Â
£33bn, spending that directly impacts millions of Scots, a decision from which the shape of the election campaign will no doubt be formed and a deep-seated entrenchment of party positions borne out of 4 years of bad blood that borders on out-and-out hatred. Roll up, roll up, it’s the final big vote and Holyrood Battle Royale before Parliament closes its doors and we get to have our say.
Â
Now, there are two comparisons to be made when each of the opposition parties consider John Swinney’s proposed Budget:
Â
(1)Â Â Â Â Is it more or less better than what I would do?
(2)    Is it better than doing nothing and reverting to last year’s budget?
Â
Many of the parties have already decided that the answer to the first question is No. The Greens are steadfastly against the meek ‘passing on’ of Tory cuts without raising revenue to safeguard public services and jobs. Labour believes it would create a budget that is more focused on jobs, regeneration in Glasgow and growth. The Lib Dems seem to be pushing for support for poorer students and a stronger clampdown on high pay in the public sector.
Â
All perfectly valid and perfectly reasonable pitches to a watching public but I do worry that each of the three parties above have not fully contemplated the second comparison, the 2011/12 budget reverting to 2010/11 in the absence of any deal.
Â
One needs look no further than the bald fact that last year’s budget has £1bn too much in it for it to be applicable to the year ahead. So, from a Green, Labour and Lib Dem perspective, they must all surely conclude that to accept John Swinney’s budget is better than to use the prior year’s. Whether this philosophy can find its way through the fog of parliamentary war and manifest itself in the voting next week remains to be seen.
Â
And, well, if Patrick, Iain and Tavish all gamble that public perception will be that it is SNP obstinance that is blocking a Budget deal rather than Opposition intransigence, a damaging deadlock may yet be realised.
Â
The Greens are seeking to mark themselves out as different to all four of the main parties in the coming election on not just environmental factors but economic concerns too so perhaps their opposition has a more understandable slant to it, if no less forgivable in the event that no budget actually gets passed at the end of the day.
Â
I cannot see Labour doing anything other than voting against anything that the SNP proposes between now and May and so it will be the Lib Dems, I strongly suspect and certainly hope, that will blink, abstain and thus allow the Budget to proceed, as long as the Tesco Tax element is stripped out that is.
Â
However, misjudged brinkmanship is something that Scott, Gray and Harvie are well capable of and a flaw that their respective parties have naively already displayed at Budget time during this parliamentary term. There’s not much of a safety net for the coming few weeks and if these opposition leaders focus on the gains that can be made from gambling on everything rather than the losses for us all if no deal is reached, then Parliament’s standing may be about to sink to an all time low.
Â
Hold on to your hats, it could be a very bumpy 9 days up to the final vote.
The big news in today’s Scotland on Sunday is that the results of the Holyrood election may not be with us until the Friday or Saturday. Reaction to this news will no doubt range from ‘couldn’t care less’ to the apoplectic.
I have to admit, I am camped quite firmly in the former category, despite being a huge fan of the thrills and spills of election night. It seems downright inhumane to expect returning officers to run two votes in the one day and then push on into the small hours to produce a result that can wait until the next day. Furthermore, waiting that extra day will mean that a more accurate result is counted; rather important given that the 2007 election was won by only 47 votes or so.
A somewhat separate issue is whether this referendum should be held on May 5th at all. On balance, I am not convinced that this is much of an issue either. It is certainly less of a concern than 2015 when the UK General Election will be held around the same time, perhaps even the same day, as the Scottish Parliament election.
Stepping even further back from the question of counting ballots and the date of referendums one may question whether this piece of legislation has had sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. It is easy to forget that it is not just an AV referendum that is being passed here but a significant redrawing of existing constituencies and reduction in the number of MPs, not a decision that should be taken lightly one would have thought.
Now, I can’t say I agree with Lord Foulkes filling the House of Lords with hot air 189 times just to filibuster a piece of legislation that he doesn’t like or fresh-faced Lord McAvoy speaking 77 times on this Bill when he spoke just four words in the House of Commons in four years (source: Lord Rennard at Lib Dem Voice). However, this Bill does seem to come with the rushed rashness that characterises so much of what the coalition is setting out to achieve so a bit of time and a bit of input from across all parties and the full length of the backbenches would not go amiss.
So, if anyone has a fundamental disagreement with the nuts and bolts of the Constituencies Bill then they probably hold a jutified grievance but if someone is moaning about Holyrood losing some of the spotlight in a few months time or having to wait what will probably be less than 24 hours for the final result, I’d have to say they are probably being a bit short-sighted.
Raiders of the Lost Park
Jan 29
A Guest Post from Aberdeen campaigner Renee Slater:
On Wednesday 19th May 2010, Aberdeen City Council voted to support the destruction of Union Terrace Gardens and the replacement of these with Sir Ian Wood’s vision of a City Square.
Many of Aberdeen’s citizens think this was a wrong decision for several important reasons:
1. It has destroyed Peacock Visual Arts proposals for a new Arts Centre in the existing gardens which would have made the gardens more accessible and provided handy facilities such as cafe and toilets.
2. No economic case for the City Square has been made and the mechanism for the £90m+ not “gifted†by Sir Ian Wood would mean tax rises for local businesses.
3. The gardens themselves are used and loved. They are a vital cultural, historic and environmental asset to the City.
4. 55% of the people in the City Square consultation said No to the City Square proposals. Despite this, ASCEF (Aberdeen City and Shire Economic Future) wanted to pursue the issue and the City Council has agreed to this.
Aberdeen’s City Councillors have a fundamental duty to “represent their [constituents’] interests conscientiously” (source: The Scottish Government, Code of Conduct for Councillors) but have voted contrary to the public’s views following a consultation process that cost over £300,000.
For an excellent step-by-step analysis of the story so far, read Fraser Denholm’s blog.
What can we do?
There are thousands of people angry and upset at the prospect of City Square and the destruction of Union Terrace Gardens. If people work together, this can be stopped. There are sound planning reasons to keep the gardens and no economic case for their replacement with City Square has been made. So let’s group together as Friends of Union Terrace Gardens and do what we can to conserve and improve this beautiful part of our city. Join us and make your voice heard..
More information here: http://friendsofutg.org/
Tango Tam
Jan 27
Another guest post today: freelance journalist Catriona MacPhee assesses Tommy’s claims and his place in history.
As Tommy Sheridan was sent down yesterday for perjury, so concluded the tale of how socialism’s great hero became its executioner. If it’s true that the main problem with socialism is that it’s full of socialists, then the past four months have also been a lesson in how clichés are made.
The final instalment of this live Glasgow soap opera saw the golden boy of the left, who once masterminded a socialist renaissance in Scotland and created a foundation that could have changed the course of Scottish history, complete the full transformation into that which he abhors.
In belittling the mentally ill (Oh, depression you say? *eye brow raise in the jury’s direction*), patronising the weak (I said page 23, do you understand what page 23 means? Can you do that for me? *rolls eyes at the trembling witness *) and besmirching the sometime sex workers and reformed criminals he used to extol as victims of society (Jurors, can you really trust the word of a man who was convicted of a minor crime when he was16? *aside: never mind the fact I chose him as my best man*), he employed the very prejudices that tyrannise the working class.
There are of course lots of conspiracy theories surrounding the case, and going down the ‘does the end justify the means?’ route may have elicited some sympathy for Tommy. He told me in an interview in 2006 that ‘when the News of the World attacks a socialist then there is only one side of the fence for socialists to be on and that’s with the socialists’. I noted at the time that the truth seemed an after thought.
Would wounding the News of the World and the Murdoch empire justify lying in court and sacrificing colleagues and friends, possibly even the whole movement?
To an ardent socialist like Tommy, maybe. The problem with this defence is that the court case wasn’t, despite his greatest assertions, a battle of socialism versus capitalism or working men versus the anti-trade union rags. His underhand attacks on the witnesses during cross-examination, with tones reminiscent of Daily Mail headlines, were proof enough of that. It was personal and only his name was at stake. To view it any other way is to indulge Tommy’s delusions of grandeur.
It looked increasingly as though any assertion of honourable motivation was a cynical smoke screen from behind which he could take vicious and opportunistic swipes at his former comrades. His battle cry of defending the public’s rights to justice (etc) was at complete odds with his own tactics. And when the means begin to justify the means, the battle’s already lost.
Tommy Sheridan’s story is not a totally unfamiliar tale though. Throughout centuries of history, a recurrent pattern has emerged with most socialist and communist movements. When boiled down, most fail, arguably, because of man’s ego-driven weakness for power and greed, both qualities that happily accommodate paranoia. It is mankind’s greatest flaw and no matter how much we progress, we seem doomed to bloodshed, metaphorically or otherwise, by this intrinsic characteristic.
In Tommy’s case it was the pursuits of the ego. These pursuits in a sex club were what triggered the beginning of the end of Tommy Sheridan and latterly what drove the main star in a show that drew larger and larger audiences every day. For the unemployed and bored, to the just plain nosy and on a lunch break, the court house became the best show in town, with Lord Bracadale having to remind the patrons of the public gallery at one stage not to climb over seats in their attempt to secure a good spot in the queue for the next round.
There is no doubt Tommy Sheridan has secured his place in Scottish history books, but it will be for all the wrong reasons. There is no credible socialist party left in Scotland and it will be a long time before the socialist movement sheds the legacy of this saga. It’s an outcome that no one would have predicted seven years ago when six SSP politicians were elected to the Scottish parliament and Tommy Sheridan was compared to the legendary John MacLean.
Sadly, today Tommy Sheridan, as the maker of his own misfortune, begins a prison sentence with only his ego for company.
There is something crudely simplistic about Alex Salmond’s big announcement yesterday. You can sense the naked strategising behind the opening policy salvo in the Holyrood election campaign (with my personal image being an Apprentice style table, the FM as Lord Sugar and the Shadow Cabinet nervously pitching their ideas to the boss)
‘A holiday on St Andrew’s Day?’, ‘We’ve done that till we’re Saltire blue in the face’, ‘Bring back the rail link?’ ‘No chance!’, ‘Ok, Ive got it. The spiritual home of the Left, the biggest concern for voters and a nice big round number – let’s promise to spend £1bn extra on the NHS’, ‘Love it, you’re hired. Now, lunch…’.
Or something like that.
In the good old days (four years ago) the SNP wasn’t a party that just reacted to problems but sought to prevent them happening in the first place. Free School Meals, SFT and, recently, Minimum Pricing. Ideas that I’m sure will remain SNP policy and, arguably, the public and some Opposition parties have not yet caught up with.
Scotland won’t better itself with an army of doctors and nurses waiting in the wings for our inevitable sickness caused by poor diet, low exercise, increased smog and a penchant for booze, drugs and smoking. To be the party of the NHS these days is to risk being the party of profligacy.
Holding firm to the unpopular but ultimately correct course of action is frustrating with elections to be won, a media to satiate, a party to hold together and daunting poll results so has the SNP blinked already and opted for that old New Labour solution of throwing money at problems? Surely a confident Government would be promising to keep NHS costs down through presiding over a healthier populace, not boasting that costs are going to have match our lamentable standards?
There is of course the Scottish Greens who so often eschewed opposition for opposition’s sake and voted alongside the SNP for Minimum Pricing and Free School Meals while not being afraid to stand alone and fight for a Land Value Tax, an alternative to the Forth Bridge and better insulation for current housing stock. Perhaps it is because the Greens have less to lose but on current evidence they seem most likely to have the stomach and the belief to follow their principles through into May.
Set against two parties content with consoling its public rather than intent on leading it, the Greens look a good vote for a more robust Parliament.