Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

Deus Eck’s Machina

Sep 17

Posted by Guest Blog in Constitution, Parties | 7 Comments

A wee guest today from Scandinavian-at-heart BN favourite Dom Hinde.

I am writing this under the assumption that most readers will be aquainted with Dr Who. If you’re in the Scottish Greens, almost definitely so. If you’re an SNP type you probably just watch the Tennant and McCoy episodes and have the Karen Gillan action figure.

At the end of the last series of Dr Who, The Doctor, in a typically dead-end situation (time collapsing around him, almost certain death, and an impending binary choice between dying or allowing the universe to continue) came up with a ruse which tricked everyone, both in story and in real life.

He did what any man in a tight squeeze would do; namely persuade a time-travelling and shape-shifting robot to take his place, meaning that the evil antagonists could kill him stone dead and feel happy, whilst he lived to fight another day with the added bonus of getting to hang around with Karen Gillan for another couple of years. It was also revealed that this had been part of his plan all along, and that all his companions had been strung along in a game of cat and mouse designed to engineer such a scenario.

The use of such a deus ex machina to resolve plots is a device as old as Dr Who itself, and as 2014 gets nearer and nearer, it may well materialise (hopefully with a whooshing sound and some props being blown about) that the Yes/No options we thought we were being offered as an audience are in fact superseded by a mysterious third force.  We can’t know what this third thing is until the last possible moment, otherwise it would ruin the structure of the debate, but expect it to offer a satisfactory conclusion for the hero of our story and the general public.

Despite Alex Salmond’s protestations that he is not out after devo-max (and as the leader of a nationalist party, it stands to reason that independence is really what gets him out of bed in the morning), full sovereignty for the Scottish Parliament remains a minority pursuit. There is a real risk that a Yes/No vote could both kill the independence dream and even reverse the polarity in the process of decentralisation in the UK which has clearly been of benefit to everyone except the Westminster village. Furthermore, a no vote would give fuel to a lacklustre Scottish Labour Party who would feel that it had somehow vindicated their frankly appalling campaign, which lacks ideas and conviction to the extent that it makes Colin Baker era Who look like a milestone in television history.

In a few weeks time the Greens will get together to decide whether or not to officially join the Yes Scotland campaign, and whether or not they should give up their demand for a three option referendum, the middle option of which would be a variation on a devo-max theme. I personally am happy with the Green policy of being pro-independence, but still strongly back three options on the ballot paper. We would be doing Scotland a disservice if we sought a settlement which polarised the population and relied on a fifty-one per cent vote.  If it means garnering sixty-per cent or upwards, then I’m all for devo-max and the innumerable benefits for our democracy which it would entail. I’ll go around Scotland handing out leaflets quicker than a Raston Warrior Robot, and whilst Alex Salmond may be God when it comes to deciding what the ballot paper looks like, I’ll happily be the machine.  In the last series of Doctor Who the Doctor asks his Tardis why it never takes him where he wants to go, to which it replies, “but I always took you where you needed to go”.

Geronimo.

The inherent hypocrisy whenever the SNP derides Osborne

Sep 7

Posted by Jeff in Economy | 25 Comments

Why did 80,000 people in the Olympic Park boo George Osborne? Because that’s all the stadium holds.

It’s a good joke, it swept through Twitter like wildfire and I chortled along, but I nonetheless felt embarrassed and a little bit ashamed of the oddly hollow booing and hissing from the stands at the Olympics (though George surely should have seen what was a coming a mile off). A little bit more ‘succeed together, fail together’ might go a long way in the UK right now and irrespective of what policies our Chancellor (for whatever party colours he wears he is still “our” Chancellor) takes, a little bit of respect for the office wouldn’t be out of place. Ed Miliband’s ‘predistribution’ says more than a chorus of boos, and I still don’t know what that word means.

So it was with a similarly sunken heart that I read the numerous catcalls surrounding George Osborne’s visit to Scotland and speech to CBI Scotland, very few of which tackled head on the points that the Chancellor chose to make on his trip North. The New Statesman has a faintly fawning rundown of these points in a fine article today including:

What Osborne did point out (and rightly so) is that if the SNP wants a monetary union with the rest of the UK (Salmond having abandoned his promise to take Scotland into the euro) it becomes much harder for it to argue for fiscal and political independence. The existence of monetary union without complementary fiscal union being the principal cause of the eurozone imbroglio.

Let’s be clear, rUK is not Germany and Scotland is not Greece. However, the SNP’s seemingly standard response to these regular points of crass ‘we’ll take no lessons…’ Tory-bashing is shabbily insufficient. A nation confident in itself does not rebuke others when challenged on their economic arrangements.

This is all unfortunate, as a cool-headed explanation of how things would work under independence should be straightforward. Monetary union without fiscal union across the UK is not necessarily a bad thing, despite many unionists seemingly believing they only have to mention the delinkage to win the argument. We are, after all, currently living the SNP’s future vision.

The Scottish economy’s fortunes are currently noticeably clearly intertwined with the rUK economy’s, making a mockery of the back-and-forth breast-beating between Governments over which is doing marginally better than the other (although, oddly, it is Scottish Labour that tends to do the coalition’s breast-beating for them).

You can think of this issue another way. Basically, if Scotland’s economy is expected to diverge so markedly from the rest of the United Kingdom’s, as Osborne and many other unionists seem to fear is going to happen, then surely separation is the only answer.

Of course, the reality is that Scotland and rUK’s economies are at low risk of being incompatible in the near, medium or even long term future. After all, what is Alex Salmond proposing – a low tax, fiscally conservative, light touch economy. It won’t be music to many Nats’ ears, but you’d struggle to fit too many Rizla papers between Osborne’s vision for the UK and the SNP’s apparent vision for Scotland.

So, the lesson for proponents of independence who think this fiscal/monetary union debate is a non-issue is this: you can’t boo Osborne and seek to run an economy seamlessly alongside his without looking like a little bit of an idiot.

Scottish reshuffle – the good, the bad & the ugly

Sep 5

Posted by James in Holyrood, Parties | 21 Comments

This week reshuffle fever is properly on, and both Cameron and Salmond have carried out the most far-reaching of their respective terms of office – all the more extraordinary in Scotland given the high degree of continuity since 2007.

So what about the Scottish personnel changes? Here’s a personal take on the complete list, and hopefully not too partisan a view. Please do let me know if I’ve got any of the changes of roles wrong too.

First Minister – Alex Salmond (no change)
That would have been a surprise.

Deputy First Minister – Nicola Sturgeon (no change)
A change in DFM would have been almost as surprising. Nicola remains Eck’s preferred successor, and her increasingly warm and measured approach is a good balance to his bluster and swagger.

Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth – John Swinney (no change)
Despite not being DFM, this has been a quasi-Prime Ministerial role for John, again balancing the Great Puddin’s Presidential style and ambitions. It’s a broad portfolio, made more manageable by the limits the Scotland Act places on it in terms of revenue (limits the SNP seem determined to stay well clear of, to my frustration). It is also frustrating to me that John, for all his strengths and personal warmth, pursues inactivity on climate change and a regressive tax policy, but a personnel change here would have been destabilising and implausible.

Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing – Alex Neil in, Nicola Sturgeon out
This feels like the first mistake to me. Many folk I respect think Alex Neil is a big hitter, and it’s certainly better for Salmond that he’s comfortably inside the tent. He is also smart and a good performer in the Chamber, especially on the partisan knockabout. But he’s a bruiser and (having had an office next to him for two years) pretty short on people skills. What’s more, Nicola had an opportunity to shine in the Health role, and she took it. While looking better than a Tory Health Secretary is a low bar, she won round many who’d not taken to her earlier in her career. I foresee a much less smooth relationship with the health professionals here.

Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and Capital Spending – Nicola Sturgeon in, Alex Neil out
Nicola will bring competence here, and broadening her Ministerial experience may have much to commend it to the collective project, but this swap basically looks like infrastructure wins and health loses.

Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning – Mike Russell (no change)
Although he’s angered the college sector with his merger plans (part of the SNP’s oddly centralist tendencies alongside police force unification), Mike remains one of the SNP’s few true intellectual heavyweights, and this role continues to be a sensible deployment for him. The mess over tuition fees must remain his biggest headache. I understand their position, especially given European law and financial pressures, but the outcome – that rUK students pay fees here but other EU students do not – is profoundly unfair. If I were Mike I might have wanted a horizontal move at least, perhaps.

Cabinet Secretary for Justice – Kenny Macaskill (no change)
This I was very pleased to see. If you’d told me that the best justice ministers I’d see in my lifetime this far would be a SNP one here and a Tory (now departed) in London I would have boggled. But Kenny is an excellent fit for this role, strong on equalities and truly liberal on justice (on minimum sentencing, for example, more liberal than the Lib Dems). The black mark for the “higher power” guff around Megrahi, a decision I nevertheless supported, is only a minor one.

Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment – Richard Lochhead (no change)
I’d have liked to see Mike Russell take this on, perhaps, but certainly at least some change. Lochhead is amiable but appears committed primarily to one part of his brief – supporting an anti-conservation position on fisheries that’s not even in the interests of the industry. Not one of the heavy hitters, and not cabinet standard, for my money.

Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs – Fiona Hyslop (no change)
Not well loved by civil servants, but probably the argument for continuity won out here: it’s been the only vaguely turbulent portfolio, given the unfair sacking of Linda Fabiani, then Mike Russell’s spell here. I’d guess she’d be gone at the next reshuffle, whenever that is.

Minister for Energy, Enterprise and Tourism – Fergus Ewing (no change)
A continuing systematic disappointment. The only consolation is that this natural Tory isn’t let anywhere near social policy.

Minister for Local Government and Planning – Derek Mackay (no change)
Expected to be one of the rising stars of the new intake, he’s not impressed as much yet as predicted. I suspect he’ll get there, though.

Minister for Children and Young People – Aileen Campbell (no change)
As with Mackay, great things were expected of the baby of the government, but regular reports from others who’ve dealt with her suggest she’s out of her depth. She’s got an important bill to get through this year, and I hope enough support is available for her through that process. Again, like Mackay, she might get there, but it just might not happen in time.

Minister for Learning, Science and Scotland’s Languages – Alasdair Allan (no change)
Hard-working, level-headed, warm, and the deliverer of Holyrood’s best Tam O’Shanter (to my knowledge), he’s under pressure in his constituency, and this role must be partly with an eye to boosting his profile back home. Even if that wasn’t the case, though, he’s certainly solid Ministerial material.

Minister for Youth Employment – Angela Constance (no change)
Still somewhat under-rated, I think, and could probably have hoped for a promotion.

Minister for Parliamentary Business – Joe Fitzpatrick in, Bruce Crawford and Brian Adam out
Bruce is leaving on personal grounds and in some sad circumstances, but he is a major loss to the Government. Back when this was a hard job, during minority 2007-11, he worked the opposition parties, including us, with warmth, honesty, and as much openness as the position permitted. We knew his role was at least in part to make us like him, and it worked. He’s one of the non-Greens I personally miss now I’m out of the Big Hoose. It’s fortunate that Fitzpatrick doesn’t have as much to do in this role (hence perhaps the more junior title and the assumption of the whip’s position too) because he’s primarily notable for his loyalty and desire for office.

Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs – Roseanna Cunningham (no change)
The more I’ve seen Roseanna in action and on Twitter, the less I’ve taken to her. A bullying tone, an inability to listen, and a true sense that “we are the masters now” is how the SNP should operate. But I see why she couldn’t be moved down or out, given the SNP’s internal politics.

Minister for Environment and Climate Change – Paul Wheelhouse in, Stewart Stevenson out
This could be a major chink of light on some core concerns for Greens. Stevenson is his own biggest fan, and his adulation is misplaced. He never understood how other policy (e.g. on energy or transport) could and should be used effectively to tackle climate change, nor did he ever show any sign of interest in making alternatives to the car more affordable and accessible. Wheelhouse is one of the best of the 2011 intake, I believe he will listen, and frankly almost anyone would have been better here.

Minister for Transport and Veterans – Keith Brown losing housing, gaining veterans
It’s the weirdest portfolio, designed for Keith in particular. Despite substantial policy differences I’d obviously have with him, he’s nobody’s fool and it wouldn’t have made sense to have taken transport away him. Safe pair of hands.

Minister for Welfare and Housing – Margaret Burgess in, part of Keith Brown’s old role
I’m afraid I have to plead even more ignorance here than usual – she’s one of the 2011 intake that hadn’t really impinged on my consciousness.

Minister for Commonwealth Games and Sport – Shona Robison (no change)
EDIT: Apologies, I missed Shona out the first time. Extremely competent without necessarily having found an inspirational voice. Hard to see her making a mess of Ministerial responsibilities around the Games, which must already be the lion’s share of her Ministerial responsibilities. Again, no reason for a change here, and another prospect for promotion next time.

Minister for Public Health – Michael Matheson (no change)
One of the lower-profile stalwarts of the original 1999 intake: a plugger-away rather than a star.

Minister for External Affairs and International Development – Humza Yousaf in (new role)
Last but by no means least, if Humza hadn’t been promoted in any reshuffle I’d have been astonished. As a future FM, surely, this is just the next step, and an interesting role despite the limitations of devolution. Three more promotions to go?

Holyrood Legislative Programme 2012/13

Sep 4

Posted by Jeff in Holyrood | 3 Comments

It was all a bit low key really. Indeed, the Scotsman didn’t even bother reporting it on their website until a couple of hours ago. Thank goodness for the BBC though eh? Where would we be without it and its live blog.

Actually, you know what, don’t answer that.

The bills shall number a hefty fifteen for the 2012/13 parliamentary term, quantity rather than quality some have muttered, but let’s have a look at them shall we and decide for ourselves:

1. Referendum Bill
2. Budget Bill
3. Procurement Reform Bill
4. Bankruptcy Bill
5. Better Regulation Bill
6. Land and Buildings Transaction Tax Bill
7. Landfill Tax Bill
8. Adult Health & Social Care Integration Bill
9. Children and Young People Bill
10. Post-16 Education Reform Bill
11. Forth Estuary Transport Authority Bill
12. Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill
13. Victims and Witnesses Bill
14. Tribunals Bill

There is of course one in that mix that stands out in the eyes of the SNP, and most of the party’s detractors, against all others. Yes, the Forth Estuary Transport Authority Bill, I never thought I’d see the day *wipes a tear from the eye*

No, the coming year will be all about the referendum and bill number 1 above. I rather fear that progress towards an agreed format will be slow in forthcoming, to the point that this time next year questions over questions shall remain unanswered, though Salmond did promise to publish the consultation results “next month”. So we’ll leave that bill to one side.

Highlights therefore are really as follows:

– Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill – Probably historic and possibly hugely inconvenient for Alex Salmond as he seeks to step softly towards 2014 without annoying too many people. However, the right thing to do is the right thing to do and within the Parliament this Bill will glide serenely towards becoming law, even if there’ll be a right old religious rumpus outside

– Children and Young People Bill – A very welcome commitment to delivering a minimum of 600 hours free early learning and childcare provision was included, particularly notable for me because (no, not for that reason!) a colleague returned to work after extended paternity leave this week and casually mentioned the £1350 he forks out a month for childcare. Ouch. Scotland can and must do better than that.

– Forth Estuary Transport Authority Bill – I jested before, but this is serious business. Billions of pounds of our money will be spent on a new bridge that potentially may not be necessary. If dehumidification of the cables in the Forth Road Bridge is a viable option, I’d have no problem with the number of bills dropping from 15 to 14 this year. Time will tell but I rather fear most MSPs have set their face to the wind on this one.

– Bankruptcy Bill – Pictured

– My personal favourite is the Procurement Reform Bill which will aim to “deliver community benefits, support innovation, consider environmental requirements and promote public procurement processes and systems which are transparent, streamlined, standardised, proportionate, fair and business-friendly”.

This bill used to be called the ‘Sustainable Procurement Bill’, so perhaps as an out Green, I shouldn’t be getting too excited, but it’s definitely one to find more detail about.

Reactions were predictable. Johann Lamont bemoaned the lack of substance while ironically not coming up with any tangible suggestions herself. I wonder if Kezia Dugdale on Newsnight Scotland this evening will pick up from where her leader left off.

Johann also likened the announcement to “a 1970s ladder ‘fine as far as it goes'”. I have no earthly idea what she is getting at. But I’m an 80s lad, so what do I know.

Willie Rennie had an interesting, if I personally think unworthy, point to make regarding Scottish Water and the missed opportunity to take the £1.5bn windfall from the public body to pay for new shiny things. After the past couple of decades of household greed, PFI and sovereign debt crises, how anyone thinks heaping more debt upon the public purse is the answer is beyond me. Perhaps Willie should heed Ed Miliband’s warning about our ‘fast buck’ society.

Ruth Davidson chose not say anything but instead jumped up and down and occasionally pointed. (She actually said “run out of steam, run out of ideas and fails to live up to the ambitions of Scotland’s people”. Run out of steam and ideas? More irony then)

The Greens strongly backed the referendum and equal marriage bills, but also urged that a progressive vision be coupled with the pursuit of economic recovery making me, not for the first nor the last time, wistfully lament the lack of a formal SNP-Green coalition at Holyrood and the near-perfect balance it would bring.

No, the most drama this afternoon came from Labour MSP Neil Finlay who accused Alex Salmond of tweeting inside the Chamber, seemingly unaware that it is well known that the First Minister’s staff update his account and Alex always signs his ‘own’ tweets off with “AS”. Sharp as ever, Mike Russell raised his own standing order – how did Neil Findlay know, while inside the Chamber, that the First Minister’s account had been updated?

Quite. And so the tone was set for the coming year.

The SNP should cease to be after a 2014 Yes victory

Sep 3

Posted by Jeff in Constitution, Ideology, Parties | 45 Comments

If the SNP resolved to disband in the aftermath of a Yes vote, would it be more likely to win in 2014?

It’s Nick Clegg’s fault really, but what isn’t these days. The No2AV campaign successfully, if malevolently, turned the referendum on the Alternative Vote into a referendum on the Lib Dem leader rather than on the issue itself. Faced with having to personally win over more than 50% of the voting electorate, Clegg and his proposed improvements to the UK’s voting system were doomed before the debate had even gotten off the ground. 

The SNP could and should learn from this. After all, it is facing the same opposition that so ruthlessly put the Deputy Prime Minister to the sword. Given the chance, they don’t take prisoners and will leave you tied in knots before you even realise that you are done for.

Take the NATO debate. The SNP is getting publicly bogged down in what its own party policy is rather than facilitating a national discussion on whether Scotland should make this decision on its own in the first place. The Scottish media, naturally, is leading everyone a merry dance in portraying this as an independent Scotland’s de facto NATO policy rather than just one party’s. It is the same, or at least similar, for policy areas such as nuclear power, tuition fees, currency and foreign relations. The SNP speaks for Scotland when, for once, it doesn’t want to. 

There is, of course, every chance that it would be a Labour (or a non-SNP coalition) that makes up an independent Scotland’s first Government. What would our country’s policies be then? Well, we don’t know because every unionist party is wisely keeping schtum and letting the SNP twist in the strengthening southernly breeze.

To win the referendum, the SNP is having to jump through two hoops: 

Hoop 1 – to soften up enough people to the very idea of independence
Hoop 2 – to effectively win the first independent Scotland election on domestic policy two years before it takes place. And with a clear 50% of the vote. 

You simply can’t succeed with odds stacked so heavily against you. No wonder Alex Salmond has summoned all of his political nous to try getting a Devo Max option onto the ballot slip, but that is not going to happen. After all, why should the unionists give the SNP an easy way out when they can win a single question referendum at walking pace and potentially blow the SNP’s formidable machine to smithereens?

The fight that needs to be fought is the first of the two hoops above and in order to stop hoop number two even being a consideration in the public’s mind, the SNP needs to take itself out of the game entirely, and I do mean entirely. I am proposing that the SNP would cease to be after Autumn 2014 if it is a Yes victory with all SNP MSPs immediately being Independents in the Parliament and all party employees made redundant soon after, unless able to be kept on by the aforementioned MSPs.

This would, needless to say, be unfortunate for those involved but there may even be a further, subtle advantage to this. The McChattering classes openly speculating where Sturgeon, MacAskill, Russell et al would go, how many new parties may spring up in place of the mothballed SNP and what sort of policy shakeup this would mean for Scotland across all parties. It would be a fascinating discussion at an already exciting juncture in Scottish politics and the more people speculate, the more they’ll want to know the answers, answers that can only come with a Yes vote. 

Let’s be honest, the SNP would be creaking at the seams if it didn’t have independence to bind it together. The party contains, from top to bottom, would-be Conservatives, Greens, Labourites and even Lib Dems. Pull away that Saltire-emblazoned big-top canvas and Nats would be tumbling out in all manner of directions.

Perhaps the very onset of independence is the time to let that free for all take place. Why delay the inevitable if it’s win-win?

Another factor to consider in all of this is that a significant slice of the establishment has a deep-seated, irrational hatred of the SNP. Examples abound from Coventry journalists labelling us racists, Tom Harris’ famous ‘hate fest’ comment, Guido Fawkes’ assistant’s “scum” insult and of course the unimaginative classic ‘xenophobe’ charge from MSPs in the Lib Dems and Labour. The SNP’s collective instinct surrounding this problem is to fight back fairly but harder, and that has reaped dividends over the past decade. However, there are times when flight is a smarter choice than fight and robbing the exhaustive list of influential persons across the UK who don’t have a good thing to say about the SNP of their bogeyman may be the smartest means to a particular end.

To take this one step further and for the SNP to actively talk up Johann Lamont as the likely first Prime Minister of an independent Scotland would be the ultimate example of flattering to deceive. How many soft but currently resolutely partisan ‘Labour’ votes could be turned with that inducement alone?

And, needless to say, to take the duplicity to the fullest extent, the SNP could simply reform under a different name and brand in the relatively long period between a Yes victory in Autumn 2014 and the Spring of 2016 when the first elections would likely take place. All is fair in love and war, after all. The Scottish Social Democrats has a nice ring to it, a title that hasn’t done too badly across most of the Nordic countries in the past few decades.

Anyway, if there is a No vote in 2014, this is all largely redundant. The SNP would regroup, lick their wounds and try again in a generation, or sooner if they can engineer it. I see the Quebec Independence Party is set to return to power again, promising a new referendum, a mere 17 years since the last one. Noting that the one before that was only 15 years ago, there’s realistically really not so long for the SNP to have to wait to rebuild their strategy and have another go at this constitutional question. 

Not that many in the SNP will be considering defeat. Indeed, they are presumably willing to leave it all out on the field to get the result they want at the first time of asking. Well, why not make that literally ALL out on the field? Furthermore, to invoke Clegg again, is there a hint of a suggestion that to not stick to the underlying objective of the party and to not disband the SNP after an independence victory smacks a bit too much of a love for the ministerial limousines? We wouldn’t want the SNP staggering on into the era of independence primarily because its once-radical leaders enjoy their privileged lifestyles too much.

No, the longer this moribund excuse for an independence debate continues, the longer the polls remain resolutely rigid and in order to concentrate Scottish minds into delivering its goal, the Scottish National Party might be required to make the ultimate sacrifice.