now in 2011, the direction of travel for our beloved Parliament is pretty clear.

Interestingly, it is the Liberal Democrats who spent the least, £19k per MSP, which suggests that they have a stronger base of support out there that money is less of a factor with, a suggestion that would perhaps contradict the widely-held prediction that Tavish Scott is on a hiding to nothing come May.

On his Twitter page, Patrick Harvie has noted that he would rather have no money than Brian Souter’s money (albeit through the ‘RT’ of another’s message). One would think that Patrick might believe he could spend said money better than Brian could, or Alex Salmond for that matter, but money is a game changer in Politics, that’s the unfortunate reality of our current setup and probably the least worst solution too. It is commendable that the Scottish Greens believe so wholeheartedly in their message that they stand more squarely on it, eschewing more traditional (and perhaps more grubby) political practices.

With 50%+ of Tory donations coming from the City while Osborne arranges jaw-dropping tax cuts for big business, not to mention the eyebrow-raising sweeping away of bus regulation from the SNP manifesto four years ago (an omission that would have pleased Brian Souter), we just have to make sure that campaign money is a game changer only for elections, and not for policies.

All in all, I am mostly glad that the SNP can fight this election on the same financial footing as Scottish Labour but, with the real risk that our once Rainbow Parliament takes on a distinctly red and yellow hue, we should be careful what we wish and vote for.

(Note – That is a National Express vehicle in the photo, not a Stagecoach one. I am not suggesting anything untoward with its inclusion, and certainly not that Jim Barrie or Stewart Hosie have a face like the back of a bus!)

Davis and Straw versus ECHR (2011)

Feb 10

Posted by Malc in Constitution, Democracy, Europe, Westminster | 82 Comments

Westminster is getting its collective knickers in a knot today over the issue of prisoner voting rights.

On the one side we have the European Court of Human Rights which suggests (nae, demands!) that the UK comply with their view that denying prisoners a vote in UK elections – at all levels – represents a breach of their human rights.  Failure to comply will result in… well, I’m not sure, to be honest.  Apparently the prisoners can sue for compensation, though how you put a monetary value on the freedom to vote I don’t know.

Anyway, on the other side we have Tory MP David Davies leading the charge, ably supported by former Home Secretary Jack Straw, arguing that when prisoners break their contract with society by committing a crime and are subsequently incarcerated, they give up their right to vote for the duration of their stay at Her Majesty’s pleasure.  Further, they argue, that while prisoners are of course covered by the Convention on Human Rights, that only extends as far as being fed and treated with respect – it does not extend to their ability to determine the government of the day.  Finally, neither seems to think the UK Government should be held to ransom by the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that “democratically elected lawmakers” of a sovereign state should have more say over their electoral arrangements than unelected judges and law-interpreters.

The upshot of it, as far as I can gather, is that we have a motion in parliament on the issue, and that both government and opposition front benches have been instructed to abstain in the vote while backbenchers have a free vote, though the vote itself is non-binding on the government.  David Cameron and the Conservative element of the government have signalled their displeasure with the European Court’s decision, though suggest that the UK has no choice but to comply, while the Liberal Democrats are likely to be (though I haven’t seen this in print) more sympathetic to prisoners’ claims.

Wherever you stand on the issue of prisoner voting rights (and though I tend to be more of a “rehabilitation-ist” than a “punish-punish-punish” type, I agree with the PM – it makes me a little ill to think that a prisoner who has no respect for the rights of others when s/he murders/rapes/assaults/burgles another citizen should be allowed to vote) this case opens up a lot of constitutional questions which the UK and the European Union are not prepared for.

In particular, can the UK continue to defy the European Court of Human Rights?  If so, what are the sanctions for such defiance?  When the UK signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights did it cede so much sovereignty that it no longer has control over its own franchise?  What are the ramifications for UK Parliamentary democracy if it has to take direction from Europe on law and order?

Needless to say, I’m just asking the questions – I don’t have all (or indeed, any) of the answers.  Perhaps some of our legal-minded colleagues may shed some light?  Either way, I watch this process unfold and await the outcome with some interest.

Can the Greens double up in Lothians?

Feb 10

Posted by Jeff in Elections, Holyrood | 47 Comments

The closest that the Greens have to a heartland in Scotland is arguably Edinburgh. Home to Farmer’s Markets,

Share this:

The new armchair supporter

Feb 8

Posted by Guest Blog in Holyrood | 37 Comments

A guest post today from superstar anonymous blogger Red Fox. No, you will find out no more.. but it ain’t Colin Fox, that much I guarantee.

Hamster WarsA few years ago, I attended a football match that put me off the live game forever. The thuggish atmosphere, pathetic name calling and aggression of everyone around me were more than I could be bothered with.

For a while now I’ve felt the same about FMQs – the weekly showdown where, in theory, MSPs are given the opportunity openly to call the First Minister to account on matters of policy and legislation. In reality it’s nothing of the kind. I’m not going to claim that there was ever a golden age of FMQs – but recently it has degenerated into an ugly mash-up of every dodgy leaflet the LibDems ever produced, every ‘blame London’ line the SNP has ever taken and every bitter resentment ever uttered by a Labour Party that still hasn’t learned the lessons of the last Scottish Parliament or Westminster elections. The Greens rarely even get a question and most of the 30 minutes is eaten up by the four main party leaders having a squabble.

Things feel like they’ve gotten worse in the past five years, based partly on Alex Salmond’s return to the front bench at Holyrood. He didn’t arrive alone, but brought with him a Westminster culture of jeering and finger jabbing that some of us all hoped we’d be freed from when we imagined our Scottish Parliament with its founding principles of openness, accountability, power sharing and equal opportunities. Instead we’ve created a weak replica of the Commons, without any of the good bits. I can only wonder if an independent Scotland would similarly adopt all the worst aspects of the union and forget to do anything worthwhile.

It can’t all be placed at Alex Salmond’s door though. The Labour Party’s horror at it’s rejection from its “rightful place” at the heart of Scottish politics has fostered an embittered, accusatory attitude among many of their MSPs, rather than a calling-to-account questioning one. We’re seeing the kind of tribalism between the SNP and the Labour Party that’s traditionally been reserved for their dealings with the Tories.

It’s often said that you can’t – or shouldn’t – have a Parliament where members don’t have the right to question the leader of the government. However, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of point in having the right to ask a question if you don’t have the right to get an answer to that question. Or, if instead of asking a question, you choose instead to sling accusations and soundbites.

In 2003 FMQs was moved from its 3.10pm slot to its current timing at noon. One of the reasons cited was that it would allow school parties to watch FMQs. I’d rather that school children were actually able to see a real debate taking place about substantive points on policy. Not the lowest form of politics, which recently saw the First Minister describe Labour leader Iain Gray of being “schizophrenic.” That’s not the kind of scene I’d want my kid subjected to during their school day. How long is it going to be before we witness the same kind of behaviour at Holyrood as we do at Westminster; women routinely harassed and, just last week, a Tory MP who has cerebral palsy complaining that Labour MPs had mocked his condition during his speech with exaggerated facial gestures.

For now I’ll watch the weekly bunfight the same way that I watch any football that I see – on a screen, at a distance from any live action. But at least sometimes football can be impressive. I can’t remember the last time I saw anything to be impressed by at FMQs.