Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Scotland and the EU, a mess of the SNP’s own making

Dec 8

Posted by Jeff in Europe | 26 Comments

It is ironic that while Little Englanders search for the exit gates from the European Union in ever-increasing numbers that it is infact Scotland that is being politely asked to leave, in the event that it decides to create its own country. If only there was a ‘one out, one in’ policy that we could take advantage of. (There isn’t, or else the drachma would be back on the marketplace by now).

Intuitively, the position set out by Jose Manuel Barrosso makes sense, that new countries emerging from existing EU members would need to reapply for membership. Who is to know after all whether a smaller part of an existing member can pass the numerous hurdles to EU membership? Particularly in the current financial context?

What should be more concerning for the Yes Scotland campaign however is not so much what was said by the President of the European Commission but why it is being said.

Let’s make one thing quite clear, the European Union is a club that sets its own rules. It’s a bit like golf’s Royal & Ancient that way. We may not always get to see how the rules are made, or even understand them, but if they want to change anything about how they operate, and who they let in the door, they have the power to do so. So if enough of the 27 nations wanted Scotland to be a member immediately after independence then they could make it so, and they could speak up for that option now if they so chose.

Similarly, they could hold their tongues and keep the door closed for as long as they wanted which is, sadly, seemingly the preferred option, this side of the referendum at least. ‘Get behind Romania and Bulgaria’ is not the friendliest of calls from our supposed friends and partners at the European table, but c’est la vie.

I am sympathetic to the SNP arguments of why wouldn’t the EU want oil-, scenery-, whisky- and fish-rich Scotland as a member, but that makes it all the more concerning that the EU isn’t vocalising such an opinion.

There is gamesmanship here of course. Spain tried it rather nakedly, and not to mention cack-handedly, when they reportedly said they would veto Scotland joining the EU, quite clearly trying to dampen down support for Scottish independence with a view to dampening down the problematic Catalan nationalism within Spain’s own borders. Or possibly even just rabble-rousing from within the UK if NewsnetScotland is to be believed. Either way, one has to assume there is a similar approach from Barroso at play here, that a vested interest exists to explain why he’d rather just keep the UK as it is. After all, there is nothing to stop the head of the EU Commission embracing the idea of Scotland becoming a member of the EU post-independence, as would surely be the case whether it was sooner or later. This would be the more diplomatic, unbiased line to take, irrespective of what the rules say, and arguably more befitting a man in his position.

But no, his words suggest that he doesn’t want independence to happen in the first place despite the UK as it stands being amongst the most truculent of the EU’s members. Indeed, David Cameron’s posturing and chest beating over budgets and vetos would have suggested to me that the considerable pro-EU bloc, or at least France or Germany, might have been tempted to talk up Scottish membership of the EU in a bid to further diminish already-dwindling UK power within the club or extract a concession at the discussion table in Strasbourg.

But that is not the case. It is the SNP who are suffering from the subtle political positioning of the EU’s power brokers, and boy how they suffer.

John Swinney’s otherwise reasonable arguments regarding a negotation between the EU and Scotland over what its continued membership would look like carries more than a whiff of desperation given the timing and context, and it sits horridly awkwardly against SNP commentators like George Kerevan in the Scotsman today seeking to argue that maybe we don’t need the EU after all. A hollow argument if ever there was one given the EU has been the single most successful political alliance on this continent since, well, possibly ever.

There is something pleasing about throwing all the constitutional and international relations options up in the air and indulging ourselves in speculating as to which one we prefer. Two years out from a referendum is probably the right time to be doing that, but that process requires to be followed by a controlled landing of ideas, settling into a cohesive plan and a public consensus that our politicians can then take forward. We don’t for a moment seem to be doing anything as structured as that and, if anything, that consensus does appear to be retreating into our UK shells.

This is unfortunate, but the SNP may have already blown its chance to lead that consensus into a braver world.

Scots could be persuaded that waiting to join the EU (if Barroso isn’t bluffing) is worthwhile, what’s a couple of years in a lifetime of Scottish independence anyway, but we don’t like being treated as fools. The non-existence of legal advice on joining the European Union, so coldly and calculatingly floated by the First Minister as something we should all rely upon, has been all the more damaging given the apparent reality of being frozen out of Europe, a reality that is diametrically opposed to what this legal advice supposedly said.

Once bitten, twice shy they say, and fervour for the EU wasn’t exactly at fever pitch before this self-primed grenade blew up in Alex Salmond’s face anyway. Far from making Brussels dance to a Scottish jig, the First Minister has helped us Morris dance to a No landslide.

To understand the mortal danger that this single issue poses for independence prospects, we need only consider the following logic that is being drum-drum-drummed into us from Brussels, through the press and via the Better Together campaign:

‘An independent Scotland would have to reapply to join the EU. Joining this way involves adopting the Euro and look at the problems that that brings (Ireland, Greece). Now just imagine the problems that an independent Scotland not joining the EU would cause (border controls, trade disruption). Ergo, let’s just not cause any bother and stay as the UK, ok?’.

Game, set and match to Team No. Back to the trenches for Yes Scotland.

As only the staunchest of Europhiles would argue in favour of the Euro these days, so too would only the most devout of Nationalists attempt to deny that Yes Scotland hasn’t taken a pounding over the EU question in recent weeks.

As for the all-ímportant independence polls, well, plus ca change….

Creative, Scottish Solutions for Creative Scotland

Dec 5

Posted by Aidan in Holyrood | Comments off

Photo by John Baichtel

Today’s a very good day to bury bad news, as it were, and one of those was the frankly unsurprising resignation of Andrew Dixon as head of Creative Scotland.

You can’t really survive when the community you serve as a funding body for is attacking you so openly, good relationships are one of the key attributes board members in that world must have. Come to think of it, they’re a key attribute for board members in any world: it’s difficult to do business if your bridges are on fire.

The problems with Creative Scotland, however, go deeper than one person. There are institutional issues, as you’d expect for any organisation formed from the merger of two others. There are perceptions of bias against certain types of creativity. Those can be fixed, smoothed over.

What probably can’t be fixed is the fundamental problem of an essentially bureaucratic body attempting to decide what is “good” art, worthy of government support.

Obviously there’s a role for critical analysis, for evaluating art in its wider social context and for ensuring that public funds are used to their best effect.

However, with the best will in the world, nobody is going to get it right all the time. There’s going to be some dross funded and some good work unfairly looked over because with art, as with shares, past performance is not necessarily a guide to the future.

Given that, and because I’m a big believer in the value of art in social disruption, maybe we should allocate some portion of the Creative Scotland budget on a purely random basis. If a project isn’t funded it would go into a pot from which projects could be picked at random until the available budget was allocated. The likelihood of particularly expensive projects taking all the funding could be mitigated by weighting based on budget requirements.

This approach would have some considerable advantages: artists without a track record would have a chance, as would those out of favour with the establishment or doing unfashionable or borderline inaccessible work.

It’s not without its disadvantages. There would be less money available for panels to allocate, but I think that’s balanced by the greater variety of work this would bring. There’d also be some intolerable pretentious rubbish funded which would be overlooked in any just world, but there’s some of that that Creative Scotland will decide is worth funding anyway.

Holyrood Park to be Community based

Dec 3

Posted by Jeff in Democracy | 9 Comments

A couple of Sunday Herald news stories over the past couple of weeks may have passed by even the most dedicated of Scottish Politics sports fans out there, but their future impact on Holyrood should not be underestimated.

The first story reported that Labour would allow Scottish Parliament candidates to stand on both the constituency and the list ballots with the second reporting that existing regional Labour MSPs would not be guaranteed a space at the top of the party lists at the next election.

This didn’t make much of a splash given we’re still a full 3.5 years shy of the next Holyrood contest but this latest show of strength from Labour leader Johann Lamont could be tantamount to handing out P45s to the majority of Labour MSPs at the Parliament.

For example, had Labour stalwarts Ewan Aitken and Lesley Hinds been at the top of the Lothians list as well as standing in Edinburgh Eastern and North West respectively, that would have meant no MSP jobs for bright young things Kezia Dugdale and Neil Findlay. Former councillors such as Anne McTaggart and Hanzala Malik wouldn’t have tripled their salaries overnight had grizzled former constituency MSPs Charlie Gordon and Pauline McNeill been included on the party lists. Similar remarks can be made across all the regions of Scotland, where constituency MSPs were caught blind sided and battered by an SNP tidal wave. These same individuals are no doubt chomping at the bit to get involved again. The challenge for the current list Labour MSPs is to stay high up on their regional lists and try to win the candidacy for a winnable constituency. That’ll be no easy feat for most of them and creates the risk of Labour jostling for position amongst themselves rather than fighting together to beat Yes Scotland in the run up to the 2014 referendum.

This could all be read as a damning assessment of the current crop of Labour MSPs, but more likely it is an overdue correction of the party’s ill-considered approach to Holyrood elections that has given their rival parties an unnecessary advantage in avoiding scalps. Too many researchers and councillors were promoted before their time, perhaps best symbolised by Anne ‘public speaking for dummies’ McTaggart reportedly hiring Stephen Purcell to act as a quasi-MSP on her behalf.

It didn’t need to be this way.

Had Nicola Sturgeon lost Glasgow Govan for the third time in four attempts it’d have been no problem as she’d have been guaranteed the SNP’s first regional list in Glasgow. Had Iain Gray lost East Lothian (as was so very nearly the case), Labour would have suffered the ultimate humiliation of losing their party leader. And yet, placing their leader so perilously close to the edge of the electoral cliff was not a risk worth taking.

The SNP has in the past made similar mistakes, less so out of poor strategy and seemingly due to a calculated resentful envy, effectively deselecting impressive individuals from being MSPs by holding them far down the list and/or banishing them to Labour heartlands to fight for their political future. Furthermore, they clearly also didn’t see the 2011 result coming given Alex Salmond joked that he barely knew who some of the new crop of MSPs were, a comment that lost its funny side when we all learned that the SNP had carelessly let an alleged wife-beater into Parliament alongside them.

This casual approach to the list system, all quite distinct and distant from the voting public, was furthered in this parliamentary term. John Finnie and Jean Urquhart leaving their party is one example. Being voted into the Scottish Parliament strictly as an SNP MSP only to leave that party over an issue that the Scottish Parliament has no control over takes a certain type of stubbornness. Another example is today’s news, John Park stepping down as an MSP to join Community, allowing the next person on the 2011 ballot list (Jayne Baxter) to join the Parliament.

Let’s be clear, the good people of FIfe didn’t vote for Jayne Baxter. They didn’t vote for John Park either of course, they voted for Labour bums to boost the number of Labour seats. Button pushers basically, and the same can be said for all parties as this is a Holyrood issue rather than one for a specific party. I’m sure a lot of good work gets done at the committee stage by all politicians but, at the end of the day, they are there to represent their constituents and how many Scots could name their regional MSPs?

Johann Lamont’s move is also an example of how little power the public has over which individuals will be in place at their Parliament and also the extent to which Holyrood operates a two-tier system of MSPs.

It is perhaps telling that the most recognisable regional MSP at Holyrood is Margo MacDonald, the only MSP that didn’t have the luxury of party coat tails to glide her into power. The same could be said of the Greens, who I would argue are the next most recognisable list MSPs. This is all save for the party leaders lacking constituencies, of course.

Don’t get me wrong, Johann Lamont has made the correct decision here. Too many of her colleagues have left the chamber and one has to wonder if the lack of talent on the Labour benches has had a hand in the estimable John Park’s decision here. Would the Parliament still enjoy the skills and personalities of Andrew Wilson, Susan Deacon, Duncan Hamilton, Derek Brownlee et al if the voting system better reflected public regard for our MSPs rather than the invisible hand of party favour? We can only guess.

There is no clear solution here, and indeed the current d’hondt system may yet be the least worst option. We could have open party lists but then the voting would be skewed in favour of those with surnames higher up the alphabet, an arguably inferior method of selecting list MSPs than letting party’s sort it out internally, with cloaks on and daggers drawn.

STV is an attractive option though and change is surely inevitable given the various cracks in the d’hondt system just waiting to be exposed or taken advantage of. Opening Holyrood up to the public rather than allowing parties to close ranks behind an arcance voting system has to be a priority.

For me, the main result from Johann Lamont’s decision is that it reinforces the philosophy that to get ahead in politics you need only impress your party and not necessarily the public. The Denis Canavan’s and Margo MacDonald’s are a rare sight these days, truly independent backbenchers with something fresh and original to say. John Park was amongst the closest Holyrood had on the party benches to something similar, but alas he has understandably handed in his badge in and opted for a different challenge.

Who’d be an MSP these days? It’s a question with a depressingly narrow (and narrowing) band of answers, and that should concern us all.

Do the Liberal Democrats have a political future?

Dec 3

Posted by Andrew Page in Parties | 19 Comments

Better Nation proudly announces a new Editor this morning with Andrew Page joining our ranks. Andrew is a history graduate, advocate for LGBT equality, Albion Rovers supporter and a Liberal Democrat so (as he admits himself) well accustomed to being identified with minority causes. Andrew contested Renfrewshire North and West for the his party in 2011 and also blogs at A Scottish Liberal.

This question has inevitably been asked following the party’s poor performance in last week’s by-elections – most notably in Rotherham where the Liberal Democrats finished in eighth place with two per cent of the vote.

What results from Middlesbrough, Croydon North and Rotherham actually tell us about the Liberal Democrats is minimal.  These are constituencies where Liberal Democrats never did well, even in the supposedly good times.  Middlesbrough (and its predecessor constituency Middlesbrough East) has not returned a non-Labour MP since 1931.  The same is true of Rotherham.   Croydon has been Labour held since 1992.  That Labour won comfortably should not be remotely surprising.

That hasn’t stopped many in the media predicting the imminent death of the Liberal Democrats.  The Daily Telegraph has claimed Rotherham to be the worst ever result for a major political party, clearly forgetting Inverclyde – a constituency in which we had controlled the council until 2007.  Nigel Farage has joined them, making the grandiose claim that UKIP are now the “third force” of British politics, himself conveniently forgetting the various nationalist parties or Respect, the one-man party that has been able to do on multiple occasions what UKIP never have: win a parliamentary seat.

It has been quite astonishing to see how the media have bought into UKIP’s spin.  What these by-elections have shown is that UKIP is never likely to become any kind of force in domestic politics, third or otherwise.  They are not the SDP.  Rotherham was certainly a by-election they could and should have won.  The former MP stepped down in disgrace, his reputation and that of his local party in tatters.  This, combined with the child adoption scandal and virtually anonymous and poorly-resourced local Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, gave UKIP a real chance of making a breakthrough.   

The Independent claimed that UKIP was now “within touching distance of mainstream politics” on the basis of securing 22 per cent of the vote in a single constituency.  George Galloway must be positively an establishment figure by that logic.  If the result says much at all, it is that voters in Rotherham prefer authoritarian parties.

Of course, the result was spectacularly poor from a Liberal Democrat perspective.  But what it doesn’t actually do is tell us anything we didn’t know previously.  Clearly we are no longer the beneficiaries of public anger towards the establishment, as we are now very much part of it.  The identity as a “none of the above” party, which to an extent the Liberal Democrats were responsible for cultivating, has been consigned to history – protest votes now going to various parties perceived as best placed to overthrow the incumbent party.  Certainly that role we sought for ourselves has now been usurped.  But these by-election results do not reveal this to us, they merely underline an already obvious reality.

The media are right about one thing, and that is that the Liberal Democrats are in mortal danger.  The Scottish parliamentary elections and the local elections across the UK have demonstrated a pattern, which shows little sign of being reversed.  Not only is the party suffering electorally, it has been struggling for cultural and political relevance particularly in Scotland.  A growing insecurity is becoming evident in the public words of some of our key parliamentarians. 

John Curtice has estimated that, in 2015, the Liberal Democrats will be reduced to 15 MPs.  Using data from all elections since 2010, I calculated a figure of 23 – i.e. 1992 levels.  In constituencies where we are the Conservatives’ closest rivals, or they are ours, we look set to do well.  That may not appear too disastrous until we consider the implications for the Liberal Democrats in Scotland: both Professor Curtice and myself have a single Scottish Lib Dem MP surviving the potential massacre – Alistair Carmichael.

The reasons we find ourselves in this position are numerous, and more complex than mere association with the Westminster coalition – although that certainly has contributed to the scale of the problem.  Inflexible and outdated campaigning methods, financial difficulties, a lack of distinctiveness on policy matters and leadership that struggled to resonate with the public all contributed to some degree to the disastrous Holyrood election results.  The SNP’s slick, professional and ruthlessly effective campaign further highlighted our deficiencies.  Since then, there has been little evidence– in spite of positive rhetoric and a few good performances from Willie Rennie in FMQs – that we are capable of turning this around.

Part of our problem in Scotland is inevitably the coalition and therefore in looking to the future we must look beyond 2015.  Whatever realpolitik demanded of Nick Clegg following the indecisive 2010 General Election, it was obvious that there would be significant ramifications for Liberal Democrats in Scotland – where any relationship with the Conservatives would inevitably be construed as treachery.  How long this perception will endure is uncertain, but it is not necessarily irreversible.  Accepting that a significant setback is likely in 2015 and building for the years beyond is far from the worst approach the party in Scotland could take.  It would certainly be preferable to the fierce defensiveness we’ve seen to date.

The best way for the Liberal Democrats to ensure they have a future is by demonstrating the need for a strong liberal party at the heart of politics.  In the last few weeks, issues such as secret courts and media freedom and shown how vital it is that liberal voices make themselves heard.  I, for one, have been impressed by Nick Clegg on these matters.  Of course, what impresses me as a party activist does not necessarily have similar effects on the public but championing an active, vibrant liberalism, especially in relation to issues of public liberty, is likely to be far more effective in recreating our social relevance than endless defence of participation in government.

Part of our problem is that only around eleven per cent of people identify themselves as liberal.  In a sense we have electorally overperformed for decades, persuading many to vote for us in spite of – rather than because of – our liberal credentials.  Populist positions on such things as the Iraq War and Higher Education funding have in the past helped to take our appeal beyond the philosophically liberal but we cannot rely on such issues in the future.  But the truth is that people identified less with our policies than they did with our character.  We were the nice guys of politics.  We cared.  We could be a bit of a gadfly party at times, but that was part of the appeal.  Moreover, we could be trusted. So, while proving ourselves to be the authentic voice of liberal democracy is necessary we also have to find new ways of reaching out to those who at one time would have willingly supported us.  We have to speak their language, invest in the issues that concern them and show we’re listening.  We have to find ways to show we can still be trusted.  As Boris Johnson has done so successfully, we must also learn how to convince people that we actually like them.  It’s quite simple, but if we don’t like them why should they like us?

What we must avoid is becoming inward looking, focusing on our own pet projects such as PR, Lords Reform or federalism.  Naturally, I believe in all of those but recognise two things: they are all virtually unachievable and very few voters are enthused by them.  While Liberal Democrats are wildly excited by the federalist ambitions of the Home Rule Commission, neither the public nor the media are particularly interested and the former seem not to understand our position at all – something not made clearer by identification with Better Together.  And of course the “debate” on federalism and Home Rule was an internal one, relating to but never engaging with Scottish voters. 

The Liberal Democrats’ problems are legion, but that does not mean the party has no future.  Much depends on Willie Rennie, and on the degree to which he can set his own agenda.  He will realise that if he can personally regain the trust of Scottish voters, so too will his party.  He will need no reminder of the importance of asserting our liberal credentials at every opportunity, but perhaps struggles to see new opportunities to reach out.  That sounds like a criticism, but isn’t – it’s the inevitable consequence of a tired campaigning mechanism and inheriting a party banished to the periphery of Scottish politics. 

We have to create a new identity for ourselves.  That of “a party of government” is woefully inadequate given that continuing in government is not only not guaranteed but looking increasingly unlikely and that, here in Scotland, we’ve been relegated to the ranks of minor opposition.  But similarly we cannot return to our former identity as a repository for protest votes or as a home for those with a dislike of the political establishment.  We must ditch that and change our language and campaigning strategy accordingly.  We must create a new identity while retaining our core purpose of facilitating a liberal society.

The Liberal Democrats have to demonstrate that the party is relevant.  A few poor by-election results will then be insignificant.  We need those distinctive, honest and trusted voices to again make themselves heard.  We must re-engage and rebuild the grassroots of our party if we are to have any future at all. We have to dare to be different.  We must again be that gadfly party.

How UKIP are on course to help out the Greens…

Nov 29

Posted by Jeff in Europe, Parties | 4 Comments

Assuming the Conservatives were to fall short of an outright majority at the next election, which smaller party would they rather form a Government with, the Lib Dems or UKIP?

It’s an interesting question, possibly rendered redundant if one stops to consider whether the still-shell-shocked Lib Dems can afford to be shackled to the Tory party for another half-decade up to 2020. My answer to that is, probably not. They’ll do well to even be shackled to Nick Clegg for that long.

So Tory MP Michael Fabricant’s idea of some sort of electoral non-aggression pact with UKIP, whereby Nigel Farage’s party don’t stand against the Tories in key seats in return for a EU referendum, is not a totally bonkers one. That’s right, it’s only a little bit bonkers.

A smarter suggestion, or something that Farage might insist on perhaps, could be that UKIP do not stand in a wide expanse of nominal Tory seats and the Tories, in return, would not stand in Labour or Lib Dem nominal seats, allowing right of centre voters to coalesce around one candidate up and down the land. Except Scotland where barely anyone votes for either party anyway. Especially that loopy anti-EU mob, or UKIP for that matter.

Now, Cameron couldn’t be seen to be in favour of such a blatant democratic rip-off but he might arranage a small team to crunch the numbers and see if it’s worth doing anyway. After all, he must be mightily fed up with the Lib Dems by now, rightly or wrongly, quite rightly, and after all, if you can’t beat them join them. Or, in this case, if you can’t win with them by your side, send them somewhere else.

So, glossing over the inconvenient fact that this won’t actually happen, let’s consider how this might work in practice?

Well, Nigel Farage has a grand total of zero MPs within his party. You could say the only way is u(ki)p. He would surely be grateful to get a toe in the Westminster door any way he can, even if it’s challenging the Green party for 3rd spot in Labour and Lib Dem constituencies. Nigel can fight them on the beaches, but in Brighton rather than Bognor thank you very much.

Nigel’s chances wouldn’t be altogether terrible, and h is party desperately needs a similar impetus to that which the Green party gained when Caroline Lucas won their first Westminster seat. And jings, what an opportunity. This coming election may yet be something of a referendum on Europe, a dry run for the actual referendum itself. There’s no reason why 70-100 red constituencies across England might not vote against Europe rather than for Labour this time around. Bradford were so desperate for a change they voted in George Galloway for goodness sake.

Not that I’m saying UKIP can win 100 cosntituencies, or 70 for that matter, but 9 is a good number. It’s almost 10 better than last time, and would be infinitely superior to their current crop. Even winning 1 MP might be worth some sort of a deal for UKIP, particuolarly if it comes with an assurance that an EU referendum will take place. Is UKIP a party that’s in British politics for the long haul or just with the sole purpose of getting the UK out of the EU? The Tories putting a deal on the table would answer that once and for all.

Do UKIP have a chance in Labour/Lib Dem terrain? Well, a look at the European results suggests that they do.

Labour won 32 of the 53 seats in Yorkshire and Humberside in 2010 (the Lib Dems took a further 3) but UKIP took 17.4% of the European vote to Labour’s 18.8% the year before in 2009.

Similarly, Labour won 15 of the 46 seats in East Midlands in 2010 but only shaded UKIP 16.9% to 16.4% in the 2009 European elections (UKIP received 3.3% of the vote in the General Election, the Tories 30.2%).

It is easy to forget that UKIP came second in the 2009 European elections in the UK. Yes, I do mean second overall, the same number of MEPs as Labour but with a higher popular voteshare. This is with the added handicap of winning only 5% of the vote in Scotland to Labour’s 21%, and the further handicap of not having any well known personalities to work with beyond Farage (a trip to Strasbourg for anyone who can name the leader of UKIP at the 2010 General Election; travel, food & accommodation not included).

Let’s indulge ourselves further by letting ourselves get even further ahead of ourselves than is probably healthy. (Even Michael Fabricant would be shaking his head disdainfully at this post by now….)

Any emergence, by hook or by crook, of UKIP as a consistent ‘second-tier’ political party behind Labour and the Tories, and alongisde the Lib Dems and (humour me) the Greens, could be the beginning of a realignment of UK politics that is long overdue. If it is commonly understood that any future general election contest is between Conservatives/UKIP and Labour/Lib Dems/Greens(/SNP/Plaid Cymru), then voters can be more free to vote in their constituencies for the smaller parties without fear that voting left will allow the right wing in, or vice versa. This is commonplace in other European countries with populations far smaller than ours but with ballot slips considerably richer in options.

We are of course still saddled with First Past the Post which is a particular hindrance for those of us wishing to move away from two-party politics, but progress can still be made despite this and from the unlikeliest of circumstances.

In a way, you get two votes:

If you’re right of centre, you get to vote for a right of centre Government and also vote for whether you want it to be anti-EU (UKIP) or moderately pro-EU (Tories, for now at least).

If you’re left of centre, you get to vote for a left of centre Government (again, humour me) and also vote for whether it will be trades uniony (Labour), closer to whatever the Lib Dem policies happen to be that day (Lib Dem), green (Green) or Nationalist in flavour (SNP/Plaid, ‘… but Jeff, I thought we were all Nationalists‘. ‘Shoosht’).

I rather gnomically alluded to a ‘Green-UKIP’ alliance in the title there but it’s not too much of a stretch to see that the rise of Farage’s anti-EU, pro-business, climate change denying, right wing party can indirectly assist Natalie Bennett‘s pro-EU, progressive, climate change fighting, left-wing party.

It’s a funny old world and it’s a deal that Nigel Farage would be made not to take, so it’s probably not going to happen.

And what’s all this got to do with Scotland you ask? Well, nothing really…